Atrazine herbicide: health and environmental risks

Atrazine Banned in Europe

Atrazine

There is a considerable amount of controversy about the issue of the use of the chemical atrazine in agriculture. Atrazine is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the U.S. And is applied to approximately seventy percent of the maize crop (Atrazine). The debate about the use of this herbicide in the United States in particular has intensified during the last year. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has become involved in this debate and the revaluation of the toxicity of Atrazine by the EPA has not as yet been completed as a result of"… a plethora of new and contradictory studies on the health effects of Atrazine" (Erickson, 2010).

Atrazine is however banned in other countries in Europe and this has also placed a question mark over its continued use in the United States. The substance has not received regulatory approval by the European Union and its use is banned in most European countries, including Switzerland, where the herbicide is in fact manufactured. The reason for this banning is that proof was found of contamination of drinking water supplies (EU on Atrazine). As one report states, Atrazine "…first came under scrutiny for its effects on frogs, and more recently has been linked to adverse affects on human health" (EU on Atrazine). In France it has been found that atrazine has persisted in groundwater even after fifteen years. It is estimated that it will take an entire generation before the environment free of this product (Atrazine is a ubiquitous, persistent, and highly mobile contaminant).

Despite proof from various sources that this chemicals poses health risks it still continues to be used in the United States (What is Atrazine? And why do we love it?). The herbicide was given approval by the EPA in 2006, but this decision has been questioned and, as will be discussed, it is being reassessed in the light of the European decision; as well as in the light of a plethora of contemporary research studies that are investigating the toxicity of this chemical. Taking into account this reassessment and the doubt that has been cast on the previous acceptance of this chemical, it is clear that this herbicide should be banned in the United States. The central thesis that this paper will explore is that atrazine is an herbicide that poses potential threats to human health, as well as to the environment.

Background

Atrazine is described as a triazine herbicide which is widely used "… on a variety of crops, notably maize, sorghum and sugar-cane, for the pre- and post-emergent control of broad-leaved weeds" ( Volume 73: Some Chemicals that Cause Tumours of the Kidney or Urinary Bladder in Rodents and Some Other Substances. ) a 1999 report from the World Health Organization states that, "Occupational exposure may occur through both inhalation and dermal absorption during its manufacture, its formulation and its application by spraying" ( Volume 73: Some Chemicals that Cause Tumours & #8230; ). It is also found in rivers and lakes, as well as in, estuaries, groundwater and reservoirs. However the levels of the substance that have been found in drinking water in the United States are usually very low (Volume 73: Some Chemicals that Cause Tumours & #8230;).

While many tests of the product have not in the past shown exceptional levels of toxicity, what has raised alarm bells is the fact that research has conclusively shown that atrazine has a negative effect on the sexual development of frogs. The research has found that "… atrazine at levels often found in the environment demasculinises tadpoles and turns them into hermaphrodites, with males having ovaries in their testes and much smaller vocal organs, and with ten times lower levels of testosterone than normal male frogs" (Atrazine). This has obvious environmental consequences but also raises concerns about the effect of this product on humans.

In more formal terms atrazine is a "selective systemic herbicide" which was introduced by J.R. Geigy in 1958. It is manufactured originally by Novartis, as well as a number of different companies and goes under various tradenames, such as Coyote (Defensa), Atrazina (Cequisa), Atrazol (Sipcam) and Vectal (Aventis) ( Atrazine ). The functioning of this herbicide is described as "….the pre and post-emergence control of annual and broad leaved weeds and perennial grasses; it inhibits photosynthesis and interferes with other enzymic processes. It is mainly absorbed through the plant roots, but can enter through the foliage, and accumulates in the apical meristems and leaves" (Atrazine).

Atrazine is used mainly in the production of maize, sorghum, sugar cane, pineapples, chemical fallows, grassland, macadamia nuts, conifers and for industrial weed control (Atrazine). It is often used in combination with other herbicides, such as simazine (Atrazine). What is also a factor that features in the debate about the use of this herbicide is the fact that, "The world market for atrazine is worth over $400 million at the user level" (Common herbicide is harmful to fish).

Conclusion

While the final verdict on Atrazine by the EPA is still outstanding, it is clear that there are many reasons why this product should be banned in the United States. This view is based on the fact that European countries have already seen fit to ban this herbicide. This already suggests that the herbicide should not be used on crops and near water systems.

Coupled with the above are two other factors. The first is that the EPA has decided to reassess the toxicity of atrazine after it had officially given it the stamp of approval in 2006. This is a clear indication that there are certain discrepancies and areas of concern that have to be fully explored and researched. The second factor is that there are an increasing number of reports, studies and commentaries that link this product to serious illnesses like cancer and to a direct effect on the human reproductive system and the environment. One could, for example, refer to a report which states that,

The relationship between Atrazine and prostate cancer and breast cancer is very significant. Experimental evidence in rodents show that Atrazine is associated with an increased incident of both prostate cancer and breast cancer. There is also correlational evidence that these findings are also applicable to humans.

(EU on Atrazine)

One must also take into account that there are certain interested parties that would benefit from the continued and unimpeded sale of this product. This aspect is also related to criticisms of the sale of this product. Some studies indicate that the use of atrazine in fact only increases corn production by as little as 1.2% (Ackerman, 2010). This contradicts the assertion by the suppliers of atrazine that the continued availability of their product is essential to the agricultural industry. There is also the suggestion and allegation that the sale of this product is being promoted by big business at the expense of human health. "The agri-giant Syngenta… has a very powerful lobby and spent $250,000 lobbying in Minnesota alone in 2005 to keep atrazine on the market there" (What is Atrazine? And why do we love it?).

There are many viable alternatives to atrazine that do not have any possible health repercussions. One of these is Mesotrione, which is a direct chemical alternative to Atrazine (Lister, 2010). Studies and trials of this product have "… outperformed the carcinogenic atrazine in terms of protecting corn plants and producing a high crop yield" (Lister, 2010). It has also been ascertained as being better able to maintain safe levels of herbicide content in the environment. The practice of crop rotation has also been put forward as a more practical solution to the problem of using herbicides.

In the final analysis the headlines of an article from the Kansa City Star tends to sum up the situation:" With weed killer atrazine, the benefits are small, the risks are huge" ( Ackerman, 2010). The fact that many other countries has considered the risks of using this herbicide as being too great in relation to and viable returns should be a guideline for Americans to ban this herbicide.