The Apple Clones

Are they really so bad?

We got ourselves into this mess. But could we help being seduced by a big, juicy Red Delicious that grew by chance in an orchard in colonial America? If you've seen or read Michael Pollan's fantastic Botany of Desire documentary and book, you may remember that the apple was once a great cider ingredient, but not originally a great snack. It was grown to ferment alcohol, but one or two rare trees turned out luscious fruit. So, because the apple tree will not grow true to seed (what you put in may not be what you get out), apple orchards are all armies of clones. Because they aren't allowed to reproduce naturally, they can't build up resistance to each new generation of pest, and we have to help them out. Lately, the poor, sweet apple has been getting a bad reputation for all the stuff left on it.

In An Apple a Day, Dr. Joe Schwarcz opens with a note warning people not to worry about the mere presence of a chemical, but rather the concentration. In other words, how much you have of a compound in your blood is a better indicator of your health and future. He goes on to note that apples naturally contain acetone (also used in nail polish remover), isopropanol (rubbing alcohol), and even some cyanide (rat poison), yet in trace amounts. Schwarcz emphasizes that apples have 300 other “naturally occuring compounds, and whatever effect the fruit has on our health is a reflection of all of these.” A pro-apple example highlights a Cornell team's series of studies that used apple extract to inhibit cancer sells in liver, colon, and breast tissue.

Schwarcz also notes that many people easily become angry when they hear about “chemicals” in their food supply, even if the general scientific consensus disagrees. Food scares are often propagated by news stories that misinterpret a new study or exaggerate the threat for effect. In fact, a strong majority of pesticides in a person's diet are naturally synthesized by each plant itself! Furthermore, Schwarcz insists that regulatory agencies are rigorous in their testing of new pesticides and extremely cautious in allowing their use. He says that some groups are “fond of coming up with lists of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables and using these to make recommendations about adjusting eating habits to lower pesticide intake.” One specific list he sites is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)'s Dirty Dozen. In Schwarcz's opinion, the benefits of higher yields, year-round availability, and cancer-preventive properties of fresh produce are great compared to the small risks of trace pesticide residue.

Oddly enough, the EWG bases its list ranking on the US Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program. The project was started in 1991 to monitor the US food supply for pesticide residues, and tests fresh, canned, and frozen produce, grains, juices, and even water supply at random. Therefore, the government is not only deciding which pesticides are allowable, but also carefully making sure they are used appropriately. In fact, the USDA has found that only 0.3% of samples exceeded levels allowed bythe Environmental Protection Agency. That seems like a great number, but the EWG wants expanded testing, perhaps believing the results wouldn't be so hopeful if the USDA were more watchful of the food children prefer.

Fresh apples, a lunchbox staple, did frequently test positive for Azinphos methyl, Captan, Diphenylamine, Phosmet, and Thiabendazole in the PDP tests. Apple sauce and juice had smaller traces of pesticide residue. (Incindentally, pesticide residue in produce from other countries is often greater, with different compounds in use. However, most apples are American-grown.) Captan is thought to inhibit estrogen action, which earns it a mention in this review on the larger impact of endocrine-disrupting pesticides. Children are more susceptible to this group of chemicals, and their effects may not be seen until adulthood. The article suggests possibly using “natural” pesticides, but offers no other solutions and yields that these may be harmful to humans while not always being effective enough against pests.

From reading these conflicting views, I've come to the following conclusions:

• There are likely more serious environmental health risks than apples. However, apple sauce is a good bet for those who want an additional factor of safety but still like the cheap and convenient fruit.
• A serious opponent of pesticide use must provide a rational alternative that can feed a booming world population.
• Agriculture is dangerous, and the workers themselves should earn more concern than our own, slightly-dusty lunch.
  
  
  
  
   For more reading:
  • Some advice from the USDA
  • A different interpretation from another blogger