Volume 11, Number 1, February 2000
In This Issue
A Harvard University analysis of new federal food safety regulations shows that unintended impacts of the rules could be more harmful to public health than the compounds they attempt to regulate. According to the Harvard analysis, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed to consider or evaluate countervailing health risks associated with the agency's regulatory implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. For example, a ban on all organophosphate and carbamate pesticides could actually result in the premature deaths of up to 1,000 Americans annually. The Harvard analysis "raises numerous questions regarding the EPA's attempt to limit the use of products vital to producing food for Americans," according to American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean Kleckner. Drs. George Gray and James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and the Harvard School of Public Health conducted the AFBF-supported analysis.
According to the Harvard analysis, food safety risks are "small or nonexistent" for the two classes of pesticides—organophosphates and carbamates—that EPA first targeted for review under the 1996 FQPA. "It is impossible to link consumer exposure (from the two groups of pesticides) to any specific harm," the analysis states. "Any benefit that might come from preventing farmers from using these products will be partially or totally offset by risks induced by (their) ban." The Harvard analysis predicts that a ban on the two pesticide classes alone would cause up to 1,000 premature deaths annually due to related decreases in disposable incomes.
Another key point identified by the analysis is the EPA's failure to consider resulting dietary changes due to higher prices for many crops. Consumption of many nutrients known to fight disease or promote health will decrease. Some minority groups who already have lower-than-recommended intake levels of many nutrients would be especially affected, according to the Harvard researchers. The potential risks of substitute pesticides, the increased use of pest-resistant crop varieties and natural increases in plant toxins also would offset and possibly outweigh any benefits from a ban on organophosphates and carbamates, the analysis says.
Overall, the Harvard analysis states the EPA "is not paying enough attention to public health side effects" or countervailing risks associated with disease control, pest resistance, and other factors when reassessing pesticides under the new law. "Necessary steps to sound management of pesticide risks and benefits include development of better data on actual pesticide residues and consumer food consumption patterns, improved understanding of pesticide risks to farm workers, and use of scientifically appropriate, rather than worst-case methods of risk assessment," the Harvard analysis states.
Many members of Congress agree that EPA must do a better job of carrying out the nation's food safety law, according to Kleckner. Farm Bureau is supporting two bipartisan legislative initiatives to ensure proper FQPA implementation. In the House, the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 (H.R. 1592) has nearly 200 co-sponsors, and in the Senate, the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act of 1999 (S. 1462) has nearly 30 co-sponsors. "This legislation will force the Environmental Protection Agency to use sound science and real-world data when evaluating pesticides, instead of the guesses and estimates the agency is now using," Kleckner said. "As we can see by the Harvard analysis, a law passed to make our nation's food even safer could do just the opposite. We urge America's consumers to join America's farmers in demanding that the EPA do this job right."
Source: American Farm Bureau Federation, News Release, November 22, 1999
The U.S. Department of Agriculture unveiled a new Internet Web page that provides easy public access to the department's vast amount of material on agricultural biotechnology issues.
"There is an incredible amount of information on biotechnology available through hundreds of sites on the Internet," said Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "By creating this central Web site, we're providing a starting point for the general public, media, industry, academia, and our international trading partners to access information about USDA's role in agricultural biotechnology."
Several USDA agencies have a role in biotechnology issues. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service have regulatory functions involving biotechnology. The Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service conduct or fund agricultural biotechnology research. The Foreign Agricultural Service addresses trade issues related to biotechnology.
The site offers answers to some of the most frequently asked biotechnological questions along with recent speeches by Secretary Glickman on agricultural biotechnology. The site also includes pages on biotechnology and trade, regulations, and research. It will be updated regularly as new reports and information are released by USDA. Links to many of the other government agencies involved in biotechnology are provided.
The biotechnology Web site is at: www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, News Release, October 29, 1999
EPA has announced new measures for resistance management in Bt corn. The additional measures to fully manage insect resistance for the 2000 growing season include:
The industry has agreed to the agency's conditions. For more information on EPA's biotechnology regulatory program for plant pesticides, see: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Program Update, January 14, 2000
A growing global controversy over genetically modified crops has quickly escalated from talk to midnight raids in the fields. The attacks on experimental agricultural plots at the University of California, Davis, are the latest in a campaign of vandalism that has swept from Europe to the East Coast and now to UC research fields in Davis and Berkeley. By resorting to criminal tactics, the self-proclaimed protectors of the seeds do their cause more harm than good.
A biotechnology revolution is sweeping through agriculture, the result of science's new-found ability both to identify the genes that control particular characteristics of organisms and to transfer them to other species. As with any economic revolution, the one in agriculture can be as unsettling as it is thrilling. Already the new technology has yielded dozens of new crop varieties offering resistance to diseases and insects and the ability to withstand broad-spectrum herbicides. But it has raised other issues and engendered fears—about food safety, ecology, and farm economics.
These issues aren't new. Humans have been fiddling with the genetic endowment of plants and animals since the dawn of civilization. Almost everything we plant, raise, and eat is the product of biotechnology of various kinds, some as ancient as selective crossbreeding, some as recent as gene-splicing. But the new technology has moved at a pace faster than many ordinary people are prepared to assimilate. Hence the widespread protests against genetically modified foods in Europe and the Luddite violence against research at U.S. universities.
But vandals in the fields offer no better response to the changes of a biotechnology revolution than did the weavers who smashed machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The advances of biotechnology hold too much promise—for example, researchers are now studying ways to increase the Vitamin A and iron in rice to reduce the disease and malnutrition that plague hundreds of millions of people in Asia—to be derailed by blind spasms of violence. (In their zeal, the "guerrilla gardeners" in Davis managed to destroy experiments that did not involve genetic transfers.)
A technological revolution like this can't be kept on course by masked fools with scythes; it needs the attention of thoughtful citizens and careful regulation by government, the scrutiny of science and more public education to help citizens understand and weigh benefits and risks. Violent attacks on university experiments are blows not just against the law. They hit at the base of knowledge needed to keep biotechnology on a safe and humane track.
Source: Sacramento Bee, Editorial, September 27, 1999
The Wall Street Journal reported in its July 30, 1999, edition that Gerber, a leading maker of American baby food that produces 5.5 million jars per day and has annual worldwide sales of $1 billion, has bowed to pressure from Greenpeace. Gerber announced that it will bar genetically modified crops from its products and shift to organically grown crops, accepting only corn and soy flour products grown without any pesticides or chemical fertilizers. It promised to try to use only organic, pesticide-free ingredients in Gerber products.
What made this surprising is that Gerber is a subsidiary of the Swiss firm Novartis, one of the world's major producers of pesticides and genetically engineered crops. Gerber stated that its decision was not an admission of any dangers lurking in its baby food from pesticides or bioengineering. Scientific reality says these foods are safe.
Two other baby food makers, H. J. Heinz Company and Healthy Time Natural Foods, have now followed suit and made similar changes in their product lines as well.
Source: Chemically Speaking, University of Florida, September 1999
Novartis and AstraZeneca announced December 1, 1999, that they would spin off and then merge their agricultural units, creating Sygenta, the largest manufacturer in crop protection and the number three player in seed production. The two corporate pieces will come together in Basel, Switzerland, where Novartis is based, under the name Sygenta. The two units had combined sales of $7.9 billion in 1998; analysts speculate that that number could climb to $8 billion next year. The deal is valued at $15 billion, according to most estimates. Novartis would keep its animal health business. But questions lingered about AstraZeneca's percent holdings in Adventa, a seed maker, which was not part of the merger. "They haven't brought it in yet, but they're looking to," said Mark Purcell, an analyst at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. "That would put them on par with Monsanto in terms of sales."
Source: New York Times, December 3, 1999, in The Label, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Volume 11, Number 12, December 1999
Pesticide-contaminated soil from bygone agricultural operations has been discovered at the first subdivision in North Carolina—and perhaps the entire country—and is being scraped from 27 homeowners's yards and replaced with clean fill. The U.S. EPA is supervising the cleanup in western North Carolina at Barber Orchard subdivision in Saunook. It may declare the subdivision a Superfund site. Federal officials also have approved $500,000 to clean up contaminated groundwater and drinking wells. In the meantime, residents have been urged not to drink their well water or touch the soil in their yards. As new housing developments take over what once were farm fields and orchards, the problems facing Barber Orchard are expected to become increasingly common. But many states, including North Carolina, don't require developers to test soil and water for contaminants before they begin building.
Source: The Associated Press, November 29, 1999
A car's air filter is a simple device, usually just a ring of paper through which all of the air entering the engine must pass. Scientists at Ohio State University have studied what amounts to a similar filter for farmland. But it is one that treats exiting, not entering, air, and is made not of paper but of evergreen trees. The scientists studied how effective rows of evergreens were in reducing the movement of pesticides beyond fields where they were sprayed. Using droplets of dye in wind tunnel experiments, they found that pine trees and other evergreens collected two to four times more droplets than deciduous trees like maples. Evergreen needles, the researchers noted, have more surface area than flat leaves and create swirling air patterns that lead to more droplets' being deposited. (Evergreens have another advantage as well; they never lose all their needles.) The researchers, who plan to build a longer wind tunnel for more studies, suggest that windbreaks made of evergreens could be useful in limiting the drift of pesticides from agricultural land.
Source: The New York Times, November 23, 1999
On January 12, 2000, the U.S. EPA published the Telone Position Document 2 (PD 2) (Federal Register Volume 65, No. 8, Pages 1869-1887). This PD2 proposes to close out the special review for Telone (also known as 1-3 dichloropropene or 1,3-D) without any further regulatory action. Since the initiation of the special review in 1986, based on cancer concerns for workers, the Telone registrant, Dow AgroSciences, has submitted additional worker exposure and air and water monitoring studies and implemented a range of measures to mitigate risks to workers and to residents in areas where Telone is applied. Mitigation measures include:
Based on EPA's conclusions from new data and the addition of these mitigation measures, EPA has concluded that the use of Telone will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or the environment and that all labeled uses are eligible for reregistration. The Telone Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document was published in December 1998. As the agency's risk concerns have been addressed through a series of label amendments, product stewardship, and ongoing monitoring, the agency is proposing that the Telone Special Review be terminated. The Agency's PD 2 provides a 60-day comment period on the proposed termination of the special review. Comments must be received by March 13, 2000, identified by docket number OPP-30000/51A. The Federal Register notice is available on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Technical support documents will be available in the Telone special review docket (703-305- 5805). The RED is available at: http://www.epa.gov/REDs/. For more information, contact Phil Budig at 703-308-8029 or via e-mail at: budig.philip@epa.gov.
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Program Update, January 13, 2000
The U.S. EPA has released its biennial pesticide usage report, "Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage" 1996-1997 Market Estimates." This publication gives estimates based on available information taken from agency records, U.S. Department of Agriculture surveys of pesticide usage, and other public and proprietary sources. The report indicates a continuation of recent trends in pesticide use in 1996 and 1997. The overall total U.S. use for all types of pesticide active ingredients is about 4.6 billion pounds per year. Agricultural use accounted for slightly more than three-fourths of the total of 1.23 billion pounds of conventional pesticides (including sulfur and petroleum products) in 1997. The remaining nearly one-fourth of conventional pesticide use is split about evenly between applications by homeowners (11 percent) and professional applications in non-agriculture sectors (12 percent). The report contains estimates of use in 1997 for other types of pesticide active ingredients as follows: 0.66 billion pounds for wood preservatives, 0.27 billion pounds for specialty biocides (for water treatment, disinfection, sanitizers, etc.), and nearly 2.5 billion pounds for chlorine/hypochlorites (used for various disinfectant and water treatment uses). To obtain a copy of the report, call or write: U.S. EPA, NCEPI, P. O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419; telephone 513-489-8190. The report is available on the agency's home page at: http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales.
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 6, 2000
The U.S. EPA has released its biennial pesticide report, which provides an overview of the initiatives and accomplishments achieved during 1998 and 1999 in implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). These statutes, in part, are designed for environmental protection and assurance of a safe and healthy food supply. EPA met the FQPA requirement to reassess 33 percent of the pesticide tolerances by August 3, 1999, and took action to reduce the risks of two organophosphate pesticides with emphasis on lowering the risks posed to children. EPA established the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee, a stakeholder forum, which, among other things, assisted in identifying key science policies to better implement the law and counseled the agency in establishing the organophosphate pesticide tolerance reassessment process. The report includes the number of reduced-risk registrations, the reduction in backlog of antimicrobial registrations, new strides in worker protection programs, and the completion of 27 Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents that established significant risk reduction requirements for older pesticides. The report will be available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 3, 2000
Signed by President Clinton, the FY2000 USDA budget includes $5 million for two new programs supported by the Office of Pest Management Policy: $1 million for the Crops at Risk (CAR) program and $4 million for the Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP). Both pertain to implementation of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, and both will be administered through the budget's new "Integrated Activities" fund. Allocations from this fund may be made only via competitive grants, as provided by Section 406 of the 1998 Agriculture, Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act.
The national Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP), as well as the Food Safety and Water Quality Programs, were shifted to the Integrated Activities account. So future funding for these programs must be sought through competitive grants; however, upstart on the request-for-proposals (RFP) process may take many months.
At USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy, PIAP personnel have been essential partners in the USDA review of EPA pesticide risk assessments and in the development of crop profiles and commodity transition plans. The department remains committed to continuing these activities. OPMP and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service are working on options to maintain the PIAP network during the conversion to competitive grants funding.
FY2000 funding remained level for IPM, IR_4 (minor crops), and the Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP). The Pesticide Data Program received $1.487 million and $911,000 more for FQPA support and water sampling, respectively. The National Agricultural Statistics Service received new allocations of $2.5 million, $800,000, and $250,000 for fruit and vegetable surveys, a nursery crop survey, and a new Puerto Rico office, respectively. For new FQPA implementation activities, the Agricultural Research Service received $250,000. Below is a recap of the CAR and RAMP programs:
Source: OPMP Monthly, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Pest Management Policy, October 1999
As a result of a severe fish kill on the Little Ten Mile Creek in Washington County, Pennsylvania, in December 1997, Terminix International Company has agreed to pay penalties of $225,000 and change its termite-treatment procedures in the state. Terminix applied pesticides to a private residence located 75 feet from a stream flowing into Little Ten Mile and Ten Mile creeks. Thousands of fish and aquatic invertebrates died the next day as a result.
Terminix used conventional treatment methods, which involved drilling holes into the basement concrete floor and injecting termiticide into the soil below the floor. Gray-water pipes beneath and around the house carried the termiticide to the stream. According to James Seif, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, "Many homes have French drains, stormwater drains, and underground piping that form pathways for pollutants to enter streams and wells. In this case, Terminix did not evaluate the house and its water pathways thoroughly enough to avoid contamination."
Under a settlement agreement, Terminix will follow new pollution-prevention practices that exceed the minimum procedures provided on the product labels. The company will not use conventional liquid treatments at structures within 200 feet of a stream, pond, or lake; at any structure where foundation drains end within 150 feet of a waterway; or for any structure within 100 feet of a well. Terminix technicians will also conduct detailed inspections of prospective treatment sites to determine if pathways exist for termiticides to pollute waterways. Finally, the company will store and transport pesticide chemicals in a manner that will reduce accidental spills and releases and upgrade their procedures to respond to spills should they occur.
Source: Pesticide Report, Darcy Publications, Volume 3, Number 6, August 30, 1999
Oregon has become the third state (along with California and New York) to require tracking of agricultural and commercial pesticide use. The new law will require exterminators, farmers, and other commercial pesticide users to report the product, amount, location, and date of application. The Oregon Department of Agriculture will have to determine how the new law should be implemented. Data collection will begin in 2002.
Source: Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, September 2, 1999, in The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter, Volume 22, Number 11, November 1999
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or handicap. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
Last modified on March 7, 2000 by Stephen J. Toth, Jr.