Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Food Briefs

California Tops List in Environmental Protection

March 09, 1989|DANIEL P. PUZO | Times Staff Writer

California exceeds all other states in environmental protection programs, including such efforts as monitoring food and water supplies for harmful compounds, according to a recent study by two Washington-based consumer groups.

The report, titled "State of the States," took into account regulatory activity in five different areas: food safety, drinking water, solid waste recycling, forest management and urban growth/environment.

California received 42 points out of a possible perfect score of 50. The state was also second in the nation for its food safety record, following only Iowa.

The groups responsible for the review, which was released last week, are Renew America and Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. This is the first time that local programs designed to monitor the food supply were evaluated as part of the report's overall rating system.

"You can't separate food safety from environmental safety. . . . These two are closely aligned," said Public Voice's Eileen Kugler. "For instance, the pesticides used on crops can contaminate the ground water supplies and the air. And chemicals dumped into waterways leads to the contamination of fish."

The authors considered several factors in evaluating the various food safety efforts across the country. They were: the effectiveness of a state's pesticide residue testing; existence of research on reducing chemical usage in agriculture; regulation of the meat, poultry and seafood industries; local standards on food additives/colors and environmental contaminant monitoring.

"States can play an important role in filling gaps in monitoring . . . the food supply and enforc(ing) food safety requirements, especially given the limitations of the federal (government's) presence," the report stated.

Although California was faulted for failing to meet federal standards for its shellfish harvest, it was otherwise "praised" for an extensive program to monitor chemical contaminants in food.

The high food safety ranking is noteworthy considering that the state also leads the nation in farm production, with an agricultural sector generating about $14 billion annually.

California was named as one of only five states that tests food for illegal levels of pesticides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, drugs and aflatoxin, a carcinogenic mold.

The state also leads the nation in terms of money spent on integrated pest management research: a chemical-free approach to farming that uses one type of insect to prey on an entirely different species that may harm crops. Such funding was lauded by the study because it supports exploration for alternatives to today's "high-cost, chemical-intensive, energy-intensive, water-intensive agriculture."

Further, California was commended for spending more--$6.4 million--on biological controls than any other.

The report stated that this type of program is crucial to any strategy to reduce dependence on pesticides. Among the methods included in this area are those employed by organic farmers such as the use of natural, rather than chemical, fertilizers.

The top 10 states in overall environmental programs, listed in descending order, are California, Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Jersey, Florida, Maryland and Connecticut.

In terms of food safety programs, the leading states are Iowa, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Georgia and Texas.

"There are some states that are definitely doing progressive things and, often, these are areas where the federal government has backed off," said Kugler. "It's clear we need stronger national guidance and stronger national food safety standards."

Those states that received the lowest food safety ratings are Nevada, Indiana, West Virginia, Wyoming, Utah and Louisiana.

Despite California's performance in the review, the overall results contradict local consumer groups' charges that the state's pesticide monitoring program for produce is inadequate.

Perceptions of Poultry--Eight percent of those surveyed in a recent public opinion poll said that they are eating less chicken because of potential salmonella contamination of the birds. The figure also includes those who have stopped eating chicken altogether as a result of food safety concerns.

An account of the poll appeared in Nutrition Week, a Washington-based newsletter published by the Community Nutrition Institue.

The survey, conducted by two University of Florida economists, randomly queried a total of 506 consumers in Spokane, Wash., Orlando, Fla., Des Moines, Iowa, and Tucson, Ariz. The cities were selected because they are often used by food corporations as new product test markets. This association, according to Nutrition Week, gives the results a "special validity."

The poll also found that 4% of those questioned claim to have become ill as a result of eating contaminated chicken. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 5%.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|