Roughly one in eight women in New York will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetimes, numbers that place the state among those with the highest incidence rates in the nation.

 Hoping to discover why New York ranks so prominently, lawmakers last year designed legislation to explore suspected links between pesticide exposure and the often fatal disease. The legislation attracted broad bipartisan support in the Legislature and appeared headed toward passage. But Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a Brunswick Republican, voiced his opposition and, subsequently, single-handedly quashed the so-called pesticide-use registry bill in the upper house. He said the legislation was "useless" to the public and burdensome to farmers and other pesticide users who—had the bill passed—would have reported more information on their pesticide use to the state. Despite Bruno's opposition, 31 of 50 senators said they would have supported the measure had the bill gone to the floor, according to a head count taken by breast cancer and environmental activists. A similar Assembly bill passed 111 to 34.

 The issue did not die with last year's session, however. This session, players have again dug in their heels on a pesticide registry, with the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), Environmental Advocates, and breast cancer activists across the state supporting legislation, and the Farm Bureau of New York, the New York State Chemical Alliance and the Professional Applicators Coalition opposing it.

 Gov. George Pataki, who kept his distance from last year's fray, advanced his own proposal in this year's State of the State address to give Cornell University $250,000 to develop pesticide-use registry models and public outreach programs.

 The Assembly followed by passing its own registry measure for the third year in a row, and a number of Long Island and upstate senators sponsored a similar bill in the Senate. Bruno, however, stood his ground against a pesticide registry. "I would not pass the bill that was on the floor in the Assembly," he said shortly after Pataki's address. The bill amounted to the kind of government regulation that is "killing farmers and killing businesses here in this state," he added.

 Then, last month, Bruno answered criticism from the bill's proponents, as well as inquiries from ESR and other press organizations, with his own pesticide-reporting legislation. The bill would establish a registry that is more restrictive than the one called for in the Assembly version, mainly because pesticide applicators would report on fewer pesticides, and the public would not have access to the information. The legislation also would create an 11-member Breast Cancer Science Board and a Breast Cancer Research and Education Fund.

 In his memorandum of support accompanying the bill, Bruno also praised Pataki's proposal to allocate money for Cornell, saying the university would be represented on the science board. Because the majority leader introduced the bill, it, unlike last year's measure, is expected to pass the Senate.

 Though activists say they are relieved to see Bruno recognizing breast cancer as a health policy issue after more than a year of bitter debate, they question his motives and commitment. Judith Enck, senior environmental associate of NYPIRG, calls Bruno's measure a "shadow bill," saying it is designed to silence criticism during an election year while also serving to block efforts to get legislation supported by both houses to the governor for his consideration. "The Assembly could go in [its] corner, the Senate could go in [its] corner, and the governor could go in his corner," Enck says. "It gives each of them a little political cover, but a one-house bill is useless."

 The Farm Bureau also expresses concerns over the politics of the bill, especially since Bruno had protected their interests the year before. The organization represents more than 25,000 members of an industry that uses an estimated 350 pesticides and herbicides to kill insects, rodents and weeds that threaten its crops, which generate roughly $2.9 billion a year in sales. "I'm not completely surprised by Sen. Bruno's proposal to the Legislature, given the political pressure that the public has put on lawmakers," says Richard Zimmerman, the bureau's director of government affairs.

 But Bruno says he designed the bill in good faith. "We support some kind of registry and information collection and dissemination," he told ESR shortly before he released his proposal.

 "We want to accomplish the objective of the Tully bill, but not with the 28 million reports it would require," he added, citing the other Senate pesticide-use registry bill sponsored both this and last session by Sen. Michael Tully Jr., a Roslyn Heights Republican. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) estimates that Tully's bill, which is very similar to the Assembly-passed legislation sponsored by Democrat Steve Englebright of Setauket, would generate the vast paperwork mentioned by Bruno.

 Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat who supports Englebright's legislation, says he believes Bruno's concern over breast cancer is genuine. "I think he's taking our lead in realizing that this is an important, important issue," Silver says. "I would hope that [the Senate] would pass the bill quickly and we could go to conference on the issue."

 By mid-February, Bruno had not indicated whether he would call a conference committee so the Senate and Assembly could negotiate the details of a two-house pesticide-registry bill. Enck fears he will not, while Silver is more optimistic. "So far, this is a good-faith effort on the part of the majority leader," he says. "I hope it's not just a political cover for himself and his Long Island senators."

 Very little is known about the causes of breast cancer, particularly since scientists until recently did not research health issues unique to women. New York was one of the first states to study the disease after federal researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found in 1992 that the state had the second highest mortality rate from breast cancer in the country.

 According to a 1995 New York State Department of Health report, Seneca and Chenango counties have had the highest rates of the disease in the state, with more than 124 of 100,000 women diagnosed between 1988 and 1992. Monroe, Ontario, Richmond, Rockland and Warren counties were next highest, ranging from 113 to 118 of 100,000 women, and Nassau and Yates counties' rates hovered just above 112.

 The state and federal governments also commissioned studies to examine the disease in Long Island women. In 1987, the state health department began to keep records on the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer through its cancer registry.

 CDC researchers said Long Island's breast cancer rates were high because a greater concentration of women with medical, dietary and/or genetic risk factors lived there. Previous research found that women who start menstruating early in life, stop menstruating late in life, give birth at a late age, and/or have family members with the disease are at a higher risk of breast cancer. Also, women with breast cancer are slightly more likely to be Jewish, Caucasian, and/or from a higher socio-economic background.

 Consensus about the causes of breast cancer ended there. Some studies cited diets low in fruits and vegetables, alcohol use, smoking, use of oral contraceptives, not breast-feeding and height as possible factors. Scientists argued over the possibility of post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy and exposure to DDT—a pesticide banned in the United States after scientists discovered it caused birth defects in animals and birds.

 Studies apart from the one conducted by CDC, however, suggested that Long Island might be a hotbed of breast cancer and other diseases because of the high concentration of pollution, farms, toxic waste dumps, electromagnetic fields from power lines, and/or industrial sites in the area—but they offered no conclusive evidence as proof. Breast cancer activists began to focus on these issues, saying they might be the key to the high rates in Nassau County.

 Pesticide exposure was fertile ground for study and state policy, according to activists, given that Long Island was once a major agricultural area. Though in the 1990s Nassau County lost the dubious distinction of having the highest breast cancer rate in the state, many areas with higher rates are or historically were agricultural regions. In addition, research from Israel showed that in the late 1970s, the country began to phase out organochlorine pesticides, and the breast cancer rate dropped during the 1980s by 8 percent.

 Breast cancer advocacy groups cropped up around the state and joined forces to lobby for statewide policy. They noted that although pesticide users in New York have been required since 1972 to keep records on their use, researchers have been unable to access the information, and the reports lack data that activists consider important. Farmers under current law must maintain annual reports at their farms on restricted-use pesticides—which applicators must be trained and certified to use because of the potentially dangerous chemical components the pesticides contain. Farmers' records must include for each pesticide its name, the crops it treats, and the methods and dates of application.

 Commercial pesticide users submit their information to the state, including the types, quantities, dosage rates, application methods, target organisms, and the time and place of application of all pesticides they use each year. But even DEC officials admit the data sits untouched in cartons at their offices because the agency is not required to do anything with it. Moreover, the state does not require pesticide users to list where they apply chemicals, making it virtually impossible to determine a link between exposure and a high disease rate in a given geographic area.

 DEC spokesman Gary Scheffer says the agency makes surprise visits to farmers to review the records and determine whether they use pesticides properly. Officials also use the information when investigating claims of wrongdoing against a particular applicator. The health department has never requested the records, he says.

 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island all have some type of pesticide-use reporting requirements and database. Most of those states use the information to monitor groundwater contamination. New Hampshire tries to guarantee compliance from pesticide users by making reporting part of the permit-renewal process. The other states have no such provisions. In all cases, pesticide users cover the costs to collect and submit data to the state.

 California is the only other state with a complete pesticide registry, which was instituted in 1990. Farmers are required to report monthly, to their counties' agricultural commissioner detailed, site-specific information on the types and quantities of pesticides they use. Each year, the county departments forward some 800,000 documents to California's Department of Pesticide Regulation to be entered into a database and evaluated. Officials say the information will help them study pesticides in relation to endangered species, clean air compliance, ground and surface water protection, pest management strategies and risk assessment. It has not been used to study breast cancer.

 There are some glitches in California's system, however. Though counties said they needed almost $900,000 dollars to develop and implement the pesticide reporting process, they received only $328,000 from the state. As a result, the state is about two years behind in releasing information. There are no statistics on how much time or money farmers spend to collect data, though some large farms have had to hire a person solely to keep track of records.

 In New York, activists began to lobby Long Island lawmakers to address the issue with a comprehensive pesticide reporting and use registry legislation. The result last year was Englebright's bill in the Assembly and Tully's bill in the Senate. The two bills have been modified this session from their original forms to include provisions for an electronic databank of pesticide use rather than a paper file. The lawmakers also have modified a mandate that pesticide users report the addresses where they apply chemicals. Applicators raised concerns that competitors would have access to their clients' addresses, so the requirement has been changed to report location of pesticide use by a nine-digit ZIP code.

 Critics of the legislation point to the fact that there is no guarantee anyone will study or evaluate the information if it is collected. Another concern is cost—for the state to develop reporting forms for pesticide users, to create a database and to enter information into it each year and for pesticide users to maintain and file their records with DEC. Bruno's bill also tails to address such funding issues.

 DEC estimates it would cost the state $500,000 to $1 million to implement and run the reporting and registry system the first year. But that number does not take into account additional employees that might be needed to enter data and run the system once it is designed. While NYPIRG says DEC can avoid hiring people by using its resources better, the Farm Bureau estimates that the state would have to spend $8 million to hire a full-time staff of 260 people to juggle the estimated paper flow.

 More sketchy is the cost to pesticide users of reporting to the state. A large chemical company like DuPont might have to hire an employee just to manage records in accordance with state requirements if the Englebright-Tully legislation passes, according to the Chemical Alliance. For small and medium-size applicators, proponents of the legislation say the only cost should be time, which farmers and pesticide users can keep to a minimum if they maintain their records well throughout the year.

 Critics of the Englebright and Tully bills disagree, saying farmers would face administrative costs to maintain and compile information. Though no one contacted would attach a dollar amount to their claims, one Senate source says an average farmer might spend roughly $300 a year just to manage records and report them to DEC. The estimate does not include the cost of computerization, which farmers would have to cover if they went on-line.

 And yet farmers have received a number of tax breaks lately that could make the cost associated with new pesticide reporting requirements seem less onerous, other observers point out. The majority of farms, which are small businesses, will benefit from a 25 percent income tax cut to be fully implemented by 1998. Large farm corporations received a tax break last year when the alternative minimum tax dropped from 5 percent to 3.5 percent, and the 15 percent surcharge on large businesses expected to be phased out by 1997. Taxes on diesel fuel used to run certain farm equipment was trimmed 9 cents to 8 cents a gallon. And reductions in estate taxes are expected to make it easier for farmers to pass their businesses on to family members, according to John Signor, a Budget Division spokesman.

 Still, the Farm Bureau, and pesticide and chemical groups blast the Englebright and Tully measures, saying that a registry is unnecessary because scientists never have determined a link between exposure to the chemicals and disease. Breast cancer activists dismiss the criticism, saying researchers never will be able to prove or disprove a link without access to complete information.

 Farmers also criticize the Englebright-Tully bills because the legislation does not address liability. "There are three farmers in Stephentown, and only one vegetable grower," says Larry Eckhardt, a Rensselaer County farmer and head of the New York State Vegetable Growers Association. "It's pretty obvious who's spraying pesticides in [the] 12168 [ZIP code]. And if one of my neighbors' kids comes down with a rare disease, they look me up, and bang, it's my fault and I go to court."

 Englebright says the public is just as likely to denounce farmers' pesticide use through the courts now. "The idea that someone would be able to go into the registry, identify when and where a chemical is used, and then sue is an abstract possibility ... that already exists," he says. "But it doesn't happen very much because the law requires proof of malice and intent."

 Unlike the Englebright and Tully legislation, Bruno's bill would release information from the registry only to researchers studying breast cancer. It also includes a provision that exempts farmers who use and store pesticides properly from liability if subsequent research finds a link between the chemicals and disease. "Confidentiality measures for farmers are important and significant," says the Farm Bureau's Zimmerman.

 NYPIRG's Enck criticizes the liability exemptions. "If we find out that pesticides contaminated water, who picks up the tab to clean it up?" she asks. "The public?"

 Enck adds that the public has a right to know what chemicals it is being exposed to. "This public accessing can be a real deal breaker," she says. "We are strongly opposed to the senator's bill. It is just not going to be an effective registry."

 Members of One-in-Nine—a Long Island breast cancer advocacy group named for the number of women in the area who reportedly were diagnosed with the disease in the 1980s—say Bruno's bill could make the public suspicious of pesticides by barring it from reviewing the registry. "Prudent applicators of responsible pesticides should not fear public review," they stated in a news release last month.

 Enck says another key difference between Bruno's bill and the Englebright-Tully legislation is that the latter would require farmers and pesticide manufacturers (including importers and distributors) to provide detailed information on restricted and general-use pesticides they use or sell. The majority leader's bill would require reporting on only restricted-use pesticides, which is the current practice for the on-site information the farmers keep. In all the bills, commercial applicators, such as lawn care and pest control specialists, would report on both types of pesticides. "This would be only a partial registry," Enck says. "Researchers need more information, not less."

 But Zimmerman says reporting requirements—including Bruno's, and especially Englebright's and Tully's—are onerous to farmers. The federal government requires farmers be trained and certified to apply restricted-use pesticides, which undergo extensive testing by both state and federal health officials. Therefore, officials would bar extremely dangerous chemicals before they even reach the market he contends. Still, the majority leader's bill is less restrictive than previous legislation, and "is potentially manageable," Zimmerman adds.

 Diana Hinchcliff of the Chemical Alliance, which represents 70 chemical manufacturing companies in the state, echoes the Farm Bureau's criticism. She adds that New York's DEC is stringent in its testing of chemicals already approved by the federal government. Though no figures are available specifically for New York, crop protection is roughly a $4 billion industry nationwide. "A chemical company will spend hundreds of millions of dollars and hours to develop and test a new pesticide before even marketing it," she says. "They shouldn't face any more requirements, because there is no basis in science for a linkage between exposure to anything on the market and disease."

 Walter Schroeder, executive director of the Professional Applicators Coalition, which represents 1,700 of the state's 3,600 pest control and lawn care companies, is equally concerned about reporting requirements until a link is determined or disproved. "Commercial use accounts for only 12 percent of the total number of pesticides on the market. Homeowners use about 45 percent," says Schroeder. "But the state knows nothing of what [homeowners] are doing, and maybe [it] should."

 Questions remain as to what information, exactly, would be helpful to researchers. Thomas Sinks, an epidemiologist with the National Center for Environmental Health at CDC, says he is "skeptical" of a pesticide-use database legislated by any state. Beyond the issue of cause and effect, he says researchers have not determined what information would be needed to link exposure to any hazardous material beyond a reasonable doubt to geographic proximity.

 For example, if a farmer sprays a pesticide in a given location, it can wash away in the rain, and a person living adjacent to the farm might never be exposed to it. "Researchers do not have enough information yet to know how to collect data and link it to health outcomes," Sinks says. "I am concerned about [the state] going ahead and regulating something, and then realizing it may not help."

 That is a question Gov. George Pataki says he wants to address by giving $250,000 to Cornell University, which school officials say they plan to match—if not exceed—with private contributions. The university's history of involvement with the breast cancer issue began with Pataki ally U.S. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. The Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee secured federal money for breast cancer research on Long Island and has supported Englebright's and Tully's pesticide registry measures. Last fall, the National Cancer Institute's Long Island Breast Cancer Study project was commissioned by Congress, at D'Amato's prodding, to study the homes of every Long Island woman diagnosed with the disease to search for possible environmental causes. Researchers will test dust, tap water and yard soil for chemical residues like car exhaust or pesticides. The study is expected to cost $7 million in federal funds and be completed by 1999.

 After the New York state lawmakers' legislation failed to pass last year, D'Amato asleep Cornell to assist lawmakers and researchers in making informed decisions because of its renowned medical school and strong agricultural program.

 The result was the Cornell University Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State. The program has drawn together farm and chemical company representatives, breast cancer and environmental activists, researchers DEC and health department officials and lawmakers. Its mission is to find out what information scientists need to study environmental risk factors of breast cancer effectively; and to transform extensive, technically written studies on all risk factors into a database that the public can access and digest.

 The group also plans to develop models for pesticide reporting and registries, says June Fessenden MacDonald, chairwoman of the program's faculty and staff. The group will research who potential users of such a database would be, what information they would need, how they would use it, how feasible such a system is, and what it might cost, and then share their results with the state. Once the models are developed, they can be implemented and even expanded to create registries for environmental risk factors for breast cancer and other diseases. "There are a host of people who might want access to a pesticide registry," she says. "But women with breast cancer might want or need different information than what a scientist would need."

 Fessenden MacDonald says she will not comment on current pesticide-reporting legislation until the group's research is complete—a position that led breast cancer and environmental activists to resign from the program last month.

 [We were] very excited at first about Cornell's breast cancer group because we thought we would find out exactly what was needed to pass the bill." says Geri Barish, a founder of the advocacy group One in Nine, which has 3,500 members. "But we couldn't even talk about it."

 Barish says she was "ecstatic" to hear the governor mention breast cancer in his 1996 State of the State address since, in her 30 years as an activist, she never had heard a prominent government official address the issue. But she says her hopes were dashed when he mentioned giving the money to Cornell. "If we use the money to see if a registry is necessary, it could be 20 or 30 years before we have any information to fil1 it," she says "Why not start gathering that information now so we can start saving lives?"

 Englebright calls the governor's proposal "a distraction." But he admits Pataki's words have pushed breast cancer to the forefront of state lawmakers' minds. "By bringing the issue up in such a prominent way, by mentioning the words 'breast cancer' in front of a gathering of the entire state Legislature ... he has at least acknowledged that this is a very important issue," Englebright says.

 Bruno says he supports the Cornel1 studies proposed by the governor, saying the university could offer a scientific process necessary for any state pesticide reporting legislation to be effective. "I support a health-related, scientific, medical approach, not [the] collection of information with no purpose," he says.

 Bruno's staunch opposition to the registry bill last year may just result in legislation this year that will better address the breast cancer-pesticide exposure issue, says Sen. Carl Marcellino, chairman of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee and a cosponsor of Tully's bill this year.

 Marcellino says his committee has discussed the need to consider a number of registry models instead of just the pros and cons of one bill, as has happened in the past. "People [have] begun to consider the law this time," he says. "This isn't going through an exercise to make a political point. This is real."

 Amy Terdiman is associate editor of Empire State Report.
 
 

Bruno's Limited-Use Registry 

Requirements for the registry: For each restricted-use pesticide they apply, farmers would report the pesticide trade name and EPA registration number, the crop and field parcel it is applied to, and the date and method of application.

 Commercial applicators would report the EPA pesticide registration number, the percentage of active ingredients, the method of application, the target organism and the date and place by five-digit ZIP code of application. Pesticide manufacturers, importers and distributors would report for each restricted-use pesticide the EPA pesticide registration number, container size, and number of containers sold to New York purchasers.

 Registry use: DEC would enter the information into a database that would not be accessible to the public. The Breast Cancer Science Board, created by this; legislation would consider requests from researchers studying breast cancer to have access to the data. 

Farmers are protected from liability as long as they properly use and store pesticides and fertilizers under current law. The bill also establishes within the health department a Breast Cancer Science Board. A breast cancer research and education fund will be created with raised from a personal income tax check-off option and from private and charitable donations. Funding for the registry itself is not addressed.

 Pataki's Cornell Study 

Cornell University would receive $250.000 to help the state computerize and coordinate information on pesticide use. The university's Program on Breast Cancer and Environmenta1 Risk Factors in New York State will research what information scientists need to study environmental risk factors, transform existing studies on all risk factors into a publicly accessible database and develop models for pesticide reporting and registries.

 Cornell officials plan to at least match state funds to implement a future registry and to fun breast cancer education and outreach programs.

 Englebright/Tully Registry

Requirements for the registry: For each pesticide they use, farmers and commercial applicators would report the name of the product, the quantity used, the dosage rate, and the date, method and location of application by nine-digit ZIP code and acreage, where applicable.

 Pesticide manufacturers, importers and distributors would report annual sales of each product.

 Registry use: DEC would enter the information into a database that the general public can access. The DEC commissioner would use the information to compile annual reports summarizing pesticide sales and pesticide use by active ingredient; by categories of users (farmers or commercial applicators); by region; and by documented human and wildlife pesticide poisonings from data collected the previous year. The report would be given to the governor and Legislature and would be available to the public. Liability and funding are not addressed.