FOCUS ON PESTICIDES: Fear Factor

Risks are everywhere — risks of misfortune, accidents, and diseases — even death. Many activities or behaviors, such as driving fast, smoking cigarettes or eating fatty foods, are “risky.” People who do such things are stacking the odds against themselves that they will live shorter lives than those who do not. However, all behaviors/activities have some level of risk involved. I’ve even come to believe that “living” is hazardous to your health!

Actually, all of life boils down to risk — theoretically, we are trying to minimize high-risk behaviors and maximize low- risk behaviors. However, it’s important to keep in mind that we don’t face more risk today than our ancestors did. People a long time ago died at an early age from war, famine, infectious diseases (smallpox, measles, yellow fever, whooping cough, plagues, etc.) and accidents. Today, many of these risks have been reduced — but not eliminated — by modern medicine and civilization. Even with all the recent terrorist activities, it’s actually a much safer world than it used to be. (See Science, Vol. 236: 280-285, April 17, 1987 for more information.)

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING. What is “perceived” to be true and what is actually true are often totally opposite things. In recent years, pesticides have come to be perceived as high-risk substances that should be banned or at least severely restricted. We see this all the time in newspapers and even legislation. Legislation restricting pesticides is sometimes labeled as “child protection” and such. What politician would dare vote against such legislation? The way it’s presented, pesticides are evil products causing widespread death and destruction and should be banned. And the sooner the better!

But where is the evidence? Where is scientific evidence that pesticides rank high on the list of dangerous substances? And what about their positive aspects? Isn’t there a beneficial side to pesticides — like keeping us protected from disease-carrying insects? Best I can tell, cigarette smoking provides no health benefit. But pesticide use — when done right — does have a benefit. Some of the worst human diseases are carried by insects and are best controlled by controlling the insect vectors. This is where pesticides come in. They are public health tools.

There have been scientific studies defining risk from chemicals. (See Science, Vol. 236, 271-275, 17 April 1987. Visit www.pctonline.com to view this article.) One of the most famous — done by Bruce Ames at the University of California, Berkeley — categorized substances as to their carcinogenicity (cancer-causing ability). Guess where the first pesticide appears in the list? Certainly nowhere near the top.* Many of the top carcinogenic substances are natural compounds found in everyday things like peanut butter and beer.
Obviously, in their most concentrated form, pesticides can be dangerous — but via direct poisoning, not as a cancer risk. So can gasoline and paint thinner. Pesticides are, after all, poisons. But many years of scientific testing and research on their potential harm to people and the environment are required in order for pesticides to be granted an EPA registration. We can be confident that using a pesticide according to its label, while wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment, will generally be safe for both the consumer and the applicator.

A CHANGE IN THINKING. Pesticides, when used correctly, are not very dangerous to human health — they are just perceived to be. The fear of pesticides is in many ways similar to the fear of vaccines. Vaccines (immunizations) greatly contribute to community health by blocking the spread of communicable diseases, yet there’s an increasing vocal number of citizens who are convinced that vaccines are bad and should be avoided. In fact, some people flat-out refuse to have their children vaccinated against common, childhood diseases.

Why, all of a sudden, in this day of great wealth and prosperity, do we see an irrational fear of pesticides and vaccines (products that both can promote community health)? I personally think it has to do with a theory by the psychologist Abraham Maslow — Maslow’s hierarchy of need.

It goes something like this: Everyone has a hierarchy of needs that must be satisfied, ranging from basic physiological requirements like food and shelter to “higher” needs such as love, self-esteem and finally, self-actualization. In other words, you’ve got to get your basic needs like food and drink met before you start worrying about love, justice or beauty in the world. I think this is probably true. But I think the converse is also true.

If all of your needs are met, then you may begin to worry about things that you wouldn’t ordinarily worry about. Little things get “out of focus.” Our perspective gets messed up. Tiny risks become magnified. A person living in a $5 million, perfectly maintained house might begin to worry about “mold” in the house or “germs” or “pesticides.” Remember the billionaire Howard Hughes? He often wore surgical masks or gloves because he was afraid of germs. After all, when you’re rich and have nothing to worry about financially, what else is there to worry about? I think all you have to worry about are perceived risks!
I think pest control operators should be proud of the work they do. More than they will ever know, PCOs help prevent human disease. With the death of every disease-carrying arthropod there is less risk of human disease. Certainly, there is some risk to health from pesticides, especially if not mixed at proper concentrations or not applied correctly. But, for the most part, benefits to humans from pesticides far outweigh any risks. Keep up the good work. And keep things in perspective.

The author is a medical entomologist for the Mississippi Department of Health and clinical assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Miss. He can be reached at jgoddard@pctonline.com.

*Ethylene dibromide exposure in a factory setting was high on the list. At one time, EDB was a registered pesticide (fumigant), but has been banned for almost 20 years. EDB still has other industrial uses.