By Barry Vogel, Mills Matheson and David Drell - Mendocino Commentary, February 21, 1985
It seems Louisiana-Pacific is looking for a court battle to test the current status of the laws governing aerial spraying of 2,4-D and other forest herbicides. Louisiana-Pacific is one of the largest employers in Mendocino County, with national and international operations, and is not short of money. Yet their primary given reason to apply for the necessary permits to aerially spray 100 acres is cost effectiveness.
In their economic crusade, a by-product of which is to “clear all the hardwoods.” they are choosing a means that subjects many other species of life, not just hardwoods to extermination.
Although Louisiana-Pacific spokesman Bill Smith stated on KMFB Environment Show on February 3, 1985, “We wouldn’t be doing it if we didn’t think it was safe,” he speaks for the same people who wanted to spray the forests in 1978 with Agent Orange (a mixture of the herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D) and now want to spray the forests with 2,4-D. Ever since the October, 1983 EPA cancellation of all uses of 2,4,5-T, the herbicide producers and users would like us to believe that 2,4,5-T, with its infamous dioxin contaminant TCDD, is responsible for all the ill effects of Agent Orange. 2,4-D is being promoted as an innocuous herbicide which has been subject to unreasonable and ill-founded assaults just because it was one of the major herbicides in Agent Orange. Since then we have seen the problems at Times Beach, Massachusetts; Love Canal, New York; Newark, New Jersey; and the settlement of court cases brought by men exposed to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in Viet Nam. All of these problems were caused by contamination from phenoxy herbicides, which were as unsafe then as they are now.
Although Mr. Smith believes 2,4-D is safe, Mr. Fleming Badenfort, Louisiana-Pacific’s Reforestation Manager for Mendocino County, stated at Louisiana-Pacific’s media briefing, held in Ukiah on January 29, 1985, that they wish to “destroy the habitat of rabbits, gophers and other forest creatures.”
It appears that Louisiana-Pacific is taking divine powers onto itself to eliminate forest creatures it feels are not useful to its economic ventures. With that type of attitude and approach, which creatures’ habitats will Louisiana-Pacific next find it economically advisable to poison? (Where’s Smokey the Bear?)
Mr. Smith said on the environment show that “Louisiana-Pacific is not slapping the face of the voters of Mendocino County” by applying for a permit to spray phenoxy herbicides in light of the 1979 vote to ban such spraying. If it is not a slap in the face, it certainly shows a contempt for the democratic vote of the people of Mendocino County, and a plan to ignore that vote to pursue their own corporate goals and desires.
Mr. Matt Anderson of the California Forest Protective Association said, in Ukiah, that it’s “a controversy of emotions versus facts.” Corporate emotions run high when the profit margin is at stake. The people’s emotions run high when
a corporation, over which they have no control, attempts to overturn a democratic vote.
Although Louisiana-Pacific implies that the facts support a claim that there is no danger from aerial spraying, they may be looking at only part of the story. Let’s look at the facts.
In 1979, Swedish epidemiologists established that workers exposed to 2,4,5-T were 6-8 times more likely to develop malignant soft tissue tumors (sarcomas). It was assumed that this was because of the dioxin TCDD, which is a potent carcinogen and a contaminant of 2,4,5-T. However, further studies showed that workers exposed only to 2,4-D (and other phenoxy herbicides which do not contain the dioxin TCDD) have a 4.2 times normal risk of developing a sarcoma. Many of the exposures in these studies were relatively short, a few days or a few weeks, and the mean latency period between exposure and development of cancer was 19 years. Thus, for the risk of developing malignant tumors, 2,4-D is about as dangerous as 2,4,5-T.
In 1980 the Hazard Alert System of the State of California Department of Health Services published an evaluation of the human health hazards of 2,4-D. They were apparently not aware of the Swedish study on 2,4-D, but even without this information they urged strong precautions in the usage of 2,4-D. The following is quoted from their conclusions and recommendations:
Exposure to 2,4-D has caused peripheral neuropathy (numbness of hands and feet). Animal studies suggest a potential risk of cancer and a possible low-level hazard of birth defects in humans. Though the degree of risk to humans following exposure to 2,4-D cannot now be estimated, the following recommendations are made as minimal precautions to protect the public health.:
- Current work practices are inadequate to protect against potential neurotoxicity. They should be reviewed and corrected.
- The scientific data are sufficiently suggestive of a carcinogenic effect and demonstrate a weak teratogenic effect, that 2,4-D use should be restricted to areas in which human exposure can be kept to a minimum. Contamination of open water must be monitored and prevented. Broadcast methods of application that could directly expose the general population should be strongly discouraged. Greater consideration must be given to alternative methods for removing unwanted plants.
It must be emphasized that the above quotes are not from a fringe scientist, but were published as the official policy of the California Department of Health Services.
In August, 1984, the Auditor General of the State of California issued a report concerning the Department of Food and Agriculture’s data to support the safety of registered pesticides. The report concluded that the State lacks data necessary to determine the safety of pesticides. For example, when reviewing the files on 2,4-D Dimethylamine salt, the Auditor General could find no data on chronic toxicity or oncogenicity or teratogenicity or neurotoxicity. Clare Berryhill, the Director of the Department of Food and Agriculture, agreed with the findings of the Auditor General.
The controversy about 2,4-D is not about facts versus emotions. It is about what should be done when there are not enough facts about the hazards. There are enough worrisome facts about 2,4-D to suggest that we should limit its usage until we know more. In particular, we should not aerially apply 2,4-D. There is too much chance that people will be non-intentionally sprayed, as happened to school children in Mendocino County in 1977. Since in the aerial application of herbicides, loss to the atmosphere ranges from 20% to 80%, and since long-distance drift of 2,4-D of ten to 50 miles has been reported, many people will be exposed to 2,4-D without even knowing.
Forests grow on steep slopes with top soil measured in inches. Our forests are complex ecosytems which have evolved over nearly 20 million years. They are composed of hundreds of plant and animal species, hundreds of insect species, and probably thousands of different microorganisms, lichens, mosses, fungi and bacteria.
The logging industry’s dominant strategy is to take this exquisitely balanced biological watch and hammer it with clearcuts, while gouging the top soil away with D-9 Cats. Then they plant their chemical fertilized clones of one or two tree species and lo and behold, there’s trouble. Nature tries to heal the damage. Nitrogen fixing alders and ceanothus come to the rescue, while bear clover tries to hold the soil. Fungi without their regular hosts, attack newly planted seedlings, as do the other displaced wildlife.
The response of the logging industry to the nurturing mechanisms of nature is to douse the area in poison, killing the very plants which are desperately trying to rebuild the shattered forest. Foresters single out hardwoods for their major assault, despite the fact that hardwoods harbor lichens, one of the major sources of growth-limiting nitrogen. “We can use nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas,” they respond. Yes, you can try to grow wood with natural gas, but since lichens, air and sunlight provide free nitrogen, why bother?
The Logging industry, so driven by their need for profits, and yearning for some proof that they are more than just tree miners, drench their wasted lands with herbicides, vainly hoping for a miracle.
Despite all the public relations hype, clearcutting and herbicides sound the death knell for forests. Why should the public risk illness and cancer in support of such a bankrupt scheme?
“So the Emperor has a fine new set of clothes. Really? He looks naked to me.” We do not forget that the California Supreme Court upheld our county-wide ordinance—even though the legislature has attempted to overturn the high court’s decision. Technically, the ordinance banning aerial spraying is still on the books in Mendocino County.
The right of the people to protect themselves, their water, land, the critters who live in the woods, and their environment, from being involuntarily poisoned, will most likely be tested once again in the courts.