Lettersto the Editor
MRCU disagreeswith Reports on the Use of Pesticides
Dear Sir
I wish to respond to the series of articlespublished by Cayman Net News regarding the safety of pesticidesused by MRCU.
These articles contain numerous false statements,inaccuracies and a great deal of misinformation. In order to refutethe accusations made and correct the many errors, I shall haveto deal with the subject at length and in some detail.
Cayman Net Newsmakes four startling and extremely worrying claims.
1. Two of the pesticides used by MRCU, permethrinand chlorpyrifos, are "lethal" and cause serious problemsfor human health.
2. One of the pesticides, permethrin, causes many types of cancerin humans.
3. The second pesticide, chlorpyrifos, causes genetic damage andbirth defects.
4. The Cayman Islands has one of the highest cancer rates in theworld.
To show that these allegations are completelyfalse, I shall quote Cayman Net News then quote the authoritiesit claims to use as sources. The quotes used to rebut CaymanNet News are publicly available on the internet, and I encouragereaders to visit the websites of the various bodies mentionedin order to check the evidence for themselves.
In the case of permethrin, Cayman Net Newsstates: "Permethrin's effect on humans is much more severe.It has been well documented by the CDC as well as the EPAand the Women's Cancer Resource Center (WCRC) as causinga wide array of Cancers Leukemia, various Lymphomas, soft-tissueSarcomas and Cancers of the brain, breast, bladder, lung, ovaries,pancreas, prostate, skin and stomach." (My emphasis. CDCrefers to the US Centers for Disease Control; EPA refers to theUS Environmental Protection Agency.)
· However, we find that the CDC'sNational Center for Infectious Diseases, in an article entitled"Protection Against Mosquitoes And Other Arthropod Vectors",actually lists the use of "permethrin based repellants appliedas directed to enhance protection."
· Again, the CDC's Parasitic DiseaseInformation fact-sheet entitled "Treating Head Lice"lists permethrin as "a safe and effective treatment forhead lice". In other words, permethrin can safely beapplied directly to the skin.
· The EPA, in a document entitled"Synthetic Pyrethroids for Mosquito Control", states:"Pyrethroids can be used for public health mosquito controlprograms without posing unreasonable risks to human health whenapplied according to the label." (Permethrin is a typeof synthetic pyrethroid.)
· Most convincingly, The World HealthOrganisation (WHO), after a massive study on pesticides, stated:"The weight of evidence supports the conclusion that permethrinhas a very weak oncogenic potential and the probability that ithas oncogenic potential in humans is remote." In otherwords, the chances of permethrin causing cancer in humans is remote.The WHO report on pesticide residues, as recently as 1999, concludedthat: "the intake of residues of permethrin resultingfrom its uses that have been considered by the JMPR [Joint Meetingon Pesticide Residues] is unlikely to present a public healthconcern."
· The State of California SafeDrinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act 1986 requires that"The Governor revise and republish at least once per yearthe list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductivetoxicity." The State of California's list of cancer-causingchemicals contains about 470 substances; the list of chemicalscausing reproductive toxicity contains about 270 substances. Permethrinis not contained on either of these lists.
· The EPA, on the label for Aqua-Reslin(the product containing permethrin as used by MRCU) states:"Aqua-Reslin may be used for mosquito control programs includingresidential, industrial, municipalities, parks, campsites, woodlands,athletic fields, golf courses, gardens, playgrounds, recreationaland overgrown waste areas, roadsides and other public areas whereadult mosquitoes occur." EPA Reg. No. 432-796.
Given that the WHO specifically investigatedany link between permethrin and cancer, and found the possibilityto be remote, and given that the EPA and the WHO consider thatpermethrin does not pose a threat to public health, I challengeCayman NetNews to produce the information it claims is "welldocumented by the CDC as well as the EPA" that permethrincauses a "wide array of cancers". Clearly, thisalarmist and unsubstantiated allegation is totally false and indefensible.
Let me now turn to the second pesticidein question, chlorpyrifos, which is contained in the product MosquitoMistTwo ULV as used by MRCU. Cayman Net News states: "Accordingto the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), this chemical causesgenetic damage such as birth defects, stillbirths, miscarriages,endometriosis, reduced sperm count and testicular atrophy."(My emphasis.)
· Again, however, we find that thewebsite of the CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and DevelopmentalDisabilities (www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/default.htm) contains a great deal of information on the subject,but no reference linking chlorpyifos use and birth defects.
· Furthermore, the CDC conducteda thorough investigation into the matter on behalf of the EPA,which stated: "There have been reports in the literaturesuggesting an association between chlorpyrifos exposure and birthdefects. These cases have been reviewed for the EPA by the Divisionof Birth Defects and Development Disabilities at the NationalCenter for Environmental Health, one of the Centers for DiseaseControl. Based on their review and other information, EPA HealthEffects Division concludes the available evidence does not supporta finding for teratogenicity based on human epidemiology studiesand case reports."
· The EPA label for chlorpyrifosstates: "For application by public health officials, personnelof mosquito abatement districts and other similar government agenciesor personnel under contract to these entities. For use outdoorsto control adult mosquitoes in residential and recreational areas."EPA Reg. No. 8329-18.
· As recently as June 2000, the EPAissued a revised assessment for chlorpyrifos and, although manydomestic uses were withdrawn due to misuse, the EPA reported:"However, public health uses including applications tofire ant mounds and ultra low volume applications for mosquitocontrol will be allowed to continue. These applications do notpose risks of concern and provide important health benefits."
· Checking the previously mentionedlists produced by the State of California, one containing 470cancer-causing chemicals and one containing 270 chemicals causingbirth defects, chlorpyrifos is not found on either list.
Once again, the outrageous claims by CaymanNet News are contradicted by the CDC, the EPA andthe State of California. Again, I challenge Cayman NetNewsto provide the information it attributes to the CDC.
On the question of cancer rates in the CaymanIslands, Cayman Net News states: "It just so happens thatthe Cayman Islands has one of the highest rates of cancer in theCaribbean and one of the highest per capita rates in the world."Yet again this claim is unsubstantiated or supported by any evidence.In contrast, the February 2002 report by the Chief Medical Officer"Report on Motion 2000/12: Environmental and CancerStudy" shows that the Cayman Islands compare favourablywith other countries. Part C of that report Cancer Ratesin the Cayman Islands contains the following quotes:
· "The overall cancer incidenceand mortality rates found for the Cayman Islands are only onethird to one quarter of those found in developed nations suchas the USA and UK."
· "Compared to the wholeworld data neither male nor female overall crude incidence andmortality rates of cancer for the Cayman Islands can be considered'abnormally high'."
· "In the Cayman Islands,the crude incidence of the most common male and female cancersis broadly similar to that of the Caribbean region and the Bahamas."
· "The Cayman Islands crudemortality rate of the most common male and female cancers is alsosimilar to that of the Caribbean region and the Bahamas."
I challenge Cayman Net News to explain whyits information is so different to the documented figures reportedby the Chief Medical Officer, and to tell the Caymanian publicwhat actual data it has (if any) to support its contentionthat we have "one of the highest rates of cancer in the Caribbeanand one of the highest per capita rates in the world."
In summary, it is clear that Cayman NetNews is completely incorrect on each of the major allegationsit has made. The claims made are not only wrong, they are shamefullywrong. Moreover, Cayman Net News would appear to be at odds withthe most respected authorities on the subject in the world, theCDC, the EPA and the WHO.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, to findthat other allegations made by Cayman Net News are completelyfalse also, and that even the general content of the articlesis misreported. There are a number of remaining points that needto be cleared up and accusations that need to be answered, includingthe question of mosquito-borne disease, and I intend to addressthese issues in a subsequent letter.
Referring to unnamed Government agencies,Cayman Net News states: "There is an abundanceof documented proof that the tactics, measures and actionstaken by these agencies are putting the lives of Cayman residentsin direct danger." (My emphasis.) Sound familiar? Where isthis abundance of documented proof?
What is clear, in my opinion, is that theactions taken by Cayman Net News, in publishing these articles,is putting the lives of Cayman residents in fear, to say nothingof the effect on Cayman's economy. (What must tourists think whenthey read in a local newspaper that the Government is poisoningthe community?) Cynical observers might be forgiven for thinkingthat the alarmist scare-mongering displayed by Cayman Net Newsrepresents the worst kind of sensationalist journalism, underthe guise of concern for public health.
I am of the view that Cayman Net News shouldpublish a full retraction of the claims it has made (under front-pagebanner headlines!) and apologise to the Caymanian people for irresponsiblemisreporting. Either that, or disclose to the international scientificcommunity, the EPA and the WHO the information it claims to havebut has not released.
Residents of the Cayman Islands should bereassured by the fact that MRCU has always operated with the greatestconcern for public health and for the environment, and continuesto operate in such a manner.
The management of MRCU expends considerableeffort to ensure that we remain up-to-date with the latest scientificresearch, public health issues and technological advances in thefield. We continually review and reassess our operations in lightof the most current knowledge available, in order to protect residentsand visitors from biting mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases,in a manner that is beneficial to the community and safe for thegeneral public.
Dr. William D. Petrie
Director, MRCU
****************************************
EDITOR'S NOTE
The only apology Cayman Net News willextend is to the people of Cayman.
We apologise that this newspaper wasunable to supply readers with MRCU's defense of their standardsand practices in a timely manner.
The reality is, as stated in PartIII of the Pesticide series, MRCU is missing the point. MRCU wassupplied with a succinct list of questions challenging many thingsinvolving the practice and protocol involved with the distributionof pesticides in Grand Cayman.
Unfortunately, the entire executiveteam was "in a meeting" during every follow-up thispublication attempted to make.
Again, Cayman Net News extends the invitation for MRCU to be interviewedin a question and answer format to be printed in this publication.
There are many questions that stillremain unanswered. If MRCU hopes to continue to publish lengthymonologues in the press and carry on a one-sided debate over theproper use of pesticides, including protocols, safety measuresand precise volumes of chemicals, Cayman Net News will not beparty to such unprofessional tactics.
Mr. Petrie begins his criticism with,"the safety of pesticides used by MRCU".
There is no question that there isan abundance of documentation supporting the use of many pesticides,including those chosen by MRCU, as safe and legal, IF appliedproperly. And, if Cayman Net News accepted Mr. Petrie's "challenge"the result would be a paper war in which report after report couldbe produced with sentences or phrases supporting the use of Permethrinand Chlorpyrifos.
Similarly, as Cayman Net News didprovide quoted proof in its articles, there is documentation thatimproper usage is lethal to human beings.
However, there is one point to whichMRCU continues to refer, that is incorrect and must be rectified.
Both in the agency's press releaseand in the letter from Mr. Petrie, there is a reference to twolists issued annually as a result of the Safe Drinking Water andToxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
Also known as Proposition 65, thisAct only applies to products sold directly to the consumer.
Proposition 65 is not a list of allcarcinogenic chemicals. It allows committees set up by the governorto determine if there is "significant risk" from thepesticide (as formulated).
Just because a pesticide is a carcinogendoes not mean that it will end up on the Prop 65 list.
When the first list came out in the1980s, most pesticides were exempt. Neither Chlorpyrifos nor Permethrinare felt to meet the "significant increased risk" criterionfor Proposition 65 because it is based on exposure to the formulatedproduct. Chlorpyrifos is not longer allowed for over-the-countersale directly to consumers, so Proposition 65 will not apply.
To get into any further debate aboutthe US's enforcement of pesticide control is a waste of the public'stime. It is not US policy in US states that trouble Cayman residents.It is the lack of Cayman policy in their own country that hasbrought numerous members of the community into Cayman Net News'office asking for something to be done.
For decades, the majority of the publicwho have fallen sick with cancer and the concerns expressed bymedical experts in Florida and elsewhere does bring into questionthe use of MRCU's pesticides.
It is better to get a public debategoing on these issues instead of allowing public concerns to gounheeded which will lead to greater social and legal mayhem.
If MRCU does not cooperate to "reassure"the public or, at the very least, educate them on why mosquitobites exude puss and why the belief is that it is because of thepesticides used or the improper control of dyke roads, or thecontamination of water-both naturally bodies and cisterns-it isour obligation to present the facts as they become known to us,with or without the input of those who as public servants shouldbe responsive instead of reactive.
There is no question that people aregrateful for the work MRCU had done over the past 40-plus years.
But if they stand by their methodologyand they are undoubtedly sure that they have followed every protocolproduced by government agencies established to painstakingly monitorthe handling, distribution and regulations involving pesticides,then why don't they opening discuss such tactics.
The very fact that there are no regulationsin place, admitted by the MRCU themselves, should not reassurethe people in Cayman. On the contrary, the unregulated use ofpotentially lethal chemicals should in fact distill the very fearin the public that brought this situation to light