(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2008) Pesticides manufactured by Bayer (Germany), Syngenta (Switzerland), Monsanto (USA), BASF (Germany) and Dow Chemical (USA) pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to a new Greenpeace Germany report, “The Dirty Portfolios of the Pesticides Industry.” The report provides the first-ever ranking of the world’s leading agrochemical companies based on the hazards and risks of their pesticides on human health and the environment. These five companies together account for 75 percent of the world market and 46 percent of the pesticides they sell worldwide are particularly hazardous substances. Monsanto has the portfolio with the highest proportion, 60 percent, of pesticides that are particularly toxic to humans and the environment. However, Monsanto only ends up in the middle of the overall ranking due to its small share of the market. The overall ranking not only takes into account the hazardous properties of the various pesticides, but also the quantities that are sold worldwide. Pesticides manufactured by Bayer pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to the report. “Our ranking shows how toxic the business of the leading agrochemical companies still is,” said Greenpeace chemicals expert Manfred Krautter. “Politicians must […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2008) While the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) High Level Conference on Food Security in Rome convenes June 3-5, 2008, some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are trying to shed light on the fact that as hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are hungry, agrochemical companies that make pesticides and genetically engineered seeds are making record profits. Although UN chief Ban Ki-moon has declared the summit a success with “a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come,” many NGOs fear that the policies will only continue in the model of the green revolution, which ushered in the widespread use of pesticides and fertilizers in farming. This model favors large agrochemical companies that manufacture pesticides and genetically engineered seeds and perpetuates the environmental and social devastation that goes hand in hand with industrial agriculture. The Food Summit in Rome follows the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (also sponsored by the FAO) conference held in April of this year, which stressed the importance of agroecological and organic approaches to farming in order […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2008) Residential properties in Saginaw, Michigan contain unacceptably high levels of dioxin contamination, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5. Soil from the Riverside Boulevard area, a neighborhood along the Lower Tittabawassee River and downstream from the Dow Chemical Company’s manufacturing plant, was recently sampled and analyzed by EPA and evaluated in collaboration with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Michigan Department of Community Health. Past waste disposal practices, fugitive emissions and incineration at the plant have resulted in on- and off-site contamination of nearby waterways. Dow’s manufacturing of chlorine-based products and other chemicals results in dioxins, as well as furans, chlorobenzenes and heavy metals, as byproducts. According to the Chicago Tribune, soil samples “from one yard was 23 times higher than what the EPA considers reasonable safe.” Former administrator for EPA’s Region 5, Mary Gade, had been aggressively pushing Dow to properly cleanup the area, until she was forced out, states the Chicago Tribune. Dow’s previous dioxin cleanup of the 300 residences included cleaning inside the homes and laying wood chips over the contaminated soil around the homes, which is believed to be ineffective in protecting people and wildlife from dioxin […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2008) In the midst of dramatically declining bee populations, the German Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVD) has suspended the approval of eight toxic insecticides believed to be responsible for the fate of these important pollinators. The suspended products include pesticides containing imidacloprid and clothianidin, the majority of which are produced by Bayer Company and have been suspected for years of contributing to declining bee populations.France banned the use of imidacloprid on corn and sunflowers in 1999, and rejected Bayer’s application for clothianidin this year. Despite the call for prohibition of imidacloprid from German apiarists and environmental groups as early as 2004, a crisis in bee populations–a reported 50-60% loss, finally forced the government to take action. The U.S., where these products are still approved for use, has also been experiencing extremely alarming rates of bee colony collapse, while areas away from cropland have thriving bee populations. Imidacloprid and clothianidin are both neonicotinoids, meaning that they target nerve cells in a similar way to nicotine, acting as neurotoxins to sucking insects such as beetles and aphids. Clothianidin was approved for use in the U.S. in 2003 as a seed treatment for corn and canola, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2008) In the wake of provincial laws banning lawn chemicals, the Canadian division of Home Depot announced on April 22, 2008 that it will stop selling traditional pesticides in its stores across Canada by the end of 2008 and will increase its selection of environmentally friendly alternatives. Home Depot Canada is the first major home improvement retailer to stop selling pesticides nationwide.The decision coincides with legislation introduced on April 23, which bans the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns, gardens and parks in the Canadian province of Ontario. Quebec passed a similar ban in 2003. Additionally, there are currently over 55 municipalities in Canada where the residential use, but not sale, of pesticides is banned. Other garden supply and grocery stores have also stopped selling pesticides in Ontario and Quebec, but the Home Depot decision will affect stores nationwide. Environmental and public health activists believe the provincial bans and Home Depot phase-outs demonstrate that the country has reached a tipping point. “I would say that now that we have Quebec and Ontario, there is huge pressure on the other provinces. The next obvious one would be British Columbia.” Gideon Forman, executive director of the […]

(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 […]