(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2011) Earlier this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is moving to ban the sale of most toxic rat and mouse poisons, as well as most loose bait and pellet products, to residential consumers decades after these products were first introduced to the public. Though these rules will better protect children, pets and wildlife, the changes do not go far enough for vulnerable populations, because they will still be allowed by pesticide applicators and in agricultural settings. Children are particularly at risk for exposure to rat and mouse poisons because the products are typically placed on floors, and because young children sometimes place bait pellets in their mouths. The American Association of Poison Control Centers annually receives between 12,000 and 15,000 reports of children under the age of six being exposed to these types of products. Beyond Pesticides urges consumers not to use poisons for rodent control indoors, but rather advocates the use of traps and nonchemical exclusion techniques that eliminate food and water sources and entryways. In 2008, EPA released its final risk mitigation decision for ten rodenticides, with new measures intended to protect children and the public from accidental poisonings […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2011) Legislation, already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, that would allow pesticides to be sprayed into water without a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit, is now being weighed by the U.S. Senate (S. 718). The Western Farm Press recently reported that Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is holding up the bill while she discusses it with EPA and USDA. But, the bill is expected to move quickly and the time to act is now. Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals and organizations tell their Senators that regulating pesticides under the CWA is necessary to protect our waterways, public health, fish, and wildlife, and therefore, they must oppose S. 718. Michigan residents: Please call Senator Stabenow, thank her for delaying the legislation and ask her to oppose S. 718. Please call both your district office and Washington, DC. Upper Peninsula Office: (906) 228-8756 Northern Michigan Office: (231) 929-1031 Flint/Saginaw Bay Office: (810) 720-4172 Southeast Michigan Office: (313) 961-4330 Mid-Michigan Office: (517) 203-1760 Western Michigan Office: (616) 975-0052 Washington, DC Office: (202) 224-4822 All other U.S. residents: Please call your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose S. 718. If you know your […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a petition from the Migrant Clinicians Network, Farmworker Justice, and other farmworker interest groups asking the agency to require that manufacturers make their pesticide product labels available in both English and Spanish. EPA is inviting public comment until June 28, 2011 (see Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0014-0001 and submit comments). After the 90-day comment period ends, the agency will use the comments received in developing a decision on this petition. Farmworker groups are asking people to submit comments to EPA supporting the petition. See talking points below. Currently, pesticide labels are only required to be in English. This policy has a disproportionate impact on farmworkers, particularly pesticide applicators, who primarily speak Spanish, with little or no ability to speak or read English. As a consequence, they cannot read the pesticide labels and do not understand the pesticide use directions, the personal protective equipment (PPE) required or the instructions to avoid contamination of water bodies. The current provision, which directs Spanish-speaking workers themselves to get the label translated, is grossly inadequate. In a recent study in Washington State, farmworkers who could not read English exhibited higher rates of pesticide exposure […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2011) According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) internal review of pesticide registrations under special circumstances, also known as “conditional registration,” the agency may reduce its use of this “imprecise” category, whilch allows widespread use of toxic chemicals not fully tested. Conditional registration of pesticides allows market entry for a product in the absence of certain data. Recent reports have found that certain conditionally registered pesticides known to be hazardous to pollinators were allowed to used by EPA without a full data set. In an April 25, 2011 post on its website, EPA provides details on its recently completed internal review on the use of conditional registration for pesticide products. The agency has come under scrutiny recently since it was revealed that the conditionally registered pesticide, clothianidin, did not at the time it allowed the pesticide to be widely used have pertinent field data required on honeybees, even though the pesticide is known to pose risks to these vulnerable pollinators. This data is still outstanding even though clothianidin continues to be used in the environment. Conditional registration is allowed under Section 3(c)(7) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), whilch allows pesticide registration […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2011) Nations gathering in Geneva last week finally agreed to add endosulfan, an antiquated persistent insecticide, to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances. The decision follows recommendations from the December 2009 Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), which call for urgent “global action” to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide. Scientific experts at the POPRC concluded that endosulfan is likely to cause significant adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of the chemical’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media. Environmental health and justice organizations from around the world who have been working toward a ban welcomed the decision. Endosulfan is an organochlorine insecticide that was first registered for use in the U.S. in the 1950s. It is an endocrine disruptor and exposure in male children may delay sexual maturity and interfere with sex hormone synthesis. Male school children exposed to the highly toxic insecticide endosulfan showed delayed sexual maturity compared with similar children who were not exposed. Endosulfan also appears to interfere with sex hormone synthesis in males aged 10-19 years in a community of cashew plantations in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2011) Last Thursday, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation to update and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which has allowed tens of thousands of toxic substances onto the marketplace with little or no testing. The new ”˜Safe Chemicals Act of 2011,’ utilizing risk assessment methology, would, in theory, require chemical companies to prove their products are “safe” for human health and the environment when allowed in commerce. While creating priority reviews for the higher tisk categories of chemicals, many analysts are concerned that continued exclusive reliance on risk assessment with its serious uncertainties and lack of attention to least toxic alternatives allows unnecessary toxic chemical use and undermines a precautionary approach. Sen. Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, seeks to require that chemical manufacturers demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals used in everyday household products. “The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to get on or stay on the market. Currently, EPA may not regulate a chemical unless it can first prove that […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2010) In response to a petition submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling for a ban on the non-medical uses of triclosan, Beyond Pesticides is again urging the agency to halt the use of the antibacterial triclosan in consumer products. Citing recent scientific evidence detailing hormone disruption, impaired fetal development, water and crop contamination, the petitioners state that given the emerging science and the violation of numerous environmental statues by triclosan’s use constitutes placing a ban on the chemical. In comments submitted in support of the petition, Beyond Pesticides state that such a dangerous chemical has no place on the consumer marketplace. “The nonmedical uses of triclosan are frivolous and dangerous, creating serious long-term health problems and environmental hazards associated with its continued use. EPA has a responsibility to ban consumer triclosan use in a marketplace where safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. Triclosan’s impact on the consumer market has been aided by a false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, research into triclosan’s health and environmental impacts shows triclosan does more harm than good, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2011) In yet another move to dismantle Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations regarding pesticides, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry introduced legislation (S. 718) aimed to “eliminate a burdensome, costly and redundant permit requirement for applications of pesticides.” Last week a similar bill, H.R. 872, passed in the House which prevents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from applying the protective CWA permit regulations to monitor pesticides applied to and near U.S. waters. However, EPA has moved forward and published its draft version of the final permit. Like HR 872, S. 718, “Bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides,” would ensure that Clean Water Act permits are not required for the application of pesticides and amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by stating that no permit shall be required for the use of a pesticide that is registered under FIFRA. This bill would mean that pesticide applicators will be able to discharge pesticides into US waterways without any government oversight. Should this bill pass in the Senate it would mean final legislation […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 04, 2011) After Friday’s vote (April 1, 2011) to weaken protections from pesticides in the Clean Water Act, send a message to your U.S. Representative today. See action steps, as easy as two clicks, at the end of this post. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 872) by a vote of 292-130. The bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. The bill effectively reversed a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must require such permits. Sponsors of the bill said that the clean water requirements are “duplicative regulations” which would “unnecessarily burden” farmers and small businesses. However, the potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that could result in the removal of this permitting process has not been considered. The reality is that this permitting process forces the pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2011) Urgent action is needed to stop the bill, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872), from weakening protections under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bi-partisan bill yesterday, which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the CWA to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. This bill has also been approved unanimously by the House Committee on Agriculture and will reverse a 2009 court order requiring the permits as a part of the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) if it lands on the President’s desk by April 9, 2011. Take Action Now. The 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision, in response to the National Cotton Council v. EPA, overturned the Bush Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule exempting commercial pesticide applications from the oversight provided under CWA. The decision requires NPDES permits for pesticide applications directly to or near waterways in order to reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment. Sponsors of the bill say that the clean water requirements are “duplicative regulations” which would “unnecessarily burden” farmers […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2011) The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture unanimously approved a bill, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872), on Wednesday, March 9 which would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. The bill would effectively reverse a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must require such permits. A similar bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year. The 2009 court ruling came in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA. Prior to this case, EPA had deemed it unnecessary to require permits for pesticide applications near waterways. These previous regulations meant that, in instances where pesticides were applied directly to water to control pests such as mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds, or when pesticides were applied to control pests over or near water, applications were held to the much less stringent FIFRA standards. FIFRA, unlike the CWA, does not fully regulate or monitor water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2011) Last Friday the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced plans to allow the U.S. sugar beet industry to continue growing Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets, despite the incompletion of an environmental impact statement (EIS). This comes one week after USDA decided to fully deregulate GE alfalfa seed, despite the risks it poses to both organic and conventional farmers. On Monday, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Sierra Club and Cornucopia Institute formally filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the agency concerning its decision to allow unrestricted deregulation of GE alfalfa. The 60-day notice of intent to sue, filed February 7, 2011, officially notifies USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the groups’ intent to sue pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), citing APHIS’ violation of Section 7 of the ESA in failing to ensure that the deregulation of GE alfalfa is not likely to jeopardize threatened or endangered species and their habitat. According to Section 7, APHIS must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that agency actions do not impact threatened or endangered species. The notice charges […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2011) In response to continued public concern over the presence of dangerous chemicals in common household products, legislators and advocates in 30 states across the country and the District of Columbia have announced legislation aimed at protecting children and families from harmful chemicals. Despite well-funded opposition from the chemical industry, 18 state legislatures have already passed 71 chemical safety laws in the last eight years by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin — with more to come this year. Congress has also begun to take action on the matter, after being criticized for lagging behind, in the form of initiating a review of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) this week. The TSCA is the federal law that governs the control of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Dangerous chemicals, including pesticides, can be commonly found in household products ranging from cosmetics to toys to fabrics. One of the most prevalent of these substances, the antimicrobial triclosan, has been linked to a range of adverse health and environmental effects including skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, endocrine disruption, and increased risk of antibiotic resistance to tainted water, dioxin contamination, and destruction of fragile […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded protections for humans used as subjects in pesticide studies on January 19, 2011, making it harder for the chemical industry to experiment on people. EPA has proposed dramatic changes in how studies that intentionally expose people to pesticides can be conducted and in what studies it will accept. These proposed changes should force the chemical industry to avoid these types of studies altogether. EPA’s proposal is posted on the agency’s website and will soon be published in the Federal Register under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0785. Following this, the proposal will be open to a 60-day public comment period per a June 17, 2010 settlement agreement reached between EPA and a coalition of public health groups, farm worker advocates and environmental organizations. In 2006, the coalition, led by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a lawsuit against EPA, claiming that the agency’s 2006 rule violated a law Congress passed in 2005 requiring strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. Attorneys with NRDC, Earthjustice, and Farmworker Justice served as legal counsel for the coalition. Specifically, the 2006 rule followed a temporary ban on human testing put in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January, 11, 2011) Responding to a June 2006 petition submitted by Fluoride Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, and Environmental Working Group, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it proposes to eliminate the use of the toxic fumigant sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture and food related applications. The agency plans to cancel all allowable pesticide residue levels (tolerances) for the chemical, finding that, when residues on food products are combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, public exposure levels are too high. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA is required to ensure that pesticides it has registered for use cannot combine with non-food sources of the same substance to result in unsafe levels of exposure for that chemical. According to EPA officials, the decision appears to be the first time the agency has granted substantive formal objections to a pesticide tolerance rule based on public health advocates’ evidence that a particular chemical’s use violates the safety standard for aggregate exposures under federal law. Despite granting the petition’s assertion that total public exposure to fluoride is too high, EPA has denied the petition’s request for an immediate stay of all registered uses of sulfuryl fluoride. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2011) Your voice is critical in generating public comments on a petition, published in the Federal Register, to ban the antibacterial chemical triclosan. As you may know, this chemical, now found in the bodies of 75% of the U.S. population, is linked to endocrine disruption, bacterial and antibiotic resistance, dioxin contamination, and contaminated fish and biosolids. We have five more weeks —until February 7, 2011— to let EPA know that triclosan must be banned to protect the public, workers and the environment. Click here for the document you can use to publicize the public comment period on Ban Triclosan petition or email info@beyondpesticides for the word version. EPA published in the Federal Register a petition, filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, to ban the hazardous antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan for non-medical use. The chemical is found in products from clothing to soaps. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) announces a public comment period until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes from pesticides, clean water, safe drinking water, to endangered species. SUGGESTED ACTION AND SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENT: Please send […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2010) Despite the urging of over 100 groups, including the British Medical Association, for an overhaul of its pesticide regulations, the UK Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) ruled last week that little action is required. The government was responding to the need to adapt to the European Union (EU) Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides and Regulation on Plant Protection Product Authorizations. The directives, which will take effect at the end of 2011, are aimed at ensuring that EU member states are working to reduce pesticide usage and are taking adequate precautions when chemicals are used, however, they provide little incentive for governments to change their regulatory stance. Accordingly, DEFRA has deemed existing laws and regulations adequate in addressing the dangers posed by pesticide usage. There are a number of provisions in these directives that encourage member states to address pesticide usage, requiring such measures as implementing strict guidelines surrounding the sale and inspection of pesticides and application equipment, requiring governments to inform the public about the risks associated with pesticides, limiting or completely eliminating aerial spraying of pesticides, ensuring drinking water supplies and aquatic ecosystems are protected from runoff, and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2010) Every year, more than 10,000 kids are poisoned by rodenticides (pesticides made to kill rodents) and virtually all of the calls to U.S. poison control centers concern children under six. New rules and restrictions set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will go into effect next June in an attempt to prevent incidents involving children, but do not go far enough to protect children or wildlife. EPA has known for a generation that children have easy access to these super-toxic rat poisons. Every year, more than 10,000 kids are getting a hold of them, with Black and Hispanic children living below the poverty line being disproportionately affected. Records show that the EPA is aware that children have been getting into these poisons in significant numbers, according to data since 1983. Between 2004 and 2008, U.S. poison control centers continued to receive 10,000 to 14,000 calls about the rat killers annually. EPA has estimated that these incidents reported to poison control centers probably account for only about one-fourth of all exposures. On average, about 3,700 of these cases are treated by medical professionals each year, according to reports of the American Association of Poison Control […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2010) Announcing a 60-day public comment period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday published in the Federal Register a petition filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, led by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch, to ban the controversial antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan, found in products from clothing to soaps, for non-medical use. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) invites the public to comment until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes. The petition, filed on January 14, 2010, identifies pervasive and widespread use of triclosan and a failure of EPA to: (i) address the impacts posed by triclosan’s degradation products on human health and the environment, (ii) conduct separate assessment for triclosan residues in contaminated drinking water and food, and (iii) evaluate concerns related to antibacterial resistance and endocrine disruption. The petition cites violations of numerous environmental statutes, including laws on pesticide registration, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. It also documents that triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water in removing germs and therefore creates an unnecessary […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2010) Beekeepers and environmentalists called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) December 8, to remove a pesticide linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), citing a leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific support study. The November 2nd memo identifies a core study underpinning the registration of the insecticide clothianidin as unsound after EPA quietly re-evaluated the pesticide just as it was getting ready to allow a further expansion of its use. Clothianidin (product name “Poncho”) has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country’s major crops for eight growing seasons under a “conditional registration” granted while EPA waited for Bayer Crop Science, the pesticide’s maker, to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide’s threat to bee colony health. Bayer’s field study was the contingency on which clothianidin’s conditional registration was granted in 2003. As such, the groups are calling for an immediate stop-use order on the pesticide while the science is redone, and redesigned in partnership with practicing beekeepers. They claim that the initial field study guidelines, which the Bayer study failed to satisfy, were insufficiently rigorous to test whether or not clothianidin contributes to CCD in a real-world […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2010) Ignoring the assessments of top U.S. scientists and its own Scientific Review Committee, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced its approval on December 1, 2010 for use of methyl iodide, a potent carcinogen and water contaminant, as a fumigant in the state’s strawberry fields, nut orchards, and flower farms. The news comes one day after press events in eight California cities urging DPR to deny its approval, and after Washington State decided to not allow use of the chemical.”¨ Methyl iodide poses great risk to farmworkers and those who live near fields where it will be applied as well as to air and waterways, should it escape into the surrounding environment. It is on California’s official list of known carcinogenic chemicals and has been linked to serious risks in reproductive and neurological health. A coalition of farmworker, farm, public health and environmental groups is calling on the administration of governor-elect Jerry Brown to work with his agency staff to undo this approval, and deny the use of methyl iodide in California. Specifically, the groups call on Brown to: ”¢ Follow the recommendation of John Froines, PhD, Chair of the Scientific Review Committee, to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2010) Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has identified a list of 134 chemicals that will be screened for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system, along with a draft of the policies and procedures that the agency will follow for testing. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that that interfere with the hormones produced or secreted by the human or animal endocrine system, which regulates development, metabolism, growth, and reproduction. These man-made chemicals are used in everyday materials but appearing in increasing levels throughout the environment. For years, scientists have noted strange anomalies in fish and wildlife in locations where endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are found. A recent study found that an astounding 100 percent of small mouth bass in certain sites of the Potomac River basin have exhibited both male and female organs, a characteristic linked to EDCs. According to a 2009 study by the U.S. Geologic Survey, the occurrence of “intersex” fish is now found to be nationwide. EPA is currently proceeding with endocrine disruptor screening on three fronts: 1) Developing and validating Tier 2 tests; 2) Selecting chemicals for screening and testing; and 3) Implementing the policies and procedures the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 14, 2010) Over 13,000 organizations and individuals -consumers, parents, health advocates, farmworkers and others- from across the U.S. sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday calling for a ban on the insecticide chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Chlorpyrifos was phased out for residential use under a 2000 agreement between EPA and Dow Agrosciences, but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture. Also on October 13, the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), led by renowned scientist Theo Colborn, PhD, announced the addition of chlorpyrifos to its online database, Critical Windows of Development, spotlighting research that links prenatal, low dose chlorpyrifos exposure to altered health outcomes in the brain and other organs. “Human studies have now linked prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos with mental and developmental delays emphasizing even more the urgency to remove the product from the market,” said Dr. Colborn, President of TEDX and a signatory on the letter. “Chlorpyrifos illustrates the urgent need to be cautious, prevent further exposure and protect our children from the time they are conceived onward.” Beyond Pesticides calls EPA’s 2000 chlorpyrifos settlement with Dow a classic failure of the risk assessment […]