Subject: California Remains “Hooked on Poisons”------- To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov> Dear Mr. Helliker, A short while ago I received an
"answer" from your Department's webmaster, which now can be found at: http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/00-11-03.htm
- I would like to point out the gist of your "response" was to say
individuals could use safe and far more effective alternatives only if they did
not use them on food for humans or animals.
You obviously STILL are demanding that California foodstuffs must be only
be sprayed with your "registered" POISONS. In view of your policy of
only allowing the use of "registered" POISONS, I thought you might
like to read an article from the Global Pesticide Campaigner, August 2000, Vol.
10, No. 2 entitled: California Remains “Hooked on Poisons”- Author - Susan
Kegley, Ph.D., Staff Scientist. Each year, more than 200 million pounds of pesticides are
used in California. They are
applied in schools, in and around homes, on roadsides, and on farmland.
Picked up by winds and water, these chemicals are distributed to nearly
every corner of the state and are commonly found on food, in surface water and
ground water and in the air. Nearly
25% of the total pesticides used in the U.S. are used in California, a startling
statistic considering that California cropland represents only 2-3% of the total
planted acreage in the U.S. This
high use of pesticides is clearly related to California's production of many
high value fruit, nut and vegetable crops, as well as its large urban
populations. Full pesticide use reporting for agricultural and
commercial applications of pesticides in California has been in place since 1990
in the form of the California pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) system.
Only three states in the U.S. (California, New York, and Oregon) require
“full use reporting” of pesticide use with California's system collecting
the most detailed information on pesticide application to cropland; post harvest
treatment of crops during storage and shipping; application to parks, golf
courses and roadside rights-of-way and household pest treatments carried out by
professional exterminators. This
extensive pesticide use reporting system makes it possible to track pesticide
use quantitatively by geographic region and crop and to observe changes over
time. Toxic tide continues to rise In 1997, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and
Californians for Pesticide Reform reported on pesticide use trends in California
from 1991 to 1995 in Rising Toxic Tide, which documented a massive increase in
pesticide use in the early to mid 1990s. In May 2000, PANNA released an update of this report Hooked
on Poison, using newly released PUR data from 1996 to 1998 to take a longer term
look at pesticide use in California. analysis
of State pesticide use data shows that from 1996 to 1998 more than 1.5 billion
pounds of pesticides were applied in California.
During this eight year period, Californians significantly increased their
reliance on pesticides, with reported use up 40%, an average increase of 7.2
million pounds per year. Pesticide use on cropland showed a dramatic increase in
pesticide intensity – pounds of active ingredients applied per acre up 60%,
from 14.4 to 23.0 pounds per acre between 1991 and 1998.
This overall increase includes a more than doubling of the use of
carcinogenic pesticides, with reported use up 12% between 1991 and 1998. While pesticide sales generally paralleled pesticide use
during the time period evaluated, the gap of 100-150 million pounds per year
between sales and use shows that the pesticide use reporting system does not
track all pesticide uses. The gap
is a result of unreported consumer use, stockpiling of chemicals such as methyl
bromide (due to be phased out by 2005, methyl bromide sales in 1997 were 19
million pounds while reported use was only 15.7 million pounds).
Although California's PUR system provides a fairly comprehensive picture
of agricultural pesticide use, it grossly underestimates non agricultural use
because state reporting requirements do not apply to consumers, industry and
other institutions that apply pest control products without the assistance of a
registered Pest Control Advisor (PCA). “Inert”
ingredients in pesticides – often quite toxic themselves – contribute
additional hundreds of millions of pounds of toxins to air, water and soil but
are not required to be reported. Use of the most toxic pesticides remain high Approximately one third of the total pounds of pesticides
used in California in any given year are known to be particularly toxic to
humans, whether as immediate (acute) poisons, chronic toxins or both.
The term California Bad Actor pesticides is used to designate the most
toxic pesticides that meet both the following criteria:
1) they are registered for use in California as of October 1999, and 2)
they are either acute poisons, known or probable carcinogens, neurotoxins,
reproductive or developmental toxicants, or are known to have contaminated
California groundwater. Overview of CA Bad Actor pesticide use trends Two distinctive trends in reported use of CA Bad Actor
pesticides are apparent between 1991 and 1998.
Between 1991 and 1995, total CA Bad Actor pesticide use rose sharply from
50 million pounds to an all time high of 72 million pounds, a 44% increase.
Since 1995, CA Bad Actor pesticide use appears to be on the decline, down
12% to 61 million pounds in 1998. This incremental reduction is the result of a combination
of several factors, including new (or impending) regulations restricting use of
toxic pesticides, particularly the organophosphates and methyl bromide,
voluntary efforts by some growers and commodity groups to reduce toxic pesticide
use, and expansion of the organic sector in California agriculture.
Progress in reduction in use of CA Bad Actor pesticides does not extend
across the entire spectrum of CA Bad Actor pesticides however.
For example, use of carcinogens remains at near-record levels and shows
no tendency to decrease. Trends for
each CA Bad Actor category are summarized below: Carcinogens:
Reported use of carcinogenic pesticides increased 127% between 1991 and
1998, from 12.1 million pounds to 27.6 million pounds.
While use of carcinogens has remained relatively constant since 1996, it
remains within 0.5 million pounds of the highest level ever reported.
The highest-use pesticides in this category are the soil fumigants metam
sodium and Telone® (1,3-dichloropropene) Telone® is increasingly used as a
replacement for methyl bromide and metam sodium in spite of the fact that its
registration was suspended by California Department of Pesticide Regulation
between 1990 and 1994 because it was deemed too hazardous to use. Use of Telone® soared to 2.8 million pounds in 1998, up from
2,000 pounds in 1994. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicants: Reported
use of pesticides that are reproductive and developmental toxicants, causing
sterility, birth defects, or impaired childhood development, show a two-phase
trend, with reported use up 43% between 1991 and 1995, from 25.8 million pounds
to a high of 37.0 million pounds. From
1995 to 1998, use dropped by 16% to 31.0 million pounds in 1998.
The decline over the last few years is dominated by a decrease in the use
of the soil fumigants methyl bromide and metam sodium, which account for 90% of
pesticide use in this category. Groundwater Contaminants: Reported use of known
groundwater contaminants in steadily, up 18% between 1991 and 1998,
from 3.6 million pounds to 4.3 million pounds.
This trend is dominated by increases in the use of the herbicides diuron
(also a carcinogen) and norflurazon and the insecticide
aldicarb (also an acutely toxic pesticide and a neurotoxin). Acutely Toxic Pesticides: Reported use of highly
toxic pesticides that are acute systemic poisons remained relatively constant
between 1991 and 1998, fluctuating around an average of 27.8 million
pounds annually and peaking in 1995 at 31.4 million pounds.
The highest-use pesticides in this category are the fumigants methyl
bromide, chloropicrin, and sulfuryl fluoride. Neurotoxic Pesticides: Neurotoxic
pesticides-organophosphates and carbamates— exhibit a two-phase trend, with
reported use peaking at 17.5
million pounds in 1995, then decreasing to 13.0 million pounds in 1998, the
lowest amount reported since comprehensive pesticide use reporting was
instituted in 1990. Overall use of
these pesticides decreased 5% between 1991 and 1998,
representing a reduction in the use of nearly all pesticides in this
category. Reduction in use of these
pesticides is likely due to a combination
of factors, predominantly the U.S. EPA’s new scrutiny of them under the
federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
of 1996. Reassessment of all
of these pesticides is in progress, causing growers to consider alternatives
more seriously. Lack of leadership in promoting protection of public health
and the environment is evident at both the sate and national levels. DPR
frequently boasts that is has the most comprehensive pesticide regulatory
program of any state of the U.S., yet some very basic health and safety issues
remain unaddressed. One of the
most significant is the lack of a concrete commitment to pesticide use
reduction. Both EPA and DPR often respond to the fact of high
pesticide use with the comment that use does not correspond with exposure and
that pesticides can be used safely if the label directions are followed.
This line of thinking has led to increasingly complex label directions
that specify more and more detailed restrictions on technical application
practices. Such restrictions assume perfect compliance by pesticide
users and no human error. They are
often far too complex to be enforceable and do not take into account chronic
effects of pesticides on human and environmental health.
More importantly, ample evidence shows that these restrictions are
ineffective for prevention of farmworker poisonings, drift of toxic chemicals
into homes and schools, and contamination of groundwater and surface waters.
There is a simple solution. More
than any restriction, reduction in pesticide use and phaseout of the most
dangerous pesticides would result in the greatest reduction in exposures to
pesticides in air, water and food. For change to occur, both DPR and the EPA must take a
proactive stance in advancing pest management into a new era of sustainability.
This includes setting quantifiable interim and longer-term pesticide use
reduction targets, then using these targets to measure progress toward the
larger goal of sustainable pest management.
The best way to ensure a transition away from toxic pesticides is to
provide incentives and support for reducing use as well as strong disincentives
for continued reliance on chemically-based pest management practices. Support for growers to transition to more sustainable
agricultural practices is an integral part of any pesticide use reduction plan.
The transition to ecologically based pest management involves economic
risks and underscores the need for greater extension support to help pesticide
users learn new practices. Funding for research into alternative approaches to pest
management should be dramatically increased.
The miniscule amounts of funding for ecologically-based IPM, organic
agriculture and related purposes currently available are not sufficient to
support a broad-based transition to more sustainable pest control.
Unfortunately, recent attempts to boost funding for sustainable
agriculture research and outreach in California were blocked by Governor Gray
Davis, when he vetoed a $12 million spending package for California Bio Ag
Initiative, a plan with broad support from growers, commodity boards,
researchers and environmental groups. Disincentives to pesticide use should also play a role in a
pesticide use reduction plan. The
full costs of pesticides should be internalized so that pesticide manufacturers
and users pay the full costs associated with adverse health and environmental
effects of pesticides. Methods for
achieving this include increasing registration fees and sales tax on all CA Bad
Actor pesticides by an amount sufficient to influence economic decision-making
and instituting fees for restricted materials use permits.
Revenues generated should be used to support adoption of
biologically-based IPM and transition to organic production systems. Education of pesticide consumers in both agricultural and
urban settings is also a key component to any pesticide use reduction plan.
Growers, farmworkers and consumers have the right to know about hazards
associated with all pesticide ingredients. EPA and DPR should require pesticide
manufacturers to fully disclose all active and inert ingredients and any adverse
health or environmental impacts associated with them on product labels.
Additionally, consumers access to information on alternative methods
of pest control should be improved. At
present, consumers with pest problems are deluged with an vast array of
information on chemical products and approaches, while information on least
toxic alternatives remains difficult to find. Where do we go from here? This report on California pesticide use is a wakeup call to
the U.S. government and clearly demonstrates the failure of the Clinton
Administration’s 1993 commitment to reduce U.S. pesticide use.
The U.S. could be a leader in developing and implementing innovative,
sustainable pest management strategies, but corporate lobbyists for the chemical
industry have undermined attempts to move away from conventional farming
practices. It is time for a change.
The pioneers of sustainable agriculture have laid the groundwork and
demonstrated the effectiveness of farming without toxic chemicals.
It just remains to convince our elected officials (and perhaps "some
regulators”) that public health is more important than lining their pockets
with corporatepaybacks. Well Mr. Helliker thanks to your continuing efforts
California will always remain "Hooked on POISONS"! |
