Laws To Protect Public from Pesticides Not Being Followed
Minnesota Department of Agriculture called
“watchdog that never barks”

OCTOBER 27, 2001 —Minnesota’s rivers, lakes, wildlife and citizens are not protected from widespread pesticide contamination, according to a study released today by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA).

The report, Inaction Speaks Louder Than Words , concludes that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has violated Minnesota law by failing to adequately monitor pesticide use and contamination or to take action to minimize contamination once it has been detected.

“MDA is supposed to be the state’s watchdog to protect Minnesotans from the harmful effects of pesticide contamination,” said MCEA Project Director Bob Eleff. “But it’s a watchdog that never barks. We need greater vigilance to protect our health, especially the health of our children.”

While the MDA has little data on what pesticides are used where in the state, MCEA worked with the MDA to calculate annual pesticide sales amounts for the 165 active ingredients -- chemical agents that kill weeds and insects -- used in agriculture. MCEA’s analysis revealed that, of more than 30 million pounds of active ingredients sold in Minnesota in 1998, more than 7 million pounds have been identified by the Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) as known or probable carcinogens; almost 12 million pounds are linked to hormone disruption; and more than 3 million pounds are reproductive toxins. Millions of pounds are outright toxic to fish or the aquatic invertebrates that are important food sources for fish and birds. Millions more are toxic to mammals and birds directly.

Pesticide Contamination is Widespread
The report cites numerous studies by state and federal agencies documenting widespread low-level pesticide contamination of Minnesota’s groundwater and surface waters. MDA’s central Minnesota monitoring network found the corn herbicide atrazine in 70 percent of its wells. A 1997 U.S. Geological Survey study reviewed dozens of studies conducted over 20 years in a 20,000-square-mile area of central Minnesota, concluding that pesticides in rivers and streams in that region are “ubiquitous.” A recent Minnesota Department of Health study found residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos in the urine of almost all the Minnesota children tested and residues of 2,4-D in more than half.

Many studies of human beings exposed to higher levels of pesticides have found statistically significant links between exposure and child and adult cancers, including brain tumors and lymphomas, Parkinson’s disease, and impaired brain and nervous system development in children. Other studies have not found such connections. The effects of low level exposures to humans is less studied and therefore less known. What is known about low-level effects in animals and early evidence on humans raises serious concerns.

Low-Level Pesticide Exposures Harm Wildlife
Wildlife studies indicate that endocrine disruptors –those chemicals that disrupt normal hormone function– can produce serious effects at very low concentrations. Scientists agree that animals exposed to these chemicals at critical points during their development can suffer permanent changes to the structure and function of the brain, nervous, immune and reproductive systems.

Dr. Mary G. Henry, Deputy Chief of the Division of Environmental Quality of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, states in the report, “There is evidence that pesticides have indirect, sublethal, and very subtle impacts that impair the ability of wildlife to eat, survive, and reproduce.”

Uncertainty on Human Effects Does Not Mean Safety
Although the human endocrine system is very similar to that of animals, there is inadequate scientific data or consensus about effects of low level pesticide exposure on humans. Despite the fact that children are more exposed and more susceptible to environmental toxins, EPA does not routinely test young or developing animals for pesticide effects on brain, nervous or immune systems function. However, uncertainty is does not mean a substance is safe. DDT, lead and asbestos were ultimately found to be much more toxic than originally suspected, resulting in lowered exposure limits or outright bans.

“As a medical doctor, I am concerned that our current pesticide practices make our children unwitting guinea pigs in a large-scale chemical experiment,” said David Wallinga, MD, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Although scientific certainty has not been established for effects from low levels of pesticides, the seriousness of the health risks and size of the population exposed make it essential for the state to take a precautionary approach.

MDA Not Doing Its Job
Although required by law to collect data on pesticide use, monitor contamination statewide, and reduce contamination when detected, MCEA’s report found that the MDA is not doing its job. MDA does not monitor for pesticide contamination of water resources in some significant agricultural regions. There are no MDA groundwater or surface water monitors in the southwest or northwest parts of the state; surface water monitors are missing from the northwest and west central areas as well. MDA does not test for the breakdown products of some commonly-used pesticides, greatly underestimating the extent of contamination.

MDA bases its decision on whether contamination requires action on advice from a committee made up largely of industry representatives. Prior to MCEA’s investigation, the committee had not met for two years, nor had it ever taken meaningful action mandated by Minnesota’s Groundwater Protection Act: establishing voluntary “best management practices” among farmers to limit exposure.

The MDA claims insufficient funding to accomplish these tasks. But the report notes that MDA has never asked the Minnesota Legislature to increase the pesticide sales fee which funds these activities.

MCEA’s Recommendations
• The MDA should close the gaps in its monitoring network and conduct tests for appropriate pesticide breakdown products.

• Legislation should transfer the decision to take action to reduce pesticide contamination, based on monitoring results, from the MDA to the Minnesota Department of Health, which has the scientific expertise to make such decisions.

• MDA should collect data on rural and urban pesticide use as required by law.

• MDA should analyze the environmental and health effects of pesticides during the annual state registration process, before they can legally be used, and craft conditions of use that protect Minnesota resources.

• Minnesota should reduce use of pesticides through non-chemical means, an approach known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). MDA should better coordinate the many organizations delivering IPM services with an improved organizational structure, a strategic long-term plan and goals against which results can be measured.

“MCEA is seeking reforms that are firmly rooted in common sense,” said Janette Brimmer, staff attorney for MCEA. “We will continue to work on our recommendations to protect Minnesotans from pesticide exposure and to ensure our state policies and actions comply with the law.”