s s
Daily News Blog


  • Archives

  • Categories

    • Agriculture (430)
    • Announcements (291)
    • Antibacterial (103)
    • Aquaculture (13)
    • Biofuels (5)
    • Biological Control (1)
    • Biomonitoring (14)
    • Cannabis (4)
    • Children/Schools (184)
    • Climate Change (23)
    • Environmental Justice (69)
    • Events (60)
    • Farmworkers (76)
    • Fracking (1)
    • Golf (10)
    • Health care (25)
    • Holidays (24)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (31)
    • International (226)
    • Invasive Species (23)
    • Label Claims (32)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (149)
    • Litigation (211)
    • Nanotechnology (51)
    • National Politics (267)
    • Pesticide Drift (66)
    • Pesticide Regulation (493)
    • Pesticide Residues (24)
    • Pets (14)
    • Resistance (48)
    • Rodenticide (16)
    • Take Action (260)
    • Uncategorized (11)
    • Wildlife/Endangered Sp. (240)
    • Wood Preservatives (20)


EPA Decides Not To Initiate Special Review for 2,4-D Cancer Risk

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2007) In an August 8, 2007 Federal Register Notice (72 FR 44510-44511), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to not initiate a Special Review for the commonly used herbicide 2,4-D, as well as the related herbicides 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP (dichlorprop). Despite evidence to the contrary, according to the FR notice, “Based on extensive scientific review of many epidemiology and animal studies, EPA find that the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP are likely human carcinogens.”

Although a mounting body of evidence links 2,4-D to various cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, EPA has been reluctant to classify it as a carcinogen in the face of industry pressure. EPA lists the herbicide in class D for carcinogenicity. Chemicals in this class are considered to have inadequate evidence for carcinogenicity, or not enough data is available. However, the link between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has been demonstrated in the United States, Italy, Canada, Denmark, and Sweden.

A 1986 National Cancer Institute (NCI) study found that farmers in Kansas exposed to 2,4-D for 20 or more days per year had a six-fold higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than non-farmers. The risk of cancer was higher for farmers who mixed or applied the pesticide themselves. A 1990 study published in the journal Epidemiology (Vol. 1, No. 5) found a 50% increase in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in farmers who handle 2,4-D. Even a manufacturer’s study submitted to EPA in 1986 linked 2,4-D to rare brain tumors.

In 1991, an NCI study found that dogs were more likely to contract canine malignant lymphoma if their owners use 2,4-D on their lawns than if owners did not use the herbicide. When 2,4-D was applied four or more times per year, dogs were twice as likely to contract lymphoma. In addition to these epidemiological studies, a laboratory study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found a 4% incidence of lymphoma in rats exposed to 2,4-D and no lymphoma in unexposed rats.

EPA first proposed 2,4-D for Special Review in 1986. Two years later, EPA proposed not to initiate Special Review (53 FR 9590; FRL-3353-3), because it said the literature did not support a cancer link. EPA deferred a final decision until the completion of the 2,4-D reregistration eligibility decision (RED), which occurred in 2005.

EPA uses the Pesticide Special Review process when it has reason to believe that the use of a pesticide may result in unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment. The Special Review process usually involves intensive review of only a few or just one potential risk. The review involves evaluating existing data, acquiring new information and/or studies, assessing the identified risk and determining appropriate risk reduction measures.

Known formerly as the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) process, Special Review provides a mechanism for public input into EPA’s deliberations before the Agency issues a Notice of Final Determination describing its selected regulatory action. The Special Review process determines whether some or all registrations of a particular active ingredient or ingredients meet the federal standard for registration, or whether amendment or cancellation of portions or all of the registrations is appropriate.

Let the Bush Administration know that politics should not trump sound science. Tell EPA what you think about its decision to not initiate a Special Review for 2,4-D, despite overwhelming evidence of its carcinogenicity. Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson by email or call 202-564-4700.


2 Responses to “EPA Decides Not To Initiate Special Review for 2,4-D Cancer Risk”

  1. 1
    Carol Rhoades Says:

    The only risk factor for my NHL (SLL/CLL) was exposure to 2,4-D when I was 16 years old. I sprayed bean plants for 2 semesters for a biology class with this herbicide and I consider it the cause of my lymphoma. Carol Rhoades Detroit, Michigan

  2. 2
    Cathy Cascia Says:

    My lawn care company back in 1993 told me they were treating my lawn for weeds with organics which I requested because I had a baby, a 2-year old and planned to get a dog. Even back then, I had read NOT to put chemicals on your lawn because of their toxic nature, especially to young childern & animals. Made sense to me (and still does!!!). When my previously, perfectly healthy Golden Retriever (who came from a successful breeder who NEVER had a reported incident of cancer regarding her puppies)was diagnosed with TERMINAL mediastinal lymphoma at Age 3 (!!!)and died a lingering,heart-breaking, painful death by age 4 in January,2004(after subjecting him to chemo), I discovered my lawn care company had been treating my lawn with 2,4-D since 1998!!! (6 years, i.e., all 4 years of my dog’s life!) without my knowledge/consent! It is my understanding that the chemical residue adheres to animals paws, which they often lick, and is still found on their paws MANY MONTHS after exposure. In addition, the chemical residue also adheres to their toys (e.g., tennis balls) which they also put in their mouth. Of course, the same is true of young children’s toys and how they put their hands and items/food on the ground in their mouths. It makes much sense to me that my wondedrful pet & friend was very possibly lethally poisoned by our own lawn with this powerful chemical that only had to be applied twice/year a keep our lawn “beautiful & weed-free”.Kathy Brock /Chicago Newscaster aired a powerful expose regarding how a father frequently & unknowingly sprayed weed killer around his young daughter, when she was in her baby pool, & dog, both of whom were stricken with cancer…see Jan/Feb 2005 or 2006 on ABC or NBC, 10PM News.) The public needs to become more educated so that children & pets do not become innocent victims of our naivite, & strife “for perfection & beauty”!!! My house has been pesticide/herbicide-free since my wonderful Golden Retriever passed….I will take weeds & spiders over a beautful lawn and a “pest-free” house any day!

Leave a Reply

× 9 = eighty one