August 2, 2006

New York Times

Unions Say E.P.A. Bends to Political Pressure
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 - Unions representing thousands of staff
scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency say the agency is
bending to political pressure and ignoring sound science in allowing
a group of toxic chemicals to be used in agricultural pesticides.

Leaders of several federal employee unions say the chemicals pose
serious risks for fetuses, pregnant women, young children and the
elderly through food and exposure and should not be approved by
Thursday, the Congressional deadline for completing an agency review
of thousands of substances in pesticides.

"We are concerned that the agency has not, consistent with its
principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately
summarized or drawn conclusions" about the chemicals, union leaders
told the agency administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, in a newly
disclosed letter sent May 25.

The leaders also wrote that they believed that under priorities of
E.P.A. management, "the concerns of agriculture and the pesticide
industry come before our responsibility to protect the health of our
nation's citizens."

Nine union leaders representing 9,000 agency scientists and other
personnel around the country signed the letter. It was given to The
New York Times on Tuesday by environmental advocacy organizations
working on their behalf in the hope that it would arouse public
outcry and increase pressure on the agency to withdraw the chemicals
from use.

The chemicals at issue are organophosphates and carbamates, long a
matter of controversy over their environmental and health risks. They
are in such pesticides as chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion and diazinon.

The advocacy organizations that released the letter, Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility and the Pesticide Action Network,
also provided the agency's response, on June 27, from Susan B. Hazen,
acting assistant administrator. Ms. Hazen assured the scientists that
her agency was applying proper scientific review for the use of all
chemicals in pesticides.

Ms. Hazen did not deny the accusation that industry positions were
taken into account. She welcomed information "from all interested
parties," she said.

In an interview on Tuesday, Jim Jones, director of the E.P.A.'s
pesticide office, described the scientists' accusations as
inaccurate, saying the agency examines the effects of various
chemicals and adjusts recommendations for public use according to
what the science dictates.

Risk assessments of the pesticides cited in the unions' letter, Mr.
Jones said, have been "aggressively regulated" through steady reviews
of their use over the last six years.

The complaints from agency employees are the latest to come from
within federal agencies that accuse the Bush administration of
allowing politics or industry pressure to trump science on issues
like climate change and stem cell research.

In this case, they also echo concerns raised by the E.P.A. inspector
general in January in a report that suggested the agency had not done
enough to protect children from exposure to pesticides, which can
affect the development of the brain and the nervous system. That
investigation was prompted, in part, by published reports of a
Florida program in which parents would be paid for letting their
children participate in an effort measuring the effects of pesticides
in the home. The program was quickly shut down.

The inspector general's report fueled a growing desire among union
leaders to take a more active role in shedding light on what they say
is a flawed system.

"More and more, the unions are coming together to confront the
agency's unwillingness to make the appropriate use of science to show
risks to public health and the environment," said William Hirzy, a
senior scientist at the environmental agency and a union official.

Despite the agency's insistence that pesticide regulations follow
scientific guidelines, several agency scientists said industry
determined how chemicals were regulated.

"It's how the game is played," said an E.P.A. specialist involved in
the pesticide program who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because, he said, critics within the agency often lose choice
assignments.

"You go to a meeting, and word comes down that this is an important
chemical, this is one we've got to save," he said. "It's all
informal, of course. But it suggests that industry interests are
governing the decisions of E.P.A. management. The pesticide program
functions as a governmental cover for what is effectively a private
industry licensing program."

Another senior E.P.A. scientist who also spoke on condition of
anonymity said the agency often ignored independent scientific
studies that contradicted the industry-subsidized study that
supported many regulations on pesticides.

She cited a North Carolina researcher who found that chlorpyrifos
might have a more damaging effect on developing brains than other
studies. "What we heard back from headquarters was, 'No, he's wrong,'
" the scientist said.

"Chemicals like these can be harmful to children in ways we don't
understand yet,'' the scientist said. "If there is disagreement,
doesn't that cry out for further research?"

Mr. Jones said the agency had addressed chlorpyrifos in complying
with a 10-year Congressional mandate to review 9,741 pesticide
ingredients by Thursday.

Work has been completed on 9,637 of them, or 99 percent, he said, and
"all are protective of children."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://tinyurl.com/lxehp