Recent research by a team of professors has again shown atrazine’s key role in U.S. agriculture.  In light of their five new studies – and the 2010 price and production figures – it appears that 38,000 to 85,000 American jobs depend on atrazine.

“Five papers on the benefits of atrazine and the triazine herbicides” may sound dry, but they were announced within a week of world population reaching seven billion – and their conclusions speak directly to feeding the world while protecting our environment.

Atrazine is a uniquely suited herbicide that increases corn, grain sorghum and sugar cane production substantially.  After more than 50 years experience with atrazine, the studies find growers are applying it to control new weed problems.  It enables tillage practices that saves top soil and reduces soil erosion, costly siltation and turbidity in streams, ponds and rivers.

In 2010, Atrazine’s value to the U.S. economy was between $4 billion and $9 billion.  It generates crops, production, exports, farm income and jobs in communities across the country.  Its incremental benefit to the U.S. corn crop alone is some 600 million bushels, or more than $3 billion in value at $5.40 per bushel, the Department of Agriculture’s 2010 average price.

Working with Syngenta, atrazine’s principal registrant at the Environmental Protection Agency, I have estimated atrazine’s value in Illinois and Minnesota.  I tallied planted corn acres in specific years, acres to which atrazine was applied, and costs of alternative applications for those acres at established prices.  By definition, available alternatives are either more expensive or less effective, or both, meaning higher costs and less return for growers.  The differences between current practice, estimated alternatives and lost yields made a range estimate for each year and state studied.

Atrazine’s indicated value in each analysis proved commensurate with its position as the second ranking herbicide active ingredient, and consistent with numerous other estimates by a host of researchers.

My research found that in Illinois, the second largest corn-producing state, in 2005, atrazine provided between $16 and $59 of benefits per acre.  By 2006, atrazine benefitted growers there by $24 to $72 per acre.  Minnesota growers in 2006 gained between $26 and $69 per acre.

These estimates overlay EPA’s 2001 nominal national average atrazine estimated benefit of $28 per acre.  EPA tallied the loss of nine bushels of production from the then-average corn yield of 138 bushels per acre, at the average per-bushel price of $1.97, and the higher costs of replacement herbicides.  By 2010, average yield was 153 bushels per acre, and the average price was $5.40 per bushel.  The price rise increases the yield loss value to $48.60, from 2001’s $17.73, for an indicated increase in the EPA 2001 estimate, on this basis alone, to $59 per acre.

Estimates of grower impact show a loss of atrazine acts essentially as a tax on producers.  Lost production means lost income, which becomes less consumption by growers – and thus less demand in their communities.  That is how the growers’ decreased demand hurts local economies, where it translates into lost jobs.  And, those who buy and use corn, sorghum and sugar cane – from livestock producers to food processors – would face higher prices because of lower production generally.

However, earlier estimates did not include atrazine’s off-farm — or societal — benefits.  Here the new studies shed important light.  For instance, Professor Paul Mitchell’s research finds atrazine use helps save 56 to 85 million tons of U.S. soil per year.  By reducing tillage requirements, 18 million gallons of fuel are not used, preventing release of 180,000 to 280,000 metric tons of CO₂.  The value of the topsoil alone is between $200 million and $350 million.

Also new are estimates of benefits in grain sorghum, sugarcane and sweet corn.  Additional, but smaller uses, such as Christmas trees and southeastern lawn care, have not yet been estimated.

Perhaps most important, Professor Michael Owen describes new, adaptive atrazine uses.  Growers apply atrazine to increase the strength of other technologies and to prevent escape of herbicide-resistant weeds.  This indicates a bright future for atrazine demand.

These benefits grow or contract based on market prices.  For instance, dividing GDP by the relatively flat work force creates a notional value imputed to each U.S. worker of roughly $107,000.  At that rate, the implicit atrazine job cohort is no less than 38,000 (at $4 billion in value) to some 85,000 (at $9 billion).  In July 2010, based on “corn only” figures from 2006, I estimated 21,000 to 48,000 corn-related jobs dependent upon atrazine.

To put the numbers in perspective, were all of the atrazine-dependent jobs assumed to be in the agricultural sector, and atrazine became unavailable, then that sector’s unemployment rate would increase by as much as 3.8 percent.  Or, if all of the jobs were assumed in the corn sub-sector of agriculture, then their loss would increase the corn sub-sector unemployment rate by between 13 percent and 28 percent.

The new studies tell an important part of atrazine’s story.  Economically, growers understand its benefits – and apply it to significant effect.  It increases our ability to feed the world.  It benefits society directly and indirectly, by saving soil and improving water quality.  Its value – especially in difficult economic times – can be understood in American jobs.  And those 38,000 to 85,000 atrazine-dependent U.S. jobs will disappear just as quickly as other atrazine-based benefits, if atrazine is unavailable.

Follow this link to view comments that were submitted

Background Information

No information submitted in the Save the Frogs’ petition justifies a change in regulatory action.

What EPA Says:

In 20007, EPA concluded: “atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies, including studies submitted by the registrant and studies published in the scientific literature.”

In its April 2010 update, EPA stated: EPA believes that no additional testing is warranted to address this issue.

What Science Says:

Despite more than 50 years of atrazine use, scientists have not found credible evidence of an impact of atrazine on a single animal species in the field, let alone a human population.

Over the past 20 years, deformities and declines in frog populations have been scientifically linked to causes such as natural fungal disease, non-native fish, natural parasites and habitat destruction, but never to atrazine.

Subsequent to the 2007 review by EPA, several publications from independent laboratories, using 5 five additional species of amphibians, indicate no effects by atrazine on amphibians. These publications were omitted from the Save the Frogs’ petition.

The Australian government conducted a review of Dr. Tyrone Hayes’ March 2010 publication, cited in the Save the Frogs petition, and determined that it does not warrant a reconsideration of atrazine’s regulatory status.

Based on EPA guidance, two large-scale studies (Kloas, 2007) were conducted in separate laboratories using 3,200 frogs and 100,000 tissue samples to determine whether or not atrazine has an impact on growth, development, survival, or sexual differentiation in frogs. EPA audited and inspected the data from these studies, stating: “The data are sufficiently robust to outweigh previous efforts to study the potential effects of atrazine on amphibian gonadal development” and “there is no compelling reason to pursue additional testing.”
In an April 2008 story in The New York Times, Yale University scientist Dr. David Skelly found fewer hermaphroditic frogs in agricultural areas where atrazine is used than in suburban areas where it is less likely to be found, saying, “What we found in most of the agricultural ponds we sampled was no evidence of reproductive deformity.”

What the Frogs Say:

The native northern leopard frog continues to thrive in areas where atrazine is heavily used, including in irrigation ditches next to U.S. Midwest corn fields.

Atrazine products are critical modern agricultural tools that support land and water conservation, helping to maintain habitats for frogs and other wildlife.

What the World Says:

Atrazine passes the most stringent, up-to-date safety requirements in the world.

Atrazine has been found safe at levels found in the environment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have concluded atrazine is safe at levels found in the environment.

The World Health Organization also favorably reviewed atrazine (2007, 2010).

David C. Bridges, Ph.D., president, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, University of Georgia led the webcast news conference hosted by AgriTalk host Mike Adams. Bridges said the findings show substantial benefits to crop production, environmental protection and U.S. job creation.

“It’s hard to overestimate the importance of atrazine and the triazine herbicides to U.S. agriculture and global food supplies.  They benefit food production, the environment and the economy — and that means jobs,” Bridges said. “Some say there are ready replacements. In fact, there is no substitute for atrazine.”

The findings show atrazine increases U.S. corn production by about 7 additional bushels per acre of production, while U.S. sorghum farmers benefit by more than 13 additional bushels per acre of yield.  Those higher yields help save the U.S. beef, dairy, pork, poultry and egg industries more than $1.4 billion per year.  These benefits resonate throughout the entire supply chain, from farmers and food processors to retailers and consumers, Bridges said.

According to Richard Fawcett, a former agronomist at Iowa State University, atrazine also helps the environment by facilitating conservation tillage. Conservation tillage in turn reduces soil erosion and reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, reduces fuel use and carbon emissions and reduces runoff of herbicides. Although atrazine has been on the market for over 50 years, the herbicides value to farmers remains high, Fawcett said.

“The yield benefit with atrazine is still there today. Atrazine helps nearly all those new products work better. It doesn’t take a lot of atrazine to make a lot of those herbicide work better,” Fawcett said.

Atrazine has made conservation tillage practices possible for many farmers, and that benefits the environment. “We do know that wildlife habitat has been greatly improved. Conservation tillage created habitat, benefits ecology,” Fawcett said. “When I was a kid, you would never see wildlife on a farm, but today you do. The wildlife is back.”

USDA reports that U.S. cropland soil erosion declined by more than 40 percent between 1982 and 2007. Conservation tillage and related practices have contributed to this result. The triazine herbicides play an integral role in those programs.

In addition, conservation tillage and no-till farming reduce agricultural diesel fuel use by more than 18 million gallons per year and annual carbon-dioxide emissions by more than 180,000 metric tons.

“For many farm families, especially in this struggling economy, atrazine’s productivity boost represents the margin between keeping the family farm and home — and losing everything,” said Don Coursey, Ph.D.  “Atrazine’s value extends from farms to the small businesses they support and their local communities. Our findings today show that atrazine provides a basis for between 30,000 and 48,000 American jobs in corn production alone,” Coursey said.

Paul Mitchell said without atrazine, yields would go down, and planted acres would have to increase to make up for the loss. “There can be no doubt, based on these studies that atrazine is contributing significantly to food production, environmental protection and jobs in the areas of its use,” Mitchell said.

The panelists on the webcast were:

David Bridges, Ph.D., author, “A biological analysis of the use and benefits of chloro-s-triazine herbicides in U.S. corn and sorghum production”

Paul D. Mitchell, Ph.D., associate professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, and author, “Economic assessment of the benefits of chloro-s-triazine herbicides to U.S. corn, sorghum, and sugarcane producers” and “Estimating soil erosion and fuel use changes and their monetary values with AGSIM: a case study for triazine herbicides”

Micheal D. K. Owen, Ph.D., professor of agronomy and associate chair, Agronomy Department, Iowa State University, and author, “The importance of atrazine in the integrated management of herbicide-resistance weeds”

Richard S. Fawcett, Ph.D., president of Fawcett Consulting and former professor of agronomy, Iowa State University, and author, “Efficacy of best management practices for reducing runoff of chloro-s-triazine herbicides to surface water: a review”

Economist Don L. Coursey, Ph.D., Ameritech professor of public policy studies, Harris School, The University of Chicago, and author of the earlier released “Illinois Without Atrazine, Who Pays?” and “Jobs, safety and informed choices”

Also included are the results of the study, National Corn Growers Association’s yield contests of 2006-2009: summary of atrazine versus non-atrazine use

To watch the webcast, follow this link on the AgrilTalk website

Acting on this new information on the coolness of frogs, EPA sprang into action, and on September 14 announced it was seeking public comment on the petition from Save the Frogs to ban atrazine.

Most of those who will comment fall into two categories:
1. Those who like frogs and want atrazine banned.
2. Those who like frogs know there is no valid scientific evidence that shows that atrazine harms frogs, and would like atrazine to remain available to farmers so they can safely control weeds in their fields, and produce feed and food for our growing, hungry population.

To be inclusive, we’d like to point out that depending on their age, supporters and detractors of atrazine may claim that frogs are sweet (suh-weeeet!) da bomb, phat, totally awesome, most excellent, far out, or the cat’s pajamas. While others may mention the deliciousness of frog legs at their favorite restaurant, that is a separate issue also opposed by Save the Frogs.

As recently as April 2010, EPA stated:
Status Update – April 2010
EPA concluded in 2007 that atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies, including studies submitted by the registrant and studies published in the scientific literature. At this time, EPA believes that no additional testing is warranted to address this issue.

In September 2009, in response to an onerous study by an environmental activist group and a successful coordinated media campaign, EPA announced that it would open an unprecedented re-review of atrazine through a series of Science Advisory Panels (SAPs).

Save the Frogs has a lot of neat merchandise on their website—t-shirts, wristbands, posters and more. The Triazine Network doesn’t have any neat merchandise. Made up of farmers and agricultural groups, the Triazine Network is a coalition that seeks a science based decision on atrazine and other triazine herbicides.

“We won’t send you a t-shirt or bracelet if you take action in support of atrazine and a science based outcome on EPA’s decisions,” Triazine Network Chairman Jere White said. “But we think it is important to continually remind EPA that there is a right way to do things. I encourage our growers and others who support agriculture to submit a comment in support of sound science in EPA’s re-review of atrazine.”

Follow this link to add your comment and tell EPA to stick with science.

Relying on data from the Agricultural Health Study, federal government researchers have found no association between atrazine use and cancer overall among pesticide applicators, although they did find limited evidence of an association between use of the herbicide and thyroid and ovarian cancer — neither of which were statistically significant.

This latest report, published online May 27 ahead of print in Environmental Health Perspectives, updates a previous analysis — which found non-statistically significant associations among atrazine use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and lung and bladder cancer — with six additional years of cancer incidence and follow-up data.

You can read more about this research on the Environmental Health Perspectives website.

Here’s what the New York Times had to say about the study:

Deformities in frogs in the northeastern United States are far more common in suburban and urban areas, not in and around farmlands, a Yale ecologist’s research shows. The findings upend the conventional wisdom that agricultural pesticides are largely responsible for the abnormalities. Rather, the combination of many household chemicals, including pharmaceuticals and plastics that mimic hormones, appear to be the root cause.

The Guardian had this to say:

For the last two decades, strange things have been happening to frogs. Some frog populations have high rates of limb deformities, while others have high incidences of what is known as “intersex” — traits associated with both males and females, such as male frogs whose testes contain eggs.

David K. Skelly, professor of ecology at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, set out to discover what was causing these deformities, which some researchers were attributing to the use of an agricultural pesticide called atrazine. Skelly launched an experiment in ponds throughout Connecticut, studying frogs in four landscapes: forests, agricultural areas, suburbs, and cities. And what he found was surprising — the highest rates of deformities were not occurring in and around farmlands, but in cities and suburbs.

Read the rest of this article here.

Floor Statement of The Honorable Frank D. Lucas
House Resolution 72, Review of Federal Regulations
and Their Impact on Agriculture and Rural Economies
February 11, 2011

As prepared for delivery

Mr. Chairman,
Today I rise in support of H.RES. 72.

American agriculture is under attack. Every day the administration seems to demonstrate just how vastly disconnected it is from the folks who feed us. The administration fails to realize that rural America’s economy is dependant on agriculture. The in-your-face-approach that the administration has taken regarding government regulation has increased the cost of doing business for America’s farmers and ranchers. If the administration is allowed to continue down this path, the only choice for many farmers and ranchers will be to stop farming altogether.

From the dairies in Vermont, to the wheat fields near the Chesapeake Bay, to the corn farms in the Midwest, American agriculture is under a constant barrage of irrational and unworkable regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, which are burdensome, overreaching, and that negatively affect jobs and rural economies.

This EPA is mostly interested in pursuing the extreme agenda of environmental groups without any consideration for the impact it will have on our farmers and ranchers. For example:

• The EPA wants to treat milk spills like oil spills simply because milk contains animal fat. EPA has suggested that milk storage be regulated under the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks;

• The EPA wants farmers to till fields without producing any dust. Clearly, the folks at EPA have never stepped foot on a farm in western Oklahoma or otherwise they would know that dust happens and all the regulations in the world can’t eliminate its existence;

• The EPA wants farmers to ensure that none of the spray they use for pests drifts even one foot away from the original source;

• The EPA has started an unprecedented, RE-RE-evaluation of the popular weed control product atrazine. In 2006, the EPA completed a 12-year review involving 6,000 studies and 80,000 public comments, yet one of the first orders of business for the Obama administration was to start all over after an article appeared in The New York Times;

• The EPA is trying to regulate watersheds based off of inaccurate data and flawed models — a problem recognized even by top officials at USDA.

The list goes on and on. But what further illustrates the alarming frame of mind of the EPA is that the agency has gone so far as to recently hold a contest for the public to create videos explaining why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”

In many instances, the agency is overreaching its authority. Instead of operating within the law, EPA believes it can order Congress to pass legislation that gives it more authority and threaten to regulate anyway if Congress chooses not to act.

The message from the President is clear: Pass a cap and tax bill or we will pursue an endangerment finding. Pass more authority to regulate watersheds or we will proceed with an executive order.
Sadly for America’s farmers and ranchers these regulations are not limited to the EPA. The Department of Agriculture’s Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Agency’s proposed rule on purported “fairness” far exceeds Congressional intent expressed in the 2008 Farm Bill. It lacks a credible economic analysis and has so far been the result of a regulatory process that only can be described as flawed. We have a responsibility to producers, packers, processors, retailers, and consumers to continue to examine this proposal’s implications and act accordingly.

In addition, over the past several months, the CFTC and other federal financial regulators have been engaged in writing unprecedented new regulations over the derivatives markets. As Chairman Gensler pointed out in our Committee yesterday, since September alone, the CFTC has issued 39 new rule proposals involving thousands of pages of regulation. By comparison, before Dodd-Frank, the CFTC averaged only about five rules per year.

The speed with which the CFTC is issuing new rules precludes their ability to conduct adequate cost-benefit analysis to ensure the rules do not impose unnecessary or undue regulations on our financial system and our economy.

And unlike many other provisions of Dodd-Frank, Title VII is not limited to financial firms. In fact, it has the potential to impact every segment of our economy, from farmers and ranchers, to manufacturers and energy companies, to the fields of health care and technology.

Yet many of the rules the CFTC has proposed would substantially increase the costs of hedging for commercial end-users – extending Wall Street regulation to Main Street companies. As we work to revive the economy and create new jobs, we simply can’t afford sweeping new regulations that are poorly vetted, that impose substantial costs that outweigh the benefits for our financial system and our economy, or that are crafted in the interest of speed rather than in sound policy.

The Agriculture Committee has set forth an aggressive oversight plan that will shine a bright light on these regulations and show the real world consequences of them. I hope the administration will work with us in our efforts. Our nation’s farmers, ranchers and small business owners are counting on it.

St. Paul, Minn. — The Minnesota Department of Agriculture said Tuesday that existing rules for the weed-killer atrazine are adequate to protect the environment and public health.

The department worked with other state agencies to study possible human health impacts, and threats to wildlife in water. Spokesman Michael Schommer said he expects some criticism of the agency’s decision to stick with the current standard of three parts-per-billion in drinking water.

“The bottom line is it’s risk-benefit analysis and we’re doing the best we can with the information that’s available,” he said.

Read the rest of this article from Minnesota Public Radio here.

In the article, Hayes strongly refuted claims that he has not shared data on his atrazine research with the Environmental Protection Agency. The article quotes one researcher who says Hayes’ research hasn’t been replicated, and another researcher said it’s irrelevant that Hayes’ amphibian studies cannot be replicated.

Reproducibility
Yale University professor David Skelly, a researcher who participated in two EPA panels that reviewed the results of atrazine studies, told the newspaper that his is not aware of anyone who has been able to replicate Hayes’ results. The concept of being able to replicate the results of research is called “reproducibility”.

But that’s not relevant, according to Gail Prins, physiology professor at University of Illinois at Chicago. She told the Daily Californian that it is not important that others have not been able to replicate Hayes’ study results. She said she trusts his methods. However, reproducibility is widely recognized as one of the main principles of the scientific method (unless Gail Prins trusts you).

Missing Data?
Syngenta toxicologist Tim Pastoor told the newspaper that Hayes’ results will not be considered reliable until he gives his raw data to EPA to evaluate. Hayes hasn’t done that. Hayes’ responded by saying that allegation is “blatantly false” and told the newspaper that he had allowed EPA into his laboratory in 2002.

In a June 18, 2010 article written by Alex Avery of the Center for Global Food Issues, titled “EPA Exposes Hayes–Again!” documents Hayes’ failure to provide proper data to EPA (information excerpted below).

2005: Anne E. Lindsay, then-deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, gave Hayes a hard review in testimony before the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2005. Lindsay said EPA had never seen the results from any independent investigator published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or the raw data from Hayes’ additional experiments. Hayes’ responded to Lindsay’s remarks in a paper recently put out by anti-pesticide activist organization, PANNA, refuting Lindsay’s 2005 testimony by pointing to a 2002 letter from EPA’s Tom Steeger praising him for sharing raw data.

2010: Illinois State Representative Dave Winters asked EPA recently if the agency had received “a complete, transparent set of raw data which could be interpreted and analyzed by the EPA and used in generating a full evaluation of his work.” Donald Brady, Director of the Environmental Fate and Effects Division replied: “I regret that the EPA science staff in the Office of Pesticide Programs’ EFED could not properly account for the sample sizes and study design reportedly used by the Berkeley researchers. As a result, we were unable to complete any independent analysis to support the study’s conclusions.”

Bottom Line
Dr. Hayes’ research can’t be replicated. He won’t share his data, even with EPA. He is a self-described anti-atrazine activist, bringing his objectivity into question. It is hard to ignore these facts when considering his claims against atrazine. Let’s hope EPA still believes in the scientific process.

Speak and you shall be heard.

Speak too loudly in support of farmers safely using atrazine and you’ll be subpoenaed. At least that’s how Jere White, executive director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association and Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association explains it.

In September White spoke out in support of atrazine during the Environmental Protection Agency’s Atrazine Science Advisory Panel in Washington, D.C. A day after his testimony and the publishing of a subsequent column he wrote about the harassment tactics lawyers have used to intimidate growers over atrazine, White was served with subpoenas for KCGA, KGSP and for himself as an individual in regard to the state lawsuit Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Growmark, Inc. A fourth subpoena for the Triazine Network, of which White is chairman, was issued after he spoke out in a blog posting about the previous three.

A state lawsuit

The Illinois state lawsuit began in 2003, White explained, when EPA determined it would move forward with the re-registration of atrazine, a chemical farmers use for weed control on corn and grain sorghum. In 2004 Holiday Shores filed a suit over standards for atrazine presence in drinking water. The attorneys in the case are what White refers to as “activist attorneys.”

“These folks are not just attorneys with a case, but are attorneys with an activist bias,” White said. “Steven Tillery, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, did an Earth Day press release in 2009 that said this wasn’t just about trying atrazine in the court of public law but in the court of public opinion. We think the decision for a lawsuit was made when it was clear the EPA was going to allow the continued safe use of the product under their determinations.” Despite 50 years of scientific data, regulation and review, this and a federal lawsuit put the fate of atrazine’s approval in the hands and at the whim of a judge, he added.

A federal case

On March 8 Tillery and his Dallas-based partner, the law firm of Baron & Budd, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of 17 cities in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Missouri asking for Syngenta to pay for water filtration in their communities. Plaintiffs in the High Plains Journal/ Midwest Ag Journal area include Creston, Iowa, and Carbondale, Dodge City, Marion, Miami County, Oswego and Plains, Kan.

White pointed out that it’s interesting to note that a similar federal lawsuit was dismissed in 1999 because the judge ruled that removing safe and approved levels of atrazine from drinking water was unnecessary.

“We are disturbed cities like Dodge City and Plains would go this direction, mainly because they have no atrazine issue in their water,” White said. “And, they aren’t treating for an issue they don’t have now, but they still want money for treatment, even though their water meets all standards.” Most important, he asked, if these cities have to comply with regulations for their own discharges of water, which are based on scientific facts, then why isn’t it OK that the same science says the levels of atrazine in the water are not close to any levels of concern?

Read the rest of this article from the High Plains Journal here.