Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:47:09 -0700 From: Teresa Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: heavy metal harvest: fertilizer rules are a risky business (Oregon example)
> Heavy Metal Harvest > Fertilizer rules are a risky business. > > BY NICK BUDNICK > Willamette Weekly published 10/30/02 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News3284.lasso > > With the massive food fight over Measure 27 and the safety of genetically > engineered foods, Oregonians may have missed an equally heated discussion > going on behind the scenes--not over the labeling of Frankenfoods, but over > the use of common fertilizers. > > The issue first came up in 1997 when Seattle Times investigative reporter Duff > Wilson revealed that companies stuck with hazardous waste were recycling it > into fertilizer, endangering crops, animals and people. > > Since then, Washington, California and Texas have adopted limits on the > amounts of heavy metals in fertilizer. The 2001 Oregon Legislature ordered the > state Department of Agriculture to come up with its own rules limiting heavy > metals in all fertilizer sold in Oregon, which runs at least 700,000 tons a > year. > > Janet Fults, who developed ODA's proposed rules, says they are a step forward. > Previously, she says, there were no regulations at all on heavy metals such as > cadmium, which has been linked to pulmonary disease, and lead, which can > impair the growth of children and even cause brain damage. > > Environmentalists monitoring the process have argued that the regulations, > which are based on a fertilizer industry "risk assessment" study, are too lax > (see "Rogue of the Week," WW, Sept. 26. 2002). But WW has learned that state > and federal authorities have noted weaknesses in the proposal as well. > > Emails obtained by WW show that the U.S. EPA's top fertilizer expert, David > Fagan--who's previously been accused by Washington state environmentalists of > being in bed with the industry--has blasted Oregon's approach. In a June 25 > email, he noted that risk assessments, which are based on mathematical > assumptions, are easily manipulated by the fertilizer industry. Fagan warned > that risk-based standards such as Oregon's "will essentially mean no > regulation of the industry at all." > > His concern was echoed by Miles Kuntz, a fertilizer expert with the Washington > Department of Ecology. Washington, like California, has set limits that are > much more stringent than those of Oregon. Asked about the study ODA used, > Kuntz told WW, "They looked at part of the picture, but in our view they > didn't look at the whole picture." > > Interviews, as well as comments and correspondence obtained by WW, show a > number of weaknesses in Oregon's rules and in the industry risk assessment on > which they are based: > > *Oregon's rules are calibrated to protect farmers. But according to the state > of Washington, home gardeners, who apply fertilizer more heavily, can be > exposed to twice as much heavy metals as farmers. The model used by Oregon > ignores that risk. > > *According to a letter written in 2000 by the heads of the Washington > departments of Health, Ecology and Agriculture, the risk assessment Oregon > used appears to have significantly underestimated the risks posed by cadmium > and arsenic. > > *ODA is required by law to set rules that protect not only humans, but the > environment. Its proposals, however, ignore potential dangers to rivers, > streams, fish, animals and underground water supplies. In March and April, > Gary Calaba, hazardous waste expert for the Oregon Department of Environmental > Quality, urged ODA to consider risks to the environment, noting the mysterious > fish deformities that have turned up in a section of the Willamette River. The > segment, known as the Newberg Pool, receives heavy doses of agricultural > runoff. > > *According to the EPA, the largest exposure humans have to toxins in > fertilizer is indirect, through the fish, meat and milk we consume. The study > used by ODA ignores that risk. > > Fults, however, is confident the rules would protect human health. She told WW > there is not enough data on which to base regulations regarding the ecological > harm from heavy metals. Emails show that Fults felt constrained by the January > deadline. "The department is not looking to develop our 'own' numbers at this > point," wrote Fults, responding to questions from the DEQ. "There is no time > or research to rely on." Her correspondence also indicated a concern that > restrictions could raise fertilizer prices. > > The proposed rules are expected to become final by the end of the year. Gov. > John Kitzhaber has the power to step in, but his aide, Chris Dearth, says the > governor is satisfied that the ODA is on the right track. > > That means environmentalists' hopes for revisions rest with state Public > Health Officer Grant Higginson, whose staffers have expressed "concerns" that > the rules are too lax, according to an Oct. 24 email. > > Higginson planned to meet with his staff early this week to discuss those > concerns before taking a position on ODA's rules. > > ------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------ > Originally published > Wednesday, October 30, 2002 > > [A comment to newspaper can be submitted at the story's primary URL.]
