Daminozide

Daminozide (trade name Alar, Kylar, B-NINE, DMASA, SADH, B 995, and others) is a plant growth regulator, a chemical sprayed on fruit to regulate their growth, make their harvest easier, and enhance their color. It was primarily used on apples, and was registered with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1963 to 1989 — when it was voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer in response to public fears over a controversial study which found that Alar residue could produce tumors in mice.

Additional recommended knowledge

What is the Correct Way to Check Repeatability in Balances?

Guide to balance cleaning: 8 simple steps

Don't let static charges disrupt your weighing accuracy

It has been produced in the U.S. by the Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc, (now integrated into the Chemtura Corporation) which registered daminozide (or Alar) for use on fruits intended for human consumption in 1963. In addition to apples and ornamentals, it was also registered for use on cherries, peaches, pears, Concord grapes, tomato transplants and peanut vines. On fruit trees, daminozide affected flow-bud initiation, fruit-set maturity, fruit firmness and coloring, preharvest drop and market quality of fruit at harvest and during storage. ^[1]

The campaign to ban Alar

In 1986, concern developed in the U.S. public over the use of Alar on apples, over fears that the residues of the chemical detected in apple juice and applesauce might harm people. The outcry led some manufacturers and supermarket chains to announce they would not accept Alar-treated apples.

In February, 1989 there was a broadcast by CBS's 60 Minutes highlighting a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council highlighting problems with Alar.

This followed years of background:

Prior to 1989, five separate, peer-reviewed studies of Alar and its chemical breakdown product, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), had found a correlation between exposure to the chemicals and cancerous tumors in lab animals. In 1984 and again in 1987, the EPA classified Alar as a probable human carcinogen. In 1986, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the EPA to ban it. Well before the 60 Minutes broadcast, public concern had already led six national grocery chains and nine major food processors to stop accepting apples treated with Alar. Washington State growers had pledged to voluntarily stop using it (although tests later revealed that many did not). Maine and Massachusetts had banned it outright.^[2]

In 1989, following the CBS broadcast, the United States Environmental Protection Agency decided to ban Alar on the grounds that "long-term exposure" posed "unacceptable risks to public health." Note, however, that before the EPA's preliminary decision to ban all food uses of Alar went into effect, Uniroyal, the sole manufacturer of Alar, agreed in June 1989 to halt voluntarily all domestic sales of Alar for food uses.^[3]

Backlash

Peter Montague wrote:

"Laboratory animals were exposed to high doses of Alar and UDMH, to see if high doses would produce cancers. For humans to be exposed to equivalent high doses, they would have to eat a box-car-load of apples each day." ^[4]

Apple growers in Washington filed a libel suit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications, claiming the scare cost them $100M. The suit was dismissed in 1994.

While Alar has been verified as a human carcinogen, the amount necessary for it to be dangerous may well be extremely high. The lab tests that prompted the scare required an amount of Alar equal to over 5,000 gallons (20,000 L) of apple juice per day. Consumers Union ran its own studies and estimated the human lifetime cancer risk to be 5 per million, as compared to the previously-reported figure of 50 cases per million.^[5]

Elizabeth Whelan and her organization, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) worked to establish a narrative of the Alar episode as a scare. The ACSH claimed that Alar and its breakdown product UDMH had not been shown to be carcinogenic. Whelan's campaign was so effective that today, Alar scare is shorthand among news media and food industry professionals for an irrational, emotional public scare based on propaganda rather than facts.

The Alar scare also prompted the introduction of food libel laws in 13 states.

References

1. ^ http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/food/02.htm
2. ^ Myth of 'Alar Scare' Persists; How the chemical industry rewrote the history of a banned pesticide (en). Environmental Working Group (1999-02-01). Retrieved on 2007-07-14.
3. ^ Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, & Policy by Percival, et al. (4th ed.) Page 391.
4. ^ http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=590
5. ^ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alar_and_apples#The_risks_of_Alar