INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON
2,4-D RESEARCH DATA
 |
||||||||||
|
 |
|||||||||
Survey of Toxicologists' Opinions Released
On Thursday, May 21st, a survey of toxicologists was released that outlines how experts view the risks of common chemicals, and concludes that the media are overstating risk. Conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and The Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University (GMU) in conjunction with the Society of Toxicology (SOT), the study Toxicologists' Opinion on Chemical Risk: A Survey of the Society of Toxicology was released as part of a news conference held at the National Press Club.
In order to determine the collective judgments of toxicologists on chemical risks, GMU partnered with SOT, creating an online questionnaire delving into four different areas of toxicologists’ attitudes, perceptions, and opinions related to chemical risk. Although 55% of the toxicologists completing the questionnaire expressed concern about pesticides and endocrine disruptors as posing significant health risks, they overwhelmingly rejected the suggestion that exposure to even the smallest amounts of harmful chemicals is dangerous or that the detection of any level of a chemical in the human body (detected via biomonitoring) indicates a significant health risk. In addition, they were nearly unanimous in rejecting organic or “natural” products as inherently safer than others.
Notably, the study revealed that 79% of the toxicologists surveyed were critical of the Natural Resources Defense Council, saying that it overstated the risk of chemicals. Similar numbers were found for the Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Environmental Defense Fund. The survey results indicated that WebMD is the only news source rated as accurate by a majority (56%) of toxicologists for covering the risks of chemicals, followed by Wikipedia (45%). Only 15% described coverage in the national print media as accurate.
March 24, 2009
The International Trade Committee of Canada’s House of Commons held a hearing on the NAFTA challenge by Dow AgroSciences on Quebec’s refusal to follow through on its commitment to remove 2,4-D from the schedule of prohibited lawn and turf herbicides following the successful reregistration/re-evaluation by EPA and PMRA. The submission of the Task Force may be found here: Quebec-House-Commons-International-Trade_March-2009.pdf
Full testimony of the hearing may be found at:
February 23, 2009
The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data Comments in Response to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Petition to Revoke All Tolerances and Cancel All Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-D, may be found here: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0350 1.pdf
February, 2009
Update on the NRDC Petition to Cancel 2,4-D
The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data and the many users of 2,4-D are proud of the more than 300 state-of-the art GLP mammalian toxicity, ecotoxicity, environmental fate and residue studies that support 2,4-D registrations. EPA’s recent Re-registration Eligibility Decision of 2,4-D thoroughly reviewed this data base against the demanding registration, food and children safety standards of FIFRA and FQPA of 1996. As well, other governmental authorities, such as Canada’s PMRA and the EU’s pesticide regulatory authority have given 2,4-D a clean bill of health. Simply put, few pesticides, indeed few substances, have been so thoroughly tested and so often reviewed by authorities worldwide as the herbicide 2,4-D. The NRDC petition raises no new issues that have not been thoroughly considered by others before and, significantly, raises no new evidence. The Task Fore will submit its own comments on the NRDC petition that will carefully respond to each allegation. We are confident that the Agency will deny the petition and re-confirm its 2005 decision that when used according to its label directions 2,4-D meets FIFRA and FQPA standards for registration and residue tolerances.
On May 16, 2008, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) concluded its re-evaluation of the popular herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), finding that the herbicide can be used safely according to label directions for a variety of lawn, turf and agricultural applications.
In issuing the decision, the PMRA stated in its Information Note, “Health Canada also consulted an independent Science Advisory Panel comprised of government and university experts/researchers in toxicology, epidemiology and biology. The Panel agreed with Health Canada’s assessment that 2,4-D can be used safely when used according to label directions, with some uses requiring additional protective measures.”
Health Canada’s decision and other resources pertaining to 2,4-D may be found at:
http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/consum/2,4-D-e.html
Task
Force news release:
RD/Canada-PMRA-RVD-16-May-2008-WEB.pdf
A report “Attributable causes of cancer in France in the year 2000” has been published by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
At the beginning of 2005, the IARC created a “think-tank” on this topic, with the aim of developing methods for estimates of cancers attributable to known causes and estimating the number of cancers that could be avoidable.
On the section pertaining to pesticides (page 139), the report concludes:
“Given the lack of evidence linking pesticide exposure to human cancer risk, no cases of cancer can be attributed to either occupational or non-occupational exposure to this group of agents.”
This report is co-authored by:
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
- Académie National de Médecine
- Académie des Sciences
- Fédération National des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC)
and in partnership with:
- Institut National du Cancer (INCa)
and in consultation with:
-Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS)
The full report may be downloaded at:
The first estimate of the relative importance of genetic and other factors in the global burden of cancer was made by Richard Doll and Richard Peto (1981), based on US cancer mortality data. A chart summarizing the findings of five studies on this topic may be found on page 170.
On August 8, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Decision Not to Initiate Special Review for 2,4-D. The EPA notice stated “Because the Agency has determined that the existing data do not support a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure, it has decided not to initiate a Special Review of 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP.” The herbicides 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP were considered for Special Review based solely on their similarity for 2,4-D.
EPA first considered Special Review for 2,4-D in 1986, and after more than 21 years of research and agency review, EPA was able to determine that no correlation exists between 2,4-D and human cancer.
Task Force news release:
EPA-No-Review-Newsrelease-Web 9 August 2007.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/August/Day-08/p15109.htm
On June 19, 2007, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada issued its re-evaluation of the Agriculture, Forestry, Aquatic and Industrial Site uses of 2,4-D. In doing so, the PMRA is proposing that the continued use of 2,4-D for the aforementioned terrestrial sites is acceptable.
PMRA Re-evaluation decision:
http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/pacr/pacr2007-06-e.pdf
Comments on the proposed registration decision will be received by the PMRA until August 18, 2007 at: pmra_publications@hc-sc.gc.ca
This scientific assessment builds
on comments that were received from the public for the
Lawn and Turf Uses of 2,4-D, released in
February, 2005. The PMRA will make a final decision on lawn and
turf uses after comments regarding non-turf uses have been
considered.
Phenoxy Value-Benefits Study Released
In 2006 the research task forces representing the registrants of 2,4-D, MCPA and mecoprop-p (MCPP-p) commissioned the preparation of a phenoxy herbicide value-benefits study. The report identifies and quantifies, where possible, the economic, environmental, health and other benefits that accrue to Canadians from the use of the three phenoxy herbicides.
Undertaken by RIAS Inc. – regulatory impacts, alternatives and strategies, the study estimates the benefits of usage of the phenoxy herbicides as the increased costs producers and consumers would incur if phenoxy herbicides were withdrawn from the market. The report focuses on:
§ wheat and barley markets in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario;
§ non-crop industrial sector that uses phenoxy herbicides to manage harmful vegetation; and,
§ lawn and turf sector as examples of the uses made of phenoxy herbicides by individual Canadians and businesses for private investment, aesthetic and recreational purposes.
These sectors represent a large percentage of all usages of phenoxy herbicides in Canada.
On August 16, 2006, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) issued a Re-evaluation note (REV 2006-11) in response to comments received on the Proposed Acceptability for Continued Registration (PACR 2005-01) the lawn and turf uses of 2,4-D.
About 600 comments were received in response to the PACR 2005-01. These came from registrants of products, people who care for their lawns, commercial lawn applicators and their clients, municipal and provincial governments, non-government organizations with interests in human health or environmental protection, medical professionals and the general public.
The Re-evaluation Note summarizes all of these comments, provides the PMRA’s response to them. In releasing this regulatory update, the Agency has again determined that 2,4-D can be used safely on lawn and turf when label directions are followed.
PMRA Re-evaluation Note 2006-11:
http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/rev/rev2006-11-e.pdf
PMRA Questions and answers abut 2,4-D:
http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/highlights/QA/rev2,4-D-e.html
On August 8, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its comprehensive assessment of 2,4-D under the Agency's reregistration program. EPA's decision document concluded that 2,4-D does not present risks of concern to human health when users follow 2,4-D product instructions as outlined in EPA's 2,4-D Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document.
Task Force news release:
EPA-RED-Newsrelease-Web-8-August-2005.pdf
EPA's RED document may be downloaded from this link:
On February 21,2005, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) issued its reevaluation of the lawn and turf uses of 2,4-D. In doing so, the PMRA determined that "the use of 2,4-D and its end-use products to treat lawns and turf does not entail an unacceptable risk of harm to human health or the environment," after examining the combined risk from exposure through food and residential uses, the PMRA also determined the potential exposure for children and adults contacting treated residential lawns and golf courses was within acceptable standards.
PMRA News release:
www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/highlights/20050221-e.html
PMRA Questions and answers abut 2,4-D:
www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/consum/2,4-DFAQ-e.html
INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA
Information Line: U.S. and Canada (800) 345-5109
E-MAIL:
Info@24d.org
Updated Wednesday June 3,2009