The Tobacco Industry and Pesticide Regulations: Case Studies from Tobacco Industry Archives

Abstract

Tobacco is a heavily pesticide-dependent crop. Because pesticides involve human safety and health issues, they are regulated nationally and internationally; however, little is known about how tobacco companies respond to regulatory pressures regarding pesticides. In this study we analyzed internal tobacco industry documents to describe industry activities aimed at influencing pesticide regulations. We used a case study approach based on examination of approximately 2,000 internal company documents and 3,885 pages of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The cases involved methoprene, the ethylene bisdithiocarbamates, and phosphine. We show how the tobacco industry successfully altered the outcome in two cases by hiring ex-agency scientists to write reports favorable to industry positions regarding pesticide regulations for national (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and international (World Health Organization) regulatory bodies. We also show how the industry worked to forestall tobacco pesticide regulation by attempting to self-regulate in Europe, and how Philip Morris encouraged a pesticide manufacturer to apply for higher tolerance levels in Malaysia and Europe while keeping tobacco industry interest a secret from government regulators. This study suggests that the tobacco industry is able to exert considerable influence over the pesticide regulatory process and that increased scrutiny of this process and protection of the public interest in pesticide regulation may be warranted.

Risk assessment of pesticide exposure on health of Pakistani tobacco farmers

“…Most of the OP and CM insecticides inhibit the PChE, which is helpful for detecting the early acute effects of poisoning and monitoring the pesticide exposure. Similar results were noted among the tobacco farmers of many other countries (Cornwall et al, 1995;McDaniel et al, 2005;Damalas et al, 2006;Peres et al, 2006;Dasgupta et al, 2007). With an increase in the levels of pesticide residues in blood, there is inhibition of PChE showing lowest levels in the farmers of moderate severity.…”

“…Although pesticides have beneficial effects on the crop yield, insufficient protective measures to counter the harmful effects of pesticide is a major health issue in the tobacco growing areas. Farmers harvesting tobacco crop are more prone to adverse health effects of pesticides because frequent spraying is required on the broad and succulent tobacco leaves for pest control (McDaniel et al, 2005;Damalas et al, 2006). Acute pesticide poisoning is an illness or a health effect resulting from suspected or confirmed exposure to a pesticide within 48 h (WHO, 2008).…”

Phosphine Toxicity: McDaniel et al. Respond

“…We do thank Anderson for providing details on the review process for the article eventually published in Risk Analysis (Pepelko et al 2004) that was based on Sciences International’s work for the Phosphine Coalition. In our article (McDaniel et al 2005), we did not accuse Anderson of improperly using her status as editor-in-chief of the journal in the publication process. Instead, we point out that she suggested—in a 1999 memorandum to Phosphine Coalition member Joel Seckar—that the peer-review process for the paper could be expedited (Anderson 1999).…”

Phosphine Toxicity: Ethical Questions

“…McDaniel et al (2005) provided little description of the ultimate regulatory decision made by the U.S. EPA in regard to phosphine (U.S. EPA 2001), which is necessary to provide context to this discussion.…”

“…EPA 1994, 2000); the applications of these approaches have been investigated for their utility in setting acute toxicity standards for phosphine. McDaniel et al (2005) did not attempt to address these challenging scientific issues.…”