(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2007) The Center for Biological Diversity today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA). EPA has registered and allowed the use of 60 toxic pesticides in habitats for nearly a dozen San Francisco Bay Area endangered species without determining whether the chemicals jeopardize their existence. “Ending the use of known poisons in habitat for our most endangered wildlife is an appropriate 100th birthday tribute to Rachel Carson, who alerted us to the hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals almost half a century ago,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. “Unfortunately the EPA has not learned from her legacy and still has no plan to adequately assess impacts while registering and approving pesticide uses that pose a clear and present danger both to imperiled species and human health.” At least 61 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients were applied in Bay Area counties from 1999 through 2005 ”” over 8.5 million pounds annually. Actual pesticide use may have been several times this amount since most home and commercial pesticide use is not reported to the state. Under the Bush administration, EPA has consistently failed to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2007) According to InsideEPA, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), is likely to design and initiate a set of long-term studies on the toxicological properties of so-called nanosilver, a booming part of the nanomaterials commercial market about which little health data is available. The nomination list includes a request from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a variety of studies on nanosilver and nanogold particles, including nanoscale materials characterization; metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies; acute, subacute and subchronic toxicity studies; and mechanistic studies to assess the role of size and surface coating on biological disposition and toxicity. The term nanotechnology refers to research and technology that manipulates matter at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular levels using a length scale of approximately one to one hundred nanometers in any dimension. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, or around one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair. Nanotechnology allows certain materials to have different molecular organizations and properties because at their tiny size, they have far more surface area relative to their mass than their larger counterparts. Silver, for instance, has been known for years for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2007) On Friday, May 18, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposed rules to sharply reduce fumigant air emissions that contribute to smog. Acting under a federal court order, DPR will begin allocating fumigant use in areas with poor air quality. The proposed rules make California the first state to dictate how and where several widely used fumigants can be applied on fields statewide, said Glenn Brank, spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. The directive, which the agency has the authority to set, centers on fumigants – gases fruit and vegetable growers use to kill pests in the soil before planting. The chemicals have long been blamed for being part of the state’s air pollution problem because they cause smog-forming gases when they evaporate from fields. The rules also would eliminate some fumigation methods that permit high emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. While farm chemicals comprise only about 2 percent of California’s overall VOC emissions, pesticides are among the top ten VOC sources in the San Joaquin Valley and Ventura air attainment areas. The Southeast Desert area also fails to meet pesticide VOC goals. The Department predicts its plan […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2007) Americans, whether we know it or not, are increasingly having imported food for dinner. While concerns over international agricultural practices, including pesticide use, have peaked recently, food imports are making their way with little inspection into the U.S. marketplace. USA Today reports approximately 25,000 shipments of foods regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arrive daily from over 100 countries. Shipments have increased by more than four times and doubled in value since 1996 according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. FDA has not been able to keep up with this pace. It is reported that FDA inspects about 1% of the imported foods it regulates, down from an already low 8% in 1992. Too understaffed and underfinanced to inspect the vast majority of imports, this signals a large green light for produce and seafood to enter the U.S. market without having to sweat inspections (meat and poultry products are regulated separately through the U.S. Department of Agriculture). “The public thinks the food supply is much more protected than it is,” William Hubbard, a former associate commissioner who left in 2005 after 27 years at the agency, told the New York Times. “If […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2007) A recent study completed by the Center for Public Integrity finds that industry, including pesticide companies, spent over $12 million on trips for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees between October 1997 and March 2006. During that time, EPA officials took more than 10,000 privately sponsored trips totaling more than 40,000 days ”” a total of 110 years ”” away from their offices. While some of those trips were legitimate fact-finding missions paid for by companies, local governments, nonprofit organizations, universities and international environmental groups, many were funded by those with a financial stake in EPA decision-making, including groups and companies that receive EPA contracts and grants, groups lobbying the federal government and companies with ties to federally recognized toxic waste sites, according to disclosure documents. Although EPA’s authority is limited to the U.S., more than $6.6 million was spent on trips to other countries. Agency employees took more than $1 million in trips to France, Germany and Italy during the study period. East Asia was also a common destination – more than $1.4 million was spent on trips to China, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand. “While EPA is a domestic agency, it has international responsibilities,” […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2007) Two members of Oregon’s Congress have sponsored bills that, if passed, would provide schools with a no-spray buffer zone during the academic year. Among other requirements, the bills would establish separate buffers around schools for aerial spraying, backpack pesticide applications, and additional buffers around roads servicing schools during commuting hours. Senate Bill 20 (SB 20) and House Bill 2978 are sponsored by State Senator Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, and Representative Paul Holvey, D-Eugene, respectively. SB 20, the stronger of the two bills, is currently the focus of media and organizers on both sides. It is currently being reviewed by the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee, which will determine whether it should be introduced to the entire Senate. The two bills come after a Merck Foundation-funded study by Oregon Toxics Alliance and Forestland Dwellers to map pesticide applications near schools in Lane County. The study found some schools were near areas treated with aerial applications and a logging area sprayed adjacent to athletic fields. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has reported drift incidents at schools causing illness and at least one school closure (as has happened in other states). The proposed buffer zones, according to Lisa Arkin, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2007) In the April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 7068-17071), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has once again proposed a rule that would weaken the regulation of pesticide-treated food packaging. The rule seeks to exempt from the definitions of “pesticide chemical” and “pesticide chemical residue” under section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food packaging (e.g., paper and paperboard, coatings, adhesives, and polymers) that is treated with a pesticide. Beyond Pesticides is encouraging the public to oppose the rule. The agency previously proposed the rule as a “Direct Final Rule” on December 6, 2006, circumventing the public comment process. After Beyond Pesticides objected to the use of this process, EPA withdrew the rule in a February 2, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 4963). This time around, it is a “Proposed Rule” that is otherwise identical to the earlier version. Pesticide-treated food packaging is a potential threat to the public’s health. The average consumer is unaware of the potential dangers associated with pesticide food residues from packaging and will not be alerted in the absence of labeling practices that disclose this information. The proposed rule comes at a time when the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2007) A broad coalition of public interest, non-profit and labor groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have issued a letter calling the international nanotechnology community to join them in rejecting a voluntary risk assessment framework. The framework, developed under the leadership of industry in conjunction with the Environmental Defense Fund, is billed as flawed and as a public relations campaign. Nanotechnology, or nanotech, describes the design, production, and application of engineered nano-sized materials from known chemicals such as silver, carbon, iron, or titanium. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, or around one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair. Concern over nanotech products comes from the fact that despite nano-sized chemicals have different properties compared with their bulk-sized counterparts, they are not being adequately regulated and may potentially pose health and environmental risks that are not being properly assessed. The letter states: We, the undersigned, submit this open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large. We are a coalition of public interest, non-profit and labor organizations that actively work on nanotechnology issues, including workplace safety, consumer health, environmental welfare, and broader societal impacts. DuPont Chemical Company (DuPont) and Environmental Defense (ED) jointly have proposed a […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2007) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in an April 10, 2007, press release that it is seeking damages from the Clorox Company for violating pesticide regulations. Fines were levied for multiple violations that involved mislabeled pesticides intended for export. A fine of $177,300 is based on 38 alleged violations involving unregistered and mislabeled disinfectant bleach, originally intended for export to Asia. The bottles, according to the complaint, were missing appropriate directions for use and did not bear the required wording, “Not Registered for Use in the United States.” The bottles were discovered during an audit of the company, which was prompted by inconsistencies between production and distribution in the Clorox Company’s 2005 yearly report to EPA of its export-only, unregistered products. According to Clorox spokesman Dan Staublin, “The bleach in question was part of a charitable donation that Clorox made to two Los Angeles nonprofit organizations.” “Companies must ensure that all pesticides meant solely for export do not enter into the U.S. market,” said Enrique Manzanilla, EPA’s Community and Ecosystems Division director for the Pacific Southwest. “Selling or distributing unregistered, mislabeled pesticides is a serious violation that can result in harm to public health and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2007) Responding to concerns about the state’s polluted waterways, Florida will become the first in the nation to enact a statewide restriction on the content of fertilizers. If passed, fertilizers sold in Florida must be no- or low-phosphate. Phosphorus, along with nitrogen, is a pollutant that contributes to algae blooms, fish kills, and dead zones, all of which alter already fragile ecosystems. The high phosphate levels are due in large part to Americans’ affinity for heavily-fertilized, brilliantly green lawns, golf courses, and recreational areas. The proposed rule was designed in response to a number of local fertilizer restrictions in the state; rather than deal with the confusion of regulating a wide variety of local standards, the Department of Agriculture’s rule will clarify and standardize the movement to reduce pollution from lawn fertilizers. According to Richard Budell, director of water resources protection for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, “One of the things we’re trying to prevent is a patchwork of local ordinances that would be almost impossible to enforce.” Local regulations include a similar rule that has been in place in Wellington since 2000, one in Crystal River than allows only slow-release fertilizers, and a […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2007) A committee of experts advising the United Nations Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has recommended adding endosulfan and tributyl tin compounds (TBT) to a list of substances that are considered so harmful they can only be traded in special circumstances. On March 27, 2007, the United Nations said that the toxic chemicals would only be allowed to be exported to countries that have explicitly chosen to permit them, a measure aimed at protecting humans and the environment in developing countries. Endosulfan, a chemical sprayed onto food crops and cotton, and TBT, used in “antifouling paint” for ships’ hulls, are already banned in many countries. However, they may be traded freely in countries lacking tight environmental regulations. According to David Santillo who works at the research center for Greenpeace at Britain’s Exeter University, “It’s great that these two have been added to the list so countries have the choice whether to import them or not.” Endosulfan has been linked with testicular cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and defects in male sex organs. According to a recent study conducted in Costa Rica’s mountain forests, findings show that surprisingly high concentrations of pesticides are […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2007) In a press release last week, industry group CropLife America (CLA) announced the formation of its Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), along with another industry leader, the Chemical Producers and Distributors Association (CPDA). JITF’s creation comes in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement that certain pesticide “inert” ingredients will be subject to regulatory action. EPA’s final rule, published in the Federal Register (71 FR 45415), states, “EPA is revoking 130 inert ingredient tolerance exemptions because insufficient data are available to the agency to make the safety determination required by FFDCA [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] section 408(c)(2).” The rule is slated to go into full effect August 9, 2008. JITF is designed to respond to data gaps that might result in the revocation of some or all of those 130 inert ingredients. JITF currently consists of 29 companies, not necessarily all of which are members of CLA or CPDA, but all of which must prove that they are registrants or inert ingredient suppliers. Information on JITF’s work available to interested parties outside of these qualifications is extremely limited. As Ray McAllister, CLA regulatory and policy leader said in a recent press release, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2007) On March 12, 2007, all state agencies regulating pesticide use were asked by Beyond Pesticides to prohibit the marketing of pesticide products with a new label that displays the Red Cross symbol because it violates federal pesticide law and misleads consumers on product safety. Clorox says on some of its new soon-to-be released pesticide labels that it will donate up to $1 million to the Red Cross when people purchase the products. Last month, a dozen groups petitioned EPA to stop the release of the new labels, which they say will mislead consumers and violates federal law prohibiting such labeling. According to a letter sent by Beyond Pesticides, “The use of the Red Cross symbol implies an endorsement of the product and may imply an endorsement of its safety to many, which may mislead users and contribute to product misuse.” While Clorox products are mistakenly viewed as safe chemical products without potential hazards, they do contain toxic materials that must be handled very carefully. Some of the products require that they be diluted with water and warn that they can cause irritation of the eyes, skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal tract. Exposure to high levels can […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2007) In a victory for Alaska’s environmental community, the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has denied the Alaska Railroad Corporation’s (ARRC) application to spray herbicides, citing water quality concerns. The decision effectively maintains a record of over 20 years of non-chemical vegetation management of Alaska’s railways. ARRC submitted the application to spray herbicides last year to DEC. According to DEC’s documents, the proposed treatment area included approximately 500 miles of track and 100 miles of rail yard. The spray mixture proposed would have been comprised of three pesticide products: Razor Pro (active ingredient glyphosate*), Solution Water Soluble (dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D*), and Oust Extra (sulfometuron methyl and metsulfuron methyl). The mixture would have also contained the drift retardant Alenza (proprietary polyvinyl polymer). ARRC claims on its website it has “tried to control vegetation along its track with non-chemical methods including mechanical brush-cutting, manual labor, steam and burning since 1983. Despite these efforts, the volume and location of vegetation along the track has resulted in stiff fines from the Federal Railroad Administration, the railroad’s federal regulatory agency.” Over one thousand written comments were filed with DEC, and oral testimony was given during the public participation process […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2007) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect the public from exposure to two highly toxic pesticides, dichlorvos (DDVP) and carbaryl. The chemicals are found in common household products that have been demonstrated in laboratory studies to cause severe neurological and developmental harm, according to a lawsuit filed February 28, 2007, by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The action charges that EPA has missed its congressionally mandated deadline to finalize a comprehensive reevaluation of carbaryl, failed for 20 years to finish an expedited review of DDVP, and failed to respond to a petition calling for a ban on the chemicals. “EPA is needlessly jeopardizing the health of our children,” said Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., an NRDC senior scientist. “The agency should ban DDVP and carbaryl. There are safer alternatives on the market today, and we urge consumers to avoid any products that use either of these two pesticides.” DDVP*, currently used in pest strips, aerosol sprays and pet collars, is one of a class of the most dangerous pesticides on the market, called organophosphates, which derive from World War II-era nerve agents. Studies have shown DDVP causes cancer in laboratory animals. California lists DDVP […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2007) The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) recently released its latest annual summary detailing pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply. The data, from 2005, reveals approximately two-thirds of sampled foods contained one or more pesticides at detectable levels. For the 2005 report, PDP sampled fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, soybeans, wheat, milk, heavy cream, pork, bottled water and drinking water. A total of 14,749 samples were tested for various insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and growth regulators. Twelve states reported data to comprise the report: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Excluding drinking water, 84 percent of samples originated within the United States. Foods most likely to be consumed by infants and children are analyzed to provide data that is used in the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. The data is used in this context to assess dietary exposure to pesticide residues by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Overall results show that, excluding drinking water samples, 36 percent of samples had more than one detectable pesticide, 30 percent had one detectable pesticide, and 34 percent did not have detectable levels of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2007) On January 19, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessed the second highest penalty for violating worker protection provisions of U.S. pesticide laws to an agricultural company based in Puerto Rico. According to the EPA, Martex Farms has been ordered to pay a total penalty of $92,620 by EPA’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Martex has been found liable for 170 alleged violations of EPA’s worker protection standards. The farm owners also failed to display specific pesticide application information for its agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, failed to provide them with decontamination materials, and failed to provide handlers with personal protective equipment. The recent decision, rendered by the ALJ, underscores EPA’s position that failing to provide agricultural workers and pesticide handlers with specific pesticide application information on the same application constitutes separate, independent violations. In addition, this ruling reaffirms the requirement that every handler applying pesticides must be provided with personal protection equipment. In January 2005, EPA filed a complaint against Martex for improperly using pesticides and endangering worker safety. Martex Farms grows, processes, packs and ships tropical fruits and plants. The family-owned business was established in 1989, and employs hundreds of people at its numerous […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2007) Due to opposition from Beyond Pesticides and citizen activists, EPA has withdrawn a rule that would have weakened the regulation of pesticide-treated food packaging. The rule sought to exempt from the definitions of “pesticide chemical” and “pesticide chemical residue�? under section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food packaging (e.g., paper and paperboard, coatings, adhesives, and polymers) that is treated with a pesticide. Many consumers took the opportunity to voice outrage at the notion that pesticides are allowed in food packaging products. Pesticide-treated food packaging is a potential threat to the public’s health. The average consumer is unaware of the potential dangers associated with pesticide food residues from packaging and will not be alerted if labeling is not required. The proposed rule comes at a time when the agency has received increased applications for a wider variety of pesticide treated food packaging products. Due to this trend, Beyond Pesticides feels weaker regulation is inappropriate, citing existing gaps in the pesticide regulatory system, and has asked EPA and the Food and Drug Administration to require full reviews for pesticidal action of packaging, residues on food, and non-toxic strategies for food packaging. The […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2007) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the display of promotions for causes or charities on labels of pesticides, disinfectants and other commercial poisons, according to agency documents released on Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result, these products may now feature tie-ins with charitable organizations and marketing slogans, including the Red Cross symbol, on their labels. Pesticide and disinfectant labels are intended to be devoted primarily to consumer safety and usage information. The policy change came in response to a request from the Clorox Company to advertise a pledge that it will donate a small percentage of the retail purchase price of its bleach products to the Red Cross. EPA dropped earlier objections following a meeting in July between top agency and corporate officials, according to an EPA briefing provided in early December to state pesticide agency officials. At Clorox’s urging, EPA will allow placement of the phrases “Dedicated to a healthier world” and “Help Clorox raise $1M for the Red Cross,” as well as the use of the Red Cross logo on both the front and back panels, on five Clorox products. “Thanks to EPA, even the most […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2007) Citing an extensive body of literature illustrating the concern over related human and environmental health effects, recent commentary in Environmental Health Perspectives continues the call for improvements in pesticide regulation and “inert” ingredient disclosure. The authors, Caroline Cox, Ph.D., research director at the Center for Environmental Health, and Michael Surgan, Ph.D., chief scientist in the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, highlight the regulatory weaknesses that allow the “inert” ingredients in pesticide formulations to go largely untested. In response, they are calling for a pesticide registration process that requires full assessment of formulations and full disclosure on product labels. “Inert” refers to ingredients in a pesticide formulation that have been added to the active ingredient to serve a variety of functions, such as acting as solvents, surfactants, or preservatives. However, the common misconception is that “inert” ingredients are physically, chemically, or biologically inactive substances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that “many consumers have a misleading impression of the term ”˜inert ingredient,’ believing it to mean water or other harmless ingredients.” The commentary provides evidence that “inerts” are often far from harmless and need to be examined closely for environmental, wildlife […]

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) will be able to step up pesticide regulation this year due to a significant increase in its 2007 budget, resulting in the largest availability of funding in fifteen years and more resources to direct to enforcement and education of pesticide laws. DPR’s 2007 budget grew by $3 million, thanks to a law passed last year allowing the collection of fees from wholesale pesticide sales. DPR’s $69 million budget is fully funded by fees imposed on pesticide sellers and similar funds, rather than the state’s general fund. Until last year’s law included large-scale commercial sellers like Wal-Mart, Costco, and Home Depot, revenues were mostly derived from agricultural sellers. This is DPR’s largest budget since it’s inception in 1991, and is comparable to the inflation-adjusted budget from 2001, before California’s severe budget cuts. Among other specific uses for the new funds will be the hiring of six new enforcement officials, and a four percent increase in enforcement funds to county agricultural commissioners. Grants will be renewed for the first time since 2003, potentially helping growers find alternatives to methyl bromide, an internationally phased-out fumigant of which the United States is annually granted usage by members […]