The Delaney Clause: Alive, Well and, Finally, Enforceable. Al Meyerhoff, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA 94105
Existing laws regulating pesticides in food were enacted nearly forty years ago. As the result of a recent court decision, styled Les v. Reilly, EPA will now be required to fully implement the Delaney Clause for dozens of pesticides that "induce cancer" and are present in a host of processed foods. Two fundamentally inconsistent approaches now exist. Pesticides in "raw commodities," such as fresh fruits and vegetables, are subject to a "cost-benefit" test, allowing literally dozens of carcinogens in food, often at unacceptably high levels of cancer risk. In stark contrast, pesticides that concentrate in processed foods, such as juices, oils and flour, are governed by the Delaney Clause, prohibiting any residue of carcinogens.
The central premise of Delaney is as simple as it is powerful: what we understand best about carcinogens is the limited extent of our knowledge. As a result, the famous clause is grounded in a policy of prevention: prohibiting carcinogens in processed food since the nation's population would otherwise be routinely exposed in their daily diet.
Much has changed since Delaney was enacted in 1958. Pesticide use has increased at least tenfold. Due to improved detection methods, we now know we are being exposed, daily, to literally dozens of carcinogenic toxic agents, in a host of different foods, with no attempt to calculate the aggregate human health risk. At the same time, the incidence of many forms of cancer, including breast cancer and childhood cancer, is on the rise.
Congressional action now, at long last, appears possible. Some may argue that the Delaney Clause must remain inviolate but it is too late for symbols. Of far greater importance is to fulfill the statute's underlying purpose by reducing human exposure to toxic substances "at the source" for both raw and processed food.
The philosophy behind the Delaney Clause--of preventing unnecessary exposure to hazardous substances--should be preserved. Because while much has changed since Delaney, little has changed as well. We still do not know whether man is more or less sensitive than experimental animals to carcinogens. We still do not know how to access the contribution of one carcinogen in relation to the impacts of others. Perhaps most significantly, we do not know the cumulative impact of dozens of carcinogens now permitted in the food supply and environment generally.