FARMWORKER JUSTICE FUND, INC.

1010 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 915

Washington, D.C. 20005

\(202\) 783-2628

Fax: (202) 783-2561

e-mail: sdavis@nclr.org

August 2, 2004

Public Information and Records Integrity Branch

Information Resources and Services Division (7502C)

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

RE: Docket Number: OPP-2003-0237

> Comments on Interim Re-registration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for
> Methyl Parathion

Dear Sir or Madam:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Farmworker Justice Fund,
Inc. (FJF), California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), Beyond
Pesticides (BP), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). FJF
is a Washington D.C.-based, national advocacy center, which seeks to
improve living and working conditions for migrant and seasonal
farmworkers and their families. For more than two decades, FJF has
advocated for a phase-out in the use of agricultural pesticides which
pose serious health risks to farmworkers and/or their families.

Established in 1981, CLRAF is a 501c(3) not-for-profit organization that
provides advocacy and community education to help California\'s farm
workers and other rural poor improve their own social, health and
economic conditions. CRLAF also provides training and technical
assistance to other legal services providers and non-profit
organizations. CRLAF project areas include citizenship, environmental
justice, pesticides and work safety, rural health, labor rights and
housing.

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
(NCAMP) is a non-profit, 50l(c)(3), public interest organization
incorporated in the District of Columbia. It was founded in 1981 and has
a membership of approximately 1,200

NRDC uses law, science and the support of more than 1 million members
and online activists to protect the planet\'s wildlife and wild places
and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things.

We strongly oppose the Agency's recent decision to reregister methyl
parathion for twenty-one (21) uses. In light of the availability of
alternatives, the unacceptable health risks posed by this product to
farmworkers, farm children and the environment should not be permitted.

## Methyl Parathion Posses Unacceptable Health Risks

##  {#section .unnumbered}

## On August 2, 1999, the EPA announced a cancellation agreement and risk reduction strategy to increase protections for American families and their children from risks posed by the pesticide methyl parathion. Five years later, the EPA has announced its decision to allow the reregistration of methyl parathion for use on 21 crops. Among these uses are a number of labor intensive crops, including onions, sweet corn, sweet potatoes, walnuts, white potatoes, and yams. Even with engineering controls the risks to workers who mix, load, and apply this pesticide are unacceptably high. As a result of this decision, the health of the farmworkers who handle this pesticide, their children, and the children who live nearby continues to be in danger. The Agency categorically failed to quantify, or even adequately consider the health risks in its benefits assessments and for this reason, its reregistration decision must be reversed  {#on-august-2-1999-the-epa-announced-a-cancellation-agreement-and-risk-reduction-strategy-to-increase-protections-for-american-families-and-their-children-from-risks-posed-by-the-pesticide-methyl-parathion.-five-years-later-the-epa-has-announced-its-decision-to-allow-the-reregistration-of-methyl-parathion-for-use-on-21-crops.-among-these-uses-are-a-number-of-labor-intensive-crops-including-onions-sweet-corn-sweet-potatoes-walnuts-white-potatoes-and-yams.-even-with-engineering-controls-the-risks-to-workers-who-mix-load-and-apply-this-pesticide-are-unacceptably-high.-as-a-result-of-this-decision-the-health-of-the-farmworkers-who-handle-this-pesticide-their-children-and-the-children-who-live-nearby-continues-to-be-in-danger.-the-agency-categorically-failed-to-quantify-or-even-adequately-consider-the-health-risks-in-its-benefits-assessments-and-for-this-reason-its-reregistration-decision-must-be-reversed .unnumbered}

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

A.  MOEs are Unacceptably Low

## As the EPA noted in 1999, methyl parathion is hazardous to workers who handle or apply the pesticide as part of their occupation, and who work in fields to harvest treated crops. The EPA further noted that protective clothing and equipment are not sufficient to reduce the risks to workers to acceptable levels. The Agency claimed then that worker risk would be reduced by its cancellation of all fruit and many vegetable uses, many of which are hand-harvested crops. Despite an acknowledgement that there is a significant risk to workers, even with the use of protective clothing and engineering controls, the EPA's most recent action on methyl parathion failed to cancel the pesticide for use on all labor- intensive crops. Consequently, a significant threat to many workers still remains.  {#as-the-epa-noted-in-1999-methyl-parathion-is-hazardous-to-workers-who-handle-or-apply-the-pesticide-as-part-of-their-occupation-and-who-work-in-fields-to-harvest-treated-crops.-the-epa-further-noted-that-protective-clothing-and-equipment-are-not-sufficient-to-reduce-the-risks-to-workers-to-acceptable-levels.-the-agency-claimed-then-that-worker-risk-would-be-reduced-by-its-cancellation-of-all-fruit-and-many-vegetable-uses-many-of-which-are-hand-harvested-crops.-despite-an-acknowledgement-that-there-is-a-significant-risk-to-workers-even-with-the-use-of-protective-clothing-and-engineering-controls-the-epas-most-recent-action-on-methyl-parathion-failed-to-cancel-the-pesticide-for-use-on-all-labor--intensive-crops.-consequently-a-significant-threat-to-many-workers-still-remains. .unnumbered}

## Using chemical specific data in some instances and data from its Pesticide Handler Database (PHED) in others, the EPA determined the amount of exposure to handlers using available mitigation measure (e.g. personal protective equipment, close mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs) in 19 different use patterns. In 12 of the 19 scenarios, the margins of exposure (MOE) for some crops were far less than 100 which is the minimum level required for safety. Moreover, in 16 use patterns, the MOEs for handlers using methyl parathion were 10 or less even when engineering controls or the most protective equipment feasible was utilized. These unacceptably low MOEs -- calculated even when engineering controls and personal protective equipment are utilized -- underscore the significant risk that methyl parathion poses for farmworker health.  {#using-chemical-specific-data-in-some-instances-and-data-from-its-pesticide-handler-database-phed-in-others-the-epa-determined-the-amount-of-exposure-to-handlers-using-available-mitigation-measure-e.g.-personal-protective-equipment-close-mixing-and-loading-systems-and-enclosed-cabs-in-19-different-use-patterns.-in-12-of-the-19-scenarios-the-margins-of-exposure-moe-for-some-crops-were-far-less-than-100-which-is-the-minimum-level-required-for-safety.-moreover-in-16-use-patterns-the-moes-for-handlers-using-methyl-parathion-were-10-or-less-even-when-engineering-controls-or-the-most-protective-equipment-feasible-was-utilized.-these-unacceptably-low-moes-calculated-even-when-engineering-controls-and-personal-protective-equipment-are-utilized-underscore-the-significant-risk-that-methyl-parathion-poses-for-farmworker-health. .unnumbered}

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

## The Magnitude of the Health Risks to Handlers of Methyl Parathion Must Take Into Account the Fact that Handlers Are Exposed to Other Organophospates as Well as Methyl Parathion in any given 30-Day Period

## The occupational health risks associated with methyl parathion cannot be viewed in isolation. In assessing the magnitude of these risks the Agency must also take into account the fact that handlers may work with other cholinesterase inhibiting organophospates as well as methyl parathion in any given 30 day period. Thus it is not only the toxicity of methyl parathion itself but also its ability to tip the balance to cholinesterase depression that constitutes the true extent of its risk. Currently, California and Washington State have mandatory programs which monitor cholinesterase inhibition in agricultural employees who handle toxicity category I and II organophosphates and carbamates. Recent results from Washington indicate that 5% of pesticide handlers had levels of cholinesterase depression significant enough to require their removal. Another 16% had levels low enough to trigger agency evaluation. By allowing 21 uses of methyl parathion the Agency will almost certainly increase the number of handlers who will suffer cholinesterase depression. However, while California and Washington have programs to identify and remove handlers with cholinesterase depression, the other 48 states do not. As such, allowing use of methyl parathion will lead to organophosphate poisoning in many handlers throughout the nation.  {#the-occupational-health-risks-associated-with-methyl-parathion-cannot-be-viewed-in-isolation.-in-assessing-the-magnitude-of-these-risks-the-agency-must-also-take-into-account-the-fact-that-handlers-may-work-with-other-cholinesterase-inhibiting-organophospates-as-well-as-methyl-parathion-in-any-given-30-day-period.-thus-it-is-not-only-the-toxicity-of-methyl-parathion-itself-but-also-its-ability-to-tip-the-balance-to-cholinesterase-depression-that-constitutes-the-true-extent-of-its-risk.-currently-california-and-washington-state-have-mandatory-programs-which-monitor-cholinesterase-inhibition-in-agricultural-employees-who-handle-toxicity-category-i-and-ii-organophosphates-and-carbamates.-recent-results-from-washington-indicate-that-5-of-pesticide-handlers-had-levels-of-cholinesterase-depression-significant-enough-to-require-their-removal.-another-16-had-levels-low-enough-to-trigger-agency-evaluation.-by-allowing-21-uses-of-methyl-parathion-the-agency-will-almost-certainly-increase-the-number-of-handlers-who-will-suffer-cholinesterase-depression.-however-while-california-and-washington-have-programs-to-identify-and-remove-handlers-with-cholinesterase-depression-the-other-48-states-do-not.-as-such-allowing-use-of-methyl-parathion-will-lead-to-organophosphate-poisoning-in-many-handlers-throughout-the-nation. .unnumbered}

## The EPA Improperly Interpreted the Incident Data

## The EPA improperly interpreted the incident data on methyl parathion related illnesses. The incident data collected by the EPA indicates that many workers have been injured by methyl parathion. Nonetheless, the IRED suggests that methyl parathion may not be as dangerous as some other organophosphates when the rate of incidents is calculated per pound of products used. The fallacy of calculating an incident rate in that manner is that both the number of incidents and the true extent of use are not known.  {#the-epa-improperly-interpreted-the-incident-data-on-methyl-parathion-related-illnesses.-the-incident-data-collected-by-the-epa-indicates-that-many-workers-have-been-injured-by-methyl-parathion.-nonetheless-the-ired-suggests-that-methyl-parathion-may-not-be-as-dangerous-as-some-other-organophosphates-when-the-rate-of-incidents-is-calculated-per-pound-of-products-used.-the-fallacy-of-calculating-an-incident-rate-in-that-manner-is-that-both-the-number-of-incidents-and-the-true-extent-of-use-are-not-known. .unnumbered}

Underreporting of pesticide-related illnesses is recognized as a major
problem. This is due to a multiplicity of factors including: lack of
access to healthcare, fear of retaliatory firing, limited pesticide
training, and the failure of health professionals to recognize,
diagnose, and report pesticide related illnesses. One California study
found that 40% of workers who sought treatment for pesticide illness
said that a co-worker had not sought similar treatment. (Maizlish N, et
al., "The Surveillance of Work-Related Pesticide Illness: An Application
of the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks,"
American Journal of Public Health, vol. 85 pp. 806-11 (1995)). A 2001
focus group study conducted by the Washington State Department of Health
found that 75% of the participating farmworkers reported experiencing
symptoms of pesticide illness, although most did not seek medical
attention. ("Summary Results of Yakima Farmworker Focus Groups about
Pesticides and Health Care," Washington State Department of Health,
September 22, 2003.) According to a 1995 Washington report on
cholinesterase monitoring "current record keeping on pesticide-related
exposures and health problems has limitations in assessing the magnitude
of the problem workers face. There is a consensus within the public
health community that many exposures and health problems are not
reported, so that existing data represents the tip of the iceberg."
(Miller M, et al., Cholinesterase in Washington State: Recommendations
from a Technical Advisory Group, pp. 5-6 (Summer 1995)).

Underreporting of pesticide related illnesses is also the result of
frequent misdiagnosis. Many incidents of mild to moderate
organophosphate poisoning may go undetected because symptoms are
non-specific and may be confused with flu-like conditions. Through a
national interagency initiative entitled, "National Strategies for
Health Care Providers: Pesticide Initiative," the EPA and the National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation highlighted this
problem. Based on states which required reporting of pesticide
poisonings, EPA estimates in its Implementation Plan for this initiative
that while approximately 250-500 physician-diagnosed cases occur per
100,000 agricultural workers, the number of actual cases would be twice
as high if undiagnosed and unreported cases were included. (The National
Environmental Education and Training Program, "Implementation Plan;
National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticide Initiative."
March 2002, pg. 17)

### The EPA Underestimates Workers' Exposure to Methyl Parathion by Relying on Faulty Assumptions

The EPA underestimates workers' exposure to methyl parathion -- and
hence improperly weighs the costs and benefits of using the pesticide
\-- by relying on faulty assumptions. The EPA's risk assessment for
handlers is predicated on the assumption that workers are exposed to
methyl parathion for only 8 hours per day. This assumption does not
comport with farm labor reality. According to the National Agricultural
Worker Survey (NAWS), conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, the
majority of farmworkers (56%) worked on average between 30 and 50 hours
per week (in 1997-98); and 15% worked an average of more than 50 hours
per week. (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey 1997-98,
Research Paper No. 8 March 2000 at p. 32). Exposure to methyl parathion,
however, continues until farmworkers bathe and change out of
contaminated clothing. Since the vast majority of farms do not provide
showers for their handlers at the job site, exposure for all handlers
continues until they return to their living quarters, bathe and change
clothes. One study of settled farmworkers in the Yakima Valley found
that only 50% of agricultural workers bathed and changed clothes as soon
as they returned home. (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and
University of Washington, For Healthy Kids 1999 Yakima Valley Survey
Report at 9.) When only half the settled workers don't bathe
immediately, that indicates that among migrant workers who may live in
shacks, their cars or even the fields -- and often lack ready access to
shower facilities -- the number who wear their clothes all evening
before changing would be far higher. In addition, some farmworkers sleep
in their work clothes and/or wear the same contaminated clothing all
week long. The unfortunate reality is that farmworkers are often too
poor to have multiple work outfits, and their living conditions do no
readily allow them to wash their clothes during the workweek.
Additionally, when evaluating the true health risks to handlers, the EPA
should consider that in many instances PPE or enginerring controls are
not provided or may not work properly (e.g on hot days a handler may
open the windows of a closed cab). Thus, in real terms, the risk to
handlers will often exceed the risks demonstrated by the MOE
calculations

### The EPA Should Add An Additional Margin of Safety to Protect Farmworker Fetuses, Infants and Children 

Although the EPA added an extra margin of safety when evaluating dietary
risk, it erroneously failed to add a 10-fold margin of safety when
evaluating risks to farmworker children. An additional 10-fold margin of
safety should be added to protect the unborn children of pregnant
farmworkers because these babies, who are not employees, may be exposed
to this extremely potent neurotoxin at a very vulnerable stage of their
development.

In setting, modifying or revoking tolerances, the FQPA directs the EPA
to consider, *inter alia*, "available information concerning the
...effects of *in utero* exposure to pesticide chemicals." §
408(b)(2)(C)(I)(II). In the case of threshold effects, the FQPA also
directs the EPA to add an additional 10-fold (or other) margin of safety
for infants and children "to take into account potential pre- and
post-natal toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to
exposure and toxicity to infants and children." § 408(b)(2)(C)(ii). In
explaining its method of implementing the 10-fold safety factor to the
SAP, the EPA expressly state that it would not consider pre-natal
exposures to the unborn children of pregnant farmworker women because
such exposures are "occupational" and hence, not within the
contemplation of the FQPA. See Presentation for FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel by Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division
on FQPA Safety Factor for Infants and Children (March, 1998). The
statutory language that directs the EPA to consider the effects of "*in
utero*" or "pre-natal" exposures to pesticides makes no exception for
occupational exposures. Nor could such an exception make sense since it
is patent that a fetus or unborn child cannot work.

Indeed, in an analogous context, the California Supreme Court held that
a child, who was injured *in utero* when his pregnant mother was exposed
to carbon monoxide at work, could not be prevented from filing suit in
tort by the workers compensation bar, which prohibits an employee from
suing his or her employer. [Snyder v. Michael's Stores
Inc.]{.underline}, 16 Cal.4th 991, 945 P.2d 781, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 476
(1997). The Court dismissed the notion that the unborn child could be
deemed an "employee" as "wholly without merit." The Court also noted
that every other court to consider this question, except one, had
reached the same conclusion (and the only exception was a lower
California court whose decision was effectively overruled by the
[Snyder]{.underline} case). Since an unborn child cannot be an
"employee," its pesticide exposure cannot be "occupational." Thus, any
pre-natal exposure to farmworker children must be considered in applying
the 10-fold safety factor. As a practical matter, however, the only way
to provide a 10-fold margin of safety to a farmworker's unborn child is
to add a 10-fold margin of safety when evaluating margins of exposure
for pregnant farmworker women. For this reason, a 10-fold margin of
safety must be added when evaluating the occupational risks from methyl
parathion.

This approach is also warranted because farmworkers often bring young
children into the fields with them, because of the lack of affordable
day care. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported that
seven percent of farmworkers with children five years or younger took
their children with them, at least sometimes, when they worked. (U.S.
General Accounting Office, \"Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure
the Safety of Farmworkers and their Children.\" (March 14, 2000)).
Additionally, GAO estimated there are some 290,000 children ages 14-17
who are farmworkers in the United States. This figure likely under
represents the true number of young agricultural laborers. Because
children can legally begin working on farms as young as 12 years old and
the data doesn't report the figures until age 14, GAO's figure is likely
much smaller than the true figure. A study of migrant children in
western New York found that despite legal prohibitions against working
with hazardous substances, 10% of children under age 18 reported mixing
or applying pesticides. (Pollack, S., et al., "Pesticide Exposure and
Working Conditions among Migrant Farmworker Children in Western New York
State." American Public Health Association Annual Meeting Abstracts,
(1990)). Additionally, 40% of the children had entered fields that were
still wet with pesticides, 40% had been sprayed with pesticides while in
the fields, and 15% reported symptoms of organophosphate poisoning
although none received medical attention. Thus this additional 10-fold
margin of safety is also warranted to protect other children who may
accompany their parents to work in fields which have been treated with
methyl parathion.

# EPA Also Underestimated the Health Risks From Methyl Parathion by Failing to Consider Residential Exposures

In weighing the costs and benefits associated with the use of methyl
parathion, the EPA underestimated the health risks by failing to take
into account residential exposures. The FQPA requires that, in setting
pesticide tolerances, the EPA must conduct an aggregate analysis of all
non-occupational routes of exposure to methyl parathion, including food,
water, air, and residential exposure. FQPA, § 408(b)(2)(D)(vi). EPA
maintains that because methyl parathion is not registered for
residential use, it must only consider food and water as contributors to
aggregate chronic risk. EPA's decision to disregard residential exposure
to methyl parathion is erroneous and must be amended. Methyl parathion,
like other agricultural use pesticides, enters the home environment by
virtue of drift onto labor camps and rural residential areas, through
take-home exposure on soiled clothing, and by being tracked in on
contaminated shoes. These residues can and have been found and measured
in the household dust of agricultural families or rural residents, and
on the hands of children living on or near farms. The available
information on these exposures must be considered and aggregated as part
of the FQPA equation.

Several studies have demonstrated that pesticides sprayed in
agricultural fields end up in nearby outside play areas and the
household dust of homes in which farmworker children reside. For
example, a study in Washington State tested soil from outdoor play areas
and dust from indoor play areas of 26 farming families, 22 farmworker
families and 11 non-agricultural families, each of which had at least on
child less than seven years old. N.J. (Simcox et al., "Pesticides in
Household Dust and Soil: Exposure Pathways for Children of Agricultural
Families," Environmental Health Perspectives I, vol. 103, pp. 1126-1134
(1995)). An analysis was performed to detect the presence and
concentration of four organophosphate insecticides: azinphos-methyl,
phosmet, chlorpyrifos and ethyl parathion. Residues found in household
dust and soil were almost exclusively due to agricultural use, rather
than home use. One or more of the four pesticides was found in 58% of
the soil samples outside the homes of the agricultural families as
compared to 18% of non-agricultural homes. Household dust in 100% of the
homes of farm children had at least one of the four target pesticides
and all four target pesticides were found in 62% of these households. By
comparison, only 9% of non-agricultural homes had all four pesticides.
Concentrations of pesticides were also higher in farm, rather than
non-farm households. Interestingly, however, even non-farm homes in
agricultural areas had measurable pesticides residues, which were
probably due to drift

Pesticide drift is a significant problem. A review of pesticide incident
data from California reveals that approximately 20% of pesticide
incidents found to be possible, probable or definite each year are
caused by pesticide drift.

Finally, the EPA should recognize that methyl parathion has been widely
used inside homes, even though such usage is prohibited. Hundreds of
homes have been contaminated by the use of this product and several
people have even died as a result. In regulating methyl parathion, the
EPA should recognize all common uses and sources of residential exposure
to the product-whether or not they are sanctioned by the registrant.

I.  Conclusion

In sum, the EPA determination that the benefits of using methyl
parathion on 21 crops outweighs the risks is fatally flawed by its
failure to assess the true magnitude of the health risks associated with
use of this product. When the health risks are fully taken into account,
it is clear that these unacceptable risks to farmworkers and their
children outweigh the benefits to growers, who can use alternative
products.

Sincerely,

Shelley Davis

######## Co-Executive Director

Anne Katten

Senior Scientist, CRLAF

Jay Feldman

Executive Director, BP

Jennifer Sass, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist, NRDC