Seasons change, yet
some things remain the same. Nearly half a century ago, Rachel Carson
debuted the first serial installment of what would eventually become one
of the landmark works of the 20th century, Silent Spring. In
that book, Carson famously argued that the pesticide DDT was
responsible for negative impacts on the environment, animals, and humans
alike, despite disinformation spread by industry and government
officials about its purported safety and utility in agribusiness. Silent
Spring is often credited with starting the modern environmental
movement, yet today we are facing equivalent challenges and similar
campaigns to conceal the potential dangers of toxic chemicals in our
midst.
In particular, the
pervasive use of the herbicide atrazine raises a host of
ecological and political questions that are strikingly reminiscent of
those confronted by Carson. Perhaps coincidentally, the widespread use of
atrazine in American agriculture dates to almost precisely the time that
Silent Spring was beginning to take shape as a withering
indictment of the chemical industry's blatant disregard for emerging
health warnings and its concomitant influence over politicians and
regulators. While DDT was eventually banned for use as a pesticide in
1972, atrazine has enjoyed decades of unfettered use as (according to
its maker, Syngenta)
"one of the most effective, affordable and trusted products in
agriculture." This promotional website includes personal testimonials
from farmers as well as press releases intended to debunk "baseless activist claims" about atrazine's safety.
Interestingly, a
similar pattern was evident in the early days of Carson's work to expose
the dangers of DDT, in which her perspective was considered so "heretical and controversial" that she couldn't readily find a willing publisher to bring
the story to light. When Silent Spring was finally published in
1962, there was an immediate backlash from the chemical industry and its
proponents in the Department of Agriculture, equal parts of which were
aimed at debunking Carson's science and attacking her personally in an
attempt to discredit her views. In a thinly-veiled invocation of the
Enlightenment gendered view of nature, one prominent industry spokesman remarked as part of a concerted public relations effort:
"If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to
the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again
inherit the earth."
Despite such dire
predictions and ad hominem recriminations, Carson never
wavered in her views. One of the most powerful aspects of her analysis
was the recognition that environmental issues are necessarily
socio-political ones as well. Most of us (myself included) are not able
to follow the purely scientific components of any debate about the
safety and efficacy of a given industrial chemical. Indeed, it is likely
that competing research claims will be made, with industry oftentimes
directly employing "think tanks" to generate or recast findings to
undermine the force of contrary claims about its products. To sort these
contests out and protect the population's interests, we generally must
rely on regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which actually traces part of its roots back to Carson and even
has been referred to as "the extended shadow of Silent Spring."
Unfortunately, the EPA
frequently aligns itself with commercial interests in the face of
studies suggesting problematic effects of highly profitable and
widespread agricultural chemicals such as atrazine. In 2003, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
reported that the EPA had decided not to
regulate or otherwise limit the use of atrazine despite growing
concerns about its potential effects on humans and the environment,
including its impact on water systems from agricultural runoff. The
NRDC, in a manner that will figure into the current debate, described
these concerns as follows:
"Several recent studies
show that atrazine causes sexual abnormalities in frogs, and another
revealed elevated levels of prostate cancer in workers at an atrazine
manufacturing plant. Some of the findings resulted from research funded
by the manufacturer itself.... One of the first of several studies to
turn up evidence of sexual deformities in frogs exposed to atrazine was
conducted by Dr. Tyrone Hayes [who] conducted initial research with
funding from Syngenta, and the deformities he found in the frogs
included hermaphroditism. Syngenta responded by repeatedly sending him
back to re-run his research, and apparently did not submit the findings
about hermaphroditism to the EPA. Frustrated by the delays, Dr. Hayes
eventually gave up his Syngenta funding, ran the experiments again
independently, and found the same results. Since then, Syngenta-funded
researcher Tim Gross has reported similarly damaging
effects to a different species of frogs exposed to atrazine...."
This 2003 report
further cited a study from the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine that suggested a link between atrazine and
prostate cancer in humans. In light of such potential issues arising
from groundwater contamination, in 2005 the European Union banned the
use of atrazine as a precautionary measure. Nonetheless, in 2006 the EPA
re-registered its use in the United
States. In recent weeks, however, a
number of new studies have emerged that cast further doubt upon
atrazine's safety, including (as reported by Reuters) studies indicating increased rates of birth
defects: "Atrazine ... upped the risk of nine birth
defects in babies born to mothers whose last menstrual period was from
April to July -- that is, when surface water levels of the pesticide
were highest.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry has also reported that high levels of
the chemical have been shown to cause birth defects in animals."
Predictably, Syngenta
issued a press release arguing that there was "no direct or credible
link" between atrazine and the observed incidences of birth defects. The
company's atrazine website continues to laud its agricultural benefits and the purportedly
"overwhelming evidence" of its safety. In 2009, the New York Times reported that the EPA generally has sided with Syngenta in
rejecting calls for regulation in light of emerging critical studies,
but that it "is likely to be re-examined" by the new EPA administrator
due to its widespread usage (not only
agriculturally but on lawns, parks, and golf courses) as well as
concerns voiced by officials in other agencies such as the Department of
Health and Human Services. Still, the EPA is perceived as a relatively
weak and highly politicized agency, casting doubt as to whether the
so-called "extended shadow of Silent Spring" will in fact strive
to uphold its legacy.
The mounting pressure
may be difficult for the EPA to ignore, however, as indicated by news reports that "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." Indeed, in 2009 the NRDC issued a comprehensive report on
the presence of atrazine in watersheds, concluding that "approximately
75 percent of stream water and about 40
percent of all groundwater samples from agricultural areas tested in an
extensive U.S. Geological Survey study contained atrazine." This
in-depth report explores atrazine's endocrine-disrupting qualities, its
pervasive appearance in high levels in drinking water systems, and the
EPA's permissive standards and general neglect of the problem. The
recommendations offered by the NRDC include "phasing out the use of atrazine, more effective
atrazine monitoring, the adoption of farming techniques that can help
minimize the use of atrazine and prevent it from running into waterways,
and the use of home filtration systems by consumers." A follow-up article by one of the report's authors further notes that
atrazine "can be detected in most
streams and rivers of the U.S.," and that eventually much of it makes
its way to the Gulf of Mexico, "where it continues its plant-killing
spree of algae and other beneficial water plants that provide food and
oxygen for aquatic life."
Equally compelling are
recent studies - including those directed by former Syngenta researcher
Dr. Tyrone Hayes of the University of California at Berkeley -
indicating that frogs absorbing atrazine through their skin can be
feminized even to the point where males are "functionally female" enough
to lay eggs. According to Hayes, as reported in the Washington Post, even at trace levels that are within drinking
water standards, male fertility rates among subject frogs are
significantly diminished. Hayes has been conducting these studies and
finding similar results for many years, and recently told me that
further research has found that "atrazine induces infertility, prostate
cancer, and breast cancer in rats and is
associated with these diseases in humans in several published studies."
In words that echo the spirit of Silent Spring, Hayes told the
Post that atrazine is a chemical "that causes hormone havoc. You need to
look at things that are affecting wildlife, and realize that,
biologically, we're not that different."
The company of course
rejects such notions, and referred the Post reporter to a professor who
questioned Hayes's findings even as it was noted that this professor
"had received funding from Syngenta for previous research, but that it
had not biased his work." Respected publications such as Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences and the Journal of
Experimental Biology, however, have carried Hayes's reports and thus
given imprimatur to his operative conclusion that "atrazine is a likely
contributor to worldwide amphibian declines." In a recent email
interview with me, Dr. Hayes further noted that these results have been
confirmed by "independent labs," and that "the induction of aromatase
and estrogen production has been demonstrated ... in fish, frogs,
alligators, birds, turtles, rats and human cells." As a recent article in Science Daily explains:
"Some 80 million pounds
of the herbicide atrazine are applied annually in the United States
on corn and sorghum to control weeds and increase crop yield, but such
widespread use also makes atrazine the most common pesticide contaminant
of ground and surface water, according to various studies. More and
more research, however, is showing that atrazine interferes with
endocrine hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone - in fish,
amphibians, birds, reptiles, laboratory rodents and even human cell
lines at levels of parts per billion. Recent studies also found a
possible link between human birth defects and low birth weight and
atrazine exposure in the womb. As a result of these studies, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing its regulations on
use of the pesticide. Several states are considering banning atrazine,
and six
class action lawsuits have been filed seeking to eliminate its use. The
European Union already bars the use of atrazine."
In response,
Syngenta issued a press release, remarkably claiming that a "growing body of research shows
that atrazine has no effects on amphibians" and that "scientists around
the world have shown that atrazine is safe to use - providing farmers an
important tool to bring us safe, abundant and nutritious food." In an
attempt to discredit Hayes in particular, the release contends that his
work "has many shortcomings that undercut its usefulness, including its
inconsistency with prior findings by the author." Hayes flatly rejects
this, telling me that he has no doubt about the consistency of his
findings: "Our previous studies showed that metamorphs (juveniles) were
demasculinized and partially feminized (hermaphrodites). Our new data
shows that when these animals reach sexual maturity they continue to be
demasculinized and some which probably start out as hermaphrodites are
completely feminized. I have no idea what their proposed contradiction
is." While no further details are offered by Syngenta about Hayes's
results, which have been published in noteworthy journals for many
years, the company concludes its press release with a self-promotional
blurb that is full of its own contradictions:
"Syngenta is a
responsible company. We take the stewardship of all our products
seriously - and atrazine is no exception. Our 4,500 employees across the
United States share a common purpose - bringing plant potential
to life. We all have families, so we are all interested in seeing that
atrazine is properly regulated in the water we drink. We are convinced
that it is. We all enjoy the safe and abundant supply of food that our
products bring to our tables. Syngenta is one of the world's leading
companies with more than 25,000 employees in over 90 countries dedicated
to our purpose: Bringing plant potential to life. Through world-class
science, global reach and commitment to our customers we help to
increase crop productivity, protect the environment and improve health
and quality of life."
Indeed,
contesting research methodologies and asserting that there are
"problems" with any studies contradicting its marketing line have been
standard practices for Syngenta, as the New York Times noted in 2009: "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...." The Times, however,
asked six leading researchers to review the epidemiological studies,
and they concluded that 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." The article
continued:
"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.... 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.... Some of those studies suggest that as atrazine concentrations
rise, the incidence of birth defects
grows."
Like most of
us, I'm not a biological scientist and thus must rely on others to bring
their expertise to bear on important issues such as this. I do know
that corporate obfuscation and regulatory cronyism have been recurrent
features of the post-Silent Spring landscape. If there is even a
chance that one of the most widely-used agricultural chemicals is
contributing to increased rates of cancer and birth defects, plus decreased fertility rates in numerous species, it warrants serious
scrutiny. As Hayes related to me: "I believe that the preponderance of
the evidence shows atrazine to be a risk to wildlife and humans. I would
not want to be exposed to it,
nor do I think it should be released into the environment." If a former
corporate-funded and well-respected researcher continually warns of its
usage, the U.S. should consider following the E.U.'s example and
ban atrazine's use even if only as a precautionary measure. If our food
and water supplies indeed are increasingly becoming toxic, we need to
step back and consider the implications for the potential survival of
the species itself. "We are
subjecting whole populations to exposure to chemicals which animal
experiments have proved to be extremely poisonous and in many cases
cumulative in their effects," Carson wrote in Silent Spring.
"These exposures now begin at or before birth and - unless we change
our methods - will continue through the lifetime of those now living."
We can, and must, change our methods before it's too late.
While her
landmark book was inspired in its title (from a line in a John Keats
poem) by the notion of waking up to a spring season in which no bird
songs could be heard, Carson was likewise motivated by the toll that
industrial chemicals could take on human life as well. This spring, in
recognition of Carson's legacy, let us vow not to remain
silent in the face of increasing threats to our health and wellbeing. We
owe at least this much to ourselves and to the world we'll leave behind
for our children. Let's hope that the future is filled with clamorous
and boisterous springs from here on out.