≡ Menu
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneSpread the word

farmer spraying pesticide in the rice fieldDrift happens.  Highly hazardous agricultural pesticides–linked to cancer, birth defects and nervous system damage–drift in harmful concentrations far from their intended targets, even onto school grounds where vulnerable children breathe and ingest them.

How do we know?  While there’s an enormous amount of evidence all over the globe, we don’t need to look much further than the state air-monitoring reports of pesticides in Salinas and Watsonville and ongoing studies of Salinas Valley mothers and children.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation reports that the toxic air contaminant and carcinogen 1,3-dichloropropene exceeded state cancer risk regulatory levels in the Salinas air in 2011 and in Watsonville in 2012.  The Watsonville air monitor is on the grounds of Ohlone Elementary School.

Another toxic fumigant and lung damaging agent, chloropicrin, has been measured above or near regulatory levels of concern at the Salinas airport in the past two years.  The CHAMACOS study by UC Berkeley scientists found brain-harming chlorpyrifos dust in large proportions of Salinas Valley homes near fields applied with the pesticide.

This is no surprise to our state and county regulatory bodies.  It is illegal to expose people to drifting pesticides, yet our government agencies admit that drift is inevitable. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) says: “[D]rift into surrounding air is expected with all pesticide applications.”[1] But rather than prevent the crime of exposing us to toxic pesticides, the DPR and our county agricultural commissioners have chosen to “manage” the damage.

Sometimes the damage is in the form of dangerous, immediate, acute poisonings that make the news, like the 2009 drift incident at a local elementary school, described by the DPR:

In Monterey County, 940 feet north of an elementary school, a helicopter was spraying a spinach field with two fungicides, fenamidone and fosetyl-aluminum, when a physical education class came out into the school yard. When they saw the helicopter, the teacher brought the students back into the building and had them wash. Eleven of the thirty-two students and the teacher developed symptoms, which included eye irritation, nausea, headache, vomiting, and skin irritation. [2]

But the pesticide drift damage that is not so much in the headlines, the long-term illnesses that develop and manifest over time, may be an even greater pesticide danger. Damage to the brain, reproductive and respiratory systems, and cancer, among other documented pesticide-linked health threats, can take years or decades to be observable in individuals. At a Salinas news conference last year, teenage Alisal High student, Miguel Valdivia, expressed this concern when he observed, “If pesticides do have an effect on people, we’ll get to know.  But sadly, we’ll know once it’s too late; once people are already affected by them.”

It is also no surprise to our state and county regulatory bodies that pesticide damage is focused in Latino populations.  The state published data showing Latino children in Monterey County were 3.2 times more likely than white children to attend schools within a quarter mile of the heaviest use of the most highly hazardous pesticides.  The University of California’s CHAMACOS studies have found significantly higher amounts of harmful organophosphate pesticides in urine samples of Salinas Valley Latinas than in the general U.S. population.  As the executive director of the Center for Farmworker Families, Dr. Anne Lopez, has pointed out, the lack of protection from hazardous pesticide exposure for largely Latino populations is a form of environmental racism.

While a good deal of the rest of the world is moving away from—even banning—drift-prone fumigants, we have been much slower to take that responsibility in the United States and California.  One step in the right direction, however, is the DPR’s current exploration of a statewide policy toward regulating the use of agricultural pesticides near schools.  The state has not agreed to prevent drift from happening, but appears willing to address significant ways to reduce the likelihood children will be exposed to pesticides at school.

Among the most promising possibilities is the implementation of a significant protective zone where pesticides are not sprayed—a larger “buffer zone”—around all schools.  Because many pesticides, especially fumigants, blow in the wind and volatize and drift long after applications, the buffer zones need to be large to be protective.

Scientific research going back at least 20 years has found that the closer homes are to pesticide treated fields, the increasing likelihood of exposure to pesticides, as measured by house dust and levels of metabolites in children’s urine.[3]  Greater distances from these fields, like buffer zones, reduces the risk of threats from drift and pesticide exposure.

Current buffer zones around schools don’t work.  When cancer-risk levels of pesticides are measured in school grounds’ air, as the state found in 2012 at Ohlone Elementary, obviously the current buffer zones don’t work.  The biggest reason is they are way too small.  While Monterey County claims a “practice” of a 500-foot buffer around schools during schools hours, and Santa Cruz County has a 200-foot protective zone, a number of other counties have implemented buffer zones of a quarter mile for applications of restricted pesticides.  Imperial County permit conditions go further and specify buffer zones of one mile for aerial applications and soil injection applications, and a half mile for ground applications of restricted pesticides.

San Luis Obispo County requires half-mile protection zones for aerial applications of restricted pesticides. The San Bernardino County ordinance requires up to a quarter-mile[4] protection zone around schools for most applications of pesticide products labeled “Danger-Poison.”

While far larger than the buffer zones in the Monterey Bay area, these more expansive protective areas are still too short. The UC Davis MIND Institute study[5], the UC Berkeley CHAMACOS study[6], and the California Childhood Leukemia Study[7], all conducted in California, have shown that even quarter-mile buffer zones are insufficient to protect California’s children from unsafe pesticide exposures. The UC Davis MIND Institute study documented significantly increased rates of autism in children of mothers who lived up to one mile from fields. The CHAMACOS study has documented chlorpyrifos contamination in homes up to 1.8 miles from treated fields and the California Childhood Leukemia study found elevated concentrations of several pesticides in dust of homes up to three quarters of a mile from treated fields.

Given these experiences and scientific studies of the dangers of pesticide drift exposure within one mile of applications, we are calling for our pesticide regulators to push the use of drift-prone pesticides to at least one mile away from school grounds.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation visited Salinas last June for a workshop to hear from the public about what we want in terms of pesticide use policy near schools.  The Cesar Chavez Library was packed, and the people were loud and clear: “One Mile Buffer! Our Children Shouldn’t Suffer!”  Some of the speakers envisioned pesticide-free farming “innovation zones” around schools.

If the state DPR won’t act—and they’ve thus far scheduled a justice-delayed timeline of spring 2017 for implementation of a new pesticides and schools policy—then our county ag commissioners can.  They have the authority to institute significant protective buffer zones any time they want. Let’s make sure they do.

Drift happens.  Drift is a crime.  Drift must end, and until then, schoolchildren at the very least should be protected from its dangers.

Want to join the fight against drift-prone pesticides and for sustainable farming? Safe Strawberry Monterey Bay Working Group meets every second Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council in Salinas, 931 E. Market St., and every fourth Thursday at 5:30 p.m. at the Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers in Watsonville. 734 E. Lake Ave.

Weller is organizer of Californians for Pesticide Reform for the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council. He can be reached at (831) 325-1681 or mark@pesticidereform.org

 

[1] http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dept/comguide/drift_excerpt.pdf

[2] http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/pdf/hs1886.pdf

[3] Fenske RA, Lu C, Barr D, Needham L. Children’s exposure to chlorpyrifos and parathion in an agricultural community in central Washington state. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110:549–553.

Simcox NJ, Fenske RA, Wolz SA, Lee IC, Kalman DA. Pesticides in household dust and soil: exposure pathways for children of agricultural families. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103:1126–1134.

[4] The buffer zones in the San Bernardino ordinance apply only to properties adjacent to schools.

[5] Shelton, Janie F., et al. “Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Prenatal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticides: The CHARGE Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives, June 23, 2014. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307044.

[6] Harnly, ME, et. al. “Pesticides in dust from homes in an agricultural area” Environmental Science and Technology, 43:8767-8774. 2009.

[7] Gunier, RB, et. al. “Determinants of agricultural pesticide concentrations in carpet dust.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 119:970-976, 2011.

{ 15 comments }
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneSpread the word

Recent actions by California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation regarding pesticide use near schools throughout the state, the subject of major research studies published in 2014-15, require response.

The heavy use of agricultural pesticide near Monterey County schools and the disproportionate exposure of Latino schoolchildren has been documented for many years in the Salinas Valley by CHAMACOS studies and most recently (2014) by the massive California Environmental Health Tracking Program “Agricultural Pesticide Use Near Public Schools.”

It is of particular concern not only for the fact that children of school age but also younger children, babies and fetuses are extraordinarily susceptible to permanent toxic damage at even low doses of these poisons. About 90 percent of the affected families are Latinos who work as farm laborers, live near the farms and send their children to schools adjacent to treated fields. The major problems of respiratory illnesses, cancers, developmental delays and neurological and endocrine disorders are documented in the above cited studies as well as numerous others. These are civil rights violations of ongoing harm perpetuated on a major segment of the population of this county. And it is environmental racism.

DPR’s statement is attractive but false.

homepage_bannerThe token, tiny adjustments in regulations in spite of major harm to humans, particularly to children, by commonly used agricultural pesticides is an outrage.

For real protection of human health and the environment, a buffer zone of 1 mile needs to be adopted to protect schools, homes and businesses; the present 100 – 400 foot buffer zones now approved in Monterey County are totally inadequate given the unpredictability and toxicity of pesticide drift.

Local air monitoring tests validate this statement but there are only two monitors, and just one at a school. That’s an unacceptable and misleading illusion of adequate drift monitoring.

In addition, schools and communities located near fields in which pesticide application is a year-round activity need to be given at least one full week notification of a permitted application for use of any pesticide. Already compromised children and their families may not be able to evacuate the area because of financial and child care problems but teachers, staff and parents can keep children indoors to avoid greater damage from repeated exposures.

DPR recently closed its reevaluation of toxic chlorpyrifos by changing its designation from an unrestricted use category to “restricted,” which has little practical effect. In 2014, some 3,100 applications were made in California for use of “restricted use” pesticides. Of those, 99.6% were approved by county agricultural commissioners.

And how did these dangerous chemicals slip through without adequate scrutiny when they first came before this regulatory agency? Because, as with most industry-developed chemicals/drugs and processes, regulatory agencies usually accept the manufacturer’s in-house scientists’ studies without independent review or careful analysis. This DPR announcement regarding chlorpyrifos came just after the long overdue U.S. Environmental Protection Agency press release about considering an outright ban on chlorpyrifos due to its presence in waterways across the country. Wouldn’t that cause a red flag for DPR? Apparently not. The public will continue to be exposed to multiple poisonous chemicals, the sterilized soil will receive tons of industrial fertilizers so plants can get some nutrients, and the food that is grown will get antifungals, weed-killers and numerous topical pesticides throughout the growing period before harvesting for our tables.

Some of us have a problem with this; it’s not the health of the earth or its inhabitants that benefits from these insane agricultural practices but the giants of commerce who are doing very well indeed.

California’s taxpayers need to tell the DPR to devote significant resources and attention to reducing the use of and phasing out of soil fumigants and other high toxicity, drift-prone pesticides and to helping farmers with resources to assist with the transition to effective and practices that have been shown to be far safer. That’s what we pay this agency to do. Right?

The priority is the health, education and welfare of all our children, their families and our earth; it should be DPR’s priority, too.

Erickson is a member of the Safe Strawberry Monterey County Working Group.

{ 4 comments }