EPA Denies Petition AND Objections

In an interesting game of pesticide brinkmanship, the EPA has responded to the states of New York, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts regarding their effort to modify or revoke tolerances associated with the pesticides alachlor, metribuzin, chlorothalonil, methomyl, and thiodicarb.  The states petition was filed towards the end of 2004.  The states contended that the EPA is lacking data for each of these pesticides on developmental neurotoxicity, endocrine effects, and/or cumulative effects of exposure to pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity.  This lack of data mandates that EPA must retain a tenfold safety factor for the protection of infants and children.  The states also contended that once this factor is retained, the tolerances no longer meet the safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Section 408, so they must be revoked or modified. 

In August of last year, the EPA denied the states’ petition.  For alachlor and metribuzin, EPA determined that even if they accepted the contention that it should retain the tenfold safety factor, the states had not shown the tolerances to be unsafe.  For chlorothalonil, it was determined there were neither neurotoxic nor endocrine effects.  Thiodicarb and methomyl were still being reassessed at the time. 

After California left the group, the states filed an objection to EPA’s denial of their petition last October.  Specifically, to the best of EPA’s understanding, they are making four claims.  The first seems to be that they just take issue with EPA’s denial.  The second is that EPA “manipulated” exposure data using “statistical sleight-of-hand techniques” to make pesticide exposure levels appear to be lower.  The third is that the EPA has no endocrine test results for chlorothalonil.  The fourth seems to be that the EPA just wants to injure children because of the uncertainties of materials that have caused adverse effects in test animals.  

Now, in July of 2007, the EPA is denying all four of these objections.  For the first claim the Agency “refuses to adjudicate the merits of claims where it can be shown that the claims, even if true, do not justify the relief requested” for alachlor and metribuzin (i.e., exercise in futility).  For the second claim, the EPA stated that it used percent crop treated and processing factors to determine exposure - not statistical trickery.  For chlorothalonil, the agency has determined that it is not an endocrine disruptor and it does not have to retain the tenfold factor until the endocrine program is functional or complete.  Finally, the presence of adverse effects in animal testing is inadequate standing alone to demonstrate uncertainty regarding the safety of a pesticide.   (Federal Register, 7/18/07).