Testimony of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
In support of L.D. 1540:
"An Act to Ensure that the State Board of Pesticides Control has Sufficient Resources to Provide Accurate Information About the Use of Pesticides in the State"
March 29, 2001
The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association strongly supports L.D. 1540. In 1997, MOFGA proposed an Act to Reduce Reliance on Pesticides, in response to a number of scientific developments that underscored the human and environmental risks of pesticides – developments which lead that same year to the passage in Congress of the Food Quality Protection Act. MOFGA sought to implement a five year process to measure pesticide sales, convene stakeholders, and implement a plan to reduce pesticides use. Had the Act as originally drafted been passed and implemented, Maine could have achieved a 33% reduction in pesticide use by next year, 2002. A compromise version of the proposal was ultimately passed, entitled "An Act to Minimize Reliance on Pesticides." The Act, though setting no definite quantitative goals for pesticide reduction, stated for the first time that it was "the policy of the State to work to find ways to use the minimum amount of pesticides needed to effectively control targeted pests in all areas of application." And it provided a critical first step in the process of getting control of our State’s pesticide use:
The board [of Pesticides Control] shall implement a system of record keeping, reporting, data collection and analysis that provides information on the quantity of product and bran names of pesticides sold. The board, in cooperation with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service, shall study ways to improve pesticide information data bases and to optimize the useful analysis of reported information.
No later than October 1, 1998, and each year thereafter, the board shall publish an annual pesticides report containing the quantity of product, sorted by the name and United States Environmental Protection Agency registration number, of all pesticides sold in the prior year, with the data further sorted by sector of use wherever possible.
22 MRSA sec. 1471-M, sub-7
As this Committee well knows, three Octobers have come and gone and we are no closer to accomplishing the data collection obligations of this Act than we were in 1997.
Submitted with this testimony are a series of articles in the Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener reporting on the lack of progress on this issue, as well as the report of interviews with the recently retired public BPC members Alan Lewis (former Board chairman) and Jo D. Saffeir, both reporting their frustration with the inability to make progress on pesticides reporting and reduction.
No one in particular is to blame for this inaction. By a "bureaucratic snafu", the BPC lost the positions that were originally funded to provide the data collection and analysis function. This legislation would restore those funds. In 1995, with a staffer who has since left the agency, the BPC last prepared a useful report of pesticide sales, for the agriculture sector only (a copy of that report is appended). This legislation would enable a new report to be developed annually that would provide a critical comparison to that 1995 report. Only with such evidence can we ever know if we are making progress, and will continue to make progress, toward the goal of pesticide reduction.
Why is pesticide reduction important?
We are submitting with this testimony the original 1997 policy paper in support of the pesticide reduction initiative.
To bring this issue up to date, we would like to focus just on the issue of pesticides and children’s health. It has been well recognized since a 1993 report by the National Academy of Sciences, and was recently acknowledged in the October, 2000
Report of the School Integrated Pest Management Survey of the Maine Department of Agriculture, that "children are more vulnerable to pesticide exposure than adults." In December, 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency released "America's Children and the Environment: A First View of Available Measures.": (www.epa.gov/children/indicators/download.htm). The report notes that cancer is one of the two diseases identified as priorities by the Interagency Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety to Children, organized by the EPA and DHHS. Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease of children under the age of 15. Cancer incidence for children under 20 has increased from 128 cases per million children in 1975 to 154 cases per million in 1995, a 20% increase.
Certain specific forms of cancer have risen dramatically. 1998 National Cancer Institute data show that the percentage of cancer increased in children 0-4 years old between 1973 and 1995:
53% rise in brain and other nervous system cancers
37% rise in soft tissue cancer
32% rise in kidney and renal pelvis cancers
18% rise in acute lymphoid leukemia
During the same period, incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for teenagers aged 15-19 rose by 128%.
While we in Maine often take pride in the relative healthfulness of our environment, Maine cancer statistics for children, who are the least likely to have "lifestyle" causes for their disease, do not bear out that perception. While the Maine Cancer Registry does not yet have a trend analysis for children’s cancer rates in Maine (one was promised in a few weeks), Judith Graber, epidemiologist for the registry, has reported that the 1995 and 96 data indicate an annual childhood cancer incidence rate for the age group of 0-14 years of 436 cases per million, above the national average of 432 cases per million.
Twelve of the 26 most widely used pesticides in the U.S. are classified as possible or probable carcinogens by the EPA based on studies of laboratory animals, with an annual use that totals 380 million pounds. (atrazine (C=possible), metolachlor (C), metarn sodium (B2=probable), dichloropropene (B2), cyanazine (C), pendimethalin (C), trifluralin (C), acetochlor (B2), chlorothalonil (likely), mancozeb (B2), fluometuron (C), and parathion (C). Four frequently used pesticides have been associated with increased risk of cancer for exposed humans in epidemiological studies. 190 million pounds of these four pesticides are used annually in the U.S., including 120 million household applications every year. (atrazine, 2,4
D, glyphosate, diazinon). (Journal of Pesticide Reform, Summer 1999, at 5) Last year, the EPA moved under the Food Quality Protection Act to phase out residential uses of diazinon, but agricultural uses remain legal.
While many government experts have traditionally been reluctant to definitively tie pesticide use to the increases in rates of childhood (or other) cancers, the December, 2000 EPA report on Children’s health makes that positive connection:
Evidence from epidemiological studies suggests that environmental contaminants such as pesticides and certain chemicals, in addition to radiation, may contribute to an increased frequency of some childhood cancers. Some studies have found that children born to parents who work with or use such chemicals are more likely to have cancer in childhood. It may be that the chemicals cause mutations in parents' germ cells that may increase the risk of their children developing certain cancers, or perhaps the parental exposure is passed on to the child while in utero, affecting the child directly. Children's direct exposures to such chemicals may also contribute to cancer. (Report at 52)
A number of studies have evaluated the relationship between pesticide exposure and certain types of childhood cancer, and while the evidence is suggestive of a link, it is still not conclusive. Most studies of the relationship between pesticide exposure and leukemia and brain cancer show increased risks for children whose parents used pesticides at home or work, and for children who may be exposed to pesticides in the home. Evidence is limited but suggestive that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in children may be linked to parental pesticide exposure and exposure to pesticides in the home. There is some evidence linking pesticide use to Wilms' tumor and Ewing's sarcoma. (Report at 54)
In October, 2000, the Maine Department of Agriculture released a startling and excellently conceived and reported study: "What’s ‘Bugging’ Our Schools? Pest Concerns and Pesticide Use in Maine Public Schools." State entomologist Kathy Murray, the Department’s IPM specialist, surveyed all of Maine school districts on their pesticide use, accomplishing an impressive 88% response rate. The survey results (summarized in attached article) reveal that most pesticide applications in Maine schools are made illegally, by school custodial staff who are not licensed and have no training in pesticide application, safety, or health concerns. Only 5% of schools provide written notice when pesticides are to be applied, and 82% of respondents have no integrated pest management plan in place.
The Agriculture Department is proceeding apace, with the help of substantial EPA grants, to provide education services to schools on integrated pest management, in both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications. Still unanswered by the survey, however, are what types of pesticides the schools are using, in what quantities, and what risks they present our school children and staff, who spend 180 days a year in school environments.
Without the funding that this legislation will provide, we are unlikely to ever be able to quantify the extent of pesticide use in our schools, our homes, and our farms, which expose both children and adults to a myriad of health risks. Effective data collection is the critical first step toward pesticide reduction.
Sharon S. Tisher
Chair, MOFGA
Public Policy Committee