FAN's Response to Senator Inhofe's Criticism of EPA Ban on Sulfuryl Fluoride
January 14, 2011
The New York Times reported yesterday that a "political battle" is brewing on EPA's decision to phase out the use of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant in the US. According to the Times, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wants to initiate a congressional inquiry into how EPA made its decision since sulfuryl fluoride only contributes a "negligible" contribution to aggregate fluoride exposure. Based on this article, FAN was asked the following question by a visitor: "Can someone explain why the removal of a pesticide that constitutes a 'tiny fraction' of total fluoride exposure is worth the added expense of finding a new and equally effective pesticide?"
Since we expect that Dow AgroSciences and Senator Inhofe may attempt to use this argument in the coming days/months, Michael Connett (who co-authored many of FAN's submissions to EPA on sulfuryl fluoride and who is currently Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Law Review) penned the following response:
First, as a legal matter, the issue is very clear. The FFDCA, as modified by the Food Quality Protection Act, forbids EPA from granting pesticide tolerances for chemicals to which the population is already over-exposed. Thus, since abundant data shows that we have a fluoride over-exposure problem in the US, the EPA had essentially two, mutually-exclusive options: follow the law, or allow sulfuryl fluoride. Senator Inhofe's real beef, therefore, is not with the science, but with the law.
Second, as a practical matter, why should we be concerned when sulfuryl fluoride provides only a relatively small contribution to our AGGREGATE fluoride exposure? The answer is analogous to the idea that you should know more than the average depth of a river before attempting to ford across it. More specifically, the reason our annual exposure to sulfuryl fluoride is minimal is because it is a fumigant and most food is not fumigated (e.g. food processing facilities typically fumigate about 2 to 3 times a year). However, the food that IS fumigated contains extremely high levels of fluoride (e.g. 125 ppm on wheat flour). Thus, while you won't receive a large annual exposure to fluoride from sulfuryl fluoride, you can receive massive wallops on any given day. Fumigating the food supply with sulfuryl fluoride, therefore, creates a situation akin to Russian roulette, where some (unknowing) consumers will (unknowingly) buy flour, grain, or processed foods with extremely high levels of fluoride -- high enough, in fact, to exceed the dose (>0.1 mg/kg) that causes symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity (e.g. gastrointestinal pain and vomiting).
Take, for example, EPA's initial tolerance for dried eggs. Amazingly, EPA allowed Dow to add 900 ppm of fluoride to dried eggs, which is virtually the same level of fluoride as is added to toothpaste (1000 ppm). What's the problem with this? Well, next time you pick up a tube of fluoride toothpaste, read the FDA-mandated warning on the back which reads: "if you swallow more than used for brushing, contact a poison control center immediately." Now, it's one thing to brush your teeth with a poison -- since toothpaste is designed to be spit out. It's a whole different thing, however, to turn dried eggs into a poison, as -- unlike toothpaste -- dried eggs are designed to be eaten. And, in case you're wondering, dried eggs constitute one-third of the eggs consumed in the US.
Thankfully, the EPA eventually rescinded its dried-egg tolerances (after we brought the absurdity to light). However, EPA's standards still allow 125 ppm of fluoride in wheat flour and similarly high levels on hundreds of other foods. The concern with acute toxicity remains, and you can read more about it on pages 96 to 104 at http://www.fluoridealert.org/sf/nov-2006.pdf.
Third, in addition to the acute toxicity problem, high spikes in temporary fluoride exposure have been shown -- in animal studies -- to cause dental fluorosis. Creating a food system which gives kids random wallops of fluoride ingestion could worsen the severity of dental fluorosis in the country.
Finally, alternatives exist to sulfuryl-fluoride fumigation, and they are being widely used in Europe (despite significant lobbying efforts by Dow AgroSciences). Even in countries where sulfuryl fluoride has been approved (Canada, UK, Switzerland) food processors are required to REMOVE all food from the food processing facility PRIOR to fumigating with sulfuryl fluoride -- thereby preventing the contamination of food.
Were Senator Inhofe to hold a congressional hearing, therefore, he may be quite surprised by what he learns. Indeed, FAN would welcome the opportunity for Congress to learn more about sulfuryl fluoride, and all other fluoride standards, in the United States.
Related Documents:
See also:
The Campaign Against Sulfuryl Fluoride
You can help support our efforts to initiate legislative changes
and spread our message.