Rosenberg: Where were the children located and where did you examine them?
Sherman: The children were in Arkansas, on Long Island and in California. The use of Dursban occurred in the homes. Since Dursban has been restricted from home use [ed. in 2000] of concern are agricultural use of chlorpyrifos that continues and questions of birth defects in women agricultural workers. I examined some of the children in their homes. In other cases, the parents brought them to be examined, if they had vans equipped to move the children.
Rosenberg: In addition to the mental retardation, paralysis and structural brain problems you found deafness, cleft palate, eye cysts and low vision, nose, brain, heart, tooth and feet abnormalities and many sexual deformities.
Sherman: Yes, the sexual and reproductive defects included undescended testes, microphallus, [tiny penis] fused labias [vaginal lips] and wide spread nipples. I also report in the paper, 13 adverse reproductive cases linked to chlorpyrifos from Dow's own research database. (European Journal of Oncology , Vol. 4, n.6, pp 653-659 1999)
Rosenberg: Anyone who is aware of the effects of endocrine-disrupting pesticides on wildlife can't help but think of the frogs reported with no penises in so many U.S. streams or the sexual abnormalities reported in both male and female birds and other animals.
Sherman: Yes, the children's defects mirrored effects of endocrine disrupters seen in wildlife. They also mirrored Dow's own rat studies which showed testicular and urogenital deformities, skull and sternebrae (part of breast bone) abnormalities and cleft palate in exposed animals, especially from in utero exposure to chlorpyrifos. (European Journal of Oncology , Vol. 4, n.6, pp 653-659 1999)
Rosenberg: Published studies, including your own, signaled safety problems with Dursban years earlier. The EPA's own data found eight out of 10 adults and nine of 10 children had "measurable concentrations." Dow paid $2 million for hiding Dursban's risks from 1995 and 2003 in New York. But the pesticide was not banned for residential use until 2000 and, after it was banned, people were allowed to use remaining quantities. Why did the cases that you and others uncovered seem to have little effect?
Sherman: Dow attorneys took my deposition for four eight-hour days in the mid 1990s and I supplied over 10,000 pages of medical records, depositions, EPA documents, patent information and toxicology studies on which I based my opinion. Even though genetic analyses were conducted for the paper and genetic causes for the defects were ruled out--siblings who were not exposed to chlorpyrifos, for example, were normal--Dow termed the cases genetic and was able to stop most, if not all, chlorpyrifos birth defect suits.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
