Jump to content

SENSOR-Pesticides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CMoretz (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 12 November 2009 (added citations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Logo for the SENSOR-Pesticides program
SENSOR-Pesticides Logo

Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR)-Pesticides is a state-based surveillance program that monitors pesticide-related illness and injury. It is administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and run by twelve U.S. state health agencies. NIOSH, in conjunction with the with the US Environmental Protection Agency, supports surveillance activities in several of these states by providing funding and technical support to their health departments.

Because workers in many industries are at risk for pesticide exposure, and public concern exists regarding the use of and exposure to pesticides, government and regulatory authorities experience pressure to monitor health effects associated with them. SENSOR-Pesticides state partners collect case data from several different sources using a standard case definition and set of variables. This information is then forwarded to the program headquarters at NIOSH where it is collected and put into a national database.

Researchers and government officials from the SENSOR-Pesticides program have published research articles that highlight findings from the collected data and their implications for environmental and occupational issues. These issues include pest control, pesticide poisoning in schools, birth defects, and residential use of total release foggers, or "bug bombs," which are devices that release a fog of insecticide.

Background

Pesticide usage in the U.S. in 2001, broken down by type and industry
Pesticide usage in the U.S., 2001.

Pesticides are used in multiple industries in the U.S. From 1995 to 2001, use in agriculture accounted for at least 70% of total pesticide use in the U.S.,[1][2][3][4] and the US EPA estimates that the agricultural sector has had a similar market share of pesticides since 1979.[4] They are particularly useful in agriculture because they increase crop yields and reduce the need for manual labor.[5] However, this extensive use puts agricultural workers at increased risk for pesticide illnesses.[6][7][8]

Workers in other industries are at risk for exposure as well.[7][8] For example, commercial availability of pesticides in stores puts retail workers at risk for exposure and illness when they handle the products.[9] The ubiquity of pesticides puts emergency responders such as firefighters and police officers at risk, because they are often the first responders to emergency events and may be unaware of the presence of a poisoning hazard.[10] The process of aircraft disinsection, in which pesticides are used on inbound international flights for insect and disease control, can also make flight attendants sick.[11][12]

The widespread use of toxic pesticides, their release into the environment, and the potential for adverse public health effects due to exposure continues to raise public concern.[8][13] Some feel that regulatory authorities have an ethical obligation to track the health effects of such chemicals. Dr. Geoffrey Calvert, head of the SENSOR-Pesticides program, has stated that "[b]ecause society allows pesticides to be disseminated into the environment, society also incurs the obligation to track the health effects of pesticides."[13] Jay Vroom, president of CropLife America, said in a press release that "...our industry has a moral and ethical obligation...to know how these products impact humans."[14] Surveillance of pesticide-related injuries and illnesses is recommended by the American Medical Association,[15] the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE),[16] the Pew Environmental Health Commission,[17] and the Government Accountability Office.[18][19][20]

History

Map of SENSOR-Pesticides state partners: blue states receive federal funding; red states are unfunded
Map of SENSOR-Pesticides participating states
   States receiving federal funding for participation
  unfunded program partners

Beginning in 1987, NIOSH supported the implementation of the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) program in ten state health departments.[21] The objectives of the program were to help state health departments to develop and refine reporting systems for certain occupational disorders so that they could conduct and evaluate interventions and prevention efforts. The disorders included silicosis, occupational asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, lead poisoning, and pesticide poisoning. While each participating state health department had previously done surveillance or interventions for occupational illnesses, SENSOR helped the states to develop and refine their reporting systems and programs.

The original SENSOR model was based on physician reporting. Each state contacted a select group of sentinel health care professionals on a regular basis to collect information.[13] However, this system was labor-intensive and did not yield many cases.[22] Additionally, because different states used different methods for collecting information, their data could not be compared to analyze for trends.[13] In response, NIOSH, along with other federal agencies (EPA, National Center for Environmental Health), non-federal agencies (CSTE, Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics), and state health departments, developed a standard case definition and a set of standardized variables.[13] California, Oregon, and Texas joined the program that year, and more states joined later. As of 2008, SENSOR-Pesticides had 12 participating states contributing occupational pesticide-related injury and illness data. California, Iowa, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington receive federal funding to support surveillance activities, while Arizona, Louisiana, Florida, New Mexico, and Oregon are unfunded SENSOR-Pesticides program partners.[23]

Case definition

A case of pesticide-related illness or injury is characterized by an acute onset of symptoms that are temporally related to a pesticide exposure.[13] Cases are classified as occupational if exposure occurs at work (except for suicides and attempted suicides).

Cases are reportable when:

  • there is documentation of new adverse health effects temporally related to a documented pesticide exposure AND
  • there is consistent evidence of a causal relationship between the pesticide and the health effects based on known toxicology of the pesticide OR
  • there is not enough information to determine whether a there is a causal relationship between the exposure and the health effects.[13]

State public health officials rate each case as definite, probable, possible or suspicious. Illness severity is assigned as either low, moderate, severe, or fatal.

Data collection

All states in the program require physicians to report pesticide-related injuries and illnesses; however, most states collect the majority of their data from workers’ compensation claims, poison control centers, and state agencies with jurisdiction over pesticide use, such as state departments of agriculture.[13][23] When they receive a report, health department officials review the information to determine whether it was pesticide related. If it was, they request medical records and try to interview the patient (or a proxy) and anyone else involved in the incident (e.g. supervisors, applicators, and witnesses). The data is collected each year and put into a national database.

In addition to identifying, classifying, and tabulating pesticide poisoning cases, the states periodically investigate pesticide-related events and develop interventions aimed at particular industries or pesticide hazards.[23]

Impact

Federal and state-level scientists and researchers with SENSOR-Pesticides have published articles on pesticide exposure events and trends using program data. These articles include MMWR publications[24] and articles in peer-reviewed journals on occupational exposures such as acute exposure-related illness in youth,[25][26] agricultural workers,[7] retail workers,[9] migrant farm workers,[27] and flight attendants.[12] Several articles have attracted media attention and motivated legislative or other governmental action.

Florida Medfly Eradication Program

Ceratitis capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly)
The Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly

In response to a Mediterranean fruit fly (also known as “Medfly”) outbreak, officials from the Florida Department of Agriculture sprayed pesticides (primarily malathion) and bait over five counties during the spring and summer of 1998.[28] Scientists from the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences stated that malathion was being sprayed in a manner that did not pose a significant risk to public health.[29] During the eradication effort, the Florida Department of Health investigated 230 cases of illness that were attributed to the pesticide.[28] Officials from the Florida Department of Health and the SENSOR-Pesticides program published an article in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) that described these case reports and recommended alternative methods for Medfly control, including exclusion activities at ports of entry to prevent importation, more rapid detection through increased sentinel trapping densities, and the release of sterile male flies to interrupt the reproductive cycle.[28] The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) incorporated these suggestions into their 2001 Environmental Impact Statement on the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program.[30] These impact statements affect the USDA's development of insect control strategies and decisions.

Pesticides in schools

Researchers from the SENSOR-Pesticides program published an article in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on pesticide poisoning in schools. The article, which included data collected by SENSOR, described illnesses in students and school employees associated with pesticide exposures.[31] The article generated media coverage and drew attention to the issue of pesticide safety in schools and to safer alternatives through integrated pest management (IPM).[32][33][34][35][36] Officials in organizations supporting the pesticide industry, such as CropLife America and RISE (Responsibile Industry for a Sound Environment, a trade association representing pesticide manufacturers and suppliers), reacted strongly to the report, calling it “alarmist” and “incomplete” in its health reporting.[34][36] CropLife America president Jay Vroom claimed that the report was “written without context about the proper use of pesticides in schools and [did] not mention the positive public health protections they provide"[34] and stated that pesticide use in schools is "well regulated" and can be managed so that the risk is low.[36] RISE president Allen James faulted the article for relying on unverified reports and said that evidence suggested that such incidents were extremely rare.[36] The increased awareness of pesticide use in schools influenced parents and other stakeholders in numerous states to call for the adoption of integrated pest management programs.[37]

Birth defects in Florida and North Carolina

In February 2005, three infants were born with birth defects within eight weeks of each other in Collier County, Florida.[23][38] Because one of the women had worked in North Carolina and the other two worked in Florida, neither state's health department recognized the cluster at first. However, when they presented their findings at the annual SENSOR-Pesticides workshop in 2006, they realized that all three mothers worked for Ag-Mart (a tomato grower).[23] Florida and North Carolina's state health departments inspected Ag-Mart’s farms and fined the company $111,200 for violations they discovered.[39] After the investigation, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley assembled the “Governor’s Task Force on Preventing Agricultural Pesticide Exposure.” It presented its findings in April 2008,[40] which caused the state legislature to pass anti-retaliation and recordkeeping laws, training mandates to protect the health of agricultural workers, and funding for improved surveillance.[23] In Florida, the state legislature added ten new pesticide inspectors to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.[23][41]

Total release foggers

Total release foggers, or "bug bombs," release a fog of insecticide to kill bugs in a room and coat surfaces with a chemical so the insects do not return. SENSOR-Pesticides state partner co-authors and officials from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) published an article in the CDC MMWR that called attention to injuries and illnesses resulting from use of total release foggers.[42] The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) published a press release in response, stating that the state would restrict their use.[43] DEC Commissioner Pete Granis announced that the department would move to classify foggers as a restricted-use product in New York State, meaning that only certified pesticide applicators would be able to obtain them.

References

  1. ^ Kiely T, Donaldson D, Grube A. 2004. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage. 2000 and 2001 Market Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-733-R-99-001.
  2. ^ Donaldson, D., Kiely, T., Grube, A. 2002. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage. 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-733-R-02-001.
  3. ^ Aspelin, A.L., Grube, A.H. 1999. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage. 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-733-R-04-001.
  4. ^ a b Aspelin, A.L. 1997. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage. 1994 and 1995 Market Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-733-R-97-002.
  5. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 16499408, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=16499408 instead.
  6. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12749629 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12749629 instead.
  7. ^ a b c Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1002/ajim.20623, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1002/ajim.20623 instead.
  8. ^ a b c Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1002/ajim.10309, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1002/ajim.10309 instead.
  9. ^ a b Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 17357366, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=17357366 instead.
  10. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1002/ajim.20286, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1002/ajim.20286 instead.
  11. ^ WHO. World Health Organization Communicable Disease Control, Prevention and Eradication Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) & Protection of the Human Environment Programme on Chemical Safety (PCS). 2005. Safety of pyrethroids for public health use. Geneva: WHO. WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2005.10 WHO/PCS/RA/2005.1.
  12. ^ a b Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1002/ajim.20452, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1002/ajim.20452 instead.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h Calvert GM et al. 2009. Surveillance of pesticide-related illness and injury in humans. In: Krieger, Robert (2009), Hayes' Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (3rd ed.), San Diego, CA: Academic Press, ISBN 978-0123743671
  14. ^ Mitka, M. (2006). "Approval for pesticide toxicity testing in humans draws criticism." JAMA 295(11): 1237-1238.
  15. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 9085387, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=9085387 instead.
  16. ^ Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 1996. CSTE position statement 1996-15: adding acute pesticide poisoning/injuries (APP/I) as a condition reportable to the National Public Health Surveillance System (NPHSS). Atlanta, GA: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.
  17. ^ Pew Environmental Health Commission. 2001. “Strengthening our public health defense against environmental threats: transition report to the new administration.” Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Pew Environmental Research Commission.
  18. ^ Government Accountability Office. 1994. Pesticides on farms. Limited capability exists to monitor occupational illnesses and injuries. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/PEMD–94–6.
  19. ^ Government Accountability Office. 1999. Pesticides. Use, effects, and alternatives to pesticides in schools. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED–00–17.
  20. ^ Government Accountability Office. 2000. Pesticides: improvements needed to ensure the safety of farmworkers and their children. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED–00–40.
  21. ^ Levy B, Johnson A, Rest K. 1992 September 28. Evaluation of the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR). Final Report.
  22. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 10476993, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=10476993 instead.
  23. ^ a b c d e f g Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1002/ajim.20707, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1002/ajim.20707 instead.
  24. ^ List of SENSOR-Pesticides MMWR articles.
  25. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12660205, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12660205 instead.
  26. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1289/ehp.6157, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1289/ehp.6157 instead.
  27. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 11783860, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=11783860 instead.
  28. ^ a b c Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 10577491, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=10577491 instead.
  29. ^ Spence, Cindy (1997-06-27). "UF Experts Say Fear Unwarranted But Treat Malathion With Respect". University of Florida News. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
  30. ^ United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program: Environmental Impact Statement. United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC.
  31. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1001.2Fjama.294.4.455, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1001.2Fjama.294.4.455 instead.
  32. ^ Osterweil, Neil (2005-07-27). "School Kids and Teachers Bugged by Pesticide Exposure". MedPage Today. Retrieved 2009-09-29.
  33. ^ Staff (2005-09-15). "JAMA Study of Pesticide Risks in Schools". Pesticide Action Network Updates Service. Pesticide Action Network North America. Retrieved 2009-09-29.
  34. ^ a b c Staff (2005-07-26). "Industry Responds to JAMA Report on Incidence of Pesticide Exposure at Schools". U.S. Newswire. Retrieved 2009-09-29.
  35. ^ Staff (2005-07-26). "School study sparks pesticide row". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-10-30.
  36. ^ a b c d Staff (2005-07-26). "Pesticides may be sickening school kids". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
  37. ^ "Parents Urge Schools to Start Year Without Toxic Pesticides; U.S. Senator Introduces Bill To Protect Children from School Pesticide Poisoning" (Press release). The National Pediculosis Association. 2005-09-07. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
  38. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1289/ehp.9647, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1289/ehp.9647 instead.
  39. ^ Rural Migration News. 2005-10-01. “Florida, Southeast.” Rural Migration News 11:4. Accessed 2009-11-03.
  40. ^ Devlin L, Beauregard K, Borre K, Buhler WG, Engel J, Melton TA, Parks J, Price J, Troxler S. 2008. Report to the Honorable Michael F. Easley, Governor of the State of North Carolina from the Governor’s Task Force on Preventing Agricultural Pesticide Exposure. Tallahassee, Florida: Office of the Governor.
  41. ^ Gomez, A. (2006-05-01). "Proposals benefiting migrants quietly having successes". Palm Beach Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  42. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 18923383, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=18923383 instead.
  43. ^ "State to Restict Use of "Bug Bombs"" (Press release). New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2009-09-29.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SENSOR-Pesticides&oldid=325453740"