Laserfiche WebLink
<br />service which apparently specializes in writing reports for activist groups. This report, <br />which deals with endocrine disruption as a proven fact and further "identifies" a number of <br />pesticides as proven endocrine disruptors, received significant media attention. It was <br />prepared for the National Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform. <br />The report identifies 2,4-D as both an endocrine disruptor and reproductive toxin, al- <br />though 2,4-D hardly fits the classic profile of the hypothetical endocrine disruptor (if, in- <br />deed, there is such a thing as a "classic profile" of hypothetical chemical activity). In any <br />event, the type compound generally believed to be the best candidate for such activity is a <br />very persistent (in the environment) organochlorine compound which gets into drinking <br />water or the food chain and then bioaccumulates (i.e., concentrations increase over time in <br />the body fat or some body organ and remain there for long periods of time). Activists <br />generally point to DDT or clilordane as examples, although both of these compounds have <br />been banned for decades. By contrast, 2,4-D is not a persistent compound, is unlikely to <br />get into either the food chain or ground water and does not bioaccumulate. Additionally, <br />the attimal feeding studies show no evidence of cancer, no toxicity in hormone sensitive <br />organs, no evidence of male reproductive toxicity and no evidence of birth defects. But, <br />again, 2,4-D is a compound almost everyone recognizes and many people use, making it <br />always a prime target for activists. There is little point for activist groups to target com- <br />pounds which few people use or recognize. To get media attention, they must target <br />widely used products, and for that reason, you can expect to see 2,4-D the subject of <br />many more alamvst "news" reports to come. <br />