Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0392.070 2014-2016Murashige, Laura From: Renee Pinel <reneep@healthyplants.org> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 6:36 PM To: Council Testimony Cc: Renee Pinel Subject: Bill 71 Attachments: Bill 71 - County of Hawaii (Herbicides) 08 02 15.pdf Please accept the following written testimony on behalf of the Western Plant Health Association for Bill 71 to be heard Tuesday, August 4th. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Renee Renee Pinel President/CEO Western Plant Health Association 4460 Duckhorn Dr., Ste. A Sacramento, CA 95834 916-574-9744 Office WPHA — Committed to the agronomically sound and environmentally safe use of plant health products and technologies. 1 C-) C:) �C T Comm. No. 51Q •-7D Ref. To: Ref. Date... .20.5 0 Western Plant Health Association August 2, 2015 The Honorable Dennis Onishi Chair, Committee on Environmental Management County Council, County of Hawai'i Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Onishi: On behalf of the Western Plant Health Association (WPHA) I am submitting testimony in opposition to Bill 71 which would amend Chapter 14, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Election, as Amended) to prohibit the use of herbicides on all County owned or maintained properties and waterways. WPHA represents the interests of crop protection and fertilizer manufacturers, biotechnology providers, and agricultural retailers in Hawaii, California, and Arizona. WPHA appreciates the author's interest in assuring the safety of county workers and the public. However, we are concerned that while the intent of the bill is to improve human health and environmental safety, this bill will result in the public and, workers being placed at far greater risk. Bill 71 will also dramatically increase costs to the County at a time when most municipal and state governments are already pressed for resources. The argument that legally registered pesticides are unsafe is a miss -statement. Before any product can be registered for sale and use in the United States, it must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US -EPA). The US -EPA is the head scientific body in the United States that sets strict scientific policies and guidelines for pesticide products to ensure they can be used safely and effectively. During the registration process these products undergo over 300 comprehensive scientific studies. Through this process the US -EPA establishes the signal words identified in Bill 71. However, Bill 71 would bypass these signal words without any rational justification in determining which products would be allowed. Bill 71 could in fact place county workers and the public at greater risk by allowing "25b exempt pesticides." Registered pesticides are required to carry signal words on the label to provide guidance on how to use products. Products that are exempt from registration are not subject to any type of review or evaluation, especially in regards to efficacy. Users cannot be assured of the effectiveness of products or be certain of the short or long-term safety of that product. Individuals unaware of the history of the US -EPA registration process will likely not be aware that the registration process was initiated to protect the public from unsafe "snake oil" type products.. Bill 71 proposes to replace a scientifically based process supported by all fifty states for more than sixty years. Allowing products that have not gone through the complete US -EPA evaluation process is a disservice to workers and the public and potentially place them at greater risks from exposure to products that are not efficacious and require multiple applications. The need for multiple applications could in fact result in the general public being put at greater risk as this could result in greater concentrations of the exempt product (which has not undergone the extensive safety review a registered product under goes) by accumulating in soils. Workers will be placed at greater risk, as the lack of efficacy will result in multiple applications to control weeds or manual weed removal efforts, putting workers at greater risk of being injured or killed by passing vehicles. Bill 71 is also unclear as to its definitions and contradictory in the definition's application. Until the definitions are clarified and demonstrated to be scientifically appropriate, WPHA does not believe that the County of Hawai'i should move forward with this ordinance. Bill 71 does not define what "eco -friendly" means, nor does it identify who would make a scientifically sound determination of what `eco -friendly" products are. The bill is also contradictory in its definition of "toxic pesticides." Bill 71 defines toxic pesticides as "all herbicide products that bear a signal label of "dangerous," "warning," toxic to fish," or toxic to fish and wildlife," or that indicate a risk of groundwater contamination. Herbicides products with only a signal label of "caution" are excluded from the definition of toxic herbicides." Bill 71 includes the prohibition for use of products containing glyphosate, 2,4- Diclorophenoxyacetic, atrazine, dioxin, picloram, bipyridinium, diphenyl ether, and tyrosine breakdown products. Yet, glyphosate which the bill prohibits, carries a "caution" signal work on its label and as such should be exempted from the use prohibition. Exempting products that carry a "caution" signal word and then disallowing specific products that carry that signal word is arbitrary and should not be allowed as sound public policy. WPHA also believes that Bill 71 will result in dramatic cost increases to the County. Alternative pest control techniques such as hand labor also pose heightened safety risks to public servants. Additionally, studies have been conducted, which estimate that the cost of using alternative weed control techniques or non-registered/exempt pesticide products can double the cost of weed and insect control to municipalities and roadside maintenance departments. A report issued as recently as May 2015 by the City of Encinitas, a seaside community in California with a population of approximately 70,000 estimated that "the conversion to a non - chemical program would cost as much as 80% to 100% more than the city's current expenditures. This finding was reported after a thorough examination by Mark Hosford, Public Works Deputy Director, and Jason La Riva, Park and Beach Superintendent. This was due to two main reasons: The use of non -chemical measures in controlling some pests is not as effective as chemical measures, and 2. In order to achieve the same effectiveness, the frequency of application of non -chemical measures usually occurs more often. The author of Bill 71 has expressed significant concerns about the safety of glyphosate, the leading herbicide used around the world. While we appreciate the miss -information that is being distributed to public officials would be of concern to anyone whose goal is to protect the public health, the information being distributed is incorrect. To help clarify the facts surrounding the safety of glyphosate, WPHA is providing the attached information. The facts demonstrate that the overwhelming weight of evidence developed from worldwide scientific studies support the safety of glyphosate. WPHA believes that Bill 71 contains significant inaccuracies in its definition of appropriate and prohibited products that could result in sanctioning the use of products that have not been adequately scientifically reviewed. WPHA believes until the bill definitions are clarified and an appropriate scientific body is identified to recommend product use, the County should not move forward with this ordinance. WPHA also believes that as this bill could result in significant costs to the County. Until both the costs to the County are fully evaluated as well as the safety risks to roadside workers and the public we ask that Bill 71 not move forward. WPHA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on this issue, and sincerely hopes that after consideration of our concerns and information we have provided on the safety of all registered herbicides and glyphosates specifically, the committee will recognize that Bill 71 is unnecessary. WPHA thanks the committee for its consideration of our testimony and we are available for additional information regarding this issue at reneep@heatlhyplants.=. Sincerely, Renee Pinel President/CEO 0 Western Plant Health Association Background on WHO, IARC and Glyphosate Classification I. Glyphosate and Its Global Uses Glyphosate was developed in 1974 and has been in continual use since that time. Over the years, various formulations have been developed and these formulations are widely used in more than 160 countries around the world by farmers, municipalities, and homeowners. • Landowners or municipalities can also use the herbicide to eliminate weeds, for example, around fences, railways, public rights of way, or near utility lines. • Homeowners use glyphosate lawn and garden herbicides to kill weeds in, for example, sidewalks, driveways, or gardens. • Farmers use glyphosate -based herbicides as one option to control weeds on their cropland. • Through modern technologies, crops genetically modified to be resistant to the active ingredient glyphosate and other herbicides. These crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum. As such, these herbicides can safely and effectively eliminate weeds without damaging the herbicide tolerant crops. Glyphosate has been safely used for several decades. National regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate cause's cancer, even at high dosage levels. Numerous studies from the last forty years assessing the carcinogenicity and genotoxicity of glyphosate support this conclusion. II. IARC Classification of Glyphosate as a Group -2A Probable Carcinogen The first time glyphosate was reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a specialized agency of WHO, was in March 2015. IARC evaluates and disseminates information on cancer risks through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships. This was the first time since 1991 that IARC reviewed any pesticide. On the basis of its initial review, IARC assigned a classification of "probable human carcinogen" (Group 2A) to glyphosate—a category that also includes workers in barber shops and shift work. IARC is one of four programs within the World Health Organization ()vVHO) that has reviewed glyphosate, and the only one to have made such a finding. III. Limitations of the IARC Classification The 2A classification of "probable carcinogen" does not mean that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. As such, the classification by IARC is confusing and can cause substantial concern among the millions of glyphosate users globally. There are several additional limitations in IARC's classification: Unlike regulatory reviews that review all available data over an extended period of time, IARC makes its conclusion on a limited data review during a meeting lasting one week. The classification was not premised on any new or original research but rather on a survey of a limited number of publicly available articles. IARC's methodology is based on a hazard analysis as opposed to a risk assessment and concomitant classification used by national regulatory bodies. o A cancer hazard refers to an agent that is capable of causing cancer under limited circumstances. o A cancer risk is an assessment or estimate of carcinogenic effects caused by exposure to an agent identified- as a potential or probable cancer hazard. o IARC does not consider risk or likelihood of harm to humans. As such, an agent may be classified as a cancer hazard by IARC even though the cancer risk is low at current human exposures. IARC performs hazard classification independently of chemical mode of action and without exposure assessment whereas the WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues—which assesses the risk of pesticide residues in food and has repeatedly concluded glyphosate residues do not cause cancer—conducts risk assessment at exposure level in food commodities. As acknowledged by IARC, there is "limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate."l In fact, by IARC's own classification scheme, an agent may be classified in the "probable human carcinogen" category even when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. IV. International Responses and Studies to Date A number of international and national regulatory bodies evaluate glyphosate as part of mandated periodic reviews, and several have recently released preliminary conclusions finding glyphosate use to be safe. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has previously assigned glyphosate the lowest cancer classification - Group E – evidence of non -carcinogenicity for humans - indicating glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. The agency recently issued a desk statement in April 2015 recognizing that their prior assessments (from as recently as last year) concluded.that glyphosate does not cause cancer and noting that the Agency will continue their work to finalize the current regulatory assessment of glyphosate. EU / German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. The European Union is currently conducting an assessment of glyphosate. Germany—as the Rapporteur Member State for 1 Katherine Guyton, Dana Loomis, Yann Grosse et al, Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate, Lancet Oncology (Mar. 20, 2015), available at http://dx.doi.oriz/1.0.101.6/S 1.470-2045(15)70134-8. the European Union (EU)—recently concluded in its 2015 health risk assessment report to the EU that the available data does not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor does it show that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals. WHONAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). The WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues concluded in 2011 that the long-term and short-term intakes of glyphosate residues are unlikely to present a public health concern or risk to consumers. This conclusion supported its earlier findings from 2006 and 2003 that glyphosate was not toxic. Public media reports as well as member state comments at the recent Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues meeting indicate a lack of clarity stemming from the IARC classification of glyphosate. As such, the recently announced WHO expert task force to determine whether there is a need to update JMPR's prior assessments may help provide some clarity to the situation. • Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). In April 2015, PMRA published its Proposed Re-evaluation Decision document, noting that the overall weight of evidence indicates that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a human cancer risk and that it is finalizing its review. This .supports PMRA's prior findings. • Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. In 2013, Australian regulatory authority concluded that the weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic, or neurotoxic. Argentine Interdisciplinary Scientific Council. In 2009, the Argentinian regulatory authority determined that on the basis of epidemiological studies reviewed, there was no correlation between exposure to glyphosate and cancer incidence nor adverse effects on reproduction.