WestNileVirus-L: "Inert" pesticide ingredients "c

From: Ashley Hotz <ahotz_at_mindspring.com>
Date: March 20 2003

<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0" charset=""><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4630.0">
<TITLE>"Inert" pesticide ingredients "contain some of the most dangerous substances known" -NYAG</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

Crista Chadwick provided a link to the National Pesticide Information Center's report describing a little about pesticide "inert" ingredients that most often comprise the largest portion of pesticide products.  Unfortunately, some of the NPIC information is as misleading industry's use of the word "inert" -- a term used to describe chemicals that are often  highly toxic.  NPIC also failed to provide an honest and complete list some of the most highly toxic "inert" ingredients used in pesticides.  A more honest assessment on this topic, along with a more comprehensive list of so called "inert" ingredients, was provided by the N.Y. Attorney General's Office in its report entitled:  "The Secret Hazards of Pesticides:  Inert Ingredients" which is easy to read and can be found at the NYAG web site here:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/environment/inerts96.html

The second paragraph of the report states:

"Unfortunately, many people will conclude from the term 'inert' that such ingredients could not possibly have any       adverse health or environmental effects. This is not the case at all. The chemicals used as inerts include some of the most     dangerous substances known. Some of these chemicals are suspected carcinogens and have been linked to other long-       term health problems like central nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects. They can also    cause short-term health effects like eye and skin irritation, nausea, dizziness and respiratory difficulty."

What makes the NPIC information misleading is not just the content, but in part is because of what it chooses to put first in the report, and then what it chooses to put last.  The first part of the report is fairly innocuous and fails to alert the reader that there is much to be concerned about.  The first page has one glaring misrepresentation that states:

"Unless an inert ingredient is determined to be highly toxic, it is not required by law to be identified by name or             percentage on the label, but the total percentage of such ingredients must be declared."

This is blatantly untrue.  Even chemicals of high toxicity are NOT required to "identified by name" and can still be listed generically as either "inert" or "other" ingredients.  It should not be so -- but use of the word "inert" is still allowed even if an ingredient is highly toxic.

If NPIC had made the following statement its first statement instead of the LAST statement in its report, it would have provided a more accurate context for understanding that use of the word "inert" remains a serious problem that continues to mislead the public and gives a false picture of safety:

"The EPA is encouraging pesticide manufacturers to use the term "other" instead of "inert" ingredients.  They (sic)     believe that this term is as confusing to the consumer and does not imply that these chemicals risk free."

The last part of the report states

NPIC mentions the now defunct Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup that failed to reach a consensus on the use of the word "inert".   EPA issued a notice to industry suggesting the use of words such as "other" ingredients, but did not make this mandatory.

All in/out messages including attachments and HTML, are screened for viruses using the latest anti-virus softwareÊand firewall anti-virus protections.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information forÊresearch and educational purposes.)

</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>
Received on Thu Mar 20 17:15:58 2003