AVOIDABLE RISK: PESTICIDE USE AND PATTERNS IN NEW YORK STATE FOR 1999

January 2003, data from 1999

In 1996, New York State enacted the Pesticide Reporting Law in order to gather data on the amount, location, and types of pesticides applied in the state by commercial applicators and sold to farmers.¹ Environmental Advocates of New York and NYPIRG have released two previous analyses of the data for the reporting years 1997 and 1998.² This fact sheet summarizes the data for the third year of the program — 1999. Examining the 1999 data once again illuminates the patterns and nature of risk New Yorkers face from the use of toxic chemicals for pest control. Understanding these risks is the first step in reducing them.³

Major Findings

Overall pesticide use reported in 1999 was lower than in 1998, but on par with 1997 levels; it will take several more years of data to identify long-term pesticide use trends versus year-to-year fluctuations; Once again, pesticide use was heaviest in densely-populated downstate counties, as well as the more urban and suburban upstate counties; Non-agricultural pesticide use continued to dwarf agricultural pesticide use statewide; The data indicate that New York City contributed a smaller portion of the state’s overall totals than in previous reporting years, but this could be due to reporting errors; The storage, transport and use of dangerous chemical pesticides in New York raises new concerns about security in the post-9/11 era.

DISCUSSION
Overall Pesticide Use: The total amount of pesticides reported for 1999 was an enormous 3.2 million gallons and 25.3 million pounds – less than the amounts reported for 1998 but roughly equal to those reported in 1997 (Table 1)⁴. It is important not to overstate the meaning of the apparent drop between 1998 and 1999. While we can hope that the 1999 figures signal a downward trend (and the trend does appear to be downward in California, the only other state with a full reporting system),⁵ there are numerous other possible explanations. For example, drier or otherwise more favorable weather conditions relative to the previous year could contribute to an overall drop in pest pressure. Pest managers could be substituting more potent pesticides that can be applied in smaller quantities. They could also be underreporting or, conversely, reporting more accurately (for example, reporting undiluted versus diluted amounts of pesticides, as they are supposed to do). It will take several more years of data under differing weather conditions to understand what differences constitute normal year-to-year variation and what represent real shifts in use patterns. Nevertheless, the continued high levels of pesticide use in the state remain a serious cause for concern.

Geographic Patterns: As in past years, pesticide use in 1999
was heaviest in the densely populated downstate counties, as well as the more urban and suburban upstate counties (Tables 2 and 3). Suffolk County on Long Island had the dubious distinction of reporting the largest overall amounts of pesticides by both gallons and pounds, with Nassau County ranking second by gallons and fourth by pounds. Suffolk was at the head of the pack because of its very high suburban use combined with its high agricultural use – a double whammy of exposure for its residents and risk to its vulnerable aquifer. Westchester, Monroe, and Erie counties, all with large urban and suburban areas, joined Long Island and Brooklyn (Kings County) in reporting the largest total amounts of pesticide use. The high use of pesticides in these counties relative to the rest of the state mirrored the patterns of past reporting years.

In a departure from the previous two years of data, however, pesticide use in the five New York City boroughs did not constitute as great a share of the state’s total pesticide use in 1999 as it had previously. While still constituting an outsized 7% of the total gallons and 13% of the total pounds reported statewide in 1999 (a percentage that is especially large in light of the fact that New York City occupies less than 1% of the state’s total geographic area), these figures represent a drop from previous years. In 1997 and 1998, New York City’s share of the total pesticide use in the state ranged between 18% and 36%. Although Brooklyn has consistently logged in among the highest use counties in the state (second overall by pounds in 1999 and 7th by gallons), and Manhattan was still high (ranking 11th by both pounds and gallons), reporting for the other boroughs showed much greater fluctuation in totals and ranks between 1999 and the previous reporting years. There is no consistent pattern to these fluctuations that can be related to changes in pest pressure or pest management practices.

Further complicating the picture was a very large amount of commercial applicator pesticide use that, due to improper reporting, could not be assigned to a particular county. These misreported data accounted for 6% of the gallons and 12% of the pounds applied by commercial applicators. If a substantial portion of these unattributed applications were actually made in New York City, it would explain a good deal of the discrepancy between past years’ levels and those reported in 1999.

The discrepancies between the data for New York City in 1999 versus the previous two years, together with the large amount of unassigned pesticide use in the commercial applicator data, raise a red flag about compliance with reporting requirements (particularly in New York City) and, by extension, with all of the laws that govern the use of these toxic chemicals. Fuller discussion of the New York City data can be found in a separate fact sheet (Avoidable Risk: Pesticide Use Patterns in New York City for 1999, downloadable at www.eany.org).

Categories of Use: Non-agricultural pesticide use once again overwhelmed agricultural pesticide use. As was true in 1997 and 1998, commercial applicator use in 1999 accounted for roughly 80% of the total pesticides reported, while sales to farmers accounted for approximately 20% of the total. Although some commercial application is agricultural, there are other factors that further help to distinguish between non-agricultural and agricultural uses and reinforce the conclusion that nonagricultural use is greater. Chief among these is the fact that the counties with the highest reported pesticides are those with the highest population densities, not the rural, farming counties.

While lower as an overall category, the kind of pesticides used in agriculture pose significant risks to farmworkers and rural residents, as well as to those who consume treated foods. Many pesticides deemed too hazardous by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the residential setting, such as chlorpyrifos (Dursban® and Lorsban®), continue to be widely used in agriculture. Other agricultural pesticides, such as the herbicides atrazine and metolachlor, pose significant water contamination hazards, even when used according to label instructions. The risks of agricultural pesticide use remain serious and in need of mitigation, despite the fact that non-agricultural use in New York State is greater overall.

Top Pesticides Used: The top pesticides reported in the state in 1999 were an array of some of the most dangerous available, including:

• Atrazine: The herbicide atrazine, the top pesticide reported by gallons, is an ubiquitous water contaminant, strongly associated with a host of adverse health effects. For example, atrazine is known to disrupt normal endocrine function⁶ and is repeatedly linked in the epidemiological literature to various cancers including breast⁷ and ovarian cancer,⁸ and developmental problems.⁹ And the case against atrazine grows stronger daily. Atrazine is currently undergoing reregistration by EPA. During the course of this process, it was revealed that the manufacturer, Syngenta, suppressed its own research findings of increased prostate cancer incidence among workers at an atrazine manufacturing plant.¹⁰ Two recent studies have also found strong evidence that it is causing feminization of male frogs and may be contributing to the global decline in amphibian populations.¹¹
   
• Metolachlor: The third most heavily used pesticide by gallons in 1999, the herbicide metolachlor is classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen and, together with atrazine, is implicated as a developmental toxin.¹² Both atrazine and metolachlor are common contaminants in surface and groundwater in the areas where they are used.¹³
   
• Dinitroaniline herbicides: This family of chemicals includes pendimethalin, the top pesticide reported by pounds, and benfluralin and trifluralin, both among the top ten pesticides reported by pounds. Pendimethalin and trifluralin are classified as possible human carcinogens by EPA (benfluralin has not yet been classified for carcinogenicity). Some toxicological studies have shown that pendimethalin and trifluralin may be reproductive toxins.¹⁴
   
• Cypermethrin: Ranked third by pounds in 1999, the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin is increasingly used as a substitute for organophosphate insecticides such as chlorpyrifos (see below). But just as chlorpyrifos came into heavy use as a substitute for the more persistent chlordane, when that pesticide was banned, so too may we now be simply trading risks that are less well understood, rather than minimizing risk overall. There are indications that pyrethroids in general may interfere with the immune¹⁵ and endocrine systems.¹⁶ Cypermethrin in particular has been specifically linked to immune suppression,¹⁷ potential chromosomal damage,18 and reproductive damage,¹⁹ and has been classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen. And while pyrethroids are generally of less acute toxicity than organophosphates, there have been reports of cypermethrin poisoning in the medical literature.²⁰
  
   
• Chlorpyrifos: The fourth most heavily used pesticide by gallons, chlorpyrifos is a highly neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide so dangerous that EPA has now banned it for virtually all non-agricultural uses due to both its risk of acute poisoning and concerns that it may also cause developmental damage to fetuses and infants. Because these data were collected prior to the EPA-mandated phase-out, however, chlorpyrifos is still at the top of the list in 1999 in New York State.
   

Security Risks: In the immediate wake of 9/11, crop dusters were temporarily grounded, FBI-generated lists of particularly hazardous pesticides were removed from the internet, and repeated security warnings were issued to people storing pesticides. Many of the pesticides used in New York are nerve poisons, with all the potential hazards that entails. Beyond the daily risks incurred from the use of such pesticides, we have become newly aware that there are other inherent risks in having large amounts of dangerous chemicals stored, transported, and applied in dense urban and suburban neighborhoods, or near sensitive areas. With a multiplicity of alternatives, eliminating pesticide use is a feasible way to increase our safety on both a routine basis and under extraordinary circumstances.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Dangerous pesticides are still used in large quantities even though less hazardous alternatives exist for virtually all pesticide uses. Eliminating these needless risks will require both that New Yorkers choose non-pesticide strategies for their own homes and gardens, and that New York's leaders adopt policy reforms that address the problem:

• BAN THE AESTHETIC USE OF PESTICIDES: New York State should enact a ban on pesticides used for solely aesthetic purposes, such as lawn care. The marketing boom in lawn care pesticides has manufactured its own new chemical aesthetic, creating a source of risk where there was none before. There are no negative public health repercussions, and everything to gain, by entirely eliminating this gratuitous source of risk. State legislation to ban aesthetic use of pesticides has been introduced by Assemblyman Thomas P. DiNapoli and Senator Kenneth LaValle, and we have a glowing example in our neighbor to the north, Quebec Province, which recently enacted such a policy province-wide after several of its smaller municipalities did so.
   
• ENACT THE URBAN PESTICIDE BILL: The pesticide reporting data again demonstrate high levels of pesticide use in New York City. These findings have been further bolstered by a recent New York State Attorney General’s report, Pest Control in Public Housing, Schools, and Parks: Urban Children at Risk,²¹ and reports in the medical literature.²² The predominance of neurotoxic insecticides, the number of people affected, and the particular hazards of indoor exposure, militate for immediate attention to reducing pesticide use in urban areas. The fluctuations and data gaps in the reporting data for New York City also point to industry compliance problems. Such problems are not simply a concern for the reporting data, but for what they may indicate about overall industry compliance with regulations regarding the storage, transport, and application of these toxic chemicals in densely populated areas. Enactment of the Urban Pesticide Bill - sponsored by Assemblyman Keith Wright and Senator Carl Marcellino - would mandate a closer look at pesticide use in New York’s cities and strategies for improving public safety with alternative pest control policies. The bill would also require pesticide applicators to be trained in non-toxic methods of pest control so that they can earn a livelihood and control pests more effectively without endangering their health or the health of their clients. This legislation is an opportunity to make tangible progress toward safer pest control, but also to sort out the troubling fluctuations in the pesticide reporting data and what they might mean for overall adherence (or lack thereof) to pesticide application laws.
   
• ELIMINATE THE MOST DANGEROUS PESTICIDES: Using its existing authority and the pesticide reporting data as a guide, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) should crack down on high use, high hazard pesticides. In sporadic flashes of proactiveness over the past decades, DEC has revoked registrations or refused to register products it deemed too risky (usually water contaminants). It needs to capitalize on this new source of information for reviving its formerly more aggressive stance with regard to unacceptable pesticide risks.
   
• SUPPORT ORGANIC FARMING: Although growing by leaps and bounds as a marketing sector, organic farmers largely go it alone, without the kind of government subsidies and programs their chemical-using counterparts rely on. New York should nurture this burgeoning sector, as many European nations do, and combine good economics with good health and environmental stewardship.
   
• ENACT PESTICIDE NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION LAWN NOTICE PROVISIONS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL: Six counties in New York State – Suffolk, Nassau, Albany, Westchester, Rockland, and Tompkins – have adopted the lawn notice provisions of the state’s Pesticide Neighbor Notification Law. In those counties, residents receive advance notice before commercial pesticide applications are made on adjacent properties, giving them the opportunity to protect their families and property from pesticide exposure. Residents in the other New York State counties do not currently have this basic right to be warned. All counties that have not already done so, should adopt the Pesticide Neighbor Notification law and provide their citizens with fair warning of toxic exposures.

CONCLUSIONS
Pesticide use in New York State remains unacceptably high and dependent on hazardous products when alternative practices and less dangerous products are readily available. New York policy makers, now more than ever, need to take the reins and enact progressive, protective policies that force a shift to safer pest management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENS
Environmental Advocates of New York and NYPIRG gratefully acknowledge the financial support of The New York Community Trust, the W.Alton Jones Foundation, the Bauman Foundation, the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, the Wellspring Foundation, and Dr. Lucy Waletzky. The opinions expressed in this report are solely those of our organizations and do not necessarily reflect the views of any funder or individual acknowledged here.

ENDNOTES
¹ Commercial applicators submit a detailed report on their pesticide application annually to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Pesticide use by farmers is assessed indirectly from reports filed with DEC by sellers of pesticides. Details of the reporting requirements can be found at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/prl.htm. The pesticide data reports themselves can be found at: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/psur.
² Thier, A. 2000. The Toxic Treadmill. Environmental Advocates and NYPIRG. Albany, New York. Thier, A., J. Enck, and C. Klossner. 1998. Plagued by Pesticides. Environmental Advocates. Albany, New York.
³ For a full discussion of the methodology used to analyze the pesticide data, please visit the Environmental Advocates website (methodology).
⁴ The data are reported by DEC in either liquid or solid measures. These are additive, not duplicative.
⁵ California Department of Pesticide Regulation. October 16, 2002. DPR reports pesticide use dropped to record low in 2001. Press Release. Sacramento, California.
⁶Cooper, R.L. et al. 1996. Effect of Atrazine on Ovarian Function in the Rat. Reproductive Toxicology. 10(4):257-264. Kniewald, J. et al. 1987. Indirect Influence of s-Triazines on Rat Gonadotropic Mechanism at Early Postnatal Period. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry. 27(4-6):1095-1100.
⁷Kettles, M.A. et al. 1997. Triazine Herbicide Exposure and Breast Cancer Incidence: An Ecologic Study of Kentucky Counties. Environmental Health Perspectives. 105(11):1222-1227.
⁸ Donna, A. et al. 1989. Triazine herbicides and ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health. 15:47-53.
⁹ Munger, R. et al. 1997. Intrauterine Growth Retardation in Iowa Communities with Herbicide-contaminated Drinking Water Supplies. Environmental Health Perspectives. 105(3):308-314.
¹⁰ Natural Resources Defense Council. 2002. New Studies Confirm Dangers of Atrazine, a Widely Used Agricultural Weed Killer. http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/natrazine.asp.
¹¹ Hayes, T. et al. 2002. Herbicides: Feminization of male frogs in the wild. Nature. 419(6910): 895-896. Hayes, T.B. et al. 2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99(8): 5476-5480.
¹² See Munger, R. et al. note 9 above.
¹³ Phillips, P.J. et al. 2000. Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Three Small Public Water-Supply Reservoir Systems, Western New York, 1998-99. United States Geological Survey. WRIR 99-4278. Phillips, P.J. et al. 1999. Pesticides and their Metabolites in Wells of Suffolk County New York, 1998. United States Geological Survey. WRIR 99-4095.
¹⁴ Extoxnet. 1996. Pesticide Information Profiles: Trifluralin. http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/triflura.htm. See also Extoxnet. 1996. Pesticide Information Profiles: Pendimethalin. http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/pendimet.htm.
¹⁵ Diel, F. et al. 1999. Pyrethroids and piperonyl-butoxide affect human T-lymphocytes in vitro. Toxicology Letters. 107:65-74. see also Stiller-Winkler, R. et al. 1999. Immunological parameters in humans exposed to pesticides in the agricultural environment. Toxicology Letters. 107:219-224.
¹⁶ Go, V. et al. 1999. Estrogenic Potential of Certain Pyrethroid Compounds in the MCF-7 Human Breast Carcinoma Cell Line. Environmental Health Perspectives. 107(3):173-177. see also Eil, C. and B.C. Nisula. 1990. The Binding Properties of Pyrethroids to Human Skin Fibroblast Androgen Receptors and to Sex Hormone Binding Globulin. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry. 35(3/4):409-414.
¹⁷ Santoni, G. et al. 1999. Alterations of T cell distribution and functions in prenatally cypermethrin-exposed rats: possible involvement of catecholamines. Toxicology. 138(3)L 175-187. see also Santoni, G. et al. 1998. Cypermethin-induced alteration of thymocyte distribution and functions in prenatally-exposed rats. Toxicology. 125: 67-78. see also Desi, I. et al. 1985. Immunotoxicological Investigation of the Effects of a Pesticide: Cypermethrin. Archives of Toxicology. Suppl.8:305-309.
¹⁸ Amer, S.M. et al. 1993. Induction of chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchange in vivo and in vitro by the insecticide cypermethrin. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 13(5):341-345. see also Puig, M. et al. 1989. Analysis of cytogenetic damage induced in cultured human lymphocytes by the pyrethroid insecticides cypermethrin and fenvalerate. Mutagenesis. 4(1):72-74.
¹⁹ Elbetieha, A., etal. 2001. Evaluation of the Toxic Potentials of Cypermethrin Pesticide on Some Reproductive and Fertility Parameters in Male Rats. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 41: 522-528.
²⁰ Lessenger, J.E. 1992. Five office workers inadvertently exposed to cypermethrin. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 35(4):261-267.
²¹ Report can be viewed at: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/environment/pest_control_public_housing.pdf.
²² Whyatt, R.M. et al. 2002. Residential Pesticide Use during Pregnancy among a Cohort of Urban Minority Women. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110(5):507-514.

© January 2003, Environmental Advocates of New York and New York Public Interest Research Group Fund

New York City | Westchester