The governments of Australia, New Zealand,
India, and Uruguay (among others) require that incoming
aircraft be treated with specific pesticides that are not
approved for use in the passenger cabin in the United States.
How are the aircraft treated?
On flights from Miami to Montevideo,
Uruguay for example, in-flight pesticide application is
required. Typically, the flight attendants must walk down the
aisles and spray over the passengers' heads after announcing
that the spray is non-toxic. United requires that this
announcement be made, despite an internal company document
dated 1987 that acknowledges health effects associated with
exposure to the in-flight sprays, as well as their 2001
admission that the non-toxic claim "is not entirely true."
For 747-400 aircraft bound for Australia
and New Zealand, for example, the pesticide spray is usually
applied on the ground in Hong Kong before flight attendants,
pilots, and passengers board, with a spray that is chemically
active for eight weeks. United transferred their 747-400
residual spraying operation from Sydney to Hong Kong during
the first half of 2002, apparently because the scheduled
ground time is longer, allowing more time for the spray to
dry. In late May 2002, United also started spraying their
777XP aircraft in Taipei in preparation to route them to
Auckland. In both cases, this pre-boarding application is
called "residual treatment." The active pesticide ingredient
in the "residual spray" is supposed to be effective for 56
days, but if the treated aircraft does not return to Australia
or New Zealand within this 56 day window, then the aircraft
cabin must be sprayed in-flight or upon arrival. Sometimes the
flight attendants must release the contents of pressurized
cans over peoples' heads; other times, the plane lands and
agriculture agents come on board and spray before people are
allowed off.
What is in the sprays?
According to laws in Australia and New
Zealand, the residual spray must contain 2% permethrin and the
in-flight spray must contain 2% phenothrin. Both of these
chemicals belong to a group of pesticides called "pyrethroids."
A March 2001 survey conducted by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) indicates that other countries
(including Uruguay) require the same or similar active
ingredients. Both the residual and in-flight sprays also
contain solvents - chemicals that the pesticides are dissolved
in. The solvents include
methylene chloride and xylene and other benzene-based
chemicals. The in-flight sprays can also contain
chlorofluorocarbons.
In
October 2000, United reported that they switched over to a
"low odor" residual spray that is "less irritating" and
"smells like freshly-shampooed carpet". However,
chemically, the "old" and new" sprays are similar. Your nose
is less likely to confirm its presence, but the low odor spray
is not any less toxic, and it can still be inhaled or absorbed
through the skin or the stomach.
Are the
sprays safe?
In
November 2000, United issued a "Hot News Disinsection Update"
to some of their flight attendants in which they described a
report that concluded that the sprays are "safe". In fact, the
report did not comment on the safety of the sprays, only the
contents. The safety depends not only on the contents of the
spray, but on the amount that is absorbed, whether through the
lungs, skin, or stomach. We have learned that some of the
ingredients have been labeled as "sensitizers" meaning that
exposure can initiate a response from your immune system. Some
people can have serious reactions even when exposed to low
concentrations.
As of 1996, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) will not approve either permethrin or
phenothrin for application in the passenger cabin because the
chemical manufacturers did not respond to EPA's request for
data to support their claims that it was "safe" to apply the
sprays over peoples' heads in the aircraft environment. It
is true that the EPA has approved permethrin for some
non-aircraft uses, such as lice shampoo, in the US. However,
the potential for exposure to permethrin from using lice
shampoo once every few years is quite different from the
potential exposure while working a 15 hour shift on an
aircraft that has been sprayed and not vented properly.
According to the medical literature, some
of the typical symptoms associated with exposure to permethrin
and phenothrin include tingling, burning, and numbness in the
surface of the skin, as well as damage to eyes and
neurological effects. The World Health Organization has
recognized permethrin as an irritant (both to eyes and skin),
and an adverse effect on both the reproductive system and the
immune system have been suggested in the medical literature.
Finally, there is some concern that permethrin and phenothrin
may produce skin and respiratory allergies. Some of the other
ingredients in these sprays have also been associated with a
variety of health effects, and the effects of exposure to the
mixture of pesticide ingredients and solvents in the aircraft
environment has never been formally assessed.
But doesn't the World Health
Organization claim that these sprays are safe?
The World Health Organization (WHO) does
approve these pesticides for use in the passenger cabin and
cockpit because they are effective at killing bugs that can
carry disease or damage crops. In contrast, over the past 20
years, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department
of Transportation have all spoken out against the practice of
in-flight disinsection. For more information on the history of
aircraft disinsection. According to the WHO, aircraft
disinsection must be carried out in such a way that is "not
injurious to the health of passengers and crew." However, the
reports of ill health from crewmembers and passengers on 249
flights in a single year suggest that this requirement is far
from being met. The majority of the reports reference
conditions and symptoms (1) during and after in-flight
spraying or (2) during and after one of the two flight legs
that followed residual treatment of the cabin and cockpit.
Many of the crewmember complaints (both flight attendants and
pilots) cited particularly poor conditions (including damp
surfaces and a distinct odor of pesticides) in the crew
bunkrooms, those dark, poorly ventilated quarters where
crewmembers are assigned to take scheduled rest breaks during
especially long flights.
Ill health attributed to pesticides has
also been reported on other major US airlines. Related
lawsuits have been filed in the past against at least one of
these, as well as against an Australian airline. The union
that represents those Canadian cabin crew that are required to
perform the in-flight spraying on particular trips has
collected similar illness reports from its members and has
been petitioning for protective equipment since early 2001. Similarly, the November 2000 issue of
Aviation Health Institute (a UK publication) reported that a
cabin crew exposed to routine in-flight spraying on a British
airline had also requested protective masks and gloves, and
that some passengers had been affected.
Is it necessary to spray? The WHO only
considers it necessary to spray aircraft arriving from or via
countries where there is a risk of importing tropical disease.
Surprisingly, it is true that cases of some tropical
diseases have been identified in California, for example. But
it is also true that, while there are documented cases of
importing the bugs that carry such disease via the cargo hold
of ships docking in CA, as well as in infected migrant workers
that get bitten by uninfected CA mosquitoes, thereby
infecting the local mosquitoes that can then pass it on,
there are no documented cases of such bugs being imported
from California in the passenger cabin and cockpit. So,
while the cargo hold must clearly be treated, the
justification for spraying the passenger cabin and cockpit is
less clear. However, even if treatment is necessary, it
must be carried out in a way that, as per the WHO
requirement, "is not injurious to the health of passengers and
crew."
Aside from not spraying in the first
place, how can exposure to these chemicals be kept to a
minimum?
In mid-September 2000, United Airlines put
a new policy into place – a series of protections that they
committed to execute after the residual spray has been
applied. In short, after the aircraft has been vented, the
customer service agents and the cleaning staff must now
independently confirm that the cabin interiors are dry and
odor-free before flight attendants are expected to board the
aircraft in Sydney. Yet, as of this writing (August 2002), AFA
continues to receive reports of adverse health effects
attributed to exposure to these pesticides, particularly on
recently treated flights, whether or not this standard is met.
It is critical that flight attendants assigned to these
flights ensure that the cabin interiors, including the bunk
area, are dry and odor free before departure. Also, ask for
the pesticide survey at your local union office. If surfaces
are not dry and odor free when you board, you need to inform
Station Operations immediately that the aircraft needs to be
vented and dried. If you area United flight attendant, you can
cite the United policy on page 1740 of your handbook and point
out that it has not been met, (The reporting procedure is
described below.)
Exposure to the in-flight spray is more
difficult to control because flight attendants are often held
responsible for applying the spray. However, in a November
2001 letter to United CEO John Creighton, AFA asked that (1)
United work towards the elimination of spraying in an occupied
cabin; and (2) in the meantime, that passenger and crewmembers
be given advance notice of the spraying and an opportunity to
deplane before the spraying commences. So far, United has not
committed to any changes.
What’s next?
Our ultimate goal is to get rid of these
spraying requirements. In some cases, it may simply be
unnecessary to spray. In other cases, the sprays must be
replaced with non-chemical products and procedures that do not
harm the health of aircraft occupants. To this end, we believe
that it is necessary to open communications with
representatives from the countries in question. One major
success story is that of the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and their Japanese Beetle Program. Up until the late
1970s, the USDA required that aircraft bound for the western
states from either the east coast or mid-west be dusted with a
mixture of DDT and another pesticide called Sevin. For
approximately 20 years now, the USDA instead requires that the
airlines hang heavy clear plastic curtains with overlapping
strips over any open doors during Japanese Beetle season (the
summer months) in states where Japanese Beetles are found on
aircraft if those aircraft are bound for the western states
that are free of the beetles. They have reported great success
with this non-chemical and low-tech approach, and hardly ever
need to apply pesticides to the aircraft to control these
beetles. We encourage research that will investigate whether a
similar product could be used to satisfy foreign quarantine
rules. It is important to assess non-chemical means and
compare the effectiveness to the chemical spraying.
In the meantime, we would strongly support
a regulation or law that would require a minimum ventilation
period after the residual spray has been applied that would
ensure that the cabin is truly dry and odor free. As a
reference, the US Navy requires that its submarines be
ventilated and unoccupied for a minimum of 24 hours after
being treated with a solution that is very similar to the
in-flight aircraft pesticides. We have also asked United to
spray the crew bunk mattresses off the aircraft and leave them
to properly dry (for a few days) until expecting flight
attendants to sleep on them. To date, this request has been
turned down. AFA continues to raise awareness of the spraying
requirements and ingredients, collecting incident reports, and
distributing information to those affected. We continue to
raise the issue with United, the EPA, CDC, DOT, USDA,
Congress, and advocacy groups.
The newly elected MEC has recognized this
issue as a priority. AFA participation in a study of
pesticides and health was unanimously approved in July 2002.
Proposed future actions include stepping up pressure on the
International Civil Aviation Organization to actually enforce
the protective standards it has published on aircraft
disinsection. (Right now, ICAO standards are more or less
ignored.) We also recognize that we need to turn up the volume
to get the attention of the World Health Organization and
challenge their assertion that the sprays are "safe", given
that they have received hundreds of reports to the contrary.
If you have had problems with the sprays, it is important to
let the WHO and ICAO know.
In the meantime…
If you have problems
with the sprays, it is important that you file a report with
the company as soon as you arrive in the US. You need to keep
a copy of the report for yourself and send one to your local
AFA office. It would be very helpful if members could
also fill out an AFA reporting form (available now at
the United LAX, SFO, HKG, TPE, ORD, NRT, and MIA bases, and at
www.afanet.org/safetyandhealth.htm) and send it to your local
office. Passengers and pilots are also welcome to submit
reports. AFA staff at the international office are in touch
with your local union representatives, but if you choose to,
you can also send a copy of your report and AFA form to them
(fax: 202-712-9793, mail: AFA-ASHD, 1275 K Street NW, #500,
Washington, DC 20005).
of Flight
Attendants,
AFL-CIO 