Dow AgroSciences ""What Good Thinking Can Do"------"

New York Department of Environmental Conservation investigation into the Trimper case brings into question the safety of the entire Dursban TC product, as well as EPA's ability to police what inert, or "other" ingredients that registrants are allowed to keep in some of their older registrations.

[ What to do if pesticides are being used ]
[ Pesticide Poisoning and Kids ] * [ Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning ]
[ MEMORIAL TO VICTIMS ]

Subject:      "What Good Thinking Can Do"------
 Date:           Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:42:30 -0500
From:         Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
          State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
          Integrated Pest Management

 
Lyndon, I noticed that the Envirwtch@aol.com has just sent you another report on one of your most commonly used "registered POISONS:  The entire report is found at: http://www.syix.com/emu/html/pesticide_report.html

PESTICIDE REPORT  by Sue Darcey

 #1 trimper v terminix

 DURSBAN TC "INERTS" BENZENE, TRIMETHYLBENZENE, SUSPECTS IN BOY'S ILLNESS FOLLOWING TERMITICIDE MISHAP

Benzene, trimethylbenzene, xylene, and a host of other toxic compounds found in samples of the termiticide Dursban TC reverse engineered by the New York Department of Health may be the cause of continuing adverse health effects plaguing a six-year-old upstate New York boy and his parents, according to investigations done in connection with an April 2 lawsuit against Terminix International Co., Memphis, Tenn., in New York Supreme Court.  The Bruce Trimper family is asking for $215.6 million in the suit, including $100 million in punitive damages.

New York's Department of Environmental Conservation filed a complaint on Jan. 14 against Terminix in a related enforcement action against the company for their alleged misapplications of termiticides at the Trimper residence, asking for a $25,000 civil penalty for violations of the state's pesticide application laws (Article 33 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law).

The new data springing from the lawsuit and the related New York Department of Environmental Conservation investigation into the Trimper case brings into question the safety of the entire Dursban TC product, as well as EPA's ability to police what inert, or "other" ingredients that registrants are allowed to keep in some of their older registrations.

David Engel of Harris, Beach & Wilcox, Albany, N.Y., is representing the Trimper family in the lawsuit; Ann Lapinski, Assistant Regional Attorney, N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, is representing the state in the enforcement action, and Kevin Wolff of McElroy, Deutsch & Mulvaney, New York City, is representing Terminix in both the lawsuit and the state enforcement action.   Defendant Terminix has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the action was banned by an arbitration clause in the Terminix contract.

 Dursban TC Reverse Engineered by New York DOH

The Dursban TC compound, which contains the active ingredient chlorpyrifos and is manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, Ind., was reverse engineered by the New York Department of Health and an upstate New York private testing lab as part of the investigation following the alleged misapplication of the termiticide by Terminix International Co. at the family's residence in Rotterdam, N.Y.

Dursban TC and Equity, also manufactured by Dow Agrosciences, are probably the two most frequently used liquid termiticides in the U.S.  Steve Good, a vice president with Terminix, reported that 60%-65% of its termite treatments are made with Sentricon dry bait stations.  But Terminix still relies on use of either Dursban TC or Equity liquid termiticides in equal numbers when a liquid termiticide is called for, said Dow AgroSciences spokesman Garry Hamlin.

Terminix, which claims on its website to be "the largest termite and pest control company in the world," is a subsidiary of ServiceMaster, Downer's Grove, Ill.   Good told Pesticide Report, "There's no way either of the alleged termiticides [Dursban TC or Equity] could possibly have cause the health concerns that the Trimpers are alleging."

 Termiticide Allegedly Contaminates Crawlspace

In the case, Bruce and Karen Trimper v. Terminix International Co. L.P., the Albany, N.Y. branch of Terminix was hired by Bruce Trimper to inspect and control termites at his home in Rotterdam.  According to the lawsuit, Terminix employees offered to apply either Equity or Dursban TC, and Trimper chose Equity, having turned down use of Dursban in his home.

Terminix applied a termiticide (tests would later show this was most likely Dursban TC) on April 11, 1996 and Aug. 1, 1996.  The company reportedly did not know there was a boarded-up crawlspace beneath the Trimper's home -- a crawlspace which allegedly became contaminated when the compound was injected through cinderblock to subsurface soil.

In September 1996, young Kyle Trimper, who was three at the time, began experiencing serious adverse health effects, including continual high fevers, respiratory problems, and other symptoms whose cause could not be explained by a series of physicians and specialists to whom the Trimpers took their son.  According to the suit, his health problems continue to this day.

Kyle's parents also experienced health problems, the suit said.  Karen Trimper suffered two miscarriages in 1997 -- one on between June 10 and June 23, and another in November -- experiences recurring headaches, and has "impaired reproductive capacities," the party claimed. Her husband Bruce Trimper has had problems breathing since 1996, and also suffers from "impaired reproductive capacities," the suit alleged.

 New York DEC Finds Fault with Termiticide Application

In 1997, New York Department of Environmental Conservation staff responded to Mr. Trimper's complaints about lingering odors in his home from the applications and his son's health problems by coming out to his residence and inspecting the site.  In an April 3, 1997 inspection, the state noted that "the application had been performed in a crawl space that did not have permanent openings that open into the structure...," that "polyethylene sheeting had not been installed at the site as required,"  and that "vents had not been installed at the site as required."

 The New York State Department of Health on April 3 also inspected the site and tested the air for the presence of pesticides/chemicals.  On that date, no chlorpyrifos was detected, said the DEC complaint.  DOH staff came out again and tested on May 1, 1997, and noted the presence of  "petroleum-like odors."  Then, in tests conducted by DOH on July 9, 1997, the air sample results for volatile organic compounds indicated elevated levels of 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene in the basement and kitchen at the site.

 On Aug. 7, 1997, Bruce Trimper hired Adirondack Labs of upstate New York to also conduct VOC air sampling in his home.  The lab's tests were consistent with the DOH findings for VOCs, and additionally, found that concrete blocks of the basement in the Trimper home tested positive for chlorpyrifos.

 The Trimpers finally abandoned their home on Feb. 15, 1998, after learning the results of the air sample tests.

 Reverse Engineering Finds Host of Toxic Compounds

 A spokesman for Dow AgroSciences told Pesticide Report that the components of Dursban TC are chlorpyrifos, 44.9%, and total inerts 55.1%, including "xylene range aromatic solvents."  On Dec. 30, 1997, New York DOH staff decided to "reverse engineer" samples of Dursban TC and Dursban LO, and to compare the pattern of the hydrocarbons from these products with the pattern of hydrocarbons from the July 9, 1997 air samples taken from the basement of the site.

 The results, the DEC complaint said, "shows a very close match, indicating that the petroleum product present in the air at the site is consistent with the one in Dursban formulations.  The pattern was not similar to the pattern for gasoline or fuel oil."

 The "similar pattern" [to Dursban TC] air sample results that were taken from the Trimper's basement on July 10, 1997, were as follows (all levels were reported in micrograms per cubic meter of air squared):  chlorpyrifos, <0.5; benzene, 1.0 [PL]; toluene, 3.9; ethylbenzene, 1.2; m/p-xylene, 1.9; o-xylene, 2.1; 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 290; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 720.

 On other days when air samples were taken at the residence, benzene levels went as high as 2.3 micrograms per cubic meter air squared; toluene, 8.9; ethylbenzene, 2.5; m/p xylene, 3.5; o-xylene, 7.3; 1,3-5-trimethylbenzene, 85 and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 260.

 So what DOH found, in reverse engineering Dursban TC, were a series of chemical compounds that can cause some very serious health effects, particularly at the levels at which they were present in the Trimper residence.

 Benzene, for example, is a widely used chemical that can cause drowsiness, dizziness and unconsciousness in the short term; long-term exposure causes effects on the bone marrow and can cause anemia and leukemia, says the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  EPA's  IRIS system reports that benzene is a known human carcinogen; epidemiological studies and case studies provide clear evidence association betweene exposure to benzene and acute nonlymphocytic leukemia.  OSHA has set a permissible exposure limit of 1 ppm for benzene in the workplace during an 8-hour workday, 40-workweek; EPA has set the maximum permissible limit of benzene in drinking water at 0.005 mg/L.

 Benzene was removed from EPA's Office of Pesticide Program's permissible Pesticide Inerts List 1 ("Inerts of toxicological concern") in a June 24, 1998 regulatory action, said OPP's Kerry Liefer.  The substance was removed because it was reportedly "no longer being used by registrants as an "inert  ' in pesticide formulations," and because it is a carcinogen.

 Toluene inhaled at high levels can affect the brain can cause headaches, confusion, dizziness, sleepiness, and memory loss, says the ATSDR.  Several studies have shown that unborn animals were harmed when high levels of toluene were breathed by their mothers; babies can have a neurological problems and retarded growth and development if their mothers breathe a high level of toluene during pregnancy.  OSHA has set a maximum level of 200 ppm of toluene in workplace air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek; EPA has set a drinking water limit of 1ppm toluene.

 Toluene is on OPP's Pesticide Inerts List 2,  or "potentially toxic inerts/high priority for testing," OPP's Liefer said.

 Xylene is a solvent in printing ink, rubber and paint that affects the brain, according to ATSDR. High levels from exposure for short periods of 14 days or less, or long periods of over a year can cause headaches, lack of muscle coordination, dizziness, confusion and changes in one's sense of  balance.  Exposure to high levels over short periods can also cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat; difficulty in breathing; problems with the lungs; delayed reaction time; memory difficulties, stomach discomfort and possible changes in liver and kidney.  Studies of unborn animals indicate that high concentrations of xylene may cause increase numbers of deaths, and delayed growth and development.  Human and animal studies of the carcinogenicity of xylene "are not conclusive, and do not provide enough information to conclude that xylene does not cause cancer,"  ATSDR stated.

 EPA has set a limit of 10 ppm of xylene in drinking water; OSHA has set a maximum level of 100 ppm xylene in workplace air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek.

 Xylene is on OPP's Pesticide Inerts List 2, or "potentially toxic inerts/high priority for testing," Liefer said.

 According to OSHA hazard information on the compounds, trimethylbenzenes cause eye, nose, throat and skin irritation, "marked" central nervous system effects, and anemia.  OSHA has set a 25 ppm recommended exposure limit, but the VOC tests conducted at the Trimper residence showed trimethylbenzene levels as high as 720 ppm.

 Chlorpyrifos Health Effects Under Debate Last Several Years

 Controversy over the health effects of Dursban TC and other chlorpyrifos compounds has always focused on the active ingredient (See May 19, 1997, Page 6; June 4, 1997, Page 1; Aug. 13, 1997, Page 13, and Dec. 10, Page 3).  For example, a January 1997 "Review of Chlorpyrifos Poisoning Data" memo by EPA OPP's Jerome Blondell and Virginia Dobozy stated that "chlorpyrifos is one of the leading causes of insecticide poisoning incidences," although the authors noted "much of this frequency is accounted for by the widespread use of this chemical both inside and outside the home."

 The 1997 memo added that there was a pattern of misuses of chlorpyrifos products by pest control operators, and that these misuses have lead to statistical increases in chlorpyrifos adverse effects over what might be expected.

 Chlorpyrifos, like other organophosphates, is a cholinesterase inhibitor; signs and symptoms of acute chlorpyrifos poisoning are headaches, nausea, dizziness, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision, muscle weakness or twitching, difficulty walking, vomiting, abdominal cramping and diarrhea, followed by profuse sweating and salivation, said the EPA memo.   Among chronic symptoms of chlorpyrifos poisoning reported to EPA were fatigue, difficulty concentrating, headaches, muscle aches, confusion, and peripheral neuropathy, the 1997 memo said.

 All these effects, both acute and chronic, have been strongly denied for years by scientists at Dow AgroSciences and its predecessor, DowElanco.  In 1994, the company wrote:  "In 20 years of manufacturing with regular monitoring of the workers' health status, we have never observed significant depression in red blood cell cholinesterase or symptoms of cholinesterase inhibition," and, "...in 15 years of use in the marketplace, there have been no incidences that we are aware of where signs or symptoms of organophosphate poisoning have occurred with the use of chlorpyrifos." (Lyndon, you notice "they" do not mention their "inerts"!)

 At an Oct. 20, 1998 symposium on chlorpyrifos health effects hosted by Dow in Washington, D.C., James Gibson of DowAgrosciences LLC said that "the most sensitive endpoint for the pesticide is plasma cholinesterase inhibition," that chlorpyrifos "causes slight irritation to the eyes and skin, but cannot be considered mutagenic, oncogenic, and does not cause cancer" (See Nov. 7, Page 5).  He added that delayed neuropathy, or Organophosphate Induced Delayed Neuropathy "is really only possible with a super-heavy dose of chlorpyrifos."

 At the same meeting, Marcia van Gemert of van Gemert & Hauswirth, LLC, said that a "Blue Ribbon" expert panel on chlorpyrifos health effects convened in 1997 found:

 -- OPIDN did occur with very high exposures to OPs, but has a "minimal relevance" to public health;

 -- with low doses of chlorpyrifos, there is "insufficient evidence" to support a relationship between chlorpyrifos and risks to human health, and

 -- for the most part, scientific evidence does not suggest need for further investigation into chlorpyrifos' safety.

 At Least 122 Incidents Involving Dursban TC, Equity Found in FIFRA 6(a)(2) Database

 In a perfect world where termiticides (active ingredients) are always applied strictly according to label directions by well-trained, competent PCOs, Dursban TC and Equity are probably perfectly safe products that provide an important service.  Unfortunately, as EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs adverse effects Incident Data System reflects, we do not live in a perfect world, but a world in which applicators can occasionally misapply pesticides, in which lines and hoses can break, spilling product, or in which chemicals (POISONS) can seep from their appointed places into crawlspaces, wells and neighboring ponds, or other places where they don't belong. (Once again "they" totally ignore the dangers of the "inerts"!)

 A review of chlorpyrifos IDS reports from 1992 to October 1998 that were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request by Pesticide Report shows that there were 122 incidents involving Dursban TC and Equity termiticides reported to EPA by  pesticide registrants through Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA or through citizen complaints.   The IDS reports reflected here were not usually followed up or checked out by medical personnel or poison control center staffers, they are simply unconfirmed, first reports to the agency of incidences involving pesticide exposure.

 In the 106 incident reports involving Dursban TC, there were reported:  14 incidences of fish kills; 3  incidences of well or pond contamination; 27 cases of nausea, 21 headaches, 15 incidences of vomiting, 12 people reporting respiratory problems, 10 cases of burning eyes, nine incidences of minor, reversible nervous system disorders, 8 cases of dizziness, 7 cases of diarrhea, 7 people with rashes, six with asthma and 4 reporting peripheral neuropathy.   There were also five people reporting numbness of limbs; five, blurred vision; 5, memory loss; 4, fatigue, and two reported deaths (unconfirmed).

 All the 16 incident reports for Equity seen in the IDS database could be classified as minor; they generally involved vomiting, nausea, flu-like symptoms, rashes, hives, and difficulty breathing.

Email comment added to Mr. Tvedten's email to Lyndon Hawkins

[Dear Steve,

An added note on this story.  We had an EPA Alert soliciting cases of adverse effects to Dursban on our web site.  We cited several hundred case reports in the EPA files.  Several months after we put up the alert, we were contacted by the EPA who asked us to change the number of adverse reaction reports to several thousand.

Betty Mekdeci
abdc@birthdefects.org ]

 EPA Inerts Policy:  Still No Formal Response to Environmentalists/State AG Petition

 The type of inert issues that that Trimper case raises were brought to the agency's attention in separate Jan. 20, 1998 petitions from the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and eight state Attorneys General (from Alaska, Connecticut, Guam, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin).  In the petitions, the groups called for EPA to change FIFRA regulations to require listing of pesticide "inert" ingredients on product labels, so that people will know what's in pesticide products to which they are exposed (See Jan. 30, 1998, Page 4). NCAP also issued a report on inerts in January 1998, "Worst Kept Secrets:  Toxic Inert Ingredients in Pesticides" (See Jan. 16, Page 1).

 The Attorneys General wrote that the point of the petition was "to protect our citizens from unnecessary risks associated with these potentinally dangerous, albeit sometimes useful chemicals. Requiring full disclosure of pesticide ingredients is an important part of that effort."

 To date, EPA has not provided a formal answer to the NCAP/state AGs petitions, but have told NCAP "they are considering it," said Caroline Cox of the group.

 The topic of inerts disclosure was debated at a Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee meeting in January (See Jan. 18, Page 1). The PPDC is planning to work on the issue of inerts disclosure in a PPDC subgroup.

 Concerning agency policy on disclosure of inerts ingredients, "There are still some legal difficulties with full disclosure of inerts," an EPA spokesperson said.

 Because of fiscal constraints, it does not look as if EPA will not be picking up the pace of toxicity reviews on inerts anytime soon. At the Jan. 7 PPDC meeting, OPP Director Marcia Mulkey commented:

 "The key thing we're seeking input on, is how to increase our level of effort on inerts approval with the limited resources available to us.  We know the resources pie will not grow in any dramatic way.  It's true for review of old chemicals, and for review of new chemistry..."

 Older "Inerts" Received Only Minimal Testing

 While EPA's OPP has been slowly moving ahead to ensure that new inert ingredients receive adequate testing, including complying with data requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act, some of the inert ingredients in older pesticide registrations such as Dursban TC have received "only minimal testing," unless they were destined for food use products that require a tolerance, said OPP's Kerry Liefer.

 In his response to the New York DEC findings in the Trimper case, Liefer added that if the "inerts" in Dursban TC, which was approved by EPA on Dec. 4, 1989,  were also used by Dow AgroSciences in a food use pesticide formulation, then at that time, the company would have subjected them to two subchronic feeding studies and two chronic feeding studies before EPA could approve their use.  But if the "inerts" used by Dow to make Dursban TC were not part of a food use pesticide, very little testing would be required of them, Liefer commented.

 Liefer also said it was possible that the benzene in Dursban TC was not deliberately added, or part of the formula for the product, but part of a mix of petroleum distillates in the formulation -- "Dow may not even know its there," Liefer said.

 It is this lack of knowledge about the identity and toxicity of ("INERT") ingredients of pesticide formulations that has driven NCAP and the attorneys general to file their petitions calling for identification of inerts on labels, said Caroline Cox.  "That's why we're talking about labeling -- people should have a way of finding out what's in these compounds so that they can protect themselves," Cox said.

 Terminix Has Been a Target of  Enforcement Actions in Several States

 The Trimper complaint and New York DEC enforcement action are not the only legal hassles that Terminix International has faced in recent years.  Several states have investigated the company since 1992 for "failures to provide consumers with promised services" (Florida); "pesticide misapplications, falsification of pesticide application records, unauthorized pesticide applications and questionable billing practices" (Connecticut); "quality assurance problems," (Kentucky); and "failure to report damages," (California), and "improper pesticide use" and "misrepresentation" (North Carolina).

 Nonetheless, Terminix Vice President Steve Good told Pesticide Report, "The number of lawsuits our attorneys are working on are in a downward spiral.  We have very exacting standards for our termiticide applications, and  take our responsibility as a standard bearer for the industry very seriously."

 In Florida in the mid-1990s, Terminix customers were complaining that the company was failing to provide termite control services it offered in its contracts.  According to an April 30, 1997 statement by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Bob Crawford, "Our joint investigation revealed that in many instances, Terminix failed to fully treat properties for subterranean termites, despite its promise to lay down a complex protective barrier against the insects."

 Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth added, "On the properties we inspected, we found that  as many as 25% of the holes drilled for chemical injection were in effect dummy holes with no chemicals applied....  We also found supposedly treated areas where the company had drilled no holes at all."

 The complaints were settled in April 1997 when the state signed an agreement with Terminix for the company to provide refunds or chemical retreatments to customers who bought termite protection from nine Terminix offices in Deland, Jacksonville, Longwood, Miami, Orlando, Plantation and Port St. Lucie, Fla.  Terminix also agreed to pay the state $200,000 to cover the cost of its investigation, and to pay for independent contractors to do follow-up inspections on 10% of the properties Terminix reinspected following the settlement agreement.

 In Connecticut, the state Department of Environmental Protection said March 16 that it had denied licenses to three Terminix offices for violations of the state's pesticide laws and regulations.  The Terminix offices, located in North Haven, Trumbull and Waterbury, Conn., were denied licenses following a lengthy investigation into the company's operating practices by DEP's Pesticide Division.

 The investigation was spurred by an incident involving an application performed by Terminix's North Haven office, said DEP's Brad Robinson.  During the treatment, the applicator punctured a heating oil supply line causing a significant release of oil into the soil under the house.  Further investigation by the DEP determined that Terminix misapplied the pesticide, and that employees involved in the application acted without proper certification.  After this investigation, state enforcement officers looked into Terminix's record in the state and found other violations by the company, including falsification of pesticide application records, unauthorized pesticide applications, questionable billing practices and refusal of DEP inspections.

 "This is a company that has chosen to put its business interests ahead of its customers interests and the environment," said DEP's Richard Barlow.  "Attempting to circumvent the state's pesticide laws will not go unnoticed."

 Robinson told Pesticide Report that the hearing process against Terminix in Connecticut "is still ongoing," and will start again on June 23.

Well Lyndon, as Dow's advertisements say, the above truly shows you: "What Good Thinking Can Do."  For the record, I have safely removed termite infestations that were repeatedly "treated" with numerous termiticide POISONS ("registered"active and unregistered "inert" ingredients) without ever using any of your "registered" POISONS.  I pray history will show which one of us had the "GOOD THINKING".

Do you think it will ever be "legal" (in your opinion) to use safe and effective (unregistered) alternatives rather than your dangerous "registered" POISONS in California?  I noticed with dismay that the November/December, 1999 issue of the IPM Practitioner has chosen to only include your "registered" POISONS as part of their more than 2000 useful pest control items.  I have eliminated all pests (inside and outside) in over 350 schools without ever using any of your volatile, "registered" pesticide POISONS.  The reason you "register" something is because it is a POISON - I do not use POISONS. I use common sense, which obviously, is not too common!  When you "register" a pesticide poison you should "register" all of the POISONS in the POISON formula.  This incidence is PROOF you do not "register" pesticide POISONS - because you choose to pretend the real DANGERS/TOXINS are "inert" and/or are no longer being used!   Amazing!

Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten