(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2011) California’s approval of the dangerous and controversial agricultural chemical, methyl iodide, suffered serious questions with the release of new documents showing the fumigant’s registration process was flawed. The documents, which were made public as part of a lawsuit challenging the state’s approval of the chemical, show the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) cut and pasted calculations from different risk assessments in order to come up with a less stringent set of restrictions on the chemical’s use. Earlier this year, several environmental groups sued the State of California for approving the agricultural use of methyl iodide. Methyl iodide is known to cause miscarriages, thyroid dysfunction, and cancer, and is applied to crops like strawberries and peppers. It was approved by California state pesticide regulators in December as an alternative to methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting chemical being phased out under international treaty. Environmental advocacy groups and other opponents of methyl iodide use in the state have released documents detailing dissension in the ranks of DPR over the risk assessment of methyl iodide and its subsequent approval. Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, sued DPR in an attempt to reverse the state’s approval of the chemical. The […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2011) Representatives Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, and Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), the Ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water and Power, sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) urging adoption of new measures to help protect endangered species as the federal government develops rules governing the spraying of pesticides directly into U.S. waters. These new rules would apply to issuance of a Pesticide General Permit (PGP), which would be the first of its kind in the history of the Clean Water Act and would impose limits on the amount of pesticides that enter our streams, rivers, and lakes. The letters were forwarded to EPA and FWS at a time when Congress is doing all it can to strip the Clean Water Act of its power to protect U.S. waterways. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 or H.R. 872, already passed by the House earlier this year and recently voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, would revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways. Click here to send […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August, 8, 2011) In a move that highlights serious concerns regarding the pesticide registration process, DuPont has announced that it plans to issue a total recall of its new herbicide, Imprelis, following widespread evidence and complaints that the product has caused the deaths of trees around the country. After originally giving conditional approval to the new pesticide, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now stated that it is preparing to issue a “Stop Sale” order to halt any further use of the product. According to a letter posted on DuPont’s website Imprelis-Facts.com, the company is implementing a “voluntary suspension” of Imprelis sales. It intends to ask distributors to collect all Imprelis containers, even those partially used, that they have sold and return them to the company for a refund. Earlier this year, in what some said was one of the biggest disasters of its kind since the emerald ash borer killed millions of trees, Imprelis was linked to white pine and Norway spruce trees turning brown or dying all across the country. Tree damage was reported throughout the Midwest, in East Coast states and as far south as Georgia. Many landscapers in Michigan and elsewhere switched to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 2011) A new report released last week finds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) voluntary program to evaluate chemicals fails to protect children. According to the evaluation report by EPA’s Inspector General, the Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) was hampered by industry’s refusal to voluntarily collect and submit information and the agency’s failure to regulate under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to collect the data. The report states what environmental groups have known for years: “EPA has not demonstrated that it can achieve children’s health goals with a voluntary program.” According to the Inspector General (IG), these failures led to only a fraction of the chemical assessments for the pilot being completed. IG found that VCCEP’s pilot was critically flawed and that the design of the program “did not allow for the desired outcomes to be produced.” It had a flawed chemical selection process and lacked an effective communication strategy. VCCEP is no longer operational and EPA has no plans to revive, replace, or terminate the program. The program was set up as part of the Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative in 1998 to ensure that there are adequate publicly available data to assess the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2011) Parallel bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives designed to increase federal research on endocrine disrupting chemicals and ensure public safety by restricting or eliminating chemicals found to present unacceptable risks to public health. S 1361, introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and HR 2521, introduced by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), are both titled the Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act. The bills would establish a scientific panel at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to evaluate up to ten chemicals per year that potentially affect the endocrine system and would create a trigger to ban those found most harmful to public health. The bills would create a more updated scientific evaluation process than any that currently exists in the federal government for reviewing potential endocrine disruptors and would have a strong regulatory mandate to ban or restrict chemicals that are found to present serious health risks. The specific process outlined directs the National Toxicology Program at NIEHS to evaluate each chemical according to (i) the amount of evidence that it is an endocrine disruptor, (ii) the “level of concern” that it may disrupt hormones, and (iii) the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2011) Parallel bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives designed to increase federal research on endocrine disrupting chemicals and ensure public safety by restricting or eliminating chemicals found to present unacceptable risks to public health. S. 1361, introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and H.R. 2521, introduced by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), are both titled the Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act. The bills would establish a scientific panel at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to evaluate up to ten chemicals per year that potentially affect the endocrine system and would create a trigger to ban those found most harmful to public health. The bills would create a more updated scientific evaluation process than any that currently exists in the federal government for reviewing potential endocrine disruptors and would have a strong regulatory mandate to ban or restrict chemicals that are found to present serious health risks. The specific process outlined directs the National Toxicology Program at NIEHS to evaluate each chemical according to (i) the amount of evidence that it is an endocrine disruptor, (ii) the “level of concern” that it may disrupt hormones, and (iii) the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2011) The U.S. House of Representatives has proposed to strip significant clean water protection from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). In a vote on Wednesday, July 13, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018. The act would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. The bill would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Supporters of the bill say that EPA has gone too far in its enforcement of water standards at the expense of economic development. Opponents, however, point out that the bill presents the potential for new risks to public health and the environment in allowing states to issue subpar water standards and making it more difficult for outdated standards to be revised. The bill passed the House on a largely party-line vote of 239-184. 16 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the measure, while 13 Republicans voted against it. The fate […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2011) In its draft Biological Opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) finds that the issuance of the proposed Pesticides General Permit by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species and cause the destruction or modification of critical habitat of the species without the implementation of a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA). The agency is seeking public comment on the implementation of the proposed RPA and possible alternatives that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the threatened or endangered species. Comments will be accepted until July 25, 2011. Essentially, the proposed Pesticides General Permit grants blanket approval to all pesticide applicators operating near waterways by issuing a single permit which would apply to all such potential applications, and largely removes the opportunity for environmental oversight of specific applications. The findings in this Biological Opinion are particularly relevant in light of current efforts by Congress to strip protections from the Clean Water Act (CWA) by prohibiting discharge permits for pesticides in waterways. Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies have an obligation to insure, in consultation with NMFS and the U.S. Fish […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2011) Millions of dollars’ worth of Norway spruce and white pine trees are mysteriously turning brown and dying this summer, and the chief suspect is a new lawn chemical. The product, Imprelis, a new herbicide manufactured by DuPont, is suspected by State officials and lawn care professionals who say they think Imprelis may be attacking pines and spruces. Once again, this new incident exposes the deficiencies in the registration process for new pesticides put onto the market without a full data set. In what some say could be one of the biggest disasters of its kind since the emerald ash borer killed millions of trees, white pine and Norway spruce trees are turning brown or dying all around the country. Tree damage has been reported throughout the Midwest, in East Coast states and as far south as Georgia. Many landscapers in Michigan and elsewhere switched to Imprelis (See the MSDS here) this year to control weeds such as dandelions because it was touted as “safer” by DuPont for the environment than predecessors such as 2, 4-D. So many trees have died -from the East Coast west to Iowa – that the damage is projected to be […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2011) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a decision stating that it does not consider a new type of genetically engineered (GE) turf grass to be subject to federal regulations. In the decision announced by the USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the agency stated that it does not have the authority to regulate introduction or transportation of the GE grass seed under the provisions of the Plant Protection Act . The grass, developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, has been engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, commonly sold as Roundup. Kentucky bluegrass is a popular choice for yards and fields as well as pastures and prairies, and the GE seed is expected to be made available for consumers to plant in their home lawns, potentially making it one of the most widely planted GE crops in the country. USDA’s authority to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stems from provisions of the Plant Protection Act (relevant regulations can be found at 7 CFR 340) that are designed to ensure that GMOs do not present the potential for new “plant pests.” As the New York Times explains, “Since companies have created most […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted emergency approval for the use of the neonicotinoid pesticide dinotefuran to control brown marmorated stink bugs in seven eastern states. Dinotefuran is a member of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides that is known to be highly toxic to bees and associated with Colony Collapse Disorder. The states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia had previously asked EPA for emergency approval of the pesticide due to a ballooning stink bug population. The short term emergency measure became effective June 24 and will expire on October 15 of this year. Dinotefuran is already approved by EPA for use on other crops, such as grapes, cotton, and some vegetables. The emergency approval relates to the pesticide’s use on orchard crops such as apples, pears, peaches, and nectarines, for which it has not previously been allowed. Growers of those crops will now be able to apply dinotefuran from the ground twice per season. The agency will allow a total of 29,000 orchard acres to be treated, which does not include applications to the previously approved crops. Under a controversial stipulation known as a Section […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2011) Earlier this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is moving to ban the sale of most toxic rat and mouse poisons, as well as most loose bait and pellet products, to residential consumers decades after these products were first introduced to the public. Though these rules will better protect children, pets and wildlife, the changes do not go far enough for vulnerable populations, because they will still be allowed by pesticide applicators and in agricultural settings. Children are particularly at risk for exposure to rat and mouse poisons because the products are typically placed on floors, and because young children sometimes place bait pellets in their mouths. The American Association of Poison Control Centers annually receives between 12,000 and 15,000 reports of children under the age of six being exposed to these types of products. Beyond Pesticides urges consumers not to use poisons for rodent control indoors, but rather advocates the use of traps and nonchemical exclusion techniques that eliminate food and water sources and entryways. In 2008, EPA released its final risk mitigation decision for ten rodenticides, with new measures intended to protect children and the public from accidental poisonings […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2011) Legislation, already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, that would allow pesticides to be sprayed into water without a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit, is now being weighed by the U.S. Senate (S. 718). The Western Farm Press recently reported that Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is holding up the bill while she discusses it with EPA and USDA. But, the bill is expected to move quickly and the time to act is now. Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals and organizations tell their Senators that regulating pesticides under the CWA is necessary to protect our waterways, public health, fish, and wildlife, and therefore, they must oppose S. 718. Michigan residents: Please call Senator Stabenow, thank her for delaying the legislation and ask her to oppose S. 718. Please call both your district office and Washington, DC. Upper Peninsula Office: (906) 228-8756 Northern Michigan Office: (231) 929-1031 Flint/Saginaw Bay Office: (810) 720-4172 Southeast Michigan Office: (313) 961-4330 Mid-Michigan Office: (517) 203-1760 Western Michigan Office: (616) 975-0052 Washington, DC Office: (202) 224-4822 All other U.S. residents: Please call your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose S. 718. If you know your […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a petition from the Migrant Clinicians Network, Farmworker Justice, and other farmworker interest groups asking the agency to require that manufacturers make their pesticide product labels available in both English and Spanish. EPA is inviting public comment until June 28, 2011 (see Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0014-0001 and submit comments). After the 90-day comment period ends, the agency will use the comments received in developing a decision on this petition. Farmworker groups are asking people to submit comments to EPA supporting the petition. See talking points below. Currently, pesticide labels are only required to be in English. This policy has a disproportionate impact on farmworkers, particularly pesticide applicators, who primarily speak Spanish, with little or no ability to speak or read English. As a consequence, they cannot read the pesticide labels and do not understand the pesticide use directions, the personal protective equipment (PPE) required or the instructions to avoid contamination of water bodies. The current provision, which directs Spanish-speaking workers themselves to get the label translated, is grossly inadequate. In a recent study in Washington State, farmworkers who could not read English exhibited higher rates of pesticide exposure […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2011) According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) internal review of pesticide registrations under special circumstances, also known as “conditional registration,” the agency may reduce its use of this “imprecise” category, whilch allows widespread use of toxic chemicals not fully tested. Conditional registration of pesticides allows market entry for a product in the absence of certain data. Recent reports have found that certain conditionally registered pesticides known to be hazardous to pollinators were allowed to used by EPA without a full data set. In an April 25, 2011 post on its website, EPA provides details on its recently completed internal review on the use of conditional registration for pesticide products. The agency has come under scrutiny recently since it was revealed that the conditionally registered pesticide, clothianidin, did not at the time it allowed the pesticide to be widely used have pertinent field data required on honeybees, even though the pesticide is known to pose risks to these vulnerable pollinators. This data is still outstanding even though clothianidin continues to be used in the environment. Conditional registration is allowed under Section 3(c)(7) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), whilch allows pesticide registration […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2011) Nations gathering in Geneva last week finally agreed to add endosulfan, an antiquated persistent insecticide, to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances. The decision follows recommendations from the December 2009 Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), which call for urgent “global action” to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide. Scientific experts at the POPRC concluded that endosulfan is likely to cause significant adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of the chemical’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media. Environmental health and justice organizations from around the world who have been working toward a ban welcomed the decision. Endosulfan is an organochlorine insecticide that was first registered for use in the U.S. in the 1950s. It is an endocrine disruptor and exposure in male children may delay sexual maturity and interfere with sex hormone synthesis. Male school children exposed to the highly toxic insecticide endosulfan showed delayed sexual maturity compared with similar children who were not exposed. Endosulfan also appears to interfere with sex hormone synthesis in males aged 10-19 years in a community of cashew plantations in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2011) Last Thursday, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation to update and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which has allowed tens of thousands of toxic substances onto the marketplace with little or no testing. The new ”˜Safe Chemicals Act of 2011,’ utilizing risk assessment methology, would, in theory, require chemical companies to prove their products are “safe” for human health and the environment when allowed in commerce. While creating priority reviews for the higher tisk categories of chemicals, many analysts are concerned that continued exclusive reliance on risk assessment with its serious uncertainties and lack of attention to least toxic alternatives allows unnecessary toxic chemical use and undermines a precautionary approach. Sen. Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, seeks to require that chemical manufacturers demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals used in everyday household products. “The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to get on or stay on the market. Currently, EPA may not regulate a chemical unless it can first prove that […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2010) In response to a petition submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling for a ban on the non-medical uses of triclosan, Beyond Pesticides is again urging the agency to halt the use of the antibacterial triclosan in consumer products. Citing recent scientific evidence detailing hormone disruption, impaired fetal development, water and crop contamination, the petitioners state that given the emerging science and the violation of numerous environmental statues by triclosan’s use constitutes placing a ban on the chemical. In comments submitted in support of the petition, Beyond Pesticides state that such a dangerous chemical has no place on the consumer marketplace. “The nonmedical uses of triclosan are frivolous and dangerous, creating serious long-term health problems and environmental hazards associated with its continued use. EPA has a responsibility to ban consumer triclosan use in a marketplace where safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. Triclosan’s impact on the consumer market has been aided by a false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, research into triclosan’s health and environmental impacts shows triclosan does more harm than good, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2011) In yet another move to dismantle Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations regarding pesticides, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry introduced legislation (S. 718) aimed to “eliminate a burdensome, costly and redundant permit requirement for applications of pesticides.” Last week a similar bill, H.R. 872, passed in the House which prevents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from applying the protective CWA permit regulations to monitor pesticides applied to and near U.S. waters. However, EPA has moved forward and published its draft version of the final permit. Like HR 872, S. 718, “Bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides,” would ensure that Clean Water Act permits are not required for the application of pesticides and amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by stating that no permit shall be required for the use of a pesticide that is registered under FIFRA. This bill would mean that pesticide applicators will be able to discharge pesticides into US waterways without any government oversight. Should this bill pass in the Senate it would mean final legislation […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 04, 2011) After Friday’s vote (April 1, 2011) to weaken protections from pesticides in the Clean Water Act, send a message to your U.S. Representative today. See action steps, as easy as two clicks, at the end of this post. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 872) by a vote of 292-130. The bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. The bill effectively reversed a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must require such permits. Sponsors of the bill said that the clean water requirements are “duplicative regulations” which would “unnecessarily burden” farmers and small businesses. However, the potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that could result in the removal of this permitting process has not been considered. The reality is that this permitting process forces the pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2011) Urgent action is needed to stop the bill, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872), from weakening protections under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bi-partisan bill yesterday, which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the CWA to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. This bill has also been approved unanimously by the House Committee on Agriculture and will reverse a 2009 court order requiring the permits as a part of the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) if it lands on the President’s desk by April 9, 2011. Take Action Now. The 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision, in response to the National Cotton Council v. EPA, overturned the Bush Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule exempting commercial pesticide applications from the oversight provided under CWA. The decision requires NPDES permits for pesticide applications directly to or near waterways in order to reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment. Sponsors of the bill say that the clean water requirements are “duplicative regulations” which would “unnecessarily burden” farmers […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2011) The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture unanimously approved a bill, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872), on Wednesday, March 9 which would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. The bill would effectively reverse a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must require such permits. A similar bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year. The 2009 court ruling came in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA. Prior to this case, EPA had deemed it unnecessary to require permits for pesticide applications near waterways. These previous regulations meant that, in instances where pesticides were applied directly to water to control pests such as mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds, or when pesticides were applied to control pests over or near water, applications were held to the much less stringent FIFRA standards. FIFRA, unlike the CWA, does not fully regulate or monitor water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2011) Last Friday the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced plans to allow the U.S. sugar beet industry to continue growing Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets, despite the incompletion of an environmental impact statement (EIS). This comes one week after USDA decided to fully deregulate GE alfalfa seed, despite the risks it poses to both organic and conventional farmers. On Monday, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Sierra Club and Cornucopia Institute formally filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the agency concerning its decision to allow unrestricted deregulation of GE alfalfa. The 60-day notice of intent to sue, filed February 7, 2011, officially notifies USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the groups’ intent to sue pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), citing APHIS’ violation of Section 7 of the ESA in failing to ensure that the deregulation of GE alfalfa is not likely to jeopardize threatened or endangered species and their habitat. According to Section 7, APHIS must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that agency actions do not impact threatened or endangered species. The notice charges […]