Since the announcement to re-evaluate phenoxy herbicides, the landscape industry has endured a painfully long wait for the results. It appears the wait will soon be over, and with little fanfare, a new formulation of MCPP has been cleared for use.
A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen indicates the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is poised to release the 2,4-D results this summer, and according to Mary Mitchell, toxicologist with the PMRA, “We’re going to say that any risks are well within acceptable ranges, basically meaning if there’s any risk at all, it’s very small.”
Mitchell also commented on the Ontario College of Family Physicians report, stating “the physicians’ review of epidemiologic studies made very few linkages to specific pesticides. As for specific pesticides where they did make linkages, 2,4-D for example, all I can say is every regulatory agency in the world has looked at toxicology data and most of them have also looked quite thoroughly at the epidemiology data on 2,4-D, and there’s no regulatory agency to my knowledge that considers 2,4-D to be a human carcinogen.”
Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its draft health and environmental risk assessments, leading into the public comment stage for the re-registration of the herbicide 2,4-D.
After examining the combined risk from exposure through food, drinking water and residential uses, with certain assumptions, the EPA concluded that 2,4-D would “not exceed” EPA’s level of concern. As well, it concluded that short-term margins of exposure for homeowner applications of 2,4-D to lawns were of no concern.
The EPA also released a review of the recent epidemiology pertinent to 2,4-D. That review concluded by stating: “Based on the above reviews of the above studies, Health Effects Division (HED) concludes there is no additional evidence that would implicate 2,4-D as a cause of cancer.”
A recent article in the (I>National Post by Dr. Frank Dost of Oregon State University, fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences, challenges the Ontario College of Family Physicians Report. He stated, “In my view, the OCFP report fails several important science tests and should not be used as a guide to setting policy on pesticide use. Indeed, I question whether the OCFP paper should have been made public, given that it was not subject to rigorous external peer scrutiny.”
As we have witnessed thousands of times over the last 15 years, fear easily outmaneuvers logic when it comes to public relations. It will be most interesting to see the level of public discussion upon the release of the PMRA review of 2,4-D.
Click below to read the National Post and Ottawa Citizen articles in full.
As seen in the August 2004 issue of Horticulture Review.
- OCFP Review
Dr. Frank Dost of Oregon State University, fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences, challenged the Ontario College of Family Physicians Report in the National Post. Read the original article here. - PMRA defends 2,4-D re-evaluation in the Ottawa Citizen
Read more about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s stance on the re-evaluation of 2,4-D.
