I thank you for inviting me to make a statement before the hearing in Oakland on September 6. I also thank you for your judicious discussion of my testimony. May I point out that, when you questioned me about the use of the term "hysteria," I was quoting the usually staid› Mayo Clinic Newsletter. But I think that my speaking of the "apple and grape" incidents as "panics" was justified by what happened.

I was gratified that your hearing emphasized the need for protecting farm workers.

I am enclosing some information I wanted to add to the discussion, but time did not permit this.

THJ/IS

enclosures

Sincerely,

THOMAS H. JUKES

JUKES

COMMENTS OF Barbara KeaTING, EDH, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER ALERT, MODESTO, CA

Scientific evidence shows harm to children from consuming old paint chips containing lead. Efforts should continue to remove this risk to children. The risk is present in certain areas where children still live in old buildings.

New evidence has emerged as well, though still under dispute in scientific circles, that passive smoking may adversely affect children aggravating asthmatic conditions and worse. Recent reports indicate children growing up in homes in which both parents smoke doubles their risk of developing lung cancer later in life....though it is unclear how many of these children also become smokers themselves, thereby contributing to their own health risks. It is quite likely that children of smokers will become smokers themselves unless otherwise discouraged through education.

Principle risks occur to developing infants from prenatal abuse of alcohol and drug abuse. These present children with lifelong handicaps.

Beyond these circumstances, scientific evidence shows no increased risk to children or infants from environmental factors.

The ALAR fright was simply that, a deliberate and unfortunate alarm that caused more damage by interrupting the eating habits of healthy children than from the effects of residues.

The Committee may need to be reminded that not one single episode involving children has ever emerged from their eating apples that were treated with the growth enhancer, ALAR. This chemical was used by a relatively small number of apple growers to increase stem strength enabling the fruit to hang onto the tree longer to ripen, rather than falling to the ground where it would quickly become contaminated by insects.

The hysteria over "pesticide residues" as it relates to people- adults as well as children, is unwarranted in light of overwhelming scientific evidence subjected to peer review. Claims and statements made by some activists whose work fails to pass a review by their peers in science is discounted by our organization. CONSUMER ALERT doesn't run with the pack. An independent organization, it seeks truth, not political popularity.

In fact, it is known that human body cells have a marvelous way of resisting the toxins (the vast majority of which are naturally occurring) that surround us and with which we are bombarded constantly. Cells continue to regenerate over and over as we move through life, literally sustaining good health. As we grow older, the cell's ability to regenerate while avoiding malignancy, lessens. The longer we live, the more

regeneration, the greater the chance of wayward cells taking hold and a malignancy developing. This points clearly to the fact that, as children, we are less inclined to get cancer than as we grow older!

Epidemiological studies show absolutely no rise in overall cancer rates in the United States. (With the exception of lung cancer among those who smoke.) When age is factored in, (taking into account our aging population) most cancers are actually on the decline and we don't even know why this is so.

Those who continue to raise concern about carefully regulated pesticide use and residue exposure, as well as other chemicals used in our society do so in spite of evidence to the contrary. They avoid addressing the levels of exposure at which toxicity occurs. Nearly everything is toxic at some level of exposure including, and most certainly, chlorine in our drinking water, but we would never suggest removing it, for the dangers of going without, are much greater.

There is public appeal in raising a cry over the anguish that cancer in children causes. Childhood cancer is dramatic, and so opposing it has political appeal. Cancer in children, though particularly emotionally traumatic, is actually rare, all things considered. The very fact that younger bodies reproduce their cells more readily than older people, grants special protection to children that we surely lose as we age. Those who want to believe that cancer in children is prevalent among those exposed to pesticides can surely find a single sad case to bring forward, can surely convince suffering parents that "someone's to blame", but the fact remains, cancer has many causes. Exposure to chemicals at allowable levels is extremely low on the list of causes. So low in fact, as to

be considered zero likelihood by most well respected toxicologists.

European farmers use four times the amount of pesticides that U.S. farmers use and yet Europe's overall cancer rate continues to decline as well.

If one is truly concerned about children however, one must face facts that well fed children on balanced diets are healthy children with the best chance of defeating dread disease. In light of the fact that food is a major portion of the expenditure of poor families, lower cost and readily available food is a goal worth pursuing. The World Health Organization recently reported that only one half of the world's population is properly nourished and at least one and one half billion of the world's people are underfed. One third of the world's food production is lost to pests, crop diseases and weeds before it is harvested. Careful use of chemicals in farming then, increases the availability of affordable food. Pesticides

enable more affordable food to be available to more people. Better diets reaching more people surely means healthier children.

Focus would be better placed on celebrating the rising advantages to children which our higher standard of living provides --antibiotics, better health care, better diets, immunization against deadly diseases, safer playthings, and certainly better diets than children in the world throughout history have ever enjoyed.

Rather, we urge this important Committee on Children, Youth and Families to focus on and effectively tackle the real threat to children today which in many ways is more devastating, painful, costly and permanent than cancer.

Last year one out of every four American homes experienced some sort of violence. In the past 24 months reports of child abuse and neglect doubled. There is nothing to gain by outlining to the members of this Committee the suffering, horror and permanent scars that result from the all too frequent abusive treatment which increasing numbers of adults heap upon defenseless children and infants. We can only urge the Committee to refrain from wasting valuable time chasing mirages set up by activists with their own political agenda, and to instead use one hundred percent on its energies, intellect and might to solving a real and critical problem that of child abuse and neglect. No one denies that it is rampant!

In the moments when this testimony was being prepared, hundreds of children cried from hunger and neglect, hundreds more suffered helplessly at the hands of abusive adults. Surely, some few also suffered and died from the dread disease of cancer but there is no scientific evidence that those malignancies resulted from anything our society caused to happen. Child abuse, equally crippling and deadly, on the other hand, is indeed the result of human behavior which can, and must, be changed. I urge that this Select Committee on Children Youth and Families focus its attention on the real dangers which confront children in our society today.

36-209 (184)