Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: EPA's failure to publicize drinking water data prompts Agency, Congress on policies

  1. #1
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default EPA's failure to publicize drinking water data prompts Agency, Congress on policies

    EPA's Failure To Publicize Drinking Water Data Prompts Agency, Congress To Rethink Policies

    Huffington Post Investigative Fund | Danielle Ivory
    There is some evidence that Congress -- and the Environmental Protection Agency -- are rethinking their policies on a commonly used weed-killer after disclosures that the EPA failed to notify the public about high levels of the herbicide in drinking water.

    As the Investigative Fund revealed last week, the herbicide atrazine has been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states. The chemical has been studied for its potential link to breast cancer, prostate cancer, and birth defects, and the EPA considers it to be a potential endocrine disruptor. It is banned in the European Union.

    The Natural Resources Defense Council published a report on atrazine levels last week, and the New York Times weighed in with an article on growing questions about the herbicide's health effects.

    The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee has asked the EPA for a comprehensive briefing next week on the agency's failure to publicize results of tests that showed high levels of atrazine. The committee also is asking the EPA to develop a specific plan for reporting this data to the public in the future.

    A senior committee staffer confirmed today that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and her staff plan to meet with "key players" at the EPA next week to discuss their data on atrazine.

    "This is a top priority for us," the staff member said. "We're not going to shy away from this. People have a right to know what is in their drinking water, particularly when the EPA's data suggests that there could be a health concern."

    For five years, the EPA has been collecting weekly tests of drinking water in about 150 watersheds, primarily in the Midwest, where farmers spray the herbicide on cornfields and other crops. The agency, however, never acted on the results. Nor had it ever published the data -- until tonight. EPA officials say they have now decided to make the test results available on their Web site.

    The Investigative Fund obtained the data this summer through a public records request and published it last week.

    In a statement to the I-Fund tonight, the EPA said the change in policy is important "because now people can get the data much easier" without going through the "burdensome" process of requesting public records.

    The statement from the EPA said: "EPA is taking a hard look at atrazine, including many of the issues you raise. Atrazine is very controversial ... Administrator Jackson has made a commitment to strengthen the Agency's chemical management programs, which she identified as one of her top priorities upon her arrival at the Agency. This includes atrazine. We really want to emphasize that this new team is actively rethinking how to address atrazine."

    It's not only the Senate and EPA that plan to take a look at policy on atrazine. In the House, one congressman is planning to reintroduce legislation to ban the herbicide atrazine in the fall.

    Last August, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) introduced a bill (H.R.3399), prohibiting the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. It died in the health subcommittee last September.

    Minh Ta, legislative director for Ellison, said the congressman is concentrating on the financial crisis and health care, but would reintroduce the bill in the fall. "It's an issue that the Congressman has been concerned about," Ta said. "These articles in the Huffington Post reinforce the need to act quickly."

    But Richard Wiles, executive director at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, said that it will be difficult to garner broad congressional support for tighter atrazine regulation, let alone a ban. "This is the big kahuna," Wiles said. "Atrazine is one of those pollutants with a fortress of defenders -- more so than most other chemicals."

    Wiles said that any attempt to restrict atrazine use would likely be blocked by the House Agriculture Committee, who tend to favor the "pro-pesticide farm lobby and pesticide makers." The committee is chaired by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peterson was the top congressional recipient of campaign contributions from the agricultural services industry (which includes Syngenta Corp) in the 2008 and 2006 election cycles. Peterson's office did not respond to a request for comment.
    EPA's Failure To Publicize Drinking Water Data Prompts Agency, Congress To Rethink Policies

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM


    and people wonder why cancer rates are through the roof

    corporate contributions to political campaigns should be fucking OUTLAWED
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007


    Here's an earlier, longer article by the NY Times:
    Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass

    Published: August 22, 2009

    For decades, farmers, lawn care workers and professional green thumbs have relied on the popular weed killer atrazine to protect their crops, golf courses and manicured lawns.

    But atrazine often washes into water supplies and has become among the most common contaminants in American reservoirs and other sources of drinking water.

    Now, new research suggests that atrazine may be dangerous at lower concentrations than previously thought. Recent studies suggest that, even at concentrations meeting current federal standards, the chemical may be associated with birth defects, low birth weights and menstrual problems.

    Laboratory experiments suggest that when animals are exposed to brief doses of atrazine before birth, they may become more vulnerable to cancer later.

    An investigation by The New York Times has found that in some towns, atrazine concentrations in drinking water have spiked, sometimes for longer than a month. But the reports produced by local water systems for residents often fail to reflect those higher concentrations.

    Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency say Americans are not exposed to unsafe levels of atrazine. They say that current regulations are adequate to protect human health, and that the doses of atrazine coming through people’s taps are safe — even when concentrations jump.

    But some scientists and health advocates disagree. They argue that the recent studies offer enough concerns that the government should begin re-examining its regulations. They also say that local water systems — which have primary responsibility for the safety of drinking water — should be forced to monitor atrazine more frequently, in order to detect short-term increases and warn people when they occur.

    The E.P.A. has not cautioned pregnant women about the potential risks of atrazine so that they can consider using inexpensive home filtration systems. And though the agency is aware of new research suggesting risks, it will not formally review those studies until next year at the earliest. Federal scientists who have worked on atrazine say the agency has largely shifted its focus to other compounds.

    Interviews with local water officials indicate that many of them are unaware that atrazine concentrations have sometimes jumped sharply in their communities. But other officials are concerned. Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued atrazine’s manufacturers to force them to pay for removing the chemical from drinking water.

    Representatives of the E.P.A. and Syngenta, the company that manufactures most of the atrazine sold, say that current federal standards are based on hundreds of studies showing Americans are safe. In a written statement, the E.P.A. said that it applied large safety buffers in regulating atrazine and continued to monitor emerging science.

    “The exposure that the agency allows under its atrazine drinking water regulations is at least 300 to 1,000 times lower than the level where the agency saw health effects in the most sensitive animal species tested,” the statement said. New studies, while raising important issues, do not “suggest a revision to E.P.A.’s current regulatory approach, which has been built on the review and consideration of hundreds of studies, including animal toxicity and human epidemiological studies dealing with atrazine,” the agency said.

    Syngenta said the lawsuits were baseless.

    But the head of another government agency voiced apprehension. “I’m very concerned about the general population’s exposure to atrazine,” said Linda S. Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. “We don’t really know what these chemicals do to fetuses or prepubescent children.”

    “At a minimum, pregnant women should have access to accurate information about what’s in their drinking water,” Dr. Birnbaum added.
    Critiques of the E.P.A.

    Atrazine is just one example of what critics say are regulatory weaknesses in the protections of America’s drinking water. Health and environmental advocates argue that the laws safeguarding drinking water and policing toxins are insufficient, and that the E.P.A. is often too slow in evaluating emerging risks, not cautious enough and too unwilling to warn the public when health concerns arise.

    In January, a Government Accountability Office report said that the E.P.A.’s system for assessing toxic chemicals was broken, and that the agency often failed to gather adequate information on whether chemicals posed health risks.

    Forty percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once last year, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data, and dozens of chemicals have been detected at unsafe levels in drinking water.

    In interviews, some E.P.A. officials conceded that they were frustrated by the limitations they face in scrutinizing chemicals like atrazine. An estimated 33 million Americans have been exposed to atrazine through their taps, according to data from water systems nationwide.

    “The public believes that the E.P.A. has carefully reviewed all the chemicals that are used and has the authority it needs to deal with risks, but that’s often not the case,” said Erik D. Olson, director of food and consumer product safety at the Pew Charitable Trusts, and a former lawyer at the E.P.A. and for the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.

    “The E.P.A. is working with weak laws, basic research at the agency is often seriously underfunded, and in some cases there’s institutional inertia against change,” he added. “That’s contributed to a sense that the agency is often slow to react to new science showing risks.”

    Though the hazards posed by atrazine are far from clear, some scientists and health advocates argue that the chemical deserves special scrutiny because it is so widely used. The European Union, for instance, has banned atrazine as part of a precautionary policy that prohibits pesticides that easily contaminate groundwater. (European regulators did not evaluate the chemical’s health risks.)

    Atrazine, which is sold under various brand names including AAtrex, is most commonly used on corn in farming states. But it can also be found on lawns, gardens, parks and golf courses. Sometimes, the only way to avoid atrazine during summer months, when concentrations tend to rise as cropland is sprayed, is by forgoing tap water and relying on bottled water or using a home filtration system.

    E.P.A. officials note that anyone using atrazine must complete a short training course and is warned to wear long-sleeve shirts and pants, as well as chemical-resistant gloves and shoes, when spraying. The chemical cannot be applied near lakes, reservoirs or other bodies of water. And local water systems must produce an annual report detailing the highest concentrations of atrazine and other chemicals detected over the previous year.

    Some high-ranking E.P.A. officials say there are concerns over atrazine, and that it, among other chemicals, is likely to be closely re-examined by the new E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson.

    “Atrazine is obviously very controversial and in widespread use, and it’s one of a number of substances that we’ll be taking a hard look at,” said Stephen A. Owens, who was recently confirmed as the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substances.

    He went on: “I can’t say whether the outcome will be any different, but Administrator Jackson has made clear that we need to take a close look at decisions made in the previous administration, and be certain about the science behind those judgments.”

    The New Science

    Some of the current regulations governing atrazine in drinking water were established in the 1990s. Critics say that science has changed since then — but that the regulations have not.

    Recent studies suggest that when adults and fetuses are exposed to even small doses of atrazine, like those allowed under law, they may suffer serious health effects. In particular, some scientists worry that atrazine may be safe during many periods of life but dangerous during brief windows of development, like when a fetus is growing and pregnant women are told to drink lots of water.

    “There are short, critical times — like when a fetus’s brain is developing — when chemicals can have disastrous impacts, even in very small concentrations,” said Deborah A. Cory-Slechta, a professor at the University of Rochester in New York who has studied atrazine’s effects on the brain and serves on the E.P.A.’s science advisory board. “The way the E.P.A. tests chemicals can vastly underestimate risks.”

    “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about atrazine,” she added.

    In recent years, five epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed journals have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of atrazine in drinking water, including levels considered safe by federal standards, may be associated with birth defects — including skull and facial malformations and misshapen limbs — as well as low birth weights in newborns and premature births. Defects and premature births are leading causes of infant deaths.

    Some of those studies suggest that as atrazine concentrations rise, the incidence of birth defects grows. One study — by researchers at Purdue University, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives — suggests that concentrations as small as 0.1 parts per billion may be associated with low birth weights.

    The E.P.A. generally does not require water systems to notify residents unless the yearly average of atrazine in drinking water exceeds 3 parts per billion, and under a determination made earlier this decade, the agency considers one-day exposures of up to 297 parts per billion safe.

    Another study suggests that concentrations of atrazine in drinking water below the E.P.A. thresholds may disrupt menstrual cycles.

    Many of those studies examined large populations that are already exposed to atrazine and sought to exclude the effects of other contaminants and environmental or health factors. However, such epidemiological studies cannot prove that atrazine causes specific diseases. Definitive scientific proof would probably require unethical experiments, like exposing pregnant women to the chemical in controlled settings. Some research found that other pesticides may have also contributed to health problems.

    Agency and Industry Rebuttal

    In written statements, the E.P.A. and Syngenta argued there were problems with all of the studies suggesting health risks from low doses of atrazine.

    Agency officials pointed out that epidemiological findings cannot fully differentiate between multiple influences, and that they only highlight associations, and do not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship, and that the “E.P.A. has required and extensively reviewed laboratory studies on atrazine and developmental effects.”

    “Data from these studies,” the E.P.A. said, “do not suggest that birth defects, small-for-gestational-age, or effects on limb development would occur as a result of exposure to levels of atrazine found in the environment.” Officials added that the agency evaluates all studies as they appear and takes appropriate actions.

    Syngenta said in a written statement that “the evidence is overwhelming that atrazine does not cause adverse health effects at levels to which people are normally exposed,” and that “studies have shown that atrazine does not cause birth defects and does not cause reproductive effects.”

    But six researchers asked by The Times to review the epidemiological studies said the results were troubling. “These suggest real reasons for concern,” said Melissa Perry, an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “The results need to be replicated, but they suggest there are real questions for policy makers about what constitutes safe levels of atrazine.”

    Concerns have also been raised by researchers at the E.P.A. itself. Since 2003, for instance, research published by agency scientists in journals like Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology has shown that when rats are exposed to brief doses of atrazine as fetuses, some experience delayed puberty and their mammary glands change in ways that could make them more vulnerable to cancer later in life.

    “The morphological changes we see look similar to those caused by other compounds that make tissue more susceptible to carcinogens,” said Suzanne Fenton, an E.P.A. scientist who has written about atrazine. “This theory hasn’t been tested for atrazine. There’s still a lot that we don’t know.”

    E.P.A. and Syngenta representatives said that experiments showing changes in rats used higher doses than found in drinking water and that those studies did not provide the scientific confidence required for regulation. Outside scientists, in interviews, said other research suggested that similar effects could be observed at lower doses.

    Dr. Fenton says she is no longer working on atrazine. Other E.P.A. employees also said they had been encouraged to redirect their energies to other chemicals, because of insufficient resources and competing priorities.

    E.P.A. officials said that other researchers were currently working on atrazine and that the agency intended to convene a panel by 2011 to evaluate epidemiological and other studies.

    Below the Radar

    The federal Safe Drinking Water Act was created, in part, with cities like Piqua, Ohio, in mind. A town of 20,500, it has its own water system, and thanks to federal right-to-know laws created to warn residents about chemicals in their drinking water, Piqua’s officials must test for atrazine and other substances and inform people of the highest concentrations detected.

    But when spikes in atrazine occur in Piqua and elsewhere, residents often do not learn of them, a review of E.P.A. and state data shows.
    Since local water systems test for atrazine as infrequently as once a year, the E.P.A. has required that the companies manufacturing the chemical, primarily Syngenta, monitor the drinking water of a sample of towns — as many as 154 communities — as often as once a week. The companies submit that data to federal officials. The E.P.A. says those tests indicate that few towns have violated Safe Drinking Water limits for atrazine.

    However, a Times review of Syngenta’s data shows that some communities had large spikes of atrazine in their drinking water, sometimes for months at a time. But residents were not warned.

    For instance, in April 2005, the drinking water in Piqua contained atrazine concentrations of 59.57 parts per billion. The residents of Piqua were also exposed to elevated concentrations of atrazine in 2004 and 2007. Data shows similar patterns in dozens of other cities, like Versailles, Ind., and Evansville, Ill.

    But the people of Piqua never learned about those spikes from local water officials or the E.P.A. City officials test for atrazine only once a month in the spring, and the annual report sent to residents in 2005 said the highest level of atrazine detected was only 11.6 parts per billion — 80 percent lower than the peak measured by Syngenta. Residents were also not told when peaks had occurred or how long they lasted or whether there were multiple spikes.

    Syngenta said the company regularly provided city officials with testing results. Piqua officials were largely unaware of or did not use those notifications.

    “I didn’t know that we got any information about atrazine besides our own testing,” said Frederick E. Enderle, Piqua’s city manager since 2005. “I’m not even sure what we would do with it.”

    Some residents are angry.

    “This makes my blood boil,” said Jeff Lange, a Piqua resident and environmental activist. “I have friends and family drinking this water. How are pregnant women or sick people supposed to know when to avoid it?”

    Drinking water experts say atrazine spikes most likely occur in many other towns that are not monitored by Syngenta. In those areas, there is essentially no way for residents or officials to monitor how high levels go.

    E.P.A. officials said that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the data collected by third parties, like Syngenta, did not fall under right-to-know provisions and that Piqua was required only to notify residents based on the city’s testing.

    But residents, including Mr. Lange, said Syngenta’s findings should have at least prompted the city to test more frequently, or led the E.P.A. to tell the city to change its testing schedule.

    E.P.A. officials also said they do not believe that atrazine spikes like those in Piqua are dangerous. “A one-time reading of 59 parts per billion in finished water does not pose a risk to human health,” the agency wrote.

    However, studies like the one at Purdue suggest there are health risks at much smaller concentrations, and other studies suggest those risks rise as exposures grow.

    Critics contend that atrazine is just one of the many chemicals the E.P.A. has not regulated with sufficient caution.

    The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, is expected to release a report on Monday saying that weak E.P.A. regulation of atrazine poses risks to humans and the environment. Other organizations have made similar charges about a variety of chemicals, including fuel additives, dry cleaning and manufacturing solvents, and industrial waste dumped into water supplies.

    “There’s pretty broad consensus that the laws regarding toxic substances need to be modernized and overhauled, and that the E.P.A. needs more resources,” said Mr. Olson of Pew, who added that the agency’s new leadership had begun addressing many issues.

    “But in the meantime, people are getting exposed to dangerous chemicals,” Mr. Olson said. “And the E.P.A. isn’t responding swiftly enough.”

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 16th, 2008, 05:38 PM
  2. Drugs in U.S. drinking water
    By Palermo in forum News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 12th, 2008, 03:59 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 12th, 2007, 12:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts