In Reversal Of Bush Policy, EPA Launches New Study of Atrazine's Health Effects

The Environmental Protection Agency today reversed its stance on the potential hazards of atrazine, one of the most commonly-used herbicides in the country, saying it will re-examine how the chemical affects human health.

EPA officials said in a statement that the agency will take a close look at the weed-killer's potential to cause cancer, as well as birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births. Agency scientists also will conduct research for the first time examining whether atrazine interferes with the hormone and reproductive systems of humans and amphibians.

The announcement marks a departure from the agency's policies on atrazine during the Bush administration, when officials said that the concentrations of the herbicide measured in drinking water did not endanger public health. As recently as June, Steve Bradbury, deputy office director of the EPA's office of Pesticide Programs, told the  Huffington Post Investigative Fund "we have concluded that atrazine does not cause adverse effects to humans or the environment."

Today, EPA spokesman Dale Kemery told the Investigative Fund, "This administration is taking a hard look at the atrazine decision made by the previous administration."

As the Investigative Fund  reported in a  series of  articles in August, the EPA failed to notify the public about data it had collected showing that atrazine has been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states. After the Investigative Fund analyzed and published the data, the EPA posted its data online and said it would continue to update it.

Atrazine, manufactured by the Swiss firm Syngenta, is primarily sprayed on cornfields and other major crops. The European Union has banned the use of atrazine, saying there was not enough information to prove its safety, and the EPA has long fielded criticism from environmental activists for allowing the chemical to remain on the market.

The EPA's announcement of its new atrazine study follows a private September meeting between the EPA's senior staff and the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) According to a senior staffer on the committee, Boxer's team encouraged the EPA to open a new analysis of the risks of atrazine and to keep the public informed about the levels of the weed-killer in drinking water.

The committee plans to hold a hearing on atrazine and the EPA later this year, the staff member said.

Story continues below

The EPA said it will announce its specific plan for evaluating the effects of atrazine next month, and that the study would conclude in September 2010. Officials said the report also will include results from a National Cancer Institute Agricultural Health Study due next year.

"I think it is important for the EPA to evaluate the effects of atrazine on humans and I am very pleased to see that they are emphasizing transparency in this evaluation process," said Jason Rohr, a specialist in ecotoxicology at the University of South Florida who served on the EPA's atrazine panel this past spring. "Given atrazine's consistent effects on freshwater vertebrates, it would not surprise me if a weight-of-evidence approach also revealed consistent effects on humans."

In September, Rohr and colleagues published  an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives examining more than 100 scientific studies of the weed-killer. They concluded that the chemical affected the developmental, behavioral, immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals.

That contrasted with an EPA statement in July, when the agency updated its Web site to say: "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development... and EPA believes that no additional testing is warranted to address this issue."

"At the very least," Rohr said, "the public should be notified when atrazine levels in their drinking water exceed the maximum contaminant level set by the EPA."

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[DrD]

Dick Cheney went to war in Iraq because of a 1% chance that Saddam had WMDs. Why can't the U.S. go to war with pesticide's if there's a 1% chance that they are harmful. Sometimes I think human beings are the equivalent of Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster. We're the ones who put all these chemicals into the environment, and now those chemicals are proving to be our destroyers.

[washlib]

"launches new study"....

to see if corporate profits are great enough to keep it legal...

[texgal7]

There are those who, in their public speeches, imply that we the people are loopy because we buy bottled water to drink. The people are usually not loopy when it comes to their money. If we had affordable or free water testing in every city and county that would test for all contaminants in home water we would have a lot less bottled water being purchased.

[RMR89]

Funny that the water in bottled water is often pumped from the same places you get your faucet water from and is regulated by far fewer people. Let's focus on the fact that Atrazine use is banned in the very country it is produced in but not in the US.

[gsteinum]

might want to check out the effects of bpa. also, you may want to check out what a noted japanese scientist had to (document) about the decay rate of plastic and it's effect on hormonal balance. also, why buy when you can filter cheaper and more effectively at home? also, there are more regulations on and supervision of municipal water than bottled water. is that "loopy"? you've already decided, but as for me, i'll continue to filter my water at home.

[destiknee39]

If that chemical is bad for our environment the United States shoul just banned that chemical if Europe is doing it its for a reason so what i think is that we shoul just keep that out of our environment.

[lightningbolt]

After 8 years of neglect, who knows what deadly chemicals are in our water. The EPA should conduct a full investigation of all known harmful chemicals.

[sixyfivepercentwater]

This might be the most misleading headline for a while, in that it's totally bogus. The article states that the EPA is going to "take a hard look," "conduct research," "examine" and so on.

A far cry from anything like a "crack down."

What happens with these issues is the EPA studies them for years and then makes a recommendation, which is ignored until forever.

[jpayne30]

The problem with Atrazine is that it may be even more dangerous at low levels...so the only solution is to eliminate it altogether. Dr. Tyrone Hayes found that frogs exposed to high levels somehow had a defense mechanism kick in to block the effects (though not entirely), and that low-level exposure caused the largest mutations. For example, a single frog might have nine genitalia, 5 male, and 4 female. Isn't that fun!

[sixyfivepercentwater]

Absolutely. With what is known right now about atrazine, there should be an immediate ban on its use across the board, with massive fines and real enforcement.

It's a great idea to study its effects and decide what it's doing, and if it's found to be no real danger (which it won't be) then the ban could be lifted.

But we shouldn't wait years or forever for the EPA to officially decide that this stuff is poison. All indicators are that it's poison. Along with about a bazillion other chemicals, but we have to start somewhere.

[Dan Agin - Huffpost Blogger]

Atrazine (insecticide) pollution is a pervasive problem and likely critical for pregnant women. See http://bit.ly/OVRTK

[Creeker11]

So the EPA decides to "look" further into a pesticide to see is any adverse health effects may or may not exist and the headline in the link is "Bye Bye Bush"???? Lame, as well as pathetic.

[jpayne30]

Do you understand how the EPA works? Each president gets to put his guy or gal in there, and they run the show. I agree with you that the information was already there. Whether anything is done about it directly up to whoever heads up the agency...and really the president.

[kareemachan]

And Shrub proved time and again that people and the environment were the least of his concerns based on his people's management of the EPA. Smaller budgets, doctoring scientific reports, and booting people out who protested were routine for Shrub.

[MyTake]

Memo to EPA

Ban this chemical in all States except Texas and make sure there is plenty of it in the Bush drinking water!

[TigersEye]

So when are they going to get fluoride, a waste product, out of our drinking water?

[satanlite]

Flouride is just a single component of the mind control drug we are infused with by the Illuminati. I thought everyone knew that?

[ProperGanda]

seeing as you have 57 fans, im assuming that was sarcastic
But sadly there are people who believe that

[dadw5boys]

We demanded here our water department meet the NIH Health Guideines not the EPA. NIH is lower than the EPA.

[Guitar63]

It is simply amazing to me that there is something which could be damaging to the public health in our water, and the government can refuse to investigate it because there is a chance that knowing that it is toxic will lead to more regulations which cost the businesses more money. The government should be working for us, not against us!

[shelivere]

This is a huge step in the right direction. Become a fan of Global Citizens Against Atrazine on Facebook!

[satanlite]

The infrastructure of every water treatment plant needs repair and more plants need to be built with modern designs. It would take a lot of work. Probably create a lot of jobs and emply a lot of people for a couple of years at least. Hmmmm... lots of new jobs....what problem might that solve??

Ooops. I forgot the Republicans are still in de facto control of the country. Scratch that plan. It would mean we'd have to invest money in our own country, we know they won't do that.

[babybuda]

This is most likely the cause behind teabaggers !

[RSKaz]

Walking on it is easy. What Obama would rather do is make it safe to drink. Cheers!