By TIM ALEXANDER
Illinois Correspondent

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Used as a weed control staple in more than 60 countries, the herbicide atrazine has come under attack recently by lawyers in Illinois, Kansas and other locations as an unsafe presence in municipal drinking water supplies, largely because of chemical runoff from crop fields.

A lawsuit in Illinois filed by attorney Stephen Tillery linking low infant birth weight to the presence of atrazine in drinking water seeks to rewrite limitations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disallow the presence of any measurable levels of the herbicide, despite the EPA’s allowance of a trace amount of the chemical in municipal water supplies.

Syngenta, the biggest manufacturer of atrazine, is fighting back by releasing details of a study it conducted in conjunction with the EPA that showed none of the 122 community water systems monitored last year in 10 states where atrazine is used exceeded the federal standards for atrazine measurements.

“Atrazine can be occasionally detected in water at extraordinarily low concentrations, but these low levels pose no threat to human health,” said Tim Pastoor, Ph.D., principal scientist for Syngenta, in a recent news release. “A person could drink thousands of gallons of water containing 3 parts per billion (ppb) atrazine every day for a lifetime, and still not be affected by atrazine.”

The EPA has adopted a federal lifetime drinking water standard for atrazine at 3 ppb, a level containing a “1,000-fold safety factor,” according to Syngenta. That level poses “no harm that would result to the U.S. population, infants, children or other major identifiable subgroups of consumers,” the EPA concluded.

Further, according to Syngenta’s news release, atrazine concentrations have declined significantly in raw, unprocessed water between 1994-2006 at 103 frequently monitored sites due in large part to best management practices – such as buffer strips – employed by farmers.

The World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute have also studied atrazine and found no health concerns when used as directed.

Atrazine was recently re-registered for use in agriculture, meaning farmers should be able to use the chemical for weed control without concern of a lawsuit, said Jean Payne, president of the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Assoc. (IFCA).

“It’s been several years since we’ve seen quarterly reports from the EPA indicating an issue with atrazine,” said Payne. “Atrazine is very important in controlling grasses from a residual standpoint. Our ability to use atrazine means farmers can practice no-till; it’s an application you can make without turning the soil.

“Atrazine has been used for many years and is one of the most studied products ever. It has been re-registered many times by the U.S. EPA, and they’ve reduced the label rates on it in the last 10 years. We really feel this lawsuit is not really about the product itself, it’s more about trial lawyers drumming up business.”

An effective ban on atrazine use by farmers would negatively affect agriculture stewardship because it would greatly reduce the amount of no-till acreage in the state, said Payne. “Glyphosate can kill grass, to, but it’s not a long-term residual product,” she said.
“Atrazine is an erosion controller because farmers don’t use
cultivators to uproot grasses.”

Syngenta’s Chuck Foresman, senior technical brand manager, also extolled atrazine’s stewardship qualities, saying research has shown the chemical has a positive effect on farm production.

The EPA has estimated farming without atrazine could cost corn growers $28 per acre due to yield loss and the use of more expensive, less effective herbicides.

Tillery’s class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of water districts throughout the state, seeks compensation from Syngenta and other atrazine makers for water districts to cover costs incurred from removing atrazine from water supplies. It could cost more than $1 billion to remove.