Dow asked that the director of California Dept of Pesticide Regulation allow growers across the state to use twice as much 1,3-D in a year as the rules permitted. And the company wanted it to happen quickly. Two Dow officials, Bryan Stuart and Bruce Houtman, closed their proposal by saying that implementation will begin immediately upon receipt of approval from Helliker. Six days later, Helliker signed off on the heart of Dows plan. With that simple memo in 2002, Helliker dismantled the strict oversight designed seven years earlier to protect Californians from cancer, opening the door to 12 years of nearly unfettered 1,3-D access as its use spread to populated areas near schools, homes and businesses. Joseph Frank, a retired state toxicologist whose team evaluated human exposure to 1,3-D, said people in those communities should demand answers. They should ask their representatives, Why? he said. The loophole also expanded a key market for Dow, allowing it to sell millions more pounds of chemicals across a state that provides the United States with nearly half of all its fruits, vegetables and nuts. The chemical is the third most heavily used pesticide in California. California has a long and tortured relationship with 1,3-D, a byproduct of plastic manufacturing thats often sold under the brand name Telone. In 1990, the state suddenly pulled 1,3-D from the market after learning how much lingered in the air near farm fields in the Central Valley. After five years and $5 million of research, Dow persuaded the state to allow it back on the market with severe restrictions. In response to questions from CIR, Dow said no agricultural uses of 1,3-D pose any cancer risk. And the company said it has new research that shows the existing limits are too conservative. In an interview, Helliker maintained that his decision to alter the pesticide policy in 2002 didnt put Californians in danger. Because the states regulations average cancer risk over a lifetime, Dow and state regulators said, its fine for people to be exposed to more 1,3-D in some years as long as it evens out over time. Helliker said he cant recall whether department scientists disagreed with his decision. But documents obtained by CIR show a state toxicologist objected to the science - and the logic - as soon as Dow began raising the idea in 2001. Eight years later, a new batch of department leaders received similar warnings from another staff scientist. Toxicologist Linda Hall disputed the basic justification Dow and Helliker used to create the loophole. Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) scientists do not agree and suggest that this practice may actually increase cancer risk, she wrote. Still, department leaders didnt put a stop to it.
Posted on: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:01:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015