Pesticide Regulators Refuse to Recognize Health Hazard

As Ventura County supervisors consider the appointment of the county pesticide chief, the new California Environmental Protection Agency secretary faces the more far-reaching decision of how to replace the outgoing director of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).

Both appointments provide important opportunities to reverse rising pesticide use in California and reform DPR’s reluctance to confront red flags for public safety.

This reluctance can be seen in DPR’s responses to recent research released by San Francisco-based California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG) and Californians for Pesticide Reform:

* Finding: Pesticide use has increased 31% in California between 1991 and 1995; cancer-causing pesticide use has more than doubled, rising 129%. Meanwhile, nearly every crop grown conventionally in California is being grown organically somewhere, and the organic food industry has skyrocketed by nearly 20% per year. Although DPR did not dispute these facts, the agency nevertheless bashed the report and insisted that it ensures that pesticide exposures are at “acceptable levels.”

* Finding: 87% of California schools use highly toxic pesticides in and around school facilities; 20% use probable human carcinogens, and at least one-third apply pesticides periodically whether or not pests are present. The DPR did not dispute the findings but dismissed them, stating, “We see no evidence that California schools put children at risk. . . .”

* Finding: 58 million pounds of pesticides identified as reproductive or developmental toxicants were released in California in 1995. Use of these chemicals has increased by nearly 3 million pounds per year, outpacing pollution prevention gains made by California manufacturing industries. Again, DPR dismissed the findings but did not dispute them.

* Finding: 1 million Californians live in close proximity to heavy use of pesticides that are both probable human carcinogens and prioritized for their potential to become airborne. This report also noted that pesticides known to travel great distances in air are routinely detected when ambient air monitoring is performed in and around rural communities. DPR officials labeled the study simplistic but again, did not, and has not since, disputed its findings.

The last example is of special note to residents of Ventura County who have the distinction of ranking first for greatest number of county residents (approximately 164,000) living close to these cancer-causing suspected air toxicants. Considering that DPR officials can only recall conducting two ambient air monitoring studies in Ventura County (hundreds of chemicals are used there), the agency might have been more interested in CalPIRG’s findings.

Not only has DPR been institutionally unwilling to acknowledge plainly dangerous trends in pesticide use, but the agency has been reluctant to implement a critical law that might turn up new hazards.

*

DPR has largely ignored the Toxic Air Contaminant Program, a carefully prescribed process of identifying, monitoring, evaluating and controlling pesticides found to pose health hazards when airborne. Since the law was enacted in 1984, however, DPR has officially evaluated only four pesticides from a list of approximately 150 “candidate” toxic air contaminant pesticides; only one has been completed. While the remaining “candidate” pesticides wait for review, California growers continue to apply them by the tens of millions of pounds every year.

To its credit, DPR is home to some top-notch scientists, and DPR spokespersons should be believed when they tell us that California has some of the strongest pesticide laws in the country. The problem, however, is that enormous pressure from pesticide manufacturers and corporate agricultural interests often prevents these scientists from doing their job and prevents good laws from being implemented.

That being said, CalPIRG would like to see the appointment of a DPR director and a Ventura County agricultural commissioner who would give fundamentally different responses to the findings presented here. We--and we think most Californians--would like to hear:

“We can and we must reverse the trends of increasing pesticide use, especially for those pesticides that we know cause cancer, reproductive toxicity and neurological impairment.

“California schools are no place for highly toxic chemicals. We should create incentives for all schools to adopt least-toxic pest management programs that have already proven to be effective and fiscally sound.

“We can do better in implementing the Toxic Air Contaminant Program and we’ll set goals and request the necessary resources to do so.”

And maybe even: “We appreciate all the hard work contributed by the public interest community and we look forward to working with you all to make California a safer, healthier place.”