The paper of ALAR ISSUE ON APPLES was presented at the 7th.Simposium Kimia Analisis (SKAM-17) held in Swiss Garden Resorts, Balok, Kuantan on July 24-26, 2004.

1. SIMPOSIUM KIMIA
ANALISIS KE-17
(SKAM-17)
Swiss Garden Resorts,
Kuantan, Malaysia
August 24–26, 2004

2. ALAR ON APPLES,
IS IT STILL
A SCARY DILEMMA??
DR. ARBA’AT HASSAN
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai
arbaat@yahoo.com

3. ISSUES

4. APPLES …
… OHHH …
APPLES

5. Consumer Report
(May 1989)
Chemical (alar)
sprayed on apples
became a hot
issue …

6. Time Magazine
(March 1989)
Do You Dare to
Eat an Apple?
(… sprayed with
alar)

7. Consumer Report
(May 1989)
Bad apples.
Alar is NOT gone,
neither it is
forgotten !!!

8. Consumer Report
(May 1989)
Ratings of apples
and the apple
products (…
sprayed with
alar?)

9. Consumer Report
(May 1989)
…another apple
report and its
products

10. … more report

11. … chemical
residue
report

12. Newsweek
How Safe is
Our Food?

13. … poisonous
apples?

14. Southern
Illinoisan
May 14
…also
raised alar
issue on
apples

15. Southern
Illinoisan
May 16
…environment-
alists wanted
alar to be
banned

16. Southern
Illinoisan
May 14
…EPA wanted to
ban alar

17. Introduction..1
…is alar really
poisoning
children?

18. …carcinogenic
apple

19. …more toxic
issue in apple
products

20. …apple is
the No. 1
contaminated
food

21. BACKGROUND

22. Introduction..1
 Issue: Spraying of Alar on Apples
 Consequences: creation of panic
among Americans
 Why: … People believe that
consuming apples treated with Alar
was the most potent causing cancer
substance

23. Introduction…2
 Scenario: American public was
panic and got out of control
 Reactions: Schools removed
apples from menus. Parents poured
apple products down sink drains.
Stores pulled apples out from
shelves. Apple industries stopped
using Alar-treated apples

24. Introduction…2

25. Introduction…2
Apple sauceApple pie

26. Introduction…2
Apple custardApple juice

27. Introduction…2
Apple sauceApple pie

28. Introduction…2
 Scenario: American public got
panic and out of control
 Reactions: Schools removed
apples from menus. Parents poured
apple products down sink drains.
Stores pulled apples out from
shelves. Apple industries stopped
using Alar-treated apples

29. Introduction…2
 Scenario: American public got
panic and out of control
 Reactions: Schools removed
apples from menus. Parents poured
apple products down sink drains.
Stores pulled apples out from
shelves. Apple industries stopped
using Alar-treated apples

30. Introduction…2
 Scenario: American public got
panic and out of control
 Reactions: Schools removed
apples from menus. Parents poured
apple products down sink drains.
Stores pulled apples out from
shelves. Apple industries stopped
using Alar-treated apples

31. Introdction…3
 Trademark name: Alar®
 Common name: Daminozide
 Chemical names: N-
dimethylaminosuccinamic acid, succinic
acid 2,2-dimethylhydrazide, and
butanedioic acid mono (2,2-dimethyl-
hydrazide)
 Other trade names: Kylar, SADH, B-nine,
B-995, and Aminocide
 Group: growth regulator, pesticide

32. Advantages of Alar®
 … delay ripening on fruits
 … attain a better deeper red color, and
a firmer texture
 …prevent premature dropping, thus
provides apple growers a better yield of
a uniform crop
 …enable entire orchard be harvested
just once, instead of periodically over 6
weeks
 … uniformly apple shapes can extend
the usual six- to eight-month shelf life or
more

33. Disadvantages of Alar®
 Alar is absorbed through leaves,
roots, and stems.
 It is translocated and accumulated in
roots, fruits, and elsewhere.
 Alar penetrates the apples’ pulp and
cannot be washed, cooked or peeled
off. Thus, chemical is consumed as
we eat apples.

34. Apples
 The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) officials said Alar® is
used majority on red apples (like
McIntosh, Cortland, Jonathan, and
Red Delicious)
 Alar is not used on green apples,
like Granny Smith variety, although
it is used on Golden Delicious
apples

35. Apple
s
McIntosh Cortland

36. Apples
Jonathan Red Delicious

37. Apple
s
Granny Smith Golden Delicious

38. RESEARCHES

39. Methodology
 1. Reviewing newspapers, journal
articles, reports, and internet. Journals
and newspapers published more than
300 articles. The internet listed more
than 600 sources. All sources were on
Alar related issue!
 2. Requiring information, printed data,
plus telephone interviews from the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago Branch, USA.

40. Methodology
 3. Questionnaire survey to Baptist
Student Center (BSC) residents,
Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, USA, and
 4. Opinionnaire-telephone interview to
selected apple orchard owners in
Carbondale and Murphysboro, Illinois.

41. FINDINGS

42. Results
Results are categorized into four
aspects:
 1a. Journals + newspapers provided
information, facts, toxicological
tests, and public concerns on Alar.
 1b. Internet listed more than 600
references. All sources were on
Alar related issue!

43. Results
 2. Conducted studies by Carson’s
(1964), Oser (1966), Toth (1970, 1973, &
1977), National Cancer Institute (1978,
1979), Lapsley (1985), and
Environmental Working Group (1998)
served as toxicological basis, indicated
that Alar broke down into UDMH.
 Samples found to develop several kinds
of cancer (kidney, liver, blood vessels,
uterine, and blood vessels).

44. Results
 3. EPA Chicago, Illinois provided printed
materials on Alar.
 An environmental group (1989) claimed
that children face a massive health
problems from pesticide residues in food
which caused cancer and nerve damage.
 They charged EPA failed to responsible
on the exposure tolerance levels of
children and infants.

45. Results
 Forefront in the public’s eye is the
issue of Alar on apples.
 The EPA said effects on humans
consuming fruits treated with Alar
were unknown.
 The toxicity studies were conducted
using animals because to
administer such chemical tests to
human, it is illegal.

46. Results
4. Results on the use of Alar on
apples from 150 questionnaire
surveys distributed to Baptist
Student Center residents, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale,
Illinois can be summarized as
follow:
A. Majority of them were not certain if
Alar was a health risk. They
wanted more evidence in deciding
about the safety use of Alar on
apples;

47. Results
B. They were not sure the laboratory
tests using animals were
consistent. They needed more
knowledge and convinced data
about the certainty in laboratory
tests for humans;

48. Results
C. A high percentage of BSC
residents concerned about
chemicals on their food. Yet, they
lacked certainty whether or not
Alar to be banned. They seemed to
lack of knowledge about Alar on
apples; and

49. Results
D. The BSC residents were not sure
whether or not to ban Alar because
EPA had not decided to ban Alar.
If Alar was banned, it was due to
the tremendous influence of the
media like newspapers, journals,
and TV shows.

50. Yes No Uncertain
Fig 1: The BSC Residents’ Opinions Toward the Use of Alar on Apples
15.5
11.4
14.1
31.3
14.1
15.2
15.3
24.9
70.4
73.4
70.6
43.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Health risk Data reliable Concerned on
chemical
Banned Alar
PERCENT(%)

51. Results
Summary of the four orchard apple
owner opinions are as follows:
1. The Grammers Orchards used Alar
but discontinued in 1990. The
owner disagreed to ban Alar
because it used mainly in banana,
not on apples. The discontinuation
was due to the public displayed of
an uneased and concerned on
economic reason;

52. Results
2. The Flamms Orchards
discontinued using Alar many
years due to the scare that people
did not buy their apples. The
Company experienced the
decrease in purchasing of apples
from public due to the Alar issue;

53. Results
3. The Eckert Orchards discontinued
using Alar many years due to public
fear.
The manager said, “Alar was good
because it increased shelf life,
provided apples with pretty color,
and a firmer texture. But, due to the
public concern and to maintain
economy and security of the
orchards, the use of Alar on apples
was discontinued”; and

54. Results
4. The Minton Produce manager
disagreed to ban Alar.
He said, “The sign of not applying
Alar on apples was just gimmick.
Alar did not pose danger to people.
A person must consume 70,000 lbs
apples treated with Alar everyday
to be at risk of cancer. We
discontinued using Alar on our
orchard because we concerned on
our economic”.

55. CONCLUSION

56. Conclusions
Several conclusions are made:
1. The 1964, 1966, 1970, 1973,
1977, 1978, 1979, 1985, & 1998
experiments using animal samples
did not reflects exactly to human
beings. The doses applied to the
samples might also have different
impacts if applied to humans.

57. Conclusions
2. EPA did not confirm to ban Alar
on apples. Data from experiments
and tests did not convince public
… the use of Alar on apples was
definitely dangerous or caused
severe illnesses, not to mention
about cancers.

58. Conclusions
3. Baptist Student Center residents
said, “They lacked of knowledge on
Alar ... not certain whether or not
to ban Alar, even though they
concerned about chemicals in their
foods. EPA had not decided in
banning of Alar. The influence on
the banning was due to the media.”

59. Conclusions
4. Apple orchard owners interviewed
had mixed opinions. Majority were
not aware if using Alar posed
dangers. They concerned about
public views but at the same time
they needed to maintain economy
and security of the orchards. Thus,
they decided to discontinue using
Alar.

60. THANK
YOU