Dear All,

From the US Geology Survey to Inside EPA,  the activities of EWG, Beyond Pesticides, FAN and the EPA Unions, on both water fluoridation and sulfuryl fluoride, are being noticed. See the two stories below.

Paul Connett

———————————————————————–

January 2006. (p 65)

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/fluorspar/fluormcs06.pdf

Fluorspar

“There continues to be concern among environmental groups and some scientists over the possible health effects of fluorides, especially on certain age groups. In response to research that appears to offer evidence for the carcinogenicity of fluoride in young boys, a coalition of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unions has requested a moratorium on the national program of the U.S. Public Health Service to fluoridate all U.S. public water supplies. In a related fluoride issue, environmental groups have petitioned the EPA to retract the recently finalized fluoride pesticide tolerances on food. The rule pertains to the fluoride-based pesticide, sulfuryl fluoride, which is used as a pesticide in the structural fumigation industry, but has now been approved as a fumigant to replace the ozone-depleting chemical, methyl bromide, in the food processing, grain milling, and stored commodity.”

————————————————————————————

Date: July 18, 2006 -

Environmentalists are poised to challenge EPA’s decision to license a
fluoride-based soil fumigant pesticide, which they say could draw
attention to the broader issue of whether fluoride standards for

drinking water adequately protect public health.

EPA July 5 opened public comment on a petition from three environmental
organizations calling on the agency to temporarily ban the use of the
pesticide sulfuryl fluoride, a soil fumigant. Environmentalists are
seeking the ban until the agency addresses their previous calls for an
administrative hearing on EPA’s decision to register, or license,

certain uses of the chemical.

EPA registered the chemical in 2005 for uses in food processing
facilities, bakeries, rail cars and other storage areas. EPA and
industry sources say the product serves as an alternative for similar
uses of methyl bromide, a pesticide which faces phaseout under an
international treaty because it is thought to deplete stratospheric

ozone.

But Environmental Working Group (EWG), Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and
Beyond Pesticides charge that allowing any use of the pesticide will
increase fluoride-related human health risks. They argue EPA’s decision
did not meet statutory requirements in the 1996 Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) amendments to the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
and threaten legal action if EPA does not open a public hearing on

sulfuryl fluoride safety limits, known as tolerances.

The law firm Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette filed an
administrative petition with EPA June 1, asking the agency to ban use of
sulfuryl fluoride pending a public hearing on its decision to register
the chemical. The petition states that EPA did not follow statutory
requirements to perform a thorough assessment of exposures and risks
associated with the pesticide. For example, the petition states that EPA
inappropriately used the Office of Water’s Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal (MCLG) as the basis for its risk assessment for sulfuryl flouride.
The MCLG is used to set an enforceable exposure drinking water standard,
or maximum contaminant level (MCL). Both the MCLG and MCL are currently

set at 4 parts per million.

Under FQPA, the agency is required to consider “aggregate exposure,” or

exposure through different mediums, of potentially toxic chemicals. The
environmentalists argue that EPA did not appropriately consider fluoride
exposure through drinking water, relying on a faulty water standard for

its risk assessment for sulfuryl fluoride.

The petition also states that EPA did not meet FQPA requirements to
fully protect children’s health. They argue the agency’s children’s
exposure estimates were too conservative, and that the agency should
consider severe dental fluorosis to be an adverse health effect under

FFDCA.

“In failing to take into account the special vulnerabilities of infants
and children, as expressly required in FFCA Section 408(b)(2)(C), EPA
has acted in violation of law and thus there is a substantial likelihood
that objectors will succeed on the merits of this matter,” the petition

says.

The petition calls on EPA to stay its tolerance decisions until the
agency responds to the environmentalists’ concerns. Relevant documents

are available on InsideEPA.com.

“As a result of these broad-reaching, staggeringly high fluoride
tolerances, EPA’s own data shows that sulfuryl fluoride will become the
second largest daily source of fluoride in the U.S.,” the petition
states. “The tolerances, therefore, represent a major new source of
fluoride exposure in the U.S. and will — in conjunction with all other
sources of fluoride to which Americans are exposed — contribute to

millions of Americans exceeding EPA’s purported safe dose.”

Both EPA and Dow AgroSciences, the company that manufactures sulfuryl
fluoride, say the agency underwent an extremely detailed risk
assessment, and argue that the exposures resulting from sulfuryl
fluoride use are well below EPA’s reference dose (RfD), or level at

which long-term pesticide exposure is considered “safe.”

“When all quantified dietary and non-dietary exposure pathways are
combined, risk estimates range from 17 to 43 [percent] of the RfD. These
aggregate risk estimates are below [the Health Effect Division’s] level
of concern for all population subgroups,” according to EPA’s 2004 risk

assessment.

But environmentalists say their argument is supported by a March report
from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which calls on EPA to
revise and tighten its MCLG for naturally occurring fluoride in drinking
water. The NAS report highlights concerns that long-term exposure to
fluoride could result in bone fractures or other bone diseases. NAS did
not recommend a new MCLG, instead asking EPA to perform its own analysis

to establish a more stringent value.

Environmentalists hope the pesticide issue could influence EPA’s
approach to an MCL, which they argue is based on out-of-date science.
For example, if their petition results in a more detailed fluoride risk
assessment, it could further articulate the need for a more stringent
MCL. Environmentalists could then push for the more stringent standard,

as called for in the NAS report.

One environmentalist says if EPA denies the petition or the public
hearing, a lawsuit is imminent. “We’re in this all the way to the finish
line,” the source says. “We do not think these tolerances are

justifiable, and they pose significant risks to children’s health.”

Another environmental source says if EPA denies the petition to
temporarily ban the chemical, the groups would ask a federal court to

overturn the agency’s decision.

An industry source says EPA performed a thorough assessment and did not
find any additional risks associated with the sulfuryl fluoride. The
source also points out the value of the chemical as a potential methyl

bromide substitute.

EPA states in a July 5 Federal Register notice that it is seeking public
comment on the petition due to the complex science and policy issues
surrounding the chemical. “Given that the tolerances as to which the
stay is being sought have been in effect for an extended period and that
the request for a stay raises complex science issues of great public
interest, EPA is . . . requesting comment on the motion,” the document

states.

The industry source says groups are preparing public comments on the

issue, which are likely aimed at discredit ing the environmentalists’
reliance on the NAS report. “The report doesn’t in itself have any

effect on sulfuryl flouride tolerances,” the source says.

One EPA source says the agency is seeking public comment on the petition

because “our decision will affect people no matter which way we go.” The
agency wants to give all parties a chance to comment. The source also
notes that limiting sulfuryl fluoride use would likely hamper agency

efforts to limit the uses of methyl bromide.

Public comments on the chemical close August 4. A second EPA source says
the agency will likely issue a decision on the move to ban the
tolerances shortly after the deadline, after the agency reviews the

comments.

EPA has also said it is taking NAS’s recommendations into account, and
any changes in drinking water limits would include detail from the
report.