(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2008)  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 this week issued a “stop sale, use or removal” order against Scotts Miracle Gro Co. and three affiliates, all of Marysville, Ohio, for illegal, unregistered and misbranded weed and fertilizer products with a cancer causing and endocrine disrupting pesticide ingredient. EPA will also issue a stop sale order to Scotts Lawn Care Service.Scotts has agreed to recall two products from all retail locations across the United States and to set up a process for consumers to safely return any unregistered products they may have purchased. EPA ordered the companies, collectively an international producer and distributor of lawn care products, to immediately stop selling and distributing the products which can be identified by the invalid “EPA registration number” listed on the package. Invalid registration number 62355-4 is marketed under names including “Garden Weed Preventer + Plant Food” and “Miracle Gro Shake ‘n’ Feed All Purpose Plant Food Plus Weed Preventer.” The active ingredient of this product is trifluralin, an herbicide that is a possible carcinogen and probable endocrine disruptor, among its health effects. Invalid registration number 538-304 is used primarily by Scotts Lawn Service, a lawn care company. It […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2008) Three years ago, Carlos Candelario was born without arms or legs and with spinal and lung deformities, birth defects caused by his mother’s exposure to multiple pesticides while working in Ag-Mart Produce fields during her pregnancy. His parents, Francisca Herrera and Abraham Candelario, sued the company in 2006, and last week’s settlement will provide for Carlos for the rest of his life, pending a judge’s approval. “I am as gratified about this case as any I’ve ever handled,” said attorney Andrew Yaffa. “This child has tremendous needs and needed somebody willing to speak on his behalf. Every medical need will be taken care of as a result of this settlement.” Ag-Mart has a history of state pesticide violations and use of extremely toxic pesticides (although in 2005, the company did agree to discontinue use of chemicals linked to reproductive risks, excepting methyl bromide, which is still in use). The company grows “UglyRipe” heirloom tomatoes and Santa Sweets grape tomatoes in a chemical-intensive operation. Ms. Herrera and Mr. Candelario worked alongside other migrant workers in North Carolina and Florida fields at the time of Ms. Herrera’s exposure. Both Florida and North Carolina have published reports on […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2008) The sowing of gene-altered corn, called MON810, in France this spring will not be allowed until further scientific evidence on its safety is reviewed. This ruling came after growers argued that they faced serious economic harm if the ban on genetically modified crops was not immediately released before the start of the spring planting season. The French Conseil d’État last week upheld the ban instituted February 7 of this year, after concerns were raised by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, on the heath and environmental benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In the ruling, presiding Judge Jean-Marie Delarue pointed out that the safety of the product needs further study. The ban would therefore be upheld until a ruling could be made on the scientific underpinning. Hearings are expected to be held in the coming months. The French Ministry of Agriculture initially imposed the ban on GM products, stating that it should remain in place until European authorities completed a review of the product. Review is required every ten years. Efforts to overturn the ban were led by the General Association of Maize Growers in France and several biotechnology companies, including Monsanto, which engineered MON810, and Pioneer, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2008) Will this be the pesticide label of the near future? It will be unless you act now to stop cause marketing on toxic pesticide products. Send your comments to EPA by Thursday, March 27, 2008 and oppose cause marketing on toxic pesticide products. See Take Action webpage. On October 31, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a comment period on their Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Label Statements Regarding Third-Party Endorsements and Cause Marketing Claims. After being urged by Beyond Pesticides and other concerned groups, EPA extended the closing date from December 28 to March 27. Your opportunity to provide EPA with critical feedback on its proposal to allow third-party endorsements on pesticide labels ends in less than a week! Cause marketing on pesticide labels would allow manufacturers to place the symbols of well-known organizations to their products, such as in the deal Clorox made with the American Red Cross last year. Attaching an image (like the Red Cross symbol) to a label can imply false safety of a product, which is a direct violation of EPA’s own labeling law. EPA’s proposed law would allow any company to make similar partnerships, putting consumers […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2008) Two studies have just been released, one by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a promoter of genetically-engineering crops,  and the other by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Friends of the Earth, each with differing conclusions on the impact of genetically engineered (GE) crops on the health of our food systems. The debate is one that has existed for years, particularly as GE seeds have spread worldwide, now accounting for 280 million acres of cropland in 23 countries. Reports have historically provided significant documentation of herbicide-resistant weeds developing as a result of heavy reliance on the chemicals crops are bred to tolerate. Insect resistance has also been recently discovered. Legislators have recognized the need to protect farmers from GE contamination and resulting lawsuits from seed developer Monsanto. Concerns over a litany of health and environmental risks from GE crops continue. The timing of these two studies highlights the disparity between how the GE industry represents its product and how public interest groups evaluate the effects and risks they see to farmers and consumers alike. The ISAAA study, entitled Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007, celebrates the first twelve […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2008) The first state bill on genetically engineered (GE) crops passed through its first committee in February, 2007, and the latest revision is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, January 24. While AB 541 has been pared down considerably from its first and most progressive incarnation, it includes two very important measures to protect farmers whose crops are contaminated by nearby GE fields. The first provision states, “A farmer is not liable for the breach of a seed contract or for patent infringement if a product, in which the seed labeler, or patent holder or licensee, has rights, is possessed by the farmer or found on real property owned or occupied by the farmer and the presence of the product is de minimis or not intended by the farmer.” A frequent criticism of Monsanto and the company’s overwhelming market share of seed is its tendency to sue farmers who did not plant GE seed, but whose fields were contaminated by a neighbor’s GE variety. In a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell said, “These lawsuits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortion of American Farmers.” (See Daily News from January […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2008) Agribusiness giants Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto have successfully persuaded the state of Minnesota to reconsider their water-quality limit for the chemical, acetochlor. Scientists representing the industry presented their own studies to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and explained that the state’s original draft limit for acetochlor was too strict. Despite three years of research conducted by the state, scientists from Dow and Monsanto presented officials at the MCPA with six published studies- one of them in Chinese- which they claimed were overlooked by the state when determining the standard for acetochlor in waterways. As a result, the MPCA has decided to allow 3.6 parts per billion of acetochlor in rivers, more than twice the concentration of the 1.7 parts per billion previously proposed. As a result, three of five streams classified as ”˜impaired’ by acetochlor, including a popular trout stream in southeastern Minnesota, can no longer be considered polluted. Some environmental advocacy groups question whether the MPCA gave favorable treatment to the pesticide makers, claiming that other research that suggest that the chemical can cause ecological damage have not been seriously considered. “It looks like there’s a double standard, that industry can come in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2008) Talks between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dow Chemical Company ended unsuccessfully when EPA determined that Dow’s offers were not comprehensive enough. Negotiations had centered around study and interim cleanup measures in the Saginaw and Tittabawassee rivers, wetlands, and Saginaw Bay. Dow agreed in July to clean up dioxin contamination downstream of its Midland, Michigan facility, but this time Dow spokesman John C. Musser said, “They were asking us to go beyond what we thought was reasonable, and we could not with our earlier offers resolve that dispute.” EPA plans to return to negotiations, but the latest round was not progressing successfully. “Key issues that are paramount for protecting human health and the environment remain unsolved,” said Ralph Dollhopf, associate director for the Superfund Division of EPA’s Region 5 Office in Chicago. “EPA simply will not accept any deal that is not comprehensive.” EPA spokeswoman Anne Rowan added, “We’re not walking away from cleaning up the river system. We walked away from negotiations that we thought were not fruitful.” The state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has worked with Dow to ensure completion of the required cleanup, and these latest developments seem par for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2007) EPA decided at the end of 2007 to extend the deadline for public comments on its controversial proposal to allow pesticide product labels with third-party endorsements and cause-marketing claims. The new due date is March 27, 2008. The agency extended the public comment period for another 90 days in response to requests from Beyond Pesticides and others. In extending the comment, Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, said, “The Agency is particularly interested in assuring that its State partners in pesticide regulations, as well as organizations such as yours, have adequate opportunity for comments.” See letter.The issue of cause-marketing on pesticide labels came up last year when Clorox petitioned EPA to allow it to display the Red Cross logo on some of its products, including pine-sol and bleach products. In letters to all the state pesticide regulatory agencies in March, 2007, Beyond Pesticides urged the states to deny the label changes approved by EPA, saying: The inherent danger is that misleading the public about pesticides can result in harm to consumers who either do not, unfortunately, take the time to read pesticide labels or who cannot read or comprehend labels (e.g. non-English speaking citizens, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2008) The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has struck an arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in four states a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant a majority of Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. Farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota need to plant 75-80% of their crops with Monsanto’s (and only Monsanto’s) GM seeds to receive the “premium rate discount”. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that promotes herbicide use; the Monsanto brands are resistant to Roundup (main ingredient, glyphosate) and contain chemicals that kill insects and other plants. Monsanto’s deal is legal, according to USDA officials, who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance passed by Congress. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and show resistance to insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies. “We knew it would look that way,” said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2007) EPA is proposing a major overhaul of pesticide labels that will allow cause-related marketing (advertising) directly on products, a reversal of a long-standing policy that prohibited such representations. Beyond Pesticides urges the public to submit comments opposing such labeling and to support a request that EPA extend the deadline for comments (now set at December 31, 2007) to allow between 30 and 60 additional days for public comment on this proposed change. The change in law has serious safety implications, according to Beyond Pesticides, because the use of symbols, such as the Red Cross, implies that poisonous products are safe. On February 7, 2007, numerous groups petitioned EPA to rescind and deny the pesticide product label for the Clorox Company, which allows the display of the Red Cross symbol and language on pesticide products. The groups signing the petition included Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, American Bird Conservancy, Pesticide Education Project, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, Environmental Health Fund, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Natural Resources Defense Council, Maryland Pesticide Network and Washington Toxics Coalition. Current label laws, defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2007) Seven years ago, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets, along with other crops like potatoes and rice, was shelved at fears that consumers would not support their use. Sugar beets, which produce about half of the United States sugar (almost all of which is used domestically), are used in foods like candy, cereal, and baking products. The failure of the GM beet’s initial introduction was based on unwillingness from companies like Hershey and Kellogg to provoke consumer protests. Now, the marketplace seems to have changed enough that such big sugar-buying companies are less hesitant to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” beet (which are tolerant of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate). According to Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles, her company “would not have any issues” buying them because “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.” “Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said American Crystal Sugar president David Berg of the switch. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.” Most other companies, including Hershey and Mars, are refusing to comment on the subject, which has kept these developments quiet until recently. Despite the corporate perception of public opinion on GM crops, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2007) According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, as of January 1, 2008, dairy products with labels such as “growth-hormone free” will be illegal in the state. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff announced the decision last month after convening a 22-member Food Labeling Advisory Committee to look into false or misleading claims in “absence labeling.”The ruling covers all dairy products sold in the state, forcing some out-of-state manufacturers, in effect, to make Pennsylvania-only packaging. So far, the state Department of Agriculture has notified 19 companies that their labels must change. Of the three principal types of labeling affected by the ruling, getting rid of “growth-hormone free” milk labels has proven most controversial.The PA Department of Agriculture explained its decision in a statement on its website, “[S]ome milk labels contain statements such as ”˜hormone-free,’ but all milk contains hormones. Some labels also claim the absence of synthetic hormones, but there is no scientific test that can determine the truth of this claim.” Organic labeling, Mr. Wolff said, involves a certification process that includes surprise audits, so the department does not currently intend to interfere with it. Some food safety advocates believe […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2007) In a landmark decision, a California jury on November 5, 2007 awarded $3.3 million to Nicaraguan farmworkers sterilized by pesticides made by Dow Chemical and used at Dole’s banana plantations. The lawsuit accused Dole and Standard Fruit Co., now a part of Dole, of negligence and fraudulent concealment while using the pesticide 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) to kill rootworms on banana plants. Until 1977, DBCP was used in the United States as a soil fumigant and nematocide on over 40 different crops. From 1977 to 1979, EPA suspended registration for all DBCP-containing products except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. In 1985, EPA issued an intent to cancel all registrations for DBCP, including use on pineapples. Subsequently, the use of existing stocks of DBCP was prohibited. In Nicaragua, DBCP was legal from 1973 until 1993.EPA’s website states the following: Acute (short-term) exposure to DBCP in humans results in moderate depression of the central nervous system (CNS) and pulmonary congestion from inhalation, and gastrointestinal distress and pulmonary edema from oral exposure. Chronic (long-term) exposure to DBCP in humans causes male reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm counts. Testicular effects and decreased sperm counts were observed in animals chronically […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2007) Aurora Organic Dairy, found earlier this year by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to be in “willful” violation of organic standards, is once again the subject of claims made by the Cornucopia Institute. In its findings, USDA had announced that Aurora “labeled and represented milk as organically produced, when such milk was not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program [NOP] regulations.” As a result of this report, Cornucopia, whose research and original complaint initiated USDA’s investigation, has brought class action suits in Denver, St. Louis, and federal courts, which allege “consumer fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment concerning the sale of organic milk by the company. “The basis of Cornucopia’s suit centers around milk sold before USDA’s organic certifier, Quality Assurance International (QAI), filed a notice of the violations found. Cornucopia’s Mark Kastel argued that the milk sold in the more than three years prior to QAI’s findings hurt smaller players in the organic industry, as well as consumers. “Aurora’s actions have injured the reputation of more than 1,500 legitimate organic dairy farmers who are faithfully following federal organic rules and regulations,” he said. “We cannot allow these families to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October, 10 2007) One of the largest chemical companies in the world, BASF Corporation, announced in a press release October 9, 2007 that it will get serious in its campaign against the use of illegal pesticides. The sale and distribution of unregistered or counterfeit pesticidal products is clearly prohibited under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), resulting in harm to public health and the environment. Several companies have recently been fined by the EPA for selling and distributing unregistered or mislabeled pesticide products (See Daily News Blogs: “EPA Fines Clorox Over Export Labels” and “Target Settles with EPA on Labeling Violations”). BASF sees the problem as adversely affecting its bottom line. BASF Agricultural Products spends over 300 million euros in research and development, especially in the field of crop protection, to develop and launch new products. As a result, the company is on a state of alert to prevent activities which deliberately infringe its existing patents or which are illegal, including product counterfeiting and the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides. The agricultural products division of BASF said that its worldwide fight against illegal pesticides would involve taking legal action for patent infringement, illegal imports of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, 2nd October 2007) Target Corp. has been fined over $40,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating pesticide-labeling rules under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As part of the penalty, EPA (Region 5) filed a consent agreement and final order with Target to halt the distribution and sale of the products in violation. According to EPA, Target sold and distributed products from its stores and website that made pesticidal claims on their labels. Some product’s properties also made comparisons to other registered products sold by competitors. An inspector cited the company for violation in April and Target is now removing pesticidal claims from the products.The products identified were: Antimicrobial Toilet Seats, Home Ultimate Mattress Pads, Home Ultimate Pillows- which made “germ-killing” claims and Cleaner With Bleach, which compared its disinfectant properties with a competitor. Under FIFRA (Section 2(u)), any substance or product intended for “preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest,” which includes germs and bacteria, is defined as a pesticide and must be registered with EPA prior to sale and distribution. EPA considers disinfectants, antimicrobial and antibacterial products to be pesticides. This settlement is one of several recent EPA crackdowns concerning the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 19, 2007) In Vietnam, attempts continue to be made to protect villages from the ongoing threat of Agent Orange, used by American forces to deforest the jungle canopy in the Vietnam War over 30 years ago, according to the New York Times. Reforestation and fencing are being carried out to prevent local animals and residents from being exposed to soil contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD), a potent dioxin contaminant of Agent Orange. Phung Tuu Boi, forester and director of the Center for Assistance in Nature Conservation and Community Development in Hanoi, is attempting to reforest thousands of hectares in central Vietnam. However, his main concern is the dioxin that taints the soil and the local residents most at risk since they live off the land. “The local people are poor and uneducated, and they don’t understand. Children come here to play and they collect insects and other things to eat,” said Mr. Boi. TCDD is the most dangerous form of dioxin and the levels found in soil samples from Central Vietnam are more than 200 times the “acceptable” level set by the US EPA. Efforts to educate the residents about the dangers of dioxin are difficult since most […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 17, 2007) Mediterranean fruit flies were discovered last week in Dixon, California, and federal, state, and county agencies rushed to respond with traps, biopesticide treatment, and sterile mates to prevent the insect from infesting local agriculture. A total of eight Medflies have been found so far, and the three-pronged attack started with an effort to monitor the presence of the Medfly. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) employees have placed 1,700 fruit fly-targeted detection traps in an 81-square-mile grid. Next, residents within 200 meters of the original finding had their yards treated with the organic compound Naturalyte, the active ingredient of which is spinosad, a naturally occurring extract from bacteria. The pesticide, made by Dow, is approved for use on organic crops, yet the vast majority of its ingredients (so-called “inerts”) are not disclosed. As another biological control, more than 3 million sterile male flies were released last Friday in a 12-square-mile area around Dixon. The sterile males will be deployed on a weekly basis to mate with wild females, helping to eradicate the Medfly population. This is the first Medfly case in Solano County, according to county agriculture officials. Agriculture Commissioner Jerry Howard said that […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2007) The United States Department of Agriculture and Aurora Organic Dairy have reached an agreement stemming from complaints brought by the Cornucopia Institute. While Aurora called USDA’s decision a “dismissal”, the department did find that the dairy did not provide enough pasture for its milking cows and that not all cows could be proven to have been raised organically. As part of its agreement with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Aurora will thin its herd at its Platteville, Colorado dairy from 2,200 to 1,250 and increase its organic pasture from 325 acres to 400. Rather than alter operations at another Colorado facility, Aurora has agreed not to renew its organic certification there. USDA will also monitor the company more closely, and violations during its one-year probationary period could threaten Aurora’s organic certification. “The organic industry is booming, and the National Organic Program is a high priority for USDA,” said Bruce I. Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs, “and through this consent agreement consumers can be assured that milk labeled as organic in the supermarket is indeed organic.” Cornucopia was particularly critical of the positive spin put on the settlement in USDA’s decision and Aurora’s […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2007) The Wisconsin Natural Resources Defense Board recently passed stricter limits on allowable groundwater levels of alachlor-ESA, the breakdown product of the herbicide alachlor, cutting in half the standard to 20 parts per billion (ppb). The reduction from the previous standard of 40 ppb was prompted by the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which has tried to pass a similar measure in recent years, only to be blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate. Officials hope that a Democratic majority will ensure adoption of the new standard. The board voted 7-0 in favor of lowering the allowable groundwater level of alachlor-ESA, after DNR cited studies showing the chemical causes blood problems in rats. Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (DATCP) tests in 2001 showed alachlor-ESA in 28 percent of private wells tested, in spite of its declining use (on less than a quarter of the state’s 100,000 acres of corn). A similar proposal was rejected by the board in 2005, when DNR refused to agree to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules’ request to allow Monsanto, manufacturer of alachlor, to fund a separate study in addition to the state’s data. Monsanto, as expected, issued […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2007) Last week, The Cornucopia Institute announced that Aurora Organic Dairy, one of the largest organic dairies in the United States, could soon lose its organic certification. Based on a private investigation as well as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) documents, Cornucopia claims the industry giant does not comply with organic regulations regarding pasture grazing and cattle procurement. Aurora has 12,000 milking cows on five farms in Colorado and Texas. The company claims that the cows have access to 5,700 acres of organic pasture land across those farms, and that all cows graze for at least 120 days per year. Among the brands Aurora supplies organic dairy products for are Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, Wild Oats, Trader Joes, and other grocery chains. According to Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst Mark Kastel, “After personally inspecting some of Aurora’s dairies in Texas and Colorado, we found 98 percent of their cattle in feedlots instead of grazing on pasture as the law requires.” While USDA’s investigation is ongoing, Cornucopia expects to hear of other missteps. “Our sources tell us that the USDA’s investigators found many other violations when conducting their probe of Aurora,” said Mr. Kastel. Cornucopia’s original […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2007) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent decision not to go through with a Special Review of 2,4-D’s carcinogenic properties is being touted by industry as the final word that the toxic chemical “has been found to have no human carcinogenic effects,” despite significant evidence to the contrary. The Special Review has been cancelled after an industry task force poured millions of dollars into industry funded research and a public relations campaign. The pesticide 2,4-D, or 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, was first slated by EPA for Special Review in 1986. A few years later in a unique move, several large pesticides companies with a common interest in keeping 2,4-D on the market formed the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data. Since then, the task force reports it has funded nearly $30 million in new research on the chemical. Industry funded research is often biased and influential in the regulatory process. The results are reported to EPA, which provides a large portion of the data the agency relies on in order to make decisions under an inadequate risk assessment review process. The task force is currently comprised of the major pesticide producers Dow AgroSciences (U.S.), Nufarm Ltd. […]