The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Tracing a pesticide’s use
Amid debate over ban, a state lawyer raises awareness of the ‘new DDT’
Tara Cook-Littman was shocked when she realized Connecticut pest control companies sprayed at least 758 gallons of Chlorpyrifos — a pesticide often called the new DDT — on golf courses and crops last year
That’s enough to treat nearly 3,000 acres of MidWestern crops.
The Fairfield attorney and mother of three used a Freedom of Information request to comb through hundreds of pages of state records detailing how the product — a flashpoint in a national debate over pesticides — is routinely used in the state.
“It scares me that a chemical the Environmental Protection Agency — their own scientists — came out with a statement that there is no safe level for use,” Cook-Littman said.
The research, which she shared with Hearst Connecticut Media, comes as state lawmakers are poised to again consider banning the chemical. A similar bill failed to pass the General Assembly last year as opponents called the ban unnecessary. Chlorpyrifos [pronounced klawr-o-PEEuh-fos] was recently banned in New York State, California, Hawaii and the European Union over health concerns, such as brain damage after prolonged exposure to the chemical.
The federal EPA under President Donald Trump has taken the opposite position, blocking a proposed Obama-era prohibition of chlorpyrifos.
State Rep. Joe Grekso, D-Stratford and vice chairman of the environment committee, said Cook-Littman’s data is particularly useful considering state agencies have not provided information on how much is being used each year.
“We are going to make an attempt to address this again this year,” Gresko said, referring to another bill to ban chlorpyrifos.
“I’d like to see the research,” Gresko noted.
Cook-Littman said she’s concerned about the safety of state residents, along with the impact of Chlorpyrifos on the environment
and pollinators susceptible to the chemical.
“It’s very disconcerting to know how much is being sprayed,” Cook-Littman said.
Attempts to ban
Chlorpyrifos, first registered with U.S. environmental regulators in 1965, is a neurotoxic pesticide widely used to kill a variety of agricultural pests including ticks, worms and tree-boring bugs. It has a slightly skunky odor similar to rotten eggs and sells under the brand name Dursban or Lorsban.
The product was phased out for most household uses in a 2000 agreement. In 2015, the EPA declared there is no safe level for exposure to Chlorpyrifos and began the process of approving a new rule to ban the pesticide. The ban had gone through much of the rulemaking process but had not been enacted.
By 2017, Trump’s EPA reversed course and declared that past studies amounted to “fake science” and scrapped the ban, leaving Chlorpyrifos legal for commercial use by licensed applicators.
The product had been banned for household use years prior to that action.
State lawmakers last year moved a bill to ban Chlorpyrifos through the environment committee but the legislation was not put before the House and Senate for a vote.
The state Department of Agriculture, farmers and nursery owners adamantly opposed the bill, saying it was not necessary and would hurt their businesses. Golf course operators did not testify for or against the bill but are among the largest users.
Don Tuller, president of the Connecticut Farm Bureau Association, said banning the product would be devastating to farmers. “The legislation would have an adverse impact on Connecticut’s agriculture and significantly handicap farmers and damage their ability to compete in a global economy,” he said.
Dusty reports
The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection requires pesticide applicators to report the chemicals they deploy to control pests and insects; where they spray; and the volume applied.
The data is contained on hundreds of forms submitted to the state agency and stored in file cabinets at DEEP’s Hartford office.
But DEEP does not tally the gallons used or analyze the data.
Cook-Littman, who ran unsuccessfully for a state House seat in 2014, spent days poring through the reports, writing down how much Chlorpyrifos was applied, who used it and where it was sprayed.
That data provides a snapshot into the pest control industry and clearly shows that golf courses are a primary user of the chemical. Some nurseries and farms also used the product, including those who grow appless, tobacco and corn.
Chlorpyrifos is mixed with water before being applied so a small amount can treat a large area. The mixture amounts to between 40 and 100 gallons of water per quart, or a quart per acre sprayed.
“No real justification”
Diane Jorsey, supervisor of DEEP’s pesticide program, said the agency follows EPA’s lead regarding use of chemicals such as chlorpyrifos, noting the federal agency has the primary role in licensing applicators and controlling usage.
“We don’t have a toxicologist on staff to make determinations. The pesticide registration process at the federal level is pretty rigorous,” she said.
Jorsey acknowledged DEEP does not calculate usage or analyze the information it receives. “The intent was to have some reference to know what a particular farm would be applying,” she said. “The hard copies give us something to refer to and go back to if investigating a complaint or something of that nature.”
It’s surprising to see so many golf courses using the chemical, said Sonya Lunder, a Sierra Club senior policy advisor.
“It’s a use that does not have a major redeeming value,” she said.
“This is primarily being applied to food,” she said, adding using the chemical on golf courses is “kind of ridiculous.”
Exposure to Chlorpyrifos occurs as it’s applied and the danger can remain as residue on crops or plants, according to scientific studies. The chemical can also contaminate ground water sources.
Jorsey acknowledged there are other products available to golf courses.
“The decision is left to the applicator based on target pests,” she said. “To some degree, they will make decisions based economically and if they have this on the shelf.”
A spokesman for the Connecticut Golf Club Association did not respond to a request for comment. Other representatives of the golf industry also did not repsond to requests for comment.
Health impacts
Environmentalists and health advocates say Chlorpyrifos
is acutely toxic and can cause a variety of neurodevelopmental problems, including lower birth weight, reduced intelligence, loss of memory, attention disorders and delayed motor development.
“Americans regularly come into contact with this widely used chemical through residue on food, contaminated drinking water and tainted air,” said Anne Hulick, Connecticut director of Clean Water Action, in written testimony submitted to chlorpyrifos lawmakers last year.
Most of the medical information about comes from studies over its impact on migrant farm workers toiling in large fields where the product is applied. The EPA, as it reversed the Obama-era proposed ban, criticized that science, saying the studies did not provide “sound” or “solid” evidence the chemical posed a danger.
“By reversing the previous Administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making — rather than predetermined results,” former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a written statement in 2017.
Patti Goldman, the lead attorney for Earthjustice, said the EPA is simply wrong. “It is a tragedy that this administration sides with corporations instead of children’s health,” she said.
“Earthjustice and our clients won’t stand for this,” Goldman said. “Lawmakers in states like Hawaii and New York are showing the rest of the country that banning this dreadful pesticide is not only possible, but inevitable.”
Gresko said he expects another uphill battle when the legislature considers a ban this year. “If California and New York banned it, and the EU, they must be using an alternative, So why are we not using it here?”
Cook-Littman, armed with spreadsheets, has picked up on previous reports in DEEP’s Hartford office and intends to follow through behind the scenes, strictly at her own expense.
“I’m just a mom trying to figure out how much is being used,” she said. “There’s no one elese that knows as much as I do.”