First Drift Catcher Data Released

Luis Medellin and his family awoke one night at their home in Lindsay, California, with headaches and nausea and soon began to vomit. Pesticide applicators were spraying the orange grove next to their trailer park, and their air conditioning system pumped the fumes directly into their bedrooms. “It shoots it into the house and it’s just like you were in the orchard, just walking around smelling the pesticides,” Luis told reporters.

Luis and his family’s symptoms that night are typical of acute chlorpyrifos poisoning. Other symptoms include diarrhea, excessive sweating, salivation, tearing, disorientation, and in severe cases unconsciousness or even death.

The town of Lindsay, in the fertile San Joaquin Valley in central California, has grown up around citrus farming; and orange groves intermingle with homes, schools, and businesses. Citrus production in the Valley relies heavily on organophosphate insecticides, especially chlorpyrifos, produced and marketed by Dow Agrosciences under the name Lorsban.

The U.S. EPA recently cancelled the registration of chlorpyrifos for indoor use and in parks, saying that it is too toxic for use in areas where children are likely to be exposed. That decision was spurred by a national “Ban Dursban” campaign (Dow’s brand name for residential use chlorpyrifos). The EPA also restricted chlorpyrifos residue permissible in food and water. The Agency did not, however, set an air standard and did not evaluate residential inhalation exposure from agricultural applications as a potential source of exposure in its risk assessment completed in 2002.

EPA’s current regulation of chlorpyrifos does not protect public health adequately. Residential uses of chlorpyrifos were phased out to protect children, yet the data show that children in towns like Lindsay are still being exposed via drift. “If chlorpyrifos is too dangerous to be used in homes, then it is too dangerous to be used where it is likely to drift into areas where people—particularly children—spend time,” says PAN Senior Scientist Dr. Susan Kegley.

Lindsay residents have long complained of drift from the nearby groves. On July 17, 2006, they called a press conference to present proof that the levels of chlorpyrifos in the air around their homes each summer frequently reaches levels far above those the EPA deems “acceptable.” Luis and others backed up their claims with data collected using the Drift Catcher, an air monitoring device developed by Kegley.

Drift Catchers were set up in the yards of local volunteers, and starting June 2004, samples were collected daily during the height of the summer chlorpyrifos spray season and analyzed in PAN’s lab in Berkeley, California. Over 200 samples were collected and analyzed in 2004 and 2005 from five residential sites in Lindsay. Though samples in 2006 are still being analyzed, early tests show consistent results.
Nearly all the samples from the first two summers had detectable levels of chlorpyrifos, and 17% of the samples had levels higher than EPA’s “acceptable” levels for infants. The highest concentration observed would result in an exposure almost eight times the EPA’s “acceptable” infant dose for a 24-hour period. The answer was clear—harmful levels of chlorpyrifos drift over homes in Lindsay—as can be seen in the Lindsay Drift Catcher report on PAN’s website.

The Lindsay study is part of a collaboration between community group El Quinto Sol, Commonweal, PAN and Californians for Pesticide Reform, a statewide coalition that coordinates the Safe Air For Everyone campaign to reduce pesticide exposure throughout the San Joaquin Valley and across the state.

The initial results from sampling in Lindsay cast doubt on whether chlorpyrifos can be used safely in agriculture, and demonstrate an urgent need for “no spray” protection zones around homes, schools, and other areas frequented by children. El Quinto Sol is calling on the Tulare County Agriculture Commissioner and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to impose at least half-mile wide protection zones around sensitive areas in the country.

Predictably, DPR questions whether the high levels documented by the study are in fact dangerous, and a spokesperson claimed, “There is no regulatory standard.” So technically, air pollution measured by the study is not illegal—yet. As PAN Staff Scientist Karl Tupper observes, “Just because the EPA hasn’t moved to set an enforceable standard, doesn’t mean that breathing this chemical on a daily basis is safe. Cigarettes didn’t become deadly only when the Surgeon General finally mandated warning labels on packages.”

PAN maintains that DPR has also omitted a key uncertainty factor in their own determination of “acceptable” chlorpyrifos air concentrations, allowing exposures ten times higher than the EPA target, and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has publicly criticized DPR’s position. PAN is calling on DPR to bring its ”acceptable” dose in line with EPA’s more health protective target; and for the EPA to evaluate inhalation exposure from chlorpyrifos, change use patterns accordingly to protect public health, and consider banning the chemical altogether.

The Lindsay study is demonstrating the effectiveness of the Drift Catcher as a scientific tool that empowers communities to document pesticide drift. Groups in other California communities and in Minnesota, Maine and Washington are using Drift Catchers to monitor their air and to develop campaigns for stronger air protection standards.