As You Sow
State and private laboratory tests show that fertilizer manufacturers routinely add undisclosed amounts of toxic waste to farm and home fertilizers sold in California. These companies buy toxic waste from industrial facilities to obtain low-cost plant nutrients, such as zinc or iron. Unfortunately, such waste streams are often highly contaminated with persistent toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and dioxins. Many of these contaminants are known to cause cancer, reproductive and developmental toxicity or other serious health effects and, to varying degrees, are available to be absorbed from the soil by food crops. Sold as household products, they may also pose a risk to home gardeners and their families. In spite of these risks, the California Department of Food and Agriculture has now proposed to legalize the practice recycling toxic waste into fertilizers.
Tests find popular home fertilizer highly contaminated
In tests of a widely-used home fertilizer sold throughout California, every sample exceeded State of California criteria for classification as hazardous waste, according to an analysis conducted for the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG). State data analyzed by CALPIRG and EWG also show that more than one-sixth of the commercial fertilizers tested by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) exceeded State of California hazardous waste criteria for heavy metals including lead and arsenic.
Testing 10 samples of Ironite brand fertilizer purchased from home and garden stores in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento and Fresno, an accredited independent laboratory found lead at three to four times the concentration that would require the fertilizer itself to be disposed of as hazardous waste. All ten samples also exceeded the hazardous waste criteria for arsenic, some by more than two times the standard. Thirty percent of the Ironite samples equaled or exceeded the hazardous waste criteria for mercury, and another 50 percent were barely below the standard. An average Ironite sample contained seven heavy metals, with average levels of lead at 3.7 times the hazardous waste threshold, arsenic at 1.9 times the threshold and mercury at 95 percent of the threshold. (Table 1.)
Table 1. Average Ironite sample compared to State of California levels for toxic waste.
| Heavy Metal | Level |
|---|---|
| Lead | 370% |
| Arsenic | 190% |
| Mercury | 95% |
| Selenium | 45% |
| Cadmium | 27% |
| Barium | <1% |
| Chromium | <1% |
| Silver | Not Detected |
Ironite is recommended by its manufacturer for use on vegetables, flowers, lawns, potted plants, shrubs and trees. It is made by the Ironite Products Co. of Scottsdale, Ariz., using as raw materials the tailings from an abandoned lead and zinc mine. Due to its high levels of lead and arsenic, Ironite can not be used in Canada. Last year, Washington State officials issued a warning to consumers that Ironite could be "dangerous" and that ingestion of less than half a teaspoon could be toxic to small children. Using too much Ironite for only two years, state officials said, could make a back yard as contaminated as a hazardous waste site. As a result of these findings, Ironite reduced the product's recommended application rate -- but not its toxicity -- to comply with Washington State regulations.
One in six commercial fertilizers tested more toxic than hazardous waste
Contamination of agricultural fertilizers may be even more widespread. State data analyzed by CALPIRG and EWG show that more than one-sixth of the commercial fertilizers tested by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) exceeded State of California hazardous waste criteria for heavy metals including lead and arsenic. Between 1994 and 1998, CDFA tested more than 250 samples of commercial (mostly agricultural use) fertilizer products for lead, arsenic and cadmium. Thirteen percent of the cadmium-tainted samples exceeded hazardous waste criteria, as did seven percent of the lead-containing samples and two percent of the arsenic-containing samples.
Spreading these contaminants on farm soils is a particular concern because lead, cadmium, arsenic and other contaminants persist and even accumulate in soil for decades where they may be absorbed by food crops. CDFA's assessment of the health risk posed by toxic fertilizer says that eating food grown with contaminated fertilizer will be the greatest single source of exposure for commercial products. (Risks posed by home-use products were not evaluated). Combined with the potential for exposures of toxic fertilizers stored at home, it is evident that contaminated fertilizers are a threat to farmers and farm workers, residents of agricultural communities, consumers anywhere of California produce, and home gardeners and their families.
Proposed state regulations won't protect Californians from toxic fertilizers
In the face of this evidence that home and farm fertilizers may be contaminated at levels harmful to human health, the State of California is about to issue proposed regulations that would continue to allow lead, arsenic and other toxic wastes to be added to commercial fertilizers at up to four times the level allowed in Washington State and up to 85 times the amount allowed in some European countries. Because the contaminants in question are highly persistent, and are expected to remain and accumulate in soils for decades or even hundreds of years, the Department is gambling with the future health of our farms and gardens. Given that many fertilizer products on the market are relatively clean, this is an unnecessary risk.
The state's proposed regulations are flawed at every turn:
- Toxic wastes in home fertilizers would not be regulated at all, even though they present an obvious potential exposure route for children and other vulnerable populations.
- The proposed rule would deny Californians the right even to know what toxins, and in what amounts, are in the fertilizer products they purchase.
- The rule would regulate only three of the many contaminants found in fertilizer.
- The proposed rule is based on a risk analysis that was designed with input from the fertilizer industry but not from environmental or public interest organizations; that has been widely criticized; inadequately peer reviewed; and that misses important sources of risk. A member of the state Scientific Review Panel called the proposed risk analysis "severely deficient."
Recommendations
State and independent tests that found highly contaminated samples of Ironite, the fact that it is not approved for use in Canada, and the consumer health warnings issued last year by Washington State argue strongly that this product may pose unacceptable health risks to Californians. CALPIRG and EWG urge California retailers to voluntarily remove Ironite from their shelves, and the state to require future packages of the fertilizer to carry warnings both of its toxicity to children at low doses and the potential for soil contamination.
The larger issue is that California farms and gardens should not be dumping grounds for industrial toxic waste. CALPIRG and EWG also urge the California Department of Food and Agriculture to reconsider its "risk-based" approach to regulating fertilizer. Rather than gamble with high levels of persistent contaminants in fertilizers, CDFA should:
- Set soil standards that ensure that cropland and home gardens are not degraded by fertilizer use. Allowable contaminant levels in fertilizers should be set a level that would not result in increased contamination of soils.
- Prohibit the use of toxic waste in fertilizers unless the waste is first fully treated according to federal and state guidelines for hazardous waste treatment.
- Guarantee Californians' right to know about toxics in the fertilizers they buy, with labeling requirements that fully disclose the kind and amount of all toxic waste in the product.
California EPA Critique
An effort by one wing of the Davis administration to keep heavy metals out of California's agricultural crops and soil -- which some environmentalists have called inadequate -- has come under criticism from another wing of the administration, it was discovered last week by Capitol Journal.
At issue are regulations being developed by the Calif. Dept. of Food and Agriculture that would allow commercial fertilizers to contain lead, arsenic and cadmium -- all of which can cause serious health problems such as cancer, kidney disease and mental retardation. Throughout this year, environmentalists led by the Calif. Public Interest Research Group and the Environmental Working Group have charged that CDFA's regulatory approach did not go far enough to protect consumers -- a claim now backed by officials in the Calif. Environmental Protection Agency.
In a letter submitted late last week to CDFA Secy. William Lyons, Cal/EPA Secy. Winston Hickox agreed on one thing with his ag counterpart: that the issue of metals in fertilizer "presents a threat to public health, the environment, and the economic vitality of California agribusiness and, therefore, requires proper regulation." But there the agreement ended, as Hickox's letter was followed by a 30-page critique citing numerous problems with CDFA's proposed regulations.
For starters, Cal/EPA officials took issue with the science used by CDFA to create the regulations. Ag officials relied exclusively on an analysis performed during the administration of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, which has resulted in "proposed regulations that create maximum allowable environmental contamination and exposure rather than preventing and reducing ongoing contamination of our environment," according to the Cal/EPA document.
"As a matter of public policy," Cal/EPA added, "it is not desirable to develop standards that plan for increased environmental contamination when otherwise avoidable."
The Cal/EPA assessment also criticized CDFA's decision to address only lead, arsenic and cadmium in the draft regulations. Environmentalists have said that other dangerous materials have been found in fertilizers, including mercury, which can cause birth defects, and dioxin, which can cause birth defects, cancer and immune system disorders. CDFA's plan to require content labeling of fertilizer bags also came under attack by Cal/EPA, saying the proposed labeling plan was "misleading" and could prove dangerous to consumers unless corrected.
Another problem, which environmentalists have cited, is the regulations would address fertilizer used only for commercial purposes, leaving out products sold for home use. But exempting fertilizer for home gardens could prove harmful, according to a study released two weeks ago by CalPIRG, the Environmental Working Group and Dr. Bill Liebhart of UC Davis that found one brand of fertilizer, Ironite, to have dangerously high levels of heavy metals.
Steve Mauch, an assistant director with CDFA, had no comment on Cal/EPA's assessment of the regulations, saying he had not reviewed them. Mauch did say the department would be reviewing all submitted commentary and may make changes to address substantive concerns raised by interested parties.
A spokesman for the governor echoed CDFA's position, saying Davis could not comment on the issue until all testimony has been examined.
Fertilizer producers, meanwhile, said there is currently nothing wrong with the regulations. "According to the U.S. EPA, CDFA and a long list of interested parties, the proposed regulations for fertilizers in California would provide more than enough protection for consumers and the environment," said Jennifer Lombardi, director of communications for the Calif. Fertilizer Assn. "We're pleased to have proposed regulations that are science- based and protect the public."
Ultimately, the issue may not be resolved at the regulatory level. Last week it was revealed that the Legislature may get involved if a key Democratic lawmaker has her way.
Assm. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), chair of Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, wrote to CDFA, urging the department to drop the regulations. "I believe the California Legislature provides a far more effective process for crafting a policy based on sound science," wrote Jackson. "The legislative process might also better address some of the points of dissent which, I am told, have been raised by other agencies, but not fully addressed by CDFA's proposed regulations."
However, if history is any indication, the Legislature may have a tough time resolving the fertilizer issue. In 1998, Sen. Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), chair of Senate Environmental Quality, tried passing legislation requiring fertilizers to be treated for hazardous waste and to disclose their origins on packaging labels. That effort, SB 1943, died on the Senate floor after the fertilizer industry successfully blocked it. Sher then got language put into the 1998 state budget, which began the regulatory effort.
Initially, CDFA formed a task force composed of industry and environmental representatives to study the problem and draft the regulations. CalPIRG's Jonathan Kaplan, who sat on the task force, said the group ignored his organization's advice to take a zero- tolerance approach on hazardous materials in fertilizer. Instead, Kaplan added, the task force went with a risk-based strategy that focused on finding the highest acceptable level for lead, arsenic and cadmium without adversely affecting public health.
Copyright (c) 1999 State Net, All Rights Reserved.