Lucky for consumers that USDA publishes residue quantities, because FDA and EPA would never annoy the chemical industry by releasing such info. Anyhow, because of USDA we know that malathion residues and metabolites are more common on blueberries than any other food, according to the USDA report a couple of years back. Pretty good reason to choose organic blueberries. The other agencies love to study the health effects of chemicals one at a time, ignoring the interactions with other chemicals. Beekeepers are beginning to understand the hollowness of those studies. -------------------------------------------- On Sun, 5/4/14, David A. Rosenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals To: "Apple-crop discussion list" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2014, 5:44 PM Since Jon and Evan opened the door to a discussion of GMOs, I like to weigh in with a minority opinion on GMOs and some of my rationale for adopting a minority perspective. (Be forewarned that this is a rather long post!) I fully understand that many (perhaps the vast majority) of apple growers are opposed to Arctic Apple and the introduction of GMOs into the apple industry. I suspect that at least some of the opposition stems from the public relations disaster created by the Alar scare that occurred almost 25 years ago. We certainly don’t need another event like that! But I also think it would be wise to avoid painting the industry into a corner. I would like to suggest that the apple industry might actually benefit from introduction of more GMOs IF, and this is a big one, IF that approval was accompanied by legislation requiring that all foods containing GMO had to be labeled as such. The food industry (and to my surprise, many university folks) are fighting GMO labeling by saying stupid things such as “We know GMOs are safe” and “It’s the same as a fast-track system of conventional plant breeding.” Those arguments may be correct (at least for most GMOs), but they will not carry any weight with the fear-mongering media or the GMO-phobic public. (And by the way, when did universities start saying “We really don’t want people to know facts!”?) However, if all products in the grocery stores had to carry GMO labeling, those who are petrified of GMOs could buy the relatively small number of higher-priced processed products that would be labeled as GMO-free, whereas most folks would ignore the labels and buy the same products that they always bought. Eventually, society would react to GMO-labeled foods the same way that most of us react to food labels that warn “This product was processed on a line that also processes nuts and therefore may not be free of peanuts.” If you are allergic to peanuts, you avoid those products, but the majority of us ignore the label because we are not allergic to peanuts. GMO labeling would allow those who are psychologically allergic to GMOs to adjust their purchases accordingly whereas most folks would say, as they do with high-fat and/or high-salt food, “Well, it hasn’t killed me yet!” In other words, GMO labeling would defuse the issue and take the heated arguments off of the table. Most folks are already eating GMOs and just don’t know it: let’s give them the truth and then allows the free markets to adjust accordingly. The upside to GMO labeling would be that those fearing GMOs would be forced or encouraged to move away from processed foods to more fresh fruits and vegetables, most of which are NOT GMOs, and we might actually see more apple consumption. This approach is apparently already paying off for FirstFruits Marketing of Selah, WA where folks had the foresight to label their new proprietary yellow ‘Opal’ apple as a non-GMO apple (see: http://www.goodfruit.com/opal-apple-verified-as-non-gmo/ ). Following is my enumeration of reasons that the apple industry should not be overly vocal in opposing GMOs and/or should even embrace GMOs so long as they are labeled as such: 1. As noted above, most apples are NOT GMOs. In the short term the industry should be able to use that as a marketing advantage, at least for the GMO-phobes. If all GMOs were labeled, then apples other than Arctic Apples (at least under current conditions) would stand out as being OK for everyone. 2. At some point in the future, the survival of the apple industry might depend on a GMO solution. That situation already exists with the citrus industry in Florida where the disease known as huanglongbin or citrus greening is wiping out the industry. (For one recent report, see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/us/for-florida-grapefruit-one-blow-after-another.html ). Gene jockeys have come up with a GMO solution to citrus greening (although it still needs more testing), but the citrus industry is scared to death of GMOs. And that fear of GMOs may literally be the death of the Florida citrus industry because right now there are no other viable solutions on the horizon. At the moment, we don’t need GMO apples, but who knows what might happen if some foreign pest is introduced in the future? 3. I would argue that the tide of change will inexorably push the public into accepting GMOs, just as it is now proving politically unpopular to oppose gay marriage whereas 15 years ago few politicians would have touched the subject. As I implied above, although the public does not realize it, most of the corn, soybeans, and papaya in our markets are already genetically engineered. (As noted at http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/a-civil-debate-over-genetically-modified-food.html?mobify=0 , "Seventy per cent of processed foods now have at least one genetically engineered ingredient.”) I think the apple industry should be careful not to get locked in on the wrong side of the volatile GMO issue because eventually either public perception will accept reality or a lot of folks are going to get very hungry. 4. Buying into the anti-GMO phobia suggests that the industry accepts and condones the anti-science nonsense of the anti-GMO crowd. If we abandon science, where does the debate and the list of demands ever end? My wife just pointed out that there is currently an on-line outrage against one of the NY manufacturers of Greek yogurt, which is one of the recent hot items for foodies, because, while the product is labeled “all natural”, someone discovered that the cows producing the milk used to make the yogurt are fed GMO grains. OUTRAGE: how can the yogurt be all-natural if the cows eat GMO grains !!?? Does the apple industry really want to be tied to folks with these kinds of phobias? In conclusion, I realize that the apple industry may not wish to promote GMOs and that the vagaries of the market and public opinion require careful consideration of how apples are promoted and marketed. The DPA issue may turn into a significant problem, but I don’t think that Arctic Apple will actually pose a threat to the market unless the industry allows it to do so by further fostering the publics fears about GMOs. **************************************************************** Dave Rosenberger, Professor Emeritus Dept. of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Cornell’s Hudson Valley Lab, P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 Office: 845-691-7231 Cell: 845-594-3060 http://blogs.cornell.edu/plantpathhvl/ **************************************************************** On May 4, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Evan B. Milburn <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > So glad you brought up the subject "Arctic Apple". > The last thing this apple industry needs is this to be blasted by the news media. We don't want GMO apples AND is certainly not needed! > By the time off beat organizations like EWG get done with this, it will certainly turn in to another "Alar" fiasco. > A HUGE majority of apple growers and the whole industry both here and Canada have already voiced their apposition to this GMO product. > Lets hope our government will not approve of its use and further confuse the public. > > Evan Milburn > www.milburnorchards.com > On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:32 PM, Jon Clements <[email protected]> wrote: > To further add to the discussion: > http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/04/europe-just-banned-apples-you-eat > > And, I find it interesting: Cancer Treatment Center of America advertisement before the video (is everyone seeing that?); and all the talk about browning and apple longevity in the video, anyone heard of Arctic Apples? (I am sure you have.) > > Also, I am tangentially involved with Eco Apples > (http://redtomato.org/ecoapple.php) and this subject has already come up with them. So, yes, people (Whole Foods?) do watch and pay attention. Perception is reality. > > Lest anyone forget: the apple-crop discussion(s) are permanently archived here http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ for anyone to see even though they are not subscribers. (If they find it.) I think it is a good thing to have the archive, just keep in mind it is there. I truly hope it does not inhibit discussion. I try to live by the motto "if I don't want the whole world to read it, better not put it in an e-mail." > > JC > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Weinzierl, Richard A <[email protected]> wrote: > Amazing. > > First, I admit that I usually support new restrictions imposed by the US EPA in response to new tox data or standards because in general one can at least attribute the decisions to people who understand how to weigh scientific evidence … and I do not expect that they will always agree with me, to one direction or the other. I probably do not agree with industry opposition to the EPA as often as many on this list-serve might think I should, but that’s why we all should communicate. > > But … wow … Apparently TYT (the young Turks) feel free to offer compelling opinions without any need to understand the issue in any substantive way. One has to (NOT) love the web. What a bunch of arrogant talking heads. Perhaps they should launch a vendetta on nitrosamines from BBQs as David R. brought up. Or maybe even quit wearing any SYNTHETIC fabrics or burning any hydrocarbon fuels. As others have posted … those who eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, produced conventionally or organically, are the healthiest of all in our societies. > > I’ll probably regret posting this … but I do not understand how their opinions warrant anyone’s attention. Not Faux News, but just as faux. > > Ugh. Let’s hope academic freedom is a real thing, or I’ll become a retired old new fruit grower a year or two before I planned to be. > > Rick Weinzierl > > Richard Weinzierl > Professor and Extension Entomologist > IL SARE PDP Coordinator > Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois > S-334 Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue > Urbana, IL 61801 > 217-244-2126 > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Jansky > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:59 PM > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > > The YOUTUBE reaction to American Apples containing DHP.... Not good press for the U.S. Industry.... > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEh1IbOKRBo > > Steve > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:11:27 +0000 > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > Hello Mike and all, > > The backdrop to the Irish opinion was, I believe, that a number of EU countries were more reliant on DPA than some others, and that Ireland, having a small apple industry (but nonetheless one in which about 30% of the fruit could have been DPA treated), was naturally inclined to be positively disposed to its continued use (under considerable lobbying pressure from our own apple growers association, and from some other countries). > > I do know that strong efforts were made by the task force to fill the supposed data gaps, but in the end they did not win out. So in the end, as you say the MRL was dropped not based on a definitive assessment of risk, but because, as I mentioned, there is a general policy thrust to remove nitrosamines from diet. > > Dave is correct to point out that there are uncontrollable sources of nitrosamines in diet, but thank goodness they have not begun regulating how people cook their foods at home yet. It would be interesting to compare the amount of nitrosamine in a typical diet due to BBQ’s, compared with that which might come from DPA treated apples. > > 1-MCP is not a replacement for DPA, and a few years ago I had done some small-scale trials on using about 10% rates of DPA both without and in combination with 1-MCP, and found scald control to be very good in both cases, indicating that recommended DPA rates were probably too high to begin with. I think such combinations would have been the ideal solution, had DPA not been removed from the market, as CO2 injury is a serious risk with 1-MCP use, which is why we now must use higher-tech storage systems. Regarding the treatments with DPA at 10% of the recommended rate, residues were still detectable at about 0.1 to 0.05 ppm after 6 months of storage (unwashed apples). Even if we could guarantee the lower figure, because DPA has now been withdrawn, any residue found in a random test would be an issue, as use of an unapproved chemical is illegal (even if it leaves no residue). > > We have not got as far as Mosbah’s idea of calling pesticides plant medicines, though the industry does use the phrase plant protectant products, even though the public still call them pesticides. It will take quite some time to change that, but the opportunity arises each time someone asks the question. > > Finally, regarding Jean-Marc’s observation of reduced aroma, we have been able to offset this in some varieties (for example Elstar & clones, Pinova and Wellant) by a delayed harvest, which is in itself facilitated by the excellent ability of 1-MCP to stop these particular varieties ripening further. In this case we end up with firmer fresher-tasting apples which also have great aroma characteristics. For other varieties (e.g. Jonagold and clones), once ripening is under way the effect of 1-MCP is not so marked, so later harvest is not the solution. > > I would add that the advent of 1-MCP has changed my planting strategy from Jonagold type apples to Elstar type apples. > > Con > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Willett > Sent: 30 April 2014 06:36 > To: Apple-crop discussion list > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > > As you can imagine, we have been following this issue very closely for a number of years. According to the U.S. EPA's Registration Eligibility Decision for DPA, diphenyl nitrosamine is a trace contaminant in technical DPA. In the most recent risk assessment (2012) done in the EU for DPA, by Ireland's Pesticide Registration & Control Division as the rapporteur member state (RMS), it came to this conclusion: > > "N-nitrosodiphenylamine is found at trace levels, below the LOQ in processed apple samples. When you consider the toxicological profile of this nitrosamine and the amounts at which it is likely to be consumed, the RMS calculations show that there are no safety concerns. One must also consider that diphenylamine is not applied to apples destined for the processing market, it is only applied to freshly consumed table apples, as appearance of these apples is very important. > > Therefore, the RMS remains supportive of the approval of diphenylamine." > > In the study that generated the opinion above which was done to address home processing of apples that were originally sold for fresh consumption, no nitrosamines were found in raw apples, nor in apple juice; only in blended and chopped apples ("processed" apples). > > The decision announced in March of this year indicates that the reason the MRL for DPA was reduced to 0.1 ppm was because of data gaps in the registration package that had been submitted. The EU DPA Task Force has vigorously protested the allegation of data gaps but, at any rate, the reduction in the MRL in the EU was not based on a definitive assessment of risk. > > While I am not an expert in this area, given the discussion regarding 1-MCP, while it is very effective at preventing scald, work done by Jim Mattheis at USDA/ARS-Wenatchee and Chris Watkins at Cornell, notes that in certain situations use of 1-MCP can increase certain fruit disorders, some related to CO2 injury. Many packers in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, now use lower rates of DPA in combination with 1-MCP to maximize its benefits. > > Mike Willett > Northwest Horticultural Council > http://www.nwhort.org/ > [email protected] > 509.969.0245 mobile > > This message is from a remote location, sometimes truly remote. > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of David A. Rosenberger [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:46 AM > To: Apple-crop discussion list > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > Hello, Con — > Since grilling meat on a barbecue almost always creates some nitrosamines, I’m assuming that outdoor barbecues have also been banned in Europe? :) > > **************************************************************** > Dave Rosenberger, Professor Emeritus > Dept. of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology > Cornell’s Hudson Valley Lab, P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 > Office: 845-691-7231 Cell: 845-594-3060 > http://blogs.cornell.edu/plantpathhvl/ > **************************************************************** > > On Apr 29, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Con.Traas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Mosbah, > The cost of smartfresh treatment here is about 10 euros (12 dollars?) per 330kg bin (700lbs approx.). It feels expensive, especially compared with DPA, which is very cheap. It does a lot more though. > By the way, I think the issue with DPA from a European perspective is that when it degrades it forms one or more nitrosamines, which are a group of chemicals many of which are carcinogenic, though some much more-so than others. So the EU is seeking to eliminate all sources of nitrosamines from diets, and therefore DPA is gone. > I do remember when DPA was "cleaned-up", but its breakdown products will be nitrosamines, regardless of how cleanly it is produced. > > Con > > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Kushad, Mosbah M [[email protected]] > Sent: 28 April 2014 15:53 > To: Apple-crop discussion list > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > If you are asking about diphenylamine (DPA), then it is an antioxidants that blocks the oxidation of alpha farnesene into conjugated trienes in the peel. Conjugated trienes are what causes the apple/pear peel to turn brown from regular or superficial scald. It doesn’t help soft scald or sunscald. In the old days they used to wrap fruits in paper soaked in mineral oil that absorbs the conjugated triene gas. I have only scene this recently being practiced in one place. To minimize superficial scald development, harvest fruits when they are horticulturally mature. Ethoxyquin was removed from the market around the 80’s because it was suspected to cause cancer. However, DPA went through a rigorous cleaning process to remove any impurities that cause cancer. If you are asking about 1-methylecyclopropene (1-MCP), also known as SmartFresh, it is an ethylene action inhibitor. Treated fruits produce ethylene but it does not work, because the sites where ethylene normally attaches itself, to initiate fruit ripening, are occupied by 1-MCP. There is no evidence that 1-MCP causes any harm to human. Some consider 1-MCP as the best thing since CA storage was introduced in the 30’s -40’s. hope this helps, Mosbah Kushad, university of Illinois. > > Question to Con. What is the cost of using SmartFresh per bushel in your operation? > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ginda Fisher > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:08 AM > To: Apple-crop discussion list; Con.Traas; 'Evan B. Milburn'; 'Apple-crop discussion list' > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > > Can anyone summarize what this chemical is, why and how it is used, and what the risks might be to farmers and consumers from its use? I feel like I walked into the middle of a conversation. > > Thanks, > -- > Typed with Swype. Who knows what I meant to say? > On April 28, 2014 4:03:51 AM EDT, "Con.Traas" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Evan and everybody, > > Coming from my perspective, where we are now having to cope without DPA for storing Bramley (culinary) apples, I must say that is it proving tricky, but we are managing, through use of 1-MCP combined with more complex (and expensive and risky) storage regimes. So I would say it is technically possible to keep apples without DPA or ethoxyquin, which we also can’t use, but ironically it mitigates against the smaller grower, and in favour of the larger ones (big ag?) who can afford the higher tech gear. > > It is ironic that scaring people about pesticide residues on fresh foods (especially fruits) actually causes people to eat more processed foods (as though their ingredients do not also get pesticide treatments), as the studies linking better health with fruit consumption are studies conducted with conventionally grown fruits with their pesticide residues (if they are not residue free). In other words, the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables are there in black and white, even if those fruits and vegetables have residues. It is far less healthy to switch to a candy bar from an apple, even if that apple has some residue (so long as that is below permitted levels). However, this is not a message we can send out, so we are left grappling when emails like this from EWG are circulated. > > The joke of what EWG seems to be doing is producing a dirty dozen or clean fifteen list is that those lists say nothing at all about the risk of a pesticide residue on the particular apple in your fruit-bowl. You could be eating a residue-free fruit from among the “dirty dozen”, or one covered in pesticide from among the “clean fifteen”. > > Despite the differences in regulations between Europe and the US (and I favour in general the less permissive, more cautious European standards, despite having to work within their restrictions), our agriculture here is constantly increasing in scale, and resembles more and more what would be our stereotyped image of US industrial agriculture. That is because the regulations have more in common than what separates them, and farming is becoming more and more like a business, and less like a passion. > > I am personally not a fan of industrial agriculture, although I employ mostly similar methods. However, motivation is a key factor, and for me, the motivation is not profit maximisation. For the industrial model is about profit before all else, and that is not a suitable way for the World to produce its food. > > However, as long as Joe public takes the attitude that 7% of their disposable income is what they will spend on food (that is the Irish %), then agriculture will continue to become more industrial, as for me that is not a percentage that can support the production of produce and foods that consumers might feel more comfortable buying, and might be able to have more confidence in. > > So, instead of sending 45 bucks to Ken Cook, I would suggest that Joe public either sends it to a principled (and hopefully small-scale) farmer someplace near them, or better still, buys a few fruit trees or invests in a few packets of seeds, and grows their own pesticide-free produce. > > Con Traas > European (Irish) Apple Grower > T: @theapplefarmer > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Evan B. Milburn > Sent: 28 April 2014 02:32 > To: Apple-Crop > Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals > > This was sent to me from a friend of mine by the name of George. It was send to him from one of his co-workers. > Evan Milburn > http://www.milburnorchards.com/ > > > Hey Evan what’s this all about? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > apple-crop mailing list > [email protected] > http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop > > > _______________________________________________ apple-crop mailing list mailto:[email protected] http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop > > _______________________________________________ > apple-crop mailing list > [email protected] > http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop > > > > > -- > Jon Clements > aka 'Mr Honeycrisp' > UMass Cold Spring Orchard > 393 Sabin St. > Belchertown, MA 01007 > 413-478-7219 > umassfruit.com > > _______________________________________________ > apple-crop mailing list > [email protected] > http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop > > > _______________________________________________ > apple-crop mailing list > [email protected] > http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop _______________________________________________ apple-crop mailing list [email protected] http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop _______________________________________________ apple-crop mailing list [email protected] http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
