Internal state health department documents obtained by The Tampa Tribune earlier this year suggest health officials were pressured by the agriculture department to water down Shafey’s original report

---

[ Pesticide Poisoning and Kids ] * [ Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning ]
[ More about Malathion ]

Subject:   CDC Agrees Malathion Caused Illness----
Date:      Mon, 15 Nov 1999 07:27:44 -0500
From:     Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
 

Dear Lyndon, thought you might like to read just another article that proves your "registered" POISONS are truly not safe even when used according to their labels -- CDC agrees malathion caused illness--- The Tampa Tribune - Published Thursday, November 11, 1999 - BYLINE: JAN HOLLINGSWORTH

  Federal health officials say a Florida epidemiologist correctly concluded that malathion bait spray made some people sick during the 1998 campaign to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly.

  Even so, state health officials do not plan to revise a January report that says otherwise.

   And state agriculture officials remain unconvinced that their war on the crop-killing pest posed a public health threat.

   "We continue to question the validity of that conclusion," said agriculture department spokesman Terry McElroy.

   A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, made public Wednesday, summarizes the results of a state health department surveillance by state Health Department epidemiologist Omar Shafey. He monitored malathion-related complaints in Dade, Lake, Manatee and Highlands counties.

   A CDC editorial note suggests that although aerial spraying of malathion bait doesn't pose an acute health risk for most people, it apparently can make some people sick.

   "Each case-patient had signs and/or symptoms consistent with pesticide exposure, and illness probably resulted from sensitivity to the irritant/allergic effects of malathion/bait," according to the document.

   Of 230 Medfly spray-related reports received between April 30 and Sept. 30 that year, 123 were classified as probable or possible cases of acute pesticide-related illness.

   Most suffered respiratory problems or rashes and had pre-existing conditions such as asthma, lung disorders or chemical sensitivities.

   The illnesses mirrored thousands of complaints by residents of Hillsborough County and parts of California during earlier Medfly sprayings.

   Shafey's survey was mandated by the Florida Legislature in the wake of the 1997 Hillsborough Medfly campaign. It was the first time any agency had attempted to systematically document exposure to the spray and resulting health complaints.

   All of the probable cases he documented were confirmed by physicians.

   Those findings prompted Shafey to recommend an end to showering urban populations with malathion bait spray.

   State health officials acknowledge they changed Shafey's original report earlier this year to conclude his results "do not allow an association ... to be established" between the spraying and reported illnesses.

   "We found an association," said Geoffrey Calvert, a senior medical officer for CDC who is puzzled by the state's failure to revise its final report to reflect the federal agency's conclusion - especially since the CDC report's summary was authored by Shafey.

   "The Florida Department of Health stands by this [report] and the conclusion," Calvert said.

   The CDC report suggests state and federal agriculture officials reduce the public health risk by pursuing alternatives to aerial spraying, enhancing early detection of the pest and pursue safer eradication methods.

   The state's deputy health officer supports the strategies to reduce risk, but does not acknowledge that a risk has been established.

   "I think their [the CDC's] comments paraphrase some of the things in our original draft. They reinforce what we had said," said Rick Hunter. "[But] none of the cases were classified as definite."

   Agriculture's McElroy said the agency already has implemented most of the CDC's recommendations.

   Both state health and agriculture officials point to the report's limitations, which were cited by the CDC in its editorial note:

    Specific blood tests were not performed on complainants.

    The survey did not include a control population of nonexposed residents to determine whether a significant number of people were affected by the spraying.

   "It was supposed to be a population-based study," said Hunter.

   But the Legislature directed the health department to determine if the spray was making anyone sick, not how many.

   The CDC report notes "persons may have become ill who did not seek medical attention or were not reported to the surveillance system."

   Internal state health department documents obtained by The Tampa Tribune earlier this year suggest health officials were pressured by the agriculture department to water down Shafey’s original report.  Both agencies staunchly deny the allegation.

   The Medfly is considered a serious threat to domestic agriculture and can damage more than 250 kinds of fruit and vegetables. Failure to defeat it risks severe economic impact because of restrictions on the state's produce.

   A documented link between malathion bait spray and human health effects could cost agriculture a cheap and effective remedy.

   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not renewed the special permit required to use malathion for Medfly eradication. That permit expired in 1997 and fly-fighters have been relying on emergency exemptions ever since.

   "It's another piece of risk evidence EPA will have to take into consideration when it grants emergency exemptions in the future," said Calvert.

Jan Hollingsworth can be reached at (813) 259-7607 or jhollingsworth@tampatrib.com.  Read about more environmental issues on The Tampa Tribune's Web site at http://tampatrib.com/news/enviro.htm.

Well Lyndon, this is just another piece of evidence that your "registered" pesticide's active poison ingredients are truly not registered and/or safe even when used according to their labels---but simply "grandfathered in, then their continued use is extended and/or granted emergency exemptions" --- all without regard to the health of non-target species.  When will you begin to protect the people of California from your "registered" POISONS and "legally" allow the use of safe/GRAS alternatives?

Respectfully,  Stephen L. Tvedten