HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0489.806 2018-2020 Murashige, Laura
From: Fern A Holland <fernanuenue@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday,January 07, 2020 6:53 PM taA
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony RE: Bill 101
Attachments: Superficial Safeguards- Most Pesticides Are Flawed by EPA Process.pdf; Fern Holland
BSc 101 Testimony.pdf
Dear Chair Chung & Members of the Hawai'i Island County Council,
Thank you for taking the initiative in introducing and passing bill 101. My name is Fern
Anuenue Holland and I was born and raised on the island of Kauai. I lived for two years in
Kamuela briefly as a young girl and think so fondly and closely of Hawaii Island.
I have a bachelor of science with majors in wildlife management and environmental sciences
and I respectfully submit this testimony in support of Bill 101 for your consideration. I have
worked for nearly 15 years in community advocacy relating to pesticide exposure and the
impacts of pesticides (including herbicides) on people and the environment.
I aim to address the specific point raised by Mayor Kim relating to deferring to other regulatory
bodies to protect us from biocides.
Firstly, the science is clear that herbicides do pose threats to people and our environment. The
county does not need to have any expertise relating to the classification of toxicity to do a better
job of protecting the community from biocides. The science is clear and every year we learn
more about the impacts of exposure to herbicides and we find that there are substantial risks
especially for exposure for children and pregnant mothers.
The EPA and the federal and state agencies tasked with regulating pesticides and chemicals are
absolutely failing to do so. Much of this shaped in the interest of economic growth, not safety.
The regulatory process misses or ignores many effects all together and often doesn't take into
consideration any ecological impacts or long term chronic low-level exposure to these biocides
(such as that a child growing up utilizing a regularly sprayed sports field may be exposed).
Additionally, pesticides are registered while important health and safety data is still being
generated; reevaluations of old pesticides mandated by laws passed in the 1970s are still
incomplete; pesticides may continue to be used after evidence of their hazards is given to EPA; and
pesticides may never be required to be tested for certain kinds of hazards. These are some of the
other failures of the federal regulation of pesticides.
One way in which corporations registering their biocides manipulate the regulatory processes is
through the conditional registration exemption. Under FIFRA (federal law), the EPA can allow
"conditional registration" of new pesticide products even though health and safety tests are missing
1
Comm. ®02WO11�1 �Ref. To: p
Ref. Date JAN - 8 2020
(FIFRA Sec. 3(c)(7)) because "requiring completion of all the tests would put new products at an
economic disadvantage to older pesticides." It is very clear that it's absolutely designed for
economic purposes and not for the protection or safety of the community or environment.
hm2://www.getipm.com/government/pesticide-registratioii.htm
Due to the design of the EPA pesticide regulatory system chemical corporations that produce these
herbicides are in essence self-regulating their products as they conduct the testing of safety and
only submit their findings to the EPA for approval. The pesticide registration with the EPA is no
guarantee of safety and in fact provides a false sense of safety where there is none.
Regulatory agencies are simply unable to do the job they are tasked with in some cases because
of underfunding and staffing issues and in some cases because of the purposeful design of the
system and it's loop holes.
This outline from the government's own website outlines why the EPA has failed to monitor
and track conditional registrations of pesticides https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-145
This article Superficial Safeguards (attached to my email) and available here
(hgps://www,nrdc.oi-gJsites/default/files/flawed-epa-qpproval-process-IB.pdf) also outlines the ways that the EPA's
approval processes is flawed and not protecting our citizens or environment.
Similarly, the state Department of Agriculture is unable to manage the pesticide use in Hawai'i
safely. Look at the recent case on Maui where Monsanto was exposing workers to a banned
pesticide. Also, recently on Kaua'i when Syngenta workers were exposed to Chlorpyrifos in the
field despite the chemical corporations & their research facilities claiming they have the highest
standards of practice.
The industry talking points are always the same and they will continue to try to convince
important people like yourself that these chemicals are tested and regulated appropriately by
bodies with more authority to do so then yours. These are blatant lies.
The EPA, the state Dept of Agriculture and the other regulatory bodies that you are counting on
to keep you safe are designed to instead approve half tested products tested by the manufacture
(not the government) for safety and then use these biocides, often for decades, until undeniable
impacts are discovered and proved.
We have seen this over and over and over throughout history. Chemicals approved and deemed
safe only to be discovered to cause irreversible undeniable harm.
Please do not rely on these agencies who are failing to regulate.
You are the last line of defense for our communities and environment. In knowing that the
system is rigged purposefully for the benefit of corporations and economic benefit and not to
protect your community and environment, I hope you are called more than ever to do what you
can to protect your home and people and pass Bill 101.
2
Mahalo!
Fern
Fern Anuenue Holland BSc.
Wildlife Management& Environmental Scientist
Kauai flaw ai'i
Ph: (808) 634-6242
3
`2'51/L'.,, x,A,Superficial Safeguards:xM r:#� "..�;./'x''.rz£. .E.r.Nu t...,..,,,:11x,"w v""Z s3`.1's..ats ^"hZ%L;%/.6... _.e .Y.,zx"'✓'P�hx;.x; �'.,,.4 .,_. .v.uK .>``'a-, x., r .a...., ,.,..7_f .'.ate"d_,.. `.'7:r"dz,..s%fxf��,,,,,<i
x c
Most Pesticides
Are Approved by Flawed EPA Pfrocess
AUTHORS:Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., and Mae V,/u, uJ,D,
£
J 1 f
r3etli
. .
t :
n �
ti
tri t giz;lra:*:Ju ));lve.,sa e s.,ct',,i ac x;.��..�.f. ;,,r t"n;h a..; "r ("r:¢tt ,a..:�t� '�� 7?l „;t:' � amt :¢::`�i RE 1<,
Cor�ritio 7.. r.,,, .u..i�fr ati.r.� err.tr..wta�.�iks k�fo a.h1,l ay.„Tor roto r.i.�wi,lest d. They send tip�. ,.or�r, -f our=nest b....rc I�,r.t��c€r.r.tl.,.�.r�
The public may think pesticides are only allowed onto store shelves and for use in agriculture and into consurner products if
they have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EP/'\)in a transparent and scientifically rigorous process.
Recent investigations by the Natural Resources [defense Council (NRE)C?, however, reveal a deeply flawed system, indicating
that the Public's trust is misplaced. NRDC:,spent several years examining federal government data and interviewing key officials,
and has determined that the government has allowed the majority of pesticides onto the market without a public and transparent
process and in some cases,without a full set of toxicity tests, using a loophole called a conditional registration. In fact,as many
as 65 percent of more than 6,000 pesticides were firs: approved for the marks t using '.leis loophole.This issue brief explains
how the conditional registration program differs frorn full registration and provides case studies of two pesticides---nanosilver
and clothianidin to show how the conditional registration has been misused.The case of narnosilver'approved by the ERA as an
antimicrobial agent in textiles, highlights the ways that some new pesticides can obtain a conditional registration without thorough
toxicity testing to evaluate risk.The case of clothianidin—a pesticide that is designed to be absorbed into plant tissue but is then
unintentionally passed on to bees and other pollinators,and consequently is linked to widespread bee deaths—illustrates the
types of problems that rytay arise after a pesticide has been conditionally approved, and are of teen hidden from public scrutiny.
Finally, NRDC has found significar?t s1hortc0r°iings in the EPA's data-gathering system.We cannot determine how many pesticides
were first conditionally approved, allowed onto he rna:ri<e t, and thea lingered there for years while toxicity testing data was being
submitted;or how many pesticides were subsequently withdrawn for various reasons;or how many were given full registration.
PAGE 11 Superficial Most Postic:des'Are,Apriioved by Flawed rt'Prace ss
PESTICIDE REGiSTfIVITION THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROT ION AGENCY
Pesticides are poisons.They are designed to kill things. IS MISUSING CONDITION111%1L REGISTRATIONS
thifortunately,they often harm more than the intended Despite the intention of Congress that conditional
targets,such as weeds or insects;they can also harm,or registration be used sparingly,NRDCs investigations of
even kill,non-target species,including frogs,fish,birds, the EPA's pesticide registration database revealed that.as
bees,other beneficial insects,and people.Recognizing this of August 2010,more than 11,00(1—about 65 percent—of
danger decades ago,Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, the 16,000-plus currently active pesticide products have been.
Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA),which requires that conditionally registered and allowed on the market.'Soon after
all pesticides be registered by the EPA before they can be NRDC submitted its findings to the ETIA,the agency conducted
-
legally sold or distributed in the United States.Underiider FIFRA, its own analysis,acid fill din g,S.'
the EPA cannot register a pesticide until it ensures that the For pesticides registered between 2004 mid 2010, the EFIA!s
pesticide's use kvillnot pose unreasonable adverse effects own analvsis found that it had inisused,the conditional
on the en-vironjuent or human health.The EPA currently
registration provision for other registration activities such as
interprets this provision to meari that some level of harm is "requiring label changes"and other actions that are"beyond
allowed.For example, file E11A often considers the risk of one the scope"of the conditional registration.'In fact,according
person out of I million getting cancer to be acceptable. to the ERA�s analysis,they Misused it 98 percent of the time,'In
By law,to register a pesticide,a company must submit 2011.and 2012,of more than 1,400,neiv registrations,300-plus
results froni a list cif specified.studies to the E11W These pesticides were conditintially registered—about 20 percent
results Inake tip the core data that help the EIPA deterilline overall—a dramatically reduced rate from previous years,but
human exposure,effects oil human health and wildlife, still too inany for comfort,By examining 1;'PA data.Nl:?,]*.)C has
and environmental.fate.'.the government uses these data to determined that.as of October 201.2,conditionally registered
determine whether or flow the pesticide can be used without pesticide products still made Upabout 65 percent(10,640 out
endangeri.rig human health or the environment. of 1.6.500)of total pesticide registrations.
0
The EArk may also consider data from peer-reviea,ved
scientificjournals,other governments, or other sources, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEPICC
IS, NOT
oftentimes receiving these additional sources froin Public TRACKING CONDITIONAL REGISTRATIONS
cornruents.This whole process can last several years and The EP database is seriously disorganized.Once a pesticide
includes data review by the agency's in-house science is conditionally registered,the EPA does not have a systern
experts,opportunities for public comment,and discussions to track the data it had requested as a condition of the
with the registrant and grower groups. registration.In addition,the agency does not follow whether
In 1972,Congress amended FIFRA to impose more stringent those data were received,what the data show regarding
testing requirements to register pesticides.Registrants the pesticides potential for harni or other aspects of the
subsequently struggled to meet the ne-,,v data requirerrients registration decisioti,or what,if any,changes were made in
by the law,,;deadlines."Ib address this problern,Congress in response to the received data.'lliese problems suggest that
1678 created the conditional registration procedure with the condit.i.o.nal registratians tii.ay last many years with no trigger
in tentiar.i.that it would be used only in rate,specific instances. to renArid the 11Ak to reviewille Status of- '
the required studies
or assess their meaning,
THE COKMITr IONAL REGISTRATION The EP.-1.defends the integrity of its conditional registration
Even though industry often claims that all registered pesticides program by.notin0g that between–9004 and 2010,it had
have been thoroughly assessed,the EPA has used conditional never altered its previous regulatory decision for any
registration as a loophole to register some pesticides without conditional registrations based.on the subsequent data it
all[lie necessary data.The conditional registration allows a received,suggesting that all its conditional decisions were
new active ingredient to enter the market for an unspecified right to begin with.floivever,there is no public notice of,or
period of time during which the regis trant must generate comment period oil,the EPA!,,ultimate decision.The lack of
missing data requested by the Ef"A. Bylaw,to grant an active both tracking and public engagement makes it impossible to
0 know 1)if the requested studies were submitted in a timely
ingredient conditional registration,the EPA must determine manner,2)whether the submitted studies were reliably
that 1)the registrant did not have sufficient Wile to generate conducted-,3)if the EIAs Conclusions concerning safety
the required data because riot enough tirne has passed since were wrefl-lounded;and 4)if the EPA should have altered its
the data requirement was imposed;2)the use of the pesticide regulatory decision for any of those pesticides.This process
during this time will not cause any unreasonable adverse
effect oil the environment;and 3)the use ofthe pesticide is lacks accountability arid transparency and compromises the
in the public:interest,such as to prevent a disease outbreak,' public trust.
Properlyused,cosi.ditioTiaIlyregist.eri.iig a newpesticide Gi-ven the poor tracking,lack of public accountability
provides an important benefit in special situations Such as absence of a transparent process,the failure to provide
afl(rming new pesticides on the market to address a.public a public response to subimitted data,and the failure to
health emergency.However,improper use of conditional provide public notice and comnient period,the EPA,s,use
registration means that scores of untested or undertested of conditional registrations to usher inadequately assessed
pesticides may litter the market,potentially threatening pesticides onto the market is an.abdication of the agency's
human health. duty to protect public health mid the emdronment.
PAGE 21 Superficial Safuguards,Most by F1%,,vnd EF/k lfuu,,s
i
i
Two case studies of pesticides ntrrrosilver and clothianidirr
high.l.iglit a conditional registration program gone wrong,
Nanosilver is toxic to brain cells and its use oti clothing will
lead to exposures to people,iricludi.ng pregnant women and
children;it is a signifcantpublic health concern.Clothia:ri.idin
comes from a family of pesticides connected to widespread
bee deaths,but was approved based on a poorly conducted
bee field test,vvhich will be discussed later in this report.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1NAPPROPRIATELY, GRANTED CONDITIONAL
RAT .,1.
REGIS IONNAA IL'IEP FOR USEIN TEXTILES
Narzostiver _particles of silver that are in the riariorrreter
size range.........is claimed to kill bacteria,arid therefore must be
registered as a pesticide by the El'A.
Nanosilver is different from conventional silver because of its
snt�rll size.".I..his difference raz5es ru.any concerns,particularly
cons€derin.g the ability of nanosilver to travel through the body
and damage cells in the brain,liver sto:s.ach,testes,and.other
organs,as well as pass fro:r_n mother to fetus. F
i
Conventionalsilver has long been known
v t v to be an effective germ killer and has
through the,legally-.required.registration process ' l'lie
been registered since the 1950s as an
vt°
EPA.determined that.nanosilver is different from silver,
y,r
antimicrobial pesticide used to inhibit meaning that l:-leiQ needed to go througha full registration.
bacteria growth in water filters Pnd process and submit data.ori the toxicity of nanosilver,
to control algae in swirnnning pools.' rather tlta.zi applying under file existing registration of
Although tis highly
fol silver is not very d aquatic
.i t.cr conventional silver,"'Singe HeiQ had not yet conducted
humans, it is highly toxic to microbes and aquatic manvof the necessary studies,the EPA granted the
organisms, and the toxic silver ions (Ag+) are
persistent in the environt-;ie-nt, Nanosilver particles c ompany a conditional registration in 2011,allowing
f `� l the product onto the market while I-IeiQ undertook the
share these effective
with conventional silver, research !1rn.on.g the;absent studies required as a condition
making it an effective antimicrobial agent that kills
harmful rrricroorganisms, like germs, as well as of the registration were those.looking at reproductive and
beneficial niicroorganisn;s, such as daphnia anddevelopmental toxicity,inhalation toxicity,dermal toxicity,
and chromosomal damage.
algae,that are critical in the flood web.
In granting a conditional registration for nanosilver in
Although sharing many hazardous properties with textiles,the EPA acknowledged that people will be in direct
conventional silver, nanosilver particles raise the contact vvith nanosilver from these textiles,including;
additional concern that the smaller size means the workers e•vho make the clothing,consumers who use and
nanvparticle and its ions can access places that wear it,and infants and babies who lay against it,arid stick
conventional silver cannot. Laboratory rodent steadies or chev� their parents'treated clothing, (Nanosilver leaches
suggest that if breathed or swallowed,for example, fronn clothing into wash water and has been shown to go
by workers using nanosilver powders to treat fabrics from treated clothing onto skin in laboratory tests using
or families using sterilizing sprays and nanosilver air artificial skein.' )
fresheners, the particles could travel throughout the The EPA.claimed that allowing this product onto the;market
beady, ending up in the testes, liver, kidney, lungs, whsle awaiting the toxicity studies would.benefit the public
brain, stomach, and other organs,where they may interest by reducing the overall environmental load of silver
damage cells and compromise:organ function.'' because of its smaller size.Hc.>wever,n<uros.i:lvcxr is.not only
replacing conventional silver uses,but also hexing sold for
neve and expanded.markets,resulting in they release of far
In 2008,%viss company Hei.Q Materials Ag applied to the more nanosilver and toxic silver ions into sevvage and water
EPA to register nanosilveras a preservative it)textiles suchtreati-rient systems,andultimately into rivers,s,streams,and
as clothing,bed sheets,pillowcases,and blankets,This other receiving sva tern.Consumers can now buy pillows
application represented the first pesticide to be registered and shirts that contain mmosilverwithout any warninglabels
as a nano-size chemical.Other consumer products about toxicity concerns.Furthermore,if nanosilver proves
use nanosilver unlawfully Because they have not gone to be much more.toric than conventional silver,the smaller
quantities released will not necessarily cause less harm.
PAGE 3 1 superficial Safeguardu F s'.ic€d s^•.r{;l p,ci c.by Fhiv,ved `,">,P ;,,,.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ALLOWS CONTINUED USE OF C11-OTHIANIDIN
DESPITE FLAWED STUDIES
Pollinators including bees,bats,and butterflies,contribute
;y
approximately$15 billion to the economy through the
pollination of more than 30 cash crops,which.mike tip
approximately one-quarter of all the foods in tyre..human
diet including almonds,cherries„pumpkins,and apples.'
Unfortunately,Beekeepers lia-�re been suffering dramatic bee
colony losses of about 30 percent annually since 2007,likely
frorn a conxbination of environmental stressors,parasites,
pathogens,and pesticide residues in bee hives.':'
Clot
idin is one in a family of
that tire rekey suspects in these losses because Hold pesticides
se they are
sy�stcritic(taken up rind distributed throughout the plzax)t
tissue,including its pollen and nec ar),long-lastitic, and
highly toxic to honey bees '6vei (�rop5cience was granted
>,.
a conditional registration in.2003 for clothtanzdrix to treat
corn seed and canola seed.The registrati.ori was conditiolied.
upon among other things,the submission of afield study
of the effects on bees by 2004.Bayer not only conducted.a �t
defective study but also submitted findings three years late.
The;EP,=1.ha.d required the pollinator field.test to include a
complete worker-bee life cycle study and an evaluation of
the exposure to and effects of clothianidin oil the queen bee. w
The study,submitted in 2007,ivas so poorly undertaken that
the EPA considered it to be invalid(thcutgh it later sligttly
upgraded it to"supplemental"because of sorne limited
redeeming information it provided),'-' ;
Bayer's study concluded that clothianidin had no effect l"
on bee anont ality. The study had numerous facers; the most l w
egregioais ones noted by the EISA.revieivers state that 1)
the treated and.control(no pesticide)fields were too close
together,and bees likely foraged aauoaig all fields, resulting;in RECOMMENDATIONS
cross-contarnination.of treated and control hit.-es;and ?)the 11xe EPA is conditionally registering z ing xexstic ivies with
study lovely urrdercounted.dead bees by using a faulty„sheet inadequate or absent data..Further,saih4e:€iien.t EPA
method"instead of the l:?:['A-recommended,more accurate determinationsaboutivhcatlxc;.r the conditions inxpr.}sed.ern.
bee trap.Because of these and oilier flaws,both treated and. registrants have been satisfied are made in private without
fields had significant bee do atlxs, r Because Bayer any opportunity for the public to comment.Ultimately
failed to proiride its raiv data,the EPA could not conduct.a. conditional registrationcrfl:resticides is not a temporary
reanalysisof the study resailts,meaning that the and rare occurrence as Congress in tended,but a wide
EPA.and tl e public must rely on the data analysis provided. loophole that pesticide manufacturers use to get many
by Bayer rather than being able to scrutinize the data using products onto the market before they are proven safe to the
alternate assumptions and approaches,'-,In fact,Health public.The EPA's own website acknowledges that it needs
Canada,the Canadian radian agency that regulates pesticides,
hound that"mortality in worker bees was obviously higher unproved registration tracking and staff training to avoid
in clothianiclin-treated colonies"tvlien only dead-bee traps continued misuse and overuse of the conditional registration
data were used in the analysis. 'Design flaws make it almost
provision.711
impossible to determine the risks from clothiat idin to N l'il:)f reco:tnznends tlxat tlxe l:l.l':�take the follmvirig steps to
gree survival.° Despite these issues,in April 2010 respond to and improve its grievously fl:aacved practices in
clothianidin's registration was switched from conclitional to pesticide registration:
fully registered.A November 2010 EPA ixierrio determined 1, Revieur all previously conditionally registered.
that Buyer's field study was deficient,but clothianic iri pesticides mid bring them into compliance ce-Aith the law
remains fully registered today an ruga the recommendations of this report,In the
`l:'he EIR-.had conditioned cl.otlii.a.zxid.iii s..registration on an course of its review of conditional registrations triggered
informative final study,wh clx:neve:r.materialized.Moreover, by NfiDC,s inquiries,it appears the EPA has never
the public never had a chance to comment on the study or received data for some of the conditional registrations,
the EPtls conditional registration decision.let the insecticide
re.main.s registered and oil the market,thanks to the use of
the conditional registration loophole.
PAGE 4 1 Superficial Safeguar€v Mc-,'Pe,,4j(,€d4 :irt: ed by FI t'-F;G rt%Ptaccss
2. 1 mniedlatelyr cancel pesticide registrations with
overdue studies or those that are out of compliance for
any other reason.The FPA should immediately cancel
the registrations for clothi:anidin and nan€.}silver.
,.
�b Properly clescaerrt conditional registration actions.
One of the most fundamental p.r€}blerns identified in
the NRDC;study and.by the EPA.is that the agency does � �
nc}t have y to vatic tracking and management sy terms
for conditional tional registrtrtrcrns.''Addressing this should `
be an ininiediate priority for the EPA,so it can pro-vide a
credible and transparent program to the public.
. Establish a process where the public can conunent on ;q,
new data received to support a conditional registration.
Currently;once a pesticide is cond.i.ti.onally registered,
the public is no longer afforded any opportunity to either C
track or comment on subsequent data submissions.lack
of data or potential flaws in the foilow-up studies are
hidden from public scrutiny depriving the I-Rk of the
iri.sights of scientific expertsin the field,and forcing the t•
public:to blindly trust the EPA.s determinations.
Place all submitted data into a publicly accessible,
updated database.To show that required studies are being
submitted for conditional registrations,the EPA should
establish a publicly accessible,electronically searchable
database that identifies,all the actions taken under the
agency's conditional registration authority;and the status .
of those registrations.The database should clearly identify
for each conditionally registered pesticide
• the conditions upon.which.registration was based
u the ER,'.%'s authority-for issuing th.e conditi.orr.al , Use the conditional registration process only in the
registration limited and rare circumstances described by Congress.
Congress gave the EMN the authority to limit or even
• the timet line for the registrant to submit the data prevent the use of a pesticide t•vtiere there are scientific
• the date that the EPA received the required data uncertainties and data gaps,with the understanding
• the Data Evaluation Record or the EPA's sunrrrrary that these chemicals are harinful by design.The EPA
in List use its authority to protect people,pollinators,and
assessment of the data other wildlife,in accordance v ith its stated mission and
how the ;
Endnietes
d
�he active:ng rattielile-I s the mico I if,a peiticidepiredicit that illI.,,co i I rols,or repels Posts. mme aftive ingredient nlovbe fio.umll in hijnrhffds of pe1ticide fifft ac is"'Vith diff ormt f)"arries:Cho tional
0 ri le th t as already heon
rieg,.,t,ations(ten ahio be gran to fruit new erkd,lus.o ploducl on art allflady pemicido orfora pesticide ploduct thal:r:denfii.tfl ell I
eq:3tom-,Tnare are feweroohjlrprrfontto be condifirina"W negioared fnrtheso t%va H tyP of applications.
2 Federal insecocide,Parigicidie,and Act.7 §!36atcVY;Cl:47 C.F.A.315'2..'14.
3 &j.s= I, % Ito arta Erivronniewal PfoeiEcon Attency.("ori frKlttfi-lim tho,Nfli)c on 11 it?pioposed conditiow I legisil ahnn of a prodact Het,,)AG,'�20,ronlrimin9 F1 anosilve,Sett.0,.0I Feilqi al
4 U.S.Frittironmenial Prolli pl:m Aare] Fiotlyani use v!Cot iffitteln"! Ale il'25,;oI I, opa,g g/Ondrional
faccessed September 211'
Ibid.
7 U,1,Ervotairnental Prolechor.f Agency.Her Elq7Jbit'in,Doturnierh Facts:Silver EFA-733-F-93 Lts.Eltvii Ginvirtntal Ager q I^-^-n htfr-:,/1tvvv,,vo 3,gov/0ppsrrd/REN/
fatas.J facutssed Sept(nnber 8,211111.
8 U S.Elevilortmallhil Pfolfec ti,P Agency,0 bPA to rofnolfrms /-'irop-isred Decisio,,n 'or ibe Re,,pvia,"iott of Hotf)AGS-20 as a t1ot'l-elutisDoce'd-1.
'i,i.rieioerfl::Dockpt 04 EPA-H0.-O* 0061 U.S.Fz1vtonniental Protection Agency� ik ,Opri�;ior Document as f fivilatierlials Prasprvalfvt)tri lhqs
ROpcembei 1,
In
leder I 'St hchnjorc Inhalatilin Toxicitylif Silver Nanopardditr," April 2009,10&211:452-61.dor
U.S.Ffiveolinfenjol Pioleak.in Atjorlf,y,Exio.mal Roview Draft Casa Study:Natioscalo Silver in I)istnteckint Spray,August 13,2010 EPN600/11-10,981 ;J.H.SunfI4 h. SorY.',K
1-oo,J, Ci-ji,KJ-I..Lee,SJr,Yu,LJ, fiat.,Inha'anon Toltiriti,of Silvel Nanoplarpicles,"Tax�,rli/o Kim,S.S- J.U.,Park,111'-Cher.
_qy and Indastru, I'M,mlif-ch.2,011,;2,A21:1 49-�4.J.1-1,L.::,!ora JJ
r
J.H.,Selig,V'S"Yo,1J.,"Nvunty oigtt Day Inhalation Tox.f,hr,Study of Silver Nan,on icjes ill Sp Rats."inh;alatioll
August 19l!O)K)7 71.A.veirt doof Zaride,Vardehitel,R.J.,Van Doren,E,Kraniet,I.*.,,Honora Riv,,,ra,2- •C'.1,Gtofrffllc)f.E.K,Miv,,f,4 PatoisR J.,H-d1mrin,PC Herldrii,"lln,P.J.,Mat-vin,H-:"
no A
.1 d 1v. -012:1-',:7,2
Prijiianbuio,A.A.,Bollvemfic.,,tor,il.,"Distribution,Flialinani if,anciToxicity of Silver Net cioaitides an4 SO at lons in Rats After iurefl Expol9ure, ACSAItano,Aligi.r...;28. 1-42.
9 U.S. Plolectlijn Ag(atiCy. 0"it"w"feW N!dti� r1 Huff)A-GSVO as a 14dfdrials pnl,Ser;113411"t,ift 12 Angust 2010 "1 Dockel IDff EPA-H&OPP-20(19.101241020.
!a U. PrrjtecUori!Ar ier!:,%,r Ir RA c Adviilry"ai 1-1.N/oonlig Minutes Now-erlbor l."?L109:Fvifluadtif i of Hazard and ExposreAssodotod av h Nalfrolver ond i0f-ho:Nanometal Pesticide
Produrf,;.26,ciaaai•y20 1 Or nage T U.S.Envoanrr.;nu Pintection Ager)(y I'm®r0sed Decision Docum-It in.r the
Registration of 1-160 AGS-920 lesa materials M'servative in Textiles.12 Ajqusl 2010.Federal Docket V EPA,10-OPT,2009-1012-0020,
it levee T:1 off r)Bonn M"Narfri or trip silvel Relexed into"Yal i from Coritrineedrilly Aveatable Sock Fobfics",Elwll-onmpnfw�3dence&`echriaiogy.2008.42(i 1)A 1'3-41 9.dor JO,I 02leris7(KKV'le:fift rt g,K,
smuflQ S.E'Lionpavanitchfikiii K,Kang,.afisupan onkon W and fvlantralatijachotti.o."Deterfroorrholl -h."Partcicleand,%re'Koxtcoloov.
of Silver Niailopof-ticirl Releaso,r-of-, a'Fahnt,.s rito Arth.c.@'Swea
20103M):8.dklii). 166/1747.091',; -8
2 Agriculhorif Research Stfrvico."Clustions and Artsvvers Cotorol CoIla ae2 Disorder,"J.a[14,parlrien.cif Agriciltul-n 15572 LjpdateJ December17_01€7.'01 �
lecce,jsed F'eptmibor 8,2011
Colony Cal lailpsc Disoicer Sto mng Como ite
t e: ihw
iitural Research Servirli,Colony-Cohiapse L,':.,nirdar Progiess,Report, iirc2010, 1Gpr;`iaccessul
'
Se-pternber 8,201 it
14 A.Johnson,Honev Ree Colony C'olla,,eite Coll gros'sional Reserimh Ser t e 570(':Jarlani y 7,2010.hl"p:/Ao,,evvfesofg/sa r jai filt,339"Ifi.rid CharlosAbral, TeleConcern
mr: -p/i s./rr c
Viability,"itaruwr0,16e4ly,Jariurev 3,2013, ;accessed January 4,2;113;
EPA marilr
u hom J De(�ant It;K Dalat,.-F�;Iiiseof asse,iacart for clothvirfidin r4stranon rn f1rospe-l400 seed tiealment art muSiord sml(nilbrfed.ano c l diment)afee tilted.realmment all ltotton."
AA
I MRID Og-MV8F r lot
chiallif-li ri, Ca
P", rte,O .,,a. ecember 22,2g10.
3 Docent be,?fl;0; rr em.ri f1r)ro A PP are t j K Devi-- Rec lass ifir re ion of MR I D 46907TO 1/A.690 7802(,.ate pad
6 The bee tfal,,N-.)ek.�by trapping the bees as they are,expelled from?.I-cottirly and haldir.g tnein for ethered,- "I
. ; I _ .'bores,the sheet tin hod calrdlps dead beer that fall onto a liholee I aceid on The ground at the
entrance or the,[five.The diteet method urdercoints dead bees L,'-'ciuse it lose,,the derld boes that blow akmay fit get fviNn by hiser;ls or other ar'WMaIS'be rte eonleoro um get tisat to the, old in count
them,a
highly lilt oly,ev"fel sinoo Bayri[ only counted der d.bees once peorteveek of(Riiii,ar.i EPA had
Em,,.ol from om W Haj,Health Canada ir K McCcin aek.EPA if Id j:DoCteril,EPA field sacci; 0 tee Ther 2010 With ahlit,,111nerl"
8 Tare Evalt:eftion Petcord for honey tee fiald lestino for Pqllinstora"Reviewind hv FF't'v rl Padova' 8 septenille!2007,.S1 tes;26 Se.-werr,hei 2-00 A ae,.22 Docenter 21-010;T She.-ger,72 December 1!l!
[ittp:j/'hA,V-,')epEi.(,t')14,1;pestir:rlr",,ld'tul-cal"foia"er ;13501 079801-2010 12 laccessed Septenlbrf€u.2011).
9 ;he hid",noitoilyfec,itsolf writrtv.,hat in that it Provw.'teat clothianid:n folm's'-pd-trietanitenfe had rontanninate-honey,nertal-,and Pollen in the bc--,Nva, bees can be le:,po,pd ei chth nildr.gnough t:1,e
7
cheater I elated food soll irces 7)ral 1:at i on Rec,rd f:r honey bee f:o Id t ost�rig far pci It!law!s�"Revi evver by EPA:CE Pa cl-.vL,I-A Siao Lern bet 2r N:H'Nei vll`,�,,:26'So pi elf.hol A Pi-,n ve,2 olit
S t e a ult 22 1 F)c e li,h P 12010.11 pa.g ov/p P s c i d e trec,It o rn i c.a a,,,I Pa I Pd-feet i altiv sit le,i e,;v:,,.,..,;091/44 1 rY)-0 9020 1-1 3 t1 07980120 0-12-2 2 a,I)d f I ar f,r ,eptemill el 8.2.011),
20 U.S.Environmental Skiptcmlllt 95, 1, nin'leatic 11.11tell
2, tt,,. Prate.ciiijf!Aoar;(..y, with liackirtly April 9.5,2.011,inip:11i'voww drm iiigi miditior alic"gis;ttiliDe
ht!ni#:sties jar e..soil Septe.inbe.r6*,',.'0").
PAGE 6 Supiorrificiall fliel-los'Pomil;ides Alrl)i`Tph-,v;:ld by Fii;l, d A. Flours
Jan 7 h 2020
RE: Testimony in Support of Bill 101
Dear Chair Chung & Members of the Hawai'i Island County Council,
Thank you for taking the initiative in introducing and passing bill 101. My name is
Fern Anuenue Holland and I was born and raised on the island of Kauai. I lived
for two years in Kamuela briefly as a young girl and think so fondly and closely of
Hawai'i Island.
I have a bachelor of science with majors in wildlife management and
environmental sciences and I respectfully submit this testimony in support of Bill
101 for your consideration. I have worked for nearly 15 years in community
advocacy relating to pesticide exposure and the impacts of pesticides (including
herbicides) on people and the environment.
I aim to address the specific point raised by Mayor Kim relating to deferring to
other regulatory bodies to protect us from biocides.
Firstly, the science is clear that herbicides do pose threats to people and our
environment. The county does not need to have any expertise relating to the
classification of toxicity to do a better job of protecting the community from
biocides. The science is clear and every year we learn more about the impacts of
exposure to herbicides and we find that there are substantial risks especially for
exposure for children and pregnant mothers.
The EPA and the federal and state agencies tasked with regulating pesticides and
chemicals are absolutely failing to do so. Much of this shaped in the interest of
economic growth, not safety.
The regulatory process misses or ignores many effects all together and often
doesn't take into consideration any ecological impacts or long term chronic low-
level exposure to these biocides (such as that a child growing up utilizing a
regularly sprayed sports field may be exposed).
Additionally,pesticides are registered while important health and safety data is still
being generated; reevaluations of old pesticides mandated by laws passed in the 1970s
are still incomplete; pesticides may continue to be used after evidence of their hazards
is given to EPA; and pesticides may never be required to be tested for certain kinds of
hazards. These are some of the other failures of the federal regulation of pesticides.
One way in which corporations registering their biocides manipulate the regulatory
processes is through the conditional registration exemption. Under FIFRA (federal
law),the EPA can allow "conditional registration" of new pesticide products even
though health and safety tests are missing (FIFRA Sec. 3(c)(7)) because "requiring
completion of all the tests would put new products at an economic disadvantage to
older pesticides." It is very clear that it's absolutely designed for economic purposes
and not for the protection or safety of the community or environment.
http://-vN,,ww,getipm.com/govemmeiit/pesticide-registration.htm
Due to the design of the EPA pesticide regulatory system chemical corporations that
produce these herbicides are in essence self-regulating their products as they conduct
the testing of safety and only submit their findings to the EPA for approval. The
pesticide registration with the EPA is no guarantee of safety and in fact provides a
false sense of safety where there is none.
Regulatory agencies are simply unable to do the job they are tasked with in some
cases because of underfunding and staffing issues and in some cases because of the
purposeful design of the system and it's loop holes.
This outline from the government's own website outlines why the EPA has failed
to monitor and track conditional registrations of pesticides
littps:i'/www.gao., ov/ij-oductsr(.iAO-1.3-:145
This article Superficial Safeguards (attached to my email) and available here
(https://N�,ww.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/flawed-epa-approval-proces�df) also outlines
the ways that the EPA's approval processes is flawed and not protecting our
citizens or environment.
Similarly, the state Department of Agriculture is unable to manage the pesticide
use in Idawai'i safely. Look at the recent case on Maui where Monsanto was
exposing workers to a banned pesticide. Also, recently on Kauai when Syngenta
workers were exposed to Chlorpyrifos in the field despite the chemical
corporations & their research facilities claiming they have the highest standards of
practice.
The industry talking points are always the same and they will continue to try to
convince important people like yourself that these chemicals are tested and
regulated appropriately by bodies with more authority to do so then yours. These
are blatant lies.
3
t
The EPA, the state Dept of Agriculture and the other regulatory bodies that you are
counting on to keep you safe are designed to instead approve half tested products
tested by the manufacture (not the government) for safety and then use these
biocides, often for decades, until undeniable impacts are discovered and proved.
We have seen this over and over and over throughout history. Chemicals approved
and deemed safe only to be discovered to cause irreversible undeniable harm.
Please do not rely on these agencies who are failing to regulate.
You are the last line of defense for our communities and environment. In knowing
that the system is rigged purposefully for the benefit of corporations and economic
benefit and not to protect your community and environment, I hope you are called
more than ever to do what you can to protect your home and people and pass Bill
101.
Mahalo!
Fern