[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E562-E563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    SETTING RECORD STRAIGHT ON ALAR

                                 ______


                           HON. SAM GEJDENSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, March 9, 1995
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, conventional wisdom now claims that the 
so-called alar scare was overblown, and that the chemical sprayed on 
apples posed no real threat to children, as had been reported on ``60 
Minutes'' from a Natural Resources Defense Council study.
  This mistaken impression that alar was never dangerous is sad 
testimony to the skillfulness of a highly financed disinformation 
campaign by the agricultural chemical industry.
  Six years later, and with this false story fueling the debate to 
overturn current regulations, it's time to set the record straight.
  On two occasions after the ``60 Minutes'' broadcast--in July 1991, 
and again in September 1992--further scientific studies prompted EPA to 
reaffirm alar as a probable human carcinogen. EPA set a zero tolerance 
for alar, meaning no foods can contain any residues of the chemical 
whatsoever.
  These findings were reached after EPA's scientific advisory board, 
under the Bush administration, considered further animal tumor data. 
This data showed that alar was even more dangerous than originally 
believed. In 
[[Page E563]] apple juice and other processed foods, the studies show 
alar breaks down into nitrosamines--a highly potent carcinogen 
according to all mainstream, responsible science.
  Indeed EPA staff had been pressing to ban alar since 1985, under the 
Reagan administration, because of the scientific evidence. 
Massachusetts and New York had already banned alar long before the NRDC 
report, and the American Academy of Pediatrics had urged such a ban at 
the Federal level.
  Final vindication came in 1993 when the National Academy of Sciences 
released a landmark report affirming the basic premise of NRDC's 
study--that infants and young children are more susceptible to cancer 
causing agents in food. Yet to date no Federal exposure standards have 
been recalculated to compensate for the increased sensitivity of 
children.
  Said the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences report, Dr. 
Philip Landrigan, ``NRDC was absolutely on the right track when they 
excoriated the regulatory agencies for having allowed a toxic material 
such as alar to stay on the market for 25 years.''
  Meanwhile, the apple industry has prospered without alar, earning 
record revenues. The banning of this chemical based on real, sound, 
mainstream, nonideological science in the long run hurt this industry 
not one bit.
  By distorting the facts and blurring the real issues, I'm afraid some 
of my colleagues aim to condition the public to reject future reports 
of pesticides hazards as invalid, as another alar. Yet the record 
proves alar was dangerous to children, and the Republican 
administration of George Bush was absolutely correct to remove it from 
all foods altogether.


                          ____________________