Subject: Airline's insecticide may be affecting more than bugs
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:07:20
-0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State
of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read an article entitled:
Airline's insecticide may be affecting more than bugs
By Linda Bonvie and Bill Bonvie
March 4, 2001
Fight attendants for United Airlines believe an
alternative to in-flight pesticide spraying on airliners bound for Australia
and New Zealand could be creating a new rash of adverse health effects.
The flight attendants, who regularly fly the routes
between California and down under, claim the new procedure has caused a
variety of ailments ranging from skin irritation to severe headaches and
neurological problems.
Citing pending litigation, Joe Hopkins, UAL's
media-relations representative, said he could not comment on the matter other
than to note that "if it's an important issue to our employees, it's an
important issue to United Airlines."
"Disinsection" -- the spraying of insecticides
on airliners flying to various international destinations -- is a practice
that up until a few years ago was mandated for incoming flights by a host of
foreign governments. The countries were concerned about the possibility that
foreign bugs might be on board.
The standard disinsection method involved having a flight
attendant spray an aerosol product over the heads of passengers just prior to
arrival.
Most countries have since dropped the requirement, under
pressure from the United States, after a spate of negative publicity in the
early '90s.
Australia and New Zealand, however, have remained adamant
about the need for such spraying. That's caused some airlines, including
United, British Airways and the Australian carrier Qantas, to switch to a
"residual" application procedure allowed by those countries.
The method calls for permeating a plane's interior
surfaces with a long-lasting insecticide at eight-week intervals while neither
passengers nor crew members are on board. "Residual spraying" is
done by workers in protective gear when planes are unoccupied.
The new system was intended to reduce health concerns,
but the procedure appears to have had unanticipated repercussions.
Attendant's illness
In one case, a Los Angeles-based United Air Lines flight
attendant (who spoke on condition of anonymity) first began to develop an
unusual, burnlike irritation on her legs in 1996, the year after she began
routinely working on flights to and from Sydney, Australia.
At first, her doctor prescribed an allergy medication.
But the condition worsened, taking the form of skin ulcers that became
extremely painful when exposed to fabric.
She also began to develop other symptoms that included a
dry, hacking cough and a sensitivity to the scent of gasoline, glue, vinyl,
new carpets and other items that resulted in excruciating headaches.
None of the tests and treatments she tried over the next
41/2 years -- including visits to dermatologists and a doctor specializing in
infectious diseases, biopsies, screenings for lupus, blood cancer and
parasites, experimental drugs and acupuncture -- produced either an
explanation or lasting relief.
Last fall, the attendant learned of a likely connection
between her symptoms and her work. A colleague casually mentioned that she
would no longer fly to Sydney because the insecticides used on the planes were
causing fainting, seizures, tumors and skin ulcerations.
Such complaints of adverse reactions to residual spraying
are among dozens logged by the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Flight
Attendants (AFA) from members whose duties include service on UAL's
Australia-New Zealand routes. The reports, many of which were provided as
background for this article, cover a variety of ailments.
Ingredient not approved
The spray used by flight attendants, with D-phenothrin as
its active ingredient, was originally registered for disinsection purposes by
the Environmental Protection Agency. But it lost that status in the mid-'90s
because of publicity given to label warnings that it was "hazardous to
humans" and shouldn't be inhaled or come into contact with skin or eyes.
The residual product contains permethrin, considered a
possible carcinogen. The EPA does not allow the product to be sprayed inside
airliner cabins in United States. That's why, under rules of the Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service, the planes are treated in Sydney, with a
2-percent permethrin solution applied to cabin surfaces. A separate product
containing 2 percent permethrin and 2 percent D-phenothrin is applied to cargo
compartments.
While intended to quell concerns about disinsection,
residual spraying, AFA officials claim, has become a health nightmare for its
members who are regularly assigned to Australia-and New Zealand-bound flights
by United (the only domestic airline servicing those routes).
Los Angeles-based flight attendant Mary Russell's litany
of symptoms is typical -- "scratchy throat, swollen tongue, runny nose
and sinus problems, and a vice-like headache," as well as chest
congestion, digestive problems and "a metal taste in my mouth which makes
me ill."
Attempts by the union to resolve these health issues with
the airline, according to Judith Murawski, the union's industrial hygienist,
have resulted in a new disinsection policy -- one intended to allow sufficient
time for proper drying and ventilation of the cabin, even if it involves
scheduling delays.
The airline, according to a November "disinsection
update" issued to flight attendants, has also instituted a fogging
procedure, allowing for quicker drying than manual sprayers, which release
streams of liquid; testing of a more pleasant-smelling, less-irritating
solution -- now reportedly in use -- that "should decrease some adverse
reactions"; and closer supervision of the entire process.
But the complaints from flight attendants haven't
stopped, Murawski said.
"I just got a call from a flight attendant who came
home Feb. 1," she said. "The cabin was sprayed at 11:30 that
morning; the attendant boarded at 1:30. There was a strong smell (of
pesticide), the surfaces were wet, as were the carpets and walls, and the
closets had been sprayed, but not ventilated. The flight attendant told the
purser, who talked to the UAL agent at the gate. The agent said, 'We're going
anyway.' In retrospect, they (the flight attendants) wished they hadn't."
Claims disputed
Murawski maintains United has yet to recognize most
workers' compensation claims made for illnesses attributed to multiple
exposures to the spray. In some cases, Murawski said, United told individual
claimants they were merely allergic to dust mites or that their complaints
were the only ones on file, and that "the sprays are perfectly safe"
since "the World Health Organization (WHO) approves them."
Despite WHO's endorsement of permethrin, a report by an
international group dedicated to addressing chemical safety issues raises
questions. The Peer Review Committee of the International Programme on
Chemical Safety (IPCS), a joint effort of the WHO, the International Labor
Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, wrote that
short-term exposure to permethrin "irritates the eyes, the skin and the
respiratory tract."
"The substance may cause effects on the nervous
system, resulting in facial sensation such as tingling, itching or
burning," the IPCS wrote. Occupational exposure limits and the point at
which concentrations become harmful have not been established, the IPCS said.
In UAL's update, however, one dealing with "the many
myths and concerns about the disinsection process," the company's
"Sydney Task Team" calls the chemical "safe for human
exposure." The update cites the opinions of both WHO and an independent
Canadian laboratory that "has approved it and considers the solution safe
for aircraft use."
But a toxicologist at the University of British Columbia,
who said he studied the constituents of the sprays involved at the behest of
both the airline and the AFA late last year, denied making any such claim.
"The safety (of the spray) depends on how it is
applied and at what concentrations," he noted.
Passenger complaint
UAL's update, while assuring employees that "we hear
your concerns and are being proactive on your behalf," also asks them --
in bold letters -- to "remain professional, and to demonstrate your
leadership by keeping any personal concerns out of earshot of our
customers."
But some of those customers have filed complaints of
their own, according to correspondence that AFA President Patricia Friend sent
to UAL Chairman James Goodwin last September.
One complaint she cited came from Dr. Richard Dorazio,
chief of surgery of the Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Group,
who reported that his wife and 13-year-old grandson felt ill an hour or two
into an Aug. 13 flight from Sydney to Los Angeles. Dorazio noticed "a
strong smell of pesticide throughout the flight."
Shortly after a flight attendant inquired about his
wife's condition during the flight, he learned that the plane had been sprayed
and that crews had been experiencing similar problems. He expressed concern
that the symptoms "are the result of chemical toxicity."
Australian law requires that galley surfaces be sprayed,
and failure to thoroughly dry the area, Murawski said, means that "food
is prepared on those sticky surfaces and served to paying customers."
Passengers and flight attendants flying to and from
Australia and New Zealand, however, aren't the only ones to occupy the
pesticide-permeated cabins. Once the treated planes arrive back in California,
they are scheduled to fly other routes, both domestic and foreign.
The residual pesticide will have dried by then, so the
permethrin shouldn't reenter the air. But according to Murawski, the chemicals
in which it is dissolved may still pose a problem. Xylene, for example, is an
industrial solvent used in many of the sprays.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says
that lower levels (100-299 parts per million ) of inhaled xylene can cause
such symptoms as eye, nose, and throat irritation, delayed response to a
visual stimulus and poor memory.
The National Institute for safety and health recommends
that exposure not exceed 200 ppm for longer than 15 minutes. But Murawski said
the levels of xylene left in the plane's interior after the spraying have yet
to be determined.
Planes forced to fly to many different destinations can
sometimes be overdue for a scheduled residual treatment. In those cases,
Australian regulations require that airline personnel resort to the in-flight
disinsection method.
The AFA has requested that United reduce the number of
airliners treated with permethrin (all 747 400s) from 44 to 20 by having some
planes fly dedicated routes. The airline has declined. The proposal, Murawski
notes, would limit scheduling flexibility and reduce profitability
"because an aircraft might have to sit on the ground for six hours
instead of two."
Meanwhile, Murawski said, "My phone continues to
ring. I get calls on this almost every day."
Linda and Bill Bonvie, a New Jersey-based brother/sister
writing team specializing in health and environmental issues, in 1993 broke
the story on airline disinsection that led to the requirement being dropped by
many countries.
Copyright
2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Original posted at: http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/sun/travel/news_1t4spray.html
Well, Mr. Helliker,
according to Pest Control Technology, March 2001, the next group of
insecticide POISONS to go under EPA's scrutiny are the pyrethroids, which are
scheduled to be through the process by the Summer of 2002, but while EPA was
making decisions and recommendations about the OPs, pyrethroid manufacturers
were learning from the process and generating data for their own products.
"The more data that is available the better and it takes time to
generate that data," Rosenberg said.
"If pyrethroids had been evaluated the same
as OPs, they would have fared poorly.
But there is data and science now available" for these other
products. All pesticides have to
be reevaluated by 2006, according to FQPA.
It seems to me that
articles like the above should be considered to have greater effect than
self-serving data produced by the poison industry.
Respectfully,
Stephen
L. Tvedten
(Editor's note: Pyrethroids are one of the most common used
pesticides in schools. Poison sellers often refer to this group of
pesticides as "safe". This stuff is also what is in head lice
products that millions of children are being exposed to daily. School
districts often treat school buses the way the airlines soak their planes.)
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing
information on pesticides, Email Us.
with "subscribe" in the subject line.