Anyone care for a cup of Methomyl?
A recent investigation by
Greenpeace East Asia has uncovered a catalog of banned and highly dangerous
pesticides in Lipton tea products sold on Beijing supermarket shelves.
Random packets of Lipton tea
products, including black, green, oolong and jasmine tea, were sent for
independent laboratory analysis. Each sample was contaminated by pesticides –
green, oolong and jasmine tea each contained nine different kinds of pesticide
traces. Lipton’s green tea sample was the worst, contaminated by a total of 13
pesticides including methomyl, banned for use on tea
plants in China and in the European Union, and endosulfan, banned globally
including in China.
Methomyl is a dangerous compound
that acts on the nervous system’s cholinergic receptors. Even small
doses can cause weakness, blurred vision, headache, nausea, chest discomfort,
constriction of pupils, and tremors. Severe poisoning can lead to cardiac
dysfunction and even death, and for this reason the United States Environmental Protection Agency has labeled this pesticide a Class I
toxin: “high acute toxicity to humans”. Lipton’s Iron Buddha oolong
tea not only contained traces of the banned neurotoxin, but levels two-times
higher than European maximum residue limits.
Unfortunately, contamination of
tea in China is not uncommon. Acompanion report of 18
different popular Chinese tea products from nine different manufacturers found
that all contained at least three different pesticide residues. One product
contained 17 different pesticides, and six contained at least ten different
pesticides. Twelve products from eight different tea companies contained
pesticides banned in tea production in China.
These findings – which need
replication – suggest that drinking tea may not be safe in China. What a terrible
paradox. One of the noblest traditions of a nation famous for its love of tea
now has big question marks over its outright safety.
And who would know about it?
Lipton tea is predominant in most street stalls, corner stores, supermarkets
and hotel rooms across Beijing. Given the dearth of public health information
in China, locals are not aware of the potential danger. Most international
visitors would also be unaware. I wonder if Hugh Jackman knows about it? On the sheer size of the
potential population at risk, it is outrageous that western media outlets have
failed to report on what is a significant public health issue.
Of course, this is just one
example of a much larger food safety issue in China. The Chinese government was
put under enormous domestic pressure following the contamination of infant milk powder and
associated deaths of six babies and 860 hospitalisations. But the public has no
faith in the system, and it is common for expat Chinese to visit home with
suitcases stuffed with baby products from the west. Indeed, one of the leading
reasons overseas-based Chinese resist returning home is because of the issue of
food safety.
Lipton’s public reaction to the report was
predictably sanguine – “To date, all testing of our products has confirmed full
compliance to Chinese regulatory requirements”. Through its operation in China,
Lipton is not just part of the problem, it is making matters worse. Lipton’s
conduct makes a mockery of its “Guiding Principle of Sustainable
Development".
Lipton’s parent company,
Unilever, turned over €46.6bn last
year; it can afford to show some market leadership and basic ethical
consideration for the health of its Chinese consumers. This would also go some
distance to put substance behind the multinational’s saccharine vision:
“We meet everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands
that help people feel good, look good and get more out of life."
Unilever must immediately demand
to source tea that is safe for human consumption from its Chinese suppliers and
guarantee supply chain traceability. Failing this, an international boycott of
all Lipton products would serve to draw attention and force a change of
practice.
The Chinese government is as
culpable for failing to defend the interests of its own people. Food safety
laws are egregiously flouted by domestic operators and foreign multinationals
alike. While in China recently, I read a health column celebrating the fact
that cherries were in season – what a shame that it also had to advise readers
to soak their fruit in salted water overnight to leach out the invisible
chemicals.
India is already transitioning
from a period in history dominated by the quest for food security to begin to
focus on food quality. The organic food industry in that country is booming. China needs to
swiftly change tack. Your average Chinese person yearns to buy fresh, healthy
and non-contaminated food. Market reform that makes it easier for Chinese
consumers to purchase organic and sustainable food must be a top priority.
In another virtually unnoticed
(at least in the west) and deeply ironic development, the Information Office of
the State Council (China’s cabinet) recently drafted a comprehensive Human Rights Action Plan (2012-2015).
Part of the proposed Charter specifically identifies implementation of a “Food
Safety Law”, including improved food safety monitoring, food safety regulation
and accountability. But words are cheap – almost as cheap as a cup of cha.
We live in a lucky country where
we never need to second-guess the food that passes our lips. We ought to pause
for a moment to consider the challenges facing the Chinese people and start
piling on the pressure for Lipton to start to become part of the solution.
Michael Valenzuela
Associate Professor & Leader
of Regenerative Neuroscience Group, Brain & Mind Research Institute at
University of Sydney
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Michael Valenzuela does not work
for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or
organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant
affiliations.
No comments:
Post a Comment