30
Aug
On Labor Day, Occupational Hazards of Pesticides and Poor Surveillance of Health Threats Call for Action
(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2024) There is no more compelling reason to embrace a precautionary pesticide poisoning standard this Labor Day than the need to protect workers. In fact, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says on its website, Transitioning to Safer Chemicals, that the best way to protect workers is to “eliminate or reduce hazardous chemicals at the source.” While some try to employ product substitution with “safer” chemicals, Beyond Pesticides urges decision makers to embrace alternative systems, such as organic management systems, that embrace management techniques to meet disease and infestation management goals and use only organic compatible substances.
According to OSHA: “In chemical management, [the industrial hygiene principle, known as the hierarchy of controls] guides employers and workers to eliminate or reduce hazardous chemicals at the source by substituting them with safer alternatives. Unlike traditional engineering controls, administrative controls, work practice controls, or personal protective equipment, these strategies can completely eliminate exposure to hazardous chemicals, reduce the potential for chemical accidents, reduce disposal costs, and remove concerns regarding worker compliance and equipment maintenance.”
A look through the state and federal databases that track occupational pesticide poisoning for both acute (immediate short-term) and chronic (long-term) pesticide effects yields incomplete data through a state-based data collection mechanism that cites eight states (2019-2020), which is acknowledged by the federal government to identify a small fraction of pesticide incidents that are certainly occurring. Government agencies, principally the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), points to the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR), which reflects a limited effort to ensure worker protection.
A 2016 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) explains the limitations of the nation’s efforts to protect workers: “For multiple reasons, the data provided in this report are likely to be underestimates of the actual magnitude of acute occupational pesticide-related illness and injury. Many cases of pesticide-related illness or injury never are ascertained because affected persons neither seek medical care, nor call appropriate authorities. Furthermore, because the signs and symptoms of acute pesticide-related illnesses are not pathognomonic, and because most health care professionals are not acquainted with the recognition and management of these illnesses, many persons who seek medical care might not receive an accurate diagnosis. Even among those who do receive an accurate diagnosis, many cases are not reported to state surveillance systems, despite the fact that each of the participating states has mandatory reporting of occupational pesticide-related illness and injury.” None of this addresses chronic effects of pesticide exposure.
The MMWR piece explains why occupational data is so important to protecting workers: “These surveillance data assist EPA in determining whether labeling is effective or if labeling improvements are needed. When health effects occur despite adherence to label instructions, and EPA determines the magnitude to be unreasonable, EPA requires that interventions be instituted that involve changing pesticide use conditions and/or modifying regulatory measures.”
On Labor Day, we remind decision makers in our community of the importance of worker health as one foundational reason for stopping the use of toxic pesticides. This is a day of reflection and commitment to taking meaningful action for workers who serve our communities and are expected to handle toxic pesticides in the process. We can be a part of changing that expectation by stopping the use of toxic pesticides through the adoption of organic land management. In the process, we protect landscapers who are daily applying toxic pesticides and, in the process, protect children, pets, and biodiversity. We also protect those who produce, handle, transport, and dispose of the toxic pesticides used in chemical-intensive land management.
Part of this Labor Day reminder includes the question: What can I do about the problem of pesticides in a regulatory and policy making climate that is unresponsive to the need for restrictions of toxic chemicals? Is it enough to advocate for the adoption of large-scale reforms—agreed by most health and environmental advocates to be necessary for worker and general health as well as environmental protection—when we know that achieving the necessary policy reforms may not be attainable in the near term? There is more we can do now.
For instance, we know that the only ethical policy for the regulation of toxic pesticides is a precautionary policy that restricts or eliminates uses based on the preponderance of scientific information. So, we call for policy change and action by regulators, the U.S. Congress, and state policy makers to keep these issues in front of them and to define the limitations of current policy to protect workers, the general public, and the environment. At the same time, in the absence of federal and state action, these actions help to frame what can and should be done locally by local governments, which are integral to decisions by individuals and households.
For example, we can define the hazards of the weedkillers glyphosate (Roundup, see here and here) and atrazine, as well as neonicotinoid insecticides, and urge action at the federal and state level.
Action can be taken now, in our communities, to:
Stop parks departments, school districts, and households from using these toxic pesticidesnow. In the process, we are not waiting for the possibility of action by regulators to protect the workers who apply these chemicals and the communities and environment that are exposed. When a community or school district acts to stop toxic pesticide use and adopt organic land management practices, the first in line of exposure—those workers who handle the toxic materials—are protected; and
Stop the purchasing by school cafeterias, religious institutions, civic clubs, and others of food grown with toxic pesticides now. In purchasing organic food, we are protecting those who grow and harvest our food, farmworkers.
As we say on Labor Day, our communities must annually renew the commitment to eliminate the racial and economic inequities in our society that contribute to disproportionate risk to the health and well-being of workers, especially people of color who suffer elevated levels of harm. We can do this through the adoption of local, state, and national policies that eliminate toxic pesticide use, which disproportionately affects workers. This is a moment for building coalitions in our communities to advance policies that ensure all aspects of a healthful life and environment, supported by our social structures. In doing this, we recognize that we must join together to build the necessary power to effect meaningful and transformational change.
A note on toxic body burden. When it comes to the total amount of toxicants in our body (toxic body burden) from pesticide exposure, workers’ occupational exposure to pesticides is not a part of the aggregate risk calculation (or cumulative risk calculation) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to determine allowable exposure. So, when we, a school district, a parks department, or a business purchase conventional food grown with chemical-intensive practices, we are supporting management practices that permit elevated, inadequately restricted exposure to those who grow our food or manage our parks and playing fields. When EPA was mandated by Congress in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)—which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)—to start calculating real hazards from dietary and nondietary exposure, as a part of the pesticide registration process, the law explicitly did not, and still does not, require consideration of occupational exposure.
***See Parks for a Sustainable Future for community assistance in converting parks to organic land management.
Tell your governor and mayor to exercise their leadership in recognizing and acting on the importance of worker health to eliminate pesticide use in your community and state.
Letter to Governor
On Labor Day, I am writing to ask you to exercise your leadership in recognizing and acting on the importance of worker health as one foundational reason for stopping the use of toxic pesticides. This is a day of reflection and commitment to taking meaningful action for workers who serve our state and are expected to handle toxic pesticides in the process. We can be a part of changing that expectation by stopping the use of toxic pesticides through the adoption of organic land management. In the process, we protect landscapers who are daily applying toxic pesticides and, in the process, protect children, pets, and biodiversity. We also protect those who produce, handle, transport, and dispose the toxic pesticides used in chemical-intensive land management.
We can do this now.
We would hope that federal policy would adopt the only ethical policy for the regulation of toxic pesticides, which is a precautionary policy that restricts or eliminates toxic chemical uses based on the preponderance of scientific information. However, in the absence of federal action in this regard, it falls to our state and local elected officials and state and local government to protect those employees in our state and community who are working with toxic chemicals.
I am urging you to stop public parks management with toxic pesticides now. When we as a state stop toxic pesticide use and adopt organic land management practices, the first in line of exposure—those workers who handle the toxic materials—are protected. We urge you to advance policy that would do the same for all school grounds and the cosmetic use of toxic pesticides on privately held land statewide.
We also urge you to end state institutional purchasing of food grown with toxic pesticides now. In purchasing organic food, we are protecting those who grow and harvest our food, farmworkers. We urge you to encourage school cafeterias, religious institutions, civic clubs, and others to do the same.
As we say on Labor Day, our communities must annually renew the commitment to eliminate the racial and economic inequities in our society that contribute to disproportionate risk to the health and well-being of workers, especially people of color who suffer elevated levels of harm. We can do this through the adoption of local policies and practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use, which disproportionately affects workers.
Toxic Body Burden. When it comes to total amount of toxicants in our body (toxic body burden) from pesticide exposure, workers’ occupational exposure to pesticides is not a part of the aggregate risk calculation (or cumulative risk calculation) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to determine allowable exposure. So, when we, a school district, a parks department, or a business purchase conventional food grown with chemical-intensive practices, we are supporting management practices that permit elevated, inadequately restricted exposure to those who grow our food or manage our parks and playing fields. When EPA was mandated by Congress in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)—which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)—to start calculating real hazards from dietary and nondietary exposure, as a part of the pesticide registration process, the law explicitly did not, and still does not, require consideration of occupational exposure.
Thank you for your consideration of my request. Happy Labor Day and thank for your work.
The Action for mayors is for those whose communities have not already adopted organic land management ordinances, practices, food purchases, and products.
Letter to the Mayor
On Labor Day, I am writing to ask you to exercise your leadership in recognizing and acting on the importance of worker health as one foundational reason for stopping the use of toxic pesticides. This is a day of reflection and commitment to taking meaningful action for workers who serve our community and are expected to handle toxic pesticides in the process. We can be a part of changing that expectation by stopping the use of toxic pesticides through the adoption of organic land management. In the process, we protect landscapers who are daily applying toxic pesticides and, in the process, protect children, pets, and biodiversity. We also protect those who produce, handle, transport, and dispose the toxic pesticides used in chemical-intensive land management.
We can do this now.
We would hope that federal and state policy would adopt the only ethical policy for the regulation of toxic pesticides, which is a precautionary policy that restricts or eliminates toxic chemical uses based on the preponderance of scientific information. However, in the absence of federal and state action in this regard, it falls to our local elected officials and local government to protect those employees in our community who are working with toxic chemicals.
I am urging you to stop our parks department from using toxic pesticides now. When we as a community stop toxic pesticide use and adopt organic land management practices, the first in line of exposure—those workers who handle the toxic materials—are protected. We urge you to encourage the same for all school grounds and the cosmetic use of toxic pesticides on private property in our community.
We also urge you to end town purchasing of food grown with toxic pesticides now. In purchasing organic food, we are protecting those who grow and harvest our food, farmworkers. We urge you to encourage school cafeterias, religious institutions, civic clubs, and others to do the same.
As we say on Labor Day, our communities must annually renew the commitment to eliminate the racial and economic inequities in our society that contribute to disproportionate risk to the health and well-being of workers, especially people of color who suffer elevated levels of harm. We can do this through the adoption of local policies and practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use, which disproportionately affects workers.
Toxic Body Burden. When it comes to total amount of toxicants in our body (toxic body burden) from pesticide exposure, workers’ occupational exposure to pesticides is not a part of the aggregate risk calculation (or cumulative risk calculation) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to determine allowable exposure. So, when we, a school district, a parks department, or a business purchase conventional food grown with chemical-intensive practices, we are supporting management practices that permit elevated, inadequately restricted exposure to those who grow our food or manage our parks and playing fields. When EPA was mandated by Congress in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)—which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)—to start calculating real hazards from dietary and nondietary exposure, as a part of the pesticide registration process, the law explicitly did not, and still does not, require consideration of occupational exposure.
Thank you for your consideration of my request. Happy Labor Day and thank for your work.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
