workers laced with pesticides, and other relevant background

[Guest guest]

Important research and advocacy, well reported in THE OREGONIAN by farm labor specialist Pulaski. Really pertinent to all our work with farmworker patients, I think.

Tina

______________________________

Lawsuit says 2 pesticides are unsafe

Farm worker groups allege the EPA ignored risks posed by two chemicals commonly used in Oregon and Washington

01/14/04 The OregonianALEX PULASKI

Two widely used Northwest pesticides pose unreasonable health risks to farm workers, a lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges.

The suit, filed in federal court in Seattle by attorneys representing farm worker and environmental groups, claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored data and tilted its process to allow continued use of azinphos-methyl and phosmet.

The two bug-killers, known commonly by the trade names Guthion and Imidan, are among the most prevalent used on the $1.15 billion apple and pear crops grown in Washington and Oregon. Both insecticides help control codling moths, a pest whose reproductive cycle can fill an orchard with worthless, wormy fruit.

An EPA spokesman said Tuesday the agency would not comment on the lawsuit.

But fruit growers, who have experienced five years of immense market pressure from imported fruit and retailer consolidation, say further limits on the pesticides' use could cripple them.

Many growers have been successful cutting their pesticide use by instead using pheromones, the scent that female moths emit to attract mates. Twist ties release the synthesized pheromones, confusing the male moths and limiting reproduction.

But when a severe moth outbreak occurs or where orchards are clustered, farmers have continued to rely on Guthion and Imidan as quick and potent solutions.

Euwer, a pear grower in the upper Hood River Valley, said farmers have been able to reduce but not eliminate use of the two pesticides. "One of the things that makes the pheromone confusion work is being able to use Guthion on the borders," she said. "We have to have it as a backup."

Both Guthion and Imidan are part of a fast-acting class of chemicals known as organophosphates. Descendants of nerve gases developed by German chemists before World War II, organophosphates disrupt the nervous system and shut down body functions.

Last year, after several years of trying to measure the health threats posed by Guthion and Imidan, the EPA eliminated uses on some crops. But the agency left open the possibility that the two pesticides could be used past 2005, particularly in key crops such as apples and pears.

Nearly half of the 700,000 pounds of Guthion sprayed annually in the United States is used in Oregon and Washington. About one-fifth of the 930,000 pounds of Imidan sprayed nationally is used in the two states.

Farm worker groups, including the California-based United Farm Workers union and Woodburn's Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United union, allege in their lawsuit that the EPA overstated the benefits to farmers and ignored the risks to workers in determining what uses would be allowed.

For example, the agency's own research showed that apple pickers could enter orchards safely no sooner than 102 days after Guthion had been sprayed. Yet the agency set standards allowing worker re-entry after 14 days.

The lawsuit says the EPA allowed chemical manufacturers to submit their own health-risk assessments to the agency but never allowed the public to respond to them. It also alleges that laborers who mix, load and spray the chemicals are exposed to undue risks.

"These are widely used chemicals that affect a large number of farm workers," said Nicholson, a Washington-based organizer with the United Farm Workers. "There's clear data to show a real threat to worker safety, but the EPA failed to consider the true costs to those workers."

Pulaski, 503-221-8516; alexpulaski@...

Copyright 2004 Oregon Live. .

___________________

This one is not from the Oregonian, but rather is representative of wide international press about pesticides being found in measurable levels in Coke and Pepsi products. Just a reminder of how pervasive these substances are.

India finds pesticides in colas By Jyotsna Singh BBC correspondent in Delhi

Indian MPs have upheld the findings of an environment group which reported that Coca-Cola and Pepsi drinks contained pesticide residues.

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said last August that its investigations revealed the drinks contained harmful residues and posed a health risk. The report led to a massive row with both Pepsico and Coca-Cola strenuously rejecting the allegations. A public outcry led the government to form a parliamentary committee to examine the report. The 15-member committee, which included MPs from both the government and the opposition, said the CSE findings on the presence of pesticide residues were correct. "The committee has appreciated the whistle blowing act of CSE in alerting the nation to an issue with major implications to food safety, policy formulation regulatory framework and human and environmental health," it said. The committee has asked the government to set higher safety-standards for soft drinks. Victory for environmentalists

The Vice President for Coca-Cola in India, Sanjiv Gupta, said the company was still reading the report. But he said his company would comply with "whatever new standards the government decides to bring". CSE director Sunita Narain told the BBC she was very pleased with the report. "It endorses our agenda that the issue of public health care and food safety is central to the country." Cola ban

Both Pepsi and Coca-Cola have always maintained their drinks were absolutely safe. But the parliamentary committee said it "felt that claims made by the Cola companies in their advertisement tantamount to misleading the public as their products do contain pesticides which have ill effect on human health in the long run". the report said The CSE in its report had alleged that pesticides in the drinks could cause cancer and birth defects. The report triggered demonstrations in India against the companies and a number of bans on the sales of their drinks. Parliament banned its cafeterias from serving Pepsi and Coke while the defence ministry issued a circular ordering its clubs to stop selling the drinks.

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/3458365.stmPublished: 2004/02/04 13:34:32 GMT© BBC MMIV

___________________________________

And lastly, an article by Joe Rojas-Burke of THE OREGONIAN about the federal Administration's response to a judge's ruling early this year regarding pesticide limitation around streams, etc. for wildlife protection. The background on this response is simply: current law has required EPA to consult with appropriate other agencies before deciding to deem a chemical agent safe for wildlife (e.g. Fish and Wildlife Service). EPA has openly admitted that it routinely fails to do so. President Bush's administration merely seeks to exempt them from the requirement.

Especially in the context of the preceding articles about untoward pesticide levels being measured lately in soft drinks and in human beings, I personally am skeptical about reassurances regarding chemical safety around endangered wildlife species. (editorial comment!) -- Tina

Rule frees EPA's hands on pesticides

A proposal would let the agency forgo external input when assessing threats of substances to federally protected species

01/30/04JOE ROJAS-BURKE

The Bush administration is proposing a strategy to end legal battles over the risks of pesticides to endangered species.

A rule scheduled for publication today would authorize the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to decide largely on its own whether a pesticide is likely to cause harm to any wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act. Such decisions now require agreement from the federal fish and wildlife agencies charged with protecting such species, formal approvals the EPA historically has neglected to obtain.

The proposal comes months after conservation groups in Oregon and Washington won a lawsuit in Seattle against the EPA. In that case, the federal judge, finding cause for immediate concern, recently banned dozens of pesticides along all rivers and streams where threatened or endangered salmon run in Oregon, Washington and California.

The judge ruled earlier that the EPA failed to consult with fish and wildlife services, as required by the Endangered Species Act, when approving pesticide uses. Similar lawsuits involving endangered frogs, sea turtles and other wildlife are proceeding in several states.

Conservation groups this week said the proposed rule would leave salmon and other endangered wildlife vulnerable to widely used weedkillers and insect poisons.

Bush administration officials said the new rule is needed to speed consultations over the effects of pesticides on endangered species.

"It would create a better working scenario between EPA and the services," said Clint Riley, special assistant to the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary enforcer of the Endangered Species Act.

"The services would be more involved in the analysis of effects and involved earlier in EPA's process," Riley said. He said the EPA still would have to meet all requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Deegan, an EPA spokesman, said the rule would allow federal biologists to make better use of extensive studies being done by EPA. As a result, he said, "reviews and ultimately decisions can occur more quickly."

Pesticide-makers applauded the proposal and said the lawsuits have overstated the risks to wildlife. They said limits sought by conservation groups would prevent farmers from using safe chemicals to battle insects, weeds and diseases.

"EPA has a very rigorous and robust regulatory program right now that includes considering risks to wildlife and endangered species," said Pat Donnelly of CropLife America, an industry group in Washington, D.C., representing pesticide-makers.

Farm groups, such as the Farm Bureaus of Oregon and Washington and the Washington State Potato Commission, also support the proposal.

Aimee Code with the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, a party in the Seattle lawsuit, said the proposed rule would "severely limit the ability of wildlife agencies to provide input on how to protect species from pesticides."

Under the proposed rule, a memorandum of understanding with wildlife agencies would govern the process used by the EPA to decide whether a pesticide is likely to harm threatened or endangered plants or animals. Fish and wildlife agencies periodically would review EPA's decisions.

If a pesticide is deemed not likely to adversely affect listed wildlife, the EPA could approve it without having to obtain a formal consultation by the fish and wildlife agencies.

Patti Goldman, an Earthjustice attorney who won the lawsuit in Seattle against the EPA, questioned the legality of the proposed rule.

"If they finalize this," she said, "there will be another lawsuit."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will accept public comments for 60 days before drafting a final rule.

Joe Rojas-Burke: 503-412-7073; joerojas@...

Copyright 2004 Oregon Live. .