Chemical ROULETTE

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental consortium, counters that anything short of a cancellation is unacceptable. "Our position is that the public should not be exposed to neurotoxic pesticides," says Feldman, who faults the EPA for "regulating by negotiation" with the chemical industry - striking deals that put company profit above public safety. He points specifically to chlorpyrifos, and charges that the EPA worked with Dow Agrosciences, the makers of Dursban, to determine which uses would stay and which would go.

Housenger confirms that the chlorpyrifos restrictions were hammered out in meetings with Dow, but maintains such negotiations serve the public good by preventing lengthy litigation and by speeding removal of dangerous products from the market.

But while the agreement may mean less work for EPA lawyers, it hardly signals a quick exit for chlorpyrifos. Dow was allowed to keep making Dursban through last December, and retailers may continue selling products containing the pesticide through 2001 - with no obligation to warn consumers that its home-use days are numbered. Moreover, chlorpyrifos products purchased on or before December 31 can legally be used until supplies are exhausted.

Housenger defends the long phase-out period, noting that federal law bars the EPA from issuing a pesticide recall except in cases of an emergency suspension. "In order to suspend, we have to deem that there is an imminent hazard," says Housenger, "which is a whole different standard than showing that cancellation is warranted." Besides, he adds, a recall has its own worries: "There's risk in getting the product back up-line - and then there is the issue of disposing of a lot of this product when it is all accumulated in one place." Given the choices, says Housenger, the EPA "thought it best" to allow chlorpyrifos to dissipate in the marketplace.

VESTED INTEREST

Dow Agrosciences' involvement in the reassessment of chlorpyrifos is hardly an anomaly. Indeed, the chemical industry is involved in every step of the pesticide registration and tolerance-setting process. Here's how it works: The manufacturer, or "registrant" (i.e., Dow), tells the EPA how much pesticide residue is likely to remain on crops based on company test-sprayings. It either conducts or contracts out federally required toxicity tests to determine if its product may cause cancer, birth defects or other health hazards. The results are submitted to EPA scientists, who analyze the data and draft a preliminary risk assessment. That draft is then bounced back to the man ufacturer for a 30-day review period, during which, accord ing to Housenger, the company can "comment on [the EPA's] risk assessment and provide corrections to it."

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print