There has been and probably always will be some people that think they can find a way to get around regulations. One of my brothers worked for a pesticide applicator and I remember in 1980 when I moved to Florida, he told me that they had sprayed over 300 lbs of DDT --which had been banned for several years at that time. US chemical companies were continuing to manufacture it for sale overseas, but some of it always seemed to find a way out the back door.

Only when they are sure of getting caught and the fines are stiff enough like Dr Manners mentioned will some of these kind give up their outlaw ways.

Skeet, I agree with you 100 percent. However, if after a ban EPA agrees to allow the remaining in stock chemical to be used until it is exhausted, as they did in the case of growers and Lead Arsenate in Florida, than I guess it could still be sprayed whenever, until such a point as the packinghouses said that they would not accept the fruit. ?? However, I think this subject has, in actually, been resolved. Thanks to all. - Millet

Millet, I see your point, but I don't think it is true. There was an exact date after which no arsenate could be used (wish I could find it exactly), and no one used it after that; as I have said, they would quickly have been caught. So some did have existing supplies remaining, and of course, since it would be considered "toxic waste," they couldn't just throw it in the trash or bury it in the back yard. So they stored it.

I taught packinghouse procedures during all those years, and talked with many growers and packers through that period. I've never even heard the quietest rumor that anyone sprayed any arsenic after the ban. Lots of people loudly lamented the loss, but no one even suggested cheating. And I think that was in great part due to the efficiency of the inspection system. They would have been caught.

Having worked in the hazardous waste industry in a former life, long term storage of hazardous materials that no longer have a use is considered storage of hazardous waste, which requires a permit, has a time limit, and if not properly disposed of is considered (illegal) disposal in the eyes of the EPA. At least in industrial processes, I cannot honestly say that I know how or if that differs in the ag industry. Barbara

I have been reading the comments here with interest. I search for the orginal statement Millet posted, and found it. I also found this posting of the statement, along with a comment from someone, who from his title, seems to speak with some authority. I post it without comment, and with what my father frequenty said when anyone someone referred to something in writing that he doubted. "Son, remember, a piece of paper will lay there and let people write anything they want on it." (Not sure he used the word "people" lol)

Scroll down the page to read the orginal article: http://www.naturalhealingtoday.com/archives.html

You can find the aricle with comments as mentioned above here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Lead-In-Grapefruit.htm

I thank Millet for posting the aritcle, it made for interesting discussion, and I think we all learned from it.

Ned

Much of the problem with Lead arsenate is that
it can last a long time in groundwater. Yes, after
the ban was imposed then unused portions of the
chemical were to be rounded up and destroyed.
Yes, those chemicals would have been deemed
hazardous waste out here but then again the federal
EPA and the USDA does not monitor our every
move out here.

I do not know of anyone still using Lead arsenate
but we also do not know which countries have used
the chemical in the past and what those residues
are now in the Citrus coming in from those countries.
Thus, even when a country has not sprayed Lead
arsenate in the last 20 years or so, the groundwater
and soil can still have significant contamination
levels and thus we can still have lead and arsenic
in the fruit that we let come into the US, Canada
and Mexico. It is the processed juice that concerns
me more than Asian Citrus coming in but even the
Asian Citrus, even Citrus coming in from Pakistan
with China or PRC Mandarin labels on the cartons
and cans of fruit, is what worries me in that we really
do not know where that fruit originated from. Nor
do we know the growing conditions those fruit had
been subjected to and what their contaminant residue
levels are. Then again I will not be eating non-US
grown Citrus but others around the country will and
therein is the main concern for us not having the fruit
sampled and tested before they can be allowed in and
be outlet to North American consumers. It has bothered
me for a long time that we (the US) can let in out of
season fruits and vegetables come into California from
other countries that have had been sprayed or have been
in contact with pesticides that have been banned for use
here, some sprays have been banned for several years
now for usage on own crops.

Jim

Thanks Ned for the two links. However, I got my article from a New York Times article. Evidently, your "Natural Healing Today" link must have received their information from the same New York Times article. What initially stirred my interest in the use of arsenic was the book "The Grapefruit It's Composition, Physiology, & Products", by Walton B. Sinclair. - Millet

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DE1631F932A1575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Thanks Ned. The question is -- why would NYT republish an article originally published in 1988 without any new info--like it was current info?
This doesn't improve my opinion of the news media.

Millet, I couldn't help but notice that the wording of your orginal post has the same wording as the article in Natural Healing today, by Noel Peterson, ND. Is there another aricle in the NYT that I missed? Could this be a case of plagiarism by the NYT or Noel Peterson? I have reposted the links in question here.

http://www.naturalhealingtoday.com/articles/grapefruit_growers_use_lead_and_arsenic.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DE1631F932A1575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Good point Skeeter. Based of what we know today, I don't imagine anyone would think that spraying grapefruit with lead arsenate is a good idea, but there were a lot of things done in the past that are now thought, or known to be wrong, and have since been discontinued. I think that if it were found that a grower was carrying on this practice today, it would be news the public should be made aware of. The two articles I have read here simply serve to cast bad light on an industry, long after, as far as I can see, the problem has been corrected.

Finally, I suggest that when we cut and paste information from other sources into our posts, that, we also provide a link to the the source of that information, or otherwise provide information as to where it came from.

Ned

At my age, I am all to familiar with the problem.

Ned

Ned the Internet is Public Domain. Anything that is posted on the Internet automatically is in the realm of public domain. Therefore plagiarism is impossible. When an author, private individual, company etc. places information on the Internet they lose all right to private ownership. Anyone can use, copy, change or do pretty much what they wish with Internet material. Anyone can use it without permission, with credit or without credit, change the information to fit whatever they wish it to say, or re-post it without change.- Millet

I am sorry, the internet may be public domain, but publishing a work, or web site on the web does not make it legal to copy it without permission, no more that putting a book in a public library makes it legal to copy the book. A simply search will provide many sources that explain this. Here is but one. (Actually, it links to many such sites.)

http://www.cyndislist.com/copyrite.htm

Ned

I now think that the NYT page is just a link to the archive of the article, not a new publication of the 1988 article as I thought. What was confusing me was the Jan. (now 11) 2008 date at the top of the link and there in light gray is the original publication date Sept 1988.

At first, that was confusing to me too Skeeter. Ned