How does the USDA Ban of Pesticide Reporting Impact Human Health and Environment?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision last May to terminate the Agricultural Chemical Use Database will significantly impact human health and the environment. This database was the only publicly accessible record and federally mandated survey of national agricultural pesticide and chemical use. Although most Ohioans are aware that our state is a major contributor to national corn production levels, they might not realize the extent of agrochemical inputs used to grow this commodity.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) ended the Agricultural Chemical Use Database in May. This database was the only publicly accessible record and federally mandated survey of national agricultural pesticide and chemical use. The USDA’s decision significantly impacts the health of humans and the environment .
Atrazine, for example, is an herbicide that is applied to nearly 85 percent of all corn crops. Research conducted by Dr. Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley, found that Atrazine, at levels smaller than that permitted in our drinking water, had enormous mutating effects on amphibian populations, causing hormonal changes that lead to hermaphroditism and chemical castration.
In 2003, the European Union banned the agricultural application of Atrazine concluding that it was poisoning waterways and not worth the potential risks to ecosystem and human health. Despite the risks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to support the use of agrochemicals such as Atrazine.
To make matters worse, without the Chemical Use reporting database, there is no way to assess the agrochemical levels entering our ecosystems. The USDA claimed the termination of this essential reporting program was due to budget restraints. This is the same excuse repeatedly exploited by the Bush Administration to limit public access to information that may, as in this case, threaten our environment and health. Because the government cannot eliminate established environmental policies and agencies without causing public alarm, they manipulate and weaken the programs by under-funding the monitoring systems. If there is no data, no problem. Not exactly. Anyone interested in chemical levels—scientists researching pesticide impacts, government researchers assessing the success of pesticide reduction programs, communities curious as to what might be in their water—no longer have access to relevant data.
This decision will inevitably lead to a regression from recent environmental policy accomplishments. Other acts such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, will lose integrity and effectiveness with this loss of national agrochemical input statistics. If we don’t know what is being applied on America’s farmlands, what evidence do we have that they may be sources of pollution?
As of today, California is the only state that requires farmers to report their monthly chemical inputs (including fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides) to the state government. In addition to the start of similar state programs in lieu of the national database, we can assume that there will be a myriad of private parties that will continue this research, as needed, provided they have the funding. Consequently, these state-level and private efforts are potentially (and dangerously) leaving exact levels open for speculation. These chemical use reports helped in the creation of comprehensive and informed policies by presenting our policy makers with scientific evidence of the risks and benefits of pesticide application. Loss of federal oversight by this decision, and the consequential allocation of responsibility to states and private parties, will have tremendous implications on policy making.
It is no secret that pesticides are dangerous. This USDA decision will lead to many environmental justice violations. Agricultural workers are at highest risk of being effected by pesticides exposure. The database helps assess the health risk levels of various chemicals that threaten workers and communities in specific regions of the nation. A coalition of 50 farm, social and environmental organizations protested this decision, and wrote a letter to USDA Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer asking him to reinstate the reports. We should not have to beg the government to support public health protective measures.
Whether you have heard of the Agricultural Chemical Use Database before or not, you should now understand why the USDA decision to end this reporting process is an attack on humans and the environment. Budget constraints are not a convincing excuse. Eight million dollars is the estimated annual cost of this program which is equivalent to what is spent in less than one hour in Iraq. We need a government that prioritizes public health protection and supports a reporting system that will provide reliable data for research that can best inform our policies.
WHAT CAN YOU DO
Write a letter to Ed Schafer, Secretary of Agriculture USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20250 and let him know your feeling concerning the ban of pesticide reporting.
For more information, contact Ayla Zeimer at 410-302-9266, Ayla.zeimer@Oberlin.edu or visit www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20080522.