ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND LAW

International Pesticide Sales	The Circle of Poison
Toxic Substances Control Act & Exports	FIFRA & Exports
The Rotterdam Convention of 1998	Annex III

International Pesticide Sales

Introduction	Trends in Global Pesticide Sales
World & U.S. Pesticide Use
U.S. Agriculture & Pesticide Use	World Trade in Agricultural Products

Introduction:

According to the 2006 "International Conference on Pesticide Use In Developing Countries," held in Arusha, Tanzania and sponsored by the African Network for Chemical Analysis of Pesticides (ANCAP):

"The use of pesticides is deemed necessary even under the most environment friendly approach to pest control (IPM). This is more so in developing countries where climatic conditions favour the survival of many species including those of pests. But, according to FAO, many pesticides that have been banned or whose use has been severely restricted in industrialized countries are still marketed and used in developing countries. These chemicals pose serious risks to health of millions of farmers and the environment. Concurrently, the amount of toxic waste stemming from obsolete pesticides in developing countries has now been acknowledged to be much higher than previously estimated with Africa alone having about 120,000 tones (up from the previous estimate of 50,000 tones) of the estimated 500,000 tones worldwide. In many developing countries the management of pesticides is often inadequate due to lack of resources. Consequently, many of these countries suffer from weak import controls, poor storage and stock management, and a lack of training in appropriate pesticide use. Thus even some products which can be safely used in developed countries may be impossible to use safely under developing country conditions."

In truth, global pesticide sales of pesticides (as measured between 1980 and 2004) have sharply increased (see below).

Trends in Global Pesticide Sales: 1980-2004

Increase sales are predictably matched by a increased rate of utilization of pesticides both within the U.S. (particularly within agricultural settings) and world wide (see below).

World & U.S. Pesticide Use: 2001

U.S. Agricultural Pesticide Use: 1979-1997

Predictably, the increased utilization of pesticides in the U.S. and globally has resulted in increases in the production of agricultural products worldwide (see below).

World Trade in Agricultural Products: 2000-2004

Given the emphasis (discussed earlier in this class session) regarding trade liberalization and global markets, and given that emerging nations gain an economic "comparative advantage" in regard to their agricultural products, the increased of pesticides (particularly "banned" substances) in emerging nations is of major concern. According to Dr. E.J. Echobichon of the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Queen's University, in Kingston, Ontario (Canada):

"Chemical pesticides have been a boon to equatorial, developing nations in their efforts to eradicate insect-borne, endemic diseases, to produce adequate food and to protect forests, plantations and fibre (wood, cotton, clothing, etc.). Controversy exists over the global dependence on such agents, given their excessive use/misuse, their volatility, long-distance transport and eventual environmental contamination in colder climates. Many developing countries are in transitional phases with migration of the agricultural workforce to urban centres in search of better-paying jobs, leaving fewer people responsible for raising traditional foods for themselves and for the new, industrialized workforce. Capable of growing two or three crops per year, these same countries are becoming "breadbaskets" for the world, exporting nontraditional agricultural produce to regions having colder climates and shorter growing seasons, thereby earning much needed international trade credits. To attain these goals, there has been increased reliance on chemical pesticides. Many older, non-patented, more toxic, environmentally persistent and inexpensive chemicals are used extensively in developing nations, creating serious acute health problems and local and global environmental contamination. There is growing public concern in these countries that no one is aware of the extent of pesticide residue contamination on local, fresh produce purchased daily or of potential, long-term, adverse health effects on consumers. Few developing nations have a clearly expressed "philosophy" concerning pesticides. There is a lack of rigorous legislation and regulations to control pesticides as well as training programs for personnel to inspect and monitor use and to initiate training programs for pesticide consumers."

Circle of Poison

Definition	1995-1996 Findings	US-Prohibited Pesticides
Never-Registered Products	Severely Restricted Products	Extremely Toxic Products
Pesticide Endocrine Disruption	Exporting Non-Registered Pesticides	PANNA & Greenpeace

Definition:

 According to Sandra Marquardt of the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), "The 'Circle of Poison' refers to the practice of producing banned and unregistered pesticides for export, frequently to countries with few controls, which then return as residues on imported products. The cycle begins with the millions of pounds of toxic chemicals generated during pesticide production. These chemicals are discharged into the air, water and soils in and around pesticide plants, exposing workers, local communities and the environment. The greatest risks in the cycle are to people who work directly with pesticides, especially in the Third World, where 25 million agricultural workers are poisoned by pesticides every year, according to estimates published by the World Health Organization. In the best-known aspect of the Circle of Poison, pesticide residues in foods threaten the health of people everywhere, even in countries where they are no longer used."  The term "Circle of Poison" comes from a book by that title (Circle of Poinson, Pesticides and People in a Hungry World, 1981) by David Weir and Mark Schaprio.

According to Marquardt, in a 1992 report entitled "Never-Registered Pesticides: Rejected Toxics Join the "Circle of Poison,"prepared for Greenpeace, "every year about 100-150 million pounds of pesticides that cannot be used in the United States are exported for use in other countries. These pesticides have been banned or not registered for use in this country because they are suspected of contributing to  adverse effects on human and animal health or are deemed destructive to the environment.

In a 1998 article in Pesticide News, Carl Smith, Project Director of FASE (Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Education) in Los Angeles presented disturbing figures on this problem in his article "Exporting Risk: U.S. Hazardous Trade, 1995-1996."

"Despite a quarter century on the verge of export reform, American policy makers have not acted to stop the export of pesticides forbidden in the US. Pesticides that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has judged too dangerous for domestic use, as well as pesticides never evaluated by EPA, are routinely shipped from US ports. Many are bound for destinations in the developing world, where it has long been established that prevailing conditions—a lack of protective equipment, unsafe application and storage practices, inadequate training of pesticide applicators—increase their hazards.  

The US government does not maintain complete records of pesticide shipments. Two separate General Accounting Office (GAO) reviews have found that the EPA does not monitor pesticide exports adequately. Moreover, EPA recently revealed that it does not even have permission from the Department of Commerce to access the information in shipper’s export declarations.    

In 1991, the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education (FASE) began a project to document the extent of the trade in banned and hazardous pesticides, through the analysis of US Customs shipping records.

1995-1996 findings
According to Customs documents, a total of 630,040,438 pounds (lbs)* of pesticide products were exported in 1995. The 1996 total was 687,601,508 lbs, an average rate of 936 tons (t) per day. The 1996 figure represents a more than 40% increase over the 1992 figure of 490,113,733.    

Between 1992 and 1996, more than 2 billion lbs of pesticides left US ports with their specific chemical names omitted from publicly accessible shipping records — a rate well over 500t per day. In many cases the description is simply ‘pesticide’, or ‘weed killing compound’; in others, trade names or abbreviations are used which cannot be found in publicly-accessible pesticide dictionaries, reference books or on-line databases.

US-prohibited pesticides
In 1995 and 1996, at least 21,026,794 lbs of pesticides which are forbidden to be used in the United States were exported from US ports. This total, which includes banned as well as never-registered products, represents an average rate of more than 14t shipped per day. It is almost 2% of all pesticides shipped during this period.    

Banned products include silvex (18t), chlordane (1,302t), ethylene dibromide (EDB) (30t), mevinphos (21.6 t), monocrotophos (504t), sodium penta (306t) and copper arsenate (1,895t)  (see table 1).

Table 1. Reported pesticide exports from US Ports, 1992-1995(5) (lbs)
Category	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
Banned	5,926,583	4,901,465	8,535,417	6,496,218	5,139,284
Discontinued/severe restriction	6,152,495	8,321,638	4,597,626	5,869,905	5,823,220
Never registered	4,541,905	2,474,569	2,974,326	4,854,273	4,537,019
Restricted use	57,762,642	70,683,137	72,184,305	73,886,934	79,100,341
Total	74,383,625	86,380,809	88,291,674	91,107,330	94,599,864

Never-registered products
Pesticides produced for export only are not subject to registration, and so are not evaluated by EPA for health or environmental risk. Moreover, FAO has confirmed a general lack of testing of pesticide products in the developing world. Nearly 9.4 million lbs of ‘never-registered’ pesticides were exported in the years 1995 and 1996—an average rate of more than 6t per day. This rate is a  40% increase over the 4.6t per day noted in the three-year period from 1992 through 1994.    

The 9.4 million lbs figure is almost certainly a gross underestimate. As discussed in previous FASE reports, Congressional testimony by the National Agricultural Chemicals Association indicates that the real total is likely to be at least 10 times greater.

Severely restricted products
Severely restricted pesticides are products “for which virtually all registered uses have been prohibited by final government regulatory action, but for which certain specific registered use or uses remain authorised.” From 1995 to 1996, 11.7 million lbs of such pesticides left US ports, an average rate of 8t per day.

Extremely toxic products
Under the World Health Organization a classification system ‘extremely hazardous’ pesticides are designated ‘Class Ia.’ These pesticides pose great risk to agricultural workers.   

Class Ia pesticides exported 1995-1996 totaled more than 48 million lbs—an average rate of 1.4t per hour. The rate of export of these products climbed steadily between 1992 and 1996. The 1996 total of 28,579,982 lbs is a more than 500% increase over the 1992 total of 5,366,172 lbs (see table 2).

Table 2. Exports of some ‘extremely hazardous’  WHO pesticides (lbs)
Pesticide	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
alachlor	1,771,544	4,540,894	12,795,161	14,889,178	22,002,301
aldicarb	3,615	3,615	479,922	1,318,547	2,583,314
disulfoton	249,149	632,070	612,221	1,283,827	710,5566
fonofos	432,013	39,540	198,606	277,580	328,562
phorate	40,320	454,761	228,276	102,257	500,488
terbufos	383,081	800,080	400,999	404,008	715,025

Endocrine disruption
Exports of pesticides linked with endocrine disruption have been rising over the last five years, even accounting for the addition of new chemicals to this list. The 1996 total was 72,667,924 lbs, an average rate of 100t per day, and a 28% increase over the rate of 78t per day during the previous four years. The primary destinations were Belgium, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Philippines and Japan (see table 3).

Table 3. Exports of some suspected endocrine-disrupting pesticides(12)
Pesticide	1995	1996
alachlor	14,889,178	22,002,301
chlorpyrifos	8,618,963	9,195,301
maneb	6,119,226	6,997,115
methomyl	3,085,683	3,757,502
carbaryl	2,281,267	3,115,530
mancozeb	552,117	2,475,055
benomyl	3,150,151	2,271,226
chlordane	1,923,826	680,744
malathion	637,704	271,507
heptachlor	115,178	230,355

By comparison, the U.S. EPA has a very strict process for registering pesticides. According to EPA:

"The process of registering a pesticide is a scientific, legal, and administrative procedure through which EPA examines the ingredients of the pesticide; the particular site or crop on which it is to be used; the amount, frequency, and timing of its use; and storage and disposal practices. In evaluating a pesticide registration application, EPA assesses a wide variety of potential human health and environmental effects associated with use of the product. The producer of the pesticide must provide data from tests done according to EPA guidelines.

These tests evaluate whether a pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects on humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms, as well as possible contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff, and spray drift. Potential human risks range from short-term toxicity to long-term effects such as cancer and reproductive system disorders. EPA also must approve the language that appears on each pesticide label. A pesticide product can only be used legally according to the directions on the labeling accompanying it at the time of sale. Following label instructions carefully and precisely is necessary to ensure safe use."

Meanwhile, world chemical production, of which pesticides are a significant share are expected to continue growing.

 In 1996, an overview of the problems associated with pesticide use, including unregistered pesticides, was provided to Congress by Linda-Jo Schierow of the Congressional Research Service. Her report specifically addressed the FIFRA requirement that pesticides be registered, and if necessary, re-registered. She notes the slow pace with which the EPA registers pesticides and notes that older pesticides may have not received the degree of scientific scrutiny that more recent pesticides may have been subjected to. She also notes that:

"Cancellation of registration for a pesticide use, when it is found to cause "unreasonable adverse effects," can be a prolonged process -- lasting 4 to 8 years or more. The lengthy time is due to the hearing and appeal schedule, combined with the rigor of evidence needed in an adversarial adjudicatory process. Such an extended time is unacceptable to EPA, the pesticide industry, environmentalists, farmers, and consumer organizations. A frequently heard argument is that the lengthy cancellation process contributes to the low level of public confidence in federal food safety systems. After cancellation, a pesticide may no longer be sold or distributed for that use in the United States."

Exporting Non-Registered Pesticides:

While a pesticide that is not registered in the U.S. cannot be used within the country, it can be exported to other nations, and with that export comes considerable risk. Again, according to Sandra Marquardt, in her 1992 report  "Never-Registered Pesticides: Rejected Toxics Join the "Circle of Poison," the risks of unregistered pesticides primarily fall upon:

1. Children & Infants:

"Children, who are particularly susceptible to the ill health effects of pesticides, are exposed to particularly dangerous chemicals through this circle. Children are at greater risk for exposure to pesticides, not only because they eat a lot more fruits and vegetables than adults per pound of body weight, but also because of their biological sensitivity -- all of their major organ systems are still developing. A child's developing body is often highly susceptible to damage by the chemicals in pesticides.

Infants are exposed to pesticides in breast milk and in the water that is mixed with infant formula at a time in their lives when this is all that they consume and their bodies are changing rapidly. The National Academy of Sciences found that children are at risk from even the pesticides that the government considers "safe" and are legal in this country. Exposure to "dangerous" (unregistered) pesticides puts infants and children at an even higher risk."

2. Manufacturing, Transport, and Field Applicator Workers:

"Manufacturing and transport workers and field applicators are at serious risk from exposures to these pesticides that are unregistered for use in the U.S. Whether making the initial product, transporting it over thousands of miles from the manufacturing plant, or mixing the pesticides into usable formulations (often by hand), workers can be exposed to high levels of the toxic pesticides. Because of a loophole in the law regulating pesticide exports which does not require "for export only" pesticides to be fully tested before they are made and exported, workers often don't know just how toxic the product they are handling may be. Once overseas, the pesticides are applied by field workers, many of whom are illiterate and thus cannot read the use and warning statements on container labels. Others are not given proper training in the use and potential risks of particular pesticides. Particularly in tropical climates, protective clothing is rarely used because of the heat, not to mention the expense. As a result, approximately 25 million agricultural workers are poisoned by pesticides every year. These poisonings can result in such short-term effects as dizziness and nausea or longer-term problems such as sterility, cancer, birth defects, and even death. As residues on imported beef, cheese, beans, carrots, pineapples, and even pickles, the U.S.'s exported pesticides come right back to haunt U.S. consumers. Sometimes these tainted foods are caught by border inspectors. More often, foods get to supermarkets unchecked. The Food and Drug Administration is in charge of testing imported fruits and vegetables for illegal residues. However, they are only able to sample 1-2% of all shipments and then only test for less than 40% of pesticides on the market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for testing meat, eggs, and poultry. They have a policy of not testing for residues of unregistered pesticides on imported foods, even if these pesticides are U.S. made and exported. According to 1990 FDA figures, 4.3% of imported food had illegal residues versus 1.1% for domestic foods. Since so little food is tested for so few pesticides, this is clearly only the tip of the iceberg. * The environment is another casualty of the United States' pesticide export policy. The air, rivers, and oceans are the dumping grounds for both production waste and run-off. Wastes from "for export only" production of pesticides are discharged into the air and waterways, which serve as drinking water sources for millions of people as well as important areas for fishing. Unregistered pesticides have made their way into the food chain, poisoning wildlife and humans. Recently, Florida scientists have detected chemicals in the coral reefs off the Florida coast that are suspected to be from Africa and Latin America, borne to this country on ocean and air currents.:

 PANNA & Greenpeace:

PANNA and Greenpeace have led the international battle against the threat of these dangerous chemicals. According to PANNA the public can help end the 'Circle of Poison' by:

1. "Stop the export of unregistered pesticides that have not been subject to full health and safety reviews, and pesticides for uses that have been cancelled domestically.

2. Require that exceptions to the law (e.g. exports of unregistered pesticides for experimental use, or in public health crises) be contingent upon U.S. findings documenting need and conditions for the use.

3. Establish a clear enforcement mechanism, with a citizen suit provision.

4. Provide all countries which import U.S. pesticides with notice of pending shipments under prior informed consent (PIC) standards, including the regulatory status of the pesticide and information on toxicologically significant "inert" ingredients.

5. Require international research on the ability of country governments to control pesticide use, followed by a U.S. finding that countries which import pesticides from the U.S. have adequate training and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with basic safety standards."

In recent years, PANNA and Greenpeace,  two of the most vocal groups in voicing their concerns regarding the use of unregistered pesticides and chemicals have encountered resistance from the chemical industry. For instance, Agrochemicals Promotion Group (APG), an organization representing more than 200 agrochemical companies in India is suing Greenpeace for unnecessarily creating a sense of public fear over the impact of anti-fungal and anti-bacterial agents upon the health of children. According to India's Food and Beverage News, a survey conducted by Greenpeace in one of India's Raichur district's cotton belts concluded that:

"bacterial and anti-fungal agents used in cotton manufacturing may prove to be detrimental to the health of children. Similar findings were found in the survey conducted by the institute in Varangal and Bharuch districts of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat respectively. The United Phosphorus Company and Crop Care Federation have already proved the findings of Greenpeace baseless and have filed the suit against the company, claim the APG sources.

In response, APG conducted a survey of its own in the Raichur district and concluded that there were no child-health problems attributable to any chemical manufactured by APG members or used in the district. The did note that there were " health related problems in few financially poor families" but attributed these health problems to malnutrition. APG remains optimistic that other companies will join them in their legal battle against Greenpeace.  The APG suit follows on the heels of a 1997 suit by British Petroleum, a 2000 suit by the Czech utilities company CEZ, a 2002 suit against Greenpeace initiated by Esso, and another suit in 2003 from Exxon/Mobil (2003).

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) & Exports

According to the U.S. EPA, "TSCA Section 13 requires that any chemical substance, mixture, or article containing a chemical substance or mixture be refused entry into the customs territory of the United States if it fails to comply with any rule in effect under TSCA or is offered for entry in violation of section 5, 6, or 7 of TSCA. EPA's Policy Statement, 40 CFR 707.20, requires that importers "certify" their imported chemical substances or mixtures are either: (1) in compliance with TSCA Sections 5, 6 and 7 at the time of import; or (2) not subject to TSCA. The current TSCA Import Rule does not pertain to importation of articles. In addition, Section 13 provides that the Treasury Department (U.S. Customs), in conjunction with EPA, implement these requirements. For that reason, Customs can refuse entry of any shipment that does not have a TSCA certification. An importer of record provides the certification by signing one of the following statements to be typed, preprinted on the invoice, or otherwise included in the entry documentation:"

"EPA's TSCA Section 12(b) export notification requirements apply to chemical substances or mixtures for which data are required under TSCA Section 5(b), an order has been issued under TSCA Section 5, a proposed or final rule has been issued under TSCA Sections 5 or 6, or an action is pending or relief has been granted under TSCA Sections 5 or 7. With regard to Section 4 of TSCA, only those chemical substances or mixtures listed in final TSCA Section 4 test rules and TSCA Section 4 Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) are subject to the export notice requirements under TSCA Section 12(b). Notification of export is generally not required for articles, as provided by 40 CFR section 707.60(b)."

As of February 2006, EPA proposed changes to its export policy under TSCA:

"EPA is proposing amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 12(b) export notification regulations at subpart D of 40 CFR part 707. One amendment would change the current annual notification requirement to a one-time requirement for exporters of chemical substances or mixtures (hereinafter referred to as ``chemicals'') for which certain actions have been taken under TSCA. Relatedly, for the same TSCA actions, EPA is proposing to change the current requirement that the Agency notify foreign governments annually after the Agency's receipt of export notifications from exporters to a requirement that the Agency notify foreign governments once after it receives the first export notification from an exporter. EPA is also proposing de minimis concentration levels below which notification would not be required for the export of any chemical for which export notification under TSCA section 12(b) is otherwise required, proposing other minor amendments (to update the EPA addresses to which export notifications must be sent, to indicate that a single export notification may refer to more than one section of TSCA where the exported chemical is the subject of multiple TSCA actions, and to correct an error), and clarifying exporters' and EPA's obligations where an export notification-triggering action is taken with respect to a chemical previously or currently subject to export notification due to the existence of a previous triggering action."

The EPA deadline for comments on this proposed rule change was April 10, 2006, so the newly promulgated rule (revised via public comments) should be forthcoming soon.

Overview	Reducing Risks
Safer Use of Chemicals
Market Availability	Convention Concerns

Five Annexes	Introduction	Article 6
Severely Hazardous Pesticide	Communication from the Secretariat	Proposals for Severely Hazardous Pesticide