EPA Workers Blast Agency's Rulings on
Letter Sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson by
Unions Representing 9,000 EPA Scientists
ALEX PULASKI / The Oregonian 26may2006
By pandering to farmers and chemical manufacturers, the Environmental Protection Agency risks gutting a 10-year-old law designed to safeguard children from dangerous pesticides, workers within the agency charge.
In a letter [Below] sent this week to agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, nine representatives of unions representing about 9,000 EPA scientists, risk managers and other workers said the agency "has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates, and the result is that the integrity of the science upon which Agency decisions are based has been compromised."
Since 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act has been under attack from both sides — pesticide makers and farmers asserting that the law is being applied too stringently, and environmentalists and consumer advocates charging that it is being undermined. The law was intended to protect children from hazardous effects of pesticides in foods and in the environment.
The letter sent Wednesday represents the second time in recent months that workers within the agency have openly questioned whether their chief is putting children at risk by bowing to industry pressures.
"Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community . . ." the letter states.
"Equally alarming is the belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry."
In response, the agency issued a one-paragraph written statement from spokeswoman Jennifer Wood.
"EPA has been reviewing all pesticides in question and applying new, stricter standards as required under the Food Quality Protection Act, with a specific focus on their effects on children's health," she said. "EPA remains committed to its mission of protecting human health and the environment."
In a letter sent to Johnson in December, the American Federation of Government Employees, a union with members who work for the EPA, said the agency's proposed rules on accepting data from trials exposing humans to pesticides — instead of typical animal studies — had so many loopholes that they invite unethical behavior such as intentionally dosing children and pregnant women.
Representatives of the government employees union, National Treasury Employees Union, and Engineers and Scientists of California joined in asking Johnson in the letter this week to ensure that decisions due this summer on more than 20 pesticides are made free of "outside political influences." They asked Johnson to weigh cumulative risks to all children through the food they eat and to cancel or restrict pesticide uses that might be harmful to the children of farmworkers.
Under the act, advocates on both sides have repeatedly argued that science is in their favor. But a huge hurdle in trying to determine which pesticides can be safely used and the potential neurological risks to children in the foods they consume is that much of the science is based on how animals, not humans, react to chemical exposures.
Because of uncertainties between how humans and lab rats react, EPA scientists have tended to add safety factors — reducing by as much as 1,000 times the allowable pesticide residues children can be exposed to in the food they eat. While the method sounds abstract, the result of such limitations is that particular pesticides — and even whole classes of them — face strict limits or extinction.
For example, the EPA in recent years has banned methyl parathion and severely restricted chlorpyrifos, which had been the most commonly used insecticide in the United States. The agency also limited uses of azinphos-methyl, a bug-killer widely sprayed on tree fruits in Oregon and Washington.
With the EPA facing an August deadline to reassess human tolerances for pesticides in food and the environment, the union representatives wrote that it would be "a perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the (Food Quality Protection Act)."
Dave Christenson, a Denver-based union official who signed the letter, said employees take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution, and that publicly pressuring the agency head to do as much is "not something we do every day, but we're finding ourselves doing it more and more."
source: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/114861212852260.xml&coll=7 26may2006
Unions accuse EPA of pressuring workers
United Press International 25may2006
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the pesticide industry are being accused of using political pressure to gain approval for some chemicals.
Leaders of three unions representing EPA scientists and other specialists say the industry wants to be allowed to continue the use of pesticides that might be harmful to children, infants and fetuses, The New York Times reported Thursday.
Specifically, the labor leaders say scientists are being urged to skip steps in their testing, and allege the "integrity of the science upon which agency decisions are based has been compromised," the newspaper said.
The protest comes from unions representing approximately 9,000 EPA workers. Agency officials did not comment on the accusations, the newspaper said.
Unions involved in the dispute are the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the Engineers and Scientists of California.
source: http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/15268 26may2006
May 24, 2006
Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Johnson:
We Local Presidents of EPA Unions representing scientists, risk managers, and related staff, are writing to express our concern that EPA could betray the public trust by violating the intention of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to protect the Nation's infants, children, and susceptible subpopulations, unless the Agency adheres to principles of scientific integrity and sound science in the pesticide tolerance reassessments it is undertaking.
There are more than 20 neurotoxic organophosphate (OP) and carbamate pesticides scheduled for final tolerance decisions by EPA no later than August 3, 2006, as required by the FQPA. During the 1990s, the Agency reached partial cancellation agreements with the registrants of certain OP pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion, and diazinon, based on compelling information that these neurotoxic pesticides damage the developing nervous system of fetuses, infants and children (an effect known as "developmental neurotoxicity").
Those actions were consistent with the overarching precautionary intent of FQPA which requires that, in the absence of reliable data on toxicity or exposure, the Agency must ensure an adequate margin of safety for the health of the nation's infants, children, and susceptible subpopulations through the use of uncertainty factors in relevant analysis.
Accordingly, as EPA approaches the August 2006 statutory deadline for the determination of final tolerances for the remaining OP and carbamate pesticides, we urge the Agency to adhere to its principles of scientific integrity and employ the precautionary approach intended by the FQPA in assessing the cumulative and aggregate exposure and risk from the uses of these neurotoxicants. This approach — compliance with the FQPA and our principles of scientific integrity — is the only way to remain faithful to the public trust and ensure that our children will not be exposed to pesticides that may permanently damage their brains and nervous systems.
The partial cancellation agreements of the 1990's mostly addressed residential exposures, but did not adequately consider continued exposure through foods eaten, As risk assessors, we continue to be troubled by the Agency's failure to adequately consider exposure to neurotoxic pesticides by infants and children who commonly enter fields treated with these pesticides while accompanying their parents employed to perform post-application tasks. The children of farmworkers, living near treated fields, are also repeatedly exposed through pesticide drift onto outdoor play areas and through exposure to pesticide residues on their parents' hair, skin, and clothing,
Additionally, we are concerned that unborn fetuses may also be exposed to these neurotoxicants when pregnant women are employed to handle (mix, load, apply) these pesticides or are employed to enter treated areas to perform hand labor tasks following pesticide applications.
The Agency's own Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) has expressed concern that the Pesticide Program's current approaches may not be sufficiently conservative, may underestimate the risks to infants and children, and do not adequately identify individuals that may be inherently sensitive to neurotoxicants. (May 25, 1999 SAP meeting)
We are confident that you share our sense of urgency about taking the necessary actions to protect the health of our Nation's children. As you are aware, in August 1999, EPA informed the public that it was issuing data call-in notices to pesticide registrants of cholinesterase-inhibiting OP pesticides and requiring submission of data on developmental neurotoxicity.
We are concerned that the Agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn conclusions about the developmental neurotoxicity data received from pesticide registrants. Our colleagues within the Agency, including EPA's Inspector General (EPA IG), believe that it would be premature to conclude that there is a complete and reliable database on developmental neurotoxicity of pesticides (see Attachment) upon which to base any final tolerance reassessment decisions as required by the FQPA. Consequently, EPA's risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development.
As you also know, in the absence of a robust body of data, FQPA requires EPA to use an additional 10-fold safety factor in its risk assessments when setting pesticide tolerances. Thus both statutory language and sound science require that the Agency continue to retain the 10-fold safety factor as a precaution when reassessing the tolerances for the remaining OP and carbamate pesticides given the existing uncertainty about developmental neurotoxicity.
Many influential proponents of agriculture have repeatedly expressed their concerns to EPA about properly coordinating with agricultural stakeholders, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and producers when implementing FQPA. It appears that the Agency has inadvertently taken this to mean that the concerns of agriculture and the pesticide industry come before our responsibility to protect the health of our Nation's citizens. We are concerned that the Agency has lost sight of its regulatoryresponsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates, and the result is that the integrity of the science upon which Agency decisions are based has been compromised.
Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community; and by the USDA through their Office of Pest Management Policy. Equally alarming is the belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry.
In the rush to meet the August 2006 FQPA statutory deadline, many steps in the risk assessment and risk management process are being abbreviated or eliminated in violation of the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity by which we as public servants are bound. Congress specifically asked EPA to take reasonable action to reduce the risk of pesticides for infants and children where existing uses posed a concern. We should honor the charge from Congress to protect the public health, unencumbered by political influences; therefore, at this time, we do not believe that the Agency should make any final tolerance reassessment decisions.
We therefore request the following:
- Where data are insufficient for decision-making, that you make decisions
based on the Precautionary Principle and add appropriate uncertainty factors
to protect human health in conformity with the FQPA and our principles of
- Where developmental neurotoxicity studies are absent, it is imperative
that the Agency continue to retain the 10-fold safety factor - if not
increase it - as a precaution, when making final reregistration decisions
for OP and carbamate pesticides.
- That EPA issue an interim reregistration decision mandating that maximum
protections - engineering controls for handlers and longer re-entry
intervals for postapplication labor- be put into place for agricultural uses
of these pesticides; where this is not feasible, cancel these registrations,
as EPA promised before. EPA issued PR Notice 2000-9 in 2000 to this effect
(Worker Risk Mitigation for Organophosphate Pesticides: http://www.epa.gov/PR_Noticas/pr2000-9.pdf),
but then never carried through on this: (http://www.epa.gov/pesticideslfactsheets/opworkers.htm)
In its response to comments on this PR notice, EPA stated that the Agency will seek cancellation of uses if available risk mitigation measures, such as engineering controls and extended REI's, do not provide an adequate margin of safety and the risks outweigh the benefits: (http://www.epa.gov/PR_Noticesldraftprworker-response.htm)
Six years is an unacceptably long wait. It is time to act now, and act responsibly.
That you take steps to ensure that the Agency consider non-pesticide chemicals - industrial and commercial - in the same manner as pesticides with regard to their potential impact on the health of our nation's children.
Administrator Johnson, we ask that you adhere to your pledge to protect the public health of our nation's infants and children, ensure that final tolerance reassessment decisions are unbiased by outside political influences, and that any decisions be based on a transparent and complete database in conformity with the law, sound science, and our principles of scientific integrity. Until EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not harm the neurological development of our nation's born and unborn children, there is no justification to continue to approve the use of the remaining OP and carbamate pesticides.
The undersigned take our civil service oath very seriously. We believe that it would be a perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the FQPA. We recognize that under the Constitution our role is only to provide the above advice to you, while your role is to faithfully execute the laws entrusted to your administration. We believe that by providing this advice in the strongest possible terms we are fulfilling our duty and helping you to fulfill yours.
Very sincerely yours,
/S/ Dwight A. Welch, President, NTEU Chapter 280, Washington DC
/S/ Dave Christenson, President AFGE Local 3607, Denver CO
/S/ Larry Penley, President NTEU Chapter 279, Cincinnati OH
/S/ Patrick Chan, President NTEU Chapter 295, San Francisco CA
/S/ Paul Scoggins, President AFGE Local 1003, Dallas TX
/S/ Steve Shapiro, President AFGE Local 3331, Washington, DC
/S/ Mark Coryell, President AFGE Local 3907, Ann Arbor MI
/S/ Wendell Smith, President ESC EPA — Unit San Francisco CA
/S/ John O'Grady, President AFGE Local 704, Chicago IL
Examples of support for the conclusion that EPA cannot yet ensure that fetuses, infants and children will not suffer developmental neurotoxicity from exposure to neurotoxic pesticides:
- The January 10, 2006
EPA's required pesticide testing does not include sufficient evaluation of behavior, learning or memory in developing animals.
EPA has no standard evaluation procedure for interpreting results from DNT tests.
EPA has not yet summarized or drawn conclusions about DNT which it has collected for pesticides.
- Not all scientists are in agreement with EPA that developmental effects of
the OP pesticide chlorpyrifos occur only at doses above those which cause
cholinesterase inhibition, or even that they occur exclusively through the
mechanism of cholinesterase inhibition. (see for example: Cholinergic
systems in brain development and disruption by neurotoxicants: nicotine,
environmental tobacco smoke, organophosphates, Toxicol.
Pharmacol.198: 132-151 (2004; Guidelines for
developmental neurotoxicity and their impact on organophosphate pesticides: a
personal view from an academic perspective, Neurotoxicology 25(4):
- EPA has data demonstrating that the immature are more sensitive to the OP
pesticide malathion than adults (see for example Developmental Neurotoxicity
Study in Rats, August 22, 2002. Memorandum. MRID 45646401; and Special
Study, Effects on Cholinesterase Inhibition in Adult & Juvenile CD Rats,
Companion Study to Developmental Neurotoxicity Study 870.6300., Tox Review
No. 0050550, MRID No. 45566201).
- EPA has also received, but has not released for review by the SAP or
external parties, data suggestive of direct effects of malathion on brain
structure concurrent with cholinesterase inhibition and changes in behavior (personal communication, Dr. Brian
also paragraphs #8, 9,11,12,13, and 17 of the June 20, 2005 letter to you from
Dr. Dementi in which he advised you of these concerns).
- More data are accumulating indicating differential sensitivity to other OP pesticides greater than the 10-fold safety factor required by FQPA (see for example Paraoxonase polymorphisms, haplotypes and enzyme activity in Latino mothers and newborns, Pharmacogenetics and Genomics 16: 183-190 (2006).
source: http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_25_5_union_ltr.pdf 26may2006