0
Home
News
Directory
E-newsletter
Magazine
Events
Data
AgReport
Subscribe
Advocates Say EPA Chlorpyrifos Review Bolsters Push For Stronger WPS
Jan. 19, 2015
Advocates say U.S. EPA’s finding of risks to workers in a recent draft human health risk assessment of the commonly used pesticide chlorpyrifos bolsters their push for the agency to strengthen proposed revisions to its worker protection standards (WPS), due out this year, though advocates argue banning the pesticide is the surest way to reduce risks.
“This is another indication of the risks involved in handling pesticides and another argument for increasing” protections in the WPS, a source with Farmworker Justice says of EPA’s Jan. 5 draft assessment that found chlorpyrifos poses risks to workers in some uses.
But the source adds that advocates “would prefer to see uses canceled rather than trying to mitigate exposures through increased personal protective equipment” or other measures that advocates say are often unreliable.
EPA Jan. 5 released for public comment a draft revised human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos that found risks to workers using the pesticide. In a press release, EPA said “additional restrictions may be necessary to ensure that workers who use or work around areas treated with chlorpyrifos are protected.” The agency will take public comment on the review for 60 days after the review is published in the Federal Register.
EPA’s finding of a risk to workers from chlorpyrifos, a substance advocates say has historically been associated with worker exposures, comes as the agency is weighing public comments received this summer on its March 19 proposal to revise its decades-old WPS to better protect agricultural workers from pesticide exposures.
Advocates have long threatened to sue EPA to spur revisions to the WPS, arguing that farmworkers receive fewer protections than workers who use toxic chemicals in industries regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
And groups that in 2007 petitioned for EPA to ban chlorpyrifos have also argued that children in agricultural communities are less protected from exposure to toxic chemicals than other locations. While EPA has banned the use of chlorpyrifos in the home, protecting most children from exposure, children in agricultural communities are still exposed when chlorpyrifos drifts from nearby fields, the groups say.
Plaintiffs in the case Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. (NRDC) v. EPA are pushing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to set legal deadlines for EPA to answer the petition for a complete ban. But advocates have said the Jan. 5 revised assessment suggests EPA will deny their petition because the document concludes residents and bystanders are not at risk from airborne chlorpyrifos.
EPA’s proposed revisions to the WPS include strengthening requirements for worker training, restricting re-entering pesticide-treated fields until residues have dissipated, and a first-time minimum age requirement of 16 for pesticide handlers. EPA took comment on the proposal this summer and says the final rule is due out in the first part of 2015.
In comments on the proposed revisions, advocates pushed for stronger requirements, especially to protect pesticide handlers, by raising the first-time minimum age requirement for the job from 16 to 18, establishing engineering controls for the handling of certain types of pesticides, and requiring employers to offer medical monitoring for handlers of neurotoxic pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos.
Now officials with groups who petitioned for a ban say they are reviewing the revised assessment and weighing comments on a host of issues including EPA’s finding that chlorpyrifos poses “risks to workers who mix, load and apply chlorpyrifos pesticide products.”
While the Farmworker Justice source says EPA’s finding that chlorpyrifos poses risks to workers in some uses bolsters calls for a stronger WPS, that source and one with PANNA say mitigation measures are unlikely to sufficiently reduce risks and that use restrictions or a ban would be more appropriate.
The Farmworker Justice source says risk mitigation measures such as personal protective equipment and restrictions on re-entering fields sprayed with most toxic pesticides are often not followed. Also, wearing protective equipment outdoors raises other risks for workers, such as heat stroke, the source says.
And even though EPA, after considering recent industry studies, determined in the revised assessment that chlorpyrifos does not pose human health risks through volatilization, the source says advocates remain concerned that farmers’ families are exposed to the substance when it is brought home on workers’ clothes.
“We’re always concerned about take-home exposures for workers’ families,” the source says. “The only way to eliminate that is to cancel the use.” The PANNA source says a preliminary review of the revised chlorpyrifos assessment raises concerns for workers that risk mitigation measures commonly used to reduce pesticide exposures may not be sufficient.
In the assessment, the source says, EPA reviewed hundreds of different chlorpyrifos application scenarios and found that, in some cases, personal protective equipment and engineering controls could not eliminate the risk. The source also says data in the revised assessment suggest unrealistic re-entry interval requirements, as long as 35 days, would be needed to reduce exposures in some application scenarios.
After a preliminary review, the PANNA source says EPA would likely have to consider lowering application rates for chlorpyrifos to mitigate the risk to workers, but reiterated that advocates believe a ban remains the best approach.
Source: Inside EPA’s
More from AgroNews
Change
Hot TopicSubscribe
| Subscribe Email: | * | |
| Name: | ||
| Mobile Number: | ||
Comment
0/1200
NEWSLETTER