Guest Post: Evslin Responds on Buffer Zones

Last week I wrote a blog post criticizing a commentary written by Dr. Lee Evslin calling for pesticide buffer zones around schools greater than the 100 feet specified in the state's "good neighbor plan." He responded in comments, and I posed additional questions, with the offer that he could respond in a guest blog post.  

I hope his response here will serve as a catalyst for continuing an informed discussion around the topic of buffer zones, which is almost certain to be taken up by the Hawaii Legislature this year. -- Joan

By Dr. Lee Evslin

Joan has continued the dialogue with me by posing several questions and then giving me the opportunity to respond in this guest blog. I have done my best to answer her questions and I also respond below to one of her comments from the original review she did of my column in the Garden Island.

“My major point of contention with your writings has been over the question of whether people actually are being exposed to pesticides used by the seed companies, which you seem to accept as a given.”

In the JFF report we stated repeatedly that although we found some medical conditions associated in the medical literature with pesticides at higher rates on the Westside such as ADHD and developmental delay, because of the small numbers and the lack of any exposure data, we could not state what caused these problems. The American Academy of Pediatric Review article, the EPA Manual on Pesticides and more recent studies conducted by California universities (Berkeley, Davis) have found these same health effects associated with pesticide exposures among children living in proximity to agricultural operations. To understand the local health statistics requires more investigation, investigations similar to the ones used in the studies above.

I don’t accept it as a given that pesticides used by the seed companies have a negative health impact specifically on our communities or our children-- but the problem is that there isn’t nearly enough data to determine this.

Which is why the JFF report (and my three follow-up columns) recommended that the state test dust, soil, air, water and human urine to determine if people were being exposed to pesticides or not being exposed.

“I also question why you have focused solely on pesticides used by agriculture (the seed companies), with no mention of pesticides used near homes by golf courses, resorts, landscapers and termite treatment companies, as well as residential pesticide treatment performed by contractors and homeowners themselves. Are you advocating for buffer zones between schools and any pesticide user, or only the seed companies?”

These are good points. After the American Academy of Pediatrics took the pediatricians of America to task for ignoring the subject of pesticides, I routinely  (after 2012) included a talk on the home use of pesticides in my well child visits until I retired. I strongly encourage every family to take precautions in the use of household pesticides.

But, as you know, the JFF was tasked with looking at possible environmental and health risks associated specifically with large-scale agricultural use of pesticides. Only three of my TGI columns actually addressed pesticides and they reflected the fact that I continue to support the recommendations of the JFF and I continue to follow news concerning the RUPs we studied.

I address buffer zones below.

“And do you believe the state legislature, whose members largely lack scientific training, is better qualified than the EPA to establish buffer zones? What criteria should lawmakers be using? If it's not scientifically based, how can these buffer zones be defended against the inevitable "taking" lawsuits?”

My understanding is that the EPA largely leaves buffer zones for schools and other fragile environments up to the purview of the states. The label requires a varying buffer zone that is specific to the pesticide, but it doesn’t take into account the surrounding land use or uses that may require unique applications of pesticide combinations. A ten foot buffer zone may be appropriate for chlorpyrifos if the closest neighbor is a road-- but it is clearly not appropriate if the neighbor is a school with an open bank of windows.

California has given us a model for how a legislative body can enact science-based buffer zones. There is more on that in the next answer.

“If Evslin had taken even 15 minutes to research this issue, he would have found that California's proposal followed an appeals court ruling. The judges found that the EPA acted correctly in refusing to institute uniform buffer zones for all pesticides that are registered for application by ground sprayers, broadcast, or aerial application, and that may cause certain human health effects.”

As you mention, the buffer zone policy that I am suggesting Hawaii examine came from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) after the ruling mentioned by you. The newly proposed DPR buffer zones addressed the concerns of the EPA and of the court. They are not uniform. They propose varying the buffers according to risk by sprayer type, products used, and what the nearby land use is (i.e. a school).

The DPR proposal has 17 pages describing the science and reasoning behind their recommendations. 

I am also not recommending a uniform buffer zone. I am not even recommending that we follow the DPR policy exactly. I am simply recommending that we learn from the work and debate occurring in California to adopt a comprehensive statewide buffer zone policy. 

I think the following paragraph from the DPR proposal is important. One, because it highlights the potential danger to children presented by chronic low exposure to pesticides. And two, because it highlights the importance of taking surrounding land use (like schools and other sensitive sites) into account when setting up a buffer zone policy.

“Nevertheless, concerns about the risks associated with pesticide use at or near schools and child day care facilities have persisted through the years due to children’s potentially increased sensitivity and exposure. The dose that may cause adverse effects in children may also be lower than adults. For example, based on current scientific findings some pesticides may cause effects to a child’s developing nervous system. Also, children may have higher exposure than adults due to their higher breathing rate relative to their body weight. While DPR accounts for these factors in its evaluation of potential toxic effects and exposure, there may be disproportionate impacts to children when unintended drift occurs. Moreover, schools and child day care facilities are considered sensitive sites because large numbers of children can be located there for extended periods of time.”

Thank you again for allowing me to answer specific questions. These are complicated issues with evolving science and do not have simple answers. A well-informed dialogue is always a step in the right direction.