Pesticide safety, labelling policy slammed
9,000 EPA Scientists Call for an End to Compromising Safety
14.08.2006 |Helen Lynn
Unions Say E.P.A. Bends to Political Pressure - New York Times, August 2, 2006
9,000 EPA Scientists Call for an End to Compromising Safety: Mandate to
Protect Human Health and the Environment Threatened - Pesticide Action
Network North America, July 26, 2006
States to EPA: Label All Hazards in Pesticides - Associated Press, August
1, 2006
Unions Say E.P.A. Bends to Political Pressure
By Michael Janofsky
New York Times
August 2, 2006
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 ˇ Unions representing thousands of staff scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency say the agency is bending to political pressure and ignoring sound science in allowing a group of toxic chemicals to be used in agricultural pesticides.
Leaders of several federal employee unions say the chemicals pose serious risks for fetuses, pregnant women, young children and the elderly through food and exposure and should not be approved by Thursday, the Congressional deadline for completing an agency review of thousands of substances in pesticides.
"We are concerned that the agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn conclusions" about the chemicals, union leaders told the agency administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, in a newly disclosed letter sent May 25.
The leaders also wrote that they believed that under priorities of E.P.A. management, "the concerns of agriculture and the pesticide industry come before our responsibility to protect the health of our nation’s citizens."
Nine union leaders representing 9,000 agency scientists and other personnel around the country signed the letter. It was given to The New York Times on Tuesday by environmental advocacy organizations working on their behalf in the hope that it would arouse public outcry and increase pressure on the agency to withdraw the chemicals from use.
The chemicals at issue are organophosphates and carbamates, long a matter of controversy over their environmental and health risks. They are in such pesticides as chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion and diazinon.
The advocacy organizations that released the letter, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Pesticide Action Network, also provided the agency’s response, on June 27, from Susan B. Hazen, acting assistant administrator. Ms. Hazen assured the scientists that her agency was applying proper scientific review for the use of all chemicals in pesticides.
Ms. Hazen did not deny the accusation that industry positions were taken into account. She welcomed information "from all interested parties," she said.
In an interview on Tuesday, Jim Jones, director of the E.P.A.’s pesticide office, described the scientists’ accusations as inaccurate, saying the agency examines the effects of various chemicals and adjusts recommendations for public use according to what the science dictates.
Risk assessments of the pesticides cited in the unions’ letter, Mr. Jones said, have been "aggressively regulated" through steady reviews of their use over the last six years.
The complaints from agency employees are the latest to come from within federal agencies that accuse the Bush administration of allowing politics or industry pressure to trump science on issues like climate change and stem cell research.
In this case, they also echo concerns raised by the E.P.A. inspector general in January in a report that suggested the agency had not done enough to protect children from exposure to pesticides, which can affect the development of the brain and the nervous system. That investigation was prompted, in part, by published reports of a Florida program in which parents would be paid for letting their children participate in an effort measuring the effects of pesticides in the home. The program was quickly shut down.
The inspector general’s report fueled a growing desire among union leaders to take a more active role in shedding light on what they say is a flawed system.
"More and more, the unions are coming together to confront the agency’s unwillingness to make the appropriate use of science to show risks to public health and the environment," said William Hirzy, a senior scientist at the environmental agency and a union official.
Despite the agency’s insistence that pesticide regulations follow scientific guidelines, several agency scientists said industry determined how chemicals were regulated.
"It’s how the game is played," said an E.P.A. specialist involved in the pesticide program who spoke on the condition of anonymity because, he said, critics within the agency often lose choice assignments.
"You go to a meeting, and word comes down that this is an important chemical, this is one we’ve got to save," he said. "It’s all informal, of course. But it suggests that industry interests are governing the decisions of E.P.A. management. The pesticide program functions as a
governmental cover for what is effectively a private industry licensing program."
Another senior E.P.A. scientist who also spoke on condition of anonymity said the agency often ignored independent scientific studies that contradicted the industry-subsidized study that supported many regulations on pesticides.
She cited a North Carolina researcher who found that chlorpyrifos might have a more damaging effect on developing brains than other studies. "What we heard back from headquarters was, ‘No, he’s wrong,’ " the scientist said.
"Chemicals like these can be harmful to children in ways we don’t understand yet,’’ the scientist said. "If there is disagreement, doesn’t that cry out for further research?"
Mr. Jones said the agency had addressed chlorpyrifos in complying with a 10-year Congressional mandate to review 9,741 pesticide ingredients by Thursday.
Work has been completed on 9,637 of them, or 99 percent, he said, and "all are protective of children."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
9,000 EPA Scientists Call for an End to Compromising Safety: Mandate to Protect Human Health and the Environment Threatened
Pesticide Action Network North America
July 26, 2006
Source: Yubanet
In 1996, under the Food Quality Protection Act, Congress gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 10 years to complete its assessment of the health impacts of hundreds of pesticides being used in homes, gardens and agriculture. The most acutely hazardous neurotoxic pesticides the organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates ˇ were the first group to be evaluated under EPA's review process.
August 3, 2006 marks the end of that 10-year period. Although the EPA apparently plans to have its review of OPs and most of the carbamates complete by that date, thousands of scientists within the Agency have expressed serious concern that the evaluations are incomplete and that the EPA is threatening to allow the continued use of toxic pesticides despite ample information showing that they are too hazardous to be used safely.
Scientists at the EPA, along with public health and environmental advocacy groups, are calling for the EPA to refuse approval of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. Pesticide Action Network North America is asking the public to send comments before August 3rd to the EPA to stop the registration of several OP and carbamate pesticides. (http://ga4.org/campaign/revokeOPs>http://ga4.org/campaign/revokeOPs)
Toxic Pesticides Harm Human Health
Organophosphates and carbamates are highly toxic classes of pesticides used to kill insects. OPs are linked to ill health effects, such as cancer, neurological problems (including Parkinson's Disease), respiratory illness, and developmental problems. Not only are farmers and farm workers adversely affected but well-documented evidence now shows that children and families living near agricultural areas may suffer serious short and long term health problems from OP exposure. Symptoms of low-dose exposure to these pesticides may include headaches, agitation, inability to concentrate, weakness, tiredness, nausea, diarrhea and blurred vision. At higher doses, abdominal cramps, vomiting, sweating, tearing, muscular tremors, low blood pressure, and slow heartbeat and breathing may occur.
9,000 EPA Scientists Call for an End to Compromising Safety; Pesticide Cancellation Needed to Protect Born and Unborn Children. In May 2006, unions representing more than 9,000 EPA scientists made public their serious concerns that pressure from pesticide manufacturers is directly responsible for EPA administrators' actions to compromise the Agency's regulatory responsibilities. The scientists assert that it is a "perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the Agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the Food Quality Protection Act."
PANNA joins EPA staff scientists and advocacy groups in calling for an overhaul of an EPA regulatory process that has been corrupted by individuals on staff of EPA working in collusion with the pesticide/chemical industries to blatantly dismiss appropriate precaution and push forward policy that is harmful to public health.
The scientists also call for the EPA to immediately pull OPs and carbamates from the market. The May 24, 2006 letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson states, "Until EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not hurt the neurological development of our nation's born and unborn children, there is no justification to continue the registration of the use of the remaining OP and carbamate pesticides."
EPA scientists feel strongly that substantial data gaps remain leading to underestimates of risks, especially neurotoxicity. In addition, they stated: "EPA's risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development."
States to EPA: Label All Hazards in Pesticides
By Michael Gormley Associated Press, August 1, 2006
Source <>http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/08/01/states_to_epa_label_all_hazards_in_pesticides/
ALBANY, N.Y. --Fourteen states including Connecticut moved on Tuesday to force the Bush administration to require manufacturers to disclose even "inert" ingredients that the state officials say pose an undisclosed health hazard in pesticides.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency requires "active" toxic ingredients that kill insects and weeds to be listed on labels now. Inert ingredients make the active chemicals more effective.
"There is no logical reason for EPA to mandate disclosure of those ingredients that harm pests, but exempt from disclosure other ingredients that cause serious health and environmental problems," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who has taken the lead for the states asking the EPA to expand the labeling requirement.
"The EPA is inexplicably misleading the public," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who like Spitzer is a Democrat.
Inert ingredients make up as much as 99 percent of a pesticide, the state officials said. Inert ingredients are known or suspected causes of cancer, nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects as well as environmental damage.
"The word `inert' doesn't necessarily mean `safe,'" said Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch.
"The EPA has a duty to protect our health and the environment by requiring manufacturers to list these ingredients," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
EPA press secretary Jennifer Wood said the agency has fulfilled its duty to provide safe and clear labeling.
"Through testing, regulation and labeling, EPA ensures that products, which include both active and inert ingredients, are safe for the public and the environment," Wood said in a written statement.
The EPA's pesticide regulations require registration and approved labels on all pesticide products, she said. The EPA does not register pesticide without ensuring that it will not pose a risk when used according to its directions.
The formal request for requiring labeling changes -- which could precede a lawsuit -- is being sought by attorneys general from New York, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. The Virgin Islands also joined the action. The petition includes 40 pages of scientific data and legal precedent that the state officials say support their case. The petition gives the EPA 60 days to agree or to assess the chemicals.
"We received the petition today," Woods said. "We need to review it and we'll respond in an expeditious manner."
The state officials seek to have the inert chemicals listed with a caution that they "may pose a hazard to man or the environment."
They note that the EPA alone has the authority to force the change. The petition quotes a previous EPA statement that "a database that is inadequate to support risk assessment deprives people who are exposed to a chemical their right to know the hazards/risks that may be posed by that product."
The state officials argue the EPA already requires inert ingredients to be listed on nonprescription drugs, foods and cosmetics.
"We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by requiring these toxic substances to appear on product labels," said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
Spitzer spokeswoman Judith Enck said the EPA in 2002 decided to take no action on New York's request to detail inert ingredients. She said there have been numerous less formal efforts to persuade the EPA since 1998, but "there is a fundamental disagreement on policy. The proper procedure is to file a petition with the arguments," she said.
