Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03131984 - 2.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: M. G. Wingett, County Administrator Contra CO.Sta DATE: March 5, 1984 Count/ SUBJECT: Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) in Food SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman to send a letter to Governor Deukmejian urging that he take action to set a standard in California which would eliminate the presence of EDB in food by the end of 1984. BACKGROUND: On February 7, 1984, Supervisor Fanden noted that she had requested a report from Dr. Brunner, Assistant Health Services Director--Public Health, on the rol.e the County plays in monitoring the presence of EDB in the County. The Board agreed with the urgency of the matter and supported Supervisor Fanden's action in requesting a report from Dr. Brunner. In response, Dr. Brunner sent a memorandum to Supervisor McPeak on February 9; a memorandum to Supervisor Fanden on February 14, and a memorandum to the Board dated February 28, copies of which are attached to this Order. Dr. Brunner concluded that eliminating EDB in food in California by the end of 1984 is a reasonable goal which the Board should consider asking the Governor to establish rather than the 2-5 year period proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: z✓f/"Ihoe RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ' v / .;� ACTION OF BOARD ON March APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER 000 .25 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS _ 1 UNANIMOUS (ABSENT > I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD County Administrator OF SUPERVISON THE DATE SHOWN. O CC: Acting Health Svcs. Director ATTESTED � 4 11 A `f Health Services Asst. Director-- Public Health J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD M3e2/7-83 BY el DEPUTY r _ ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT Contra Costa Count„ RECEIVED MAR - 1 1984 Office of County Administrator To: Board of Supervisors Date: February .28, 1984 From: Wendel Brunner, Ph.D. , M.D. Subject: Ethylene Dibromide Assistant Health Services Director in Food Public Health e ` ?� / In reslmnse to the Board order of February 7, 1984 and further information developed on the problem of EDB in food and water, I would like to expand on my memo of February 14, 1984 on that subject, and offer some recommendations. The Environmental Protection Agency first moved to control the use of EDB in 1977, giving required notice that they intended to regulate that pesticide on the basis of animal test data. That procedure bogged down somewhat from opposition by manufacturers and users, nonetheless by December 1980, the agency issued a comprehensive report and proposed greater restrictions on EDB's use. Shortly thereafter, leadership in the EPA changed, the EDB proposal was shelved, and the. sta£f of the EPA's Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances was reduced from 128 to around 20. The issue of EDB became focused again by the discovery last summer of EDB groundwater contamination in California and by the recent Florida State Agri- culture Department's aggressive action in banning the sale of food products that contain EDB. The EPA moved this month to ban the use of EDB in grain fumigation, which should solve most of the problem in the long run (some pro- blems of fruit fumigation remain) . The main issue that remains is what to do about the EDB that is already in the food pipeline. The EPA's action is predicated on phasing out EDB in our food over a period of 2 to 5 years. several state health departments have felt that 2 to 5 years is too long a time, and have adopted standards more stringent than the EPA's. Of course, EDB has already been in our food for the last 35 years; the question is what additional risks are we running by not insisting on a faster phase out, and how should those risks be managed. Risk management is a matter of public policy, to be determined by policy makers on the basis of scientific risk assessment from health professionals. In the past, an increased cancer risk of even 1 in 1,000,000 has triggered regulatory action. This one-in-a-million risk has to be put in the context of the 25% chance we all have of developing cancer anyway, just because we are alive (that is 250,000 in a million) . Smoking 1.6 cigarettes or driving 60 miles in a car is a one-in-a-million risk. 000$20 A-41 . - ..o. ,.....,. .,. ... Board of Supervisors Page Two February 28, 1984 The EPA did a revised risk assessment of EDB for humans in 1983 using an accepted model based on the animal data and including the fact that EDB in- duces tumors very rapidly, as well as at low doses. The results are con- servative, in that, statistically, the risk is almost certainly not more, and probably less, than predicted by the model. As I have mentioned before, EDB is not one of the small number ofrp oven human carcinogens. If one is so inclined, one can always poke holes in any model that extrapolates animal data to humans, and this model has been criticized particularly by manufac- turers and users of EDB. Nonetheless, the results are sobering. The predicted risk of EDB for cancer depends on the age of the exposed indi- vidual and the duration of the exposure. In the worst calculated scenario, a 2 year old child who is exposed to the EPA's recommended limit of 30 ppb EDB in grain in a normal diet for 4 years runs an additional lifetime risk of cancer due to the exposure of 2300 chances in 1,000,000. At the other end of the risk spectrum, an 18 year old exposed to 30 ppb EDB for only one month runs a 6.3 in 1,000,000 lifetime additional risk. The risk to an individual is small. Nonetheless, for every million two year olds exposed for 4 years, we can expect more than 2,000 of them to get (and probably die of) cancer from EDB. What we are seeing is probably the beginning of a decade long issue of contami- nation of food and water by pesticides and toxics in relatively small amounts. This issue arises now because of three technologic developments. One is the widespread use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. The second is our enhanced ability to detect very small traces of chemical contamination in food and water, and the third is our increased appreciation of the potential hazards of these small amounts of toxic contaminants. Public health depart- ments around the country, including our own, need to take a more proactive approach to this contamination problem, vigorously seeking evaluation and re- mediation where indicated. In discussing the EDB issue with public health professionals and toxicologists around the state, most of them feel that California should join the other states who have adopted more stringent requirements on EDB than has the EPA. A goal of eliminating EDB in food entirely in California by the end of 1984 seems a reasonable compromise between protecting the public health and providing time to develop technology and administrative procedures to implement that goal. Governor Deukmajian has on his desk proposals for EDB policies submitted by public health professionals, as well probably from other interests in the state. If your Board shares my view that a standard which would eliminate EDB in food in California by the end of 1984 is both feasible. and desirable, I believe that a timely letter tQ the Governor's office expressing that view would be useful. WSorM f 0002'( se: C. L. Van Ma.rtei icy . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY cortra , Vic:Cos t'.�• t,�COr HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEe 1 6 7984 OUt7 �' '1G�%rtnt9ii'diGt' To: Nancy C. Fanden Date: February 14, 1984 Supervisor, District Two From: Wendel Brunner, Ph.D. , M.D. Subject: Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Assistant Health Services Director Public Health I am writing in response to your concerns about EDB and your questions about the role the County plays in monitoring EDB. Ethylene Dibromide is an extraordinarily toxic compound. It is used primarily as a lead scavenger in leaded fuels, and as a soil, grain, and fruit fumigant. Approximately 300 million lbs. of EDB are produced annually in the United States. This compound is carcinogenic, mutagenic, and affects reproduction in a large number of animal and bacterial test systems. This is not one of the chemicals that you have to feed pounds of to animals to see the effect; inhaling as little as SO parts per million (ppm) causes cancer in rats. While EDB is not one of the small number of proven human carcinogens, the evidence in animals is impressive. There is every reason to believe EDB will induce tumors in humans, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has classed it as a presumptive human carcinogen. Because of the toxicity of EDB, there has been some concern in the community over the EDB which contaminates the diquat used in the water hyacinth spraying program in the delta. The County Health Department does not have authority over that spraying program. Regulation of that program has been preempted by State law and is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Water Resources and Boating and Waterways. However, the Health Services Department is nonetheless concerned about the widespread spraying of chemicals in the water supply, and we have made an independent evaluation to assess the potential risk. We measured the concentration of EDB in the diquat concentrate used in the delta spraying and found it to be 3.290 parts per million (ppm) . Repeated samples of water taken from the delta immediately after spraying almost all show less than two parts per billion (ppb) of diquat. From this data, one can calculate that the con- centration of EDB contr4pted by the spraying of diquat is less than 6.6 parts per million billion (6.6x10 ) . There is further extensive dilution as the water mixes down the delta. One would have to drink more than 20 million gallons of water from near the spray site, to receive as much EDB from the spraying as is found in a single box of Betty Crocker blueberry muffin mix. We feel that the EDB in the di- quat spray is not a health hazard. A41 /81 000128 Supervisor Nancy Fanden February 14, 1984 Page Two The other uses of EDB are unfortunately of more concern. EDB has been extensively employed primarily in the mid-West as a fumigant for stored grain and to control infestations in flour mills, which has led to the presence of significant EDB residues in food products. As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an emergency suspension order for use of EDB for these purposes February 3, 1984. That order follows the EPA suspension of the use of EDB as a soil fumigant in September. In California, the main agricultural use of EDB was as a soil fumigant. EDB was detected last year in groundwater wells in the San Joaquin valley, and in July, 1983 EDB was banned as a soil treatment agent. No permits for the use of EDB were issued in 1983 or 1984 in Contra Costa County by the County Agricultural Agent. We may conclude that there was no . agricultural use of EDB in our County, as a permit is required for its use. EDB is also an in- dustrial chemical used in leaded gasoline and other processes. We have not yet determined the amount of EDB used in the oil refining or other industries in this County. Industrial occupational exposure to EDB remains a concern. We would like to address the occupational hazards of EDB in the context of consi- dering occupational carcinogens in general in Contra Costa, in accordance with the instructions from your Board in October to develop a program to prospectively monitor those hazards. That program will also interface with the Public Health Occupational Health Clinic that we expect to establish within the next several months. The Environmental Health Director has written you a memo outlining our legal au- thority with regard to potential EDB contamination of food products. We will remain in close contact with the State laboratory to assure ourselves that adequate samples of various classes of foodstuffs are being tested. We are making arrangements to run independent laboratory tests on samples from Contra Costa, should that be appropriate. WB:rm CC: Board of Supervisors Q®Q�29 Health Services Department • i • OFFICE OF THE DIREI;TTq a (�osta Co, �i .1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIV I$ �QTnt,,, tl,ke ✓ED 2500 Alhambra Avenue FEB 1 3 1984 •, Martinez. California 94553 0ffice Tq ---- (415) 372-47&Un,t- aftin1st,-at0f- TO: Supervisor Sunne McPeak DATE: February 9, 1984 FROM: Ilan Bergma Assistant Health SUBJECT: EDB in Food Products Services Director/Environmental Health In response to your verbal request following discussions at the February 7, 1984. Board meeting for information concerning EDB levels in processed foods, the following report is submitted for your information. The authority to embargo, quarantine, or condemn food products is vested with Food and Drug Section of the State Department of Health Services, pursuant to provisions of the Sherman Food , Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Contra Costa County Health Services staff do not have the authority to enforce those sections unilaterally due to the preemptive nature of the State law. As a consequence, the Environmental Health Division staff participate in food product recalls in a limited capacity. Our role involves monitoring and spot checking local retail outlets for compliance with the State recall orders when requested . We have historically experienced full cooperation on the part of Contra Costa County retailers when State recall orders have been issued . Retailers voluntarily cooperate with our staff directives which has always resulted in the prompt removal from sale of suspect food products. With respect to the current concern that has been generated from recent disclo- sures of EDB levels in some processed foods, the attached communiques from State and Federal governmental agencies detail their efforts to deal effectively with these concerns. In terms of local involvement , the EDB disclosures were first brought to our attention by news articles and press releases in late January, 1984. As a result of our careful monitoring of the press releases during the week of January 30 to February 3, Environmental Health staff personally contacted the staff of State Food and Drug to discuss our respective roles in addressing these concerns. We initiated contact with the State agencies because we had not received any information directly from State and Federal agencies concerning this matter. We contacted Dr. Jack Sheneman, State of California Food and Drug Section in Sacramento. Dr. Sheneman advised us that the manufacturer of Duncan Hines muf- fin mix would issue a press release to recall certain specified lots of their products. Dr. Sheneman further advised that local health agencies would be asked to spot check to see that the products had been removed for sale at the appropriate time. Cimira Cost VlA^ /a9 -/9 On February 6, 1984, we received a mailgram from State Food and Drug that for- malized recent directives issued by William Ruckelshaus, which established limits for the level of EDB in food stuffs. This advisory also provides for the discontinuance of the use of EDB as a fumigant for grain products. As a consequence, on February 7, 1984, we again discussed EDB concerns with State Food and Drug (Warren Crawford , Berkeley office) who advised that there was no action necessary on our part at that time. On February 7, we also received a copy of a news release issued by the State Department of Health Services that indicated the State would implement the EPA's recommended levels for tolerance limits of EDB in food products. The only exception to the EPA recommended levels is that no measurable EDB levels will be permitted in baby foods offered for sale in California. In cases where there are prepackaged food stuffs that become suspect due to adulterates or contaminants of any kind, our posture in addressing the removal of the suspect food products involves following directives received from the State Health Services Department and/or State Food and Drug to initiate local action. We provide immediate and comprehensive action in assisting with removal of such identified food products from local distribution, as directed. As a consequence of having received no directive from the State Department of Health Services Food and Drug Section during the weeks of January 30, 1984 through February 7, 1984, and as a result of the Berkeley branch office's advice on February 7, we have not initiated Department action to remove food products alleged to contain various levels of EDB from local distribution. Our prero- gatives in unilaterally removing food stuffs from retail sale or interstate distribution to Contra Costa County appear to be proscribed and limited to assisting State agencies at their request , by current law. if you require additional information, please let me know and it will be forthcoming. DB:rm Enclosure cc: County Administrator Attn: C. L. Van Marter �� County Counsel William Walker, M.D. Wendel Brunner, M.D.