Reptile & Amphibian Forums

White House Sued for Atrazine Documents

WASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 2003 (ENS) - The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit today to force the White House and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reveal documents detailing meetings they may have had with representatives of the pesticide industry before exempting them from new restrictions on atrazine.
The most widely used weed killer in the United States, atrazine has been linked by scientific studies to high rates of prostate and other cancers in human beings and sexual deformities in frogs.

On October 31, the EPA said atrazine manufacturers would not be held to any new restrictions after reviewing the chemical as part of a court approved consent decree that it reached with the NRDC in 2001.

EPA officials said they did not find "any studies that would lead the agency to conclude that potential cancer risk is likely from exposure to atrazine." They said atrazine is "not likely" to cause cancer in humans.

Mike Mack, president of Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., which manufactures the chemical, said at the time, "This decision confirms what extensive scientific studies have shown - that atrazine meets the most stringent regulatory safety standards."

But media reports have alleged that the pesticide industry applied pressure that the Bush administration responded to in its atrazine decision. To find out more, NRDC filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests with the EPA and the White House, which have failed to produce relevant documents, the group's attorneys say.

In today's lawsuit, NRDC seeks to compel the EPA and the White House to disclose records of their communications with the pesticide industry regarding atrazine.

"This is yet another example of the Bush administration letting industry write the rules behind closed doors," said NRDC attorney Aaron Colangelo. "The public has a right to know whether the government is sacrificing public health and the environment to satisfy the pesticide industry's demands."

The agency says it is requiring atrazine manufacturers to monitor residue levels in 40 indicator watersheds that are representative of watersheds that may be vulnerable to contamination where atrazine is regularly used. In addition, manufacturers will do further studies on the health impacts of atrazine to amphibians.

In the United States, 60 million to 70 million pounds of atrazine are applied annually to fields, golf courses and lawns, and the EPA has found widespread atrazine contamination in U.S. waterways.

The most recent data indicate that more than one million Americans drink from water supplies contaminated with atrazine at potentially harmful levels.

But the company says atrazine is good for the environment. "Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that atrazine is the most widely used herbicide in conservation tillage systems, which can reduce soil erosion by as much as 90 percent," Syngenta said following the EPA decision.

Seven countries in the European Union have banned atrazine: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. These countries have a policy of banning pesticides that occur in drinking water at levels higher than 0.1 parts per billion. Some of the EU countries that have not banned atrazine are the Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg and the UK. It is subject to restrictions in Switzerland, the home country of Syngenta.

Allen Salzberg

This holiday season, go to www.herparts.com for all your
herp related gift shopping: Everything from reproductions of antique prints to
contemporary photographs and watercolors to holiday greeting cards
and jewelry from around the world. All profits go to Herpdigest.

It sounds like a good chemical to me!

First, everyone knows that the agriculture industry depends on chemicals to bring us quality foods in large quantities. If every one was willing to buy "wormy" apples and such, farmers would be happy to supply them! It is the consumers desire to have plenty of pretty (large, colorful, pet free) produce at a good price that has driven the pesticide/herbicide/agricultural chemical industry, not any specific administration. To blame Bush for this is nonsense, it would make a lot more sense to blame the general public (consumer) that demands it. It looks like another case of unsubstantiated Bush bashing. Forget about the science, we have a politically correct case to bash a republican leader, so lets do it!

Second, the important thing is, does this chemical produce less cancer/disease than the chemicals that were used before it came along. If it is safer, or cheaper to produce with the same level of safety or better, I'm all for it. We seem to have a real problem with zero tolerance in this country. If something is just slightly bad, we can't use it to replace something that is really, really bad because it is still bad! If it is better, it is better, period. Corporations don't spend millions upon millions on research and development to try and find a product that is more dangerous, especially in this litigious society. They will try to find cheaper ways to produce the same products so they can compete better with their rival companies in the marketplace, but most won't risk hundreds of millions of dollars in potential lawsuits to bring a new product to market, unless they can make at least as much money as the lawsuits would cost,. I highly doubt that Atrizine is so much cheaper to produce than other chemicals that it would be worth all the added potential lawsuits to produce it (if it was so dangerous), over other chemicals that have the same use.

Here is a site I found that talks about atrizine. I was looking specifically for information on the chemical that was available before Bush was in office to see if it was considered dangerous then. (thus eliminating the Bush bashing effect of political correctness.) While this was in 2001, there is no way that the information available from the lab tests could have been done in the same year Bush took office--it takes many years for such testing to be done.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts153.html

Here is some of the basic info. from the site above written in 2001, basically before Bush was in office. Just before Bush took office, it was classified as not producing cancer, though it does appear to cause liver, kidney, heart damage. Take particular note of the use of the language when reading this. May is used pretty much everywhere there is something potentially bad. Definitive words like does notare used elswhere with good things like "does not accumulate".

HIGHLIGHTS: The general population is probably not exposed to atrazine. However, exposure to atrazine may occur at farms where it has been sprayed. Atrazine may affect pregnant women by causing their babies to grow more slowly than normal. Birth defects and liver, kidney, and heart damage has been seen in animals exposed to high levels of atrazine. This chemical has been found in at least 20 of the 1,585 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

What happens to atrazine when it enters the environment?
Atrazine enters the environment primarily through spraying on farm crops.
In soil, atrazine is taken up by the plants growing in the soil or is broken down over a period of days to months.
It may also wash from soil into streams or groundwater where it will stay for a long time, because breakdown of the chemical is slow in water.
If atrazine enters the air, it may be broken down by reactions with chemicals in the air, or it may adhere to particles such as dust which eventually settle out of the air.
Atrazine does not accumulate in living organisms such as algae, bacteria, clams, or fish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How might I be exposed to atrazine?
Most people are not exposed to atrazine on a regular basis.
Farm workers, chemical sprayers, and people who work in factories that make atrazine may be exposed.
People may also be exposed to atrazine by digging in dirt that has atrazine in it.
Individuals may also be exposed by drinking water from wells that are contaminated with the herbicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can atrazine affect my health?
Liver, kidney, and heart damage has been observed in animals exposed to atrazine; we do not know if this would also occur in humans. Atrazine has also been shown to cause changes in blood hormone levels in animals that affected ovulation and the ability to reproduce. These effects are not expected to occur in humans because of specific biological differences between humans and these types of animals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How likely is atrazine to cause cancer?
Available information is inadequate to definitely state whether atrazine causes cancer in humans. There are limited human and animal data that suggest that there may be a link between atrazine exposure and various types of cancer. A Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) sponsored by EPA has classified atrazine as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that atrazine is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.

Considering the fact that this chemical breaks down, so that it doesn't accumulate somewhere and increase its concentration levels over time, is a very important trait for any chemical. Unfortunately, it breaks down in water more slowly, but at least it does break down. I guess you can't have everything in the real world!

Also, consider 2 paragraphs from the article you posted that seem to be in opposition to each other.

First they say.

On October 31, the EPA said atrazine manufacturers would not be held to any new restrictions after reviewing the chemical as part of a court approved consent decree that it reached with the NRDC in 2001.

Then they say.

To find out more, NRDC filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests with the EPA and the White House, which have failed to produce relevant documents, the group's attorneys say.

In today's lawsuit, NRDC seeks to compel the EPA and the White House to disclose records of their communications with the pesticide industry regarding atrazine.

Now, I am no lawyer, but why would you (the NRDC) file a suit, or anything else for that matter, when you (the NRDC) have entered into a court approved consent decree? Also, I want to point out that the atrazine manufacturers wouldn't be held to new restrictions, just the old ones that were good enough before! So, lets see, there is no evidence of cancer risks, there is nothing found in the freedom of info. act documents, old restrictinos apply, the NRDC entered into an agreement that they are now not happy with so they want info. about meetings, this sure looks like a witch hunt to me!

Rodney

The devil with what agency approved it (anyone can be bought). What I would like to know is when in the crop cycle do they spray it...how long before harvesting? It makes a big difference on how much of this stuff makes it to the dinner table.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Rodney,
Your missing the most important point - that this is new research. What we are finding out about atrazine is pretty remarkable. Obviously, there has been a lot of research about atrazine in the past - we wouldn't be able to use it at all if it hadn't undergone some significant research. But new research is showing that it is much more dangerous then we ever thought - and its a very wiely used chemical. We all have it in us, for example.

Farmers don't get to test chemicals - they apply them as per the manufactures recomendations. Obviously the folks that make it want it to be used to the max. I have seen studies that show these chemicals are just as effective applied in 1/4 the application recommended. We need to just get to the truth, regardless of who (what administration) recommended the change.

Joe

I can't disagree with what you just said! I agree completely about the concentration usage and further testing. (except that I don't think I am missing the point!) I am highly suspicious whenever someone says something just to blame a current president, regardless of his political affiliation. I am also suspicious when someone only looks at a small fraction of a cycle or a small fraction of an industry and doesn't compare it what else is out there. If you don't look at the whole picture, you can miss an awful lot!

Rodney