Farmers question spray bill science

By RAELYNN RICARTE
News staff writer
April 14, 2007

Two Eugene legislators are seeking to protect children from cancer and respiratory illnesses by banning the use of pesticides near schools.

But Hood River Valley farmers contend the rationale behind Senate Bill 20 is not supported by sound science. And the preamble to the bill, intended to provide the rationale, is “littered with errors or based upon false interpretation and manipulated statistics.”

“If SB 20 is passed the entire valley would be impacted and, ultimately, forced to stop growing the fruit that has made it famous throughout the world,” stated Linda Gray, a Parkdale orchardist, in her written testimony.

She and other local growers attended the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing in Salem on Tuesday. They were joined in an attempt to stop SB 20 from moving forward by Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches.

“First of all, I can’t image this bill making it out of committee,” he said. “But it really shows why you’ve got to look at the whole picture before a law is introduced.”

The Hood River Grower-Shipper Association figures that, if SB 20 is signed into law, tree fruit production would be shut down on about 6,000 acres in the valley. The remaining 9,000 acres of farm land would have chemical use even more stringently regulated.

Rep. Patti Smith, R-Corbett, said she will meet SB 20 head-on if it makes it as far as the House floor.

“This bill would devastate our state’s agricultural communities and it is just unacceptable. I will be very vocal and very vociferous about why it should not become law,” she said.

The Oregon Toxics Alliance, which provided data to Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, a chief sponsor of the bill, said economics are important and should be considered. But preventing a child from contracting a disease or respiratory illness is even more important.

Lisa Arkin, executive director of Lane County-based OTA, said it is unclear how even low-level exposure to pesticides in childhood can cause adult cancers, such as Hodgkins Lymphoma, decades later.

She said the state has put buffers along waterways to protect endangered species for years. So, it only makes sense to have a protective buffer around places where children congregate.

“If an endangered species or a wetland is deserving of protection, so is a child,” she said, advocating for some type of a compromise if SB 20 is rejected as written.

Senate Bill 20, which was also sponsored by Rep. Paul Hovey, D-Eugene, bans any type of pesticide application within a one-half mile radius of a school during the academic year. That restriction extends to a road that services the property — although the distance is not clearly defined — when children might be present.

Aerial spraying or the use of power-driven equipment for application would be prohibited within one mile of a school during the academic year. Only hand-operated or backpack sprayers would be allowed at that distance, or near a road that services the property.

A property owner could have to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops to apply sprays within five miles of school facilities. The Department of Agriculture would have to notify administrators and neighbors upon request. So pesticide use could be delayed for up to 21 days — or disallowed altogether.

Terry Witt, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, said the science presented by OTA to Walker and Hovey is “flawed.” For example, he said SB 20 states “the overall incidence of childhood cancer increased 10 percent between 1974 and 1991, making cancer the leading cause of childhood death from disease.”

However, he said the Journal of the National Cancer Institute maintains that, from 1975-1995, there was no substantial change in the incidence of pediatric cancers. And rates have remained relatively stable since the mid-1980s.

The bill also references as “alarming” state statistics showing childhood cancer rates rising one percent a year from 1999-2003.

Dr. Richard Leman, an epidemiologist for Oregon Public Health Division, said there are likely many factors that could contribute to that rate, which remains low. He said further study would be needed to determine how dietary habits and behaviors, such as exposure to second-hand smoke, affect disease rates.

“There would have to be a lot more research done to understand all of the contributors,” he said.

Dr. Kent Anger, a research psychologist with Oregon Health and Sciences University, said a series of studies have found that even in urban areas there is a small amount of pesticide residue on household surfaces. But rates throughout the state are low and can be further reduced by vacuuming and other sanitary measures.

He said researchers collected urine samples from both adults and children in urban area and on farms. They did find the presence of pesticides in the body — but not enough to cause major health problems.

“No matter where you live in the state you have some pesticide exposure. But we did not find any alarming level of residue in agricultural communities,” said Anger, who compiled a series of reports into a newly released booklet titled “Reducing Pesticide Exposure in Minority Families.”

Witt said it is “unbelievable” that state officials would even bring a bill to the table without a more in-depth look at the issue — especially when it will wreak havoc on the agricultural industry. He said lesser known is the fact that the bill also affects city residents since it limits the ability of commercial applicators to deal with flea infestations, carpenter ants and other insect problems. And the bill is likely to create a bureaucratic snarl.

For example, he said there are 70 schools within the city limits of Salem . And pesticide companies deal with about 60,000 requests every year for services within a five-mile radius. Therefore, he said the state would be sending out thousands of notifications every work day in just that one area.

Witt said it is ironic that OTA and other anti-pesticide groups could actually be creating more spray drift. He said most farmers now apply pesticides only when a large number of insects have gathered, or if they begun to damage the fruit and/or vegetables.

However, if the state delays spraying for three weeks, he said it is likely the grower will apply chemicals even when it is windy. And it still might be too late to prevent an economic loss.

“When you really start looking at this bill, it makes absolutely no sense,” he said. “It’s basically a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml