form of perhaps a scare, a concern, simply for pesticides as pesticides. There is nothing that we saw in the use of the paraquat that put it into a class-any separation from that and other materials, other herbicides that were being used. There is no evidence to suggest this. Mr. SAWYER. This 2,4-D that I see alluded to in some of these statements, is that what we called agent orange, or is that something else? Mr. TSCHIRLEY. Not specifically, no. Agent orange was a material that contained 50 percent 2,4-D, and 50 percent 2,4,5-T. So it was a combination of two products. Mr. SAWYER. Which is the one that has the dioxin. Mr. TSCHIRLEY. If you mean specifically the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo dioxin, that occurs in 2,4,5-T. There are three isomers of dioxin that have been discovered in 2,4-D. Those, however, have a much lower order of toxicity, and they occur at very, very low concentrations in 2,4-D—at a level of a few parts per billion. Mr. SAWYER. They don't occur in paraquat? Mr. TSCHIRLEY. No; they do not. Mr. SAWYER. The reason I ask you is, this last Congress, I was on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and we heard all kinds of testimony on these dioxins and 2,4-D's and the argument of whether agent orange did anything to anybody. I was curious if this had any carryover of that type. Mr. TSCHIRLEY. No. Mr. SAWYER. That is all I have, I think, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and your contributions. That concludes the hearing. The subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] ADDITIONAL MATERIALS PREPARED STATEment of Jerry L. BRINEGAR, M. DIV., PRESIdent, and Jack ETHERIDGE, B.A., VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH GEORGIA CITIZENS OPPOSED TO PARAQUAT SPRAYING We appreciate the opportunity to address this subcommittee on crime concerning the recent use of the deadly chemical paraquat near our homes in White County, Georgia. First of all we would like to make it clear that our 3,000+ members are in support of the government's goal of eradicating the illegal growth of marijuana. This is not the issue of N. Ga. C.O.P.S.! The issue is the methodologies and hidden agendas of the D.E.A. in spraying paraquat on a 20 by 13 feet area while filming the entire episode for the benefit of the Colombian Government. We question the unquestionable health hazards to the citizens of our area. We question the environmental hazards yet to be studied adequately and third we question the economic and legal standards of the D.E.A. in costs to the taxpayer's money and in violation of label laws! White County is a beautiful and peaceful place to live most of the year. As it so happened the paraquat spraying took place on national forest lands (our lands) during the height of our tourist season, less than five miles from a crowded resort community. It was a clear and windy day-the government helicopters were clearly visible from many front porches. Approximately fifteen minutes before the actual spraying, several residents in close vicinity (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile) were notified by a knock on the door from government agents that the spraying was to commence and that it was completely safe and there was no need to evacuate. At that point in time we still had no official notification to any of our local authorities or even our congressman Ed Jenkins. During the operation traffic was stopped on an adjacent highway to fix a malfunctioning spray tank. Innocent, law-abiding citizens were directly impacted. There is no question that paraquat is extremely toxic at low levels, whether through inhalation, skin absorption or by accidental swallowing. Its use is a matter of concern both from what we know and what we don't know about it. Chevron Chemicals label states, "do not get on skin, eyes, or clothing" and "Do not inhale spray mist." To quote from a letter from Georgia's Lieutenant Governor Zell Miller, "In the state of Washington, where vegetable fields have been sprayed, a state agriculture Department study found paraquat damage as far as 15 miles away from the spraying site." He continues, "there is evidence that it can stay active in water up to 14 days.' Obviously the citizens of North Georgia are not equipped to answer all the scientific questions posed by the aerial spraying of paraquat. What really bothers us is the fact that no one seems to know for sure just what the hazards are. In effect we are being used as GUINEA PIGS and we deeply resent it. Within 48 hours of the spraying, August 12, 1983, N.G. C.O.P.S. was formed through a coalition of concerned citizens and local government officials. The following day a TRO, temporary restraining order was granted in Atlanta Federal Court to stop the spraying of paraquat in the North Georgia Mountains. On September 13 a national TRO was granted in Washington, D.C. because of the government's violation of the national pesticide control law . . . the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It would seem that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was itself guilty of breaking our nation's laws. In this case aerial spraying was the least efficient and most uneconomical way of eliminating the estimated 50 marijuana plants involved. Agents traveled on foot to each site at least three times and finally they manually extracted the plants anyway. At least two government helicopters were employed, one to actually spray, another to record the operation on film. Lt. Governor Zell Miller estimated, "that the White County spraying cost taxpayers in excess of $16,000 per marijuana plant... just to make a film clip for the Colombian Government. N.Ga. C.O.P.S. protests the blatant waste of our hard earned tax dollars and the attempt to create a propaganda film about the use of paraquat in our backyard with no apparent concern for the health and well-being of our people! We also deeply resent the "smear" attempts by the White House to label our members, citizens of White County and our city and government officials as "pro-drug activists." We are pro-life and are responsible concerned citizens that have offered our complete cooperation to the D.E.A. in eradicating marijuana in the N. Ga. Mountains, but we will not tolerate the use of one poison to eradicate another! In conclusion we urge the Subcommittee on Crime to re-evaluate the use of paraquat in eradicating marijuana. In the words of a Chevron vice-president, "Terrifying people in order to modify their social behavior is not a registered use of paraquat when used as a weed killer, paraquat is accomplishing, by chemical means what can be done with a hoe and bonfire. . . . The hoe, in this instance, would be the preferred means." NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST THE MISUSE OF PESTICIDES, Washington, D.C., October 4, 1983. Hon. WILLIAM J. HUGHES, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: We are submitting the attached comments on the U.S. Government's paraquat spray program to eradicate marijuana. We trust that these remarks will be made a part of the hearing record on the paraquat spray program. As we have discussed with your staff, we feel it is extremely important that your subcommittee take a close look at the legal, health and environmental issues associated with the spray program. In light of the recent U.S. District Court decision and findings of the Drug Enforcement Administration's violation of federal environmental and health statutes and adverse spray program impact on health and the environment, we urge you to help DEA find another way to carry out its drug law enforcement responsibilities. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Enclosure. JAY FELDMAN, National Coordinator. PREPARED Statement of Jay Feldman, National Coordinator, National As if "two wrongs equalled a right," the Reagan Administration has aerially sprayed the deadly chemical paraquat over national forests lands to kill marijuana plants being cultivated illegally on federal lands. In aerially spraying paraquat over forest lands, the government has blatantly ignored the restrictions governing the product's uses as stipulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the manufacturer. The government's spray program amounts to illegal "chemical warfare" of the worst kind and jeopardizes the general public's health and the environment. While the Reagan Administration sees its spray program as an efficient way to stop marijuana production and use, it reflects a larger lack of concern and attention to the real danger of toxic chemicals and the laws adopted to protect the public and the environment. Having said this, the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) does not oppose the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) overall mandate to carry out the drug laws of this nation. However, NCAMP does oppose the dangerous and illegal method which the DEA proposed for 40 states and initiated in Georgia and Kentucky. The Reagan Administration is wrong. It is wrong because it has violated some very basic protections that must be afforded the American public under two federal laws-the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Government officials in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Forest Service and the White House are bound by these laws. And yet, Reagan Administration officials have chosen to ignore them. First and most importantly, the government has violated our basic national pesticide control law FIFRA. Here EPA is responsible for establishing both legal and illegal uses of paraquat and all other pesticide products. Over one year ago, after a lengthy scientific review of its hazards, the EPA further restricted paraquat's uses, specifically curtailing uses in uncontrolled environments and severely restricting noncrop uses. While there are many herbicides registered specifically for forestry use, paraquat is not one of them. When paraquat's label was finally changed in May 1983 EPA effectively clarified in very specific terms remaining noncrop uses and suspended all those uses that could in any way be seen as remotely similar to forestry. The uses suspended under an agreement between EPA and the manufacturer, Chevron Chemical Company, include "Rights-of-way, including Federal, State, County and Township Highways, Roads, Dividers, and Medians... Railroads. . . Parkways." Secondly, the DEA did not carry out its responsibilities as required by NEPA. DEA did not: Carry out an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or careful review of the potential harm to general health and the environment resulting from the proposed program; Consider alternatives to the broadcast spraying of poisons over people and wildlife habitat, and; Provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the program. One day before the spray program began in Georgia on August 12, 1983, the DEA published a notice in the Federal Register, thereby effectively precluding any public comments. The Federal Register notice alerted the public that the program entailed "no significant impact on the environment" and therefore did not require an EIS. Residents of the spray area in Georgia first learned of the spray program when they heard the helicopters, literally minutes before the spraying took place. LEGAL ACTION On September 13, 1983, after hearing our arguments on a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, U.S. District Court Judge June L. Green ruled that the government's spray program was in violation of FIFRA and NEPA and entered a temporary order prohibiting the further spraying of paraquat on federal lands. The government has now capitulated to prepare an EIS. Meanwhile the FIFRA claim is still under court review. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Paraquat's use is troubling from two standpoints-what we actually know and what we do not know about the chemical. We do know that paraquat is extremely toxic at very low doses. Regardless of where it enters the human body, through inhalation, skin absorption or ingestion, the chemical makes its way to the circulatory system and accumulates in the lungs where it can produce lung fibrosis, which forms a brittle lung that is ultimately nonfunctional. Paraquat also can cause severe damage to the kidneys and liver. In effect, no one denies the deadly properties of this chemical. The product label explicitly states, "Do not get on skin, eyes or clothing" and "Do not inhale spray mist." The fact of the matter is that there is no antidote once poisoning occurs. In 1982, a 25-year old gardener died as a result of accidental inhalation and absorption of the chemical. In terms of wildlife exposure, 72 percent of a population of 84 geese died within 20 days after an adjacent field was treated with paraquat in 1973. Contaminated water apparently moved into the area where the geese were living. In fact, there are numerous field reports which indicate paraquat applications have led to fish and rabbit kills as well as a reduction in egg hatchability. Most importantly, paraquat spraying in the forest will expose forage feeders and species contacting contaminated plants to potentially dangerous levels of the chemical. Of note is the fact that paraquat's label reads, "Do not graze treated areas of feed treated forage to livestock." Even more specific, the label reads, "This product is toxic to wildlife." In terms of what we do not know about paraquat, we are equally troubled. Paraquat was registered for use in the U.S. with health and safety test data that was found to be faulty. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. (IBT), the company which supplied the data to support paraquat's registration, produced 17 studies for this data package, 15 of which were found to be invalid. Three of the four oncogenicity 30-995 0-84-8 |