EPA, stay focused! Email spats don't change the science on atrazine - it's bad!

 You may have heard recent media reports about an angry scientist sending inappropriate emails to one of the world’s biggest chemical manufacturers (for example, in Nature news, and Sciencemag). Frankly, I did not want to weigh in on UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes’ interactions with the international mega-corporation, Syngenta, the maker of the pesticide atrazine. I was surprised to learn of these unprofessional exchanges and do not know the full story of what motivated them or how they came to light. They are improper and not in keeping with my limited experience with Dr. Hayes.

But, the focus on rap lyrics and unprofessional communication in an otherwise staid academic setting makes for an interesting, albeit sordid, story which seems to be gaining steam. Unfortunately, it also plays into the hands of the chemical maker and their apologists.

This entire issue is a red herring from Syngenta, to shift the discussion away from the growing tide of independent science that points to their herbicide’s threat to public health, wildlife and aquatic ecosystems (see NRDC report Poisoning the Well for a summary and detailed review).

 In fact, the National Institute of Health announced a new study just today which reported dose-dependent delayed puberty and inflammation of the prostate in lab rats exposed in utero to atrazine for only five days pre-birth at astoundingly low levels, close to the regulated allowable levels in drinking water. These findings are consistent with a 1999 study by EPA scientists that reported similar effects but at higher doses when young rats were exposed to atrazine through suckling milk from an atrazine-treated mother rat.

Although Dr. Hayes’ work on atrazine has captured the most media attention, he is just one of many publicly-funded researchers whose peer-reviewed research has linked atrazine to deficits in immune, reproductive, and hormone system function. Yet, this email debacle is being used to discredit the broader swath of research, so I feel compelled to share some thoughts.

For example, I got a call from a reporter asking if the kerfuffle over these emails would impact our atrazine report, Poisoning the Well.  The report uses data from the federal government and, ironically, Syngenta, to shine a bright light on widespread atrazine contamination throughout our nation’s waterways. The EPA and USGS have found this chemical in almost every waterway where they have looked for it, and USGS even identified an association between contaminated streams and impaired fish reproduction. Our report also features a rundown of the most current science on the health impact of the pesticide, which references the work of Hayes’ lab that has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, along with the published research of dozens of other scientists that all provide evidence of atrazine’s harms.  The Hayes emails have no impact on our report or the rest of the science cited in it.

It is likely not a coincidence that these emails – some of which are more than 7 years old – are seeing the light of day shortly before a scientific review by an EPA advisory panel that will inform a regulatory decision on whether atrazine will continue to be used in the United States.

The focus of the atrazine debate should be on data, not emails. There is growing number of scientists concerned about this chemical, and a truckload of data supporting their concerns; the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of phasing out atrazine.

“We hope that this information will be useful to the EPA, as it completes its risk assessment of atrazine,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program, in the news report today on atrazine's low-dose effects. We here at NRDC certainly think it will be useful!

Stay focused, EPA! Keep your eyes on the prize - protecting human health and wildlife from the unnecessary use of hazardous pesticides and toxic chemicals.

Comments