By Landon Allison, Contributing Writer
Atrazine, still used in the United States despite its banning by the EU, can cause changes in our bodies with just minimal exposure. As an environmental studies major, this concerns me.
This chemical is an herbicide, applied in the agriculture industry and on residential lawns and golf courses in order to control broadleaf and grassy weeds according to the EPA.
“Reproductive effects are the most sensitive effects observed in atrazine toxicity tests,” says the EPA report. I would ask in this moment, why is it allowed to be used then? If human effects are shown to occur, then releasing this chemical into the environment is the last thing we should do. “Toxicity” of any nature should not be allowed to be sprayed across the same areas we walk, play, run, and generally live life in.
One can claim that the exposure is low and I am a worrywart who is declaring that the sky is falling, and yet what many fail
to understand is the impact of bioaccumulation in the matter of chemical exposure in an environment.
A farmer sprays atrazine on his cabbage, battling the weeds to help his produce. That atrazine gets caught up in the rain the next morning and land in a nearby stream. Let’s say the atrazine was meager in content. Well, that, “meager” atrazine gets into the grasses and water-life near that stream.
Then, the animals that eat those forms of life gain every bit of what they have. Along with every bit of what the other 25 meals they had that day had. If they live near the stream, then they concentrate the atrazine by eating many creatures that had the chemical in them. If they are a major chowhound, like a cow (Have you had a burger anytime recently?), then they could contain the atrazine found in thousands of those organisms first effected. It gets worse if there is something that eats those creatures that ate the ones that first absorbed the atrazine, but you get my point.
The fact that scenarios like this exist is very worrying. It can lead to major eventual effects, both on humans and the environment. Which, in the end, environmental effects come to effect humans as well.
Atrazine, like most chemicals, does not break down easily or at a fast pace, especially in bodies of water. So, I come back to that Native American viewpoint. Are we really keeping the interest of those seven generations in the future by allowing atrazine to be used in the United States?
Looking for an educated opinion, I went to Theodore Georgian, Ph.D., for his input in respect to atrazine due to his role in teaching many environmental studies focused classes on campus.
“I think less well of [atrazine] when it’s used for more ornamental purposed,” said Georgian. “I draw a certain line between agriculture on one hand and golf courses and lawns on the other hand.”
When asked how he prefers society to approach these kinds of chemicals, Georgian said, “A way of approaching it is the precautionary principle, just saying, ‘if we are not sure, we shouldn’t be experimenting on human populations, and therefore we should just wait until it’s cleared.’ If there is not a great deal at stake, in terms of human wellbeing, I tend to be a precautionary principle person.”
When discussing the hormonal effects of atrazine, the reason why this chemical effects the reproductive system, Georgian said, “I am of the opinion or emotion that endocrine hormone disruptors really frighten me. They can mess with human development, and therefore, with the development of the next generation. Many of them are tightly linked with cancers of reproductive tissues and tissues beyond that.”
Photo via thoughtco.com
