2

Click here to load reader

Toxic 'Inerts' Hidden In Pesticides

  • Upload
    axyzaaa

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Toxic 'Inerts' Hidden In Pesticides

10NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAPP. O. B O X 1 3 9 3, E U G E N E, O R E G O N 9 7 4 4 0 / ( 5 4 1 ) 3 4 4 - 5 0 4 4

JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ SUMMER 1997 • VOL.17, NO. 2

● N E W S F R O M N C A P

HIDDEN TOXIC “INERTS”:A TRAGICOMEDY OF ERRORS

Holly Knight is an NCAP intern and just com-

pleted her masters degree in environmental studies

at the University of Oregon. Her work with “inerts” is

the final project for her degree.

Government regulators divide theworld of pesticide ingredients into twocategories: “active” and “inert.” Eachcomponent is regulated differently. Ac-tive ingredients must be listed on the la-bel, but the identities of inerts can bekept secret. Actives are subject to a rangeof tests to determine toxicity, while inertsare hardly tested.

Unfortunately, these distinctions be-tween pesticide ingredients prove to besomewhat arbitrary. The low prioritygiven inerts belies the threats they poseto the environment and public health.The story of the U.S Environmental Pro-tection Agency’s (EPA’s) failure to pro-tect the public from toxic inerts, muchless inform them of their exposure, mustbe told.

Active Inerts

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide andRodenticide Act (FIFRA), our nationalpesticide law, defines an inert as any in-gredient in a pesticide product which isnot the active ingredient.1 Active ingre-dients are defined as chemicals which“prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate anypest.”2 They have lead roles, while inertingredients are cast in supporting ones.For instance, inert surfactants break downthe waxy coating on leaf surfaces and helpactives penetrate it.

The seemingly clear-cut nature of theseroles is undermined by the fact that ac-tive ingredients can be and are used asinert ingredients. “Active inerts” refers tothis class of chemicals. How many arethere? In order to answer this question,EPA’s Chemical Ingredients Database for

active ingredients was accessed on theWorld Wide Web.3 Using the most re-cent list of inert ingredients (May 1995),Chemical Abstract Service numbers foreach of the 2,518 inerts were entered intothe database.

At least 382 chemicals, 15 percent ofthe whole inerts list, are or were regis-tered as active ingredients; 116 have cur-rent registrations. That this many activeingredients can be used legally in pesti-cide products without being disclosed onthe label constitutes a major oversight byEPA.

Inerts of Ignored Toxicity

Here, the curtain rises to expose thefailed attempts of EPA to regulate all toxicinerts. In 1987, EPA unveiled its inertsstrategy “designed to reduce the poten-tial for adverse effects from the use ofpesticide products containing toxic inertingredients.”4 Central to the strategy wasthe creation of four toxicity categories.Carcinogens, teratogens, and neurotox-

ins were placed on List 1: Inerts of Toxi-cological Concern. EPA stipulated thatno new products could use these toxicinerts and that their presence had to bedisclosed, with a warning statement, onlabels of existing products.

Chemicals that were structurally simi-lar to List 1 inerts and/or that had in-complete data sets were placed on List 2:Potentially Toxic/High Priority for Test-ing. Inerts of “unknown” toxicity wereplaced on List 3 and inerts generally re-garded as innocuous were placed on List4. None of the inerts on these three listsis disclosed on the label.

Active inerts, ones for which healthand safety data should be fairly com-plete, provide a startling indictment ofEPA’s inerts strategy. Only one activeinert must be disclosed on the label be-cause it is on List 1. List 2’s cast ofcharacters include neurological and re-productive toxins, as well as ozone de-pleting chemicals, many of which havebeen on this list since 1987.

Most active inerts reside on List 3:Inerts of Unknown Toxicity. The total:264 out of 382 active inerts or 70 per-cent of the list. Especially egregious ex-amples of List 3 active inerts includenaphthalene (a common component ofmothballs that can cause brain damage,convulsions, and death in children5),chlorothalonil (a probable carcinogen, ac-cording to the Health Effects Division inEPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 6), andchloropicrin (a respiratory tract irritantthat can cause asthma, pulmonary edema,bronchopneumonia, and death7).

That active ingredients are used asinerts at all calls into question the valid-ity of EPA’s inerts strategy. That onlyone active inert must be disclosed on thelabel while the rest retain anonymity un-dermines confidence in EPA’s ability toassess the toxicity of inerts in a timelyfashion.

Malignant Neglect

The plot thickens as we turn our at-tention to inerts that have long waited inthe wings to be assessed as hazardous byEPA and assigned List 1 status.

Examples of Active “Inerts”

acetoneasphaltbenzaldehyde2-benzyl-4-chlorophenolchlorine dioxide5-chloro-2-methyl isothiazolonechloropicrinchlorothalonilcoal tarcopper naphthenatecresoldazometdichlorobenzenedichlorodifluoromethaneethoxylated isooctylphenolmethyl naphthalenenaphthalenepolyoxyethylene nonylphenolpropyl p-hydroxybenzoatesalicylic acidsodium fluoridesolvent napthasodium salt of phenylphenoltoluenexylenes

Page 2: Toxic 'Inerts' Hidden In Pesticides

11NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAPP. O. B O X 1 3 9 3, E U G E N E, O R E G O N 9 7 4 4 0 / ( 5 4 1 ) 3 4 4 - 5 0 4 4

JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ SUMMER 1997 • VOL.17, NO. 2

For example, butylated hydroxyanisole(BHA) was classified a possible carcino-gen by the International Agency for Re-search on Cancer (IARC) in 1987.6 Ac-cording to EPA’s own criteria, chemicalsthat have been assessed as known, prob-able, or possible carcinogens by IARCqualify for List 1.4 However, BHA hidesamong the 1,981 inerts on List 3: Inertsof Unknown Toxicity. This discrepancyis particularly troubling because BHA isa commonly used antioxidant in butter,vegetable oils, cereals, baked goods, po-tato chips, meat products, and many otherfoods. How much longer does EPA needto assess BHA as toxic? When will theyrequire it to be listed on the label with awarning statement and prohibit new prod-ucts from containing it?

In 1997, IARC classified two com-monly used inerts as known carcinogens:crystalline quartz silica and cristobalite.9

Neither one of them has to be listed onthe label, and crystalline quartz silica canbe found in at least 1,560 products as aninert.10 Their designation as carcinogenicby IARC is recent, but EPA must notdelay in its redesignation.

Many federal, state, and local agenciescompile lists of hazardous chemicals thatinclude inert ingredients. For instance, atleast 75 inert ingredients must be reportedunder the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act of 1986 and at least140 inerts are included on the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration’s list ofhazardous substances. Most of thesechemicals are found on EPA’s List 3:Inerts of Unknown Toxicity.

How many more hazardous inerts lurkin pesticide products? Under the currentstrategy of limited testing for inert ingre-dients, we may never know.

Rewriting the Inerts Script

Thus far, reviews of EPA’s perfor-mance are not good. Actives are used asinerts. Too many toxic inerts remain un-disclosed on the label and too many inertsremain unassessed as to their toxicity. Itcould be a comedy of errors if the resultswere not potentially tragic. It’s time tosend the inerts strategy back for a rewrite.

First, all ingredients must be disclosedon the label, regardless of toxicity. Wait-ing to assess an inert as toxic in order forit to be disclosed on the label is too pro-tracted a process. Meanwhile, the generalpublic is being exposed to toxic inertswithout their informed consent. Next, allchemicals used in pesticides must be sub-ject to the same health and safety testingrequirements. By law, EPA must disclosethe identities of pesticide ingredients thatpose “an unreasonable risk of injury tohealth or the environment”11 However,EPA cannot determine whether a chemi-cal poses such a risk when it has little orno information about its toxicity.

By fall of 1997, a more detailed re-port of the findings presented in thisarticle will be released. Stay tuned.

— Holly Knight

1. FIFRA Sec. 2(m). 2. FIFRA Sec. 2(a). 3. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/epa/epamenu.htm 4 . U.S. EPA. 1987. Inert ingredients in pesticide

products; Pol icy statement. Fed. Reg.52(77):13305-13307. (Apr. 22.)

5. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Pub-lic Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry. 1995. Toxicological pro-file for naphthalene. (Update). (Aug.)

6. U.S. EPA. 1997. Office of Pesticide Programslist of chemicals evaluated for carcinogenic po-tential. Memo From W.L. Burnam, Health Ef-fects Division, to Health Effects Division BranchChiefs, et al. Washington, D.C. (February 19.)

7. Clayton, G. D. and F. E. Clayton, eds. 1981. Patty’sIndustrial Hygiene and Toxicology (3rd ed.). NewYork: Wiley and Sons. Pp. 2242-2247.

8. International Agency for Research on Cancer.1987. IARC Monographs. Volume 40, Supple-ment 7. Lyon, France: IARC.

9. International Agency for Research on Cancer.1997. IARC Monographs. Volume 68. Lyon,France: IARC.

10. U.S. EPA. Office of Prevention, Pesticides andToxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Pro-grams. Public Information and Records Integ-rity Branch. Letter from Calvin Furlow in re-sponse to FOIA RIN-1214-97. May 7, 1997.

11. FIFRA Sec. 10(d)(1).

Jim

Car

pent

er