Environmental risks: dealing with the known and the unknown.

Abstract

highlights two special papers addressing environmentalexposures along the border shared by Mexico and the United States ofAmerica. In one paper, Bass et al. (1) examine the use and storage of pesti-cides in households with young children in Douglas, a small Arizona bor-der community; these pesticide practices reflect the risks as perceived bythe Douglas residents. In the second paper, Byrd et al. (2) examine differingattitudes and beliefs about environmental hazards in three communities inand near the city of El Paso, Texas. The three El Paso communities vary interms of income and density (urban vs. rural). Two of the three communi-ties have predominantly Hispanic populations. Together, these two paperspresent an important contrast between the risks that individuals willinglytake on in their own homes as compared to risks that people believe shouldbe tolerated in the community.People are exposed to pesticides through many pathways, in mul-tiple locations each day. Bass et al. minimize these competing exposures byexamining pesticide use and storage in a nonagricultural community, wheremost of the exposure is expected to occur within the home. Household pes-ticide use in the United States is reported as being in the range of 85% to90% nationwide (3). According to Bass et al., the households in Douglas,Arizona, had lower than expected use (~70%) and an average of only 1.4pesticide products found per home. By contrast, results from a Minnesotasurvey indicated pesticide was found in 97% of the sampled residences,with an average of 6.0 pesticide products per home (4). Insecticides werethe dominant use-class reported in both the Minnesota and the Douglas,Arizona, studies. While repellent (e.g., DEET) was used commonly inMinnesota, its use is unreported in Douglas, Arizona. This difference maybe due to aridity and reduced numbers of mosquitoes and biting flies inDouglas. However, the Mexico-United States border region is profoundlyvaried. Some parts have more standing water and numerous pests. Theseregions may require greater personal pesticide use and may reflect productinventories like those found in Minnesota. Other regions have less need,like Douglas. The pesticide survey in Douglas is the first published account toevaluate cross-border pesticide transfer, with 7% of the pesticides com-ing from Mexico. As research on pesticide use continues in the Mexico-United States border region, assessing the variability in product pur-chases will be of interest. There are broad implications to the growth incommerce and other types of exchange coming from increased freetrade. Just one example—this one of doubtful benefit to the communityand to individual health—is a product imported from China called“Miraculous Insecticide Chalk.” While banned by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, it was nevertheless found in seven ofthe homes in Douglas.The pesticide inventory conducted by Bass et al. in Douglas pre-sented information regarding pesticide toxicity and location of use andstorage. To date, few surveys consider the implications of product toxicity.In Douglas, residents did not consider the toxicity of substances whenselecting a storage location. The most common pesticide storage locationwas the kitchen (45.3%). Further, most pesticides were stored within 4 feet