Merie iel l Watts ts PhD Pestic sticide ide Action on Network - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Merie iel l Watts ts PhD

Pestic sticide ide Action

• n Network

rk Aotearoa aroa new Zeal alan and meri rielw lwat atts ts@x @xtra. tra.co co.nz

1.OPCs as a whole

a)

Human health

b)

Environment

c)

Uses and alternatives

• 2. Chlorpyrifos

a)

Human health

b)

POPS characteristics

c)

Uses and alternatives

 EPA-commissioned overview of epidemiological

studies found the following associations with exposure to OPCs:

 Probable neurodevelopmental effects  Probable neurobehavioural, neurophysiological,

and neurological effects

 Possible increased cancer risk

.

 “One farmer ends his life every 2 weeks”

(Straight Furrow Feb 12th )

 Elevated association of OP exposure with suicide

(London et al 2012)

 2-fold increased risk of suicides with exposure to

chlorpyrifos (Lee et al 2007b )

 Chlorpyrifos being reviewed again by EU and US for this

effect

 Statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics in

their journal, Pediatrics:

“Prospective contemporary birth cohort studies in the

United States link early-life exposures to

• rganophosphate insecticides with reductions in IQ and

abnormal behaviors associated with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder and autism.”

And “Recommendation to government: advance less toxic

pesticide alternatives”.

 EPA:

• In general the risk of the OPCs to the environment

are high (response to Waikato Tainui River Trust)

• Risks indentified for the aquatic environment are

likely to be underestimated because it didn’t take into account run off and leaching (response to WTRT)

 PAN:

• Mass killing of birds with diazinon granules is

simply not acceptable regardless of whether there are alternatives or not

• EPA means Environmental Protection Authority

 Dairy NZ submission – “OPCs should only be used if

there are no alternatives available”

 EPA: alternatives are being used by large-scale growers



But focuses only on biological controls



And doesn’t intend to limit uses where alternatives are available

 PAN: EPA and growers must also acknowledge

biopesticides and sustainable management practices as viable effective alternatives

• has demonstrated very clearly there are alternatives to all uses
• f chlorpyrifos – but that has not been acknowledged, and

there is no proposal to limit use of chlorpyrifos

• That the EPA considers the OPCs should continue be used

because some users dispute the availability of alternatives when other growers are clearly using them already, is not good enough.

 Chlorpyrifos has a greater adverse effect on neural

cell replication and is inherently more toxic to the developing brain than the more acutely toxic

• rganophosphates such as diazinon and parathion

(Slotkin et al 2006)

 "These findings indicate that prenatal exposure to

the insecticide chlorpyrifos not only increases the likelihood of developmental delay, but may have long-term consequences for social adjustment and academic achievement. Relatively speaking, the insecticide effects reported here are comparable to what has been seen with exposures to other neurotoxicants such as lead and tobacco smoke."

(Rauh et al 2006)

 Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is altering

children’s brain structure, the effects being visible at least 11 years after birth. (Rauh et al

2012)

 CAL EPA (2010) – set child-specific reference

dose 0.0001 mg/kg/day [cf EPA ADI = 0.003] because: there is now evidence that chlorpyrifos directly targets events that are specific to the developing brain and that are not related to inhibition of cholinesterase

 Yet the NZ EPA insists on looking only at

effects on cholinesterase

 EPA failed to address POPS properties  Chlorpyrifos meets Stockholm Convention

criteria

• persistence - in soil, pond sediment, creek

sediment, surface water

• bioaccumulation – Kow and BCF studies – and only
• ne of these need be meet
• long-range transport - widespread contamination

in the Arctic and one of the most common pollutants along with endosulfan

 Dow -

• measured and estimated BCFs do not show

bioaccumulation

 Dow - did not dispute that

• the Kow shows bioaccumulation potential, and this is

sufficient for Stockholm

• chlorpyrifos is persistent
• found throughout the Arctic

 BUT - EPA has not addressed this! Although

classification web page says chlorpyrifos is bioaccumulative in fish

 What happens when chlorpyrifos is listed under

Stockholm? Reassess again? Should be phased-out

 Dow:

• does not support home garden, indoor/outdoor domestic or

industrial use because of concerns about exposure to children, pests, wildlife and the environment; and they want such uses cancelled

• “Use of chlorpyrifos has dropped in the last 20 and particularly

the last 5 years as growers move to products that fit with more “green’ spray programmes.”

• “Over the last 20 years chlorpyrifos has been largely phased out of

horticulture and replaced by more modern products”.  PAN:

• has demonstrated very clearly there are alternatives,

including safer chemicals, biopesticides, biological control and sustainable management practices, to all uses of chlorpyrifos

• Phase it out - 3-5 years

 All OPCs pose unacceptable risks to human health and the

environment

 Retain uses as per PAN submission, with controls as per PAN

submission

 Phase out all home and garden use, including no approved handler

use

 Phase-out as per PAN submission; except  Chlorpyrifos 3-5 years  Users are not aware of the real effects of OPs beyond acute

poisoning

 Many growers seem to be unaware of the numerous alternatives  They need assistance – there should be recommendations on the

provision of information on alternatives, especially nonchemical, to growers