Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)

Congressional Research Service

The Library of Congress

Washington, D.C. 20540

ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB)

IP0280E

Ethylene dibromide (EDB) has been produced in the United States since

the mid-1920s.

Currently most EDB is used as an additive to leaded gasoline,

but approximately 10 percent is used as a pesticidal fumigant in citrus groves

and in grain and milling equipment.

It is this latter use which has recently

become the center of controversy. Laboratory animal tests have shown EDB is a

highly potent carcinogen and mutagen and can cause reproductive problems.

Concern has arisen over both pesticide workers' exposure to the chemical and

EDB contamination of food stocks and groundwater.

The Environmental Prctection

Agency has imposed an emergency ban on most agricultural uses of EDB.

This Info Pack contains background material on EDB and the controversy

surrounding it. Additional information may be found in a public library by

consulting such sources as the Public Affairs Information Service Bulletin,

the New York Times Index, and the General Science Index.

Members of Congress desiring additional information on this topic may

call CRS at 287-5700.

We hope this information is helpful.

Congressional Reference

Division

After 7 years, the Environmental Protection Agency finally

proposes a wmplete phaseout of the pesticide, but that upsets USDA

Florida's recent action in banning the

sale of more than 70 grain produfts contaminated with the pesticide ethylene

dibromide (EDB) has brought to the boil

an issue that has been simmering on the

back burners of federal regulatory agencies for 7 years. The Environmental Rotection Agency (EPA) first moved to

control uses of EDB in 1977, but protests

from manufacturers and users and lack

of attention during the k t 2% yean of

the Reagan Administration have so far

thwarted federal action.

Florida decided to take matters into its

own hands and pulled off grocer's

shelves a variety of nationally marketed

grain products under brand names such

as Betty Crocker, Aunt Jemima, and

Pillsbury. Other states have since found

EDB-tainted products in their territories,

which has sent EPA scrambling to determine what levels of the pesticide should

be permitted in food. Farmers and food

manufacturers, fearing that the agency

could declare a large portion of the nation's grain supply inedible, have called

on Secretary of Agriculture John Block

to press their case with EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus.

EDB is a popular pesticide because it

is effective and versatile. For the past 40

yean, farmers have applied EDB to control insect infestation in stored grain. For

20 years, many grain companies have

fumigated milling machinery with the

chemical. More recently, use of the pesticide has broadened. Fanners in the

Southeast and Southwest have injected

EDB into soil to kill nematodes before

planting crops. During the 1981 medfly

crisis, California fumigated fruit grown

in-state with EDB and subsequently required imported fruit-primarily

that

shipped from Florida and Texas--to undergo EDB fumigation. Florida and other states also fumigate citrus fruit

shipped to Japan.

State and federal oficials now realize

that EDB's extensive use has led to a

widespread problem. A significant portion of the country's processed grain

products may have some contamination,

according to EPA's expert on the pesticide, Richard Johnson. So far, he says,

30 percent of the packaged grain products tested by various sources show contamination. (Preliminary studies by Florida indicate that cooking may dissipate

about 80 percent of the pesticide, but

more experiments are being conducted.)

In the late 1970's. researchers discovered

that EDB doesn't dissipate in food as previously assumed.

Pesticide residues

can persist in fumigored citrus fruit for

several days and in

grain for months.

Last summer California, Florida, Hawaii, and Georgia discovered that

ground water in various areas was polluted with EDB from soil fumigation. Most

recently, California announced that Florida citrus shipped to the state had worrisome EDB concentrations in the pulp.

The danger to humans from low-level,

long-term exposure is not yet clear because no reliable epidemiological studies

are available. But according to EPA documents, animal studies demonstrate that

EDB is highly toxic. Experiments show

that the chemical causes cancer, gene

mutations, and reproductive damage in a

variety of animal species. Studies by

federal agencies in the 1970's indicated

that the pesticide is carcinogenic in rats

and mice at 20,000 parts per billion

(ppb). If EDB were a new chemical, it

would never pass muster with current

environmental law, according to several

federal environmental officials.

Given the animal data and the recent

reports of contamination in water and

food, EPA officials are now trying to

decide whether the agency should issue

stricter regulations by declaring an immediate end to all uses of the pesticide.

In September, it banned the sale and

distribution of EDB as a soil fumigant

and said it wants a phaseout of other

uses over the next year. The phaseout,

however, has been appealed by members

of the agricultural community, the chemical industry, and the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA). This could delay

full cancellation of all EDB use until

1986. EPA's task is also complicated by

the fact that the Reagan Administration's

Caribbean Basin initiative promotes the

importation of tropical fruit from Caribbean counbies. USDA import regulations cannot be met without use of the

pesticide. The U.S. Agency for International Development, at the urging of

USDA, is currently deciding whether it

too should appeal EPA's action.

EPA officials are also working feverishly to determine what concentration of

the pesticide should be allowed in food

because currently there is no federal

tolerance standard for EDB. Florida officials, without waiting for federal guidance, concluded that 1 ppb is unacceptable. The 76 products that were banned

contained an average range of I5 to 20

ppb of the pesticide, but one food sample

went as high as 755 ppb. The Grocery

SCIENCE, VOL. 223

2/3/84

d p i $ e r y c a n Association f o r t% Advancement of Science. R e m i n t e d by t h e l i b r a r y of Congress,

Congressional Research S e r v i c e v i t h permission of c o p v r i g h t claimant.

/

Manufacturers of America, a national

trade group, is fighting the ban tooth and

nail bJC!so far has been unsuccessful in

obtafning a federaf injunction. EPA is

expected to announce a standard within

the next month.

Regulatory action on EDB has been

impeded by two factors. When EPA suspects that a pesticide poses an unacceptable health hazard, federal law requires

it to develop regulatory proposals by

weighing the risks and benefits and then

seeking public comment. In the case of

EDB, industry objected at every step of

the way. And under former EPA administrator Anne Burford further progress

came to a virtual halt.

After EPA gave notice in 1977 that it

intended to regulate the pesticide on the

basis of the animal data, the process

from start to regulatory finish was to last

43 weeks. The procedure bogged down

immediately. Industry inundated the

agency with documents disputing the

findings. It also insisted that there were

no good alternatives to replace the pesticide. Three years later, EPA had completed only the first step of the review.

In December 1980,just before the Carter Administration exited, the agency

issued a comprehensive report that rejected almost all the criticisms raised by

the chemical companies and the agricultural community and went on to propose

greater restrictions on EDB's use. The

report, written by Johnson, proposed

- severe limits on EDB's use as a soil

fumigant. At that point, EPA did not call

for an outright ban because it lacked firm

evidence of ground water pollution. It

also recommended a gradual elimination

of EDB as a fumigant of stored grain,

milling machinery, and citrus fruit, arguing that the potential economic losses

would be negligible to fanners and othe n . It proposed a phaseout in 3 years to

allow the food industry sufficient time to

develop alternatives to the pesticide. In

the long run, EPA contended, the health

risks far outweighed the financial considerations. The agency came to this conclusion after it uncovered some startling

findings.

For decades, it was generally assumed

that the pesticide was volatile and left no

residue in food. In the late 1970's. however, a number of researchers discovered that the pesticide does not dissipate. One study showed that EDB persisted in wheat with levels reaching 500

ppb 3 months after fumigation. EPA's

own scientists confumed the problem of

contamination. From a USDA laboratory, EPA officials obtained batches of

wheat flour that had been distributed

across the country as part of federal food

3 FEBRUARY 1984

subsidies, including the School Lunch

Program. EPA scientists reported in

1980 that all the samples contained the

pesticide. (Later analyses in 1981 revealed that soltie of these wheat samples

contained up to 4200 ppb. The samples

were then made intebiscuits, which registered levels averaging about 37 ppb.)

Armed with the 1980 information and

results from several -other studies on

EDB residue in grain and citrus fruit, the

agency calculated that exposure to the

pesticide in an average diet could increase a person's risk of cancer by a

factor of 3 in 10,000. In the past. an

increased cancer risk of even 1 in

1,000,000 triggered regulatory action.

The agency's recommendations were

coldly received by the new Reagan a g

pointees. Block wrote EPA, prior to

Burford's anival, that the proposed cancellation was unacceptable because al-

ternatives could not be developed by the

3-year deadline even though EPA had

concluded the industry could substitute

other pest control methods for the pesticide. He said the proposal would also

place financial burdens on the food industry. He did not acknowledge EPA's

concern about the health risks of the

pesticide through dietary exposure, except to state that he wanted more data to

determine residues in food.

The pesticide issue was also stymied

at EPA by John Todhunter, then head of

the Otfice of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, who resigned in the wake of

Burford's controversial departure. A

hearing held in September by Representative Mike Synar (D-OkJa.), chairman of a subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee, revealed

that Todhunter had demanded numerous

revisions of the agency's EDB report.

Florida Flip-Flops on EDB

Florida seems to want to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to the

issue of ethylene dibromide. On one hand, the state's agriculture department acted aggressively and banned the sale of food products that contain

minute amounts of EDB. On the other, the department is also trying to

protect the state's profitabk citrus and vegetable crops and has repeatedly

objected to strider regulation of the pesticide by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). The discrepancy between Florida's actions on

the pesticide stems from the existence of two separate groups of officials

within the state's department of agriculture that apparently do not see eye to

eye on EDB.

Om branch, the department of citrus, has coasistently argued that the

economic and agricultural benefits of EDB far outweigh any health hazard.

It maintained this position even though studies in the late 1970's showed

EDB residues persist in fumigated h i t . California, however, reported in

December that recent shipments of Florida citrus were tainted with unusually high levels of EDB and expressed concern. Florida subsequently ceased

shipment of all EDB-fumigated fruit to California until the fed& government develops a tolerance level. This loss of market wuld w s t the Florida

citrus growers, already hard hit this winter by freezing weather, millions of

dollars.

The cibus department's attitude toward EDB conaasts markedly with its

bureaucratic sibling, the department of health and rehabilitative services.

EDB "has no business being there (in food]," states ThoAtkinson,

chief of the state's mvirorunental epidemiology branch. How does one

account for the d i i n n c e of opinion bctwcen the two departments? One

possible explanation is that the ban on EDB-coataminat4 g r a i ~products

doesn't intlict major losses on the state's own economy, whik cutting off

exports of EDB-fumigated h i t dots.

Fbrida has another hertdPche related to EDB. Farmen have used the

pesticide extensively as a soil hmigant. Studies completed since last

summa show that 500 wells in 12 counties have detectable levels of EDB.

One well had concentratioas in a range of 300 to 600 ppb, according to EPA

chemist Stuart Cohm. The severity uf the problem may stam from a

bureauaatic snafu by the USDA and EPA. A USDA handbook coatained

inatructions to apply the pesticide much more fi-cquently and at higher

coocentmtions than EPA ramnmends. Farmers apparently heeded the

agriculture departwnt.-M.S.

Synar also presented documents indicating that Todhunter and associates held

private meetings with members of Florida's citrus growers and vegetable industry. Todhunter at the hearing denied he

attended some of the meetings; another.

he insisted, had no influence on the

agency's decision-making. According to

recent interviews with EPA officials,

Todhunter also gutted the agency division in charge of handling these types of

special pesticide reviews. Although the

agency had some 9C-pesticides on a

roster for reexamination, Todhunter

slashed the staff from 128 to about 20.

Time trickled away until last summer

when California reported ground water

contamination. The discovery was "the

straw that broke the camel's back," said

Johnson, who is still head of the agency's EDB team. After a 3-year hiatus,

the agency set to work on a new set of

regulations. In 2 weeks, Johnson and

colleagues produced another lengthy report and pushed even harsher rules.

Based on additional information, EPA

calculated that the cancer risk was an

order of magnitude higher than its 1980

estimates.

Again, the citrus industry, farmers,

and chemical companies objected and

have formally appealed EPA's action on

the grounds that there are no good alternatives to the pesticide. USDA, which

recently held private meetings with industry, has also intervened. Settling the

differences could take another 2 years,

but the revelation of EDB-tainted food

and heightened public awareness may

speed up the process.

EPA has said that several methods

show promise as a substitute for EDB

fumigation, but they have all been poohpoohed by the agriculture department.

According to EPA, citrus fruit could be

treated by irradiation or another procedure that subjects fruit to cold temperatures; for stored grain, other chemicals

could be applied. Florida citrus growers

protest that without EDB, they will lose

the $25-million grapefruit market in Japan. The Japanese government, however, has accepted citrus fruit treated by

the cold storage method "for a long

time," says Hisao Azuma, an agriculture

official at the Japanese embassy in

Washington.

Despite EPA's desire to regulate the

pesticide since 1977, efforts at USDA to

help farmers and citrus growers develop

other methods have been meager, according to a recent study on EDB by the

General Accounting Office. In a briefing

submitted last spring to Representative

George Brown, Jr. {D-Calif.), chairman

of the Agriculture Committee's subcom466

mittee on research, the General Accounting Office said studies by USDA

have "been limited to short-term research projects. . . . This crisis-oriented

research resulted in the postponement of

broader-scoped, long-term research. " It

noted that since 1977, it has twice advised USDA to develop an agency-wide

plan for research and development, but

to no avail. An EPA official recently put

it this way, "Without an all-out cancellation industry wouldn't consider alternatives. Now we'm canceling a d they're

screaming there are no alternatives."

The General Accounting Office also

faulted EPA's regulatory process. It

cited several problems, concluding that

the agency has "emphasized starting,

but not completing the process, planned

poorly, [and] not resolved several important policy and procedural issues. . . ."

One interesting fact in EDB'S regulatory history is that the House Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction

over pesticide use, has yet to examine

the problems with the pesticide and

EPA's role. Despite the strong criticisms

by the General Accounting Office,

Brown did not pursue the matter with his

usual keen interest in pesticide problems. Some sources allege that other

committee members told Brown to lay

off EDB because of its wide importance

to their constituents, but Brown denies

this. Nevertheless, Synar and other legislaton are going after the topic. Senator

Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman

of the oversight subcommittee of the

Environment and Public Works Committee, will hold an EDB hearing on 27

January.

EPA is now pondering what to do

next. On the issue of citrus fumigation,

Edwin Johnsor), head of EPA's Office of

Pesticide Programs, says that thiagency

may choose a tolerance standard "at the

lowest level we can set and still fumigate

effectively." With grain products, Richard Johnson believes that Florida's cutoff point of 1 ppb is probably too harsh.

Although he had hoped that EDB's use

as a grain and citrus fumigant would

have ended last summer, Johnson says 1

ppb standard would be too disruptive to

the nation's economy and its food s u p

ply. "We are not dealing with a crisis [to

health]," he said. Noting that the agency

has already taken 7 years to achieve any

substantive regulation of EDB, "Another year is not going to make that much

ditference." Meanwhile, the special review process at EPA has not been overhauled, its staff has not beenreconstituted, and the list of pesticides slated for

reevaluation continues 10 grow.

---MAFLJORIE

.S w

.

Spouight on Pest Reflects on Pesticide

Use of ethylene dibromide in Medfly quarantine

has impact on regulatory process, other side effects

The Reagan Administration entered

the regulatory arena a year ago with the

emphatically stated purpose of ensuring

that the costs of regulation were fully

weighed against its benefits. One of the

decisions facing it involved a chemical

called ethylene dibromide (EDB), which

has been at the center of a regulatory

battle since the mid-1970's and gained

1592

special notice last year during the Medfly

crisis in California. EDB is the kind of

compound offering both high risks and

high benefits that can render such decisions hard to make.

EDB is one of the most effective and

widely used pesticidal fumigants for

fruits and vegetables. It is also highly

controversial because animal tests have

0036-8075/8Y03261592501 0010 Copyright O 1982 AAAS

@ American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Advancement of Science.

indicated that EDB is a carcinogen and

mutagen and causes reproductive problems. Both the federal Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) have proposed stricter regulation of EDB. The EPA, in fact. in

1980 proposed suspending the use of

EDB as a fumigant for grain immediately

and for citrus fruit in mid-1983.

A major difficulty in dealing with EDB

is that no ready alternative is available.

EPA's proposal to ban EDB in 1983 as a

fumigant for citrus fruit is based on the

assumption that irradiation of produce

with gamma rays will be scientifically

and commercially feasible by then. However, despite recent developments that

appear to markedly improve prospects

for wider use of gamma irradiation in the

United States, EPA's upbeat view on

timing has been widely questioned.

Although the regulatory tussle over

EDB began in the mid-1970's. it received

little public attention until last year,

when EDB was used as a citrus fumigant

in California to counter the Mediterranean fruit fly. That action, which was

taken to comply with federal Medfly quarantine restrictions, raised the economic

and poiitical stakes in the EDB case,

prompted an interstate wrangle over

shipments of fumigated fruit, and dealt a

serious setback to the lucrative export of

SCIENCE.VOL. 215. 26 MARQH 1932

Reprinted by t h e

L i b r a r j of Congress, C o n ~ r e s s i o n a lResearch S e r v i c e with n e r m i s s i o n of

c o ~ y r i g h tc l a i m a n t .

Calibrnia produce to Japan (see box

below). Use of EDB in California also

led to a sharp public dispute between an

EPA scientist and agency officials over

the degree of hazard posed by EDB.

Such differences can be difficult to resolve under existing law.

EDB is a synthetic organic chemical

(1,2-dibromoethane)used primarily in an

antiknock additive to gasoline. Other

uses. besides treatment of produce, include fumigation of stored grain, preplanting treatment of soil to protect

against nematodes, and treatment of

stored logs and flour mill machinery.

Only about 10 percent of the ED9 manufactured is used in pesticides.

As a pesticide, EDB is regulated under

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since 1972,

when strengthening amendments were

added, pesticides already on the market

must be deemed safe to win "reregistration." The lawyerly name for the registration process is Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR), which

provides oppsrttlniues for comment

froni both sides at each major stage.

The first challenge to EDB came from

the Environmental Defense Fund, which

in the mid-1970's petitioned to have

EDB's registration as a pesticide canceled mainly on the grounds of a Natioaa1 Cancer Institute (NCI) study showing

that the chemical was a cancer-causing

agent.

The 1977 study showed a statistically

significant increase in squamous cancer

cells in the forestomach of rats and mice

EDB Causes a Regulatory Ripple Effect

The controversy over ethylene dibromide (EDB) was

canied to California on the wings of the Mediterranean

fruit fly. A regulatory ripple effect began last summer when

the state Air Resources Board expressed concern about the

containment and recovery of gases that would be produced

in a massive EDB fumigation program required by a

Medfly quarantine. California's Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (Cal OSHA) responded in September by proposing a drastic tightening of standards for EDB

vapor in ambient air to 15 parts per billion (ppb) from the

prevailing federal OSHA standard of 20 parts per million.

Cal OSHA's proposal, which did not bear a specific

scientific rationale, was parried by the state Ofice of

Administrative Law, which acts as a watchdog agency on

regulatory matters, and a less rigorous standard of 130 ppb

was set. This accorded with a 1977 recommendation emanating from the National Institute for Occupational Health

and Safety.

Cal OSHA. meanwhile, had circularized employers and

workers about the dangers of EDB; one result was that

longshoremen refused to load fumigated fruit being exported to Japan. News of the EDB controversy also reached

Japan, where dockworkers refused to handle fumigated

fruit arriving in their country until Cal OSHA exposure

standards were adopted. They were. The Japanese government, however. was concerned to keep out the Medfly and

insisted on EDB fumigation of all fruit from California. not

simply from the quarantined area.

Citrus exports to Japan are important to California

agriculture since they total about $100 million a year;

exports of lemons account for about two thirds. The lemon

crop was heavily affected since the bulk of lemon exports

to Japan are shipped in late summer and autumn when the

new restrictions took effect. Losses are estimated at more

than $16 million last year.

The Cal OSHA standards also had consequences closer

to home. The new restrictions inspired a boycott in California of produce shipped in from Texas and Florida. both of

which have their own EDB fumigation programs. High

EDB residues were not the main bogey. The new Cal

OSHA rules specified that work areas in which EDB

vapors might be present must be placarded with warnings

of the dangers of exposure. California supermarket chains

apparently decided that such placards would alarm workers and customers and, conceivably. if the placards were

missing, open the way to lawsuits. To avoid the problem.

SCIENCE. VOL. 215. 26 MARCH 1982

the chains decided simply not to handle the produce from

out of state.

Events in California also had an impact on the federal

Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Last September the International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed a

petition asking for an emergency temporary standard reducing the permissible EDB exposure level to 15 ppb for an

8-hour day. This sparked a federal OSHA review of EDB.

OSHA often takes cues on determination of hazards

from EPA, but operates its own parallel regulatory process

since it is responsible for setting ambient air standards to

protect workers who come into contact with pesticides on

the job. On 18 December, OSHA announced that the

results of studies on experimental animals "indicated that

present permissible exposure levels for EDB of 20 parts per

million (ppm) as an 8 hour average . . . exposure does not

provide exposed workers adequate protection against cancer and other health effects." OSHA asked for comments

to be submitted by the end of February and then on 26

February extended the deadline to 31 March. As for the

original Teamsters petition for a temporary standard, however, OSHA denied the request on grounds that very little

information was available about the nature and extent of

employee exposure to EDB on a nationwide basis.

The EDB controversy had received national attention,

however, and a high-level interagency task force was

formed last autumn under the aegis of the White House

Office of Science and Technology Policy to look at the

problem. The task force ended its labors without making

any direct recommendation on regulatory issues. but it did

inspire some specific studies to determine actual exposure

levels, including efforts to follow fumigated fruits crosscountry and measure the persistence of EDB residues in

trucks. warehouses, stores, docks, and ships. The results

should help narrow the information gap and be taken into

account in the final EPA decision.

On the export fruit, negotiations with the Japanese early

this year apparently alleviated difficulties somewhat. The

Japanese agreed to allow cold treatment of citrus fruit on

the passage to Japan. Lemons from outside the regulated

arras in California will be allowed into Japan unfumigated

until 10 April. when the matter will be reviewed. That is

about the time a new generation of Medflies will be

emerging-if they have survived the spraying campaign

and the winter-to begin a new chapter for the Medfly and

EDB.-J.W.

that had been fed on the compound.

Later studies by Midwest Research Institute and NCI demonstrated that inhalation of EDB increased tumors in several sites in experimental animals. Evidence of the mutagenic potency of EDB

and of reproductive disorders in bulls

and rats induced by EDB were also

cited.

Cancellation of registration for a pesticide requires a determination that the

pesticide "no longer satisfies the statutory standard for registration. " According to FIFRA language, that occurs

when there is "an unreasonable risk to a

man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of

any pesticide." In other words, the law

clearly states that the benefits of continued use must be weighed against the

potential hazards.

Nonproliferation Post Vacant

The State Department official who had been expected to take the lead in

putting the Reagan Administration stamp on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation

policy has been relieved of that responsibility. James L. Malone will

continue to head the U.S. delegation to the Law of the Sea negotiations,

which are now in progress, but will be replaced in the sub-cabinet post of

assistant secretary for Oceans and International Environment and Scientific

Affairs (OES).

No successor to Malone has been named and his removal leaves in

question the direction of U.S. policy for nonproliferation and reopens the

chronic question of the status of science and technology in U.S. diplomacy.

Assignment of Malone full-time to Law of the Sea duties was attributed by

a State Department spokesman to the need for the negotiations to have the

"full and undivided attention of the senior U.S. official." Sources at State

say that the decision to move Malone was made after President Reagan's

announcement on 29 January that the Administration was determined to see

negotiation of an "acceptable treaty" from the U.S. point of view (Science,

19 March. p. 1480).

State Department spokesman Dean Fisher on 9 March rejected outright a

Washington Post report on the previous day that Malone had been removed

from the OES post because he had not succeeded in increasing exports of

U.S. nuclear technology.

Malone has been identified with proposals to consolidate in the State

Department authority over nuclear exports which is now shared with the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Malone was a member of the

Reagan transition team for the State Department and Arms Control and

Disarmament Agency and is said to be the author of the team report that put

emphasis on more vigorous promotion of nuclear trade. Since his confirmation to the OES post last May. Malone has been the most active Administration spokesman on nonproliferation policy.

As to who will exercise principal influence in nonproliferation affairs at

State in future. speculation centers on Under Secretary for Management

Richard T. Kennedy. A former NRC commissioner. Kennedy is known to

be interested in nonproliferation issues. He was ceded general oversight of

nonproliferation issues early in the Administration and has worn an

additional hat as ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency In

Vienna, which deals with nuclear safeguards. But his chief duty. managing

operations of the department, was thought to leave him little t i n e to devote

to making nonproliferation policy.

There is some irony in the timing of Malone's reassignment since it

occurred just as three appointees to staff positions with hey responsibilities

in nonproliferation matters had joined OES after iong delays.

OES is formally responsible for a wide range of issues involving science

and technology and foreign policy. But Malone's early departure and the

preoccupation of the office with Law of the Sea and nonproliferation issues

in the first year of the Administration has rekindled long-term concerns

about the capacity of OES to play an effective role fur ihe United Statss in

behalf of science and technology in international affai~s.

-JOHN WALSH

1594

0036-807518210326-1594SOI

.OX0 Copynght O 1982 AAAS

The FIFRA standard is obviwsly

much less clear-cut than that set by the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which.

through the so-called Delaney clause,

forbids the presence of any element that

is shown to cause cancer in animals

regardless of level of exposure.

In December 1977. EPA published a

notice that it was starting the RPAR

process for EDB and invited interested

persons to submit rebuttals or other information on hazards. Three years later.

in December 1980, the agency took the

next major step by announcing the availability of a "position document" setting

forth EPA's review of the evidence.

The EPA notice said "the Agency has

concluded that the presumptions for oncogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive disorders have not been rebutted."

Also announced was a "preliminary decision" to cancel use of EDB on stored

grain immediately and on citrus and tropical fruits effective 1 July 1983. Other

uses would be continued but on a restricted basis.

There is little disagreement that more

information on EDB residue levels is

needed or that workers could be better

protected. Nor, in fact, is anyone really

arguing that EDB is a benign chemical.

The 1980 EPA notice says flatly, "It

should be emphasized that the Agency

believes that, in the long run, measures

short of outright cancellation will not

reduce the risks sufficiently to alter the

conclusion that the use of EDB for quarantine fumigation of citrus, tropical

fruits, and vegetables poses unreasonable adverse effects on the environment."

What to do in the short run, however,

is the issue. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the FIFRA scientific advisory panel, whose comments are formally required in the RPAR process, last

spring recommended continued use of

EDB on citrus. In both cases, lack of an

acceptable alternative was cited as the

major reason.

The advisory panel's statement notes

the difficulty in evaluating the feasibility

of using irradiation as an alternative to

EDB and says no other alternative has

been "demonstrated to be efficient,

pract~cal,and feasible from a cost standpoint."

Robert hletcalf of the University of

Illinois, a member of the advisory panel

when it made iis recommendations on

EDB, said that the committee agreed

that the substance is a carcinogen and a

mutagen and that it produces adverse

rcprodwtive effects. He says that EDB

is chemically very like dibromochloropropane (DBCP) which was canceled by

SCIENCP. VOL 215. 26 MARCH 1982

voluntary action of industry except for

minor use o n pineapples in Hawaii. Metcalf said the committee assumed that the

similar uses of E D B would be canceled.

But, says Metcalf, "the alternatives are

as bad o r worse" and the committee

reluctantly recommended EDB's continued use during a phaseout. Metcalf says

the committee was "very concerned

about worker protection," meanwhile,

and urged requirements for "better protective clothing and for EDB application

by remote control technology."

Defenders of EDB have pointed to the

lack of convincing epidemiological data

demonstrating that EDB poses a hazard

to humans and they suggest that this

vitiates the animal studies. In response,

the panel's statement includes this comment:

The Panel notes that it will be very difficult

to conduct epidemiological studies that will

enable EPA to ignore the results of animal

studies. Such epidemiological studies which

have been conducted thus far do not provide

convincing evidence that animal tests do not

accurately predict potential human hazards in

the area of oncogenicity and reproductive

effects. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate

on the basis of animal studies alone.

The FIFRA scientific advisory panel

has not been active in the recent period

of mounting controversy over EDB.

Last spring the new Administration decided to dissolve the panel and replace

its members with appointees of their own

choosing. A list of nominees was published in the Federal Register t o invite

public comment, but a new panel has not

yet been named.

The 1980 EPA notice called for comments on the proposals t o restrict use of

the pesticide. Now, more than a year

later, the books are still open on EDB.

EPA moved against EDB during the

last days of the Carter Administration,

and it is not surprising that the new

Administration took no immediate action

o n the pesticide. Then last summer the

Administration's first public pronouncement on EDB appeared to downplay the

hazards associated with its use. This

pronouncement, in the form of a "note

to correspondents." focused on exposure hazards and was issued last August

in the midst of media attention to the

controversy in California over the safety

of EDB fumigation.

Attributed to John Todhunter. then

acting administrator for pesticides and

toxic substances and later confirmed t o

the post, the notice said that "if the

fumigated fruit is allowed to stand in

storage o r transit for a sufficient time (4

t o 8 days usually), the risk is minimal."

This comment and the rationale sup.

SCIENCE, VOL. 215. 26 MARCH 1982

porting it triggered objections from E P A

senior scientist Adrian M. Gross, who

was then working in the hazards evaluation division. Gross made public a tenpage memo to E P A Administrator Anne

M. Gorsuch in which he argued that the

cancer risk from short-term exposure to

EDB is very high. Basing his attack on

NCI studies, Gross criticized a s unsound

a risk model favored by Todhunter that

was based on an assumption that risk

levels decay exponentially a s exposure

time is reduced.

The impending decision on E D B is not

solely a scientific one; rather it is a riskbenefit determination that FIFRA requires but gives little guidance in mak-

ing. Steven Jellinek, the E P A assistant

administrator with responsibilities for

pesticide regulation in the Carter Administration. says EDB is unquestionably a

"hot chemical." There are "not a lot of

equivocal studies" that put pathologists

and toxicologists at odds. Still, E D B

presents real difficulties in terms of

"complexity and uncertainties of decision-making." The "toughest decision."

says Jellinek is "how heavily t o weight

the benefits from citrus fumigation,"

particularly in view of the importance of

exports to Japan.

The most difficult issue in pesticide

regulation, says Jellinek, is "how d o you

decide o n a risk-benefit evaluation of a

NAE Elects New Members

The National Academy of Engineering has elected 49 engineers and 6

foreign associates. This brings the total U.S. membership to 1109. with 97

foreign associates. Following is a list of the new members and foreign

associates:

Jan D. Achenbach. Technological Institute. Northwestern University: Mihran Agbabian, Agbabian Associates. Engineers and Consultants, El Segundo,

Calif.; Gilbert Y. Chin. Bell Laboratories. Murray Hill. N.J.; William C.

Metz. General Dynamics Corp., Convair

Division. San Diego: Floyd Dunn. University of Illinois. Urbana: Peter S. Eagleson. Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory.

Massachusetts lnst~tuteof Technology:

John E. Flipse, Texas A & M University; Fred W. Garry. General Electric Co..

Fairfield, Conn.: H. Joseph Gerber.

Gerber Scientific. Inc.. South Windsor.

Conn.: Bernard Gold. Lincoln Laboratory. MIT: Kent F. Hansen. MIT: Kenneth E. Haughton. San Jose Development, IBM Corp.. Calif.; Robert A.

Henle, IBM Corp.. Yorktown Heights.

N.Y.

R. Richard Heppe. Lockheed-Callfornia Co., Burbank: Donald R. Herriott.

Bell Laboratories: Irwin M. Jacobs.

LINKABIT Corp.. San Diego. Calif.:

Trevor 0. Jones. TRW. Inc.. Solon.

Ohio: Joseph Kestin. Center for Energy

Studies. Brown University: Milo S. Ketchum. Ketchum. Konkel. Barrett. Nickel. Austin, Consulting Engmeers: James

N. Krebs. General Electric Co.. Lynn.

Mass.; John E. Kunzler. Bell Laboratories: Emmett N. Leith. University of

Michigan: George Leitmann. College of

Engineering. University of California.

Berkeley: William E. Leonhard. The Parsons Corp.. Pasadena. Calif.: Hudson

Matlock, ERTEC. Consulting Engineers

and Geologists. Long Beach. Calif.:

Keith W. McHenry, Jr.. Amoco Oil Co..

Napewille. 111.: James R. Melcher. High

Voltage Research Laboratory. MIT:

Douglas C. Moorhouse. WoodwardClyde Consultants. San Francisco: William R. Opie, AMAX Base Metals Re-

,....,

search and Development. Inc.. Caneret.

N.J.: Malin K. Oshman. ROLM Corp..

Santa Clara. Calif.

Walter L. Robb. General Electric Co..

Milwaukee. Wis.: Stanley T. Rolfe. University of Kansas. Lawrence: James F.

Roth. Air Products and Chemicals. Inc..

Allentown, Pa.; Donald G. Russell. Shell

Oil Co., Houston: William R.

Schowalter, Princeton University: Judith A. Schwan. Eastman Kodak Co..

Rochester, N.Y.: John W. Scott. Chevron Research Co.. Richmond, Calif.;

Willard F. Searle, Jr.. Searle Consortium. Ltd.. Alexandria. Va.; John H.

Seinfeld. California lnstitute of Technology: John B. Slaughter. National Science

Foundation. Washington. D.C.: Victor

Szebehely. University of Texas. Austin:

Julian Szekely. MIT: Gareth Thomas.

National Center for Electron Microscopy. L a ~ r e n c e Berkeley Laboratories.

Calif.: Allyn C. Vine. Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institurlon. Mass.. An

Wang. Wang Laboratories. Inc.. Lowell.

Mass.: Paul Weidlinger. Weidlinger Associates. Consultmg Engineers. New

York City: Warren E. Winsche. Brookhaven Kat~onal Laboratory. Upton.

N.Y.

Theodore Y. Wu. California Institute

of Technology: Dante C. Youla. Polytechnic Institute of New York.

Foreign Associates are: Gunnar Fant.

Royal lnstitute of Technology. Stockholm: Fritz H. B. Ingerslev. Technical

University of Denmark. Lyngby: Benjamin Levich (Israel). City College. City

University of New York: Yi-Sheng T. E.

Mao, Railways Research Institute. Beijing, The People's Republic of China:

Zenji Nishiyama. Nippon Steel Corp.,

Yokohama, Kanagawa. Japan: Klaus 0s.

watitsch. Technical University, Vienna.

Austria.

210326-1595501.0010 Copyright 8 1982 AAAS

1595

pesticide?" Perhaps because of the formidable scientific, political. and econornic factors involved, the issue has

been stuck in a "backwater" as far aspolicy attention is concerned. Nevenhe-

less, a decision on EDB will have to be

made. EPA staff expect that the agency's

office of pesticide programs will send its

recommendations on EDB forward this

spring and that a final decision will be

reached by the Administrator this ,:lrrmer. h e environmental stance of 'the

new management of EPA will be tested

by how it handles what is ultimately a

judgment c ~ ~ ~ : - J o HWALSH

N

Gas Tank to Mill to Disfavor,

A Chemical's 60-Year Career

By Ward Sinclair

Washington P a t SIaflWrlkr

EDB's agricultural applications were discovEthylene dibromide (EDB), the newest controversial bad apple in America's food barrel, ered almost by accident in 1943 by Clyde W.

began its ride to notoriety in the 1920s when &Beth and A1 Taylor, plant pathologiets Bt a

acientista discovered that its unusual proper- U.S. Department of Agriculture experiment

ties made it an ideal additive for leaded gas- station in Tipton, Ga.

Their assignment was to test existing chemoline.

EDB was the perfect "scavenger." it could icals for use as nematocidee-compoumh tbat

disedve minute particles of lead aad send attack nematodes.

them out the exhaust, preventing their mAs McBeth, now in retirement in Modcsb,

mulation es gunk inside automobile engines.

Calif., remembers it, be and Taylor d v e d a

The chemical worked then, as it continues shipment of EDB from the Dow Chemical Co.,

to work in gasoline, but that was only the be- which generally is credited with having develginning. Its rise to controverey stems largely o p e d t h e p m d u c t a t i t s ~ M i c h , l E b e

from its identification as a cancer-causing inthe1920aTheytrieditontbeirplaDta

agent in animals that bas been wed widely in

"It took us one seamu to determine that it

agriculture and food processing.

worked as a nematocide;" McBetb anid. 'We

Tbe Environmental Prdection Agency, re- tested it in our field plots and got good harsponding to new concerns about EDB mtam- veet readtan

ination of ground-water muma and threats to

By 1951, EDB had been rqistad with tbe

human health, suspended its uee as a soil fu- Agriculture Department trs a peatic& and it

migant in September. Nearly 20 million wesputtoworkonfarmsallorvertbeunmtry.

pounds a year have been used on citrus, pine- 'It waa inexpensive, it was effective aad no

apples, cotton, peanuts, tobacco and more d u e s were detectable," said Dr. L Vemdn

than two dozen other fruits and vegetables to Whib, veteran nematdqist with Greet Lakes

protect against nernatodegmicTaecopic Chemical,the We& Lafayette, kut, firm that

roundworms that destroy plant roots

is one of three major producers of EDR 'It

EPA Administretar William D. Ruckels- was the best of all three workla"

haus dropped the other shoe yeeterday, euaBut, as White pointed out yesterday, thet

pending EDB's use and sale as a grain fumi- wan a different scientifi era. SpectaEular labgant by mills and atoreto kill weevile omtory sdvancea in residue detection have

and other insects, and proposed residue levels

general awarema of the cbemical

for grain and grain-fooda

impurities that may huk in the cereal box.

Although EDB wes exempted in 1956 from

"This haa becoare a sociopolitical iaaue,"

federal food-safety vigilance because scientists White d.

"As recently as five years ago, our

contended that it would degrade quickly and &kdcapabilitywasdowntolpartper

not persist in foods, later studies raised ques- million. All eeeumed that EDB was safe. But

tions. By 1974, the National Cancer Institute nowwemeaBureparteperhillion."

was warning the EPA that tests proved EDB

Meanwhile, as EDB waa gaining wider acto be a powerful cancer-causing agent in lab- ceptance, major chemical firm came up with

oratory animals.

another nematocide. "EDB wag not propriBy 1977, the EPA's carcinogen assessment etary and anyone could develop it," White reteam w reporting 'strong evidencenthat the called. The major finne cam up with a new

pesticide could cause cancer in man. Four product, dibromochloropropane, or DBCP.

years later, the agency had determined that it

One of the developers of DBCP (cbemical

-&is also a "potent mu@enn+ng

enough kin to EDB, DDT, chlordane, beptach 4

that it should be removed from the ffood chain. other powerful pesticides) waa &Beth, who

As evidence continued to accumulate, the left the USDA after he came up with EDB

moves and went to work for Shell Oil in California.

Carter administration began &W

to withdraw EDB from use. Less than two

DBCP hed aa ed-tage

over HIB: it

weeks before Pmident Carter left office in would a&k nem*

without killing the

1981, his aides proposed that the pesticide be plant, d thus could be applied on tbe soil

removed from use on

The proposal was surface mther than having to be injected un.

sheIved by the Reagan administration's review derground. It was simpler to uee, although it

of all pending regulations, then revived k t mt the fanner more.

summer under pressure from states and environmentalists concerned about ground-water

poisoning.

&I.

4

But then DBCP was discovered to be cawing sterility among male pesticide factory

workers and production stopped. Citing ita

cancer- and sterility-causing properties, the

EPA suspended use of DBCP in 1979.

Waiting in the wings, with DBCP banned

from rnilliona of m,was its cousin, EDB.

McBeth, a sort of foster'father of both pmducts, reacted to the Ruckelshaus announcement yesterday a bi ruefully.

"I kind of feel like they've gone averboardl.

?'hey ought to I d out what dosage level

causes damage in rats or whatever and relate

thattof~,"hesaid."Iknowofwevidence

that EDB is a human carcinogen

But

I'm glad I'm not around. When I was working,

we measured in parts per million."

....

Experts Are Split on Pesticide Risk

By PHILIP M. BOFFEY

SpscultDRrNerYcakTi

WASHINGTON,Feb. 3 - Leading

cancer scientists and health advocates

disagyeed sharply today over how

great a threat consumers may face

from the pesticide EDB.

Ai113ng those who regard EDB, or

sthwlene dibromide. as an untlfllally

potent carcinogen are Samuel S. E p

stein,professor of occupatioaaland environmental medicine at the University of Illinois medical center in Chicago, and Sidney Wolfe, head of Ralph

Nader's Health Research Group.

In interviews, they urged mummers

to avoid products apt to be amtamirated by it.

But the pesticide was deemed a Mtively minor threat, at the IweIs now

being det&ed in food, by three others

Interviewed. lhey are Bruce N. Ames,

chairman of biochemistry a t the University of California's Berkeley canlprrs; ~ i c h a r d ~ d a m s a n , b e a d o f ~

division of cancer etiology (causation)

a t the National Canar Institute, and

by Elizabeth Whalan. head of the

American Cormcil on Science and

Health, a nonprofit gmup that tries to

deflate what it meiderg ''chemicat

agreed that EDB has been shown to

causecammrinra*randmice.Theg

disagreed over how potent a cq&m

gen it is and over whether the aaunmts

nowbeingdetectedinfoodpldwater

are cause for alarm.

TestaaAIhMb

David P. Rall. dhctor of the Natiaaal TQxicdogy Rogram. which

mrdinatesalltoxiw

cal reseacb

hr ih merit

Health and

Human Services,said the pesticide had

But he s a i d that even the lowest

doses used in the tests were a t levels of

roughly 10 to 50 parts per million, making it difficult to relate them to the

parts per billion levels now generally

beingtormdinfoodandintheenvirmmeat. He also said there is good scieb

tific evidpnce that cooking destroys 80

percent or probably more than 90 percent of the EDB foundin foods.

"1 wouldn't panic about

things from the store a not eabng

what's m the shelf." he said.

S i Z i n g U g t h e ~

potency of pesticides and considered

EDB to fall "in the middle range" as a

He called it a thousand times

more hruardousthan saccharin, a carcimgknwhoseuseisacceptedbymuch

of tbe public, and a tbousad times less

toxic than aflatoxin, a carcinogen that

occurs naturally and is found in peanut

butterandotherfoods.

"My gut feeling is that the public is

getting too alarmed over E D B he

said. "It cauM be an important risk for

worters, but it really is a minor risk in

food."

Dr. Ames said food cantaminatedby

EDB is "no more dangerorrs than peanutbunerandpenmitbutterisp~

ably a pretty low Pist"

Tkbiochemiststressedthatheisan

udepandent scientist who has never

d t e d for irdrrstrg.

Dr. Joseph Rodrich, a Washington

toxicologist who performed a risk

analysis for the Grocery Manufacturera of M c a , caduded that eating

ahMnda4lalf charcoal broiled steaks

ha-.

-

He said he viewed EDB as "an extraordinarily potent c?mimgen" b e

cause it causedtumors m rats and mice

in exceptiooall~

periods, roughly

10toZ4weeks.Healsonutedtbatthe

public was being subjected to "wide

spread expa~lra." becawe EDB is

faundinfood,gmundwaterinsome

areas and the air.

Dr. Epstein said. leveb up to 700

parts per billion have been found in

grain and up to 5,000 parts per billion an

citrus fruit.

Extrapolating from a risk analysis

w

o

r

m

e

d by the Emriroameatal P m

teaion Ag€ncy,Dr. Epstein estimated

that EDB might cause 3,000 cancer

deaths per year ia the United States

under "a realisticworst case."

NEW YORK TIMES

ayearwasmorebzanhs,beca~5eof

3

beenshawntocausecammratthelon-

estlevelstestedineachofthe~

ment's three major studies'of the sub

tumars.

"It's a nasty gubstamx," be said.

"It's unusual for virtually 100 percent

of the animals to get turnon.''

Dr.-,

arhose unit a t the Natioaal Cancer Instin& has reviewed

keydataaaEDB, saidtbenwas"very

little damC tblbt it is a very toxic arm-

trade aSBOCiati6m.

Similariy, Dr. Whelan of the Amerian Council on .Science aod Health

said: "Under m clramPstanceswould I

thmwautmymuWnmix. We'reseeing

mass hysteria and panic wer EDB. It's

all part of thc g m e d chemical

phobia.'' However, Dr. Epstein, author of

books m cancer and toxic wastes, advised amumers to stay away from

cakeandparrelremixesinparticular

andtodemandthatfoodmanufachpem and stores label tbe EDB amtent of

tbeupraducts.

pomd,"whichcallsescamrand

genetic damage in animnlr.

1984 The New York Times. Reproduced by t h e L i b r a r y of Congress,

Congressional Research S e r v i c e w i t h permission of c o p y r i g h t c l a i m a n t .

EPA Bans

Use of EDB

On Grain

Voluntary Limits

On ~ o n t ~ in

n tFood

Are Given to States

By Cass Peterson

WBshlngton Post Stall WrltPf

The Environmental Protection

Agency yesterday banned the use of

ethylene dibromide (EDB) as a pesticide to kill weevils and other pests

in grain and issued voluntary guidelines for state officials to use in determining safe residue levels of the

cancer-causing chemical in food

products.

Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia immediately

adopted the guidelines, and Maryland warned consumers to avoid several batches of cake and muffin

mixes shown to have EDB levels

over the recommended limits.

EPA Administrator William D.

Ruckelshaus said he believed that

the guidelines, if followed, are stringent enough to be "fully protective of

public healthn during the three or

more years it will take tainted grain

products to move through the food

system.

"Our job is to protect the public

health and I think we're doing ifn

Ruckelshaus said.

But environmental and consumer

groups, backed by several members

of Congress and some state officials,

condemned the guidelines as too lax,

virtually unenforceable and likely to

lead to a "crazy quiltn of state efforts

that could leave millions of Americans exposed to dangerous levels of

the carcinogen.

Some of the strongest reactions,

however, came in response to Ruckelshaus' announcement that he was

not prepared to decide EDB's fate as

a fruit fumigant, the pesticide's remaining major use, nor was he ready

to set a residue standard for citrus or

tropical fruits.

That decision will be announced

"in a few weeks," he said, after more information is collected.

"If 40 parts per billion is unsafe in

your breakfast mfl~n, it is also unsafe in

your glass of orange juice," said Sen.

David F. Durenbegw (RMlnb), who

had urged Ruckelshaus to aUow no EDB

residues in citrus fruit.

Ruckelahaus said the agency bad

found residues as high as 1,000 parts per

b i o n in fruit imported from Mexico and

Italy.

Imported fruit, which must be fumigated, generally accounts for less than 2

percent of the fresh fruit eaten in the

United States, although greater quantities have been imported in recent weeks

because of widespread frost damage to

citrus mps in this country.

Ruckelshaus' guidelines for grain products would allow 900 parts per billion of

EDB in raw grain intended for human

use, 150 parts per billion in "intermediate" products such as flour, mixes, partly

cooked rolls and frozen bread dough, and

30 parts per billion in ready-toeat products such as bread, cookies, corn oil and

cold cereal.

The standard for grain announced yeuterday is nearly double the 500 part-perbillion standard that sources had said

earlier this week would be set.

The Agriculture Department ah had

endorsed a 500 part-per-billion standard

for grain.

But, according to some sources, the

standard Ruckelshaus adopted is slightly

lower than the one sought by the grain

industry.

'"I'be industry wanted 1,000 really

bad,'' one source said.

The varying levels were aet on

the b d i of evidence that the pesticide

dissipates as grain mavee through the

milling process and is ultimately cooked

or baked.

Florida and Texas, where EDB contamination has been documented in a

variety of common grocery items, appeared likely t~ go along with the guideh a . But Massachusetts and New York

.offic* expreseed d'rsappointment with

them, and officials in other states said

they intended to move cautiously in testiq and recalling foods.

, "EF'As'

level is not strict enough to

protect the public from w c e r risk and,

perhape more importantly, the higher

risk of reproductive disorders," New York

health department spokesman Peter Slocum mid.

Because the guidelines are only advisory, they are not binding on state officials.

" ~ ist important for people to understand that some states have legal authority to set levels tougher than those recommended by the EPA, and other states

have statutes that effectively require

them to use EPA's regulations," said JOs p h A. Kinney, an official with the National Governor's Association.

"It's just not clear what individual

states will do," he said

Ruckelvhaus said yesterday that the

agency will attempt to make its D B

guidelines mandatory, a process that involvea first revoking an exemption that

was granted to the chemical in 1956. The

process could take six months, assuming

no appeals are filed or hearings requested, according to the EPA administrator.

But the Natural Resource Defense

Cohcil said it would go to court in an

attempt to force the EPA to set &stricter,

mandatory rules immediately. Council

officiah contended thut the dunbay

standards are inadequate to protect the

public and will prove unworkable for the

food industry.

'Industry will have temble problems

dealing with a confusing and constantly

shifting set of state rules: council attorney Jonathan Lash said.

Agricultural organizatione and food

producers generally supported Ruckelshaus' action, however. An American

Farm Bureau Federation official said

farmers "can live with" the guidelines,

ana spokesmen for several of the nation's

largest grain-processing finns said they

believed that virtually all of their products would p a s muster under the voluntary guidelines.

Earlier this week, when sources

said that Ruckelshaus would set more

stringent standards for grain, markets

reacted with concern to the possibility of

having to destroy corn, wheat or other

products. But US. Department of Agriculture officials reassured farmers that

tainted grain could be aerated, aged or

mixed with untainted grain to make it

salable.

"This confirms that our products

can be consumed with complete safety,"

said Dean Belbas, a spokesman for General Milk

Ron Bottrell, a Quaker Oats Co.

spokesman, said his company was "confident that all our products are well within those guidelines."

e 1984 The Washington P o s t Company.

Reproduced by t h e Library of Congress,

C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research S e r v i c e w i t h p e r m i s s i o n o f c o p y r i g h t c l a i m a n t .

SHINGTON Q05T

2/4/8~

//

p. A I, A 2

Patick Hsyes, a SpoHe~rmtllfor ~ o c ter & Gamble Co, said the EPA*.~ an.

m.mcement waa welcome. P10ck &

Gamble w e d briefly with California

officials last week before w i n g to

withdraw %?%Am a n mixes shown to

have EDB levels as high as 2,200 p e r ~ s'

per billion.

~ ~ ~ u s c levels

u l e that may be

Present in our products are mostly removed in the baking p"-,

H~~~

said.

industry representatives als~

said h' pleased that the testing of

their producte, as well as any reah,

would be handled through standard Food

and Drug Administration procedures

~~

The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration proposed a standard last

October, but it is not expected to become

final for a year or more.

"If they intend to aerate grain to re$uce the EDB in it, that will add more

EDB to the air," AFL-CIO official Debbie Berkowib said. "We have 100,000

grain workers out there."

Citrus handlers and truckers also are

at risk, according to Berkowitz, who said

citrus from Mexico had been shown to

have EDB residues up to 16,000 parts

per billion in its peeL

+*

Under

ptoceduren, testing is done

at the- warehome, not in food stom

and d are handled without public

notica

“Ram tima to time there will be mme

packqp mmeahere that has EDB," said

one induefay official who asked not to be

identifd "But you don't get into a situation of pulling thinga off a shelf. That

help build public confidence."

Ruckelehaw yesterday said the agency

expected that about 1 percent of wheatbased products on grocery shelves would

fail to meet the guidelinm For cornbased products, the percentage of tainted

batches is likely to be higher, about 7

percent.

Testing by the Grocery Manufacftuers

of America Inc showed that producte

containing corn or soft white wheat, frequently used in packaged mixes, had the

greatest concentrations of EDB. Hush

puppy mixes showed especially high

EDB residues in the GhlA survey: only

two of 15 packages tested w& meet the

150 part8-per-billion standard for Sntermediaten products.

Hard winter wheat, used for most

standard flours and baked bread& is

hulled, or 'tempered," before being

milled into flour, and a

amount of

the pesticide is removed along with the

hull.

The EPA ban of the pesticide applies

a h to ita use on milling and granary

equipment to p m grain intended for

human consumption.

In the wake of the EPA standark

labor union representatives yesterday

renewed their petition for an emergency

etandard governing worker expoeuree to

-

-

EPA-RECOMMENDED EDB RESIDUE W I T S

READY-TWAT

'INTERMEDIATE

RAW GRAIN

NOT TO EXCEED

PARTS PER

BILLION

NOT TO EXCff D

PARTS PER

BILLION

FINISHED GOODS

EDB

NOT TO EXCEED

PARTS PER

BILLION

30

150

900

By BcduOtorlevlkh for The Washingtan Post

US IMPOSES CURBS

40A*EDBIN FRUIT

Official Says Other Pesticides

in ~ s e . ~ q New

c e Scrutiny

The agency is still developing standards for retesting most of the pesticides. once those atalulards are set,

pesticide manufacturers will be re

qutred to retest their products. If the

pesticides fail to meet the new standards, they will haye to be witMrawn

farmthemarket.

So far fewer tban 8 ) pesticides have

been .

Jonathan Lash, an

attorneyfortheNaturalResaurcesDe

fense Council,a mnprofit envimMlental group. said today that a t the rate the

envinmmeatalagency was p x v x d l l g ,

it would take a t least eight more years

to establish the standards d e r which

mostofthecbemicalscouldbereregis&red.

In~~ghisplansfordealing

with EDB in citrus fruit, Mr. Ruckels

haus said a t a news conference that his

agency was now "going after those

high volume pesticides that appear on

foods."

He did not mention any

F

chemicals, M &er 8 g e ~ ~0 y dals

said close a t t e n t h was being paid to

carbaryl, metolachlor, methomyl.

m a t e , atrazine, cganaziw and sulfur; which together acanmt far a b a d

27 percant of the chemicalsused in pesticides d y .

Under the new rules involving citrus

pIoducts andpapeyas. the maximum

safe level of EDB has been set a t 30

parts per billion for edible parts of the

fruit. The standard will take effectin 30

days. Mr. Ruchefshaus did not order

immediate suspension of the EDB on

fruit as he did for grain products last

month m the ground that EDB is no

longex being ueed m domestically

producedfruitclmsumedinthiscountry. Cancellathofalllgesof EDB on

fruit is !cb+~Ied to take effect nfW

Sept. 1.

Proposal in c-sLegislation has been introduced by

Representative Tom Harkin of Iowa

and Senator William Pmxmire of Wis

. consin,both Democrats,to require all

I pesticides to be reviewed for safety by

I 1 B O and if not reviewed by then to be

off the market.

threaten health, Mr. Ruckelshaussaid, ordered

The Reagan Administration and Mr.

the removal process can create "se Ruchelshaus

have not taken a position

vere prublems."

an this legislation, and environmentalWhile some pesticides can prove on ists have asserted that this calls into

balame to be benetidal to society, "we

question the Administration's commithave to be careful about introducing ment to removing dangerous pestipesticides in a massiveway into the en- cides. They also noted that the Presi~cutbacksharplyonthefundsrevimament," he said.

About 35.000 pesticides are regis- cIPlested by Mr. Ruckelshaus for dealteruiforuae,manydtbemap9fOvCd ing with pesticides in the pmposed

before

Oeetlng techniquss

were developed to detect small but pos- badget for the fiscal year 1985.

sibly dangenm reBidues in food and

watertappliesIbe~gencyisrepuiriae

the older pestic+es.to be

buttheyare

?gtobeusedwbde

thisprocessgoeson.

-

me,

O

Mr. Ruckelshaus said in a telephone

inte~ewthat he was not supporting

the legislation because he did uot think

it had% chanceof bemgenactedasa result of oppositian from the food and pesticide mdustnes and others. What he

proposed to do instead, he said, was to

meet with representatives of industry

and environmentalists to see if they

could work out a

that

would im a gaod Z Z 2 E e n B c t mat.

Meanwhile, he said, he will seek to

speedremovalofdaqemuspesticides

through admintstratme actions. , He

alsosaidbesawmthingwrongwith

legmlation proposed by Representative

Henry A. Waxman. Democrat of Cali-

thoritytoaetmarimumlevelsofpeaticides in foods whenever it was deter-

miDedthelewarauimmment

topiblic hselth.

Mr. W a ~ l l e nsaid in a telephoae intenriea rhw the W

B

bad

sbarrmL'tbaeare~mour

law that must be anected."

"We are seeing the dhtwMg &woes with which E.P.A.has respoaded

tothepesticidethreat,"hesaid.

Albert 8.M e V , a lawyer for the

Nahual R e s a m m ~efensecouncil,

said it would help if Mr. Ruckelshaus

pmpased new legislation but araq

skeptical .that it would happen. "The

time has come for E.P.A. to put up or

shut up on pesticide reform," he said,

adding that "legislation is needed to

fire under industry to do the tests

I

k?e4ied.**

Otherwise, he said, "There will be almost certain repetition of the EDB

debacle."

Recallofcereal

ST. LOUIS, h&arch 2 (AP) - The

RalstonPurina~panyhasrecalled

more than 17,500 boxes of cereal IStributed in 13 states becaw they camtain EDB, but the Company said today

the product posed w health hazard.

ThecerealisRalstclnInstantWbole

1tHat

in

boxes

with the ade number W19A on top,

said a company spobe8man. Jim Reed.

The1,466casesofcerealrepresenta

portion of the p r o d w made Jan. 19 a t

the company's plant in Davenport,

Iowa, Mr. Reed said. It was distributed

in New York, Maryland, Florida. Missouri, Illinois. Ohio, Krursas, 0ma, Texas. Louisiana, Alabama.

Washington and Utah,he said.

Tests on samples of the batch showed

levels of EDB ranging from 153parts to

'mparts per billion, Mr. Reed said.

The Federal Environmental Protection

'Agency last month set an EDB limit of

(150 parts per billion in food p

that q u i r e coolung or baking.

1984 The New York Times. Reproduced by the L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s ,

C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research S e r v i c e w i t h p e r m i s s i o n o f c o p y r i g h t c l a i m a n t .

/3

-

fornia, that would give tbe Mmirdntretoroftbeeavimameatalagehcytheau-

tchwork of State Standards

Complicates Federal EDB Effort

-

-

By Cass Peterson

washln$ton Post SWf wmar

More than six weeks after the federal government announced its safety guidelines for ethylene dibmmide

(EDB) in grain-based foods, the nation is caught up in a patchwork pattern of state enforcement that may

actually have increased some consumers' exposure to the cancer-cawing pesticide.

State and industry officials confirmed this week that some food

products, pulled from grocery

shelves in states with tough restric.tions on EDB, are being redistributed in states that have adopted the

more lenient federal standards or are

not aggressively testing for EDB residues.

The result, state officials charge,

is that consumers in receiving states

have a greater chance of getting food

products tainted with EDB, a potent

animal carcinogen that has pervaded

much of the nation's stored grain

because of its wide use as an insectkilling fumigant.

"The industry is telling us that

there is no reason they can't sell

their products in other states," said

Peter Slocum, a spokesman for the

New York Health Department,

which yesterday adopted standards

Ulllktl Prew 11ILBrlldtlc11~I

three times more stringent than the

New

York

Health

Commissioner

David

Axelrod,

left,

and

Agriculture

Commissioner

federal guidelines. "They say there's Joseph Geraee announce new state standards on EDB at news conference

in Albany.

nothing illegal about it, or immoral

either!'

Environmentalists and public

mix that exceeded the federal stanRon Botrell, a spokesman for dard of 150 ppb for products that health -officials wmed weeks ago Quaker-Oats Co. in Chicago, con- must be cooked, was destroyed, Bo- that the Environmental Protection

firmed that the firm had recycled trell said. The other two, a frozen Agency's voluntary EDB standards

two of three products that failed to pancake batter and a coffee cake would lead to uneven enforcement

meet Massachusetts' acmss-the- -mix sold under the brand name and prompt "dumping" of tainted

board standard of1 part per billion Aunt Jemima, "were sent back to food in some states.

EPA officials have counseled

warehouses and ultimately redistribof EDB, the toughest in the nation.

shtes not to set mare stringent,

One product, a Flako corn muffin uted," he wid.

(continued)

0

1984 The Washington Post Company.

Reproduced by t h e L i b r a r y o f Congress,

C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research S e r v i c e w i t h permission o f c o p y r i g h t c l a i m a n t .

tied at least as much to the intensity

of

monitoring and enforcement as it

The EPA's voluntary stanis

to

choosing a lower set of levels."

dards for EDB residues in

But while some states have

grain-based foods call for not

launched strong efforts to enforce

more than 900 parts per bileither the EPA standards or their

lion in raw grain, 150 pph in

own, others are sitting on their

"intermediate" foods such as

hands, suggesting that pick-andflour, and 30 ppb in readychoose marketing practices will conto-eat foods such as cold cetinue even after the federal stanreal and bread.

dards clear the last regulatory hurdle

States that have set tightand become mandatory in mid-April.

er standards are MassachuThe Food and Drug Administrasetts (one ppb in any food),

tion is gearing up to start enforcing

Maine (30 ppb in ready-tothe federal standards, but spokeseat food and 40 ppb in other

man James Greene said the FDA

grain products) qnd New

will concentrate at least initially on

York (10 ppb inready-to-eat

raw grain. That means it will be

food, 60 ppb hintermediate

largely up to the states to enforce

food and 300 ppb in grain).

the standard on processed products.

All three of those states, os

At Least five states, possibly as

well as Florida, California,

many as 10, have not adopted any

Texas and Ohio, have adoptstandard for EDB in grain products,

ed a zero tolerance for baby

according to EPA surveys. Many

foods. California says it will

follow federat guidelines on

states are testing only products alother foods until July, 1985,

ready identified as tainted by other

when it will adopt the tough

states, and some states, including

Messachusetts standard.

South Dakota, Nevada and NebrasFlorida, which precipika, are not conducting any tests at

tated the EDB standard

all

when it started recalling

In Maine, meanwhile, the stanproducts with any trace of

dard for raw grain and intermediate

the chemical, hes since

foods such as cake mix and frozen

adopted the federal stanbread dough is 3% times more strindards for all foods except

gent than the EPA's, and the state

baby foods.

permits no EDB in baby food&

-Several other states also have

adopted a 2 x 0 toleranc~for baby

mandatory standards of their own, foods, and California has served nohowever, warning that the impact on tice that it will not permit EDB in

interstate food shipments would ere- any products after July, 19%

ate more problems than it would about t h m yeara sooner khan the

EPA assumes the chemical will have

'%win

J o h n , bead of the . worked its way out of the fobd supagency's pesticide office, told Florida ply.

Yesterday; New York adopted a

officiah in a letter last month that

protecting the public from EDB "is standard $3ppb in ready-toeat

I

L.

foods, 50 ppb in intermediate foods

and 300 ppb in raw e n , three

times more stringent than the federal standard. Cov. Mario Cuorno

announced that New York would

take the action alone, after failing to

persuade five neighboring states to

adopt the same standards.

Officials in the tough-standld

states contend that their efforts are

bearing fruit. "In a matter of a

month, EDB levels have decreased

considerably," Dr. David Ozonoff,

president of the Massachusetts Public Health Association, told a hearing

in Boston this week.

Slocum of New York's health department said his state still believes

that EPA's standards, designed to

reduce a long-term cancer threat, are

inadequate to protect the pubfic

from reproductive disorders and

other short-term health hazards

posed by EDB.

"We're testing about 100 samples

a week," he said. "Industry says we'll

just find a few oddball products, but

our scientists argue that it's worth

trying to catch even those occasional

spikes or aberrations."

For their part, industry officials

contend that they are doing their

best to comply with the variety d

standards. But they acknowledge

that food processors are taking pains

not to ship tainted foods to states

where the products run a higher

chance of being detected and recalled.

"It's just the idea of having yoyr

brand name impugned," said Roy

Henwood of the Millers N a t i o d

Federation, wbich represents some

of the nation's largest food pmxison. "Everybody's pretty anxiolis

about not shipping into MgssacK,

setts."

AS

THE WASHINGTON POST

Snrurdov, blerch 2 I, I V H ~

Show Insecticide Substituted

for EDB Also Causes Cancer

; Whi laboratory 4 t s on

,-.i&yiqmmide,

now b e i i used as a

'sum for the csncer-cadng

r&yima dibmide (EDB) to kill

& e on milling equipment and

citmSrruit, b d h t a that it, too, t a

,.earcinogeo, =ording to

BnwmDurrental Pmtectbn Agency

i

:&cidlb

~ ~ ~ , o o p ) d u c t e d i . t b e

EDB,add &hard Johnson,bead of

tbe &s

EDB task force.

Tha &udy was a shortterm expeaimast on rate being conducted for

rwtbsr~&Itwfrenreeearch-

eroformdarncemmrateautopeied

after jllst 13 weeks, they forwarded

the results to a scientific journal.

California scientists already have reported to the EF'A that methyl bromide ts showing up in citrus fruits

h m Fbrida, at levels up to four

times greater than the EPA has

deemed acceptable for EDB, Methyl

bromide, like EDB, enjoy6 en longstding exemption from residue

limits under food snfety lawa

Tbefindingeooafinntbefecueof

WA oaciale, who have freouently

warned that b m b g EDB might

prove to be little more than a superficial dution to a eerious problem.

Ui.unawtcernedthat~~mere-.

ly exchaagiag tbe devil we know for

the one we don't know,'' EF'A Admiaitratoe William D. Ruckelshnw

told reportem leat month,. before

. anlnxmcingsharp-on

EDB'e use as a fruit fumigant.

But if methyl bromide turns out

to be another "devil" in t4e nation's

arniy of agricultural chemicals, it

likely will be m e years before the

EPA can take action to restrict its

WXL With Em,

identified as a carcinogen in 1973, the process took

more than a decade.

The EPA asked methyl bromide's

prcdmm to do etudies on the chemical's health eEfecta about four years

agaThaeetestearestillunderway.

Tbe egency took the next etep, requesting d& on methyl bromide's

abiity to contaminate food, water

eupplii and mil less than three

weeks aga

According to J o h n , the p d u c -

en, have 90 days to teview that letter

and eix months to start collecting

b e infdrmstioa Until the information is received, the EPA will have

little evidence to eupport a &due

b i t bn methyl bromide in milled

grains or fruit.

Edwin L. Johnson, director of

EPA's offm of pesticide prcgrama,

mid he didn't know why the agency

had waited until now to request reaidue data on methyl bromide. "I

Can'tgiVeyoaaayexcuseonVhe

Mid-

Wltheeaidthedataehouldbein

withinayeer,andtheagencymay

be able to move more quickly on

methyl bromide in foods than was

tbe case with EDB.

Meenwhile, the disquieting icformetion on methyl bromide is not the

only problem confronting the EPA

in the wake of its EDB decisions.

Recent laboratory tests,for example, have cast a cload over the lest

WASHINGTON POST 0 1984 The Washington P o s t CO.

Reproduced by C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research S e r v i c e ,

L i b r a r y o f Congress w i t h p e r m i s s i o n o f

copyright claimant.

/CI

remaining pesticide used as an injectable soil fumigant to kill m t eating nematodes

EDB was banned for use in the

soil last September, &r tests

&owed that darn&& high levels

of the chemical were showing up in

drinking-water supplies. mcials in

Florida and other states were oounting on T&m II, a DOWChemical

Co. product, to replace EDB in their

nematode control programs, just as

EDB bad replaced DBCP (dibellzochloropropane) when that chemical

was banned in 1979.

But Dow has voluntarily withdrawn Teloae II for that use &r

seeing preliminary results of a NationaI Toxicology Program study

showing that it caused a eigniricant

number of rare urinary-tractcancers

inlaboratorynnimnln

Moreover, the EPA recently discovered that diquat, a pesticide long

used in Florida and other states to

control aquatic weeds, is contaminated with EDB. While the contamination is believed to be small, perhaps less than 1 percent, both EPA

and Florida officials are trying to

find out bow much of the chemical

has made its way into drinking water

through the state's ambitious weedmltd Program.

Meanwhile Florida officials now

are considering controlling nema-,

todes by cllgging deep ditches to prevent the microscopic creatures from

spreadii out of infested areas and

onto the mKK)ts of healthy trees.

"It sounds encouraging,"said Florida peaticides official Gregory Parker. 'And it might be cheaper."

A7