# Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AIP0280E

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** January 31, 1985
- **Citation:** IP0280E

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AIP0280E. Public record. Not legal advice.