Horrors Of US Pesticide Spraying Exposed

[Guest guest]

Horrors Of US Pesticide Spraying Exposed

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/12/01/schulman/index.html?source=dail\

y

Do It Yourself A worried mother discovers the secrets of pesticide

testingBy Audrey Schulman

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 pesticides

To 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.

more @ Horrors Of US Pesticide Spraying Exposed

__________________________________________________