atrazine report - land stewardship project

8/14/2019 Atrazine Report - Land Stewardship Project

1/44

The Syngenta Corporation & AtrazineThe Cost to the Land, People & Democracy

A report by the Land Stewardship Projectand Pesticide Action Network North AmericaJanuary 2010


2/44

AcknowledgementsThe hard work and courage of many people went intomaking the report possible, yet some deserve specialacknowledgement. Paul Wotzka and Tyrone Hayes stoodup to corporate interests and succeeded in making theirscienti c ndings publicly known, despite efforts toobscure and undermine their work. Both have done soat great personal expense, and we appreciate their workand collaboration. We are also grateful to the farmers inthis report who shared their time and stories. Their storiesoffer real world examples of farming without atrazine,and are important to exposing the myth that Syngentasatrazine is indispensable.

For more information from Land Stewardship Project,contact Bobby King, 612-722-6377.

For more information from Pesticide Action Network,contact Kathryn Gilje, 415-981-6205, ext. 329.

Cover photos: Corn eld (Purdue9394/istockphoto.com); Drink of water(Brasil2/istockphoto.com); Bill Gorman, organic dairy farmer (LSP); U.S.Capitol (Kevin McCoy)


3/44

The Syngenta Corporation & AtrazineThe Cost to the Land, People & Democracy

A report by the Land Stewardship Project and Pesticide Action Network North America

1. Introduction, pg. 4 About the Land Stewardship Project (LSP) andhow this report came about

Pesticide Action Network North Americaspartnership with LSP on this report

2. Executive Summary, pg. 6

3. Syngentas Atrazine in our Water, pg. 8The Whitewater Whistleblower: The storyof how hydrologist Paul Wotzkas research intoatrazine led to his being red, pg. 8

Atrazine in the Whitewater. What corporateag interests dont want you to know about PaulWotzkas research, pg. 10

Are You Drinking Atrazine? A Natural ResourcesDefense Council report shows widespread levels of atrazine in drinking water and surface water in thecentral United States, pg. 11

4. The Impact of Syngentas Atrazine onour Health and Environment, pg. 12What the Syngenta corporation doesnt want

you to know about atrazine. Dr. Tyrone Hayesrecounts his research into atrazine and how theSyngenta corporation attempted to suppress anddiscredit his work, pg. 12

A Q&A with Tyrone Hayes, pg. 16

Syngentas Atrazine & our Health: A summaryof recent research on health and atrazine, pg. 17

Two Stories of People Concerned about the Human Health Consequences of Exposure to Atrazine

Excerpts from a conversation with Gloria M.Contreras, Coordinator of the Health PromoterProject of Centro Campesino (FarmworkerCenter) in southern Minnesota, pg. 18

Dr. Janet Gray, Breast Cancer Fund, discussesthe science behind her organizations concernsabout the links between atrazine and breastcancer, pg. 19

5. Background on Syngenta Corporation,the worlds largest agrichemicalcompany, pg. 20

Does Syngenta Corporation Have the Best Interests of Farmers in Mind? pg. 24

6. Caring for the Land, pg. 26Five stories of farmers who have moved beyond

atrazine and information about how to reduceatrazine use on your farm

Paul Sobocinski: A southwestern Minnesotafarmer learns about the dangers of atrazine anddecides not to use it, pg. 26

Greg Erickson: A southeastern Minnesotafarmer nds atrazine in his well and takes action,pg. 27

Mike Phillips: A south-central Minnesotafarmer applies his own herbicide and raises cornwithout atrazine, pg. 29

Loretta and Martin Jaus: A west-centralMinnesota farm family utilizes an innovative toolfor herbicide-free weed control, pg. 30

Duane Hager: A farmer in the upper reaches of the Mississippi River whose focus on soil healthmeans pesticides arent necessary, pg. 31

Brand Names of Herbicides Containing Atrazine, pg. 32

Suggestions for Reducing or Eliminating Atrazine Use, pg. 33

7. Democracy & Syngentas Atrazine,pg. 34

8. Conclusions & Recommendations,pg. 37

Endnotes, pg. 40

Table of Contents


4/444 The Syngenta Corporation & Atrazine: The Cost to the Land, People & Democracy

The Land Stewardship Project (LSP) was ounded inMinnesota 27 years ago with a mission o ostering anethic o stewardship or armland, to promote sustain-able agriculture and to develop sustainable commu-nities. During the past two and a hal decades, LSP

has taken on many o the toughest issues acing ruralcommunities and amily

armers, including cor-porate concentration inagribusiness, arm ore-closures in the 1980s,and actory arms. LSPhas worked to promote

arming systems that areenvironmentally soundand pro table throughpolicy re orm and aneducation-to-actionapproach that involves

armers and other citi-zens learning rom eachother. As a grassrootsmembership organiza-tion, the concerns andpassions o our membershave directed much o our work.

LSP became involved in the issue o atrazine in 2007 when Paul Wotzka, a hydrologist employed by thestate o Minnesota, was red a ter a state legisla-tor requested he testi y about his research into thehigh levels o atrazine present in southeast Minnesota waterways. (Wotzkas story and research are detailed insection 3, p. 8.) Wotzka is a long-time LSP memberand a strong advocate or stewardship o the land. Asa result o his sudden dismissal, he led a ederal whis-tleblower lawsuit and LSP helped organize a undraiser

1 IntroductionThe Syngenta corporation invented the herbicide atrazine1 and is its primary manu acturer.2 Thecorporation is certainly one o atrazines most ardent de enders and promoters.3 One o the mostcommonly detected pesticides in U.S. ground and sur ace water, many scientists are increasingly concerned about the human health and ecosystem impacts o atrazine. Atrazine is a knownendocrine disruptor that is linked to reproductive harm and cancers. This report o ers a review o the issue, and highlights what armers in particular can do to end reliance on Syngentas atrazine.

or his legal de ense on October 10, 2007. During a presentation at the event, Dr. Tyrone Hayes detailedhis research into how very low levels o atrazineemasculated rogs, and how the Syngenta corpo-ration tried to suppress this in ormation (see sec-

tion 4, pg. 12, or an excerpt o Hayes 2007 talk).Over 200 people attended this event, and the eed-back rom many LSP members who attended wasalong the lines o , We are so glad LSP is involvedin this issue. Later, LSP mailed a survey on theissue to our members and the response rom both

armers and non- armers was very supportive o LSP continuing to research and organize aroundthis topic. One thing made clear by our survey isthat armers want more in ormation about atrazine,the Syngenta corporation and other alternatives to

using this herbicide. This report is a continuation o our learning process. It is especially or armers, butis written to be accessible to any reader.

Many outside the arming community may wonder why atrazine is still so widely used. There are sev-eral reasons or this. For one thing, the herbicide ise ective at killing weeds in corn elds and providingongoing protection against pest plant in estations.In addition, the Syngenta corporation promotesatrazine heavily and assures armers that it is sa e.4 Syngenta even promotes atrazine as a valuable part

o sustainable agriculture.5,6

Many armers hire cus-tom pesticide applicators and may not know thatatrazine is part o the spray mix. Also, many armersuse pre-prepared tank mixes purchased rom theirco-op and may be unaware that atrazine is a part o the mix. In act, many armers are surprised to learnthat atrazine is still so heavily used.7

Many LSP armer-members use herbicides and pes-ticides, including atrazine, as part o their arming

The Land Stewardship Project & how this report came about


5/441. Introduction 5

operation. I chemicals are used, stewardship o theland demands that they be used judiciously and thatonly appropriate and sa e chemicals be used. How-ever, a persuasive, growing body o science indicatesthat atrazine may not be sa e to use because o itsprevalence in our water and its negative impacts onhuman health and the environment. This report isin part written to help armers make more in ormeddecisions about atrazine.

This report documents that the ederal process andagencies that armers and the public rely on to pro-

vide unbiased, science-driven in ormation has beencorrupted by corporate infuenceespecially romSyngenta. LSP believes that the Syngenta corpora-tion, through its aggressive marketing and lobbying,should be held primarily responsible or atrazines widespread use in the U.S., and or its prevalencein our water. It is important to keep in mind thatSyngenta is the primary economic bene ciary o atrazinenot armers. Indeed, as this report shows,Syngenta maintains pro ts in part through charging

armers more or its products.

Pesticide Action Network North Americaspartnership with LSP on this reportLSP wanted to partner on this work with an orga-nization amiliar with the science o pesticides, andone that understands the role o large agribusinessin promoting and pro ting rom pesticides. Pes-ticide Action Network North America (PAN) isinterested in working with not blaming amily

armers. PAN knows that the increase o industrial,large-scale arming has led to a hand ul o giant cor-porations reaping large pro ts while armers o tenstruggle to make ends meetand the health o arm

amilies, armworkers and ecosystems su er. Since

the mass introduction o pesticides into agriculture70 years ago, control over the knowledge and toolsneeded to grow ood has been shi ting rom armersto the laboratories and marketing divisions o mul-tinational corporations. PAN wants to see armersaround the world regain control o ood production.

PAN is a global network ounded 28 years ago inMalaysia to end reliance on highly hazardous pesti-cides, and to support solutions that protect peopleand the environment. PAN was created by organiza-tions o armers, armworkers, consumers and sci-

entists rom around the world, and has grown to aninternational network o more than 600 groups insome 90 countries. PAN members are concernedabout pesticides and the corporate control o agri-culture. PAN works or a healthy, air uture. PANhas ve regional centersin A rica, Asia, Europe,Latin America and North Americathat coordi-nate our activities around the world. PAN combinesindependent, veri able science and network-based

organizing to yield results.Since PANs ounding in1982, the network helpedinitiate and win rati cation o the main internationaltreaties responsible

or regulating trade inhighly hazardous andpersistent pesticides.

PAN partners with organiza-

tions that genuinely work witharmers, armworkers, consum-ers and scientists toward creating healthy, sa e and air ood systems.Thats why were so pleased to be partnering withLSP on the production o this report. We know thatLSP believes in the power o people when it comesto recreating our ood system, and that LSP arm-ers are a power ul orce or change. LSP and PANshare a commitment to healthy, secure and sustain-able ood and arming systems. And we share theunderstanding that the Syngenta corporation holds

the responsibility or the harms done by atrazine: thecontamination o our nations water, as well as theincreasingly well-understood human health impacts.PAN groups around the world are concerned aboutSyngentas role in reshaping ood and agriculturalsystems, and Syngentas practices that have led tosome hazardous pesticides being kept on the market

ar too long. We look orward to working alongsideLSP to change that reality.



2 Executive Summary Farmers like me are being put on the ront line

when it comes to the health risks o a chemical likeatrazine, says Paul Sobocinski, a Minnesota armer.

This report summarizes the growing and persuasivebody o science that is ueling national concern overSyngentas herbicide, atrazine. This report describeshow, despite evidence o serious health and ecosys-tem problems associated with atrazine, the U.S. gov-ernment has taken minimal action to protect the

wel are o the American people, and how Syngenta,atrazines creator and ardent promoter, has under-mined independent science and the democratic pro-cess to keep the pesticide on the market. This reportshares concerns rom armers, armworkers andscientists, and also tells the stories o armers whohave ound that atrazine is not an irreplaceable crop

protection tool. This report is written or armers,yet is a resource or all people concerned about theimpact o Syngentas atrazine on water, people andecosystems.

Syngentas atrazineSince it rst went on the market in the U.S. in1959, atrazine has become one o the most widely used herbicides in the country. An estimated 76.5million pounds o atrazine are used in the U.S. eachyear, with 86% used on corn.i,ii The Syngenta corpo-ration invented atrazineiii and is the chemicals mostaggressive de ender. The corporation has a 35%market share in corn herbicides, is the global leader inselective herbicides and is number two in non-selectiveherbicides.iv Atrazine is one reason Syngentas netpro ts grew 75 percent in 2007,v and another 40percent in 2008.vi

Atrazine is a common water contaminantSyngentas atrazine has become one o the mostcommonly detected pesticides in U.S. ground andsur ace water.vii Between 1998 and 2003, 7 mil-lion people were exposed to atrazine in their treateddrinking water at levels above state or ederal health-based limits.viiiThe U.S. Geological Survey oundthat atrazine was present in streams in agriculturalareas approximately 80 percent o the time, and ingroundwater in agricultural areas about 40 percento the time.ix In states like Minnesota, Syngentasatrazine has been ound in a wide variety o areas

rom agricultural communities to the pristine lakeso the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.x

Atrazine is a health risk The widespread presence o Syngentas atrazine in theenvironment poses a risk to humans, wildli e and eco-systems. It is a potentendocrine disruptor a chemicalthat disrupts hormonal activity o animals and humansat extremely low doses.xi Dr. Tyrone Hayes researchshows that exposing rogs to as little as 0.1 parts perbillion o atrazine causes severe health problems,including inducing a kind o chemical castration.xii

Atrazine is linked to breast and prostate cancer, retardsmammary development and induces abortion in labo-ratory rodents.xiii

Science under siegeThe Syngenta corporation and its agribusiness allieshave attempted to suppress science related to atra-zines environmental and health problems. ScientistsTyrone Hayes and Paul Wotzka have aced retaliation

or speaking publicly about their ndings on atrazine.Such bullying tactics have denied the public and poli-cymakers the scienti c in ormation they need to makein ormed decisions on the use o atrazine. Farmers and

armworkers, in particular, are harmed by this suppres-sion o science.

Syngenta undermines democracy and indepen-dent science to keep atrazine on the marketSyngenta is a multinational corporation based inSwitzerland that is increasingly in control o globalagrichemical and seeds markets. Syngentas 2008 salesmade it the largest pesticide company in the world,controlling almost one- th o the global market oragrichemicals.xiv Syngenta has used its deep pockets toundermine scienti c integrity, thwart the democraticprocess and sway the U.S. publics view o what tech-niques modern agriculture requires to remain viable.Meanwhile, the same chemical is banned in its homecountryand throughout Europe.

Family farmers are innovative stewards andhave found ways to grow food without atrazineThere are many viable ways o producing corn with-out relying on Syngentas controversial chemical. SinceGermany and Italy banned atrazine in 1991, cornyields and acres o corn harvested in those countrieshave risen, an indication that atrazine is not as integralto crop production as Syngenta would like the public


7/44



For over 16 years, Paul Wotzka was a highly-respectedhydrologist working or the state o Minnesota, doing cutting-edge research on pesticides, including atrazine,in sur ace water. In the spring o 2007, he was reda ter he asked permission to testi y about his researchinto atrazine be ore a state legislative committee. A terhis ring, Wotzka led a ederal whistleblower lawsuit,claiming that his First Amendment right to ree speechhad been violated. Wotzkas ormer employer maintainsthat his ring is a simple case o an employee not ol-lowing the rules.

But this case is about a lot more than one civil servant who had a di erence o opinion with his supervisors. At issue is how publicly- unded science is used to infu-ence policy, the role industry plays in the regulatory system and the publics right to know.

Scientists tend to look at our shoes too much and say,I dont want to enter into the public policy arena,says Wotzka. Well, somebody has to give the straightstory.

Atrazine & water The straight story Wotzka eels he has to tell is this:From 1990 to late 2006, he worked as a hydrologist

or the Minnesota Department o Agriculture (MDA)monitoring pesticide levels in sur ace water. What he

ound was that one o Americas most popular weedkillers is requently nding its way o crop elds and

into the water o the middle branch o southeast Min-nesotas Whitewater River.

Atrazine has been an inexpensive, e ective killer o weeds or 50 years. Thats why it was used on around45 percent o the 7.3 million acres o corn planted inMinnesota in 2005, according to the USDA. In act,more than 1.6 million pounds o the pesticide wereused in the state that year alone.8 But the characteristicthat makes it an e ective weed killerits stability and

Syngentas Atrazine in our Water Atrazines ability to stick around in the environment af ter its applied to elds, combined with its high mobility, make it a serious threat to water quality. In fact, in many farm states atrazine is the most common pesticide contaminant found in surface and groundwater. Research done across the country is providing a picture of how widespread atrazine contamination is. Such research is often controversial, as the story of Minnesota scientist Paul Wotzka illustrates.

The Whitewater Whistleblower: The story of how hydrologistPaul Wotzkas research into atrazine led to his being red

3

ability to stick around or as much as 100 days in thesoilalso makes it a pollution problem.

Once it leaches into groundwaterthe water that isbeneath the soil in subterranean aqui ersatrazine canremain there or decades. In states like Minnesota, atra-zine is by ar the most commonly detected pesticide insur ace and groundwater.9

Wotzkas research over the past several years showedlevels as high as 30 parts per billion (ppb) in the Whitewater a ter storm events. The U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agencys (EPA) drinking water standard

or atrazine is 3 ppb, and research conducted by theUniversity o Cali ornias Pro essor Tyrone Hayes showsthat exposing rogs to as little as 0.1 ppb o atrazinecauses severe health problems, including inducing a kind o chemical castration.10

Hydrologist Paul Wotzka on his southeast Minnesota farm


9/443. Syngenta's Atrazine in Our Water 9

Wotzka has also ound that nitrogen, a keystone ertil-izer or row crop arming, is showing up in increasing amounts as a pollutant in the Whitewater. Pesticidesand nitrogen ertilizer take di erent paths to water-

waysthe ormer tends to run overland, while the lat-ter percolates down through the soil pro le.

But Wotzka blames the same culprit or the increasedcontamination levels o both ag inputs: the growing prevalence o annual row crops that cover the land inthe watershed only a ew months o the year. Corn andsoybeans are replacing pastures, hay ground, woodedacres and other year-round plant systems. Since 1975,in a nine-county region in southeast Minnesota, cornand soybeans have gone rom 64 percent o all armedland to more than 82 percent.11 Combine that with the

act that in recent years more heavy rains are coming in the spring, when crop elds are less covered in veg-etation and thus more vulnerable, and its a recipe ordisaster, he says.

Over the years, Wotzka has not been shy about shar-ing his research results with the public. He has givenpresentations on his research to arm groups, watershedorganizations, physicians, shing enthusiasts and thegeneral public.

Im taking public in ormation and giving it to thepublic, says Wotzka o these presentations. Ivealways viewed that as part o my job: in orm the publicabout how their tax money has been spent.

When talking about agrichemicals in water, Wotzka makes it clear he doesnt blame armers. He knows they

want to do the right thing, but are o ten orced to usesomething like atrazine in a vulnerable area becausethey eel they have no viable alternative or weed con-trol. And many believe theyve actually cut atrazineout o their cropping systems, only to nd out later itscontained in a tank mix consisting o several chemicals.

There are now over 90 tank mixes, maybe over 100,containing atrazine. Nobody keeps track o that stu ,says Wotzka.

He lays the blame on government policies that dontin orm armers o such issues, and, perhaps even worse,promote increased plantings o row crops like corn inenvironmentally sensitive areas.

Between 2000 and 2004, as he watched atrazine levelsgo up in the Whitewater, the hydrologist became moreadamant that the MDA take action.

In 2004, we saw levels that we hadnt ever seenbe ore, Wotzka recalls. We were nding higher andhigher concentrations, and I wouldnt let [MDA o -cials] orget about it.

Agriculture Department o cials acknowledge thatatrazine is in the water, but say it does not exceedhealth standards because it is not at those high levels

or extended periods o time. The MDA sees as a solu-tion the promotion o voluntary best managementpractices in cropping areas, such as suggesting that

armers dont apply atrazine within a certain distanceo wells, and that grassy bu ers be used along streams.

Wotzka argues that endocrine disruption research

shows the health standard is not low enough, and thateven those short-term spikes should be o concern. Healso eels voluntary best management practices havelimited e ectiveness, given atrazines residual natureand ability to move about in the atmosphere. He sayshe was all but ignored by MDA o cials.

Finally in October 2006, Wotzka had had enough. When a hydrologist position at the Minnesota Pollu-tion Control Agency (MPCA) came open, he applied

or it and was hired.

In March 2007, Wotzkas research caught the attentiono Ken Tschumper, a southeast Minnesota dairy armer

who was then a member o the Minnesota House o Representatives. During the 2007 legislative session,Tschumper and Senator John Marty, with the supporto the Land Stewardship Project, spearheaded a groupo bills that would tighten regulation on pesticides suchas atrazine. Tschumper contacted Wotzka and askedthat he testi y be ore the Housing Policy and Financeand Public Health Finance Division committee onMarch 23 o that year.

The hydrologist responded by sending a copy o a presentation to Tschumper. He also sent a request totesti y to his supervisors. A regional MPCA super-visor turned down Wotzkas request to testi y at theMarch 23 hearing, arguing that the research Wotzka

was to present to the committee was done while he wasan MDA employee. Wotzka eels that the real reason ishis testimony would have run counter to MDAs lineon atrazine contamination. Indeed, when the commit-tee hearing was held, Dan Stoddard, Assistant Direc-tor o the MDAs Pesticide and Fertilizer ManagementDivision, testi ed that although sur ace water researchshowed sharp spikes in atrazine, health standards werenot exceeded because those increases were temporary.12

A week a ter the hearing, Wotzka was placed oninvestigatory leave. He was told it was or alleg-edly destroying data while at the MDA and orward-ing mail rom his MDA address to his MPCA o ce.On May 8, 2007, Wotzka was red. When discussing

Wotzkas ring, state o cials simply say that they dogood science on pesticides and that the hydrologists

ring is a personnel matter.13



Wotzka says his whistleblower lawsuit challenges thestates allegations against him. The hydrologist believesthe ring was simply meant to silence him and under-mine his public credibility as an expert on pesticidecontamination in water. Public criticism o atrazine isnot popular in Saint Paul: Tyrone Hayes himsel wasdis-invited rom giving a keynote at an MPCA con er-ence in 2004 a ter concerns were raised his presenta-tion would o end agribusiness interests.14

An unfriendly message for public servantsMeanwhile, Wotzka continues to talk about hisresearch and is building a legal case against the state.He has withdrawn his ederal whistleblower lawsuitover the technical issue o which agencythe MDA orMPCAit should be led against. However, the sci-

entist is still pursuing other litigation against the stategovernment. He says this main goal is to expose thatstate o cials arent ul lling their responsibility to pro-tect the environment rom agrichemical contamina-tion. Wotzka also thinks its important to show otherpublic employees that they should eel ree to speak out, even when what they say makes power ul interestsuncom ortable.

There are subtle ways the people in power can reinyou in, he says. But in the end, we work or thepublic.

To listen to a Land Stewardship Project podcast featuring Paul Wotzka describing his research,

see www.landstewardshipproject.org/podcast. html?t=3 (episode 43).

Atrazine in the Whitewater A summary of Paul Wotzkas research on atrazine contamination in southeast Minnesota waterways.

Groundwater Atrazine and its metabolites (the chemicals that result romthe breakdown o atrazine over time) are the most commonly detected pesticides in southeast Minnesota groundwater. Atra-zine and its breakdown products were detected year-round inthree Department o Natural Resources sh hatchery springs.These springs emanate rom underground aqui ers that areextensively used or drinking water throughout the region.

Atrazine and its breakdown products were detected in almost100 percent o these samples, according to monitoring donebetween 2003 and 2004. Concentrations or all six springsaveraged 0.21 parts per billion (ppb) during this sampling period. Since atrazine was present in the springs, it can besa ely assumed it was also present in the underground aqui ersthat produce the springs, and that means it is in the regionsdrinking water.

Streams Atrazine and its metabolites are detected throughout theyear in streams and aqui ers. The highest concentrations instreams are seen shortly a ter atrazine is applied in late spring or early summer. Atrazine is washed o elds by short dura-tion, high-intensity storm events. This storm-generated pulseo water produces a rise in stream levels. Concentrations o 20to 30 ppbmany times the stream standard o 3.4 ppboccur during these storm events, which take place early in thegrowing season. When stream levels recede, atrazine does notdisappear rom the normal base fow, but drops to levels lessthan 1 ppb. Even during base fow conditions in winter, atra-zine is detected at concentrations o 0.2 ppb.

Rainfall Atrazine is the most commonly detected herbicide in rain all.Peak concentrations occur during crop application periods in tlate spring and early summer. In 2001, a maximum concentra-tion o 1.65 ppb was recorded or atrazine and its metabolitesrain all during the rst week o June. This value is over hal amount o the drinking water standard o 3 ppb. Atrazine wasdetected in 76 percent o the rain all samples collected in 200

rom April through September.15

Urban storm runoff and lakes Atrazine has been detected in urban storm runo and lakes insouth Minneapolis, as well as in lakes near the Boundary WateCanoe Area Wilderness.16 These detections in areas ar rom c

elds raise the question: where does it come rom? The atmo-spheric transport and deposition o atrazine (and other pesticiexplains how it can be removed rom elds where it is appliedtransported hundreds o miles to distant water resources.

ConclusionIn summary, over a period o several years, research showed a

zine levels as high as 30 ppb in the Whitewater a ter storm evThats several times higher than the U.S. EPA drinking waterstandard o 3 ppb. It is also nearly 10 times higher than allowstream standards or atrazine contamination.

Finally, it is important to remember that atrazine is only one oabout hal -a-dozen pesticides that commonly occur in storm ro during the mid-May through mid-July period in southeastMinnesota. Its presence is an indicator that other contaminantsare in the water.17


11/443. Syngenta's Atrazine in Our Water 11

Are You Drinking Atrazine?In August 2009, the Natural Resources De ense Coun-cil (NRDC) released a report entitled Poisoning the

Well: How the EPA is Ignoring Atrazine Contamina-tion in Sur ace and Drinking Water in the CentralUnited States. The report is available online and o ersa deeper understanding o the issues.

NRDC analyzed the data rom two U.S. EPA sur-ace water and drinking water monitoring programs.

The data was collected by the Syngenta corporation aspart o a controversial agreement with the U.S. EPA inOctober 2003 that allowed atrazineto be kept on the U.S. market. (Seesection 7, p. 34, or moredetails on the contro-versy.) The EPA only made the in ormationavailable to NRDCa ter court action

and repeated Free-dom o In ormation Act requests.

Under the Ecologi-cal Watershed Moni-toring Program, 1172

watersheds in Mid- western and Southernstates were identi ed as highrisk or atrazine, but only 40 wereselected or monitoring between 2004 and2006. Under the Atrazine Monitoring Program,

139 public drinking water supplies were tested or atra-zine and its breakdown products. Both untreated andtreated water were tested. NRDC did the rst compre-hensive analysis o this joint data.

Below is a short summary o some o the reports mostcritical ndings:

Atrazine in surface water All 40 watersheds tested had detectable levels of

atrazine. Nine of the 40 watersheds monitored had at least

one sample showing atrazine levels at 50 parts perbillion (ppb) and our watersheds had peak levelsexceeding 100 ppb. One watershed in Indiana hadan annual average o 18.46 ppb and a peak o 256.5ppb.

The watersheds with the 10 highest peak concen-trations o atrazine are in Indiana, Missouri andNebraska.

Atrazine in drinking water More than 90 percent of samples taken in 139 wate

systems had measurable levels o atrazine. Three water systems had running annual averages in

nished tap water that exceeded the 3 ppb ederalstandard.

Fifty-four water systems had a one-time peak ofatrazine levels above 3 ppb. The peak level in nisheddrinking water was 39.69 ppb in the Evansville,Illinois, water system.

County atrazine use intenstiy,in pounds per square mile

No Estimated Use

< 0.5

> 0.5 - 5

> 5 - 24

> 24 - 85

> 85

Atrazine Use Intensity2007

Map courtesy of USGS18

The report points out that the U.S. EPA ocuses onaverage concentrations o atrazine and has ignoredthese peak levels. As highlighted in section 4, p. 12, o this report, adverse health e ects are associated witheven short-term exposure to atrazine, so these spikes arealarming.

Overall, the report demonstrates that the U.S. EPAsmonitoring program or atrazine, while poorly

designed, has still discovered levels o atrazine in waterthat are cause or serious concern. (Testing is not doneat times when atrazine levels are most likely the high-est, or example a ter a rainstorm or a ter elds havebeen treated with atrazine.) There is no process ormaking the data quickly available to the public andhealth o cials, and there is no e ective plan to reducethese unsa e levels.19



4

supposedly contradicted Hayes ndings.20 (This iscovered in urther detail in section 7, p. 34.)

Dr. Hayes received his B.A. rom Harvard and a PhD in integrative biology rom the University o Cali ornia-Berkeley, where he examined the role o hormones in mediating developmental responses toenvironmental changes in amphibians. He was ten-ured at Berkeley at the age o 30, becoming the Uni-versitys youngest ull pro essor. His work has been

highlighted by National Geographic magazine and hehas published more than 40 papers in many presti-gious scienti c journals, including Nature and Pro-ceedings o the National Academy o Sciences .

Dr. Hayes is an accomplished speaker with a gi tor making science interesting and accessible. Whatollows are excerpts o his October 2007 talk in

Minnesota.

To listen to Dr. Hayes full talk, see the Land Stewardship Projects podcast webpage at www.

landstewardshipproject.org/podcast.html?t=3(episode 42).

The Impact of Syngentas Atrazineon our Health and EnvironmentWhat the Syngenta corporation doesnt wantyou to know about atrazineDr. Tyrone Hayes, a biologist rom the University o Cali ornia who has studied atrazine or years, cameto Minneapolis on October 10, 2007, to take partin a legal de ense undraiser or ellow scientist Paul Wotzkas ederal whistleblower lawsuit (see The Whitewater Whistleblower in section 3, p. 8).

Like Wotzka, Dr. Hayes has withstood e ortsto suppress his science. In 1998, Dr. Hayes wasretained by a company called EcoRisk on behal o

the Syngenta corporation to do research into thee ects o atrazine on amphibians. His research oundthat extremely low doses o atrazine30 timeslower than ederal drinking water standards or thechemicalcaused eminization o male rogs. Syn-genta, however, blocked Dr. Hayes rom publish-ing the data, reminding him that under his contractthese ndings were con dential. Frustrated at Synge-ntas attempts to bury his science, Dr. Hayes endedhis relationship with EcoRisk, reproduced the stud-ies on his own and published the results in the scien-ti c literature. EcoRisk then attempted to discreditDr. Hayes science by producing its own studies that

Atrazine: a chemical without a country Atrazine is an herbicide (weed killer) thats usedon corn. Its used in more than 80 countries. Butits not allowed in Europe, or, as the company [Syngenta] likes me to say, its been denied regu-latory approval. And the reason that is signi cantis that the company that makes it is in Switzer-land. So were using 80 million pounds o some-thing thats not allowed in its home country.

Chemical castrationTestosterone is the male hormone. Frogs aremaking the same testosterone that were mak-ing. And atrazine turns on the machinery that

Dr. Hayes speaks to LSP members while state Senator John Marty looks on.


13/44



on. And I said its been publishedthat the same things occur in sh,reptiles, birds and mammals. And Ann Lindsay said that no such data existed. I said the act that atrazinecan reduce testosterone and increaseestrogen occurs across species and Ann Lindsay told your Legislaturethe ollowing: It has been claimed

that research on rogs shows atrazinecauses changes in the productiono aromatase, an enzyme involvedin the conversion o testosterone toestrogen.

I underline involved because i yourean endocrinologist you know aro-matase is more than involved; itsthe only way you can make estrogen.She went on to say that it has alsobeen claimed that other scientistshave shown similar e ects in otherspecies. And then she said there isno direct scienti c in ormation toassess this hypothesis. So she said I was making it up.

She made this statement to youin 2005. In 2000 it was shown inEurope that atrazine causes a declinein testosterone and a decline insperm in rats. Its not my workthis is coming out o Europe.Shanna Swan showed in 2003 thatsub- ertile men in Missouri whohave low sperm counts cant get

their wives pregnant, have signi -cantly more atrazine in their urinethan men who have no reproductiveproblems. And I dont know whatit means, but the level o atrazinein these mens urine is equivalent to what it takes to chemically castrate a

rog. Maybe its a coincidence.

Theres another rat study that showstestosterones decrease in the pres-ence o atrazine. But this otherstudy went on to show that theserats with no testosterone are making excess estrogen, just like weve seenin rogs, sh, turtles, alligators. Andhere is the kicker: this study wasdone in an EPA laboratory with a Syngenta guy working on it.

What will future generations say?So, when I think about my daugh-ter, and what were learning inthese studies, this is what moves mebecause its not about you and me. Weve already been exposed. Its notabout our children. Theyve already been exposed. Data in France showsthat once they banned atrazine it was around or 20 years. Its stillaround in their aqui ers. That meansi you ban atrazine today, our grand-children will be exposed.

So, when I come to preach my ser-mon, when I give you a little bit o

science with a little bit o passion,that passion is because I know whatI want my grandchilds grandchildto say about what role I played inthe environment that she or he willbe born into. And my code o eth-ics commands that I want the samething or everyones children that I want or mine.

The farmers we serve.In human cell lines its been shownthat i you expose human cancercells to atrazine, they make aro-matase and they make estrogen. Justlike we see in sh, rogs, alligators,turtles and rats. And a study in Ken-tucky, and Syngenta knew aboutthisvery signi cantshows that women whose well water is contam-inated with atrazine are more likely to develop breast cancer.

Its not my data. People are doing this independently. The prostatecancer increased 8.4 old in oneo Syngentas actories that makesatrazine. When I testi ed last allSyngenta complained I was mis-representing the acts on atrazine.The Syngentans, they are constantly using terms like, The armers weservelike theyre giving yousomething.

So what Im going to do is read toyou exactly whats in that Synge-nta paper, published in the Journal

So, when I think about my daughter, and what were learning in thesestudies, this is what moves me because its not about you and me.Weve already been exposed. Tyrone Hayes


15/444. The Impact on our Health and Environment of Syngentas Atrazine 15

o Occupational and Environmen-tal Medicine,so you know Im notmisrepresenting anything. On page1052 they wrote: The increase inall cancers combined seen in theoverall study group was concen-trated in the company employeegroup. Thats Syngenta. They wroteon page 1052: The increase o prostate cancer in male subjects wasconcentrated in male employees.They wrote on page 1053: Theprostate cancer increase was urtherconcentrated in actively working company employees. So i you goto work, you get prostate cancer.

They wrote on page 1052 that allbut one o the cases occurred in men with 10 or more years since hire.So i you are loyal to the company,you get prostate cancer. They wroteon page 1053: Analysis restricted tocompany employees also ound thatthe prostate cancer increase was lim-ited to men under 60 years o age.Eighty percent o prostate cancers inthis country are men over 65. Theseguys are increasing prostate cancer8.4 old in men who were loyal tothe company and worked more than

10 years, and who were active. They showed up to work.

And then they come to you and use words like, The armers we serve. We need to ask what exactly are

they serving? And then they argue with you, Oh we have better sta-tistics and we have better screen-ing methods. And you need to ask yoursel , I this is how they servetheir employees, then how are they serving the armers who use theirproduct?

Playing both sidesof the breast cancer problem

Right now, whats become the num-ber one treatment or breast canceris a chemical called letrozole thatblocks aromatase, that knocks outestrogen and it prevents your tumor

rom growing. I you get breast can-cer, this is what theyre going to giveyou. At the same time, another com-pany is exposing 70 percent o all Americans to atrazine, which turnson aromatase, increases estrogen andcauses your cancers to grow into

tumors. Novartis Oncology sellsletrozole.

Syngenta was the result o a mergeo the agri-side o Novartis and AstraZeneca. So the company that

giving you atrazine, which turns onyour aromatase, turns around andsells you an aromatase blocker andsays its a thousand times better thaany other breast cancer treatment.So you dont have to believe me, jubelieve this (and any ve-year-old will know that both o these cantbe true): either atrazine induces aromatase and contributes to breastcancer, the number one cancer in women, or letrozole cant really knock out aromatase and treat yourbreast cancer.

I youve got breast cancer, andyoure buying up their letrozole,hows that supposed to work when70 percent o all Americans arebeing exposed to atrazine, whichis turning on your aromatase? Callthem up and ask them, Hows thatsupposed to work? You dont haveto believe me, just believe Novartis And watch out.21



A Q & A with Tyrone HayesIn an interview on November 18, 2009, Hayes talked to the Land Stewardship Project about his current researchon atrazine, his reaction to the U.S. EPAs announcement in October 2009 that it was reviewing the herbicide, and Syngentas attacks on his scientifc credibility.

What are you researching now?

TH:In the past two years we have been able to look at thelong-term reproductive e ects o atrazine. A high pro le

journal is about to publish our research showing that malerogs are permanently chemically castrated. In about 10 per-

cent o the cases, they actually become emales. In a ollow-up study we showed that male rogs exposed to atrazineactually show a pre erence to mate with other males. We havecon rmed that atrazine reduces testosterone in male rogs.These are both eld and lab studies that this research is basedon, and they involve the same low levels o atrazine thatshowed negative impacts be ore.

Some o our research on atrazine levels and reproductiveabnormalities uses U.S. Geological Survey water samples

rom across the country. It covers samples rom the Missis-sippi, Missouri and North Platte rivers, or example. Stateslike Minnesota, New York, Iowa, Montana, Wyoming andUtah are covered in this sampling, so its pretty extensive.

In addition, I have a student thats looking at the e ect atra-zine has on breast cancer rates. The student is taking actualhuman cells and tissues and studying them.

Are you focusing only on atrazine?TH:Actually, were trying to look at not just the e ects o

pesticides like atrazine on amphibians, but also look at it incontext o other pesticides the rogs are being exposed to,as well as other environmental actors such as the in ectionsand parasites that amphibians are vulnerable to. Researchis being done on how other actors such as pesticides may

weaken amphibians to the point where they are more vulner-able to parasites. We want to know what role pesticides suchas atrazine play in the array o actors that a ect the health o amphibians.

What do you think of the Environmental Protection Agencys October announcement that it is opening up

atrazine for review again?TH:I eel that now we have a more scienti cally objective sys-tem there at EPA, and its just more indicative o what they should have been doing all along. In terms o the science, Idont know how they cannot do a review. Theres more andmore evidence thats showing that this is a compound that isdamaging biological systems. One study released earlier thisyear shows a connection between when a baby is conceived,birth de ect rates and the time o year when atrazine andnitrates are at their highest level in sur ace water.

Its also becoming harder or the government to ignore

because o all the media attention atrazine is getting. I they do a review and dont utilize the good science out there, itsgoing to be very hard or them to justi y that. Its just getting too much attention right now. We have a better chance now than we ever had o having the science take precedence andleading to some real regulation o atrazine.

Are you concerned that the replacement herbicidesfor atrazine may be just as bad or worse for theenvironment and human health?TH:Yes. I think the best thing about atrazine is that we actu-ally have a lot o in ormation. The in ormation isnt good

news or atrazine, but theres a lot o it. For a lot o thesecompounds, we know very little about their environmen-tal impacts. It cautions us to study the e ects o such com-pounds be ore they go on the market.

How do you answer critics who say that when youcall for the banning of atrazine, you are attackingfarmers and threatening their livelihood?TH:I think whats happened is the polluters are good at rais-ing the emotions o their customers so that armers go outand say, You are attacking us. You are threatening our liveli-hood. Those people who are exposed the most are the ones

who are out on the arms. There are a number o armers who are on the wrong side o the debate because industry putthem there. There are armers out there raising corn withoutatrazine. They sure are doing it in Europe.

Is the industry ghting so hard to keep atrazine frombeing regulated because it has been such a keystoneherbicide for so long, and banning it would raise a lotof questions about other herbicides out there?TH:Ive always said its the poster child or our di erent phi-losophy about regulation. Its getting harder and harder toignore the evidence that its a problem because we know somuch about atrazine. We dont know as much about a lot o other pesticides out there, and this controversy over atrazineshould draw attention to these other compounds.

What is the status of your academic freedom? IsSyngenta still attacking your credibility?TH:Yes, thats not going to stop. They still write letters to my dean. I dont expect that to stop. As long as we continue todo science, they are going to keep attacking that science.22



Syngentas Atrazine & our Health

Dr. Tyrone Hayes research raises signi cant concerns aboutthe implications o exposure to atrazine or humans, wildli eand ecosystems. Below, we summarize additional researchrelated to human health and atrazine. The bottom line: thehealth impacts o exposure to atrazine can be signi cant andlong lasting. And it should be kept in mind that the nega-

tive e ects o low-dose exposure to atrazine are particularly troubling in light o a recent trend in agriculture: in many cases less o the herbicide is being used per acre, but a largernumber o acres are receiving applications.23 In other words,more people than ever are potentially being exposed.

In addition, atrazine exposure occurs as oneo many other potential hazards. Theimpacts o exposure to atrazine together

with other pesticides may increase theircombined toxic e ects.24 By ailing toconsider exposure o atrazine in combi-nation with other pesticides, as happens in

U.S. regulatory decisions, the actual health impactso atrazine may be signi cantly underestimated.

Atrazine is an endocrine disruptor Atrazine is a known endocrine disruptor, mean-ing it impacts and disturbs the human hormone (orendocrine) system. Exposure to endocrine disruptorsat even extremely low doses during critical windowso development o etuses can have lasting negativeimpacts or li e.25 Babies conceived during the spring, orexample, when levels o pesticides including atrazine arehighest, are more likely to develop birth de ects, including cle t palate, spina bi da and Down syndrome.26 Exposure toatrazine has been shown to disrupt amphibian hormone sys-tems, resulting in the development o emale sex organs andeggs in the testes o male rogs.27 Similar intersex eatures

within sh populations have been reported by the U.S. Fishand Wildli e Service,28 as well as in numerous studies onmammals and sh.29 Similarly, exposure to atrazine has beenlinked to decreased sperm count and reduced ertility inhumans.30

Health impacts, including increased tadpole mortality 31 andsevere kidney and limb damage,32 have been reported in

rogs exposed to multiple pesticides, including atrazine.

Atrazine & cancer Atrazine exposure has also been associated with increasedrisk o certain cancers such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma inhumans.33 The International Agency or Research on Can-cer (IARC) reported an increase in mammary gland tumorsin emale rats exposed to atrazine rom early li e to adult-hood.34 Several scienti c studies have ound a link betweenlong-term exposure to atrazine and breast cancer. A study o

women rom all 120 counties in Kentucky showed a statisti-

cally signi cant increase in breast cancer risk with mediumand high levels o atrazine exposure.35 A study rom theUnited Kingdom ound a signi cant association betweenbreast cancer rates and the application o atrazine in ruralLeicestershire.36 Other studies using laboratory rats as sub-

jects ound exposure to atrazine increased risks o breast

prostrate cancers.37

Until now, the U.S. EPA has ignored science on endocrinedisruption and cancer during its assessment o the riskso atrazine. The U.S. EPA has said that it will not include

evaluation o the hormone-disrupting propertieso atrazine until appropriate testing and/or

screening protocols have been created.38 The U.S. EPA is re erring to the muchdelayed Endocrine Disruptor Screen-ing Program. In 1996, Congress passed

a law requiring the U.S. EPA to screenpesticides and other contaminants or their

ability to a ect the endocrine systems o humans wildli e. Stalled 13 years until April 2009, and jusbeing initiated now, scientists are currently developing the battery o tests and protocols that will be usto screen chemicals. On October 29, 2009, the U.S.

EPA issued the rst test orders or a list o initial pecides. Atrazine is on the list.39

In the case o cancer, the U.S. EPA ignored the rec-ommendations o its own scienti c panel.40 The science

panel that looked at cancer risks only reviewed data relato prostrate cancer, despite the scientists own rustration

with this narrow charge.41 The scientists stated that it was

misleading to review prostate cancer data but not data petaining to other cancer risks.42 The U.S. EPA did not con-sider whether hormonal e ects in childhood or adolescenmay increase the cancer risk in later years; it also ignoredseveral studies on non-Hodgkins lymphoma.43 Current U.S.EPA documents say atrazine is not likely to be carcinogento humans,44 although two prominent national breast can-cer prevention groups concluded that industry pressure waresponsible or this characterization.45

New leadership at the U.S. EPA opened a new review o atrazines sa ety in October 2009. EPAs review o atrazinsa ety will reconsider the issue o cancer.The U.S. EPA

promises that, During the rst year o the new evaluationEPA will consider the potential or atrazine cancer and nocancer e ects, including data generated since 2003 romlaboratory animal and human epidemiology studies.46 StevOwens, assistant administrator or EPAs O ce o Prevetion, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, promised that, Ourexamination o atrazine will be based on transparency andsound science, including independent scienti c peer reviewand will help determine whether a change in EPAs regula-tory position on this pesticide is appropriate.47



Two Stories of People Concernedabout the Human Health Consequencesof Exposure to Atrazine

Gloria M. Contreras directs theHealth Promoter Program at Cen-tro Campesino, an organization o migrant workers and rural Latino/a residents in southern Minnesota.The Health Promoter Programbuilds leadership among armworkerand rural Latino/a communities

while working to improve healthand prevent disease. Mrs. Contrerashas been worried about atrazine inMinnesota since she saw disturbing evidence o the hazards o the chem-ical in late 2004. She subsequently brought testimony to the Minnesota Legislature during discussions o a bill to restrict atrazine uses in Min-nesota. The bill was de eated.

Mrs. Contreras worries that armworker and rural Latino/a commu-nities arent protected rom exposureto atrazine because theyre lacking basic, accurate in ormation aboutatrazine and how people might beexposed. And she doesnt trust theSyngenta corporation to give hercommunity the acts. Im con-cerned about atrazine in the water,and Im even more concernedbecause the majority o armworkersand rural Latino/a residents in ourarea dont even know that theres anissuethat atrazine is in the water,and that there are potential healthconcerns related to this pesticide,she says.

Mrs. Contreras is also concernedabout the multiple ways that arm-

workers are exposed. Althoughsome armworkers may not apply pesticides as part o their job, they are living in rural areas where pes-ticides could be in the air, water ordust. In the case o atrazine, per-

haps people use a lter or theirdrinking water, but Mrs. Contrerassays, Water is used or everything.People cook using the water. People

wash their clothes; they wash theirace. We dont even know i the l-

ters that people commonly use ortheir drinking water eliminate atra-zine. Water is everywhere. Whenasked why armworker communi-ties and rural Latino/a residents areconcerned about atrazine and otherpesticides, she answers de nitively:The sa ety and healthy develop-ment o our children.

The Health Promoter Programbegan tackling pesticides early on,o ering educational workshops to

armworkers on exposure to pesti-cides, and working to improve noti-

cation o pesticide use, especially near rural housing camps. This

was a very early action o ours, ledby armworkers living in housing camps that are located in the middleo corn elds, she recalls. Children

would be outside playing, clothes would be drying on the line andthe applicators would spray pesti-cides without o ering any advance

warning to the residents. We talked with the company who both ownedthe housing camps and directedthe spray regime on the surround-ing elds. Over time, they agreed tonoti y armworker residents be ore

pesticide applications happen, allow-ing people the opportunity to pro-tect children rom being directly exposed. But people still worry about pesticides.

Mrs. Contreras points out thatalthough noti cation o ers theopportunity or people to pro-

tect themselves, it doesnt stop theproblem at the source. Farmwork-ers come to Minnesota to work inagriculturethey are here to work hard, she says. It is crucial that weare able to trust that pesticides thatare used are not hazardous to humanhealth. We need to do awareness-raising among armworkers to help

prevent exposure to pesticides. But we also need to know that agricul-tural systems are sa e and arent using dangerous pesticides.

In terms o stopping the problem atthe source, Mrs. Contreras thinksthat a combination o preventionthrough awareness-raising, researchand policy change is needed. Shebelieves that any changes that hap-pen in the Midwest should also beimplemented globally.

She says, Although we can start with change in the Midwestthecompany will most likely turn tosome other place to promote thesupposed sa e use o this danger-ous chemical. Its the Midwests turnright now, but tomorrow Syngenta

will go somewhere else.48

Gloria M. Contreras, Coordinator Centro Campesino (Farmworker Center) Health Promoter Project



Dr. Janet Gray, Director o the Vas-sar College Environmental Risks andBreast Cancer Project, has seriousconcerns about atrazine in our water.Dr. Gray is working closely with theBreast Cancer Fund on changing state

and ederal policy to reduce the num-ber o chemicals in the environmentlinked to the development o breastcancer. She has been at Vassar Collegesince 1980, rst as a National Insti-tute o Mental Health post-doctoral

ellow in the Department o Biology and then as a member o the aculty in the Department o Psychology. Sheis an active participant in the inter-departmental program in Neurosci-ence and Behavior, and directs themultidisciplinary program in Science,

Technology and Society (STS).The atrazine story is extremely wor-risome because the chemical is so per-vasive. Its scary, says Dr. Gray.

Atrazine, like many other pesticidesand environmental toxicants, is a

well-documented endocrine disruptor with complicated ways o exerting itse ects. Atrazine increases the activity o an enzyme called aromatase thatcan, in turn, increase levels o estro-

gen. According to Dr. Gray, Thisis o great concern when it comesto breast cancer because we know that increased exposures to estrogensare one o the major risk actors orincreased incidences o breast cancer.

And the changes that can infuencebreast cancer development happena ter exposures to very low doses o the chemical. Thats been part o theproblem with understanding atra-zine. Scienti c wisdom held or many

years that the dose makes the poi-son, and chemicals werent tested atlow levels. Dr. Gray explains: A lot o early studies were done using whop-ping doses. The story with endocrinedisruption is that low doses are actu-ally o the biggest concern. O ten,low doses exert much worse e ectsand more pro ound long-term health

consequences than higher doses. Sev-eral studies have looked at atrazine ormixtures o atrazine metabolitesatmuch lower levels than those consid-ered to be sa e by the U.S. EPAandhave ound pro ound e ects on mam-

mary gland development.Dr. Grays primary laboratory research ocused on neural andperipheral metabolic mechanisms by

which estrogens and mixed anties-trogens, especially tamoxi en, a ecteating, body weight regulation andmetabolic activity. As the use o tamoxi en became more pervasive asan adjuvant treatment or breast can-cer, her work ocused on the mecha-nisms by which tamoxi en a ects

neural (especially hypothalamic) cel-lular activity.

In the past ew years, Dr. Gray hasbeen increasingly interested in learn-ing and teaching about the intersec-tion o environmental and womenshealth issues, ocusing on environ-mental risks and breast cancer. Shehas turned her research and writing

ocus towards engaging in the publicconversation on these complex issues.The Vassar College Environmental

Risks and Breast Cancer Project is a team e ort that has led to the pro-duction o a bilingual, interactive,user- riendly CD and website (http://erbc.vassar.edu/erbc/). She is also theprinciple author o the Breast CancerFunds State o the Evidence: TheConnection Between Breast Cancerand the Environment (2008).

Dr. Gray concedes that human epi-demiological studies are extremely di cult to do, especially given the

prevalence o atrazine in U.S. waterand the pervasiveness o our exposureto atrazine. With the inherent prob-lems in doing human epidemiologi-cal research, going to the animal data is very important, Dr. Gray says.There, the data is devastating. Thereare increasing mammary tumors,breast tumors, earlier development

o tumors, alteration o proli erationrates in existing tumors.

According to Dr. Gray, during the

industrial decades rom WWII to theend o 2000, there has been a steady and pro ound increase in rates o breast cancerpre-menopausal andpost-menopausalin the UnitedStates. During the past two years,researchers have ound lower levels o breast cancer among post-menopausal

white women, in particular, mostlikely due to a dramatic decrease inthe use o post-menopausal hormonereplacement therapy. That hope ul (i extremely limited) data raises the pos-sibility that breast cancer rates couldbe reduced i we decrease the num-ber o estrogen-increasing agents inthe environment. Dr. Gray pointsout that, The dramatic increase [o breast cancer] through 2000 cant beattributed only to mammography and increased detection, althoughthats part o it. There is evidence thatmany o the chemicals that we havebeen bathed in are related to breastcancer development. Its not too big

o a leap to think that these environ-mental actors are a part o the reasonthat weve seen an increase in breastcancer. Were hope ul that i we couldlower levels o endocrine disruptorsand other chemicals, wed decreaselevels o breast cancer and a host o other cancers and disorders, including developmental problems.49

Janet Gray, PhDBoard Member and Acting Science Advisor, Breast Cancer Fund



5income, the hand ul o corporations that control

pesticides, ertilizers and grain markets saw a he ty return.54

Over the past nine years, Syngenta has bought mul-tiple seed companies and laid plans or an expanded

uture in the Midwest. In September 2009, Syn-genta opened its seed division global headquarters,a 116,000-square- oot building in a Minneapolissuburb.55 Syngentas intentions are clear: secure andexpand a market among American corn armers. TheU.S. market is especially important since its homecountry, Switzerland, along with the entire collec-

tion o countries in the European Union, wont allow sales o several o its controversial pesticides (includ-ing atrazine), and many wont open their doors to itsgenetically modi ed seeds. Syngenta is also aggres-sively promoting its pesticides and proprietary seedtechnologies in A rica, Asia and Latin America.

Background on the Syngenta CorporationThe worlds largest agrichemical company Syngenta is a Switzerland-based transnational com-

pany that specializes in pesticides and seeds. Val-ued at $25 billion, Syngenta is the worlds largestcorporation that ocuses solely on agribusiness. As2008 came to a close, and the world tumbled into a

nancial meltdown, the Syngenta corporation cel-ebrated another year o impressive expansion, grow-ing 25%.50 Syngenta now boasts more than 24,000employees in over 90 countries.51 In act, in 2008the pesticide industry as a whole enjoyed the highestrate o sales growth since 1976.52

While product-speci c sales data are not available to

the public, we do know that U.S. corn armers areone o Syngentas target markets or both pesticidesand seeds. A signi cant percentage o U.S. corn acre-age is planted with Syngentas proprietary Bt corn,53 and atrazine is the second-most widely used herbi-cide in the country. Over the past ve years, while

armers struggled to achieve a sustainable amily

A history of corporate mergers that have spawned Syngenta

SYNGENTA(2000)

Novartis

AstraZeneca

ZenecaICI

Astra

Sandoz

Ciba-Geigy


21/445. Background on the Syngenta Corporation 21

Syngenta: a brief history The Syngenta corporation was created toconsolidate and control seed and pesticidesmarkets around the world. Its consolidatione orts have been erce: Syngenta was ormedin November 2000 by the merger o Novar-tis Agribusiness (Switzerland) and Zeneca Agrochemicals (United Kingdom). Novartis,in turn, was ormed in 1996 by the mergero Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz; at the time, it was the largest corporate merger in history.Zeneca was ormed a ter a split rom ImperialChemical Industries (ICI) in 1993.56

Evidence shows that the companies thatmerged to orm Syngenta are collectively responsible or years o illegal chemicaldumping, chemical spills and explosions, andtesting pesticides on people. A ew historicalexamples:

Syngentas family history includes theproduction o several well-known pesti-cides that have since been banned due tohealth and environmental harm. The rosterincludes DDT, developed as an insecticideat Geigy in 1939. DDT was banned in theU.S. in 1972, and recent studies link DDTexposure to reproductive de ormities inboys, lower ertility, breast cancer and low birth weights in humans.57

SYNGENTA

SEEDS, INC.

G A R S T

GOLDENHARVEST R O D G E R S

H I L L E S H O G

N O R T H R U P

K I N G

Actual ad for DDT, invented by Geigy, now part of Syngenta

Syngenta bolstered its business in seeds through aggressive acquisitions. Information from: Hoovers Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Pro le



SYNGENTAsPower & Control

3 Ignores, refutes & silences sciencethat reveals signi cant health

and ecosystem risks fromatrazine

U n d

e r m

i n e s

s c i e

n c e I n f l u e n c e s

g o v e

r n m

e n t

3 Illegally meets with U.S. EPA

3 Intensely lobbiesgovernment o cials

3 Controls 20% of globalmarket for agrichemicals

3 Syngenta is the largestpesticide company in the world

3 Syngenta is the worlds thirdlargest seed company

3 Submits awed andinconclusive studies to

delay regulatory decisions

3 Ignores and belittlesevidence of harm from

communities

C o n

t r o l s m

a r k e t s C o

v e r s

u p

h e a l t h

r i

s k

s

Suppresses &Manipulates

Science

UnderminesDemocracy

Concentrates &Monopolizes

Markets

Pushes DangerousProducts onthe Market

In 1991, Ciba-Geigy was forced to buy back100,000 gallons o DDT that the company ille-gally sold to Tanzania. Their action also violatedthe companys own internal policies.58

Both AstraZeneca and Novartis worked on devel-oping technologies that would en orce armerdependence on them as suppliers o proprietary seed. Their most amous endeavors include theTerminator seed technologyseeds that aregenetically engineered to grow plants that producein ertile seed and thus cant be saved or utureplanting.59 Terminator is just one example o a

range o techniques known as Genetic Use Restric-tion Technologies (GURTS). A ter public outcry at this attempt to undermine armer rights, both AstraZeneca and Novartis made public promisesthat they would not commercialize the Terminatorpatents they owned. However, several investiga-tions show that research and development aroundTerminator seeds have continued since thosepromises were made.60 When Syngenta was createdin 2000, the company inherited the largest interestin GURTS o all the global proprietary seed com-panies. Out o a total o 60 GURTS patents iden-ti ed at that time, Syngenta owned 25, or 42%.61

Syngentas mechanisms for controlling government decisions about their products



For over 20 years, a Ciba-Geigy production plantin Toms River, New Jersey, dumped 4 million gal-lons a day o carcinogenic/teratogenic chemical waste into the Atlantic Ocean, 2500 eet o shore

rom a popular beach. In 1992, Ciba agreed tostop the dumping and to pay $61.35 million in

nes and cleanup costs or illegal dumping o toxic waste on or near the site.62

In 1975, an af liate of Ciba-Geigy sprayed 40children and adult volunteers with the insecticidemonocrotophos (a nerve poison) to measure theamount o chemical uptake a ter spraying.63 In1976, Ciba-Geigy paid six Egyptian boys to standin a eld and be sprayed with the insecticide andmiticide Galecron (chlordime orm), which wasalready at the time a suspected carcinogen. Thechemical was banned in 1988.64

John Atkin, Chief Operating Of cer, was withNovartis rom 19972000 and with Sandoz rom19931997.

Mark Peacock, head of Global Operations, comesrom Zeneca.66

A rapid rise to the top

Since creation o the newly branded, consolidatedcompany in 2000, Syngenta has risen to the topo the agrichemical sector. Syngentas 2008 salesmade it the largest pesticide company in the world.Syngenta is also the third largest seed company inthe world, right behind Monsanto and DuPont.Together, the top 10 pesticide companies control89% o the global pesticide market, making it one o the most concentrated industries worldwide.67

Democracy relies upon public engagement, transparency andaccountability of our leaders to their constituents. Syngenta hasintentionally undermined democratic processes as the corporationseeks continued control of markets.

The 1986 Rhine River industrial accident has beendescribed as one o the worlds most serious chem-ical disasters. During a re at a Sandoz chemicalplant near Basel, Switzerland, up to 30 tons o atleast 35 di erent chemicals (pesticides, dyes andheavy metals) washed into the Rhine. The spilldevastated the rivers ecosystem, killing more than500,000 sh and eliminating several species. Theriver was considered biologically dead or 300kilometers downstream. Sandoz moved all produc-tion to Brazil by 1989 a ter another near-spill on

the Rhine.65

Whos in charge now?Syngentas current management includes many prominent personalities rom its parent companies.

John Ramsay, the Chief Financial Of cer, was with Zeneca Agrochemicals rom 19941999, andImperial Chemical Industries rom 19871993.

Undermining effective governanceand democracy Democracy relies upon public engagement, transpar-ency and accountability o our leaders to their con-stituents. Syngenta has intentionally undermineddemocratic processes as the corporation seeks contin-ued control o markets. (For more on this issue seesection 7, p. 34).

Intense lobbying o governmental o cials is just one way corporations infuence our democracy andSyngenta is no exception. According to the Center

or Responsive Politics, Syngenta spent $705,000 onlobbying in 2009. This pales in comparison to otheryears. For example, in 2006 Syngenta corporationspent $4.36 million on lobbying. Since 2000, annualtotals tend to hover around the $1 million mark.68

Syngentas e orts to infuence government deci-sion-making dont end with lobbying, though. A



sampling o even more overt attempts to underminedemocracy include:

Syngenta held approximately 50 private meetings with the U.S. EPA during the Agencys review o atrazine in 2003. At least some o these meetings were illegal. Despite laws that require EPA advi-sory committees to be objective and transparent,during its review o atrazine the Agency used twoadvisory bodies made up only o representatives

rom EPA and Syngenta.69

Syngenta has been accused of insider deals withMalaysia in the reversal o the government deci-sion to ban the controversial herbicide paraquat,another pesticide manu actured by Syngenta.70 Paraquat is responsible or a very large number o

armworker poisonings around the world.71

CropLife, the trade association and lobbyinggroup or the agrichemical industry, including

Syngenta, pushed or an amendment to the 2008Farm Bill that would have prevented conserva-tion money rom going to state programs thathelp armers transition rom atrazine to alternative weed-control methods. The amendment eventu-ally ailed.72

Syngenta illegally planted GMO crops withinan environmental protection zone around theinternationally-acclaimed Iguacu National Park,a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Supported by a armers organization, the Brazilian Institute

or the Environment and Renewable NaturalResources ned Syngenta US$500,000. AlthoughSyngenta appealed, the Federal Court in Cascavelruled that Syngenta had violated Brazilian law and upheld the ne. The Brazilian state o Paran in November 2006 issued a decree to expropri-ate Syngentas site due to their illegal activities,and planned to install a center or agroecology and amily armers. Syngenta ought back, and in January 2008, the plans or the agroecology center were annulled.73

Concentrating markets: gaining controlof the seed & pesticides industriesIt is key to remember that the agrichemical indus-try is one o the most concentrated in the world.Not only do the top 10 rms control 89% o themarket, the top sixMonsanto, Syngenta, Bayer,DuPont, BASF and Dow, names amiliar to arm-ersaccount or 75% o the industry. These corpo-

rations create a ormidable structure o control overagricultural pesticides. The Syngenta corporationalone controls almost one- th o the global market

or agrichemicals.74

The same companies have emerged as giants inthe seed industry, and Syngenta has shown plenty o interest in increasing its dominance in the con-troversial arena o genetically modi ed organisms(GMOs).

Despite widespread adoption in the U.S., many armers have concerns about GMOs, especially

because o the near-monopolistic control that seedgiants have. This control makes armers increas-ingly dependent on a hand ul o corporations orexpensive seeds each year. Farmers are also concernedabout the development o pesticide-resistant weedsas a result o widespread use o GMOs and associ-ated products.75 A May 2009 study showed thatinsect resistant corn increased yields by 5 percent, while costs went up $1 to $4 per acre, as the tech-nology ee was higher than the reduced insecticidecosts o $6 per acre.76

Since the middle o this decade, Syngenta has bol-stered its business in seeds through more than a dozen acquisitions. Syngenta spent in the neighbor-hood o $1 billion building up its seed business, which now includes 200 product lines and morethan 6,000 varieties.77 In 2004, Syngenta bought a 90% stake in the Golden Harvest group (a consor-tium o ve Midwestern seed companies) and 90%

o Advanta.78 Syngenta bought Goldsmith Seeds in2008, paying some $74 million in cash.79 Synge-nta also bought SPS Argentina, giving Syngenta anincreased presence in the soybean market in Argen-tina.80 In 2009, Syngenta bought Monsantos hybridsunfower seeds business or $160 million in cash. Later in 2009, it acquired two U.S. lettuce-seedcompanies, Synergene Seed & Technology and PybasVegetable Seed Company.81

Keeping products on the market long after health & environmental damage is clear Its important to understand something about thepesticide business, and about the U.S. system thatpurports to regulate this industry. The pesticideindustry is one o the most consolidated sectors inthe world, and invests signi cant resources into lob-bying and engaging the U.S. regulatory system. While assessing the risks o pesticides, the U.S. EPA asks the corporations to submit their own science



Syngenta corporation attempts to present itsel as theriend o amily armers and to make the case that criti-

cism o atrazine is a criticism o armers. Here are twoinsights that call such claims into question:

Hiding behind farmersDawn Forsythe, the ormer chie lobbyist or Sandoz Inc.(now Syngenta), revealed in a recent interview how pes-ticide companies rely on manipulating armers to extendthe regulatory li e o pesticides. Forsythe was interviewedby the Hu ngton Post or a 2009 investigative piece onatrazine and Syngenta. She recounts events rom 1996and a meeting with other agrichemical lobbyists.

Atrazine was o course on the top o our radarbecause you would nd atrazine in all o the

water resources. Lobbyists rom Monsanto, rom

Ciba, rom Dow, we got together monthly. Inorder to protect the li e o atrazine we had togure out how to keep this stu rom going in

the water. Or so I thought that was our mission.First thing they talked about is that we haveto get these armers mad. Weve got to getthese armers writing letters. Weve got to getthese armers calling EPA. The armers are the

best lobbyists or the pesticide industry. That was the turning point o my becoming disen-chanted. Im sorry I couldnt go out and make

armers mad about something that they weredrinking.35

Not willing to pursue a strategy that avoids responsibil-ity and jeopardizes the health o armers, Forsythe le t herposition with Sandoz, Inc., at the end o 1996.

Achieving pro ts through charging farmers higher prices for seed and pesticides

John Ramsay, Chie Financial O cer o the Syngenta corporation, reported in the companys 2009 Hal Year

Analysis: (Sales) Volumes were lower in Crop Protec-tion and Seeds, but this was more than o set by priceincreases. Pricing increased sales by $596 million, or

8%.36

Here are the numbers: Seeds: $1.7 billion in sales, up 7%. Volume of sale

down 4%; prices were increased 11%.

Crop protection: $5 billion in sales, up 1%. Volumedecreased by 6%; prices were increased 7%.

when they evaluate their products or sa ety, and the Agency is limited by its own lack o resources to doindependent and transparent science. Since pesticideproducts that are being considered or market areproprietary, the science used by the companies isntalways subject to peer-review or public scrutiny.

When a pesticide company wants to keep its producton the market longer, it can game the system by sub-mitting fawed and inconclusive studies. The U.S.EPA then duti ully pores over the research, nds it wanting, and asks or something more de nitive. Atrazine and other pesticides are on the market oryears, even decades, a ter problems are discovered, while our regulatory system moves along at a glacialpace.

Our regulatory system moves along at a glacial pace.Syngenta, in the case o atrazine, has used closed-door tactics and undue infuence to extend the pro-cess even urther.82

As other parts o this report (see section 4, p. 12)highlight, atrazines connections to serious environ-mental and health problems is well-documented. Yetatrazine stays on the market in America.

The serious consequences of Syngentas actionsDeep pockets can have quite an infuenceon gov-ernment decisions as well as on the way we think about ood, arming and our uture. Syngenta, themain manu acturer o atrazine, has used its deeppockets to undermine scienti c integrity, thwart the

democratic process and sway the U.S. public to con-tinue use o a chemical that contaminates our water,threatens our health and stays around as a hazard ordecades. All the while the same chemical is bannedin its home countryand throughout Europe.

Does Syngenta Corporation Have the Best Interests of Farmers in Mind?



6Since it came onto the market hal -century ago, atra-

zine has become one o the most widely used cornherbicides in North America. Its relatively low costand ability to kill broadlea weeds and grasses with-out harming corn plants have made it popular withMidwestern armers or decades.83

Atrazines creator and main producer, Syngenta,claims there are no viable alternatives to their best-selling herbicide and has estimated that the chemi-cal provides armers an economic advantage o $35per acre.84 Various studies have estimated that ban-ning atrazine nationwide would result in as much as

a 6 percent yield loss or corn armers.85

But in act there are many viable ways to producecorn without relying on the controversial chemical.That has been proven in European countries suchas Germany and Italy, which both banned atrazine

Caring for the LandFive stories of farmers who have moved beyond atrazine

Southwest Minnesota armer Paul Sobocinski started using atrazine in 1987, and rom the beginning liked its ability tocontrol grass and broadlea weeds or a relatively low cost. Inparticular, Sobocinski liked the chemicals residual qualityit could be applied a ter the corn was planted and wouldhang around in the soil long enough to kill weeds well intothe growing season.

It was airly e ective, recalls Sobocinski.

Then one day be ore the 2007 growing season, Sobocinski was in Saint Paul, sitting in on a legislative hearing. There heheard biologist Tyrone Hayes talk about his research, whichshowed that low levels o atrazine caused major health prob-lems in rogs (see section 4, p. 12). Sobocinski, who is anorganizer or the Land Stewardship Project, was also awareo e orts within the state government to keep hydrologistPaul Wotzka rom testi ying at the Capitol about his atrazineresearch. Wotzka was eventually red (see section 3, p. 8).

Paul Sobocinski A southwestern Minnesota farmer learns about the dangers of atrazine anddecides not to use it

in 1991 (a European Union ban went into e ect

in 2005 and a hand ul o extensions or limited useexpired in 2007). Since the ban, corn yields andacres o corn harvested in Germany and Italy haverisen, not dropped, an indication that atrazine use was not as integral to crop production as its manu-

acturer would like the public to believe.86

According to recent analyses, the experience inEurope and the introduction o new alternativeherbicides in recent years show that dropping atra-zine would result in yield losses o more like 0 to1 percent.87

Here are the stories o ve Minnesota armers whohave ound there is li e without atrazine. Their rea-sons or not using the herbicide vary, but they allagree on one thing: it is not the irreplaceable pro-duction tool its manu acturer makes it out to be.


27/446. Caring for the Land 27

Tyrones research got me to thinking about how armers like me are being put on the ront line when

it comes to the health risks o a chemical like atra-zine, says Sobocinski. It made it clearer than everto me that armers needed more in ormation on thechemicals they were handling, and here the state resa researcher who was trying to provide that in orma-tion. It was like a cover-up.

So that spring Sobocinski directed the co-op thatcustom applies his chemicals to take atrazine outo the tank mix. Un ortunately, the armer learnedlater that year that in act atrazine had been includedin that tank mix. This is a common problem in theCorn Belt. Because o the complications and risksassociated with applying chemicals, a growing num-ber o armers are hiring pro essional applicators todo their spraying. The trouble is, having a customapplicator do the job makes it harder to control whatis included in the spray tank once it makes it to the

eld.

There was not an intention on the part o the co-opmanager to deceive me, says Sobocinski, adding that he has since made sure there is no atrazine in hisyearly tank mix. I learned you need to communi-cate with the applicator and get the message across.

Making sure armers have as much in ormation aspossible on what chemicals they are using, as wellas the e ects o those chemicals, is important toSobocinski.

Were the closest to this and so are the most suscep-tible to any negative e ects. But un ortunately we donthave very good answers about the e ects o atrazine orthe other chemicals we might use to replace it, he says.Theres not a question in my mind there needs to bemore research.

The armer says there not only needs to be moreresearch on the impacts o chemicals like atrazine, butalso alternative weed control methods. Diverse rotationsand mechanical weed controlboth methods Sobocin-ski usescan help control plant pests with little or noherbicides. But when the soil is heavy and holds mois-ture during spring planting, as Sobocinskis does, it canbe di cult to control weeds without chemical help.

Are there alternatives to chemicals? You just cant gocold turkey overnight, he says.

Un ortunately, just as the risks o herbicides are com-ing to light and armers like Sobocinski are seeking

alternatives, budgets or state and ederal programs that would help crop producers research and adopt alter-native cropping methods are being cut. For example,during the 2009 session o the Minnesota Legislature,budgets or two key sustainable and organic agricultureprograms at the Minnesota Department o Agriculture were cut up to 90 percent.88

How ironic that these cuts come at a time when we armers need this in ormation the most, saysSobocinski.89

Greg Erickson A southeastern Minnesota farmer nds atrazine in his well and takes actionSeveral years ago, Greg and Jeanne Erickson hadtheir well on their southeast Minnesota dairy andcrop arm tested or contaminants. The results werent good: the nitrate readings were quite highand there were trace amounts o pesticides suchas atrazine in the water. Greg, who at the timeused atrazine to raise corn on the arm, eventu-ally decided to spend $23,000 to drill a 550- oot well200 eet deeper than the existing borehole.Tapping into a deeper aqui er put the amilysmind at easesomewhat.

Problem solved. I drilled a new well and now Ican keep using chemicals, recalls Greg on a recent

all morning while taking a break rom chop-ping corn. But problem not solvedbecausemy neighbor across the road has a 280- oot welland hes still drinking my chemicals. I decided it wasnt acceptable.

So in 2000 the Erickson amily started weaning their arm o o chemicals entirely. This was noeasy task: Greg bought the arm rom his ather in1978 and or several years relied on intensive con-ventional methods.

Churn it and

atrazine report - land stewardship project

Documents