List of Techniques
Calling toxic products 'inert'Virtually every pesticide product contains ingredients other than what is called the "active" ingredient(s), the one designed to provide killing action. These ingredients are misleadingly called "inert." The purpose of these "inerts" - ingredients that usually form the bulk of the product's makeup - is to make the product easier to use or more efficient. In general, they are not identified on the labels of pesticide products because manufacturers maintain that such information constitutes trade secrets.The legality of this position is still being considered by the US courts, according to Caroline Cox, staff scientist with the advocacy group Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides in Eugene, Oregon, US.
"..An indication of the hazards that many inert ingredients may pose is the extent to which these same chemicals are regulated under other U.S. laws, says Caroline Cox. In March, 2005 she scrutinized the more than 1800 chemicals on [the US] EPA’s list of inerts of unknown toxicity and found that 75 are identified as hazardous by the Clean Air Act, 52 under Superfund, 64 in the Clean Water Act, 43 on the Toxics Release Inventory, and 78 with the Toxic Substances Control Act. In addition, 292 inerts of unknown toxicity are registered by EPA as active ingredients in other pesticides. The US EPA requires information on possible toxicity for active ingredients but not for inerts..."
"“The inerts evaluation for environmental effects is EPA’s dirty little secret,” says one agency scientist who requested anonymity. “POEA [the 'inert' in the common weedkiller Roundup] is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, but we don’t know because we don’t have data. The agency assures us that everything’s okay. On the basis of what? Not data. ...”" [lack of monitoring, sublethal effects, and environmental occurrence data according to more recent studies - (J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B 2003, 6, 289–324; Glyphosate: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report, SERA TR 02-43-09-04a, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2003)].
POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine):
The 'inert' surfactant POEA used in the world's most commonly used herbicide, Roundup, makes a big difference to the overall toxicity of any formulation
with the compound. "POEA in Roundup enables the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants, according to Monsanto scientific director Eric Sachs...
A study of aerial applications of Roundup found that small wetlands can receive up to 1.9 mg of acid equivalents per liter (Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004,
23, 843–849). See 'Chemical and Biomonitoring to Assess Potential Acute Effects of Vision (R) Herbicide on Native Amphibian Larvae in Forest Wetlands'"
"four ..papers dating back to 1988 point the finger of blame at POEA:
(i) (Lancet 1988, 1, 299; Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1999, 36, 193–199 [The Toxicity of Glyphosate and Several Glyphosate Formulations to Four
Species of Southwestern Australian Frog];
(ii) Environ. Pollut. 2001, 114, 195–205 [The Acute Toxicity of Agricultural Surfactants to the Tadpoles of Four Australian and Two Exotic Frogs];
(iii) Chemosphere 2003, 52, 1189–1197.) [Aquatic Toxicity of Glyphosate-Based Formulations: Comparison Between Different Organisms and the Effects
of Environmental Factors]
A fifth, more recent paper reports that tadpoles exposed in the lab to POEA concentrations common in the environment (0.6 milligrams per liter [mg/L]
and 1.8 mg/L) for 42 days, which is the estimated aquatic half-life of the surfactant, exhibited delayed metamorphosis and developmental abnormalities
(Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004, 23, 1928–1938) [Toxicity of Glyphosate-Based Pesticides to Four North American Frog Species]."
"..an Australian governmental review [Special Review of Glyphosate] in 1996 found that the POEA in Roundup presented a toxic risk to tadpoles and frogs in shallow water, where dilution doesn’t occur. “The use of the POEA surfactant is an anachronism in light of its well-documented toxicity and the availability of substitute surfactants with demonstrated lower toxicities,” argues biologist Reinier Mann, who at the time worked in Australia and is now at the Universidade de Aveiro (Portugal)..." Amphibian populations around the world are declining for unknown reasons.
PBO (piperonyl butoxide)
"One chemical that appears on the inerts list but is also considered an active ingredient is PBO (piperonyl butoxide), which is a synergist that makes pyrethroid
pesticides 10x more lethal to black flies and mosquitoes. Studies of commercial pyrethroid formulations by Eric Paul’s group at New York state’s Rome Field
Station show that PBO also enhances the toxicity of these pesticides to fish. However, EPA’s recent PBO risk assessment fails to look at the synergist in
conjunction with the active ingredient. EPA’s risk assessment misses the point, says Paul. “An environmental evaluation needs to know how these things
work together. We know there is a synergistic effect on target species. This alone suggests the need to evaluate effects of a formulation on nontarget
species,” he says.
References: 'Are pesticide “inerts” an unrecognized environmental danger?
Scientists question the continued use of POEA in Roundup, citing data showing harmful effects to frogs.'
Environmental Science and Technology, September 7, 2005. Author: Rebecca Renner.
'The Myths of Safe Pesticides' by Andre Leu, Chair Organic Federation of Australia. See: www.ofa.org.au
See: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/sep/science/rr_inerts.html
'The Lethal Impact of Roundup on Aquatic and Terrestrial Amphibians' (Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 618–627; 1118–1124).
Available Evidence: "Alpha-cypermethrin is substantially more toxic than its parent compound, cypermethrin. Permethrin, cypermethrin, alpha-cypermethrin and deltamethrin are four different pesticides and each has substantially different toxicity despite having similar names. DPIWE and Public Health need to be mindful that information on these chemicals cannot be substituted.
Conclusion: To substitute a lower toxicity compound in order to refute the effects of a more toxic compound is erroneous. It also ignores the manufacturer’s own warnings (as provided in the Material Safety Data Sheet) that alpha-cypermethrin is toxic to some species at levels as low as 4 ng/L."
These statements by Dr Scammell were in reference to the following statement made by the Tasmanian DPIWE in 2004: “The scientific literature provides good evidence that Pacific oysters are not particularly sensitive to the chemical alpha-cypermethrin…..” [Where the studies they cite are with cypermethrin, a less active pyrethrin.]
Source: Dr Marcus Scammell's response to the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment's 'review' of his report entitled
'Environmental Problems, Georges Bay' 2004.
http://www.tfic.com.au/scammell_final%20_response.htm
"The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment said (in 2004) “the health of the George River and its tributaries over the past ten years found the river system to be in good health..” [BUT] Chemical contamination was not measured despite documented contamination of the these waterways in 1994 with simazine.
Source: A case study: 'Community Monitoring in St Helens, Environmental and human health problems, Georges Bay, Tasmania
The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment said, in 2004: 'Aerial spraying is strictly regulated'…."And yet Chlorothalonil, which is not registered for forestry use and which is highly toxic to a number of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, was found at the crash site."[Community monitoring case study for St Helens]. Apart from that, pesticides are generally allowed to drift outside of no-spray zones and the Tasmanian DPIWE and DHHS (as well as the Federal Agricultural and Veterinary Medicines Authory) have either refused to provide any evidence of or refused to carry out any spray drift modelling for the hilly terrain and spray heights used in Tasmania. As I write (25th July 2005) there are no provisions to protect forestry workers who are working on forestry coupes whilst aerial spraying is occuring on the same land.
The contribution of the Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources [to the Scammell Report of 2004:]… “there is no basis for the claim that there is a correlation between gazettals, plantation area and chemical usage, as assumed in the Scammell report.” Scammell et al. had used this solely as an indicator of the recent increase in plantation forestry. The DIER provide data in full agreement with the intent – there was a huge increase of approximately 13000 ha in the 10 years from 1994 – more than a six-fold increase." [That is, the area of monoculture tree plantations - tree crops managed with broad scale applications herbicides, pesticides and fertiliser in the St Helens district -increased dramatically.]
Source: A case study: 'Community Monitoring in St Helens, Environmental and human health problems, Georges Bay, Tasmania