Chemical OKd for Farms Despite Safety Questions : Agriculture: The state says rice growers may keep using the herbicide if workers wear special gear.

Despite new findings that a weed-killing chemical can cause reproductive harm in men, the Wilson Administration has approved continued use of the herbicide in rice fields, provided workers wear elaborate protective gear that some have likened to spacesuits.

The decision by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to permit the use of more than 1 million pounds of molinate for the spring growing season has drawn criticism from farm worker advocates and environmentalists who contend that it should be banned because of the hazard it poses.

In light of the new studies, experts within the state Department of Health Services also questioned the safety of the chemical and the adequacy of the protective gear, but stopped short of recommending a ban on the herbicide, which has been used for more than a decade to control weeds in Central Valley rice fields.

“At a very low level it causes testicular damage,” said Ralph Lightstone, a lobbyist for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. “The department is just going to put more equipment on the workers instead of getting rid of the chemical.”

But Jim Wells, assistant chief of the pesticide regulatory program for the Department of Food and Agriculture, said the use of molinate is essential to the rice-growing industry.

“As long as we can provide an adequate margin of safety for the workers who are handling it, we felt we could allow its use,” Wells said. “We’re comfortable that we have these people protected.”

The molinate decision highlights the dilemma of state regulators in balancing the safety of farm workers with the economic concerns of rice growers.

The debate over the herbicide also focuses attention on the political problem facing Gov. Pete Wilson as he courts the state’s environmentalists while trying to please California’s powerful agricultural interests, who were among his biggest campaign supporters.

The governor has proposed creation of a new California Environmental Protection Agency to take over the regulation of pesticides, including such matters as the molinate decision. Wilson, however, has pledged that even under the new agency, there will be no change in the way pesticides are regulated.

To some environmentalists, the Republican governor’s plan to maintain the state’s existing pesticide regulation program is at odds with his ambitious conservation agenda, which calls for the acquisition of new parkland and the protection of forests, wildlife, rivers and the coast.

However, Otto Bos, the governor’s communications director, said there is no conflict in Wilson’s stand. Wilson has long been an advocate of strong pesticide regulation based on good scientific data, he said.

“There is one constituency we have to appeal to and that is obviously the public good,” Bos said.

Nonetheless, the Wilson Administration’s decision to permit the continued use of molinate--also sold under the trade name Ordram--has raised questions about worker safety and what farm worker advocates contend is the possible contamination of drinking water and the air of nearby communities.

State Department of Health Services scientists have expressed concern over the safety of the herbicide for farm workers and declined to endorse its use for the 1991 rice-growing season.

The health experts also criticized the Department of Food and Agriculture for not giving farmers notice that they should consider alternatives to molinate for the 1991 season.

“Had DFA (the Department of Food and Agriculture) adequately disclosed the seriousness of the potential risks associated with the use of molinate, rice growers could have made more informed decisions about herbicide purchases,” wrote Richard Jackson, a top scientist in the Department of Health Services. “Instead, based on an erroneous belief that new reproductive studies would be negative, DFA allowed growers to purchase more than 1 million pounds of molinate for the 1991 season.”

The history of molinate and its approval by state officials casts light on how the Department of Food and Agriculture regulates chemicals for use on farms in California. It also calls into question how effectively the state is implementing a 7-year-old law requiring it to collect missing health data on molinate and 199 other agricultural chemicals registered for use in the state.

Molinate has been used to control weeds in rice fields since the mid-1970s. In 1980, a study of molinate found that the herbicide caused reproductive harm in rats. However, the manufacturer of the chemical, ICI Americas, successfully argued that the findings did not apply to any other species, state officials said. The company produced an epidemiological study of factory workers showing that molinate caused no harm in humans and the state authorized the continued use of the herbicide.

Four years later, the Legislature passed a law requiring the Department of Food and Agriculture to fill in gaps in scientific data for 200 chemicals, including molinate.

It was not until 1989 that new company tests prompted by the law indicated that the herbicide could cause reproductive harm in animals other than rats.

Wells, the assistant chief of the pesticide regulatory program, said the department went back and reviewed the earlier company study of effects on humans and found that it was so flawed that the results were invalid. “The study was so poorly done it was not reliable,” Wells said.

The state called for new studies, which were completed in March. These showed that molinate causes reproductive harm in rabbits and possibly in monkeys. In the scientific world, a finding of reproductive harm in tests on animals generally leads to the conclusion that a substance could have the same effect on people. Now with molinate, Wells said, “we have to assume it’s a human effect.”

Rather than prohibit its use, however, the department decided to let rice farmers continue using molinate provided that workers wore elaborate protective gear, including a respirator, goggles and a suit made of the protective material Tyvek.

“They’re talking about putting these guys into spacesuits,” said one state official who is critical of the decision.

Some, including state health officials, said even such elaborate gear may not give farm workers the proper protection.

In the dusty conditions of farm work, they argue, respirators and other safety equipment are likely to get clogged and break down. Furthermore, in an internal health department memo, Michael J. DiBartolomeis, acting chief of the pesticide unit, concluded that it was unreasonable to assume that workers would wear the hot and cumbersome gear in the heat of the Central Valley.

Lightstone, of California Rural Legal Assistance, also questions whether the use of molinate in rice fields poses a threat to the public.

Lightstone noted that the chemical is applied directly into water in the rice fields. About 25 days later, the water is returned to the Sacramento River, a major source of the state’s drinking water. While the herbicide is in the fields, he added, some of the chemical evaporates and can be detected in the air of nearby farm communities.

“If you put this right on the rice paddies, in the days following the application the people in town are going to be breathing it,” Lightstone said. “I don’t think they (agriculture officials) know what the health implications are.”

But Wells said the amount of the chemical going into the air and water does not pose a hazard to the public. “There isn’t any exposure there that is going to cause any problems,” he said.

Wells said rice farmers really have no choice but to use molinate. Bolero, the only other pesticide approved for the same purpose, can be applied only on a small number of acres because of safety problems associated with its use.

Both chemicals are used in growing short-stature rice, a variety that makes pulling weeds by hand almost impossible, he said.

“You can’t pull weeds in a rice field,” Wells said. “The kind of rice we grow these days was almost evolved with the chemicals to control the weeds.”

Bob Herkert, a spokesman for the California Rice Industry Committee, agreed that the use of molinate is essential to the growers. “We very likely couldn’t produce an economic crop without it,” he said.

The decision to allow the use of molinate underscores the department’s problems in carrying out the review process for all of the 200 chemicals covered by the 1984 law.

Although the deadline for the department to collect all data on the chemicals was March 1, some health data is still missing for 104 chemicals. In another 40 cases, the manufacturers dropped the chemical and did not submit the required safety data. The department already had complete health data for 10 chemicals when the review program started.

Thus, molinate is one of only 21 chemicals for which complete data has been collected under the program, and its use is being continued despite the findings of reproductive harm. Data has been received for 25 more chemicals but is still being reviewed by the department.

Wells acknowledged that the department was slow to start the review process after the law was passed in 1984. Now, any company conducting the required studies will be allowed to continue marketing its pesticides while it completes the research, he said. “There were a lot of problems with the start-up process,” he said. “We’re giving people who have started the studies the opportunity to finish them. If they’re not doing serious studies or are jerking us around, we’ll suspend them. If we find a problem (with a chemical), we’ll take action.”

Wilson’s proposal to take responsibility for pesticide regulation away from the Department of Food and Agriculture was prompted in part by longstanding complaints that the department often sides with the agriculture industry at the expense of the public.

However, many of the department’s critics maintain that Wilson’s plan for a California Environmental Protection Agency does not go far enough in removing pesticide regulation from the control of the agriculture industry.

For example, they argue that the health department’s risk assessment experts--who criticized the molinate decision--could lose much of their independence when they are transferred to the new regulatory agency along with the pesticide regulation program.

“Regulatory agencies are quickly controlled by whoever they regulate,” said one department scientist. “It’s better to have someone on the outside. Who’s going to hold them (pesticide regulators) accountable if we’re all in the same place?”

A Chemical in Question

The Wilson Administration has approved the use of a herbicide despite studies that question its safety: PRODUCT: Molinate, also known by the trade name Ordram. PURPOSE: A herbicide used on rice fields in the Central Valley to kill weeds. USE: Applied in granular form to water in rice fields during the spring. Allowed to stand for more than three weeks. Water is then drained and, in many cases, returned to the Sacramento River. EFFECTS: Found to cause reproductive harm in male rats and rabbits, and possibly mice and monkeys. Believed by health experts to cause reproductive harm in human males at low doses.