| Vol. 2000, Issue 3 | May 2000 |
General Accounting Office Reports on WPS | |
|---|---|
|
Recently, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report entitled Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children. A summary of this report follows. Although the federal Fair Labor Standards Act generally prohibits children under age 12 from working in agriculture, the Department of Labor has found children as young as age 6 working in agricultural fields during its inspections. The point is not to determine whether these young children are working in the field or simply accompanying their parents because they could not find or afford child care. The point is that young children can be found spending a significant portion of their day (often many days) in areas where pesticides have been applied. The question is, “Are they adequately protected from pesticide exposure?” The GAO was asked by three representatives (Lantos, D–CA; Waxman, D–CA; and Sanders, I–VT) to investigate the possible adverse effect of pesticides as it relates to the safety of children who may be exposed to pesticides in agricultural settings. The report addresses a series of questions, organized by three overall issues: 1. What federal requirements govern the safe use of pesticides, particularly as they relate to protecting children in agricultural settings? 2. What information is available on the acute and chronic effects of agricultural pesticide exposure, particularly on children? 3. What has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) done to ensure that its Worker Protection Standard (WPS) considers the needs of children and is being adequately implemented and enforced. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Two laws (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA]; and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [FFDCA]) principally govern the safe use of pesticides. In 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) amended both laws and required the EPA to, among other things, reevaluate the amount of pesticide residues allowed on or in food, taking into account consumers’ aggregate exposure from other sources, including residential exposure. In addition, it directed the EPA to consider “major identifiable subgroups of vulnerable consumers” in this reevaluation process. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the EPA to consider children living on or near farms as one of these groups. The EPA indicated that it is currently funding several studies to assess the effects of farm children’s exposure to pesticides. 2. The authors of the study concluded that information on the extent of acute and chronic illnesses from agricultural pesticide exposure is very limited— whether for farmworkers, farm children, or the population in general. According to the National Center for Environmental Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the many studies conducted so far have been limited, inconsistent, and inconclusive. Although a number of federally funded studies of chronic effects are under way, it will take many years before the results are known, given the complexity of the issues involved. In addition, the authors concluded there is limited capability to determine the precise national incidence or prevalence of pesticide-related illnesses that occur in the agricultural sector. The EPA currently uses four databases to indicate the extent of acute pesticide incidents and illnesses. However, these databases are not standardized, and several have significant limitations, such as lack of medical confirmation as to the exact cause of the illness (for example, “Is the illness due to the flu or pesticide exposure?”). The EPA is currently pilot-testing in five states a standardized reporting system for pesticide-related illnesses. In addition, in 1998, the EPA launched an initiative to improve the training of health-care professionals to help them recognize acute pesticide-related illnesses and injuries. 3. For a variety of reasons, young children are considered more vulnerable to the adverse effects of pesticides than are older children and adults. Using this assumption, the authors of the study concluded that the Worker Protection Standard may not adequately protect young children. To be fair, the WPS was not designed to protect young children. The intent of the WPS provisions is to protect workers of legal age (age 12 and over). The EPA considers the reentry interval (REI; how long a worker must wait after the application before reentering the site) to be one of the most important protections in the WPS. Setting these product-specific intervals is no simple task–it involves a great deal of data regarding toxicity and task-specific exposure. Reentry intervals came into effect in 1995. Since then, the EPA has adopted a new methodology that is more detailed and considers chronic health effects and in utero effects. As of August 1999, REIs for about half the pesticides (or groups of related ingredients) had been revised. Typically, these REIs stayed the same or were reduced, indicating that the EPA was cautious with its early assessments. Regardless, the GAO study strongly recommends that the EPA take additional steps to protect children in pesticide-treated areas. Steps might range from warning farmworker parents about the adverse effects that pesticides may have on their young children, to having pesticide labels clearly state that children should not enter treated areas for specified periods. The implementation and enforcement of pesticide requirements, including the WPS, are primarily carried out by the states under cooperative agreements with EPA. Questions exist about whether the states are adequately implementing the Standard for farmworkers generally. The authors found that EPA’s regions have been inconsistent (1) in whether they set goals for the number of worker-protection inspections states should conduct, (2) in defining what constitutes a worker-protection inspection, and (3) in the extent to which they oversee and monitor the state’s implementation and enforcement of the Standard. The authors make appropriate recommendations to remedy these problems. The Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDoA) is the agency responsible for implementation and enforcement in Illinois. Since 1995, University of Illinois Extension has worked closely with the IDoA and other organizations to educate employers and employees about the WPS provisions. In 1999, the IDoA inspected a number of commercial-application establishments, greenhouses, nurseries, and farms specifically to assess compliance with the WPS. Overall, the rate of compliance was good. However, as pointed out in the January 2000 Illinois Pesticide Review, several areas still need work. Again, with assistance from EPA, IDoA will continue WPS-specific inspections this year and beyond. The full (36-page) report may be viewed and printed from the following website: www.gao.gov (select “Today’s Reports,” then 4/13/2000). Or you may order a copy from the GAO office, (202) 512-6000. For more information about the WPS, contact your nearest University of Illinois Extension office or visit our website at www.aces.uiuc.edu/~pse/facts/facts.html. Adapted from Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children, U.S. General Accounting Office, March 2000. | |
| Author: | Bruce Paulsrud |
For any questions about the Illinois Pesticide Review
send e-mail to: Bruce Paulsrud