While I enjoyed immensely the wit displayed in "mish's" comments entitled
Atrazine a "likely" carcinogen/USA Today, I thought the readers might be
interested in a different perspective, that of the EPA Scientific Advisory
Panel.
Scottie J. Butler
Florida Farm Bureau Federation
P. O. Box 147030
Gainesville FL 32614-7030
352/374-1599 (F)352/374-1501
email: sbutler@sfbcic.com
TO: PRESIDENTS, SECRETARIES AND/OR ADMINISTRATORS, COORDINATORS OF
NATIONAL AFFAIRS, DIRECTORS OF INFORMATION, DIRECTORS OF COMMODITY
ACTIVITIES, COORDINATORS OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AFBF AREA DIRECTORS, PARK
RIDGE AND WASHINGTON DISTRIBUTION
FROM: SCOTT RAWLINS, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SPECIALIST & COMMODITY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
DATE: JUNE 30, 2000
SUBJECT: TRIAZINE UPDATE
ATRAZINE UPDATE
Yesterday, EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel voted unanimously to reject EPA's
classification of Atrazine as a "likely" carcinogen.
While this is a clear victory for science, EPA has the option to either
accept, reject or modify the SAP's findings. However -- given a unanimous
vote -- EPA would open itself to more criticism that it bases most of its
decisions on political science if it rejects the SAP's findings.
To counter a negative story published yesterday in the USA Today, Novartis
has prepared the following media release:
Novartis Stands Behind Safety of Atrazine
Greensboro, N.C. - American families and farmers can bank on the safety of
one of the country's oldest and most popular herbicides, according to the
product's manufacturer. Atrazine, the most tested crop protection product on
the market, is currently undergoing scientific review by a special US EPA
panel to re-examine its safety to human health.
"We hope sound science prevails over political science to ensure atrazine's
continued use," said Janis McFarland, director of environmental stewardship
and food quality programs for Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. "More than 700
scientific studies--100 of those conducted in the last five years--confirm
atrazine's safety to human health and the environment."
Today marks the last day of a three-day review by EPA's Scientific Advisory
Panel, convened to review atrazine's safety to humans and the environment.
The EPA is asking the panel of scientists to review the exhaustive research
Conducted on atrazine and comment on unfounded speculation that atrazine may
cause cancer in humans. "Novartis disagrees with the EPA's default cancer
classification for atrazine," noted McFarland, "because it's based on an
incorrect interpretation of the EPA's preliminary draft cancer guidelines
and is inconsistent with the weight of the scientific evidence."
Studies of a single strain of laboratory rat show that high doses of
atrazine are associated with an earlier onset of the rat's naturally
occurring mammary tumors-an effect which, according to independent
scientists, is not relevant to humans.
For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently concluded that
there is no correlation between atrazine and cancer risk to humans. In
1998, WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated
the extensive scientific evidence on atrazine and placed it in the same
category as saccharin, a compound which has recently garnered media
attention as a previously suspect product which the FDA has now declared
safe for consumers.
Atrazine has been used safely by growers for four decades for
broad-spectrum, season-long weed control without crop injury. It is
registered in 80 countries around the world, and in the US alone, atrazine
controls weeds on about two-thirds of all corn and sorghum and up to 90
percent of sugar cane acreage. Atrazine also has important environmental
advantages: data from the US Department of Agriculture show that atrazine
is the most widely used herbicide in conservation tillage systems.
American families should feel equally confident that low levels of atrazine
which are occasionally detected in water supplies are far below established
safety standards. In the 21 states where atrazine is used the most by
farmers, ongoing studies of 21,241 community water systems show that 99.97%
of the systems had average mean atrazine concentrations below the federal
safety standard of 3ppb. Using this standard, a 150-pound adult could drink
21,000 gallons of water a day containing the allowable maximum level of
atrazine and still experience no adverse health effects. A 22-pound toddler
could drink 3000 gallons of water a day for a lifetime without any health
risks.
"Despite the fact that atrazine is one of the oldest herbicides on the
market, it has an updated science database that is unrivaled by even the
newest products," said McFarland. "Novartis believes the science will speak
for itself and that the SAP will echo the World Health Organization's
conclusion that atrazine poses no threat to American consumers."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sanet-mg-digest@cals.ncsu.edu
> [SMTP:owner-sanet-mg-digest@cals.ncsu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 6:10 PM
> To: sanet-mg-digest@cals.ncsu.edu
> Subject: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1906
>
>
> sanet-mg-digest Thursday, June 29 2000 Volume 01 : Number
> 1906
>
>
>
> In this issue:
>
> Atrazine a "likely" carcinogen/USA Today
> Re: Amazon numbers
> Volume 12 Now Available
>
> See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:41:51 -0700
> From: Michele Gale-Sinex <mgs@rprogress.org>
> Subject: Atrazine a "likely" carcinogen/USA Today
>
> Howdy, all--
>
> Thought this might interest some of you.
>
> I must say I was surprised to learn there was such a thing (in Novartis's
> mind, anyway) as an "atrazine-sensitive rat." I mean, are we to believe
> that anytime there is a demonstrated correlation between exposure and
> symptoms, that's evidence of "sensitivity," rather than evidence of
> out-and-out effects?
>
> So by extension, does that mean that thousands of urban children die
> because they're "pollution sensitive," my father died because he was
> "asbestos sensitive," and JFK died because he was "ballistics sensitive"?
> Well, that kinda makes sense from a Malthusian perspective: everyone knows
>
> that "sensitive" people should get weeded out as unfit, right?
>
> And thus any organism that manifests response to selection pressure
> doesn't
> deserve to live anyway, because it's "sensitive"? Or is it that we now
> have
> genetic engineering to take care of this--not by changing the stuff we put
>
> in our environment, and reducing selection pressure that way...but by
> engineering natural selection right out of the system!!!
>
> And the scientists blame religious folks for not believing in evolution.
>
> Yeegads.
>
>
> pax
> mish
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000629/2412285s.htm
> Page 5A
>
> Report: Common herbicide likely causes
> cancer
>
> By Traci Watson
> USA TODAY
>
> The most commonly used herbicide in the USA has been
> upgraded from a
> ''possible'' to a ''likely'' carcinogen in a draft
> report prepared by scientists
> at the Environmental Protection Agency.
>
> The report says there are indications that atrazine --
>
> the weed killer of
> choice for farmers growing corn, sorghum, citrus
> fruits
> and other crops --
> could cause uterine, prostate and breast cancer in
> humans and may also
> disrupt reproductive development.
>
> Atrazine seeps easily into streams and groundwater and
>
> from there gets
> into drinking water, the main pathway for human
> exposure.
>
> The EPA hasn't finished its review of how Americans
> are
> exposed to
> atrazine, but ''it is clear that seasonal drinking
> water contamination could
> be widespread,'' the EPA's Steven Galson said.
>
> A 1999 report by the Environmental Working Group, an
> environmental
> organization, said that atrazine taints the drinking
> water supply for more
> than 10 million Midwesterners and that treatments
> rarely remove all traces
> of the chemical.
>
> The EPA presented its new report to an independent
> scientific panel at a
> meeting Tuesday and Wednesday in Arlington, Va.
>
> The session continues today, and the panel will
> comment
> on the strength of
> EPA's research in a few months.
>
> An EPA decision on whether any action should be taken
> to restrict the use
> of atrazine is months, if not years, away.
>
> Scientists from Novartis, the chemical's biggest
> manufacturer, vigorously
> disputed the report and said the studies that the EPA
> relied on apply only
> to rats.
>
> Effective and relatively inexpensive, atrazine is
> spread in fields and
> orchards across the nation, especially during the
> spring weed season.
>
> No one disputes that atrazine causes mammary tumors in
>
> a certain strain of
> rat. Nor does anyone dispute that atrazine does its
> dirty work in the rat by
> attaching to sites on the hypothalamus, a part of the
> brain involved in
> regulating levels of sex hormones.
>
> However, the two sides part company when it comes to
> extrapolating rat
> data to humans.
>
> The strain of rat that was tested ''is uniquely
> sensitive to atrazine,'' says
> Novartis scientist Timothy Pastor.
>
> The EPA, however, says humans are also likely to
> suffer
> from
> atrazine-related cancer because the herbicide affects
> hormone levels, and
> many human cancers are sensitive to hormone levels.
>
> Novartis also says that it has done extensive tests on
>
> rodents exposed to
> atrazine in utero and found no abnormalities.
>
> The EPA, however, says that the reproductive systems
> of
> rodents dosed
> with atrazine develop abnormally. This could translate
>
> in women to
> delayed puberty and in men to prostate inflammation,
> though there's no
> direct evidence for these effects.
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:29:46 +0100
> From: "John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net>
> Subject: Re: Amazon numbers
>
> Just three remarks here :
> 1) The rate of destruction is not stable but rather increasing from year
> to
> year.
> 2) Even if the destruction were the same from year to year, the damage
> would
> be compounded since the total forest is smaller year by year.
> 3) It is far from certain that man will be able to cut the full 5 million
> square kilometers. A small rainforest is an ecological inconsistency. Once
> enough has gone, the rest may disappear from itself.
> John
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bluestem Associates <bluestem@webserf.net>
> To: <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:13 PM
> Subject: Amazon numbers
>
>
> > On 27 Jun 00 18:00:35, Roberto Verzola wrote:
> >
> > >You say "most highly publicised numbers are goofy", without citing the
> > >numbers. This is not acceptable. When you accuse, be specific, so the
> > >other side can defend themselves. What are those numbers? Where were
> > >they publicized? We'll look at the numbers, compute "many orders of
> > >magnitude less", and then see for ourselves which numbers are "goofy".
> >
> > I myself have heard numbers like 4 football fields a second, 10
> > football fields a second, 13 football fields a second, and so on,
> > tossed out in conversations and appeals (by music groups, amongst
> > others) about Amazon forest loss. Moore apparently was reacting to
> > similar, and perhaps even more extreme, claims.
> >
> > Define a football field as half a hectare (100 x 50 metres, more or
> > less). Current cutting rates are on the order of 10,000 square
> > kilometres per year, in a forest complex of roughly 5 million square
> > kilometres. That is roughly 4 football fields per minute, or 28 square
> > kilometres per day, which seems like a lot, until you realise it
> > amounts to about 1/4 % of the forest complex annually.
> >
> > The extreme claims by *some* activists (using the numbers in my first
> > paragraph) work out to 240, 600, and 780 football fields per minute. In
> > round numbers, two or three orders of magnitude greater than current
> > rates.
> >
> > I heard *clips* from Moore's press conference. The best thing for
> > anyone interested in more details is to contact Moore's outfit
> > themselves --- the only address I have seen is 4068 West 32nd ave,
> > Vancouver, BC, V6S 1Z6. Film maker Marc Morano has apparently
> > produced a video with Moore's help, available from 888-200-8273. I have
> > not seen it, as I have no television, but it is supposed to contain
> > some of the satellite imagery used by the Brazilian Ministry of the
> > Environment.
> >
> > Bart
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the
> command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> >
> > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
> >
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:00:23 -0500
> From: Pam Murray <PMURRAY1@unl.edu>
> Subject: Volume 12 Now Available
>
> The Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems at the University of
> Nebraska-Lincoln (which becomes part of the Center for Applied Rural
> Innovation July 1, 2000) has just published Volume 12 in its series of
> Extension and Education Materials for Sustainable Agriculture. The title
> of
> the report is "Urbanization of Rural Landscapes II: Second Syllabus and
> Teaching Materials from a University Course, Spring 2000." The 316-page
> volume, edited by Charles Francis and David Mortensen, describes a
> multi-disciplinary course, Urbanization of Rural Landscapes, developed and
> first taught at UNL in spring 1999 (Volume 11) and revised for spring
> 2000.
>
> Information about Volume 12 (including Editors' Introduction and Executive
> Summary, Table of Contents and Course Syllabus) as well as information on
> other publications of the CSAS can be found at
> http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/csas/reports.htm
>
> To order, send a check payable to the University of Nebraska for $10.00 US
> (note that it is for Volume 12) to: Pam Murray, University of Nebraska,
> 221
> Keim Hall, Lincoln NE 68583-0949. (Price includes s&h in US; for air book
> rate to Canada, add $5; air rate to other countries, check with Pam
> Murray,
> 402-472-9383, pmurray1@unl.edu.
> ***********************
> Pam Murray, Coordinator
> Center for Grassland Studies and
> Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems
> PO Box 830949
> 221 Keim Hall
> University of Nebraska
> Lincoln, NE 68583-0949
> phone: 402-472-9383
> fax: 402-472-4104
> e-mail: pmurray1@unl.edu
> http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/cgs
> http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/csas
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of sanet-mg-digest V1 #1906
> *******************************
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the comannd
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:41 EDT