Controlling Pesticides, Toxins in Nutritional Products

“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” may be a fine mantra for motivational situations, but while a pesticide residue is unlikely to outright kill a person (in the shortterm), chemicals that kill insects and pesky weeds can be dangerous to human health over the course of long-term exposure. At least, this is a widely held theory of many scientists, health experts and, increasingly, consumers.

In its Natural Profits survey, Datassential Research found consumers ranked “pesticide-free” as one of the top critical concerns relative to foods and foodservice. Similarly, the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) has reported one of the main drivers of organic food usage across produce, packaged foods and organic beverages is avoidance of pesticides.

Besides simply preferring purity in foods and dietary supplements, consumers have expressed concern over the short- and long-term health effects of pesticide residues.

While groups like the American Institute of Cancer Research have deemed the link between pesticides and cancer “unproven,” many studies have indicated these chemicals can cause a host of health problems, including devastating diseases, if they reach consumers via the food supply.

Feeding into those fears are findings that certain pesticides, alone or in combination, can cross the blood-brain barrier and disrupt brain function. Most recently, University of Rochester, N.Y., researchers linked a combination of the herbicide paraquat and the fungicide maneb with increased cerebral damage, possibly leading to Parkinson’s disease (Neurosci. 2000;20:9207- 14). While paraquat has been the common focus of such research, organophosphate pesticides (OP), such as chlorfenvinphos (banned in the United States in 1991), have also been linked to Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and cardiovascular diseases (Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(1):82-6).

Fertility is another oft-debated victim of pesticide exposure, especially organophosphates. A 2008 review of research on the subject suggested organophosphate exposure has a greater impact on fetal and infant growth and development than on adults, when exposed to the same concentrations of pesticides (Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008; ePub ahead of print).

Other recent studies have linked organophosphate or chlorinated pesticide exposure to insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) diseases such as diabetes, cancer and growth disorders (Growth Horm IGF Res. 2007;17(6):506-11), as well as systemic damage, including to the kidneys, blood, and the immune, endocrine and nervous systems (Rev Environ Health. 2007;22(3):213-43).

While there will continue to be further research and debate on the health effects of pesticide exposure, another hot issue centers on the levels of pesticide throughout the product processing chain and how much testing is being done and should be done.

The Consumer Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports, pooled data on pesticide levels on fruit and vegetables from USDA’s Pesticide Data Program and the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (Cal DPR), as well as CU’s own data. They found conventionally grown samples consistently had residues more often than other categories, including organically grown samples.

Overall, across eight fruits and 12 vegetable crops, 73 percent of USDA's conventionally grown samples had residues. For five crops (apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery) more than 90 percent of samples had residues. Cal DPR (using less sensitive analytical methods) found residues in 31 percent, and CU found residues in 79 percent, of their conventionally grown samples. Organically grown samples consistently had far smaller percentages with residues: 23, 6.5 and 27 percent in the USDA, DPR and CU data, respectively.

While produce certainly reflects the agricultural nature of pesticide use, thereby indicating botanical ingredients as prone to various residues, another common ingredient source for supplements and various food ingredients is seafood. Chinese scientists looked at residual levels of organochlorine pesticides—including DDTs, heptachlor, aldrin, hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, endosulfan sulfate, and heptachlor epoxide—in a wide variety of seafood products collected from 11 coastal cities in southern China between June and October 2005 (Environ Toxicol Chem. 2007;26(6):1109- 15). They found DDTs and HCHs were the most predominant residues found, with the other pesticides found in much lower amounts.

The eco-advocacy group Environmental Defense (ED) reported the properties that make certain pesticides effective pest control agents also makes them slow to break down in the environment, which poses particular problems when they contaminate seafood. They further note: “These pesticides accumulate in the bottom sediments of streams, rivers, lakes and coastal areas, and are most commonly found in the fatty tissues of fish.”

Bruce Miller, executive vice president, Marine Nutraceuticals, noted the fish most prone to pesticide contamination are those that would be found in shallow costal waters, especially costal areas in close proximity to agriculture. “Also, costal waters that are near estuaries would be problematic,” he said. “Lake and river fish would not be desirable.” He said the solution is to source fish, such as small pelagic fish, which are not top of the food chain (giving them less time to become contaminated) and swim continuously in open deep water well offshore.

Miller reported the major pesticides his company tests are: organochlorine pesticides, porganophosphorus pesticides, pyrethroids and toxaphene congeners (parlar congeners).

In the case of seafood, proper quality control (QC) processes, including pesticide testing and purification technologies, possibly make fish oil supplements safer than eating fish. According to Stacy Foran Melanson, M.D., Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and her research team, “...fish contain environmental toxins such as mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and organochlorine pesticides, which may negate the beneficial cardiovascular effects of fish meals.” The researchers tested pesticide levels in five branded fish oil products, finding levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorines were all below the detectable limit (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(1):74-7).

Miller said to look for GOED (Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3) members when dealing with fish and fish oil, as the group has established very high standards, via a voluntary monograph. “I am rather doubtful that we need an added level of formal regulation, as the manufacturers who are a part of GOED are very serious about keeping the supply pristine,” he concluded.

With expanding reams of research indicating the presence of pesticides in the food supply, how are the food and supplement industries responding on a testing and QC level?

"In the last year or two, the interest in testing has gone up in response to the global market," said Grace Bandong, chemistry laboratory manager, National Food Laboratory (NFL). "With Japan’s recent implementation of their Positive List System, many food processors that export to Japan have had to start up pesticide programs. The new programs often are inclusive of all their products (for domestic and international distribution)."Darryl Sullivan, senior manager at Covance Labs, called pesticides a major concern for not just foods, but also dietary supplements and functional products. “There have been several cases of pesticides finding their way into finished products through contaminated raw materials,” he reported, adding there is clearly not enough testing done to screen for pesticides in the natural products industry. “In the best of all worlds, every raw material would be checked for pesticide contamination before it is used.” He reasoned the regulations on pesticide testing for supplements are currently very weak. “The U.S. government is currently working on 15 different bills on Capitol Hill that would impact this type of testing requirement,” he noted. “These proposed laws cover food safety and would impact all materials being used in the food and natural products industries.”However, the concern over pesticide residues extends beyond the U.S. market. Cal Bewicke, president of Ethical Naturals, agreed pesticides and fungicides are endemic to the environment, both here and in every country where the raw materials for the food and supplement industry are produced. “In many countries, the controls on pesticide use are looser than here in the United States,” he suggested.Sullivan noted there are many different pesticide compounds found in different raw materials in the worldwide natural products industry, though the greatest concern is probably with chlorinated and organophosphate pesticides. “They are very widely used around the world, and the residues often have a very long half-life,” he reported. “The most frequently contaminated products have been coming to the United States from Asia.”Carlos Navarro, marketing manager, U.S. Food Division, Eurofins Labs, echoed the concern over pesticide residues in raw materials from China, noting regulations in Japan and some European countries are among the most stringent, with U.S. regulations on pesticides not too far behind. “With the new cGMPs (current good manufacturing practices) for supplements, the whole area of what testing methods to use and which residues to focus on is being addressed,” he said. “We’ve gotten a lot of questions about what FDA wants companies to test for and by what methods—it is the number one question on people’s minds.”Israel-based Frutarom sources its botanical ingredients from all over the world, according to Laurent Leduc, vice president of marketing for the company. “Before we purchase a lot, we get a sample and test it for many things, including pesticides,” he said. “There are always companies in regions we red flag—China is one—when we know there is not as much government control over quality and pesticide protocols. While we are especially careful with sources from those countries, pesticide issues can be from any country of origin.”Here in the United States, pesticides fall under three federal agencies, depending on the exact use. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) handles approvals for new pesticides, maintaining lists of approved inert compounds and corresponding tolerances. "[EPA] has a number of programs in place to continually review the list of registered pesticides," Bandong explained. "Upon evaluation of a pesticide, if they believe there are detrimental effects on humans or the environment, the pesticide in question undergoes a Special Review process. Consequently, as the scientific community’s understanding of human health risks and ecological concerns has improved, more pesticides have been eliminated from use."  Bandong noted many of the pesticides eliminated from EPA’s approved list are from the organophosphate family, a number of which are insecticides. "Organophosphates are a neurotransmitter disrupter in insects and, in some cases, in humans too," she said. "Because of their deleterious cross over effect in humans, the approved list of organophosphates has declined considerably over the years. In recent years, there has been a push for the making of pesticides that are less harmful than the organophosphates and are effective at lower doses."In addition to EPA, FDA and USDA regulate the use of pesticides in agriculture, dietary supplements and foods, including the National Organic Program (NOP).Bewicke noted the full FDA 302 Pesticide Screen checks for the detectable presence of around 130 different pesticides. “[This] can be quite expensive, and few suppliers and distributors are ready to take this step,” he said. “Surprisingly, few customers insist on it as a requirement.”This might be slowly changing, however. “We see the need for testing going up year to year,” Navarro said. “Retailers, consumers, trade organizations and regulators have turned a careful eye to food and feed safety. There are increased demands on companies to show the quality and safety of products.”Eurofins paired up with RQA, a food safety consultancy, and the Illinois Crop Improvement Association (ICIA) to create TRAC, a full service pesticide management system designed to address the technical difficulties and costs barriers companies face in ensuring their products are pesticide-free or meet tolerances for approved residues. “Controlling pesticide residues really starts from the beginning,” Navarro advised. “This means knowing the agronomic qualities of the product you’re growing, the types of pesticides applied and the propensity for those residues to be in products from very beginning.” He noted while Eurofins has a niche in testing, companies want full service solutions instead of just testing. TRAC combines Eurofins’ testing background with RQA’s experience in food safety and auditing, ICIA’s agronomics and grower-level expertise to offer the full range of services needed in pesticide control from source to end product. They added pesticide specialist Degesch America to round out the consortium."With TRAC, our main goal is residue control, but there are so many parameters to consider—auditing, vendor verification and testing; sometimes companies don't have the energy or resources to invest in a pesticide control system, so they want a company like ours to help them with this aspect of their business," Navarro explained.  Julie Hill, vice president chemistry, NFL, agreed independent labs can help both big and small companies by working closely with them to understand their objectives for pesticide residue monitoring program. "We work to make sure the pesticide residue program we put in place also matches their budget—there are some companies that analyze every lot and some companies that double check suppliers’ Certificates of Analysis once a year," she said. "While some companies won’t be in a position to test every lot, they can certainly put together an economical program to do random verifications."Having a pesticide management system in place is one major step in the direction of improved quality control; however, the whole process of quality production and processing works better if the initial materials are of as high a quality as possible, especially relative to contaminants, such as pesticides. “It’s not easy to find and source ingredients that are guaranteed to be pesticide-free, every batch, every time,” Bewicke lamented. “Some ingredients, such as ginseng, are notorious for high pesticide residues.”In separate 2004 incidences, FDA found pesticides procymidone and quintozene, as well as other fungicides in ginseng products on the U.S. market, seizing product in one case and prompting a recall in another case.Leduc said botanicals are highly prone to pesticides, and sometimes concentrating a plant’s actives can result in concentrating any pesticide residues present. In the case of ginseng, he explained the root takes anywhere from three to 10 years to grow, which leaves it susceptible to insects and diseases; thus, it is ripe for fungicide and pesticide use.He noted when the ginseng controversy surfaced, it was an opportunity for Frutarom to detail to its customers how the company had already addressed the issue of fungicides and insecticides in its ginseng supply and process. After extracting the active material, the company mixed in a lipid matrix—either wax, fat or vegetable oil. These food-grade compounds were found to absorb the compounds common to ginseng—quintozene, lindane, tecnazene and a number of chlorinated compounds. Thus, removing the matrix also removed the fungicides and insecticides. Frutarom calls this technology HyperPure, and it utilizes the technology for ginseng and three other botanicals it considers high-risk for such residues: olive leaf, yerba mate and pumpkin seed.While there is no labeling requirement for the pesticide content of food and supplement products on the U.S. market, certified organic products must meet pesticide regulations established by the NOP, a USDA program. Until recently, NOP standards limited pesticide use to those on EPA’s List-4A (inert) and -4B (won’t adversely affect human health) compounds, although List-3 chemicals were allowed only on the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). However, EPA reassessed its lists in 2007, issuing a statement in September that it has removed a few chemicals from List-4 and reclassified some List-3 compounds as List-4. It advised the NOP that the lists may no longer be available to NOP for referencing in organic regulations. USDA is working with EPA and NOSB on how best to amend the NOP regulation on pesticides. Until this is figured out, EPA’s 2004 List-4 is to be used, minus the revoked chemicals listed in EPA’s reassessment notification. And NOSB has recommended the chemicals upgraded to list-4 under the reassessment remain prohibited in organic agriculture. NOP will follow NOSB recommendations, including the use of the National List petition for any requests to for the board to allow any other pesticide chemicals.The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) maintains an updated list of compliant pesticide chemicals, including products from OMRI’s listed suppliers; the group verifies these products meet the criteria established in the NOP. In collaboration with Consumers Union, OMRI has also produced research showing organic foods contain fewer pesticides than their non-organic counterparts. Overall, they analyzed test data on pesticide residues in more than 94,000 organic and non-organic food samples of about 20 different crops (tested over nearly a decade).Pesticide control is a highly technical, involved process, but an important one for companies facing increased customer demands and regulations to deliver products as free from pesticides as possible. The word is still out on just which pesticides are dangerous to humans and in what amounts of exposure, but forward-thinking, high-quality companies are already in pursuit of this level of production, whether via proprietary, in-house technologies or thirdparty pesticide management programs. The Quality Control section is sponsored by Ethical Naturals; however, the company does not review or approve editorial content.