A worried mother discovers the secrets of pesticide testing

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ilena!

http://grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/12/01/schulman/index.html

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/120205HB.shtml

Do It Yourself

A worried mother discovers the secrets of pesticide

testing

By Audrey Schulman

01 Dec 2005

Three years ago, while my extended family was

vacationing at my dad's cranberry farm, he mentioned

that one of his fields would be sprayed that evening.

There were five children under 10 in the house, and I

was eight months pregnant. The field was 100 feet

away. I asked my dad about the pesticides, but he

said, " Don't worry. The government runs tests on the

chemicals. They make sure they're safe. "

The truth is plane to see.

Photo: iStockphoto.That night, through a closed

window, I watched the plane rumble low over the field,

the fog behind it drizzling softly to the ground.

Behind me, in the house, the kids laughed and called,

playing hide-and-seek. I started wondering about these

tests.

I decided to do a little research. According to the

U.S. EPA, about 5 billion pounds of pesticides were

used in the U.S. in 2001. And researchers estimate

only 1 to 2 percent of agricultural applications reach

their target pest. Not surprisingly, these toxins can

be found in almost every stream -- and in most

Americans' bloodstreams.

This country's heavy reliance on synthetic pesticides

is fairly new. We're still on a learning curve that

began in the 1940s. Around then, partially spurred on

by chemical-warfare research, the new industry began

to churn out products designed to kill everything from

fungi to rodents. Until the 1960s, these toxins were

tested mainly to make sure they were effective. But

since Silent Spring, people have become increasingly

wary about their health effects. Today, each new

active ingredient must pass more than 100 safety tests

to be legally registered. (Despite the fact that inert

ingredients, which can constitute up to 99.9 percent

of the total, can be just as toxic, tests are mandated

only for active ingredients.)

At the EPA website, I found a seemingly thorough list

of tests that examined chemicals' effects on birds,

mammals, fish, invertebrates, and plants. These tests

checked for storage stability, residue on food, soil

absorption, and short-term toxicity, as well as

carcinogenic effects, prenatal harm, and damage to

human fertility and genetic material. As I scanned the

categories, a knot of worry inside me began to relax.

Field of bad dreams.

Photo: iStockphoto.Until I learned all these

experiments are completed by the manufacturers.

I called EPA press officer Enesta , who said she

had no problem with manufacturers overseeing safety

experiments. Since the EPA is responsible for

pesticide registration, she explained, it conducts

compliance investigations, has developed strict

guidelines, and reviews all data to ensure its

integrity. (The agency's role does not include

enforcement of the tolerance levels it establishes, a

duty that falls to the Food and Drug Administration

and the Department of Agriculture.)

Now, I've always been impressed with science, which

seems to be one of the few fields that hasn't recently

suffered some large scandal. Good science is based on

transparency. Breakthroughs are reported in

peer-reviewed journals, and experiments can be

reenacted to verify the results. The openness of the

system creates a consensus that heads toward truth.

Unfortunately, pesticide-safety experimentation is not

transparent.

Although the analyses are performed by professional

scientists, the results are often reported only to the

EPA. They are rarely published in peer-reviewed

journals, and must often be requested through the

Freedom of Information Act, a process that can take

years.

In The Same Vein

Do You See What I See?

Photographer Laurie Tümer shows the hidden paths of

pesticidesTo get an idea of what's behind the curtain,

consider the findings of Tyrone . A professor of

developmental endocrinology at the University of

California-Berkeley, published an article in

BioScience (yes, it's peer-reviewed) in which he

compared several previous experiments performed by

others on the effect of atrazine on frogs' sexual

differentiation. Seven of the studies performed on

this popular corn pesticide were paid for by Syngenta,

the manufacturer; nine others were funded by

independent sources. Every one of the Syngenta-funded

studies concluded that atrazine did not affect

amphibian gonads, while all but one of the independent

studies found that the chemical did have an effect,

sometimes at the level of one-tenth part per billion

in water. That's a stunningly small amount -- about

the same as dropping one tablespoon in almost 40

million gallons.

The Syngenta studies didn't falsify data; they were

simply designed to find " no effect, " by exposing both

the control and experimental groups to enough atrazine

to affect their gonads. This type of testing isn't

criminal. It's just bad science.

And here's more: last year, Alan Lockwood, professor

of neurology and nuclear medicine at the State

University of New York at Buffalo, published an

analysis in the (peer-reviewed) American Journal of

Public Health of the pesticide tests on humans that he

could get access to through FOIA. In one, the consent

form implied that the pesticide -- a known neurotoxin

-- might make the subjects smarter. It didn't mention

the actual possibilities of vomiting, convulsions, or

death. In another, when four of six participants got

sick and had to drop out, the experimenters based

their positive results on the two remaining subjects.

Lockwood said all the studies had " serious ethical or

scientific deficiencies -- or both. "

Spend Your $.02

Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.The idea of

testing on human volunteers, halted in 1998, has

resurfaced thanks to industry pressure and a

" sympathetic ear " in the form of EPA administrator

. But the notion still has powerful

opponents -- 's confirmation was blocked until

he cancelled a plan to study pesticides' effects on

low-income children -- and controversy has surrounded

EPA's draft rules on such tests, released this fall. A

public-comment period on the rules ends Dec. 12.

The son I was pregnant with when the cranberry bog was

sprayed has developed slowly in different ways. He

started talking so late the state sent a speech

therapist over to tutor him. My older son, who was

also there, can't draw. He's 5 now and gets frustrated

trying to make even a stick figure. The one time he

tried to draw me, it looked like an amoeba with three

eyes.

Does this have to do with drifting pesticides? I can't

tell you. None of us will know for sure the effects of

these chemicals until there's good science involved --

science that isn't funded and reported by the very

people making the chemicals in the first place.

- - - - - - - - - -

Audrey Schulman is the author of the novels The Cage,

Swimming with Jonah, and A House Named Brazil.

[Guest guest]

great article. Thanks for sharing. I live by a farmfield that is

less than 100 feet away. It is scary that we live in such a toxin

filled world. OUr poor bodies need all the help they can get just

to detoxify this stuff.

kathy

>

> Thanks Ilena!

>

> http://grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/12/01/schulman/index.html

> http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/120205HB.shtml

>

> Do It Yourself

>

> A worried mother discovers the secrets of pesticide

> testing

> By Audrey Schulman

>

> 01 Dec 2005

>

> Three years ago, while my extended family was

> vacationing at my dad's cranberry farm, he mentioned

> that one of his fields would be sprayed that evening.

> There were five children under 10 in the house, and I

> was eight months pregnant. The field was 100 feet

> away. I asked my dad about the pesticides, but he

> said, " Don't worry. The government runs tests on the

> chemicals. They make sure they're safe. "

>

>

> The truth is plane to see.

> Photo: iStockphoto.That night, through a closed

> window, I watched the plane rumble low over the field,

> the fog behind it drizzling softly to the ground.

> Behind me, in the house, the kids laughed and called,

> playing hide-and-seek. I started wondering about these

> tests.

>

> I decided to do a little research. According to the

> U.S. EPA, about 5 billion pounds of pesticides were

> used in the U.S. in 2001. And researchers estimate

> only 1 to 2 percent of agricultural applications reach

> their target pest. Not surprisingly, these toxins can

> be found in almost every stream -- and in most

> Americans' bloodstreams.

>

> This country's heavy reliance on synthetic pesticides

> is fairly new. We're still on a learning curve that

> began in the 1940s. Around then, partially spurred on

> by chemical-warfare research, the new industry began

> to churn out products designed to kill everything from

> fungi to rodents. Until the 1960s, these toxins were

> tested mainly to make sure they were effective. But

> since Silent Spring, people have become increasingly

> wary about their health effects. Today, each new

> active ingredient must pass more than 100 safety tests

> to be legally registered. (Despite the fact that inert

> ingredients, which can constitute up to 99.9 percent

> of the total, can be just as toxic, tests are mandated

> only for active ingredients.)

>

> At the EPA website, I found a seemingly thorough list

> of tests that examined chemicals' effects on birds,

> mammals, fish, invertebrates, and plants. These tests

> checked for storage stability, residue on food, soil

> absorption, and short-term toxicity, as well as

> carcinogenic effects, prenatal harm, and damage to

> human fertility and genetic material. As I scanned the

> categories, a knot of worry inside me began to relax.

>

>

> Field of bad dreams.

> Photo: iStockphoto.Until I learned all these

> experiments are completed by the manufacturers.

>

> I called EPA press officer Enesta , who said she

> had no problem with manufacturers overseeing safety

> experiments. Since the EPA is responsible for

> pesticide registration, she explained, it conducts

> compliance investigations, has developed strict

> guidelines, and reviews all data to ensure its

> integrity. (The agency's role does not include

> enforcement of the tolerance levels it establishes, a

> duty that falls to the Food and Drug Administration

> and the Department of Agriculture.)

>

> Now, I've always been impressed with science, which

> seems to be one of the few fields that hasn't recently

> suffered some large scandal. Good science is based on

> transparency. Breakthroughs are reported in

> peer-reviewed journals, and experiments can be

> reenacted to verify the results. The openness of the

> system creates a consensus that heads toward truth.

>

> Unfortunately, pesticide-safety experimentation is not

> transparent.

>

> Although the analyses are performed by professional

> scientists, the results are often reported only to the

> EPA. They are rarely published in peer-reviewed

> journals, and must often be requested through the

> Freedom of Information Act, a process that can take

> years.

>

> In The Same Vein

> Do You See What I See?

> Photographer Laurie Tümer shows the hidden paths of

> pesticidesTo get an idea of what's behind the curtain,

> consider the findings of Tyrone . A professor of

> developmental endocrinology at the University of

> California-Berkeley, published an article in

> BioScience (yes, it's peer-reviewed) in which he

> compared several previous experiments performed by

> others on the effect of atrazine on frogs' sexual

> differentiation. Seven of the studies performed on

> this popular corn pesticide were paid for by Syngenta,

> the manufacturer; nine others were funded by

> independent sources. Every one of the Syngenta-funded

> studies concluded that atrazine did not affect

> amphibian gonads, while all but one of the independent

> studies found that the chemical did have an effect,

> sometimes at the level of one-tenth part per billion

> in water. That's a stunningly small amount -- about

> the same as dropping one tablespoon in almost 40

> million gallons.

>

> The Syngenta studies didn't falsify data; they were

> simply designed to find " no effect, " by exposing both

> the control and experimental groups to enough atrazine

> to affect their gonads. This type of testing isn't

> criminal. It's just bad science.

>

> And here's more: last year, Alan Lockwood, professor

> of neurology and nuclear medicine at the State

> University of New York at Buffalo, published an

> analysis in the (peer-reviewed) American Journal of

> Public Health of the pesticide tests on humans that he

> could get access to through FOIA. In one, the consent

> form implied that the pesticide -- a known neurotoxin

> -- might make the subjects smarter. It didn't mention

> the actual possibilities of vomiting, convulsions, or

> death. In another, when four of six participants got

> sick and had to drop out, the experimenters based

> their positive results on the two remaining subjects.

> Lockwood said all the studies had " serious ethical or

> scientific deficiencies -- or both. "

>

> Spend Your $.02

> Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.The idea of

> testing on human volunteers, halted in 1998, has

> resurfaced thanks to industry pressure and a

> " sympathetic ear " in the form of EPA administrator

> . But the notion still has powerful

> opponents -- 's confirmation was blocked until

> he cancelled a plan to study pesticides' effects on

> low-income children -- and controversy has surrounded

> EPA's draft rules on such tests, released this fall. A

> public-comment period on the rules ends Dec. 12.

>

> The son I was pregnant with when the cranberry bog was

> sprayed has developed slowly in different ways. He

> started talking so late the state sent a speech

> therapist over to tutor him. My older son, who was

> also there, can't draw. He's 5 now and gets frustrated

> trying to make even a stick figure. The one time he

> tried to draw me, it looked like an amoeba with three

> eyes.

>

> Does this have to do with drifting pesticides? I can't

> tell you. None of us will know for sure the effects of

> these chemicals until there's good science involved --

> science that isn't funded and reported by the very

> people making the chemicals in the first place.

>

>

> - - - - - - - - - -

>

> Audrey Schulman is the author of the novels The Cage,

> Swimming with Jonah, and A House Named Brazil.

>