EPA Sweet on Atrazine

[Guest guest]

" PANUPS: EPA Sweet on Atrazine "

<panups

 

 

PANUPS: EPA Sweet on Atrazine

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:21:28 -0800

 

===========================================

P A N U P S

Pesticide Action Network Updates Service

===========================================

 

EPA Sweet on Atrazine

March 31, 2005

 

As the spring herbicide application season gets underway, more calls

are heard to limit atrazine, the most widely used agricultural chemical

in the U.S. and a nearly ubiquitous contaminant of surface and ground

water. Legislation to ban the herbicide was introduced in Minnesota for

the second year in a row, and regulators in Australia are reconsidering

approval of the herbicide. Meanwhile, on February 17, 2005 the Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for holding upwards of 40 private

meetings with atrazine's manufacturer, Syngenta, while the agency was

conducting a special review of the herbicide to consider its impacts on

amphibians and links to cancer in humans. That review resulted in EPA

approving continued use of the herbicide in 2003.

 

The European Union has banned atrazine due to ground water

contamination, and Syngenta has made alternative products available in

some

nations. In 2002 the herbicide was listed by the UN Environmental

Programme as

a globally important persistent toxic substance with the potential for

regional transport. Measurable levels of the herbicide have been found

in rain and fog in Europe as well as in the U.S., where atrazine has

been detected at levels higher than EPA's safety standard in the drinking

water serving more than a million U.S. residents.

 

In Minnesota, where the herbicide is applied to 45% of the state's corn

acreage, data on surface water monitoring from the Minnesota Department

of Agriculture (MDA) report atrazine in all regularly sampled rivers,

with contamination in some rivers at levels presenting clear health

risks to pregnant women and children. MDA sampling during spring and

early

summer rainy seasons for example, revealed atrazine in the Whitewater

River ranging from 1.8 to 15.1 parts per billion (ppb) between 2001 and

2003, and measured levels in one season as high as 32 ppb. The EPA

drinking water standard is 3ppb and the California standard for drinking

water is 1ppb.

 

Two weeks ago the Minnesota House Agriculture and Rural Development

committee rejected two bills banning atrazine, but supporters say they

plan to re-introduce language phasing out the herbicide. The committee

has

not yet voted on a " Citizens Right to Know " bill that would allow

citizen access to pesticide application data. Jannette Brimmer of the

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy highlighted the importance

of the

right to know legislation, " At a time when we are learning of

chemically-castrated and hermaphroditic frogs, fish and birds, it is

unacceptable that we currently have no way of accurately determining

where, how

much and what kinds of pesticides are being applied in Minnesota. "

 

In a recent article in BioScience, Dr. Tyrone Hayes, author of studies

indicating that low levels of atrazine affect sexual development in

frogs, analyzed several Syngenta-funded studies widely reported to

dispute

the results of his extensive laboratory and field research. In the

article Hayes dryly notes that " data presented in these studies are

not in

disagreement with my laboratory's peer-reviewed, published data " and

points to careless animal husbandry practices and contaminated reference

sites that produced data inappropriate for comparison with his

published data.

 

In 2002, Dr. Hayes reported chemical castration (demasculization) and

feminization of frogs at low but ecologically relevant concentrations of

atrazine. This study, published in a peer reviewed scientific journal,

was not the first performed by Hayes revealing atrazine's effects.

Earlier work done by Hayes and his laboratory with funding from Syngenta

was disputed by the agro-chemical giant and not published. Hayes

duplicated his work independently, examining leopard frogs (Rana pipiens)

across a transect of the U.S. extending from Utah to the Iowa/Illinois

border, and detecting frog abnormalities similar to those found in his

laboratory in every site where atrazine levels were over 0.1ppb. When

Hayes'

work was published, EPA was midway through a special review of

atrazine. Syngenta continued to dispute Hayes' findings while also

offering him

two million dollars to continue his research in " a private setting. "

 

In October of 2003 EPA ended its special review and allowed continued

use of atrazine. Instead of addressing the water contamination issues,

EPA developed an agreement with Syngenta to conduct a monitoring program

in 40 watersheds, fewer than 4 percent of the 1,000 streams identified

by the EPA as being at highest risk for atrazine contamination. Under

this deal, Syngenta would then determine the effects and mitigation

needed for the herbicide's continued use.

 

EPA also reversed an earlier finding and concluded that atrazine was

not likely to cause cancer in humans, despite the fact that atrazine has

been strongly implicated as a human carcinogen. A number of studies

have connected farmworker exposures with increased risk of prostate

cancer, and atrazine water contamination with increased risk of breast

cancer.

 

NRDC's recent legal challenge to EPA bears a remarkable resemblance to

a similar lawsuit filed more than 20 years ago by the environmental

organization, also charging EPA with making sweet deals with industry. As

that case progressed, EPA Administrator Ann Gorsuch resigned amid

allegations of improper industry influence, and the agency agreed to a

strict criteria of open and transparent decision making around the

re-registration or " special review " of pesticides. Those restrictions

forbade

EPA to make a final decision based on negotiations with industry and

required a balance of perspectives in committees of outside advisors. The

NRDC lawsuit charges that EPA has ignored these regulations in its

regulation of atrazine.

 

Sources: Tyrone B. Hayes, " There is No Denying This: Defusing the

Confusion about Atrazine, " Bioscience, December 2004, Vol. 54, No. 12, pp

1138-1149; Pesticide Monitoring in Water Resources: Annual Data Report,

February 24, 2005,

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/appd/ace/reports/2005annual.pdf; Press

Release, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy,

http://www.mncenter.org; Press Release, Feb 17, 2005, NRDC,

http://www.nrdc.org.

Contact: PANNA.

 

 

 

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and

reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the

mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North

America, a

non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance

sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

 

You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and

all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit

http://www.panna.org/donate.

 

=========================