02
Mar
(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 […]
Posted in Chemicals, Pesticide Regulation, Water | 1 Comment »
07
Feb
(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 […]
Posted in Pesticide Regulation, State/Local, Washington | No Comments »
05
Feb
(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 […]
Posted in Pesticide Regulation | No Comments »
24
Jan
(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 […]
Posted in Pesticide Regulation | No Comments »
23
Jan
(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 […]
Posted in Pesticide Regulation | No Comments »
17
Jan
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 […]
Posted in California, Pesticide Regulation, State/Local | No Comments »
