Insecticide Spraying of Passengers on Airliners Coming Under Scrutiny : Chemicals: Many countries require ‘disinsection’ of travelers. Political and diplomatic issues face U.S. officials seeking changes.

Flying to St. Lucia on their honeymoon recently, Andrew Fish and his wife got more than complimentary beverages and a couple of bags of peanuts. They and their fellow passengers also got a dose of D-phenothrin, a powerful roach killer sprayed throughout the cabin of the commercial airliner during the flight.

So do millions of unwitting air travelers flying from the United States to more than 20 countries around the world, most of them in Latin America and the Caribbean. Under “disinsection” regulations enforced by many foreign governments, passengers and flight crews of incoming airliners are required to be sprayed with insecticide before disembarking. The purpose is to prevent the spread of diseases carried by insects.

For the Clinton Administration, which has begun an effort to stem the use of dangerous pesticides in the United States, that practice is becoming a tricky political issue at home and a delicate diplomatic issue abroad.

D-phenothrin is the same chemical found in such commonly used household pesticides as Black Knight Roach Killer. The user label on that can warns: “avoid breathing; avoid contact with skin and eyes.”

In airplanes, it is dispensed as “Airosol Aircraft Insecticide,” a product registered by the Environmental Protection Agency--in error, the agency now admits--for use in airplane cabins.

“I find it hard to believe that spraying roach killer on people in planes is safe,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who is crusading to halt the practice or to require full disclosure to passengers.

The United States can’t force foreign governments to change their disinfectant requirements, Leahy said. But, he added, it certainly can work to discourage the practice and, meanwhile, can insist that passengers know where they’ll be sprayed and with what.

Leahy has asked the Administration to look into the practice. But he also hopes to use his position on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s foreign operations subcommittee, which dispenses foreign aid to many of the countries that require disinsection, to end the spraying.

For their part, airline companies say they have little choice but to comply with the regulations.

“We’re in the middle on this,” said Joe Hopkins, media relations manager for United Airlines. “It’s required by the governments of the countries we fly into, and if we were not to comply, they could lift our certificates.”

As air travelers go, Fish and his wife, Alicia Bambara, are unusual: Because Bambara is an aide to Leahy, they knew they would be sprayed. But even under repeated questioning, the crew of the U.S. carrier that they flew to St. Lucia was unable to tell them exactly when in the flight they would be sprayed or what pesticide compound would be used. In some aircraft, the pesticide is disbursed through the cabin’s internal ventilation system, while in others flight attendants pass through the cabin with a small aerosol can, spraying around and above passengers.

“Passengers should have a right to know that this is happening,” Bambara said. “If it’s safe, well, that’s fine. But people still have a right to know, even if it is safe. Some people may have allergies or chemical sensitivities.”

Last year, 15.2 million passengers aboard U.S. airliners were dosed with pesticide in an effort to prevent them from carrying unwanted insects into foreign countries, according to the U.S. Transportation Department. In addition to Latin American countries stretching from Chile to Mexico, countries requiring the disinsection include Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. territories of Guam and Northern Mariana Island.

The United States itself required the pesticide treatment of many incoming flights until 1979. But it discontinued the practice after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention raised health concerns about such spraying and suggested that it was ineffective in controlling disease or containing the spread of insects.

D-Phenothrin belongs to a family of chemicals called synthetic pyrethroids. While the EPA has found no evidence of long-term toxicity from such chemicals, independent scientists are finding increasing evidence that pyrethroids can disrupt the human hormone system and cause reproductive disorders.

The spraying has a more immediate effect on those with lung disease and chemical sensitivity. A growing body of travelers and airline personnel have filed legal proceedings complaining of shortness of breath, burning, irritation and dizziness. Experts said that even more potentially harmful to travelers than the pesticides are the solvents used to mix the chemicals, which could make those with a high sensitivity to chemicals seriously ill. In the worst case, the EPA said it could lead to convulsions among those with chemical hypersensitivities.

Most countries require the pesticide to be sprayed on passengers during flight, with the aircraft’s ventilators turned off. In principle, that assures that the chemical will linger long enough to do its work. But experts said it also assures that the chemical will be breathed by passengers and flight crews.

In recent weeks, countries that have required the spraying in the past have received cables from Transportation Secretary Federico Pena urging them to discontinue the requirement.

If they do not, Pena plans to direct U.S. airlines to alert travelers when they book flights to countries that require disinsection that they will be sprayed.

Meanwhile, the EPA has found that a 1979 decision allowing the use of D-phenothrin on airplanes was issued in error. It is requiring the two commercial producers of the insecticide to conduct additional tests on the toxicity of the compound as it is used in airline cabins.

If those studies are not done, or if the results are unsatisfactory, EPA would cancel the registration for the airplane insecticide.

For airliners flying from the United States into countries that continue to require the practice, the result would be “major disruption,” according to Stephen Johnson, director of the EPA’s pesticides registration division. Since it would be illegal for aircraft to carry unregistered pesticides into the United States, they would have to pick up their U.S. passengers, fly to a second country to pick up a pesticide, and treat passengers in the air en route to their final destination.

In short, the dispute could halt U.S. air traffic to most of Latin America, the Caribbean, New Zealand and Australia.

All for a practice that appears to do no good.

“I would doubt it’s very effective,” Texas A&M; University entomologist Bill Plapp said. “The quarantine procedures to keep out bugs are working about as effectively as those designed to keep out people. There’s so much travel around the world.”

For now, the Administration has pinned its hopes on gentle persuasion.

“It’s our hope,” Johnson said, “that these countries will reconsider the practice and stop (requiring) it.”