EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Reversal of Bush Policy, EPA Launches New Study of Atrazine’s Health Effects
The Environmental Protection Agency today reversed its stance on the potential hazards of atrazine, one of the most commonly-used herbicides in the country, saying it will re-examine how the chemical affects human health.
(Photo by Harry Hanbury) EPA officials said in a statement that the agency will take a close
look at the weed-killer’s potential to cause cancer, as well as birth
defects, low birth weight, and premature births. Agency scientists also
will conduct research for the first time examining whether atrazine
interferes with the hormone and reproductive systems of humans and
amphibians.
The announcement marks a departure from the agency’s policies on atrazine during the Bush administration, when officials said that the concentrations of the herbicide measured in drinking water did not endanger public health. As recently as June, Steve Bradbury, deputy office director of the EPA’s office of Pesticide Programs, told the Huffington Post Investigative Fund “we have concluded that atrazine does not cause adverse effects to humans or the environment.”
Today, EPA spokesman Dale Kemery told the Investigative Fund, “This administration is taking a hard look at the atrazine decision made by the previous administration.”
As the Investigative Fund reported in a series of articles in August, the EPA failed to notify the public about data it had collected showing that atrazine has been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states. After the Investigative Fund analyzed and published the data, the EPA posted its data online and said it would continue to update it.
Atrazine, manufactured by the Swiss firm Syngenta, is primarily sprayed on cornfields and other major crops. The European Union has banned the use of atrazine, saying there was not enough information to prove its safety, and the EPA has long fielded criticism from environmental activists for allowing the chemical to remain on the market.
The EPA’s announcement of its new atrazine study follows a private September meeting between the EPA's senior staff and the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) According to a senior staffer on the committee, Boxer’s team encouraged the EPA to open a new analysis of the risks of atrazine and to keep the public informed about the levels of the weed-killer in drinking water.
The committee plans to hold a hearing on atrazine and the EPA later this year, the staff member said.
The EPA said it will announce its specific plan for evaluating the effects of atrazine next month, and that the study would conclude in September 2010. Officials said the report also will include results from a National Cancer Institute Agricultural Health Study due next year.
“I think it is important for the EPA to evaluate the effects of atrazine on humans and I am very pleased to see that they are emphasizing transparency in this evaluation process,” said Jason Rohr, a specialist in ecotoxicology at the University of South Florida who served on the EPA’s atrazine panel this past spring. “Given atrazine's consistent effects on freshwater vertebrates, it would not surprise me if a weight-of-evidence approach also revealed consistent effects on humans.”
In September, Rohr and colleagues published an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives examining more than 100 scientific studies of the weed-killer. They concluded that the chemical affected the developmental, behavioral, immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals.
That contrasted with an EPA statement in July, when the agency updated its Web site to say: “atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development… and EPA believes that no additional testing is warranted to address this issue.”
“At the very least,” Rohr said, “the public should be notified when atrazine levels in their drinking water exceed the maximum contaminant level set by the EPA.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

7 Comments so far
Show AllGood.
There a very interesting article I read on Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly not only produces drugs to treat cancers but they also produce drugs to treat things like mastitis in Cattle.
Eli Lilly BOUGHT the rights to the RbgH Growth Hormone. This Hormone is banned in most Countries outside the USA because scientists in those countries claim it a threat to health and leads to elevated levels of various cancers. It also leads to increased mastitis in Milk Cows and udder infections.
Quite the racket. It makes one wonder how many in the Health Care Industry will profit off an increased use of Atrazine.
"The European Union has banned the use of atrazine saying there was not enough information to prove it's safety." The US will ban something only if it can be proven to be dangerous. Here we have the main difference in thinking between the USA and Europe. When it comes to public safety europe generally will ban something until it is proven safe. The US will allow potential harm to humans and the environment while it is being studied. To make things worse, the US will have the corrupt EPA or the company who invented the chemical, to do the study. Conclusion? For the most part, the US protects the poison makers and the European union protects the people.
The EU operates on a well developed legal doctrine known as the Precautionary Principle, which, as sirios333 states, requires that manufacturers and processors prove their products to be safe.
One of the reasons that EU societies are less litigious than the we are is because they avoid, by way of proactive regulation, many of the harms that we callously allow and then try to "remedy" in the courts. One of the ironies of our system is that, because of the cost of access to legal redress, the remedies are seldom seen.
But the greatest irony is the demand by conservatives that we have "tort reform" to curb "frivolous lawsuits," while they refuse to give an inch when it comes to incorporating some form of the Precautionary Principle, which is the countervailing force that makes justice possible in a more restrictive legal system. In fact, the PP is never brought up in the debate, and most Americans are unaware of it. An example of the difference at work is seen in the regulation of phthalates in toys, which are banned in the EU but not in the US. So toys made with phthalates, just slightly more cheaply than those without, are dumped on the children of Americans. California has banned these toys, and other states have legislation pending, but so far as I know no national legislation has yet been seriously debated.
The same logical imbalance applies to the current debate over tort reform for medical malpractice, and the countervailing issue of coordinated outcomes research and the development of best practices guidelines. Best practices guidelines are analogous to the Precautionary Principle, in that they require providers of products and services to accept some limitation on their ability to "sell," based upon a determination that what they are providing is effective and safe.
I suggest that it is reasonable for progressives to support malpractice tort reform. It is one way to reduce costs, however marginally, in the health care system. But tort reform must be balanced by a robust commitment on the part of providers to develop and abide by best practices guidelines, as well as an acceptance on the part of the public that there are limits on the miracles that modern medicine can provide.
drholmquist, that was very interesting. i of course was referring to the societal tendencies of the two, EU vs US. I was unaware that there was a legal aspect to it. thanks.
A Single Payer Health Care System (Medicare for All) would really look down on poisoning the public. Big Pharma just raises the premiums and claims 'pre-existing' poisoning. Which way did your elected officials vote?
Join Global Citizens Against Atrazine on Facebook!