On behalf of Environment Maine and Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, I would like to submit this written testimony in support of the petitioned amendments to Chapters 22, 28 and 40 that are being considered by the Board of Pesticides Control (BPC). We support all of the proposed changes, because these changes will reduce toxic pesticides in our environment, reduce pesticide exposure and make it easier for people to know about pesticides applied in their neighborhoods.
At the end of March, Environment Maine Research & Policy Center released a report I co-authored, Agribusiness and Atlantic Salmon: The effects of large-scale blueberry production on the endangered Atlantic salmon. The report reviews scientific studies and policy recommendations regarding Atlantic salmon, their habitat, and potential effects from pesticides, sedimentation, nutrient loading and water withdrawal. I have appended the full report, and excerpted some short, relevant summary sections of the report below.
Some of the report’s findings include:
• Nutrient loading is not extensive, but there is some potential for fertilizer application to fields to cause algal blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen in nearby streams and rivers;
• Pesticides used on blueberry fields have limited acute toxicity to Atlantic salmon, and indirect and chronic effects may be severe;
• Hexazinone, an oft-used herbicide is likely in high enough concentrations from drift, runoff and groundwater seep to change aquatic organismal communities, decreasing fitness of fry and parr;
• Malathion and azinphos-methyl (two organophosphate pesticides) may have direct, acute effects on Atlantic salmon physiology and survival, even in low concentrations;
• Sulfur applications to increase acidic soil conditions are infrequent and sporadic, yet may be of concern for all life stages of Atlantic salmon.
Perhaps the largest obstacle to determining the impact of wild blueberry cultivation on endangered Atlantic salmon populations is lack of data. We are left to speculate about possible dangers without having the information needed to accurately assess these threats. Regardless, the blueberry industry has a legal obligation, along with other industries and agencies, to help protect the endangered Atlantic salmon. In order to better understand the effects of the blueberry industry on endangered Atlantic salmon and to mitigate and eliminate the negative effects, we recommend the following policies and actions:
• EPA should require more extensive testing of pesticide toxicity, chronic affects and interactive toxicity of pesticides and inert ingredients as part of registration and establishment of standards;
• BPC should ban aerial spraying and continue to monitor drift from other application methods;
• BPC should restrict or eliminate the use of pesticides that directly or indirectly harm Atlantic salmon; and
• DEP should monitor nutrient loading and fertilizer applications in Downeast watersheds.
The review of the scientific community includes evidence that organophosphates could have an acute and serious impact on Atlantic salmon beginning their lives in downeast streams. The U.S. EPA’s review of these chemicals even admitted that “azinphos-methyl [an OP] also poses unacceptable risks to birds, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and terrestrial mammals.” Additionally, herbicides that drift into these same streams could alter the ecological communities that must be balanced and in tact to fully assist the growth of the salmon. Based on the evidence the BPC has collected on that drift from aerial spraying on blueberry fields has gotten into nearby streams, we conclude that these potentially harmful effects could be playing themselves out on the endangered Atlantic salmon. Since the BPC has discontinued drift studies, it has limited the amount of up-to-date information about the drift from ground spraying and aerial spraying from companies that have not agreed to give up the practice.
The findings of our report alone should be enough to ban aerial spraying and the use of organophosphates (OPs), as the amendments to Chapter 22 and 40, respectively, would do. In addition to the harm to Atlantic salmon, OPs are acutely toxic, carcinogenic and cause neurological damage in humans. These nerve toxins are widely regarded as one of the worst classes of pesticides because of the public health threat that they pose to agricultural workers, their families, neighbors and consumers. I would also point out that many of the representatives from agricultural interests admitted that OPs are dangerously toxic and they would rather not use them. Furthermore, Dale Whitney recounted the story of his grandfather coming back from the fields applying arsenic and other toxic chemicals and knocking the chemical dust off his hat. He said something along the lines of “he didn’t know better, only knew what the manufacturers told us.” The same is true today with organophosphates. Some farmers realize that they are dangerous, but the pesticide companies still say the chemicals are fine, so most farmers continue to use them. For many applications, safer alternatives do exist. And, it is also true that organic growers are succeeding here in Maine within the same agricultural sectors. I will not go into further details about the risks surrounding OPs, other than to say that the testimony of my colleagues from the Environmental Health Strategy Center, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association and Toxics Action Center have detailed information about the public health threats posed by OPs.
Aerial spraying causes drifts into nearby waterways, fields, forests and abutting property. Aerial spraying has generally triggered the largest number of complaints to the BPC from the public because of this drift. The BPC has conducted studies into the drift caused by aerial spraying. Although not exhaustive, these important studies have been enough to document drift into streams and other locations sometimes far removed from the target fields. And, the BPC drift reports have acknowledged that the studies are only capturing the tip of the iceberg of pesticide drift. With this in mind, it is clear that aerial spraying causes unacceptable pesticide drift and should be banned.
Despite the threats that they would go out of business before switching to ground spraying, both Cherryfield Foods and Jasper Wyman and Son have ended aerial spraying on their 17,000 acres. These two companies have been able to continue their operations. Meanwhile, other companies offer the same unsubstantiated threats. As the BPC is seriously considering taking up the issue of drift and aerial spraying as its next task, and I hope that you use the amendment to Chapter 22 to do so.
Modifying Chapter 28 sections 1 and 2 will broaden Maine residents’ right to know about pesticide use in their vicinity. The proposed amendments will also establish procedures and standards for better informing interested members of the public about outdoor pesticide applications and modernize the Pesticide Notification Registry information delivery system to take advantage of electronic mail and the internet.
Specifically, the proposed changes are more equitable to Mainers by rescinding the fee for the Maine Pesticide Notification Registry. The current $20.00 fee for the Maine Pesticide Notification Registry is unfair because residents who are concerned about the threat of pesticides to their family and community are required to pay to get this public information. Currently, only 20 Maine residents are on the Pesticide Registry. We believe the $20 fee poses a real barrier to people signing up. Certainly, more than 20 people in Maine are concerned about pesticide use in their neighborhood; over 300 individuals signed the petition to change Chapter 28 and numerous people not on the Registry testified or have submitted comments. Concerned Mainers should not be singled out to pay for the registry; if anyone other than taxpayers should pay for the registry, it should be applicators that are using chemicals in our communities.
Other industries that put toxic chemicals into our environment are required to report that information, whether to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Maine Department of Environmental Protection through the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Toxics Release Inventory. Members of the public can easily go online to find out what major facilities violated their permits to discharge pollution into our waterways. We recently authored and released a report Troubled Waters that summarized that information for Maine. Also, the Toxics Release Inventory provides U.S. residents information for free, down to the zip code and facility level, about the amount of toxic chemicals released into the air and created as waste. These analogous programs’ publicly available permit violations and amounts of discharged chemicals provide important information for communities. Pesticides used in our community should not be any harder to find out about, and people should not have to pay to do so.
Currently, the nominal BPC administration of the Registry is covered by the $20 fee on curious residents. All told, the BPC collects about $400 to administer the program- which consists of renewing interested residents and compiling the list of contact information for those residents on the Registry. It seems that the Board would likely be able to absorb this small cost into its budget, especially if the BPC were to update the Registry system to take advantage of electronic registration and renewals. If more residents signed up to be alerted as a result of eliminating the fee, there may be some increased cost to the Board if no changes were made to the program. But, any increased administration due to wider participation would be mitigated by an electronic and/or online registration and renewal process. Also, an increase in the Registry list is unlikely to be so large as to be burden the Board.
If more financial support to the BPC was needed, the 3,000 licensed applicators could cover the administration of the program; even just $1 extra on their licensing fee would more raise more than seven times the current administration income from registrants. For example, the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory is funded by the very industries that are required to provide information about the chemicals they release into the air and water of our communities. This sound policy theory of “polluter pays” is repeated in other federal programs like Superfund.
The proposed rule also ensures that interested members of the public are supplied with material safety data sheets for the pesticide applications in their vicinity. It is important that residents be provided with as much information about the pesticides applied in their community as possible. Many residents wouldn’t know to ask for the material safety data sheet, so providing them will provide them with important information about the chemicals in their communities.
The proposed rule modification allows applicators to send the application information and material safety data sheets via email in order to make it easier for them and to reduce mailing costs. Applicators could even provide a link to the material safety data sheet along with the email saying when they are spraying in a given neighborhood. This is a simple, yet informative way for residents to find out more about the chemicals being used in their neighborhoods. We expect that allowing applicators to use electronic notification will reduce the amount of work for applicators to alert those on the registry and will provide a wealth of information to citizens who might not know where to get information about pesticides.
In summary, I would again like to emphasize Environment Maine’s and Environment Maine Research & Policy Center’s support for the pending amendments to Chapters 22, 28 and 40.
Sincerely,
Matthew Davis
Environment Maine
Environment Maine Research & Policy Center
