(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 […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2011) In response to continued public concern over the presence of dangerous chemicals in common household products, legislators and advocates in 30 states across the country and the District of Columbia have announced legislation aimed at protecting children and families from harmful chemicals. Despite well-funded opposition from the chemical industry, 18 state legislatures have already passed 71 chemical safety laws in the last eight years by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin — with more to come this year. Congress has also begun to take action on the matter, after being criticized for lagging behind, in the form of initiating a review of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) this week. The TSCA is the federal law that governs the control of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Dangerous chemicals, including pesticides, can be commonly found in household products ranging from cosmetics to toys to fabrics. One of the most prevalent of these substances, the antimicrobial triclosan, has been linked to a range of adverse health and environmental effects including skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, endocrine disruption, and increased risk of antibiotic resistance to tainted water, dioxin contamination, and destruction of fragile […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded protections for humans used as subjects in pesticide studies on January 19, 2011, making it harder for the chemical industry to experiment on people. EPA has proposed dramatic changes in how studies that intentionally expose people to pesticides can be conducted and in what studies it will accept. These proposed changes should force the chemical industry to avoid these types of studies altogether. EPA’s proposal is posted on the agency’s website and will soon be published in the Federal Register under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0785. Following this, the proposal will be open to a 60-day public comment period per a June 17, 2010 settlement agreement reached between EPA and a coalition of public health groups, farm worker advocates and environmental organizations. In 2006, the coalition, led by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a lawsuit against EPA, claiming that the agency’s 2006 rule violated a law Congress passed in 2005 requiring strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. Attorneys with NRDC, Earthjustice, and Farmworker Justice served as legal counsel for the coalition. Specifically, the 2006 rule followed a temporary ban on human testing put in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January, 11, 2011) Responding to a June 2006 petition submitted by Fluoride Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, and Environmental Working Group, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it proposes to eliminate the use of the toxic fumigant sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture and food related applications. The agency plans to cancel all allowable pesticide residue levels (tolerances) for the chemical, finding that, when residues on food products are combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, public exposure levels are too high. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA is required to ensure that pesticides it has registered for use cannot combine with non-food sources of the same substance to result in unsafe levels of exposure for that chemical. According to EPA officials, the decision appears to be the first time the agency has granted substantive formal objections to a pesticide tolerance rule based on public health advocates’ evidence that a particular chemical’s use violates the safety standard for aggregate exposures under federal law. Despite granting the petition’s assertion that total public exposure to fluoride is too high, EPA has denied the petition’s request for an immediate stay of all registered uses of sulfuryl fluoride. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2011) Your voice is critical in generating public comments on a petition, published in the Federal Register, to ban the antibacterial chemical triclosan. As you may know, this chemical, now found in the bodies of 75% of the U.S. population, is linked to endocrine disruption, bacterial and antibiotic resistance, dioxin contamination, and contaminated fish and biosolids. We have five more weeks —until February 7, 2011— to let EPA know that triclosan must be banned to protect the public, workers and the environment. Click here for the document you can use to publicize the public comment period on Ban Triclosan petition or email info@beyondpesticides for the word version. EPA published in the Federal Register a petition, filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, to ban the hazardous antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan for non-medical use. The chemical is found in products from clothing to soaps. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) announces a public comment period until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes from pesticides, clean water, safe drinking water, to endangered species. SUGGESTED ACTION AND SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENT: Please send […]