(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2008) The United Farm Workers of America, Beyond Pesticides and others, represented by lawyers from Earthjustice, argued in federal court that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to allow the use of azinphos-methyl until 2012 was unconscionable. The plaintiffs say EPA did not consider harm to farmworkers and their families, or to rivers, lakes and salmon, and the agency should be forced to reconsider. “There are workers getting sick,” Patti Goldman, a lawyer for Earthjustice, told U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. “This isn’t just hypothetical. There are workers being taken out of the field.”The AP reports that Cynthia Morris, a Justice Department lawyer who argued on the agency’s behalf, told the judge that the short-term benefits of allowing growers to keep using AZM for the next several years outweigh the potential harm. She argued that the agency’s decision was reasonable, and failed to meet the “arbitrary and capricious” standard for the judge to undo it.In November 2006, EPA decided that AZM poses unreasonable adverse effects and must be banned but allowed its continued use on fruit crops for six more years — until 2012 — and on nut crops for three more years — until […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2008) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking for public input on its review of the chemical endosulfan, an antiquated and dangerous insecticide. Now is the time to go on record to protect children, farmworkers and rural communities from this harmful nerve toxin. Used in the U.S. on tomatoes, cotton and other crops, endosulfan harms the hormone system, and low levels of exposure in the womb have been linked to autism, male reproductive harm, and other birth defects. Acute poisoning can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. EPA’s own analysis shows that endosulfan endangers workers who handle it directly and those who work in endosulfan-treated fields. Endosulfan travels great distances, accumulates up the food chain, and poses grave risks to aquatic ecosystems. The European Union and several other countries have already banned endosulfan, and alternatives are available. It’s time the U.S. does its part to protect communities and the environment at home and around the world from this persistent organic pollutant. TAKE ACTION: Let EPA know that continued use of this unnecessary poison is unacceptable. Add your name to the petition today and forward to as many people as […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2008) EPA has submitted a draft Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) for all carbofuran registrations to EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). Carbofuran is a highly toxic insecticide used on field, fruit and vegetable crops and has long been the subject of controversy and a series of use restrictions that environmentalists have decried as too limited. EPA has opened a docket containing the materials provided to the SAP that is convening on February 5-8. The SAP will review the scientific assessment underlying EPA’s NOIC for carbofuran and respond to questions posed by the agency related to the impact on health and the environment of the proposal. The docket number is EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1088; view docket information.This action is the result of an interim reregistration eligibility decision reached by EPA in August 2006, in which the agency found all products containing carbofuran ineligible for reregistration. FIFRA requires that EPA consult the SAP before issuing an NOIC. The SAP meeting, which is open to the public, will be held at an EPA Office of Pesticide Programs conference room at One Potomac Yard in Arlington, Virginia.Carbofuran was first registered in the United States in 1969 and is classified as a restricted […]

(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 18, 2008) The second circuit federal appellate court on Thursday will hear a challenge to an EPA rule that allows people to be used as guinea pigs in tests of toxic pesticides. The lawsuit, NRDC V. EPA, was brought before the court by a coalition of environmental, farmworker and health groups in 2006. The groups contend that the agency’s human testing rule violates a law passed by Congress in 2005 mandating strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. At the time, the House Committee on Government Reform found “the actual experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed and rife with ethical violations.” “Testing poisons on people is unethical and against the law,” said Shelley Davis, Beyond Pesticides board member and deputy director of Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy and education center for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, based in Washington, D.C. “The EPA should stop accepting these industry funded tests.” Previous human testing by industry produced serious ethical and scientific problems including one instance in which a company told participants they were eating vitamins, not toxic pesticides. In other instances citied in the lawsuit, researchers ignored the adverse health effects reported by the participants. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2008) Newly elected members of the Council of the District of Columbia brought the issue of reforming pesticide law to the Council yesterday in a hearing on a right-to-know bill, Pesticide Consumer Notification Amendment Act of 2007, Bill 17-493. The bill would be the first time pesticide law in the District has been amended since the law was passed in 1977. Pest control industry representatives did not oppose the bill, but urged the sponsors to shift the burden of notification of apartment building residents to the landlord. While the bill is a notification amendment that requires licensed pesticide applicators to provide hazard information to potential customers and those in multi-unit buildings who would be exposed, the bill’s sponsors throughout the hearing cited the need for overhauling the law to stop the use of hazardous pesticides in the District. The hearing was held in the Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs by Chairperson Mary Cheh. When told that it was working on these issues by the Department of the Environment, which oversees pesticide regulation and enforcement, the Council members said that was not good enough, and seemed unconvinced by the argument that pesticide restrictions are best […]

(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 8, 2008) Reclaiming Our Healthy Future: Political change to protect the next generation, the 26th National Pesticide Forum, will be held March 14-16 at the University of California, Berkeley. Register now to pay the pre-registration rate. James Roberts, M.D., associate professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina and co-author of Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, and Jim Riddle, outreach coordinator for the University of Minnesota Organic Ecology program, have recently been added to the program. Previously announced speakers include Arturo Rodriguez (UFW President), Devra Davis, Ph.D. (author and University of Pittsburgh professor of epidemiology) and Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. (UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology). Also, actress Kaiulani Lee will perform A Sense of Wonder, her one-woman play based on the life and works of Rachel Carson. Session topics include: Children’s health and public policy; Farmworker justice, organizing and consumer action; Building just and healthy food systems; Power of local activism to influence political change; Pesticides and the secret history of the war on cancer; Skills training sessions; DDT and malaria; Global warming and biofuels; Biomonitoring and pesticide drift; Lawns and landscapes; Managing indoor environments; Water quality and much more. Jim Riddle is outreach […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2008) Sri Lanka started restricting the use of paraquat at the start of the new year and plans to have the herbicide completely banned within the next three years. According to Assistant Director of Agriculture K.B. Gunarathne, the decision was made in response to “the high rate of deaths due to paraquat poisoning caused by its inherent toxic properties.” Four to five hundred Sri Lankans die as a result of paraquat poisoning each year, and misuse of the herbicide is especially high in farming communities. Most paraquat poisonings occur as impulsive injections of chemical stored in or near the home, and injection of paraquat has a mortality around 65%, much higher than other agrochemicals. Also unlike other agrochemicals, Paraquat has no proven antidotes, and supportive care is relatively ineffective at preventing death. A substantial reduction of poisoning deaths is unlikely to be achieved by focusing solely on in hospital care. Sri Lanka will phase out paraquat in a series of steps, the first of which took place on January 1, 2008. Starting this year, the maximum concentration of paraquat ions in paraquat formulations will be 6.5%. In October 2006, the Pesticide Registrar mandated a reduction in […]

(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, December 12, 2007) On December 5, 2007, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied the petition filed on June 2, 2006, by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to revoke pesticide tolerances for dichlorvos (DDVP) established under Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, finding the petition to be “without merit.” According to the petition filed, the NRDC asserted that DDVP tolerances are unsafe and should be revoked for numerous reasons, including: (1) EPA has improperly assessed the toxicity of DDVP; (2) EPA has erred in estimating dietary and residential exposure to DDVP; and (3) EPA has unlawfully removed the additional safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The EPA, in its response says that the toxicity of DDVP is not a sufficient ground for seeking revocation of tolerances. NRDC’s petition argued that DDVP should not have been downgraded from “probable human carcinogen” to “possible human carcinogen.” But EPA found the studies cited to be inadequate to support an amendment in classification, and as such the petition to revoke tolerances to the extent based on the alleged cancer misclassification of DDVP was rejected. The petition also challenged that various exposure studies used to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2007) While there is a trend towards less pesticide use in Christmas tree production, most trees are still treated with one pesticide or another — many of which are prohibited for residential use. In it’s 2007 survey results, North Carolina State University’s Mountain Horticultural Research and Extension Center, reports that glyphosate was the pesticide applied most commonly. The Center found that almost 90 percent of the state’s tree growers had applied glyphosate last season. The following tables summarize the state’s results, listing the pesticides that are used on at least 5% of the Christmas tree acreage. Nearly 40 different active ingredients are registered for tree production nationwide. Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, and Virginia are the nation’s top Christmas tree producing states. Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture, which published a list of insecticides for Christmas tree production in February 2007, recommends carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, imidacloprid, malathion, permethrin and many more. Many of these pesticides have been “banned” or have always been prohibited in residential settings, however EPA’s registration process and phase-out deals with manufacturers allows continued use on Christmas trees and other agricultural products. For information on the toxicity of these […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2007) As directed by the 2007 legislature, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is starting a 2-year, $150,000 Voluntary Notification Study Project concerning the application of “Danger/Poison” pesticides near schools, hospitals, nursing homes and adult and child daycares. This project will collect data to determine if notification is a significant factor in reducing pesticide exposures when agricultural “Danger/Poison” pesticides are applied by aerial or airblast application methods near these facilities. The Study Project will be limited to Chelan, Kittitas and Yakima Counties and will run from October 1, 2007 to October 1, 2009. It will focus on pesticides labeled with the signal words “Danger/Poison” that are applied either by air or by airblast application equipment. A voluntary notification register will be maintained by the Department and made available for applicators to check contact information if they plan on making specific types of applications near facilities. The primary source of information regarding location of facilities and facility contact information will be the WSDA website. Contact information will also be available by phone for those applicators who do not have access to the Internet. This is a Voluntary Notification Project. No regulatory action will be taken against […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2007) A lawsuit was filed in federal court on Monday by fishing and environmental groups seeking to force the federal government to uphold five-year-old rules aimed to keep toxic agricultural pesticides from endangering salmon and steelhead. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, petitions the court to order the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to identify measures needed to protect salmon from the pesticides and to complete required consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NMFS has failed to carry out these measures first ordered in 2002 by federal court. It was ordered to consult with the EPA to develop permanent methods for protecting salmon and steelhead from 54 toxic pesticides found in west coast salmon streams. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, the NMFS is required to complete such actions within 90 days. “Apparently what it takes to get this administration to do its job under [the Endangered Species Act] is to have someone there enforcing the law every step of the way,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental public interest law firm representing the advocates. Pesticides have been detected in every major salmon stream in the Pacific […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2007) European Parliament members voted in favor of tighter pesticide legislation Tuesday, passing the first hurdle to enacting laws that would protect the EU’s most vulnerable communities, ensure high quality food, and prevent residues from accumulating in the environment. The European Commission’s proposal places a general ban on aerial spraying, heavily restricts the usage of pesticides in public areas, and plans to cut the use of “active substances of very high concern” by at least half by 2013. A majority of EU Member States need to approve the changes before the package can come into effect, and government representatives will meet on November 26 to debate the proposals.“This is something consumers want. They don’t want poison on their plates, they don’t want poison in their environment,” said German Green Party MEP Hiltrud Breyer. By targeting the most toxic chemicals and the areas that face the highest risk from pesticide exposure, the proposed measures would cut total usage by 5 or 6 percent in the EU, where 300,000 tons of pesticides are sold each year. The EU produces one quarter of the world’s supply of pesticides, 230,000 tons each year, despite it only accounting for 4 per […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2007) The European Space Agency (ESA) has announced its support for a new initiative that would utilize satellite images to develop data that will be used in the registration process for agricultural pesticides across Europe. Currently “efficiency data” from field trials is required for pesticide registration in the European Union (EU). Data in the same climatic zones across the EU can be used for registration. The new service, Site Similarity Certification, has been developed in the framework of an ESA-supported project aimed at strengthening the European capacity to provide geo-information services based on Earth observation data. It is expected that the system will reduce the number of pesticide field trials across the EU. The national members of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), which currently registers all pesticides to be used within the EU, also collects “pesticide efficiency” data from field trails across defined zones of comparable climates across Europe. This system allows data generated in one country to support the registration of pesticides in another country within the same climatic zone. Site Similarity Certification (SSC) merges satellite imagery with conventional physical and biological data such as temperature, precipitation, soil characteristics and recurring natural […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2007) President Bush signed the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA II) into effect last Tuesday, renewing and amending the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA). Environmentalists, government officials and industry representatives hailed the passage of the law, marking a rare consensus among the groups. The Senate passed the bill (S. 1983) without opposition on August 2, and the House of Representatives gave its unanimous approval on September 24. The renewal legislation will extend funding through 2012 for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which originally received $200 million in registration fees in 2003. Environmental groups and trade organizations called Congressional passage of the act a victory for cooperative public policy development, led by the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), CropLife America and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “This is a win-win-win proposition,” said Phil Klein, CSPA’s senior vice president of legislative and public affairs. “The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs gets long-term stable funding. The environmental and farm worker communities get increased funding for worker protection, shorter timelines for reduced risk pesticides, a comprehensive review of pesticides every 15 years, and additional grant money for farm worker certification. And industry benefits from predictable timelines for bringing […]

(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, October 4, 2007) On September 28, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed approval of the pesticide methyl iodide, a highly toxic replacement chemical for the ozone-depleting methyl bromide (also called iodomethane), after more than 50 prominent scientists objected that the chemical was too dangerous. The decision surprised environmentalists who assumed the pesticide would most likely be registered despite opposition. According to EPA, it now “will address recent questions prompted by the pending registration of iodomethane.” On September 24, 2007, scientists across the country — including six Nobel prize winners, alarmed by the prospect of registering methyl iodide as a pesticide, issued a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson urging the Agency not to sanction the broad use of methyl iodide now or at any time. “The gratifying thing is that EPA has been responsive to people who are really concerned about this,” Robert Bergman, a University of California at Berkeley professor who organized the scientists’ letter, told the Associated Press. The letter criticized EPA’s scientific analysis, calling for an independent scientific review of the agency’s assessment. Methyl iodide and methyl bromide are injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne pests. […]

(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 28, 2007) EPA is due to make a decision on methyl iodide, a highly reactive and carcinogenic chemical, for use in crop production as a soil fumigant. Scientists across the country are alarmed by the prospect of registering methyl iodide as a pesticide, and fifty-four chemists and physicians from across the country issued a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson Monday urging the Agency not to sanction the broad use of methyl iodide now or at any time.“[W]e are concerned that pregnant women and the fetus, children, the elderly, farm workers, and other people living near application sites would be at serious risk if methyl iodide is permitted for use in agriculture,” said the group in the letter. In the chemical community methyl iodide is a well-known cancer hazard due to its ability to mutate DNA, and the scientists are fearful that methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility will expose many people to harm if the chemical is used in agriculture. Methyl iodide and methyl bromide are injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne pests. Because of the high application rates and gaseous nature of these chemicals, they drift […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 26, 2007) In a Federal Register Notice issued on September 21, 2007, the U.S. EPA clarified the distinction between devices and pesticides by stating that ion-generating equipment will now be regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as a pesticide, if the equipment uses electrodes to emit ions (of silver or other substances) for pesticidal purposes. The notice outlines the timeline and process for manufacturers, sellers and other affected parties to come into compliance with the clarified requirements of FIFRA. In 2005, the EPA was made aware of equipment incorporating substances, such as silver and copper that, through the use of electrodes, release the ions of the substances for the purpose of preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating a pest (e.g., bacteria or algae). Since such devices incorporate substances that accomplish a pesticidal function, the agency has determined that they are to be considered a pesticide for the purposes of FIFRA and must therefore be registered prior to sale or distribution as outlined in the federal notice issued. Section 2(h) of FIFRA defines a device as “any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) which is intended for trapping, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest.” […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 24, 2007) Seven representatives wrote to the EPA last Thursday, urging the government agency to act promptly to identify and screen products for dangerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The letter asks EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to provide definite deadlines in the testing and control of endocrine disruptors, which are substances that interfere with the normal functioning of the endocrine system, responsible for hormonal and developmental processes. EPA’s regulation of these substances that mimic or alter natural hormonal processes has been slow and lacks direction to meet set goals promptly, according to the U.S. Representatives. “To date, EPA’s efforts in this area have been characterized by missed deadlines, prolonged delays, and inadequate incorporation of public input,” according to the letter from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California). Ranking Minority Member on the Committee Tom Davis (R-Virginia); Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Wayne Gilchrest (R-Maryland), and Jim Moran (D-Virginia); and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) also signed the letter to EPA. Advocates say that EPA’s lack of urgency on endocrine disruptors leaves the American population and future generations at risk for adverse health effects from exposure to these substances through […]