(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2008) On May 12, Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled on a lawsuit brought by Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), finding that California’s Agriculture Secretary, A.G. Kawamura, violated the law when the state aerially sprayed untested, ”˜secret’ pesticides on cities, children and wildlife. Judge O’Farrell then ordered the spraying stopped until the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) completes an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

HOPE attorney Alexander Henson said, “I’m glad that this case will set a precedent requiring government to do the required studies before they spray an unsuspecting populace with untested chemicals.” HOPE Trustee Terrence Zito said,  “Since last August HOPE has been saying that spraying people with secret, untested, unwanted pesticides is immoral and illegal. The courts have now twice confirmed that CDFA acted illegally.”

Last month a Santa Cruz County Court ruled that the light brown apple moth (LBAM) was not an immediate threat and delayed aerial spraying of the pesticide, CheckMate (a pheromone-based pesticide with inert ingredients), in order for an EIR to be completed. In his ruling, presiding Judge Paul Burdick said the state did not prove that the invasive light brown apple moth poses an immediate threat to life or property. As a result, an emergency exception to finish the report while the spraying continued was  found to be unjustified. (See Daily News of April 28, 2008.)

According to HOPE, the CDFA told the judge they expect the EIR completion in January. Since the state seems to delay spraying from January until June, this should give Health and environment advocates another year to get laws passed to permanently halt aerial spraying and to force the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to use non-aerial spraying and non-toxic solutions such as the use of traps.

HOPE Executive Director David Dilworth said, “This is the second time in 2 weeks a court has convicted Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura, of violating California’s a biggest environmental law, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” HOPE believes that at least 14 other laws were broken in the unnecessary pursuit of eradicating the moth.

CDFA said it will seek an expedited appeal. Mr. Dilworth responded, “Twenty three cities and two counties, dozens of community groups and a Senate Committee have told CDFA to stop; and now two Judges have told CDFA they broke the law, but they remain defiant. That’s the definition of outlaw behavior. What part of ‘No’ doesn’t Governor Schwarzenegger understand?”

Since its detection in February 2007, LBAM has been found and quarantines have been established in the several counties including Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara and Santa Barbara. Many are concerned about the pesticide application. Aerial spraying for LBAM has resulted in 463 illness reports after spraying began last fall. Another concern is the population of endangered and threatened moths and butterflies that could be affected by the aerial applications. The pesticide CheckMate LBAM-F works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Least toxic alternatives for pest control include the use of pheromones. However, the uncertainty about so-called inert or undisclosed ingredients included in many pesticide formulations remains a serious concern.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for full disclosure of all pesticide product ingredients, including so-called inert ingredients, questions the efficacy of aerial applications of any pesticide that, by their nature, cause unnecessary exposure, and is urging targeted ground efforts only as a last resort.

Source: HOPE Media Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2008) Citing concerns over the impact of pesticides on health and the environment, the Voorhees, NJ Township Committee approved Resolution 126-08, Township of Voorhees Pesticide Reduction Policy, on April 28, 2008 to stop hazardous pesticide use. The New Jersey Township has adopted Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as the pest control policy and strategy to be used in the maintenance of the township’s public properties and buildings, and township parks are pesticide free posted with “Pesticide Free Zone” ladybug signs.The National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, which proposed the resolution, will be working with the township’s pest control contractor on an IPM plan for township buildings to continue to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hazardous pesticides. The guidance will in part be based on the New Jersey School IPM Law (S. 137, adopted September 26, 2002), which requires that after non-chemical means of pest control have been considered and exhausted and conventional pesticide use is deemed necessary, preference be given to using a pesticide that is classified “low impact.”

For more information on organic turf management, please visit our Lawns and Landscapes program page. For more information school IPM, please visit our Children and Schools program page. To find a service provider that practices least- or non-toxic methods, visit the Safety Source for Pest Management.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 12, 2008) Town officials in Camden, Maine passed a new policy that eliminates toxic pesticides from being applied to municipal parks and fields thanks to the grassroots efforts spearheaded by Citizens for a Green Camden. According to the Knox County Times Reporter, an advisory committee of citizens and town and school employees that are knowledgeable about organic pest management will oversee the policy’s implementation. The director of Camden’s Parks and Recreation Department, Jeff Kuller, stated that they will now look to mechanical methods and the use of vinegar to manage weeds on several of the town’s athletic fields.The policy states, “All pesticides are toxic to some degree and the widespread use of pesticides is both a major environmental problem and a public health issue. Federal regulation of pesticides is no guarantee of safety. Camden recognizes that the use of pesticides may have profound effects upon indigenous plants, surface water and ground water, as well as unintended effects upon people, birds and other animals in the vicinity of treated areas. Camden recognizes that all citizens, particularly children, have a right to protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides.”

The policy goes on to state, “Camden supports the precautionary principle (as defined by the Wingspread Statement of January 1998) as the basis for its pest management policy. The precautionary principle states, “”˜When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not yet fully established.” The policy states, “Therefore, it is the express policy of Camden to refrain from the use of pesticides upon property it owns, uses or controls, except in situations that pose an imminent threat of serious injury to persons, property or agriculture.”

The group also works with a committee in Castine, Maine that has banned the use of pesticides on town lawns. The town of Greenwich, Connecticut also passed a policy banning the use of pesticides on all of its athletic fields. Based on the passage of an earlier ordinance, Townsend, Massachusetts has begun implementation of an organic program for all of its municipal lawn areas.

For more information on organic turf management, see “Pesticides and Playing Fields.” For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, please visit our Lawns & Landscapes program page. To find a service provider that practices least- or non-toxic methods, visit the Safety Source for Pest Management.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2008) The Center for Food Safety (CFS) yesterday sent letters to the Attorneys General of 49 states urging the top state law enforcement officials to take action against the misleading practice of labeling seafood imports as “organic.” The state-based effort to protect the integrity of organic food labels is a follow-up to the complaints filed by the Center last year with the USDA and Federal Trade Commission (see also Daily News of November 5, 2007). To date, these federal agencies have left the complaints unanswered, while U.S. consumers are increasingly confronted with imported seafood misleadingly labeled as “organic,” despite the fact that there are no U.S. organic seafood standards in place. In the action, the CFS calls upon USDA to prevent consumer deception by enforcing existing organic labeling laws and regulations until new standards are finalized. CFS, which is joined in this effort by Food & Water Watch, has identified the practice of allowing seafood to be labeled as “organic” in absence of regulations as unfair, deceptive and misleading – a violation of the states’ consumer deception and misrepresentation laws. With U.S. sales of organic food dramatically increasing, a number of foreign seafood imports labeled as “organic” have appeared to take advantage of this emerging market.

“Allowing importers to label their seafood ‘organic’ when it does not have to meet any U.S. standards is a disservice to American consumers, who have come to trust and believe in the organic label,” said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of CFS. “USDA’s refusal to stop importers from calling their products organic when many of them use antibiotics, parasiticides, or feed that would not be permitted under U.S. regulations is dishonest. Consumers have the right to know that the labeling on their food is truthful and accurate and we’re asking the states to protect that right.”

USDA is currently in the process of establishing organic regulations for finfish and shellfish, a process that may take up to two years. In the middle of May, the National Organic Standards Board will be discussing new recommendations addressing the type of feeds that may be used under future organic aquaculture standards. As currently drafted, the regulations would not allow the use of antibiotics or non-organic feed. Antibiotics are a particular concern for both farmed and wild fish. Recently, salmon in New Zealand have been found to have four times the levels of antibiotics allowed by the country’s Food Standards. Salmon on the United States’ west coast are the subject of a recent lawsuit concerning their risk of pesticide exposure.

“It is time for other states to follow California’s example and stop the abuse of the organic label on imported seafood,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “Importers should not be allowed to market their products with claims about meeting a standard that doesn’t exist.”

In 2005, California passed a law (SB 730) preventing the labeling of any seafood as “organic” until federal standards are finalized and in place. With their letters, the Center for Food Safety and Food & Water Watch have requested that the nation’s 49 other states use their authority under existing consumer protection laws to quickly curtail the misleading use of the term “organic” by overseas seafood producers so that consumers are not adversely affected.

The integrity of the term “organic” is critical to protect consumers and farmers who are following USDA requirements. For more information on organic food farming, visit our program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2008) New research shows that melting Antarctic glaciers are releasing once frozen stores of persistent organic chemicals, now banned in many parts of the world. Marine biologist, Heidi Geisz, a Ph.D. student at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science studying the fate and effect of organic contaminants in the Antarctic, has found that DDT concentrations in penguins has remained at the same levels as they were 30 years ago, when DDT was widely used.

Arctic animals such as whales, seals and birds have had a significant decline in their DDT levels during the past decades, while the more stationary Antarctic penguins have not. The study, “Melting Glaciers: A Probable Source of DDT to the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem,” published in Environmental Science and Technology (DOI: 10.1021/es702919n), identifies the melting snow and ice as the continued source of total DDT in this southern ecosystem.

The release of DDT also means that other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including PCBs and PBDEs — industrial chemicals that have been linked to health problems in humans, are also being released.

“DDT is not the only chemical that these birds are ingesting and it is certainly not the worst,” Ms. Geisz says.

Ms. Geisz and her team sampled Adélie penguins and found similar DDT concentrations to those found when the penguins were sampled in a 1964 survey.  She found that the ratio of DDT metabolites, p,p”²-DDT to p,p”²-DDE declined over time. This shift indicates that the birds are exposed to the remnants of older DDT deposition. After examining glacial records, Ms.  Geisz found a likely explanation for the high concentrations of DDT. During the 1950s and 60s, a time when DDT use peaked, the Antarctic glaciers swelled, potentially locking in chemicals like DDT. However, average winter temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed 6 °C in the past 30 years, and glaciers now melt faster than they grow. They estimate that DDT reenters the ecosystem at a rate of 1 to 4 kg per year.

DDT and other POPs follow atmospheric paths to the Antarctic and the Arctic and eventually are deposited there in snow and ice. Animals there sequester these contaminants in their fat. These toxic chemicals persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in food chains and are common contaminants in fish, dairy products and other foods. Many human and animal populations now carry enough POPs in their bodies to cause subtle but serious health effects, including reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, and disruption of the immune system. Indigenous communities in the Arctic region carry alarmingly high levels of these contaminants.

However Arctic and Antarctic communities are not the only ones at risk. A survey conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that fish caught in California’s Los Angeles county waters contain the world’s highest-known DDT concentrations (See Daily News of February 1, 2007). These findings contradict the belief held by some scientists that DDT on the ocean floor has been breaking down into less toxic compounds and would soon disappear from marine life. Earlier this year, the National Park Service (NPS) released a report detailing high levels of DDT and other POPs contamination within park boundaries.

DDT and its metabolites have been identified as endocrine disruptors. DDT acts as an estrogen mimic and wreaks havoc on biological systems, with adverse health effects showing up later in an organism’s development.

Source: Science News: Environmental Science & Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2008) Twenty-five vineyards representing 925 acres or 56 percent of vineyard acreage in the Walla Walla Basin in Washington state, as well as the 110-acre Walla Walla Community College (WWCC), are newly certified “Salmon-Safe” for their land practices that help accelerate salmon’s recovery. The designation means that landowners go above and beyond regulations to adopt significant and specific measures that restore in-stream habitat, conserve water, protect streamside habitat and wetlands on site, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and reduce or eliminate the use of chemical pesticides.Certification is awarded only after comprehensive on-site assessments by independent inspectors based on Salmon-Safe’s rigorous standards. Salmon-Safe is a leading regional eco-label that in 11 years has certified more than 60,000 acres of farm and urban lands in Oregon and Washington, including one-third of Oregon’s vineyard acreage, as well as the headquarters campuses of Nike, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Kettle Foods.“The magnitude of the participation underscores the Walla Walla valley’s leadership in adopting and committing to sustainable practices that benefit people and land, and help salmon spawn and thrive,” said Dan Kent, Salmon-Safe managing director. “The certifications and assessments also mark a major expansion of Salmon-Safe east of the Cascades, a region critical to salmon recovery efforts.”

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2008) Pregnant veterinarians who have occupational exposures to pesticides, anesthetic gases or radiation may have twice the risk of miscarriage, according to a new study published in the May 2008 issue of the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The study, “Maternal occupational exposures and risk of spontaneous abortion in veterinary practice,” looked at the experiences of 1197 female veterinarians working in clinical practice, who graduated from Australian veterinary schools between 1960 and 2000, responding to a questionnaire-based survey. There was a twofold increase in the risk of miscarriage in women veterinarians who use pesticides at work.

The researchers found that there was also a twofold increase for those exposed to anaesthetic gases for more than an hour a week without using equipment to remove the gas from the air, and an 80 percent greater risk of miscarriage in those who performed more than five x-ray examinations per week compared with those who performed five or less. Veterinarians are often unable to leave the room whilst performing an x-ray because they have to hold the animal being x-rayed in order to restrain it.

Adeleh Shirangi, Ph.D., author of the research from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at Imperial College London, said, “Prior to our study, there had been very little research looking at female vets’ exposures to occupational hazards and how this affects their health. We found that many of the vets surveyed either didn’t have the safety equipment in their practices, or they had the equipment but weren’t using it correctly. We hope that our research will make vets aware of the need to fully protect themselves whilst they are working, especially if they planning to have a baby.”

Laurel Kaddatz, V.M.D., vice chair of the American Veterinary Association Council on Veterinary Science (CoVS) and owner of Pound Ridge Veterinary Center in New York, said the recent Australian study keeps precautions foremost in people’s minds. “For me, looking at this study as a practitioner, it reaffirmed the safety measures we take in our hospital,” he said. “We have active scavenging systems for anesthetic waste gases; personnel aren’t in the X-ray room during film exposure; and we don’t do any topical pesticide application here, either.”

On the recommendation of the CoVS, the AVMA last updated the information and language of the “AVMA position on veterinary facility occupational risks for pregnant workers” in late 2004. The policy starts by stating, “Although scientific data concerning the reproductive health effects of many occupational exposures is limited, the goal of creating a safe work environment for pregnant workers can be facilitated by awareness of inherent risks and then adopting procedures to minimize risk exposure.” The policy lists radiologic, biologic, and chemical exposure as areas of concern for pregnant workers. The policy states that pregnant workers ideally should avoid exposure to X-rays, anesthetic gases, and pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2008) A new study indicates that some pesticides applied to golf courses in the Precambrian Shield of central Ontario may have an impact on aquatic organisms in adjacent watersheds. The study is published in the April issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Golf courses affect the environment by altering the habitat through the release of nutrients and pesticides. The Precambrian Shield region of central Ontario, Canada, a major recreational area, is especially susceptible to the impacts of golf courses as a result of the geology and hydrology of the region. The Shield area is characterized by many lakes, rivers, and streams. Golf courses in this area typically place turf on top of a sand base which allows chemicals used on the courses to migrate into surrounding bodies of water.

The study set out to determine (1) whether organic substances that are toxic to early life stages of fish are transported from golf courses in the Precambrian Shield and (2) whether toxic compounds occur in watersheds of golf courses at times that coincide with the application of pesticides to golf courses and other conditions conducive to surface runoff. To do so, two golf courses in the Muskoka region of central Ontario were monitored from May to November of 2002. Passive samplers, semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs), were deployed within the golf course watersheds at monthly intervals. After the SPMDs were retrieved they were tested for toxicity using the fish species, Japanese medaka.

A range of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides accumulated in the SPMDs, the researchers noted. Elevated toxicity occurred in the SPMDs that were deployed during periods of maximum fungicide application. Overall, no single compound or class of compounds in the SPMD extracts was wholly responsible for the observed toxicity to the early life stages of medaka.

The present study indicated that the compounds accumulated in the passive sampling devices were toxic to early life stages of the fish species. It cannot be stated definitively, however, that the contaminants discharged from the golf courses were a toxic hazard to other fish and aquatic organisms. Aquatic organisms’ sensitivity to toxins, stream flow, and other factors affect the degree of hazard.

Several beneficial management practices can be employed to decrease the potential that pesticides can leach from golf courses into the surrounding aquatic environment, restraint in the use of pesticides being the key to reducing the impacts. Golf courses often require intensive applications of chemicals for turf maintenance, both because high-quality turf conditions are expected by the users and because the turf must withstand low mowing and heavy traffic. The researchers suggested that educating golfers to lower their cosmetic standards may be the best management strategy.

This is not the first time that the use of pesticides on golf courses has raised concerns. For example, a 2004 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health gives a comprehensive review of the carcinogenicity and genotoxicity of pesticides commonly used on golf courses. The report found a link between use of certain pesticides on golf courses, such as 2,4-D, and cancer in humans and wildlife. In 2003, Florida officials found elevated arsenic levels in the soil and groundwater in South Florida golf courses from the herbicide monosodium methane arsenate (MSMA). Pesticide runoff from a golf course outside of Washington, DC killed fish, eels and crawfish of two streams that feed into the Potomac River in 2001. Just this month, Golf Digest published an article that discusses the environmental impact of golf and the general agreement that golfer expectations and management practices must move and are moving in an environmental direction.

For more information on golf course management, see Beyond Pesticides’ Golf program page. If you are a golfer or live near a golf course, check out the Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, a set of principles jointly developed by a group of leading golf and environmental organizations that seeks to produce environmental excellence in golf course planning and siting, design, construction, maintenance and facility operations, and encourage your local golf course to adopt these principles.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2008) The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, yesterday filed a legal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), demanding the agency use its pesticide regulation authority to stop the sale of  250+ consumer products now using nanosized versions of silver. The legal action is the first challenge to EPA’s failure to regulate nanomaterials.

Increasingly, manufacturers are infusing a large and diverse number of consumer products with nanoparticle silver (“nanosilver”) for its enhanced “germ killing” abilities. Nanosilver is now the most common commercialized nanomaterial. CTA found over 260 nanosilver products currently on the market, ranging from household appliances and cleaners to clothing, cutlery, and children’s toys to personal care products and coated electronics. Yet as the legal petition addresses, the release of this unique substance may be highly destructive to natural environments and raises serious human health concerns. Last summer, a coalition of 40 organization called for much more comprehensive evaluation and regulation of nanomaterials, citing these concerns.

“These nanosilver products now being illegally sold are pesticides,” said George Kimbrell, CTA nanotech staff attorney. “Nanosilver is leaching into the environment, where it will have toxic effects on fish, other aquatic species and beneficial microorganisms. EPA must stop avoiding this problem and use its legal authority to fulfill its statutory duties.”

Nanotechnology is a powerful new platform technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, those same new properties–tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity–can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks.

While silver is known to be toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, recent scientific studies have shown that nanosilver is much more toxic and can cause damage in new ways.Exposures are occurring during use and disposal. A 2008 study shows that washing nanosilver socks releases substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. Another 2008 study finds that releases of nanosilver can destroy benign bacteria used in wastewater treatment.

The legal petition demands that the EPA regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide that can cause new and serious impacts on the environment. The hundred-page petition calls on EPA to: regulate these nanotechnology products as new pesticides; require labeling of all products; assess health and safety data before permitting marketing; analyze the potential human health effects, particularly on children; and analyze the potential environmental impacts on ecosystems and endangered species.

“The law does not allow the agency to stand idle while a new legacy of toxic pollution emerges,” added Joseph Mendelson, CTA Legal Director. “In an era of toxic water bottles, now is the time for the EPA to prevent a serious new environmental issue from occurring.”

Many of the products in the petition’s appendix are meant for children (baby bottles, toys,stuffed animals, and clothing) or otherwise create high human exposures (cutlery, food containers, paints, bedding and personal care products) despite very little study of nanosilver’s potential human health impacts. Studies have questioned whether traditional assumptions about silver’s safety are sufficient in light of the unique properties of nanoscale materials.

Concerns over nanosilver were first raised by national wastewater utilities in early 2006. One then-new product, Samsung’s SilverCare^TM Washer, releases silver ions into the waste stream with every load of laundry. In response, according to November 2006 media reports, EPA said that it would regulate nanosilver products as pesticides. However, one year later EPA published a guidance covering only the Samsung washer and allowing it to remain on the market.

Beyond Pesticides  joins the CTA petition with: the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, ETC Group, Center for Environmental Health, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Clean Production Action, Food and Water Watch, the Loka Institute, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, and Consumers Union.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2008) In testimony responsive to a request last year by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 29 that EPA’s risk review process is plagued by delays, a lack of transparency, and interference from the White House and other agencies. In short, GAO concluded that the agency’s science is politicized, outdated, secret, and threatens the protection of people and the environment from harmful chemical exposures. In its testimony, GAO’s director of Natural Resources and Environment, John Stephenson, urged Congress to suspend EPA plans for reform, which GAO believes would institutionalize bad science, and require the agency to adopt its recommendations.

The testimony comes on the heels of an April 10, 2008 EPA decision, effective immediately, to revise its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The program was severely criticized by GAO in a March 2008 report, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (GAO-08-440). While EPA said it would consider the report’s recommendations, GAO said in its testimony this week, Toxic Chemicals: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges EPA Faces in Evaluating and Regulating Chemicals (GAO-08-743T), “EPA’s new process is largely the same as the draft GAO evaluated, and some key changes also are likely to further exacerbate the productivity and credibility concerns GAO identified.”

Key issues that were recommended by GAO and ignored include streamlining its lengthy assessment process and adopting transparency practices “that provide assurance that IRIS assessments are appropriately based on the best available science and that they are not inappropriately biased by policy considerations.”The report cites the dioxin assessment as an “example of an IRIS assessment that has been, and will likely continue to be, a political as well as a scientific issue.” In his testimony, Mr. Stephenson cites an example of clear Office of Management and Budget (OMB) interference in the IRIS process. “For example, without communicating its rationale for doing so, OMB directed EPA to terminate five IRIS assessments that for the first time addressed acute, rather than chronic exposure — even though EPA initiated this type of assessment to help it implement the Clean Air Act,” he said.

In her opening statement at the hearing, Chairwoman Boxer said,

The GAO report I am releasing today criticizes the Bush Administration changes to the risk assessment process and makes clear the danger faced by the public when political interference and the influence of polluters affects EPA’s ability to address the risks of toxic chemicals.Under EPA’s new approach politics can be-and already has been-injected into multiple stages in the process.

Even worse, the new procedure effectively requires the White House the Department of Defense (DOD) – which contracts out much of its weapons programs — to agree with EPA on any risk assessment before it goes forward and is made public. The entire process of White House and interagency debate is kept secret, which GAO and EPA scientists say undermines the credibility of EPA’s scientific assessments.

That is because EPA scientists are being pushed aside by White House operatives and polluters.

The result of the ongoing deterioration of the IRIS system is a database, according to GAO, that “is at serous risk of becoming obsolete because the agency has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessment or decrease a backlog of 70 ongoing assessments. IRIS was created in 1985 as a tool for agency consensus on the health effects of chronic exposure to chemicals. The current database contains assessment of more than 540 chemicals. The failure of IRIS characterizes the broader failure of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which in 1976 authorized EPA to obtain information on chemicals and regulate those that cause an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. According to GAO, EPA has used its authority to require testing for few of the over 60,000 chemicals that were in commerce when TCSA was enacted. GAO critiqued the program in two reports, one in 2005, Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of EPA’s Chemical Review Program (GAO-06-1032T), and one in 2006, Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program (GAO-05-458).

The GAO also compared TSCA and the European Union’s new chemical control policy Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) in two reports, Chemical Regulation: Comparison of U.S. and Recently Enacted European Union Approaches to Protect Against the Risks of Toxic Chemicals (GAO-07-825) and Chemical Regulation: Approaches in the United States, Canada, and the European Union (GAO-06-217R). GAO concludes that REACH puts the burden squarely on the chemical industry to provide regulators with health and environmental effects information, while TSCA does not.