same as it ever was

7/29/2019 Same As It Ever Was...

1/42

Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as..

Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Same

As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as... Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As

It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It

Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever

W a s. . . Sa m e A s I t E v e r W a s. . . Sa m e A s I t E v e r W a s. . . Sa m e A s I t E v e r W a s. . . Sa m e A s I t E v e r W a s. . .


As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As

It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as... Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It













Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as... Same


It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It




As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as... Sam e As It Ever W as...

W O R K I N G G R O U PT M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Richard W i les Kenneth A. Cook Kert D avies Chr istopher Campbel l

Sam e as it ever w as...

The Cl inton Adm inistrat ions

1 9 9 3 Pest icideReduction Policyin Per spec tive


2/42

Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as..

Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Same




















Sam e As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Same As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as...Sam e As It Ever W as... Same



17 18 C onnect icut Ave., N .W .Suite 60 0

W ash ington, D C 200 09t el 2 0 2 - 6 6 7 - 6 9 8 2 f ax 2 0 2 - 2 3 2 - 2 5 9 2

info@ew g.org w w w.ewg.org




3/42

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Molly Evans who designed and produced the report, and to Allison Daly for coordinating therelease ofSame as it ever was.... We are grateful to Ed Hop kins, Bill Walker, and Brian Cohe n for editing an dinsight.

Same a s it ever was... was m ade po ssible by grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts , the W. Alton Jones Foun -dation, the Joyce Found ation, an d the Working Assets Fun ding Service. The op inions e xpressed in this rep ort arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts or other supporterslis ted abo ve. Environm ental Working Group is respon sible for any errors of fact or interpretation contained in thisreport.

Cop yright May 1998 by the Environm en tal Working Gro up / The Tides Center. All rights reserved .Manu factured in the United States of Ame rica. Printed on recycled pap er.

Environmental W orking G roup

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington,

D.C. The Environm en tal Workin g Group is a pro ject of the Tides Center, a Californ ia Public Ben efit Corpo rationbased in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs andprojects.

Kenneth A. Cook, Presiden tRichard Wiles, Vice President for ResearchEdward Hop kins, Vice Presiden t for Programs

To ord er a copy

Copies of this report may be ordered for $20.00 each (plus 6% sales tax or $.60 for Washington, D.C. residents)and $3.00 for postage and hand ling. Paymen t mu st accom pan y all orders . Please make che cks payable to:

Environmental Working Group1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600Washing ton, D.C. 20009(202) 667-6982 (phone)(202) 232-2592 (fax)info@ew g.org (e -mail)

w w w . ew g. or g

This report and many other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org


4/42




5/42

FO R EW O RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . i

EXECUTIVE SU M M A R Y . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1

C H APTER 1 . TH E 1 9 9 3 PESTICID E U SE RE D U C T I O N PO L I C Y . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . 7

C H APTER 2 . PESTICID ESIN FO O D . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

C H APTER 3 . D R I N K I N G W ATER: M A K I N G A B A D PRO BLEM W O RSE . . .. . .. . .. . .. 17

C H APTER 4 . PESTICID E U SE IS R ISIN G . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 21

REFEREN CES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Contents



6/42

iEN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

Foreword


Wha t to m ake of Vice Presi-dent Gores sudden and dra-ma tic intervention in p esticidepolicy on April 8, 1998?

At the b eh est of pe sticide

companies and farm groups theVice Presiden t pe rsonally issuedan odd directive to EPA Ad-ministrator Carol Browner andAgriculture Secretary DanGlickm an. In fou r, single-spaced pages of stereotypicallywonky detail, the Vice Presidentinstructed his two distinguishedcabinet officials to...well, to obeyfederal law, perform their duties

intelligently and diligently, holdtons of public meetings, andwo rk together we ll. Not a wordabout dress codes or neatness.

Or w as there mo re to it thanthat? Th e pesticide lobby guard-edly thanked Mr. Gores staff atthe special White Ho use even twhe re the do cument was re-leased. They feigned relief that

at last someone in governmentw as listening to the ir plea toslow dow n an ill-conce ived, un-scien tific, he adlon g rush by Ms.Brow ner to ban doze ns of pesti-cide s by May 15, w ith the im-plied goal of ending Americanagriculture round about Memo-rial Day.

No such EPA effort was under-way, of course. The trump ed upMay 15 rum or w as one of severalstraw m en fabricated by the p es-ticide lobby to stir up politicalopposition to EPA well before

the agency could take any signifi-cant regulatory action against or-gano ph osp hate insecticide s. Thisa group of several dozen p articu-larly toxic, widely used , and ou t-moded insect killers that contami-nate much of the food supply.Nine ou t of ten American ch il-dren betwee n the ages of 6months and 5 years consume or-ganop hosp hates every day. Over

a million of those children, byour estimate, are getting an un-safe dietary dose of the chemi-calswhich are neurotoxic tohumans and bugs alike.

The OPs top EPAs list ofchemicals to be evaluated underthe tough ne w standards of theFood Q uality Protection Act of1996. The law is exp licitly w rit-

ten to protect children from pesti-cides, and it has p esticide comp a-nies and farm groups e xtreme lywo rried. The prob lem was neverthat the pesticide lobby was inthe dark about EPAs procedures.Their legions of lobb yists andlawyers knew perfectly well thetrouble that organophosphate

W hat to make o f V icePresident Goressudden and dram aticintervention inpesticide policy onApr i l 8 , 199 8?

The pesticidelobby.. .knew perfect lyw ell the trouble thatorganophosphatepesticides w ere in at

EPA, by din t of thechem icals toxicityand chi ldrensexposure. They justdidnt l ikew hat theyknew about thedirection o f EPAsdecision m aking.

So they banged on M r.G ores door.


7/42

SA M E A S IT EV ER W A S. ..i i

pe sticide s w ere in at EPA, by dintof the chemicals toxicity andchildren s exp osu re. They justdidnt like what they knew aboutthe direction of EPAs decision

making, and feared that toughorganophosphate regulationwo uld set dangerous precedentsfor do zens of other p esticide de-cisions over the next few years.So they banged on Mr. Goresdoor.

Having thanked the Vice Presi-dent for the victory he gavethem, pe sticide co mp anies and

farm group s prom ptly took h isdirective to the media and Capi-tol Hill, where they have used itever since to dem onize the sci-ence, motives and actions of Ms.Brow ne rs EPA.

All the while, Administrationofficials sou ght to reassure en vi-ronm ental, consum er, and farmworker groups that the directive

was little more than a policy pla-cebo for the pe sticide lobb y.The p ace and course of pe sticideregulation, w e w ere told, wouldbe un affected . Som e officialswe nt even further, arguing thatthe directive actually would has-ten tough government action bypro viding a n early, high p rofileforum to air and detoxify com-plaints from pesticide companies

and agribu siness group s.

But six weeks after the direc-tive was issued, it is clear that Mr.Gores w ords and actions haveindeed interfered with and de-layed EPAs ab ility to m ove for-wa rd on restricting o rganop hos-phate exposure and use. The

Vice Preside nts gesture no t on lybolstered and em boldened op -ponents of pesticide regulationand sustainab le agriculture. Italso has demoralized and de-

railed EPAs pesticide programstaff. The ir Sisyph ea n grind ofpe sticide evaluation has b eenfurther we ighed d ow n by aheavy and unnecessary load ofstake holder blather and busywo rk. A num ber of pe op lewith in the agency now won derif the White House will backthem up if they do make toughcalls to regulate organophos-

phates and other pesticides un-der the ne w law.

They have e very reason towo nde r. As this repo rt docu -ments, the track record of theClinton-Gore Adm inistration onpesticides falls far, far short ofthe d ramatic com mitme nts thatthe adm inistration anno unce dw ith incredible fanfare five ye ars

ago.

The p urpo se of this repo rt isto remind peoplestarting withthe Administration itselfwhatPreside nt Clinton and Vice Presi-dent Gore told the world theywe re going to do b ack in 1993:reduce pesticide use in agricul-ture, protect children from pesti-cides in food, take dange rous

pesticides off the market andaggressively prom ote safer, sus-tainable farming methods.

None of that has happen ed.In fact, our review shows thatsome pesticide trends are gettingw orse. It w ill take dram atic ac-tion o ver the n ext few mo nths

The track record ofthe Cl in ton-G oreadministration onpesticides falls far, farshort of the dramatic

comm itments that theadministrationannounced withincredible fanfare fiveyear s ago.


8/42

i i iEN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

for the Clinton-Gore Adm inistra-tion to make good on any of its1993 goa ls by the ye ar 2000,mu ch less meet the legal re-quiremen ts and de adlines o f the

new pe sticide law.

Both agency and WhiteHouse staff request faith andpatience on the p art of pub licinterest group s w orking to re-duce pe sticide usage a nd risks.They po int out that no p reviousAdministration has attempted tomake such significant changes topesticide regulation and policy.

Fair eno ugh. But neither hasany previous administration en-joye d th e p o litical an d p o licyadvantages this on e rece ived forpe sticide po licy ma king. Thema ssive, laud atory p ub licity thatattended the announ cement of its p esticide redu ction po licy in

1993. The scien tific rationa le p ro-vided, just days later, by the 1993Nation al Acade my o f Sciencesreport on the risks of pesticides tokids. And a legal fram ew ork that

en shrined the NAS rep ort in 1996.Plenty to work with, includingpublic support.

Still, it is not at all clear if theAdm inistration w ill use the se ad -vantages to d o w hat i t prom isedto do. O r w ill it back d ow n inthe face of pressure from pesti-cide companies and farm groups?Its time for the m ed ia and the

pu blic to tune in and wa tch care-fully. To be on the safe side , w erecomm end that parents and ev-eryone else concerned abo ut pes-ticides con sider h ow to do mo reon their own to reduce exposurean d risks. Just in case .

Kenneth A. Cook

Pres ident, EWG

Still, it is not at allclear if theAdm inistrat ion w il luse these advantagesto do w hat i t promised

to do. O r wi l l i t backdow n in the face ofpre ssure frompesticide companiesand farm groups? Itst ime for the media andthe public to tune inand w atch carefully.


9/42

1EN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

Executive Summary


As you know, the Clinton Administration has just announced adramatic shift in the governments approach to the use of pesti-cide s on foo d. For the first time e ver, the federal governm en thas committed to real reductions in pesticide use.

EPA Adm inistrator Carol Brow ne r

Speech to the National Press ClubJune 30, 1993

O n June 25, 1993, theClintonGore Administrationmade headlines when it an-noun ced a bold new n ationalpo licy to cut p esticide u se inagriculture an d m ake the protec-tion of children the p aramou nt

consideration in federal pesticideregulation.

Top Administration officialscharacterized the new po licy asa watershed in the history ofpe sticide u se, a land ma rk infood safety, a dramatic shiftand a ve ry significant com mit-men t on the p art of the govern-men t to redu ce p esticide usage

and risks.

This report examines w hathas hap pe ned in the five yearssince the policy was announced,based on an e xtensive Environ-

men tal Working Group review offede ral agency d ata and actions.

We conclude that the U.S.governmen t has done almostnothing materially to reduce pes-ticide use or to lower childrens

expo sure to p esticides d uring thepa st 5 years. By ne arly everymea sure, children and the rest ofthe po pu lation a re no b etter offtoday than they w ere five yearsago with respect to the risksposed by pes t ic ide u se and e xpo-sure. We can find no com pe llingevidence that the governmentintends to take, or will take, ac-tion s to redu ce significantly e ithe r

pesticide usage or risks beforethe end of the Clinton-Gore Ad-ministration, despite powerfulnew regulatory tools Congressprovided when it unanimouslypassed the Food Qu ality Protec-tion Act in July, 1996.


10/42

2 SA M E A S IT EV ER W A S. ..

Findings

Farmer s are u sing m ore pesti-cides, not cu tting back. Pes-ticide sales skyrocke ted after1993, and pesticide use inagriculture also increase dsubstantially. Farmerssprayed 70 million po und smore pesticide in 1995 thanin 1993a 10 perce nt jum p

(Figure 1). Based on curren ttrends, far from being re-duce d, pe sticide use co uldactually reach record levelsduring the Clinton-Gore Ad-m inistration. Belying itsheadline-making 1993 policy,the Administration never de-veloped any plan to achieve

real reductionsor an yredu ction sin agriculturalp esticide use. Just a mo nthshort of the 5-year anniver-sary of its pe sticide red uc-

tion po licy, the governme ntdoes no t even have a p lanto develop a plan to reducep esticide u se o verall, or tocurb system atically the useof the riskiest pesticides,such as organophosphateinsecticides.

Childrens exposure to pes-ticides in food is not re-

duced. Foods heavily con-sumed by children are justas con taminated with p esti-cides toda y as they we re in1993 (Figu re 2). Ana lysis o fthe most recent USDA data(for 1996) show s that 67pe sticides w ere found in

just 12 fru its an d ve ge ta b le sheavily consumed by chil-dren, compared to 58 found

by USDA in 1993. Altho ughhun dreds o f pesticide foodtolerances have beendropp ed by m anufacturersor revoked by the EPA since1993, most of these were forlittle-u sed p rod ucts. Ana ly-sis of the most recent fed-eral residue monitoring datashows that in 1996, the pes-ticides foun d in fruits and

vegetables heavily con-sumed by children wereessentially the same asthose found in 1993.Worse, levels of cancer-causing pesticides in theseimportant childrens foodsappeared to increase signifi-cantly betwe en 1993 and

Figure 1 . Agric ultu ral pesticid e use incr eased sharp lyunder the C linton Adm inistrat ion.

* Pest i c i de us age da ta fo r 199 6 a re est im a tes based on c o m m un ic a t i ons w i t h p es ti c i d e i n d u st ry an al y sts.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p . C o m p i l e d f ro m E PA 1 9 9 7 , Pe st i c i d e I ndus t r y Sa les and U sage . D oes no t i nc lud e us age o f su l f u r o r p e t r o leum /o i l s .

' 87 ' 88 ' 89 ' 90 ' 91 ' 92 ' 93 ' 94 ' 95 ' 96 *

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

Pes

ticidesU

sed

(M

illionsofPound

s)


11/42


1996. Leve ls of ne uro toxicand hormone-disruptingpesticides remained aboutthe same. Betwe en 1993and 2000, tens of millions

of children b etwe en theages of 0 and 5 will havebeen exposed to cont inu-ing high levels of pesti-cides in food while theClinton-Gore Administra-tion studies childrens p es-ticide exposures and riskswith no p lan in p lace toreduce them.

W ater supplies are stil lcontaminated w ith pest i -cides. Weed killers, bugkillers and other pesticidesstill contaminate thousandsof water sup plies na tion-wide. For hun dreds ofMidwestern communities,pe sticide ru no ff to riversand streams produces tapwater commonly contami-

nated with five or morewe ed killers during p eakrunoff each spring andsummer. Communitiesusing reservoirs are ex-po sed to these mixturesyear-round . Everyone whodrinks the water is af-fected , including million sof babies who consumepesticides when parents

feed them infant formulareconstituted with tap w a-ter. EPAs spe cial rev iew of the pesticide that mostcommonly contaminatestap waterthe carcino-genic weed killer atrazinehas stalled, de spite thefact that the chemical now

contaminates some 1,500drinking water systems in 20states, from New York toHawaii , and has beenbanned in man y Europeancou ntries. Most efforts toreduce levels of weed killersin tap wa ter have com e liter-ally at the end of the pipe:

clean up actions b y local wa-ter suppliers, paid for bytheir customers.

The A dm inistrat ion hastaken only o ne pesticide offthe market . De spite its high-pro file 1993 com mitmen t totake the highest-risk p esti-

Figure 2. Levels of pesticid es incr eased on frui ts andvegetables heavily consumed by infants and childrenbetw een 199 3 and 1996 .

1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6

0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1

Average

Residue

Level(ppm

)

Al l Pest ic ides

Carc inogensEndocr ineD isrupto rs

N euro tox ins

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p . C o m p i l e d fr o m U SD A A M S P est i c i d e D a ta P ro g r am 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 6 a n d F D A P est i c i d e M o n i t o r i n g P ro g r a m , 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 6 .PD P foo ds inc lu de app les , car rots , grapes , green bean s, oranges , and p eaches .FD A foods i nc l ude c he r r i es, c uc u m bers, head l e t t uc e , l oo se l ea f l e t tuc e , pea rs,p eas , to m at o es, str aw b err i es, an d sw ee t p ep p ers . A v era ge resi d u e l ev el s w erec a l c u la ted by av e rag ing the m ean residu e c onc en t ra ti on s i n eac h o f t he PD Pa n d F D A f o o d s.


12/42


cides off the market to re-duce risks and make roomfor safer pesticides, in fiveyears the Clinton -Gore Ad-ministration has take n just

one pe sticide, p hosdrin, offthe market. This action wastaken to provide much-needed protection tofarmw orke rs. The be ne fit tothe public at large, and tochildren, however, has beennegligible. In contrast,Rona ld Reagan b ann ed 12pesticides for food use in his8 years in office, and George

Bush banned 4 during histermincluding Alar.

The Clinton EPA did sign aphase-out agreement withDupont company to end useof the weed killer cyanazineby the year 2003. Currently,how ever, 25 million po und sof this pesticide are usedeach year an d it rem ains a

significant tap w ater con tami-nan t. Because of govern-mental inaction, the samearray of older, more toxicchemicals used in 1993 stillpred om inates on farms in1998.

The governm ent al low ed arecord num ber of new pesti -cides onto the market. Th e

ne t result of pe sticide regu la-tory actions during theClinton-Gore Administrationis that the re are actuallymo re pe sticides in com me rcetoday than ever be fore; morethan 875 active ingred ientswe re registered for use as of1997. EPA has app roved a

record nu mb er of pesti-cides since 199381 in all.Fully half of the se n ew lyapproved pesticides didnotm ee t the EPAs safer

designation as promised inthe 1993 policy statement.Notable among the non-safer approvals is theweed-killer acetochlor, aprobable hum an carcino-gen that was con taminatingtap water throughout theMidwest only two yearsafter EPA approved it in1993. The Administration

of Gov. George Patakibanned acetochlor in NewYork in 1997. The 40safer pesticides that EPAapp roved b etween 1993and 1995 provided nomeasurable benefit to hu-man health and the envi-ronment because farmerscontinue to rely on m oretoxic, outdated compounds

that EPA has a llow ed toremain on the market.

The A dm inistrat ion hasstymied sustainable agri-culture. It took theClinton-Gore Administra-tion five full years to pro-po se na tional standards fororganic food , a corne rstoneof sustainab le agriculture

po licy. But the prop osalthat finally emerged wasthe regulatory equivalentof a near-death expe riencefor the organic ind ustry. Infact, the proposal was soobjectionable to organicfood producers and con-sumers that it generated a

Because ofgovernmentalinaction, the samearray of older, moretoxic chem icals used

in 19 93 st i l lpredominates onfarms in 199 8.


13/42


record 200,000, mostlynegative pu blic comm entsto the Agriculture Depart-me nt. Bowing to pu blicpre ssure, the USDA rejected

the use of food irradiation,genetically modified organ-isms (biotech), and sewagesludge in o rganic food p ro-duction.

Even so, final na tion al organicstandards may be delayed foranothe r year or more. Adm inis-tration budgets for sustainableagriculture research and technical

assistance re lated to p esticideshave bee n wh olly inadequ ate ,going from $9 million in 1993 to

just $11 m illio n last ye ar (ou t o f atotal budget of $1.9 billion). TheUSDA announced in 1994 thaton e of its p rima ry sustainab leagriculture goals would be toget 75 percent of U.S. farmlandund er integrated pe st man age-me nt by the yea r 2000. Just

nineteen m onths short of thedeadline, however, the govern-men t is unab le to describe w hatit means by its IPM goal; howprogress tow ard the goal mightbe measured; or whether thegoal, if achieved, would reducepesticide use or risks to humanhealth and the environment.

Conclusions

Fo r all its d ra m a an d a c-claim, the Clinton-GoreAdm inistrations 1993 p esti-cide reduction policyachieved nothing of practi-cal significance to p rotectAme rican children from

pesticides during the past 5years. Jud ged against pe r-formance indicators thatmeasure the impact of pes-ticide policy on real people,

the 1993 policy did notmark a dramatic shift, wa-tershed , or land mark in pe s-ticide p olicy or regulation ,as the Administrationclaimed.

Pestic ide use pa t te rns, ex -posure levels, and policydecisions have continue doverwhelmingly to favor the

interests of chemical com-pa nies over children . Sam eas it ever was. We canpoint to no clear indicationsthat these circumstanceswill change over the ne xttwo years.

Recommendations

O rga n o p h o sp h a te in se c ti-

cide s pre sent a crucial, im-mediate test of theAdm inistrations re solve tomake good on its 1993po licy, and make use o f theclear and po we rful regula-tory authority provided bythe Food Quality ProtectionAct of 1996. O rgano p ho s-ph ates are neu rotoxic insectkillers widely used for de-

cades in agriculture, and ingardens, hom es, schoo lsand other places. Becausethey routinely contaminatemany foods that childreneat dailyincluding babyfoodsand many h omes,EPA has pu t organoph os-

Pesticid e use patt erns,exposure levels, andpolicy decisions havecontinuedoverwhelmingly to

favor the in terests ofchemical companiesover children. Sam eas it ever was.


14/42


phates at the top of the listof pesticides to be regulatedunde r the tough ne w s tan-dard s of the FQ PA. Accord-ing to rece nt EWG esti-

mates, more than 1 millionchildren aged five and un-der are exposed to unsafelevels of organop ho sphateinsecticides each day. As afirst step in making good onits claim to p rotect children ,the Administration mustindicate pu blicly ho w it in-tends to reduce exposure toorganophosphate insecti-

cides in a ccord w ith FoodQ uality Protection Act man -dates.

As a p re c au tio n a ry m e a -sure, parents or anyone elseconcerned about pesticideexposure must assume thatthe government of theUnited States will not actany time soon to redu ce the

risks o f pe sticides, eventhough government scien-tists publicly and privatelystate tha t the risks are ex-cessive. Paren ts in pa rticu-lar should take steps to re-du ce children s p esticideexposure through food, w a-ter, in the home and atschoo l. Many of these step sare easy and withou t cost;

others, unfortunately,presen t costs that paren tsmust bear because the gov-ernment will not act.

Soc ia lly respons ib le compa-nies should modify theirproducts and services tohelp consumers reduce pes-

ticide risks in lieu o f mea n-ingful government action.

Fo o d co m p a n ie s in ge n e ra l,and baby food companies inp articular, sho uld acce lerateand docu me nt efforts to re-duce pesticide residues infood. The food industryshould expand organic foodprod uct lines to m eet the

standards of respected pub-lic an d private certifiers w hoat least meet Californias or-ganic standards, unless oruntil the federal governme ntfinally develops acceptablenational organic standards.

G ard e n su p p ly sto re s a n dpest control services shouldvoluntarily phase out the

sale and use of organophos-ph ate insecticides an d o therhighly toxic pesticides.

Pestic ides tha t con tamina tedrinking w ater sourcesshould be b anned, andmanufacturers of pesticides,not w ater custom ers, shou ldpay for testing and cleanupof pe sticides that p ollute tap

water.

Co n su m e rs c on ce rn e d ab o u tpesticide levels in food orwa ter can express theirop inion s directly to EPA bycalling 1-800-858-7378.

As a first step inm aking good on i tsclaim to protectchi ldren, theAdministration must

indicate publicly howit intends to reduceexposure toorganophosphateinsecticides in accordw ith Food Q ual ityProtect ion A ctmandates.


15/42


The 1 9 9 3 Pest icide

U se Reduction Pol icy

Chapter 1

With the 1993 pu blication ofPesticides in the Diets of Infants

and Children , mainstream sci-ence reached a consensus thatthe u nborn and the very youngnee d special protection from

pesticides, and that the regula-tory system in p lace at that timedid no t provide these safe-guards. This consensus rep ortprovided the scientific underpin-nings for a series of policy initia-tives and executive orders by theClinton Adm inistration , each on eproclaiming com mitme nt to pro-tecting the nations children frompesticides and toxic substances.

On June 25, 1993, just daysbefore the release of the Na-tion al Acade my o f Sciences(NAS) study and in anticipationof its publication, the WhiteHou se issued a m ajor p olicystatem en t on pesticides. Thestatement began:

The C linton Adm inistrat ion

today ann ounces its com -mitm ent to reducing theuse of pesticides and toprom ote sustainable agri-culture.

Signed by three fede ral agen-ciesthe Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Food and Drug

Adm inistration , and the U.S. De -partment of Agriculturethe two-page policy statement said thatthe Clinton Administration iscommitted to reducing the risksto p eop le and the e nvironment

that are associated with pesticidesw hile en suring the availability ofcost-effective pest managementtools for agriculture and otherpe sticide users. The statem en tpro mised: We w ill intensify ourefforts to red uce the use ofhigher-risk pesticides and to pro-mote integrated pest manage-ment, including biological andcultural control systems and other

sustainab le agricultural p ractices,und er the leadership of theUSDA...We are co mm itted to thegoals of redu cing risk associatedw ith p esticide s for all Ame ricansand espe cially of ensuring ap pro-priate protection for children.

The Clinton-Gore Adm inistra-t ion announcement made head-line s nationw ide. Nearly all that

was written characterized theAdministrations policy as a boldand dram atic p olicy shift, a viewthat was bolstered b y the ob ser-vations of Adm inistration officials.

Dr. David Kessler, then Com-missione r of Food and Drugs,told The New York Times in a


16/42


front-page story (U.S. Is TakingAim At Farm Chemicals In TheFood Sup p ly, Jun e 27) that theann oun ceme nt will create incen-tives for the development of safe

pesticides and remove thosepesticides that pose the greatestrisk from the ma rket. Dr.Kessler called the announcementa major landmark in the historyof foo d safety. EPA Adm inistra-tor Carol Brown er ob served toThe Washington Post (3 U.S.Agencies Announce Joint Com-mitment to Cut Pesticide Use,Ju n e 26): This is a ve ry signifi-

cant com mitme nt.. .There h asbeen a lot of inaction at the fed-eral level. In the Wall StreetJournals coverage (PesticideUse Would Be Cut Under U.S.Plan, June 28), Dr. Kessler calledthe rep ort a w atershed in thehistory of p esticide use. Adm in-istrator Brow ne r told the Los An-geles Times (3 U.S. AgenciesAnnounce Joint Plans to Curb

Pe sticides , Ju ne 26): Wevebeen working on this almostsince day on e....But tod ays an -noun cement is remarkable notonly for its commitment to reduc-tion, but for the fact that werewo rking together in a w ay thatfrankly hasnt hap pe ned before atthe federal level.

In the days and weeks that

followe d the Adm inistration re-ceived dozens of highly favorableeditorials for its new pesticidereduction policy (See Sidebar:The 1993 Pesticide Red uctionPolicy: Ho w It Played ).

At the National Press Club thefollowing week (June 30), Ad-

ministrator Browner observed:As you kno w , the Clinton Ad-ministration has just announceda dramatic shift in thegovernme nts app roach to the

use of pe sticide s on foo d. Forthe first time e ver, the fed eralgovernme nt has comm itted toreal reductions in pesticide use.

Sub sequ en tly, the Clinton Ad-ministration announced two ma-

jor add itio n al p o licy in itia tivesintend ed to p rotect childrenfrom pesticides and toxic sub-stances in the e nvironm ent.

Preside nt Clinton issued an Ex-ecu tive O rder o n Children s En-vironmental Health and Safetyon April 21, 1996, which w asfollowed by EPAs NationalAgen da to Protect ChildrensHealth from EnvironmentalThreats in September of thatyear. These two proclamationspledged the EPA to setting allpublic health and environmental

standard s spe cifically to p rotectchildren, an d comm itted thegovernmen t to expan ded re-search on childrens exposureand susceptibility to environ-mental pollutants, including pes-ticides.

The Food Q uali ty Protect ion Acto f 199 6

In 1996 the Congress unani-mo usly passed the Food Q ualityProtection Act, radically trans-forming the nations p esticidelaw . Prior to FQPA, p esticidelaw did not requ ire any spe cialprotections for children, norwere any imp lemen ted . Indeed ,before FQPA, the law required


17/42


The W ashin gton Post (Edi tor ia l , Jul y 5, 19 93 )H eadl in e: Pest ic id e Po l i t i cs

. ..The C l in ton Ad m in ist ra ti on , r eady in gi tse l f fo r the pub l ic i ty the N AS repor tw ou ld gen erate , sta ted i t in tends toredu ce the use of un safe pest ic id es. I f i tcan , such a step w ou ld m ark a changef r o m t h e R e a g a n a n d B u s hA d m i n i s t r a t i o n s , w h i c h h a d s c a n tinterest in a co ordi nated, heal th-or iented

approach. . . .

D e m o c r a t a n d C h r o n i c l e (Roch ester , N Y)(Ed i to r ia l , Jun e 30 , 19 93 ) H ead l ine : A(chem ica l ly f ree) app l e keeps the doctor aw ay

The C l in ton Admin is t ra t i on s p lans toencourage a reduct ion in the use o fpest ic ides on crops cou ld eventua l lym e a n t h e f o o d o n y o u r t a b l e w i l l b eeven hea l th ier than i t i s no w . . .

The H ous ton Post (Ed i tor ia l , Ju ly 13 , 19 93 )H ead l in e : Focus on Ch i ld ren Subh ead :F r u i t s , v e g e t a b l e s v i t a l t o d i e t d e s p i t epest ic ides

. . .So w hen the EPA dec id ed to focu spr imar i l y on hea l th cons ide ra t ions inregu la t ing pestic id e to lerance l eve ls, i tm ade a bo ld and in te l l i gen t mo ve in thein terest o f ch i ld ren. The EPA w as jo i ned

in the dec is ion by the Depar tmen t o fAgr i cu l tu re and the Food and DrugAd m in i st rat ion . Th is m arks the f i rstt ime a l l th ree federa l agenc ies havem e r g e d f o r c e s t o w o r k t o w a r d t h i sc o m m o n g o a l. ..

TH E 1 9 9 3 PESTICI D E RE D U C T I O N PO L I C Y: H O W I T PLAYED

y

Cl in ton -G ore Ad m in ist ra ti on o f f i c ia l s ha i l edthe i r pest ic id e use and r isk reduc t ion i n i t ia t iveas a fund amenta l po l i cy sh i f t. M ore than 12 0new spapers serv ing b ig c i t ies and smal l tow nsth roughou t t he na t ion gave the announce-m en t p rom inen t and ve ry favo rab le cove rage.An d ed i tor ia l pages pra ised i t .

Los Angeles T im es (Edi tor ia l , Jul y 5, 19 93 ) N ew Echo es o f That Si lent Spr in g Sub head:U n i ted States m ust m ove aw ay f r om pest i c ide

use in food

T h r e e f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s l a s t m o n t hannou nced p lans to reduce the u se o fc h e m i c a l s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h en a t i o n s f o o d . I n t h e i r p l a c e , t h egovernmen t w i l l p romote sus ta inab leagr icul tural pract ices that re ly on naturesow n forces to con t ro l pests. Th is ch angeof d i rec t ion is w ise, i f lon g overdue. . .Thea n n o u n c e m e n t r e p r e s e n t s a m a j o r

ch ange in U .S. pest ic id e po l ic y . . .

Seatt le Post- Intel l igencer (Edi tor ia l , July 9,1 9 9 3 ) H e a d l i n e : C l i n t o n t a r ge t s r i sk ypest ic ides

The C l in ton Admin is t ra t i on has madean impor tan t and w ise dec is ion tha tc o u l d i m p r o v e th e w a y fo o d i s gr o w n i nth i s coun t r y . . .Top o f f i c ia l s f r om theEnv i ron m en tal Pro tec t ion Agency , t he

Food and D rug Adm in is tra ti on and theD e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e h a v eannounced a new federa l po l i cy tha tw i l l p u t a p r em i u m o n r e d u c i n g th e u seof r isky farm c hem ica ls that may p ose apar t icu l ar danger to ch i ld ren. . .


18/42

1 0 SA M E A S IT EV ER W A S. ..

EPA to b alance farme r p rofitsagainst the risks to p ub lic he alth,with no specific requirement toprotect children, before making aregulatory decision on a pesti-

cide. The only he alth and safetystandard that broadly applied tofoods at that time was that theadve rse effects of pe sticide u sethat were foisted u po n the p ubliccould no t be un reasonable.

Now, the FQPA requires aspe cific finding tha t the pe sticideis safe for infants an d ch ildren ,includ ing effects that ma y occur

from in-utero e xposure, be fore apesticide is allowed in or onfood . Safe is defined as a rea-sonable certainty of no harm toany expo sed ind ividual. In ad-dition, food tolerances for asingle pesticide must include an

assessme nt of exposure to otherpe sticides w ith a com mo nmechanism of toxicity and anassessme nt of risk from allroutes of exposure to these pes-

ticides as well.

FQPA was in large measure arespon se to the 1993 reportfrom the National Academy ofSciences, Pesticides in the Dietsof Infants and Children , thaturged tougher p rotections frompe sticide for the very youn g. Areview of a wide range of fed-eral data on pesticide use, regis-

trations and exposure showsthat these additional protectionsare needed as much today asthey we re w hen the NAS issuedits recommendations five yearsago.


19/42

1 1EN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

Pestic ides in Food

Chapter 2

The Environmental WorkingGroups analysis of pesticides infood is based on the most recentdata from the U.S. Dep artmen tof Agriculture Pesticide DataProgram (PDP) and add itionaldata from the routine pesticidesurveillance program of theFood and Drug Administration.

The Pesticide Data Programresults are u nique becau se allsamples are washed and pre-pared for consum ption prior toanalysis, and b ecause the sam-pling p rogram reflects differentpatterns of pesticide use in theregions w here food is grow n.PDP foo ds a re sp ecifically se-lected b ecause they are h eavilyconsum ed by infants and chil-dren, an d further, PDP techn i-cians a nalyze for low levels ofresidue s that are no t foun d b yother m onitoring p rograms in-cluding the Food and Drug Ad-ministration routine monitoringprogram.

Although PDP data p rovide abe tter p icture o f pesticide levelsin food as eaten, FDA data pro-vide a re liab le if slightly lessthorough view o f residue s onfoods at the wholesale level.While not optimal for dietaryrisk assessment, there is no rea-son to b elieve that the trends

revealed by the FDA data do notaccurately reflect the trends o fexposure in the food as eaten (asopposed to the actual amounts).

EWG analyzed only crops withsufficien t samp les from at leastthree consecutive years of testing,from 1993 throu gh 1996, the lat-est year for which data are avail-able.

The Pesticide D ata Program

According to data from thePDP the risks to children frompesticides in the diet have notdecreased, and may have in-creased slightly, since 1993.

The M ost Recent D a ta 199 6

In April, 1998, the U.S. Depart-me nt o f Agriculture q uietly re-leased data from its PesticideData Program (PDP) for the year1996. For that yea r, PDP tech ni-cians fou nd a total of 67 differentpesticides in just 12 fruits andvegetables tested, virtually thesame num ber of comp ound s (61)as foun d on average over thethree prece ding years. In 1996,these findings included 12 pesti-cides in a single sample of spin-ach, 10 pesticides on singlesamples of apples, 9 on singlesamples of peaches, and green

U SD A technic iansfound a total of 67different pesticides injust 1 2 fruits andvegetab les tested.


20/42


Figure 3. W ith one exception (green beans) pesticide levelsrem ained steady or in creased slightly on fru its andvegetables heavi ly consum ed by chi ldren* betw een 1 99 3and 199 6 .

beans and 8 on single samples ofgrapes and tom atoes. Thesemaximum multiple residue com-binations have been essentiallyunch anged since 1993.

Neithe r the EPA no r the p esti-cide industry has tested thesepesticide combinations for the

risks they might present to in-fants, young children, or anyoneat all. This is critical be cau seinfants and children are exp osedroutinely to m ultip le pe sticide son single food s, and to the m ul-tiple p esticides foun d in the vari-ety of foods that they eat eachday. In 1996, half or mo re of the

ready-to-eat apples, carrots,grapes, peaches, and spinacheaten in the United States werecontaminated w ith from 2 to 12pesticides.

Looked at another way, whenan American child eats an applehe or she is more likely to eat 9pesticides than to eat none at all.For other crops the n um bers are

just as sh ockin g. With p each es,the average child is more likelyto eat 6 pesticides than to eatnon e, with grape s and carrotsthe sam e ch ild is mo re likely to

eat 3 pesticides than to eat non e.

Pesticide D ata Program Trends1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 6

An analysis of PDP data foreight fruits and vegetables theyears 1993 throu gh 1996 revea lsthat:

Th e n u m b er o f p e sticid e s

detected in fruits and veg-etables that children con-sume heavily was essen-tially unchanged from 1993to 1996, rising slightly from58 in 1993 to 67 in 1996.As described above, thereis no evidence that thiscombination of pesticidesis safer now than it wasfive yea rs ago.

Fo r th e e ig h t c ro p s w ithadequate data for analysis,one crop green beans shows a decrease inresidues, compared with 7crops that show either nodecrease or a significantincrease in pesticide resi-

So u r c e : C o m p i l e d f r o m U SD A P e st i c i d e D a ta P ro g r am , 1 9 9 3 t h r o u g h 1 9 9 6 .

* R esidu es m easured a f t e r f oods a re w as hed , pee led , c o red and p repared fo r n o r m a l c o n s u m p t i o n .

1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 60 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 .2

1 .4

1 .6

A

verage

Residue

Level(ppm

)

A p p l e s

Peaches

Potatoes

G rapes

G reen b eans

O ranges

Carro ts

Bananas


21/42


due levels between 1993and 1996 (Figure 3).

Overa ll, concen trations o f cancer-causing pesticides

on these same six fruitsand vegetables appear tohave increased slightly,while levels of neurotoxic,and end ocrine-disruptingpe sticides rem ained u n-changed (Figure 4).

FD A D a ta

The PDP program d oes not

sample some heavily consumedcrops. Pesticides on these foods,however, can present significantrisks to children. To gauge thestatus and trends in pesticidelevels on the se crops we ana-lyzed data from the Food andDrug Administrations PesticideResidue Monitoring Program.

FD A Tr ends 199 3 - 19 96

O ur a nalysis of FDA data forten foods for the years 1993through 1996 confirms the trendsfoun d in the PDP data for thesame years:

Th e n u m b er o f p e stic id e sin nine fruits and veg-etables that children con-sume heavily was essen-

tially un chan ged from 1993to 1996 at 55 and 60 re-spectively.

Be tw e e n 199 3 a n d 199 6,for the n ine crops ana-lyzed, pesticide concentra-tions ap pe ared to increasedramatically on strawber-

ries and leaf lettuce, de-crease slightly on che rries,and remain basically un-changed on the remainingseven crops (Figure 5).

Overa ll, concen trations o f cancer-causing pesticideson nine crops analyzed ap-pear to have increased sub-stantially between 1993 and1996. Leve ls of ne uro toxicand end ocrine-disruptingpe sticides rem ained u n-changed (Figure 6).

Figure 4 . O verall, pesticide levels appear to have increasedslightly on fruits and vegetables children consum ed h eavily,f rom 1 993 th rough 199 6 .

So u r c e : C o m p i l e d f r o m U SD A P est i c i d e D a t a Pr o g ra m , 1 9 9 3 t h r o u g h 1 9 9 6 .PD P foo ds inc lu de app les , car rots , grapes , green bean s, oranges , and p eaches .Av erage residu e l ev e l s w ere c a l c u la ted by av e rag ing the m ean residu e

c onc en t ra ti on s i n eac h o f t he PD P food s.

* R esidues m eas ured a f t er f ood s are w ashed , p ee led , c o red an d p repared fo r n o r m a l c o n s u m p t i o n .

1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6

0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

Average

Residue

Level(ppm

)

A l l Pest i c ides

Carc inogens

Endoc r ine D i srup tors

N euro tox in s


22/42


1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 60 .0

0 .5

1 .0

1 .5

2 .0

2 .5

3 .0

3 .5

4 .0

Av

erage

Residue

Level(ppm

)

Straw berri es

Loose Leaf Let tuce

Cherr ies

H ead Let tuce

Pears

Sw eet Pepp ers

Peas

Tom atoes

Cucu m bers

Figure 5 . FD A tests of individual fruits and vegetablesshowed no decrease in pesticide levels from 1993 through1 9 9 6 .

So u r c e : C o m p i l e d f r o m F o o d a n d D r u g A d m i n i so t r at i o n r o u t i n e s u rv e i l l a n c e da ta .

* R esidu es m easured p r i o r t o w ash in g o r pee l i ng .

Pesticide Reregistration

In 1988, the Con gressame nde d the Federal InsecticideFungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) to require that all pesti-cides con form with the data re-

quirements published by theagency in the Code o f Fede ralRegu lations. In the ensuing pro -cess, know n as pe sticidereregistration , many ma nu fac-turers of little-used pesticidessimp ly decided not to p ay forthe needed s tudies and drop pedthe registrations and food toler-

ance s for the ir pro du cts. In amu ch smaller num ber of cases,man ufacturers brough t their pe s-ticides into compliance withmore modern scientific stan-

dards.

Although hun dreds of pesti-cide food tolerances have b eendropp ed o r revoked in thereregistration pro cess since 1993,mo st of the se w ere for little-usedpro du cts. Analysis of the mo strecent federal residue monitor-ing data shows that in 1996, thepe sticide s fou nd in fruits and

vegetables he avily consum ed bychildren were essentially thesame as those found in 1993.Worse, levels of cance r-causingpesticides in these importantchildren's food s app eared to in-crease significantly betw ee n1993 and 1996.

The requirements for pesti-cide reregistration must not be

confused with meeting the newchildren s he alth stand ards o f theFood Q uality Protection Act.While an important step for-ward, FIFRA 88 did not in anyway alter the broadly applicablerisk/benefit standard in the lawat that time, which was that thepe sticide risks borne b y the pu b-lic must not be unreasonable.


23/42


Figure 6. Total pesticide concentratio ns* in nine fruits andvegetables appear to have increased significantly betw een1 9 9 3 a n d 1 9 9 6 .

So u r c e : C o m p i l e d f r o m F o o d a n d D r u g A d m i n i so t r at i o n r o u t i n e su r v e i l l an c e da ta . FD A foods i nc lud e c he r r i es, c uc um bers, head l e t tuc e , l oos e l eaf l e t tuc e ,p ear s, p ea s, to m at o es , str aw b er r i es , an d sw ee t p ep p er s. A v er age res i d u e l ev el sw ere c a l c u la ted by av e rag ing the m ean residu e c onc en t ra ti on s i n eac h o f t he

FD A f o o d s .

* R esidues m easured p r i o r t o w ash ing o r pee l i ng .

1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 60

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1

Average

Residue

Level(ppm

)

Al l Pest ic ides

Carc inogens

Endocr in e D i s rup tors

N euro tox ins


24/42



25/42


D r ink ing W ater :

M aking a Bad Problem W orse

Chapter 3

Ame ricas drinking w ater w asheavily contaminated with pesti-cides when President Clintontoo k office in 1993. Since the nthe problem has not improved atall, and indeed it may have got-

ten worse.

Rece nt da ta from the U.S.Geologic Survey show that inaddition to the w ell-docume ntedproblem of weed killers in tapwater, neurotoxic organophos-phate insecticides (OPs) alsocomm only contaminate surfacew ater. Ha lf of ove r 5,000samples drawn from 20 different

watersheds d etected at least oneOP, with a maximum of 13 OPsfou nd in a single samp le. Mil-lions of individuals drink tapwater from rivers and streams inthese watershed s. As with her-bicides, conventional sand-bedfiltration drinking water treat-men t systems d o no t redu ce lev-els of these insecticide s in tapw ater. Spe cial w ater treatmen t

techniques, involving the use ofcarbon as a cleansing agent, areneeded .

Most infants and childrenwho drink this water are no bet-ter shielded from the multiplepesticides in their tap water thanthey were in 1993. Whe re the

situation has improved some-what, credit goes to local watersuppliers who have taken stepsto reduce contamination. TheEPA, in con trast, has take n n oeffective step s to red uce pe sticide

levels in tap water.

EPAs Slow -M oving TriazineSpecial Review

A group of cancer-causingweed killers the triazine herbi-cides are the m ost imp ortantpesticide contaminants in drink-ing w ater. These pe sticides havebee n found in o ver 1500 water

sup plies. In Novem be r, 1994,EPA p laced the triazine h erbi-cides atrazine, cyanazine, andsimazine into a special regula-tory review due to concerns thatthe compounds all cause cancerand that they all were toxic to theen do crine system . Soo n afterEPA ann oun ced the special re-view , DuPon t, the m anu facturerof cyanazine, d ecided to volun-

tarily phase out sales ofcyanazine, and replace it with anew er, cheape r, and safer alterna-tive. This ph ase-ou t is on going,and should be complete in theyear 2000. Presen tly cyanazinecontinue s to con taminate d rink-ing w ater through out the Mid-west.

M ost infants andchildren who drinkthis w ater are nobetter shielded fromthe multiple pesticidesin their tap water than

they w er e in 199 3 .


26/42


The special review of atrazineand simazine remains stalled.Since initiating the review in1994, the EPA has done nothingto protect infants and children

from the steady stream of mul-tiple herbicides flowing from tapsthroughou t the Midw est, and inman y other parts of the nation.According to the m ost recentstudies the p roblem is wo rse thanpreviously thought:

Atraz ine con tamina tes over1,500 drinking w ater sys-tems in 20 states, according

to the mo st recent data pro-vided to EPA by Novartis(the manufacturer of atra-zine). In these 20 states,includ ing states like NewYork and Haw aii that we repreviously not thought tohave a prob lem , atrazinewa s detected in over 50percent of all drinking wa-ter supplies that use surface

w ater (Clarkson , et al 1997).

An in te rna l pes tic ide indus -try study in 1997 found pes-ticides in 96 p ercen t of allMidw estern town s studied 374 drinking water sys-tems in all (Hackett 1997).

The triazines are oftenfoun d at concen trations that

p ose significant he alth risks,and that exceed n ew FQPAstand ard s. By EWGs esti-ma te, in 1996-97 cancerrisks from atrazine and si-mazine in tap water ex-ceeded the new FQPAone-in-one-million stan-dard in 245 communities in

8 states, with a total popu-lation of over 4.3 millionAmericans (EWG 1997).

Infants and children con-

tinue to be exposed tomu ltiple p esticide s in tapw ater. This is a particu-larly acute prob lem wh enthis tap water is used torecon stitute infant formu la.EWG found ten w eed kill-ers in a single sample oftap water collected inWilliamsburg, Ohio, in1997. This is on e mo re

than EWG foun d in the tapwater of Fort Wayne, Ind.in 1995. Acco rding to datafrom state drinking wateragencies and pe sticidemanufacturers, in 1996, 3.3million p eo ple in 104 Mid-western communities wereserved tap w ater contami-nated with five or morecancer-causing weed killers

(EWG 1997).

Acetochlor - Add ing aCarcinogen to Tap W ater

During the 1980s, MonsantoCorp. tried in vain to registertheir new corn he rbicide,acetochlor. Because this we edkiller is a probable human car-cinoge n, and w as certain to con-

taminate tap water sup plies,both the Reagan and Bush Ad-ministration s refused to allow iton the market. That all changedw ith the Clinton Adm inistration ,and in 1993, the EPA signe d a nagreeme nt with Monsanto thatpu t acetochlor in the h ands o fAme ricas corn grow ers.

In 2 0 states, from N ewYor k to H awa i i ,atrazine w as detectedin over 50 percent ofal l dr inking w ater

supplies that usesurface water.


27/42


The agree men t ostensibly setstrict binding criteria designed toensure that acetochlor did n otcontaminate water supp lies andthat the use o f other can cer-

causing p esticides w ould b e re-du ced sub stantially. The agree -ment has been an abject publiche alth failure.

Since the EPA-Monsan toagreement was signed,overall use of the topseven agricultural herbi-cides h as decreasedsligh tly: ab ou t 14 m illion

pou nds between 1992 and1997 (USDA NASS 1998).This red uction is far shortof the 66 million poundannu al redu ction that wa srequired in the agreementw ithin five ye ars ofacetochlors registration in1993. Worse, use of themajor weed killers thatcontaminate drinking w ater

show s no d ecrease at all.Farme rs used ab out 132million pounds of alachlor,atrazine and metolachlor in1992, the year be foreacetochlor was put on thema rket. In 1996, four cropyears after acetochlor wasadded to the mix, use ofthe four herbicides totaled135 million pounds.

In th e sp a c e o f ju st a fe wyears of introduction,acetochlor has become acommo n contaminant of Midw estern tap w ater. Inthe su mm er o f 1995, justone growing season afteracetochlor was first used,

tests by the Iow a State Hy-gienic Lab, co mm ission edby EWG, foun d acetochlorin finished tap water in 15of 29 Midwestern water

sup plies (EWG 1995). Datacollected b y the m anufac-turers of acetoch lor in 1996-1997 found the weed killerin 20 percent of all finishedtap w ater samples, and in74 of 178 (42 p ercen t) of allwater systems tested(Hacke tt 1997).

In 1 997, a ce to c h lo r w as

detected in groundw ater inIllino is, Iow a, an d Kansas.EPA scientists determinedthat these were not randomdetections, bu t instead w ereindicative o f a pa ttern ofmovemen t toward ground-w ater. The EPA/ Monsantopa ct calls for autom atic sus-pension if mitigation mea-sures are not agreed upon

after such a pattern ofmovement for acetochlor isdetected in any single stateor location . After nu me rousmee tings betw een the regis-trant and the government,Monsan to agreed to nomitigation measures, yet theAdministration took no ac-tion to suspen d o r curtailuse of the com pou nd (Wa-

ter Policy Report 1997).

In April 1997, the Adminis-tration of Gov. GeorgePataki bann ed acetochlor inthe state of New York. TheNew York State D ep artme ntof Environmental Conserva-tion (DEC), cited the

Since 19 93 , use ofmajor weed ki l lersthat contaminatedrinking w ater show sno d ecrease at all.


28/42


chemicals toxicity and thesignificant likelihood that itwo uld contaminate drinkingw ater. According to theNew York State DEC:

... a com pa rison of thetoxicological and environ-me ntal fate p rope rties ofacetochlor versus those o fthe six corn herbicidesshow s that acetochlor hastoxicological and environ-

mental fate profiles compa-rable to, and in som e caseswo rse than, those o f theother compounds.Acetochlor also has an ap-

plication rate comparableto or greater than some ofthese compounds, suggest-ing that its use may notresult in greatly reducedenvironm ental loading(Nosenchuck 1997).


29/42


Pestic ide U se is Rising

Chapter 4

Despite the Clinton-GoreAdministrations widely publi-cized po licy in 1993 to redu cepe sticide u se in agriculture, theopp osite has hap pen ed in thep ast five years. In fact, trend s

point toward increasing use inthe years ahead (Figure 7).

Two pieces of evidence pointto ever-increasing pesticide use.One is the fact that no pesticideshave been taken off the marketsince 1993. When comb inedwith analyses of federal residuemonitoring programs, indicatesthat farme rs are m ostly using the

same pe sticides that they w erein that year. The secon d is in-formation on pesticide sales,which indicates that farmers arespending record amoun ts onthese same crop protectionchemicals each year.

Farmers spen t more mo neyon agricultural pe sticides in 1996than ever before. In fact agricul-

tural pesticide sales took theirsharpest jump in years after1993, going from $6.1 billion toan estimated $8.2 billion in 1996.

Herbicide sales jumped sig-nificantly and, for the first timein m ore than a de cade, insecti-cide sales increased sub stantially

(Figure 8). While govern me ntinformation is limited, it is clearthat the sales boom has translatedinto an overall upw ard trend inusage since 1993.

Agricultural pesticide use inthe United States peaked at theend of the 1970s at about 843

Figure 7 . Agricultural p esticide use increased sharplyunder the C linton Adm inistrat ion.

* Pest i c i de us age da ta f o r 1996 a re est im a tes based on c o m m un i c a t i ons w i t h p esti c i d e i n d u str y an al y sts.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p . C o m p i l e d f ro m E PA 1 9 9 7 , Pe st i c i d e I ndus t r y Sa les and U sage . D oes no t i n c lud e usage o f su l f u r o r p e t r o leum /o i l s .

' 87 ' 88 ' 89 ' 90 ' 91 ' 92 ' 93 ' 94 ' 95 ' 9 6 *

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

Pe

sticidesU

sed

(M

illionsofPoun

ds)


30/42


million po und s pe r year, accord-ing to EPA. After 1979 usa getrended dow nw ard, wi th someyea r-to-yea r variation s, falling toa low of 658 million pounds in1987roughly the same level ithad bee n in the mid-1970s.

Since 1987, however, the over-all trend has bee n up ward and

has continued through theClinton -Go re Administration . Ag-ricultural pesticide use jumped to786 million po un ds in 1994an80 million pound increase (11pe rcent) from 1993 (Figure 8). In1995 it dropped back downslightly, to 771 million pounds,but in 1996 farm pesticide usage

went up again, to between 790to 800 million pounds for thefirst time since 1984.

In California, the nations

num ber on e agricultural andpe sticide -using state, pe sticideuse increased by 12 millionpounds between 1993 and 1995,a particularly ironic state of af-fairs in a state with the nationsfine st agricultural research estab-lishment and many of the na-tion s leading practitioners in al-ternative pest control systems(CPR 1997).

Methyl bromide provides yetano ther examp le o f the Clinton-Gore Administrations failed pes-ticide use and risk reductionpo licies. Methyl brom ide is ahighly toxic and ozone-depletingsoil fumigant and the fourthmo st widely used pe sticide na-tion w ide. In 1993, less than 15million pounds were used in

California, the only state forwh ich there is accurate u se data.Use of the fumigant has risenun de r the Clinton Adm inistrationin spite of an impending 2001ban on its pro du ction . This totalrose to 17.6 million pounds by1995 and sho ws n o signs ofslowing.

Nation w ide, EPA has in effect

promoted methyl bromide useby granting numerous section-18 em ergency use exem ption sfor methyl bromide use in swee tpotatoes, watermelons and car-rots, am on g othe r crop s. Issuingemergency use permits for me-thyl brom ide on crops l ike thesewh ere i t was previously not used

Figure 8 . Pesticide com panies enjoyed rec ord sales underthe Clinton-G ore Adm inistrat ion.

* Pest i c i de sa les da ta f o r 1996 a re est im a tes based on c o m m un i c a t i on w i t h in du s try analy sts.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p . C o m p i l e d f ro m E PA 1 9 9 7 , Pe st i c i d e Ind us t ry Sales and U sage.

1 9 90 1 99 1 1 99 2 1 9 93 1 99 4 1 99 5 1 99 6*

0

1 , 0 0 0

2 , 0 0 0

3 , 0 0 0

4 , 0 0 0

5 , 0 0 0

6 , 0 0 0

7 , 0 0 0

8 , 0 0 0

9 , 0 0 0

Pesticide

Sales(M

illionsofD

ollars)

Tota l

H erb ic ides

Insect ic ides

Fung i c i des

EPA h as in effe ctpromoted m ethylbromide use bygranting num eroussection-18em ergency useexemptions on cropsw here methyl bromidew as not p reviouslyused in significan t

amounts.


31/42


vividly illustrates the lack of anycohe rent program w ithin theAdministration to promote sus-tainab le agriculture, integratedpest management, or to reducethe use of pesticides.

Pesticide Registration: In W ithThe O ld and In W i th the N ew

Despite its high-profile 1993comm itment to take the highest-risk p esticide s off the marke t toreduce risks and make room forsafer pesticides, in five yearsthe Clinton-Gore Administrationhas managed to ban just one

pe sticide, ph osdrin, an d sched-ule the ban of another,cyanazine. The ph osdrin banhas produced no m easurablebroad public health benefits (itwas banned to provide m uch-needed protection forfarmw orkers) and the cyanazineban, such as it is, will not go

Table 1. Som e of the m ost popular pesticides in use today date back to the 19 40 s.

into effect until the year 2003.(Farmers currently use about 25million pounds of this bannedpe sticide each year.) PresidentReagan banned or forced volun-tary cance llation s o f 12 pe sticides

for food use in his 8 years in o f-fice, and Presiden t Bush bann edor forced cancellation of 4 duringhis termincluding Alar.

Because o f governmen tal inac-tion, the same basic array ofolder, more toxic chemicals usedin 1993 predominate on farms in1998. Inde ed , the chem icals thatprevail in American agriculture

today are the same ones thathave b een in the forefront ofmodern scientific agriculture fordecad es (Table 1).

In order to ade quately protectchildren from p esticides, EPAmust ban or severely curtail theuse o f many of these o lder, high-

Sourc e : EPA Pest i c i de I ndu st r y Sa les and U sage : 199 4 and 199 5 M ark e t Est im a tes, Augus t 1997 .

President Reaganbanned or forcedvoluntarycancellations of 12pesticides. TheCl in ton /Gor e

Adm inistrat ion hasm anaged to ban justone.

Pr im ary Fir st Pr od uct Estim ated To tal U se

Rank Pesticide M anufacturer Registered (pounds)

1 A traz i n e N o v arti s 1 9 5 9 7 0 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 02 M eto l ac h l o r N o v arti s 1 9 7 7 6 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 03 2 ,4 -D Rh o n e Po u l en c 1 9 4 8 5 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 04 M etam So d i u m Z en ec a 1 9 5 5 5 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 05 M eth y l B ro m id e G reat Lak es Ch em ic al 1 9 4 7 4 8 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 06 G ly p h o sate M o n san to 1 9 8 6 4 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 07 D ic h lo ro p ro p en e D o w El an c o 1 9 6 0 4 0 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 08 Cy an az i n e D u p o n t/ G r i ff i n 1 9 7 1 2 6 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0

9 (t i e) Pen d i m eth al i n A m eric an Cy an am id 1 9 7 5 2 5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 09 (t i e) Tr i fl u ral i n D o w El an c o 1 9 6 3 2 5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0

1 0 Ch lo rp y r i fo s D o w El an c o 1 9 6 5 2 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0


32/42


risk pesticides. Taking thesesteps, however, will hardly spellthe end of American agriculture,nor will it leave farmers withfew er p esticide op tions.

In fact, there are more pesti-cides available to American farm-ers today than e ver before in his-tory, in n o sm all pa rt than ks to

the Clinton-Gore Adm inistration ,wh ich has made m ore new pest i-cides available to farmers thanany other administration in thepast 30 years.

Figure 9. The Clinton Adm inistrat ion put 81 new pesticideson the m arket , but banned only one.

The Adm inistration allow eda record num ber of new pest i-cides o nto the market since199381 in all through 1995,the highest three-year total ever

(Figure 9). The 31 pe sticidesregistered by the Clinton-GoreAdministration in 1995 is thesecond-highest number of newpesticide registrations in asingle year since 1975, whenGe rald Fords EPA p ut 35 ne wpe sticide s into com me rce. In1994 and 1995 EPA registered14 and 15 new insecticides re-spe ctively, nearly twice as

man y as the m ost ever regis-tered in any single previousyear (8 in both 1985 and 1975)(EPA 1997).

Fully half of these ne w lyapproved pesticides did notmeet the EPAs safer designa-tion as promised in the 1993po licy statem en t. Notableamo ng the non -safer app rov-

als is the w ee d k illeracetochlor, a probable humancarcinoge n that was con tami-nating tap w ater through out theMidwest within two years afterEPA ap p rove d it in 1993. Asnoted earlier, Gov. Geo rgePataki bann ed acetochlor inNew York in 1997.

The 40 safer pesticides that

EPA has approved since 1993have had a trivial impact onhum an he alth and the environ-me nt because farmers continueto rely on more toxic, outdated

1 National Organic Standards Board. 1998. Comme nts on the propo sed National

Organ ic Standa rds rule. March 28, 1998).

Sourc e : Env i r on m en ta l W ork ing G roup . C om p i led f r om U .S . EPA Pest i c i de I ndus t r y Sa les and U sage , 1994 and 1 995 M ark e t Est im a tes, Au gust 199 7 and c om m un i c a t i ons w i t h EPA s ta f f.

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

"Safer"

N o t "safer"

N ew Pest ic id e

Regis t rat ions

Pest ic ides

B anned


33/42


comp oun ds that EPA has al-lowed to remain on the market.

Sustaina ble Farm ing: TheAdm inistrations Record on

O rganic Food Standards, IPM ,Research an d TechnicalAssistance

Three key areas of policymaking and action define theClinton-Gore Administrationsefforts and successes to date topromote sustainable agricul-ture, as the Adm inistration com -mitted to do from the ve ry first

senten ce of its 1993 po licy state-men t. The overall record onsustainab le agriculture is ex-ceedingly po or.

Nation al Organic Stan dards.

In 1990 Congress enacted theNational Organic Food Produc-tion Act after a lobb ying cam-paign on the p art of the organicfood indu stry, consum ers and

en vironm en talists. The pu rpo seof the Act was to alleviate con-cerns tha t the lack o f consistentstanda rds for organic food s w asundermining consumer confi-dence and thereby the growthof the organic market. (NationalO rganic Standa rds Board, 1998)1

The Act set a target date of Oc-tobe r 1, 1993 for the issuan ceof national standards for organic

food.

Developing o rganic standardswas see n b y the en tire sustain-able agriculture m ovem ent as aprimary public policy goal. Or-ganic food is seen as a vital andgrowing option for consumerswho wish to reduce their expo-

sure to pesticides, and who wantto support farming systems thatdo no t rely on pe sticide s. TheAct itself was p assed over thestrong opposition of many farm

policy leaders in Congress andmainline farm groups. They ob-jecte d to th e p e rce p tio n th at o r-ganic food certified by the federalgovernmen t wou ld be perceivedas supe rior to or safer than con-ventional food.

The Bush Administration failedto issue any stand ards. When theClinton-Gore Adm inistration be -

gan, prop one nts of organic farm-ing had high hopes that the na-tional standards would be pro-posed and finalized immediately.Those ho pe s, it turns ou t, we rebadly m isplaced.

It took five years b efore theClinton-Gore Adm inistration ma n-aged to issue a proposed set ofstanda rds for p ublic comm ent.

Worse, the rules that we re finallyproposed were some thing of aregulatory near-death e xperiencefor the organic food industry.

The Adm inistration s p rop osal,amo ng o ther things, left op en thepossibility that food irradiation,biotechnology, and sewagesludge could be used in organicfoo d pro du ction . This stance

generated a record 200,000 let-ters, e-mails and phone calls fromconsumers and the organic indus-try criticizing the rule during thepu blic com me nt pe riod . Agricul-ture Secretary Glickman, bowingto this fierce opposition, an-nou nced just a we ek after thecomm ent pe riod closed that the

The Adm inistrat ionspropo sed standard sfor organic food leftopen the possibilitythat food irradiat ion,

biotechnology, andsewage sludge couldbe used in organicfood production.


34/42


big three objections would beproh ibited in organic food , andthe stand ard wo uld be rew rittenand reissued for another round ofcomment .

It was an impressive win forconsumers and the organic indus-tryin a fight they should neverhave had to face, and certainlynever exp ected to face from theClinton-Gore Administration.The defensive victory in the firstpu blic round of the organicrulemaking has made organicpropo nents wary about the next

version of the prop osal. Manyconcerns remain to be addressedfrom the initial proposed rule.

As a consequ ence , the co untrystill lacks national standards fororganic food that wou ld h avegreatly boosted organic foodsales, prod uction and availabilityhad they been issued immedi-ately after th e Adm inistration an-

nou nced its intent to promo tesustaina ble agriculture. It m aybe 1999 or 2000 be fore final stan-dards are put into effect.

Sustainable Farming Research

an d Extension. For more than adecad e, environm ental, farm an dconsumer groups w orking onsustainab le agriculture issueshave sou ght to boo st fund ing for

two federal programs explicitlydevoted to sustainable farmingresearch and extension work.Because i t has bee n a top prior-ity, sustainable farming propo-nents were elated w hen theWhite Ho use m ade fund ing forthese efforts an integral part of

the 1993 pesticide p olicy state-ment .

But in the five yea rs since ,the Administration has done

next to no thing to bo ost fund ingfor sustainab le agriculture re-search. According to the Sus-tainable Agriculture Coalition,fund ing for the two programs inthe first year of the Clinton Ad-ministration (FY 1994) simplytracked the Bu sh Administrationrequest, and totaled $9.9 million.The Administration requested,but did not fight for, modest in-

creases in the b udge t each yearsince. In FY 1999, the Adm inis-tration is requesting $13.3 mil-lion, just $3.4 million more than1994 levels. To pu t tho se fig-ures in context, the total budgetfor agricultural research and ex-ten sion is ab ou t $1.9 billion . Ifthe Clinton-Gore request for FY1999 were ap proved , the sus-tainable agriculture movements

top priority would be receiving0.7 pe rcent of the research andextension budget.

The Integrated Pest Manage-

ment Goal. In 1994, the Adm in-istration anno unce d that in pu r-suit of its 1993 pesticide reduc-tion po licy it wo uld ado pt a go alof bringing 75 percent of thenations cropland under inte-

grated pest management systems(IPM) by the year 2000. O n itssurface apparently a progressivemove, the anno uncemen t wasme t with co ncern by sustainab leagriculture p ropo nen ts becau seo fIPMs checkered history.

In its origins decades ago,

I f the Cl in ton-G orerequest for FY 19 99were approved, thesustainable agriculturem ovements top

prior i ty would bereceiving 0.7 percentof the research andextension budget.


35/42


classical IPM systems substan-tially red uce d or e liminated reli-ance on pesticides by utilizingnatural predators, crop rotationand other methods to control

pe sts. But over time the integ-rity of wha t is me ant b y IPM w asdegraded, as more and moreIPM systems featured heavyuse of chem icals. Indeed , pro-po nen ts of the sustainable e ndof the IPM spectrum have takento calling their approachbiointensive IPM in an attemptto distinguish it from systemsthat, for all intents and purposes,

are simply conventional farmingw ith a n IPM labe l stuck o n it.IPM in some contexts means thefarmers do little more than lookto see if pests are present beforekilling them with the standard,toxic pesticides, used at standardrates and app lied in standardfashion . Many sustainab le agri-culture prop one ntsincludingEWGbe lieve that the attraction

of the 75 p ercen t IPM goal toUSDA was precisely that it couldmean an increase, decrease orno change whatsoever in pesti-cide usage.

There has be en n o m ajor ,organized effort on the part ofUSDA to p rom ote IPM in a nyform or to follow up to its 1994com mitmen t. In fact, as of May,

1998, just 19 months shy of thedeadline, Agriculture Depart-ment officials havent evensettled on the d efinition of IPMthat they w ill use to verify howw idely it is practiced. Need lessto say, w ith no criteria in p laceby which to measure IPM adop-

tion, n othing rigorous h as bee ndone to de termine whe re the na-tion is with respect to the 75 per-cen t goal. Most disturbing in thecontext of the 1993 Administration

po licy is the fact that no on e inthe governm ent h as the slightestidea h ow pe sticide u sage, the e n-vironment or human health wouldbe affected by the ad op tion o fUSDAs vaguely specified IPM sys-tems, regardless of the degree towhich they might have beenadopted by farmers.

Right To Kn ow

The state of government infor-mation abou t pesticide usage inthe United States can only be de-scribe d as p rimitive. Imp rovingthis situation is one of the firstthings that the Clinton-Gore Ad-ministration could and shouldhave done in pursuit of its pesti-cide redu ction p olicy. It has noth a p p e n e d .

Since the early 1990s the fed -eral governme nt has requiredfarmers to keep records of certainrestricted -use p esticide s, as man -dated b y the 1990 farm b ill. Byany me asure the program is amake -work, bureau cratic sham.The p ublic has no access to therecords, farmers are not requiredto subm it the records to the gov-

ernme nt, and the USDA has notcollected the records or samp lesof them to gain an y insight fromthe work it required of farmers.

As an inade qua te proxy for ac-tual pesticide usage, EPA collectsnationwide estimates on pesticide

W ith no cri ter ia inplace by which tomeasure IPMadoption, nothingrigorous has been

done to determinew here the nat ion isw ith respect to the 75percent goal.


36/42


sales, which it uses along w ithother da ta to e stimate u sage.Since 1990, the USDA has con-ducted a nationwide survey ofpesticide use on certain selected

crop s, called the AgriculturalChe mical Usage Surve y. Esti-ma tes of crop spe cific pesticideuse are pu blished on alternatingyears for Fruit and Nut Crops andVege table Crop s. Sum ma ries ofpesticide use on major crops likecorn, soybeans and wheat arepu blished annua lly. These re-ports summarize data at the statelevel (i.e. estima ted use of car-

baryl on Washington ap ples).

The ab sence o f a fede ral pe sti-cide use reporting system standsin sharp contrast to theAdministrations overall right tokno w record . The Adm inistra-tion has exp and ed the p ublicsright to kn ow abo ut industrialpo llution by adding ne w rep ort-ing requirements to the Toxics

Release Inventory for h und reds

of chemicals and nine major in-du stries, not includ ing agricul-ture. The simp le act of rep ort-ing to the TRI has led to signifi-cant po llution reduction at man y

individual factories and facilities.In con trast, pe sticide u se is in-creasing an d n either the pu blicnor the government has anyidea of wha t pesticides are ap-plied where, or in whatamounts .

Pesticide use reporting hasma ny be ne fits. It p rovides in-formation nee ded to safeguard

water supplies, wildlife and hu-ma n he alth. It provides criticalinform ation to scientists seekingto improve p es t managementsystem s. It allow s regu lators totrack progress on pesticide riskreduction and manageme nt , andlast bu t no t least, it pro vide s thepublic with information it needsto p articipate in p esticide p olicymaking.


37/42


References


Californian s for Pe sticide Reform . 1997. Rising To xic Tide : PesticideUse in Californ ia 1991-1995. Jam es Liebm an , Pesticide Action Net-work. 1997

Clarkson , J.R., et al. 1997. Hu ma n exp osu re to atrazine an d sima zinevia grou nd an d surface drinking w ater. Upd ate III. Novartis Study

no . 696-95. Sub m itted to EPA Sp ecial Review . May 30. Gre en sbo ro,NC.

Burros, Marian. 1993. U.S. is Taking Aim a t Farm Che m icals in theFood Sup ply: Emp hasis on Children , New York Time s, Jun e 27, 1993.p A1.

Kenw orth y, Tom an d Joh n Schw artz. 1993. 3 U.S. Age ncies An-nounce Joint Commitment to Cut Pesticide Use, The WashingtonPost, June 26, 1993. p A5.

Gu tfeld, Rose . 1993. Pesticide Use W ou ld be Cut Und er U.S. Plan.The W all St. Jou rna l, Jun e 28, 1993. p . A18.

He aly, Melissa. 1993. 3 U.S. Age ncies Anno un ce Joint Plans to CurbPesticide s, Los Ang eles Tim es, June 26, 1993.

Environm en tal Working Grou p. 1994. Tap Water Blues. Richard Wiles,Brian Coh en , Susan Elderkin, Chris Camp be ll. O ctobe r 1994.

Environmental Working Group. 1997. Tough to Swallow. RichardWiles, Brian Cohen . O ctobe r 1997.

EPA 1993a. Press Relea se. EPA Adm inistrator Brow ne r Anno un cesSteps to Carry O ut NAS Pesticide Rep ort Reco mm en dations. Jun e 30,1993.

EPA 1993b. EPA Press Relea se EPA, USDA, FDA statem en t on p esti-cide u se redu ction an d sustainab le agriculture. Jun e 25, 1993.


38/42


EPA 1997. Pesticide Sales an d Usage : 1994 an d 1995 Marke t Estima tes.Environ me ntal Protection Agency Office o f Pesticide Program s. Au-gust 1997.

Ha cke tt, Am y, 1997. Aceto ch lor Registration Partne rship Sub m ission .

Jun e 9. Wilm ington , DE.

Nosen chu ck, Norma n. Ap ril, 1997. New York State Dep artmen t ofEnvironm en tal Con servation . Letter to Micha el S. O Conn or,Acetoch lor Registration Partne rship. re: De nial of the App lication toRegister Pe sticide Prod ucts Containing the New Active Ingred ientAcetoch lor. Division of Solid and Ha zard ou s Materials. Alba ny, NY

Peto , R. et al. 1991. Effects on 4080 Rats of Chro nic Inge stion of N-Nitrosodiethylamine or N-Nitroso dime thylam ine: A Detailed D ose-re-sp on se Stud y. Cance r Rese arch . 51:6415-6451. 1991.

USDA. 1996. Natio na l Agriculture Statistics Service. Agricultura lChem ical Usage: Field Crop s Sum ma ry 1995. Washington , DC.

Wate r Policy Rep ort. 1997. Age ncy Sugg ests Drink ing Wate r Thre at:Pesticide Companies Oppose EPA Conclusion on Acetochlor Determi-nations. Jun e 11.


39/42

EW G Publ icat ions

O rder ing Inform ation

Please include $3 shipp ing and h andling per repo rt. Washington DC residen ts add 6% sales tax. Please send a check

or mo ne y order to EWG, 1718 Conn ecticut Avenu e, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009 no ting wh ich pub lications

you w ould like to receive. We rese

same as it ever was

Documents