Don’t overreact to pesticide study
A fact-finding mission to determine whether pesticides used by large agricultural operations on the west side of Kauai cause harm to humans and the environment found no smoking gun. So it would be difficult to justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to implement all 28 of the panel’s policy recommendations.
Yes, further study and pertinent data collection are needed. But the joint fact-finding group found there is not enough evidence to show that pesticides sprayed on fields by Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Pioneer, BASF Plant Science and Kauai Coffee make people sick or pose a significant risk to the environment.
The final report by the Kauai Joint Fact-Finding (JFF) group, released last week, has already ruffled the feathers of state regu- lators and experts in the fields of health and environmental science, who rightly said there was no basis for some of the extreme measures being pushed by JFF.
Many of the group’s recommendations — from implementing long-term soil and dust sampling to revising federal pesticide standards — would cost millions of dollars each year and likely aren’t useful, the regulators and experts said. Further, it would be irresponsible for the state to implement overbearing regulations simply because the group surmised that pesticides are causing undue harm.
The report, for instance, urges state regulators to make more strict the safety standards for pesticides set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the assumption that the EPA’s standards are not stringent enough.
The JFF also recommended expanding new regulatory oversight to any farm that produces food products, including organic farms and beekeepers. There are even duplicative proposals for the state Department of Health to conduct general air sampling, as well as the state Department of Education to implement school air monitoring.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
“There is an obvious disconnect between what the document reports and shows and what the recommendations are,” said Fenix Grange, program manager for the Department of Health’s Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office.
A wide range of health statistics were reviewed, including low birth weight, birth defects, developmental delays, autism, cancer, diabetes and obesity — but JFF found there were no statistically significant differences in illness rates for west side Kauai residents.
Cancer rates on Kauai, for instance, were similar to or lower than the rest of the state, according to 2000-2009 data from the Hawaii Tumor Registry. A review of birth weights in 2012 showed 7 percent of babies in Waimea, on Kauai’s west side, had a low birth weight, compared to 8 percent of babies statewide. Both are not worrisome findings.
Among the more reasonable recommendations, however, is one that would require mandatory blood and urine tests for workers who apply pesticides, to determine exposure and risk of toxicity.
Still in question is whether pesticides or stinkweed sickened students and faculty at Waimea Canyon Middle School in 2006 and 2008. The report recommends that the response to future episodes should include environmental sampling as soon as possible after an incident, which makes good sense.
Further, blood and urine test kits should be available for immediate use during any sizable health episode near large agricultural operations, to help determine, or rule out, cause.
Although the study found no conclusive evidence that pesticides are harmful on Kauai, in no way does it give the state permission to be lax in its oversight of operations that use them. Rather, government officials should exercise more vigilance in collecting data and monitoring workers for exposure so that future studies can draw from a larger pool of information.
11 responses to “Don’t overreact to pesticide study”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As I have stated before, if sand can and does blow all the way from China to the USA and even to Europe, then soil with poison can blow all the way across an Island. Duh!
Good point Pminz. We must insist that China immediately enforce the recommendations of the Kauai JFF.
Sand, the new invasive threat?
Think about this – since the wind blows from east to west on Kauai, there’s nothing to worry about since the ‘poison’ blows out to sea…oh, yes, I forgot, after a couple hundred years, it will hit china hahaha
It should be obvious this “study” and the resulting report where nothing more than a witch hunt ginned up by anti-GMO activists for PR purposes. Prior to the report, this group, especially on Kauai have cost the state and Kauai County substantial sums on unnecessary studies that ended up disproving the claims made by the activists themselves.
Again, why is it only farms studied and why only farm workers who should be tested?Since state and county workers apply the same pesticides, as do golf courses, why not take their blood and urine samples? How about the workers employed by the pest control companies that tent houses? The reason is this entire exercise isn’t about pesticide safety, it’s simply a thinly veiled attempt to portray conventional and biotech agriculture as a menace.
Employers do not like liability so more testing of employees will probably identify some chemicals that are not good for you. People who work around hazardous materials are at greater risk. Workers in shipyards get their blood tested for exposure to lead. Asbestos has made millions for attorneys. Testing is a smart thing to do … after all poison is poison .. and the dose is a significant variable! … just like tobacco … Live long and healthy!
Good job editors. I agree with the middle of the road approach you are recommending. Chances are those who fear pesticide toxicity will be unsatisfied without soil and air testing and tightening of restrictions. At the same time, the agrochemical Company Lobby well complain that blood in urine testing is unworkable and unnecessary.
On an issue like this, criticism from both sides may be an indication of sensible policy.
FYI Existing EPA Worker Protection Standards (WPS) require spray applicators applying and handling organophosphorus insecticide (example: malathion) over a certain time period threshold take at a minimum an annual blood and urine sample test. Test is to ensure exposure levels “if any” are below any EPA health risk standards.
The environmentalists will say we should ban pesticides until they are proven safe. They know this is ridiculous. You can prove certain pesticides are unsafe, but there is no way to prove the opposite. What if you apply the same ban until safe to food, everybody would starve. And don’t bother breathing, we don’t know if it’s safe.
the precautionary principle demands that organic produce be held back until they are proven absolutely safe from salmonella, e. coli and rat lung disease. innocent victims have already died from eating organic produce, how many more must die before organic produce is banned in accordance with the precautionary principle.
the precautionary principle demands that vitamin/diet supplement products be held back until their ingredients are proven absolutely safe for consumption. innocent victims have already died from using so called healthy diet/vitamin supplements. how many more must die before vitamin/diet supplement products are banned in accordance with the precautionary principle.
there has never been a death caused by eating gmo products.
Great editorial SA, way to pacify the public. Really?
“A fact-finding mission to determine whether pesticides used by large agricultural operations on the west side of Kauai cause harm to humans and the environment found no smoking gun. So it would be difficult to justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to implement all 28 of the panel’s policy recommendations.” Found no smoking gun? They found nothing as no studies have been done! Millions of tax payer dollars? How about the agriculture company’s pay for it with the millions of dollars they are not paying in tax? Pesticides are meant to kill, as a society we are very justified in being extremely worried about their effects upon our health, so said the person with a relative or two who has had cancer.