(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2014) The U.S. Justice Department sentenced Steven A. Murray, a pesticide operator with Bio-Tech Management in Pelham, Georgia, to two years in prison last week after as a result of charges related to a cover up illegal pesticide applications made at over 100 nursing homes. Mr. Murray pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy, three counts of false statements, two counts of mail fraud, and 10 counts of unlawful use of a registered pesticide. In addition to being sentenced to two years in prison, Murray was subject to a $7,500 fine. His company was placed on three years of probation and also required to pay a $50,000 fine.

From October 2005 to June 2009, Mr. Murray and Bio-Tech provided monthly pest control services to hundreds of nursing homes in several southern states including Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Alabama by spraying pesticides in and around their clients’ facilities. Bio-Tech employees routinely  applied  the pesticide Termidor indoors, contrary to the  manufacturer’s  label  instructions, and then created false service reports to conceal that illegal use. After the Georgia Department of Agriculture made inquiries regarding Bio-Tech’s illegal use of Termidor and other pesticides, Mr. Murray directed several of his Bio-Tech employees to alter company service reports with the intent to obstruct the investigation.  Mr. Murray and his co-conspirators allegedly falsified service reports to say that they used CyKick T, a pesticide that does not exist. The indictment goes on to allege that Bio-Tech sent invoices through the U.S. Mail to their clients to solicit payment for the unlawful pesticide applications.

“This case is particularly disturbing because of the defendants’ intentional disregard for the well-being of a vulnerable group of victims whose safety was entirely in the defendants’ hands,” said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Moore for the Middle District of Georgia. “This sentence is a just punishment for them and a stern warning to others who might be similarly tempted in the future.”

Fipronil, the active ingredient in Termidor, is a systemic pesticide that has been linked to a number of adverse health effects in humans. The chemical is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a Group C, possible human carcinogen, based on increases in thyroid tumors in rats. After exposure to the fipronil, the chemical is rapidly metabolized in the body and widely distributed in tissues where significant amounts of residues can remain in fat and fatty tissues, especially when exposed to high or chronic doses. Acute exposure to fipronil results in headache, nausea, dizziness and weakness. However, studies link chronic exposure to neurotoxicity, cancer, and endocrine disruption.

The non-labeled use of this pesticide is extremely concerning, given that Mr. Murray and his company exposed the elderly, a sensitive population group, to potentially both the acute and chronic impacts of fipronil. The elderly are also more likely to be on medication, and very little is known about the synergistic effects of combining pesticide exposure and pharmaceuticals.

“The defendant exposed patients to harmful pesticides which jeopardizing their health and safety and tried to cover it up by submitting false reports. EPA and its partner agencies are committed to holding these kinds of dangerous actions accountable to the law,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Georgia. Before the plea deal, Mr. Murray faced a prison sentence of over 650 years and $10 million in fines. However, while charges of conspiracy and false statements carry a five year prison term, and mail fraud is punishable by up to 20 years, unlawful use of a pesticide only carries a jail sentence of up to 30 days. This vast disparity highlights a serious flaw in the United States’ current pesticide laws. If Mr. Murray had not tried to cover up his illegal applications, he may have only been charged with the 10 counts of unlawful use of a pesticide, for a total of a mere 300 day potential jail sentence. It was only Murray’s abhorrent attempts to cover up this gross violation that gave him the prison sentence. Given U.S. Attorney’s strong statements regarding the risk Mr. Murray put nursing home residents, it is evident that the current punishment for pesticide violations is simply not an adequate deterrent to the illegal use of these products.

Beyond Pesticides has a long history of advocating for safer approaches to pest control in nursing homes and other health care facilities. In 2008, Beyond Pesticides and the Maryland Pesticide Network (MPN) released a report titled Taking Toxics Out of Maryland’s Health Care Sector, documenting the practices and policies health care facilities can take to eliminate toxic pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides and MPN continue to work closely with D.C-Baltimore area hospitals to encourage pest control practices that eliminate toxic pesticide exposure, and keep with the medical profession’s basic tenet of “first, do no harm.” Additional information on Beyond Pesticides health care facilities project can be found on the Healthy Hospitals program page.

Source: AL.com, United States Department of Justice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, September 2, 2014) U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week asking them a poignant question: Why didn’t the human health risk assessment of Dow’s newest 2,4-D-based herbicide apply the ten-fold safety factor required by national law to protect children and infants?

The question is a good one and events leading up to it began back in April 2014, when EPA opened up a public comment period for Dow AgroSciences’s application to expand the use of its 2,4-D choline salt herbicide, known as Enlist Duo ®, on 2,4-D-tolerant corn and soybeans. This application was the next step in ushering in a new wave of genetically-engineered (GE) crops sought to replace the quickly waning glyphosate-resistant or Roundup Ready ® varieties.

As EPA described on its Enlist-Duo ® webpage, “Weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides and are posing a problem for farmers. If [the Enlist Duo ® application is] finalized, this action would provide an additional tool to reduce the spread of glyphosate resistant weeds.”

In other words, because of the overuse of glyphosate on GE glyphosate-resistant crops and the resulting development of weeds across the U.S. showing resistance to glyphosate, chemically-dependent farmers remain desperate for another chemical. The application for approval of the new Enlist Duo ® uses follows on the tail of a similar application from Dow to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate the GE corn and soybean seeds developed to withstand application of Enlist Duo ®.

Although a new pesticide-use application and registration requires several important components, one of the primary components is the human health risk assessment. In this document, EPA must review the proposed pesticide’s use and examine it against the known toxicological hazards of the chemical and its exposure (ranging from dietary to occupational) risks.

Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), these toxicological reviews and risk assessments must also consider the increased risks that pesticides pose to children and infants and apply a ten-fold safety factor in many instances.

As Rep. Waxman’s letter reminds the EPA, “The ten-fold safety factor] resulted from a recommendation in a report by the National Research Council that ”˜the 10-fold factor traditionally used by EPA and FDA for fetal developmental toxicity should also be considered when there is evidence of postnatal developmental toxicity and when data from toxicity testing relative to children are incomplete.’”

EPA’s human health risk assessment for Enlist Duo ® decided not to apply the ten-fold safety factor and found that “the toxicology database is adequate to assess this [Enlist Duo’s] proposed use” and that “[t]here are no residual uncertainties for pre-and/or postnatal toxicity.”

Troubled by this finding, Rep. Waxman enlisted the expertise of Dr. Philip Landrigan, the former chair of the National Research council Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. According to the Representative’s letter, after reviewing the EPA’s report and, specifically, the EPA’s justification for not using the ten-fold child-protective safety factor, Dr. Landrigan concluded that the database for assessing potentially harmful health endpoints of 2,4-D was thin and appeared to be based entirely on old studies. Dr. Landrigan also pointed out, among other issues, that it appeared that the developmental toxicity data relied on by EPA to justify its finding consisted of only two studies, a 1983 study on pregnant rats and a 1990 study on pregnant rabbits.

To remedy these deficiencies, Rep. Waxman’s asked the EPA for a better and more complete explanation of both the studies used, assumptions based on those studies, and decisions to exclude certain exposure routes in the assessment.

Right to Be Concerned About 2,4-D

Rep. Waxman, who has long advocated for improved  protections from pesticides,  has every right to be concerned about the EPA’s seemingly incomplete and unsubstantiated reasoning for waiving the ten-fold safety factor. A chemical first registered in the late 1940s, 2,4-D is infamously known as one of the two ingredients in Agenct Orange -a  mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D  used by the military to defoliate Vietnam’s forests during the Vietnam War. Both health and environmental effects of this dangerous chemical have been scientifically documented, yet fail to be integrated into the EPA’s outdated and industry-skewed risk assessment protocols.

As noted in Beyond Pesticides’ comments submitted to the EPA on Enlist Duo ®, no decision should be made on the chemical before the final assessments on all human and ecological effects of the other 2,4-D forms are completed, given the expected expansion of 2,4-D use patterns. Similarly, a thorough FQPA analysis needs to be conducted given that dietary residues and exposures are expected to increase and have not been properly analyzed.

Beyond Pesticides applauds Rep. Waxman’s effort to scrutinize EPA analysis and call for the appropriate application of important child and infant protection standards against dangerous pesticides. Visit our GE webpage to find out other ways to stop the damaging health and environmental effects of GE crops and advance organic practices as an alternative!

Source: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy  and Commerce

Photo Source: Image courtesy of Cornwall Tourism

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2014) Environmentalists issued a legal petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday calling for the protection of the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the  Endangered Species Act (ESA). Monarch butterflies, a striking and familiar symbol of beauty and nature in the U.S., have had their population decline by a staggering 90 percent in the past two decades alone, most likely due to a significant loss of habitat of more than 165 million acres – an area about the size of Texas -as well as nearly a third of their summer breeding grounds.

Part of the decline of monarch butterflies  stems from the loss of milkweed, a native plant where the butterflies lay their eggs and is their main food source. Although little use to farmers, milkweed is an important plant to butterflies, wasps, and bees. A recent study attributed the disappearance of milkweed plants primarily to the use of genetically-engineered (GE) corn and soybean crops. The widespread adoption of GE agriculture and the ever-growing use of herbicides are contributing extensively to the loss of milkweed areas. Scientists also point to the prolific use of herbicides in the Midwest eliminating these plants, and found that 70% of the losses of milkweed between 1995 and 2013 were located in agricultural areas. This study adds weight to previous reports linking GE crops, as well as climate change, to the decline of butterfly populations.

“Monarchs are in a deadly free fall and the threats they face are now so large in scale that Endangered Species Act protection is needed sooner rather than later, while there is still time to reverse the severe decline in the heart of their range,” said Lincoln Brower, Ph.D., in a Tuesday press release. Dr. Brower is a preeminent monarch researcher and conservationist, who has been studying the species since 1954.

The ESA allows species to be listed as “threatened” when they are at risk of becoming endangered in a significant portion of their range. This would allow for the protection of the species but also still allow the continuation of activities that promote their conservation, such as scientific research and monitoring, citizen monitoring and tagging, and non-commercial classroom and household rearing of monarchs for educational purposes.

The petition was issued to the Secretary of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety as co-lead petitioners. They are joined by the Xerces Society and Dr. Brower.

Monarch butterflies make their way from the U.S. and Canada, usually arriving in Mexico around the beginning of November, clustering by the thousands in the boughs of fir trees. Although the same trip occurs every year, no individual butterfly makes it twice, as the butterfly’s life span is too short. How the migration route lives on in the butterflies’ collective memory is an enduring scientific mystery. Researchers note that to compensate for the continued loss of habitat, refuges of milkweed must be set up to provide a source of food for butterflies.

The decline of monarch habitats is not the only environmental effect linked to the pervasive use of highly toxic herbicides and insecticides. For example, the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant “super weeds” is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory of herbicide use, according to a study conducted by Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup formulation, is one of the most widely used conventional pesticide active ingredients in the U.S. And, similar to monarch butterflies, honey bees and other wild bees have also been experiencing a drastic decline in numbers that has been linked to the prevalent use of neonicotinoids, which the Tuesday petition also touches on.

One way to combat these problems is to initiate organic farming practices. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. To attract beneficial insects like monarchs and protect their habitats in your own backyard, there are several steps you can take. Like any other living organisms, pollinators need food, water, and shelter in order to thrive. For more information, see Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind. You can also visit the BEE Protective Habitat Guide and Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity for more ways in which you can protect our pollinator friends.

Pollinators are a vital part of our environment and a barometer for healthy ecosystems. Let’s all do our part to BEE Protective of these critical species. Please visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage to learn more about our efforts to save pollinators and what you can do to help.

Source: Newsweek

Photo Source: Diane St John (Durham CT)

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2014) It’s back to school time again, which for many of our readers and parents across the country means the unnerving possibility of hazardous pesticide exposure at school from well-intentioned but misguided attempts to create a germ and pest-free environment. Because children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure due to their small size and developing organ systems, using toxic chemicals to get rid of pests and germs harms students much more than it helps. Fortunately, parents and teachers have many options for safer techniques and strategies to implement a pest management program at schools without relying on these toxic chemicals. Additionally, schools can further their students’ education beyond the lessons of the text book by providing habitat for wildlife and growing organic food in a school garden.  By going organic, your child’s school can become a model for communities across the nation.

Beyond Pesticides has put together this back-to-school checklist of programs and steps you can take to ensure that you are sending your kids back to a healthier and safer environment.

Get Organized and Improve Your School’s Pest Management Program

Whether you’re a parent, community activist, landscaper, school administrator or employee, use these steps to help successfully eliminate harmful pesticides from your local school. For more details, see our School Organizing guide.

1. Identify the school’s pest management policy. You may be surprised to learn that your school is already making strides to prevent pesticide use in your school district, or that there are state or local policies in place that help safeguard your child from pesticides. Contact the appropriate school personnel to find out if and how applicable policies are being implemented by identifying what pest management controls the school is using, the pesticides used, and the notification program.
2. Educate yourself and evaluate the program. Use Beyond Pesticides’ resources to learn about toxic chemical use and arm yourself with information about alternatives. See a Webinar featuring Beyond Pesticides’ executive director, Jay Feldman, Webinar: Effective Policies to Reduce Exposures to Pesticides in Schools.
3. Organize the school community. Identify and contact friends and neighbors, teachers, staff, individuals and organizations who care about pesticide use at your school. It’s much easier to change policies with allies! Once you have a core group of individuals, develop and present a proposed policy for the school district to adopt.
4. Work with school decision-makers. Contact appropriate school officials and ask for endorsement of the proposed policy. It’s important that your organic pest management program include a written policy adopted by the school district’s board to ensure that the program is institutionalized and will continue to flourish years after key organizers leave the district.
5. Become a watchdog and establish an integrated or organic pest management committee. Make sure the school district is on track to improve its practices. Creating a committee to oversee the program helps ensure that the program is successfully implemented.

In addition, here are some other areas where you can improve the health of your school:

Fight Germs Without Triclosan

Because of its link to adverse health effects — including asthma, cancer and learning dis ­abilities, triclosan has no place in the classroom. Beyond Pesticides has generated extensive documentation  of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban. Be sure your child’s school does not use antibacterial soaps; regular soap and water is just as effective at getting rid of bacteria.

It’s easy to avoid triclosan. Read the product label, whether it’s a backpack, school supplies, soap or sanitizer for any label statement that says “antibacterial,”or “antimicrobial protection.” Due to public pressure, many companies have reformulated their products without triclosan, and earlier this year, the state of Minnesota took critical steps to protect their residents from exposure to triclosan by banning the chemical in personal care and cleaning products.

Subtract Triclosan from the Equation: Tell your principal that you are concerned about the use of antibacterial soap and its impact on the health of the students and staff. Ask that the school order regular soap from its usual janitorial product supplier and that all cleansers and sanitizers used by the school be triclosan-free. Materials on the health impacts of triclosan are available at Beyond Pesticides. Sign the pledge and go triclosan-free.

Feed Children Organic Food

The American Academy of Pediatricians has stated that foods without pesticide residues are significant for children. If you are unable to eat all organic, purchase organic varieties of the foods you and your kids eat most often. For information on how to eat feed your family organic affordably, download Beyond Pesticides’ handy bi-fold brochure. You can also increase the amount of organic food your child eats while decreasing his or her exposure to toxic pesticides and lessening your impact on the environment by asking your school to adopt an organic lunch program or helping to start an organic school garden. For more information, on why eating organic is the right choice, see Eating with a Conscience.

It’s easiest to go organic when you grow organic. School gardens and other farm-to-school programs teach children where food comes from and establish healthy relationships with food and the natural world. An organic garden starts with healthy soil using natural sources of fertility such as compost, and schools have a great built-in source of potential compost feedstock in kitchen scraps and cafeteria leftovers. See “School Lunches Go Organic,” and “The Organic School Garden,” for more information.

Care About Kids

Early in 2013, EPA announced its decision to cancel the registration of 12 rodenticide products manufactured by Reckitt Benckiser LLC, the manufacturer of d-CON products. The company announced that it will stop production of rodent baits containing second generation anticoagulant rodenticides by the end of this year; however, retailers will be allowed to continue to sell these dangerous products until supplies are exhausted. The rodenticide products slated for cancellation pose significant risks to human health, and children are particularly susceptible to these risks because they play on floors and explore by putting items in their mouths, which can include loose rat poisons like d-CON. Because these products can still be found on the shelves of Walmart and several other national retailers, despite regulatory action to remove these products from the market, Beyond Pesticides has urged major retailers to stop selling these highly toxic rodenticides. Be sure that your school does not use these harmful rodenticides, by utilizing alternative measures to prevent rodent problems, including sealing gaps around the doors by replacing worn thresholds and weather stripping, and installing door sweeps, as well as caulking openings around water pipes, electric wires, cables, and vents. There are also many baits traps on the market that do not utilize toxic chemicals.  For more information, go to Beyond Pesticides Care for Kids rodenticide page.

BEE Protective

Pollinators are very important to our ecosystem and agriculture. However, many pollinators, like honey bees, bumble bees, birds, and butterflies, are declining due to loss of habitat, widespread use of toxic pesticides, parasites, and disease. You and your school can play a part to help these important creatures by (1) not using toxic pesticides, (2) planting pollinator habitat, and (3) educating your friends and family.

Have your school pass a resolution to ban neonicotinoid pesticides that are toxic to honey bees and other pollinators. Vermont Law School recently passed a resolution to go neonicotinoid-free, and you can see our model resolution can be obtained here. If you school has pollinator-friendly habitat, pledge your school as pollinator-friendly and indicate how many acres (or fraction of an acre) your school can declare.

Build Biodiversity: from the School Grounds to the Classroom

Biodiversity helps bees and other pollinators; diverse plants produce a supply of nectar throughout the growing season, and biodiversity of soil organisms promotes healthy plants that grow well without poisons. Protect biodiversity through organic turf, playing fields and landscape policies. Encourage your school to plant pollinator-attractive plants in its garden as part of its biology class. If your school does not have a garden, request one be integrated into the curriculum. Wildflowers, native plant and grass species should be encouraged on school grounds. See our BEE Protective Habitat Guide for more information on attractive flowers. Also see our Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity factsheet and Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind for resources on how you can help build biodiversity.

Healthy Turf = Healthy Kids

Many school schools around the country are realizing that a well-defined integrated or organic pest management program is one of the best ways to eliminate children’s exposure to pesticides in school buildings, and organic turf management, similarly, eliminates hazards on playing fields and playgrounds. A good program will have strictly defined processes of prevention, monitoring and control, as well as record keeping, which offers the opportunity to eliminate harmful pesticides in schools, where only the least toxic option is used.

Improving a school’s pest management program requires perseverance, as administrators and grounds staff may be uninformed. One major selling point is that, when it comes to playing fields, organic turf management systems cost as much as 25% less than chemical-intensive systems. Learn more about the 30 of the most commonly used chemicals on athletic fields that can cause numerous health risks to children, including glyphosate (Roundup) and 2,4-D. Also see organic management of school fields in our Pesticides and Playing Fields fact sheet and the Lawns and Landscapes page.

For more information on how you can ensure a healthy school year for your child and community, see Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools page.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2014) Rulng that Hawaii state law preempts local authority to restrict pesticides,  a federal court judge this week struck down Kauai County’s Ordinance 960. The ordinance, which  received widespread support on the Island, was designed to protect local residents and Kauai’s environment from the year-round spraying of large quantities of restricted use pesticides by multinational chemical companies.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren on Monday ruled that Kauai County Ordinance 960 is preempted by state law and therefore is unenforceable. Ordinance 960 provides residents of Kauai public access to information related to the application of pesticides used in experimental and commercial agricultural operations within the County of Kauai. It also affords County residents and the environment greater protection from, and information about, potential pesticide drift and the impact of experimental genetically engineered (GE) crops on Kauai. The Kauai County Council voted to enact Ordinance 960 in November 2013, overriding the Mayor’s veto. The ordinance was scheduled to go into effect Aug. 16, but had been postponed to Oct. 1 pending the court’s ruling.

Local leaders crafted the ordinance in response to public outcry from residents, many of whom live, work, or have children that go to school near agricultural fields leased by chemical corporations. Many in the community believed that Ordinance 960 was the beginning of local efforts to reign in excesses and abuses of agrichemical companies operating on the island.

However, a lawsuit challenging the ordinance was brought against Kauai by industry giants, DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Agrigenetics, Inc, (owned by Dow Chemical) and BASF Plant Sciences LP, who argued that the County had no authority to regulate pesticides and GE plantings because state and federal laws did so already, and that the ordinance places unnecessary and unfair restrictions on their operations. The County and interveners – Earthjustice, the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, and others, countered that the state law is limited in its scope and does not cover the same subject matter as Ordinance 960, leaving room for the County to expand on pesticide regulatory guidelines. Similarly, the County argues that when it comes to GE cultivation, state laws did not “expressly or implicitly” preempt the County from introducing its own GE guidelines. When Kauai introduced Ordinance 960 (then Bill 2491) it did so under the statutory grant of authority of the Hawaiian Revised Statutes, which provides that counties of Hawaii “shall have the power to enact ordinances deemed necessary to protect health, life, and property. . .” (HRS § 46-1.5(13))

However, Magistrate Judge Kurren, in his interpretation, concluded that, although the Hawaii Pesticide Law does not contain any provisions that actually conflict with Ordinance 960’s requirements, the state law’s broad scope implied that the Hawaii legislature intended that only the state government had the authority to regulate pesticide matters.   The court also ruled that federal laws do not preempt the ordinance, leaving open the possibility that the state could amend its laws to protect its residents without running afoul of federal law.

“This decision in no way diminishes the health and environmental concerns of the people of Kauai,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren wrote in his decision. “The court’s ruling simply recognizes that the State of Hawaii has established a comprehensive framework for addressing the application of restricted-use pesticides and the planting of GMO crops, which presently precludes local regulation by the county.”

On Preemption

After the passage of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the issue of federal preemption of local ordinances concerning pesticide regulation made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1991 that FIFRA does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. The ability of states to take away local authority, however, was left in place. The pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed model legislation that would restrict local municipalities from passing ordinances regarding the use or sale of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended upon states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording.

Twenty-nine  states have nearly identical preemption language that explicitly preempts localities from adopting stricter legislation that would regulate the use of pesticides; 14 do not have explicit preemption language. However, they delegate all of the authority to regulate pesticide law to a commissioner or pesticide board. This implies that localities seeking more restrictive pesticide regulations could petition the commissioner for a variance from the states pesticide law. Five states that vest exclusive regulatory authority in their commissioner specify that localities can petition the commissioner for exemptions to these pesticide regulations, and seven states do not preempt local authorities’ ability to restrict the use of pesticides on any land within their jurisdiction. Some of these states have no regulations that would preempt local authority and others have specific language written in that reaffirms localities’ authority. For more information, read   State Preemption Law: The battle for local control of democracy.

State preemption laws effectively deny local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better protection when a community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient. Given this restriction, local jurisdictions nationwide have passed ordinances that restrict pesticide use on a town’s public property, or school districts have limited pesticides on its land. As pesticide pollution and concerns over the effects of GE crops on human and environmental health mount, many are fighting to overturn preemption laws and return the power back to localities, enabling them to adopt more stringent protective standards throughout their communities.

The defendant-interveners are currently analyzing all legal options, including appeal. Four organizations —  Ka Makani Ho”˜opono, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America and   Surfrider Foundation — represented by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety, were permitted to intervene as of right in the lawsuit against Kauai County, and have since helped to defend the ordinance in legal filings.

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff said the court’s decision was disappointing. He said, “It has unfortunate consequences on Kauai and throughout the state. The state has shown complete disregard for problems that the pesticides on Kauai has been causing.”

This latest decision also calls into question the future of other local pesticide regulatory efforts in other Hawaii counties. Big Island Mayor Billy Kenoi said Hawaii County attorneys are analyzing its applicability  to an ongoing case that challenges the Big Island’s ban on any new GE crops. However, the Hawaii County ordinance does not deal with pesticides. Similarly, Mayor Alan Arakawa of Maui County said that the Kauai court decision may be instructive for residents who will vote on a county ballot initiative this fall to ban GE crops in Maui, and the county’s attorneys are also reviewing the decision.

Gary Hooser, the Kauai councilman who sponsored the bill (Ordinance 960), also said that he expects the ruling to be appealed. “It’s just another round in the ongoing battle,” he said. “It’s far from over.” He criticized the biotechnology companies for not doing more to protect the health and safety of Kauai residents.

Beyond Pesticides continues to be an ardent supporter of Kauai’s commonsense protections from pesticides and their associated use on GE crops. Given the impending approval of GE crops designed to withstand applications of the highly toxic herbicide 2,4-D, these protections are more important than ever.

Read Beyond Pesticides testimony in support of Ordinace 960 for additional information. If you’d like to become involved in a campaign in your community, send an email to [email protected], or call 202-543-5450.

Source: Honolulu Civil Beat , The Center for Food Safety , NYTimes

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2014) Nearly a year after residents in Curry County Oregon were sprayed with herbicides, the pilot responsible for the incident had  his license suspended for a year and was fined $10,000 by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). The Pacific Air Research Company, which employed the pilot, was also fined $10,000 and had all its licenses revoked for a year for providing false information to the state. The initial incident happened in October 2013, when  residents complained of experiencing rashes, headaches, asthma, and stomach cramps right after the application.

As reported in the The Oregonian, after the investigation, ODA was criticized by environmental groups and the general public for not doing a proper investigation. It took 6 months for any information to be disclosed even though the poisoned residents requested it. Pacific Air Research at the time of the incident stated that the only chemical being sprayed was glyphosate. Then, ODA conducted an investigation and concluded that the spray was not directly linked to the conditions displayed by residents. Unsatisfied with  the state’s findings, a local environmental group, Beyond Toxics, forced  ODA to produce all its records, which confirmed that 2, 4-D and triclopyr were the actual chemicals used. The group this month filed a lawsuit challenging portions of the Oregon Right to Farm and Forest Law (ORS30.936) on pesticide drift from forestry operations onto private property.

2, 4-D is a highly toxic chemical which has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and kidney and liver damage. It is also neurotoxic and is toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly elevated rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2, 4-D. Triclopyr originally developed for woody plant and broadleaf weed control along rights – of- way and on industrial sites, triclopyr is also used in forest site preparation.

When we started realizing we were not dealing with accurate information, we quit sharing information with the local community,” ODA director Katy Coba told The Oregonian. “In hindsight, that’s the part where we clearly understand now that it caused a lot more consternation than if we’d continued sharing information. In the future, we would handle a similar situation much differently.”

Lisa Arkin, director of Beyond Toxics noted in The Oregonian that she was pleased to see the penalty, but said it happened only because of local residents’ persistence. ODA “came out swinging because the great research by the community and the community pressure that was put on the agency.”

In other states, the same information would be shared within hours, not months, she said.

“There’s no reason in the world why the Department of Agriculture withheld the information,” she said. “They put their civil investigation before public health.”

Unfortunately, spray incidents such as these are all too common. Triangle Lake, another Oregon Community has experienced similar pesticide exposures from the aerial application of herbicides to Timberland. In 2011, atrazine and 2, 4-D were found in the urine of residents around Triangle Lake. After these incidents, state and federal agencies launched the Highway 36 Corridor Public Health Exposure Investigation, which resulted in the Oregon State Forester requiring pesticide applicators to turn over three years of forestry pesticide spray records from private and state timber operations.

In Oregon, there are no required buffer zones around residential land, similar to those along fish-bearing streams, and the state does not require notification of residents near timberland. Timberland owners do have to notify the Oregon Department of Forestry, and people can pay a fee to receive those notifications, but they do not specifically disclose that chemicals that will be used, or the day and time of the spraying. Aerial herbicide application is also only used on private land as public forest land is managed without these practices.

For more information on forestry management practices watch Lisa Arkin’s talk from the 32^nd National Pesticide Forum in Portland, Oregon. (Her talk begins at 19:53) Lisa Arkin has served as the Executive Director of Beyond Toxics since 2006, and helped publish the in-depth analysis of herbicide use in Oregon’s industrial forestry practices, Oregon’s Industrial Forests and Herbicide Use: A Case Study of Risk to People, Drinking Water and Salmon.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: The Oregonian

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2014) In a blow to the adoption of urgently needed protections for pollinators, the California State Senate voted 35-1, after an earlier Assembly vote of 75-0,  to delay a requirement for action on bee-harming neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides until 2020. While advocates want mandates for  regulatory action to protect bees, the timeline in the bill ignores that ongoing crisis faced by bees, beekeepers, and agriculture dependent on bee pollination.  Assembly Bill 1789 provides the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) another four years to reevaluate neonicotinoid pesticides, and an additional two years to implement any measures that would be needed to protect pollinator health. Given that CalDPR began its reevaluation of neonics in 2009, and existing law would have required a complete reevaluation within two years, the legislature’s new 2020 timeline has been met with strong criticism from beekeepers and environmental groups.

The passage of AB 1789 sets the CalDPR on a track similar to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) timeline for neonic review. This timeline is widely seen as an unacceptable response to the pollinator crisis, given unsustainable declines of greater than 30% of managed honey bee colonies each year, and widespread adverse impacts on other wild pollinators. “The Department of Pesticide Regulation has been dithering since 2009, while our bees continue to die in droves, and this bill essentially tells the department to sit on its hands for another six years,”   said Greg Loarie, attorney at EarthJustice, “AB 1789 will  amount to a death sentence for honey bees.” Last December a broad coalition of more than 60 organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, launched a national media campaign to tell EPA that “Bees can’t wait 5 more years, and neither can we.”

A large and expanding collection of scientific literature links pollinator declines to the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, a class of systemic insecticides that make their way into the pollen, nectar, and dew droplets on which pollinators forage. Scientists across the world are sounding the alarm on neonicotinoids and other systemic insecticides, and demanding action from legislators and regulatory bodies. According to a Wordwide Integrated Assessment undertaken by the Global Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, neonics and their breakdown products are persistent and harmful to pollinators and wildlife even at very low levels. Researchers explain, “The existing literature clearly shows that present day levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil caused by authorized uses, frequently exceed lowest observed adverse effect concentrations for a wide range of non-target species and are thus likely to have wide ranging negative biological and ecological impacts.” In a recent study published in the Bulletin of Insectology by scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health, pesticides, not mites or pathogens, as has been claimed by the chemical industry, were found to be the major cause of honey bee hive deaths. Even before the release of these two documents, an analysis of the science conducted by Beyond Pesticides had concluded that our pollinator crisis is “No Longer A Big Mystery.”

To the dismay of pollinator supporters, as the science continues to  link the role of neonics in bee declines, the CalDPR has continued to allow expanded uses of neonicotinoids in the state. Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network, and Center for Food Safety, represented by Earthjustice, recently filed the legal challenge in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, urging the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to stop approving neonicotinoid pesticides pending its completion of a comprehensive scientific review of impacts to honeybees.

One in every three bites of food depends on bees for pollination, and the annual value of pollination services worldwide are estimated at over $125 billion. In the United States, pollination contributes $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually. And in California alone, almonds crops ”” entirely dependent on bees for pollination ”” are valued at over $3 billion. Last year, serious questions surrounded whether there would be enough honey bees available to pollinate the state’s almond crops. Without strong, meaningful protections for honey bees and other wild pollinators coming from government officials in California, these problems are not likely to subside.

At the end of Pollinator Week 2014, the President Obama directed executive agencies to develop a plan to address pollinator declines within 180 days. It is imperative those concerned about pollinator health put pressure on the President to protect pollinators from harmful pesticides, so that real long lasting protections come from this announcement. After all, given the success of organic production systems, these chemicals simply are not necessary to grow food or successfully manage pests.

To become more involved in pollinator protection, visit the BEE Protective campaign page. BEE Protective is a joint initiative launched by Beyond Pesticides and the Center for Food Safety, aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes.

Source: EarthJustice, California Legislative Information

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2014) The Town Board in Wheatfield, New York unanimously voted last month to amend its biosolids law to ban any application of sewage sludge and other similar materials from the treatment of municipal wastewater to any land in town, even for those who already have permits from the state. The law reasons that the potential contamination of groundwater, surface water, and soil, as well as the potential for air pollution, poses an unreasonable risk to town residents, public health, and the environment.

Biosolids, otherwise known as sewage sludge, are composed of dried microbes previously used to process wastewater in treatment plants. The material is increasingly being used in conventional agriculture, but its application is explicitly forbidden in organic production. This is because the sludge can contain high concentrations of toxic contaminants, such as pesticides, detergents, estrogenic hormones, antibiotics, dioxins, PCBs, flame retardants, and heavy metals. A 2002 study revealed the material to be associated with an increased prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus infections, a condition known to cause skin rashes and respiratory problems, for people located in close proximity to biosolid application sites. More recently, new research adds to existing evidence of the hazards of sewage sludge fertilizer by demonstrating that chemical contaminants are sufficiently mobile and persistent that they can easily be transported to groundwater, with implication for local drinking water.

Town Attorney Robert J. O’Toole explained that although the new law allows for the continuation of “existing facilities,” the amendment clarifies that land application is not considered an existing facility. “Any land application is not grandfathered,” Mr. O’Toole said. “There’s no application in Wheatfield, ever, for anything.”

The ban, which passed July 28, was interpreted as making an exception for existing Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) permits, such as those held by Milleville Brothers Farm.

The controversy arose last year from the byproduct created by Quasar Energy Group’s anaerobic digester on Liberty Drive. The “equate,” or the watery, nitrogen-rich byproduct, is hyped by the company as a good fertilizer. The company’s plant uses microbes to convert food waste into methane gas, which is harnessed to produce electricity or compressed natural gas. However, part of its raw material is sewage sludge, which is processed human waste.

“I hope you’ll hold the Niagara County Sewer District No. 1 to the same standard,” Quasar spokesman Nathan C. Carr told the board. Unfortunately, however, the July 28 law exempts “the generation of biosolids at a public owned treatment works.”

The town’s law firm, Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, blasted the DEC in a letter for attempting to rewrite its regulation according to the types of soil on which the biosolids may be spread, in an apparent effort to weaken the law and make it easier for application in Wheatfield to be permitted. The DEC contends that the omission of a common soil type in Wheatfield from the list of allowable biosolids sites was an accident. The letter said the attempted change violates two state laws and U.S. EPA guidelines.

The law cites the state’s Environmental Conservation Law, which allows for municipalities to impose controls on waste disposal operations that are stricter than the state law requires..

The amendments to the town law also add a penalty section to the measure, which includes fines and/or possible imprisonment for illegal land application or production or storage of biosolids. The sale, storage, or application of lawn and garden fertilizer intended for retail sale on an area of land less than 2.5 acres in size is excluded from the town law.

The only surefire way to avoid food grown with biosolids is to buy products that are USDA organic certified, which does not allow the use of dried municipal waste microbes in its production. Additionally,   be aware of products used on lawn and garden by scrutinizing any lawn fertilizers which claim to be “organic” or “natural” but list ingredients such as “biosolids,” “dried microbes,” or “activated sewage sludge.” For more information on the hazards of biosolids, read Beyond Pesticides’ Biosolids or Biohazards?

Source: Buffalo News

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2014) In case there wasn’t enough news about the hazards of the ubiquitous antibacterial chemical triclosan in the past week, another study published Tuesday finds additional risks associated with exposure to the pesticide. The study, Health Care Worker Exposures to the Antibacterial Agent Triclosan, led by researchers at University of California San Francisco (UCSF) finds that washing hands with antibacterial soap exposes hospital workers to significant and potentially unsafe levels of triclosan.

In the study, published in the August issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, researchers analyze urine samples from two groups of 38 doctors and nurses at two hospitals, identified as Hospital 1 and Hospital 2. Hospital 1 used an antibacterial soap containing 0.3 percent triclosan, while Hospital 2 used plain soap and water. Workers at Hospital 1 had significantly higher levels of triclosan in their urine than workers at Hospital 2.

“Antimicrobial soaps can carry unknown risks, and triclosan is of particular concern,” said co-investigator Paul Blanc, MD, a professor of medicine at UCSF who holds the Endowed Chair in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. “Our study shows that people absorb this chemical at work and at home, depending on the products that they use.”

Beyond Pesticides has compiled extensive documentation  of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban. Studies show that triclosan can interfere with thyroid and estrogen hormones, and may promote the progression of cancer cells. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to  alter thyroid function. A recent study links triclosan to the growth of breast cancer cells.

Triclosan, a synthetic antibacterial agent, has been used for over 30 years in the U.S., and though its original uses were confined mostly to the health care settings, has grown over the last decade to be found in thousands of consumer products, including soaps, cosmetics, acne creams and some brands of toothpaste. The FDA is currently reviewing the safety of triclosan based on a growing body of research indicating that it can interfere with the action of hormones, potentially causing developmental problems in fetuses and newborns, among other health concerns. Meanwhile, private companies are phasing out triclosan from products due to direct pressure from educated consumers. Johnson & Johnson,  Procter & Gamble  and  Colgate-Palmolive  (with the exception of its toothpaste) began reformulating to remove triclosan from their products for several years now.

In the current study, the scientists also asked the study participants if they used a popular commercial toothpaste containing triclosan. While those who did had higher triclosan levels than those who did not, the researchers found that washing with antibacterial soap accounted for even higher triclosan levels than did brushing with the toothpaste.

Dr. Blanc recommended that, “If non-triclosan-containing soaps are available, use the alternative. This is based on the precautionary principle — that is, if you don’t know for certain that something is unsafe, it’s better to err on the side of caution.”

The same principle “could be applied more generally in this case,” said Dr. Blanc. “It should not be up to the individual to inspect every product for triclosan. Instead, it’s the duty of the FDA to carry out a review of this chemical and, if indicated, get it off the market.”

For people who want to replace antibacterial products in their home with something safer, said Dr. Blanc, “just plain soap and water is a pretty good alternative.”

Encourage your local hospitals, schools, government agencies, and businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free, or follow the lead of Minnesota by banning triclosan; organizations can  adopt the model resolution  which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan. For additional information and resources on the human health and environmental effects of triclosan, join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: University of California San Francisco

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2014) According to a new Gallup poll, nearly half of all U.S. adults “actively” seek to add organic food to their diets. Many who eat and incorporate organic foods into their diet are from city areas, whereas those who eat the least organic foods are described as coming from rural areas. Those who live in the western half of the country and are middle class were also more likely to eat organic food. The poll underscores the notion that many view the benefits of organic foods as greater than the perceived drawbacks, such as higher costs or limited access.

The Gallup poll, as reported by The Washington Post, polled about  1,000  adults across the country in July and found that Americans most likely to eat organic are in the West, live in a city, are 18 to 29 years old, vote Democrat or have an annual household income greater than $75,000. Those most likely to avoid organic foods are basically the opposite: those who live in the East, live in more rural parts, are age 65 or older, vote Republican or have an annual household income less than $30,000. This is the first year Gallup has asked about eating organic foods in the annual Consumption Habits survey.

Specifically, 45% of those polled actively try to include organic foods into their diet. The inclusion of organic foods is highest in the West (54%) and lowest in the East (39%). Americans who report living in a big or small city are more likely to eat organic foods than those who describe their location as a town or rural area, 50% versus 37%, respectively, while those who live in suburban areas fall between these two groups. While household income continues to be a factor in food choices, with almost half of upper-income Americans actively buying organic foods, a significant amount of lower-income Americans (42%) now include organic into their diets. The poll  notes that “given that almost half of Americans actively try to include organic foods in their diets, they may view the benefits of organic foods as greater than their downsides, such as the higher cost or limited access.” While organic is associated with a “premium,” or more expensive cost, many say the cost of organic food simply reflects the true costs of production.

Overall, Gallup notes that income and location appear to be factors in preference for organic foods, although that may be changing. For instance, Wal-Mart, the largest retailer and grocer in the U.S., has announced plans to begin selling organic food, with the potential to make organic food more easily accessible and more affordable, which could in turn encourage more Americans to include it in their diets.

A similar 2014 poll by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) reports that consumption of organic products has continued to increase at a monumental pace. According to the survey, sales of organic products in the U.S. jumped to $35.1 billion in 2013, up 11.5% from the previous year’s $31.5 billion and the fastest growth rate in five years. The growth rate of organic food sales, which has averaged almost 10% every year since 2010, has dwarfed the average annual growth of just over 3% in total food sales during that same period, and now makes up 4 percent of the $760 annually spent on food. The fruit and vegetable category continues to lead the sector with $11.6 billion in sales, up 15%. With more than 10% of the fruits and vegetables sold in the U.S. now organic.

Organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality. An American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP)  report on organic foods found that organic foods do provide health advantages by way of reducing exposure to pesticides, especially for children, even reporting “sound evidence” that organic foods contain more vitamin C and phosphorus. According to the report, “in terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.” It also goes on to note that organic farming can be competitive and yields comparable to those of conventional farming techniques. AAP also recommends that “pediatricians should incorporate this evidence when discussing the health and environmental impact of organic foods and organic farming while continuing to encourage all patients and their families to attain optimal nutrition and dietary variety.” Another recent study reports that more nutritional antioxidants and far fewer toxic pesticides are found in organic foods

In order to understand the importance of eating organic food from the perspective of toxic pesticide contamination, we need to look at the whole picture””from the farmworkers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects that change has on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce fossil fuel use and provide carbon sequestration in the soil through increased soil organic carbon. Higher organic soil carbon levels then increase fertility and the soil’s ability to endure extreme weather years.

Further, organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture. A growing organic sector is important as it creates healthier options for consumers, better working conditions for farmworkers, and a more sustainable environment. Additionally, organic agriculture prohibits the use of genetically engineered (GE) organisms, an issue many Americans are growing more concerned about. As organic continues to grow it is important to maintain our high organic standards to maintain consumer trust in the organic label.

It is important to protect the benefits that organic agriculture can provide by ensuring that organic standards are strong. However, there have been dramatic changes to the process that governs organic standards and the review of allowable materials in organic production, as overseen by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) under the Organic Foods Production Act, which undermines the integrity of organic. Consumer and environmental groups have voiced concerns that the new procedures create less rigorous review requirements, weakening the policies that have been in place for over 15 years and adopted by U.S. Department of Agriculture without any public input or consultation with the NOSB.

With more and more American eating organic it is important to take action to ensure a  strong organic program and increase public trust in the organic food label. Visit  Beyond Pesticides’  Save Our Organics  page for information on what you can do to secure an organic future. To learn more about the environmental and worker benefits of organic production, see  Beyond Pesticides’  Eating with a Conscience.

Source: The Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2014) Newly released documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals that regulators expressed concerns over the safety of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste during the product’s registration in the mid-1990s. This information was provided to the public by FDA after a Freedom of Information Act request by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and was posted on the agency’s website after inquiries from Bloomberg News. In addition to health effects previously identified by Beyond Pesticides, these documents raise concerns about the use of triclosan as an anti-gingivitis agent in toothpaste; a use which is not currently under scrutiny as FDA conducts its long-awaited health review of the chemical.

Although FDA is requiring manufacturers of triclosan-containing soaps to prove that their products are not hazardous to humans and more effective than regular soap and water, triclosan formulated in toothpaste was not subject to a similar requirement as FDA had indicated that the chemical is effective as an anti-gingivitis agent. Colgate Total is the only brand of toothpaste on the market that still contains triclosan; GlaxoSmithKline, producer of Aquafresh and Sensodyne, removed triclosan from its toothpaste in 2009. And a focus on safer products seems to be paying off. Last year, as Colgate Total lost 2% of its market share, the company’s natural Tom’s of Maine brand grew 14%. Crest, maker of the top selling 3D White and Pro-Health brands, specifically advertises its toothpastes as triclosan-free.

FDA documents reveal that regulators considered the initial carcinogenicity studies conducted by Colgate to be insufficient, and requested further data and research. Following an inquiry from Bloomberg News, the agency released the supplemental 1997 cancer study requested of Colgate. However, concerns still remain over whether the agency’s requests and Colgate’s data were as thorough as they should have been. David Kessler, M.D, an FDA commissioner from 1990-1997, noted to Bloomberg News, “The real question is did Colgate do a good job.”

Another issue within the documents was developmental studies that showed malformed paw bones and skulls in the fetal offspring of rats, as well as lower weight fetuses. These effects were cited as incidental in the documents, and attributed to maternal, rather than fetal toxicity. In light of recent scientific data on the health effects of triclosan, many are criticizing the agency’s determination and chastising it for not releasing this data sooner. “Wow. They kept that private?” said Thomas Zoeller, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts to Bloomberg News. “The distinction between maternal and fetal toxicity is an excuse to do nothing. And it’s not scientifically justifiable.” Disclosing these results may have been helpful in alerting scientists to the endocrine disrupting properties of triclosan.

This data also highlights a pervasive problem with chemical regulation in the U.S.; specifically, the government’s reliance on industry-funded studies in order to assess the safety of chemicals. The long, expensive process of registering a new drug or pesticide often requires years of time and tens of thousands of dollars. The high monetary and temporal requirements needed to register a chemical can lead regulators to dismiss independent science that raises safety concerns (chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, certain health endpoints such as endocrine disruption, disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups) not accounted for during regulatory decision-making. In an age where the adverse effects of safety-tested chemicals have been widely and increasingly documented, Beyond Pesticides supports an alternative approach that first asks whether there is a less toxic way of achieving a chemical’s intended purpose. The Fund for Independent Science was launched last year to support the continual understanding of the destructive capacity of toxic materials, and sustainable practices that can replace them in the marketplace.

The health and environmental effects of triclosan reveal a laundry list of concerns, ranging from body burden to endocrine disruption, cancer, impacts on fetal development, bacterial resistance, impaired muscle functioning, persistence in the environment, and adverse changes in biotic communities. Although FDA indicates that the agency will release a determination concerning triclosan-containing soaps by 2016, the agency indicated to Bloomberg News that it will only reexamine the registration of Total if concerns are found during the broader review process.

In the meantime, concerned consumers can join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Consider a clean sweep of all products in your house, school, and office that contain triclosan. A non-comprehensive list of triclosan-containing products is available here for reference, but the best way to find out if triclosan is present is to read the label. Encourage your local schools, government agencies, and businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, school, or company to follow the lead of Minnesota by banning triclosan; organizations can  adopt the model resolution  which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

Source: Bloomberg News

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2014) In a victory for environmental groups, conservationists, and fishing groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a settlement last Wednesday to restore no-spray buffer zones around waterways to protect imperiled salmon and steelhead from five toxic pesticides.   An initial agreement was reached in June, when it underwent public comment, and was ultimately filed August 13 without any substantive changes. The settlement follows litigation filed by Earthjustice, representing the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and Defenders of Wildlife, back in 2010 that called for EPA adoption of reasonable fish protections from the insecticides. The buffers apply to salmon habitat throughout California, Oregon, and Washington to prohibit aerial spraying of broad-spectrum pesticides diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, carbaryl, and methomyl within 300 feet of salmon habitat and prohibit ground-based applications within 60 feet.

“Poisoning salmon rivers puts our people out of work while creating an unnecessary and expensive public health hazard,” said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a West Coast commercial fishing industry trade association and co-plaintiff. “This agreement helps the coastal and inland communities that depend on salmon for their livelihoods and provides more certainty for landowners on safer use of these chemicals.”

The agreement provides detailed notice to state regulators, pesticide applicators, farmers, and the public about the required no-spray buffer zones. These buffers will remain in place until the National Marine Fisheries Service completes analyses of the impacts of these five pesticides on the fish. Then, the EPA must implement permanent protections grounded in the Fisheries Service’s findings.

“Before this agreement, we lacked clear or consistent rules to protect the health of our rivers and salmon fisheries from these toxins,” said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing coalition. “This clears the road for the EPA and the Fisheries Service to continue to work together toward permanent protections that keep pesticides out of our waters.”

The chemicals regulated under the new buffer zones are not only dangerous to salmon; they pose a significant threat human health, other wildlife, and the environment at large. Chlorpyrifos  is acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic life, and certain species of algae. There are also a wide range of adverse environmental effects linked to chlorpyrifos, including toxic to: beneficial insects, freshwater fish, other aquatic organisms, and birds, variety of plants, soil organisms, and domestic animals. It has been shown to bioaccumulate in fish and synergistically reacts with other chemicals. Diazinon  is a moderately acutely toxic broad-spectrum insecticide. Like chlorpyrifos, diazinon affects the nervous system through the inhibition of AchE, an enzyme needed for proper nervous system function.  Methomyl is a highly toxic compound in EPA toxicity class I, is highly toxic to birds, and moderately to highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Repeated exposure to small amounts of methomyl may cause an unsuspected inhibition of cholinesterase, resulting in flu-like symptoms, such as weakness, lack of appetite, and muscle aches. EPA has classified  malathion  as a toxicity class III pesticide. Despite the fact that malathion is one of the less acutely toxic synthetic pesticides, numerous human poisoning have been reported. It is slightly toxic via the oral route and dermal route. Malathion is rapidly and effectively absorbed by practically all routes, including the gastrointestinal tract, skin, mucous membranes, and lungs. Carbaryl  causes an array of serious neurotoxic effects in animals, including irreversible neurological damage and behavioral disturbances.

The buffers reinstated under the agreement were previously required by a 2004 court order after the federal courts ordered EPA to consult with the Fisheries Service over the impacts of these chemicals on the imperiled salmon. That injunction expired when the Fisheries Service completed its analysis of these chemicals in 2008 and 2009. While the Fisheries Service required EPA to adopt extensive permanent protections to keep these deadly chemicals out of salmon streams within one year, the agency failed to take action, leaving salmon and steelhead with no protection from these neurotoxic chemicals. The agreement resolves litigation filed by these groups in 2010 to compel EPA to adopt permanent protective measures in line with the Fisheries Service’s findings. This settlement will end years of litigation and save taxpayer money by allowing the EPA to focus its resources on permanent solutions.

Clean water is essential for human health, wildlife and a balanced environment; however water is being polluted at extremely high rates with chemicals, pesticides, nutrients, metals and other contaminants. According to Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, over 50 pesticides are known surface or groundwater contaminants, according to data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Read  Organic Land Management and the Protection of Water Quality, a fully cited fact sheet by Beyond Pesticides, or download our shorter,  bi-fold brochure  version for more in depth information on how organic practices can protect water quality.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: EarthJustice
Image: Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2014) Residents of Southern Oregon are tired of being told that farming and forest industry rights to pollute and spray toxic chemicals trump their rights to live healthy lives, so they are taking the matter to court, except not in the way most would assume. Because unlike many instances where citizens could allege nuisance and trespass for toxic or smelly invasions onto private property and into their lives, Oregon residents and many others across the country are prohibited by law from filing such claims against agricultural industries.

Known generally as Right-to-Farm Acts, Oregon’s Farm and Forest Practices Act prohibits local laws from making farming and forest practices a nuisance or trespass. The law also grants immunity from private actions, unless, of course, severe injury or death resulted. As one of the attorneys, Chris Winters of the Crag Law Center, representing the Oregon residents explained to reporters, “The law basically grants an immunity to people who spray pesticides from being held responsible.”

In filing the lawsuit, plaintiffs hope that a court will change all of this and invalidate the Farm and Forest Practices Act as unconstitutional, because of the state’s constitutional guarantee of remedy for injury to person, property, or reputation.

The environmental and public health saga that led up to the constitutional challenge began in October 2013, when residents of Curry County, Oregon filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) concerning a series of aerial spraying of pesticides on adjacent forest industry land. The complaint alleged that surrounding residents noticed strange smells during fly-overs and reported accompanying symptoms such as skin rashes, nausea, and headaches.

After ODA’s initial investigation, no action was taken against the pesticide applicator or industry responsible. Unwilling to settle for ODA’s inaction and tepid investigation, affected residents supported by the environmental organization of Beyond Toxics, filed a petition with the Oregon Attorney General, requesting ODA to release information concerning the initial investigation. The petition worked and spurred ODA’s second investigation, in which the agency found multiple violations on the part of the pesticide applicator, as well as evidence of the presence of pesticides on the adjacent properties like 2,4-D and triclopyr.

This week, the state issued a $20,000 fine to Owen and Pacific Air Research, the applicator company responsible for the spraying, and revoked the company’s license for “gross negligence and willful misconduct” in regards to state pesticide law. While those are the maximum civil penalties provided for under Oregon’s pesticide laws, residents that have suffered from the impacts of the rogue pesticide application and the ordeal of making sure pesticide regulations were upheld feel violated and want more options to address such violations for not only themselves, but any future victims.

Beyond Pesticides supports the efforts of residents everywhere to stand up for public health and environmental rights and protect their communities and properties from chemical trespass. Visit our website to learn more about the negative impacts of pesticides on communities and what you can do to support those fighting for change!

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2014) Pesticides are not the first thing to pop into mind when peering into a hot mug of steaming, pale green or murky black tea first thing in the morning. A recent report published by Greenpeace India announced the results of an investigation that tested for pesticide residues in branded tea. The verdict? Nearly 94% of the tea samples tested contained at least one of 34 different pesticides, while over half contained a toxic cocktail of more than 10 different pesticides. The residues found include DDT, which was banned for use in agriculture in India since 1989, and endosulfan, which was banned in 2011 by the Indian Supreme Court. Over half of the 49 samples contained illegal pesticides — either those that are not approved for use in tea cultivation or exceeded recommended limits.

These pesticides include ones that have been long banned from agriculture and use in tea cultivation (DDT and triazophos), suspected mutagens and neurotoxicants (monocrotophos), and insecticides associated with the global decline in bee populations (neonicotinoids like thiacloprid and thiamethoxam). The most frequently detected pesticides include thiamethoxam (78%), cypermethrin (73%), acetamiprid (67%), thiacloprid (67%), DDT (67%), deltamethrin (67%), dicofol (61%), imidacloprid (61%), and monocrotophos (55%).

Approximately 60%, or 29 of the 49, of the samples contained at least one pesticide residue above the Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) set by the European Union (EU), while 37% of the samples exceeded these levels by more than 50%. One sample was tainted with tebufenpyrad at over 10 times the MRL. Tebufenpyrad, a pyrazole miticides/insecticide, does not appear to have been registered for use in India. Other unapproved pesticides found include monocrotophos, classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a Class lb (highly hazardous) pesticide; the pesticide has not been registered for use on tea at the government level due to its WHO designation. Methamidophos, found in two samples, is another WHO Class Ib pesticide and is not registered in India for any use; its parent compound, acephate, is not approved for use on tea crops, either. Triazophos is also a WHO Class Ib pesticide that is not approved for use on tea in India, although it is registered. The organophosphate was found in five samples with levels exceeding MRLs.

Other pesticides of concern include neonicotinoid insecticides, which are associated with pollinator decline. Of the ones detected in the samples, only thiacloprid and thiamethoxam are registered for use on tea. However, acetamiprid, which was found in 67% of samples, in many cases exceeding its MRL values, suggests that the unapproved use of this chemical in tea cultivation may be extensive. Imidacloprid is another neonicotinoid that has not been approved for use in tea cultivation, yet was found in 61% of samples.

A total of 49 branded and packaged teas were sampled from retail outlets in four major Indian cities (Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, and Kolkata) and were tested for the presence of over 350 different pesticides. The samples come from eight out of the top 11 companies that make up a large part of the tea market in India, including Hindustan Unilever Limited, a subsidiary of the global multinational company Unilever, and Tata Global Beverages Limited. Popular brands included in the study Twinings and Lipton.

As the second largest tea producer after China and the fourth largest exporter of tea globally, these results have far-reaching implications, one of them being that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to allow residues of banned pesticides on food products from other countries. In 2013, EPA made the decision to allow residues of endosulfan on imported Chinese teas until July 31, 2016. Its decision to provide “additional time to transition to an alternative to endosulfan” raises serious concerns of further exposure to the toxic carcinogen for farmworkers and consumers. In May 2011, endosulfan was added to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances, and almost 80 countries have banned the pesticide in recognition of its impacts to human health and the environment.

Despite also being banned for production, use, and sale throughout India following a 2011 Supreme Court decision (although still registered for use by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC)), endosulfan was found in about 8% of tea samples in the Greenpeace investigation.

Additional concerns brought up by the report include the effects of these pesticides on pesticide applicators and other workers, non-target organisms, the pesticide treadmill, and on water and soil quality.

To ensure that the tea you’re drinking is not contaminated with endosulfan or other pesticides, consumers should protect themselves by purchasing USDA Organic Certified products when possible. Beyond Pesticides encourages people, through Eating with a Conscience, to choose organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a chemical-intensive food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: Deccan Herald, Greenpeace

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2014) The largest potato grower in the U.S. is finding that using fewer pesticides is better for business and the environment. R.D. Offutt Company cut pesticide use by 30 percent last year, pleasing concerned local residents and environmentalists who have complained about pesticide drift from its fields. The company notes that it is applying a more scientific approach to potato production in an effort to move away from the old approach to pesticide spraying.

R.D. Offutt Company, a Fargo-based company established in 1964, is a 190,000-acre farming operation that employs 1,500 people, with more than 3,000 acres in north central Minnesota. Now in response to local residents who have complained for years about pesticide spray drifting off fields and other environmental concerns, Offutt is rethinking the way it grows potatoes and uses pesticides. The company has begun to apply a more scientific approach to potato production, using computer and modeling systems to monitor its potato fields every day for moisture, plant growth and signs of disease. Additionally, Offutt is also planting potato varieties that are more disease-resistant and has altered its crop rotation to lower pesticide use. Potatoes are susceptible to a variety of insects and disease and so, to efforts to reduce incidence of disease, the company has begun to grow potatoes on a field every four years instead of three years. This is because allowing at least one year between crops, the potential for disease causing fungus in the soil reduces by 50 percent.

“There’s no question the old approach to pesticide spraying is no longer acceptable, company agronomist Nick David. “Farming is not gut feeling anymore…Farming is very much real time, field by field.” he said.

Many local residents are pleased that the potential for pesticide drift has lessened. But others would like to see the Offutt’s pesticide use cut even more. One local, Carol Ashley, is a longstanding critic of Offutt farms and founding member of the coalition Toxic Taters. She said pesticide drift from Offutt affected her health and forced her to move 20 miles away. She hopes the company would one day transition to organic farming. Ms. Ashley’s group, Toxic Taters, delivered a petition with more than 20,000 signatures this spring, calling on fast food giant, McDonald’s, to cut pesticide use on potatoes, work with a third party to certify the transition to sustainable practices, increase transparency about pesticide use and fund a public health study in areas impacted by potato production. In 2009, McDonald’s pledged to find ways that reduce pesticide use on the potatoes it purchases.

In addition to pesticide drift, there are also concerns of Offutt’s other impacts on the environment. The company’s plan to grow potatoes less often on each field means more fields are needed, and so Offutt is turning some former forest lands into irrigated potato fields. This has drawn criticism from environmentalists and state officials who bemoan the loss of forest lands.

This summer the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) responded to those complaints with new pesticide best management practices aimed at reducing pesticide drift from potato fields. These management practices recommended by MDA include selecting spray equipment that reduce drift, and being aware of environmental conditions. However, for many pesticides used on potatoes, especially fungicides, it is not the application method that leads to drift, but simply the nature of the product itself. Many fungicides are highly volatile, meaning they easily vaporize off the field, enter the air and move with the wind, sometimes for many miles. Unfortunately, volatilization from fields has been an issue not adequately addressed in the past by relevant local authorities and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and volatilization off fields has been documented to impact nearby residents and farm worker communities. Under pressure to protect these vulnerable communities, EPA published for comment a document outlining its criteria to consider volatilization as part of the pesticide risk assessment process in spring 2014. Hopefully, risks posed to human health and the environment would finally be incorporated into the pesticide review process.

Potatoes are a heavy user of pesticides and use more pounds of pesticides per acre than most crops. Farmers often spray on a weekly basis, or even more frequently to try to prevent blight. They also spray herbicides to kill the tops of the plants at the end of the growing season to make the underground tubers easier to harvest. According to Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, there are 78 pesticides with established tolerance for potatoes, 30 acutely toxic creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 69 are linked to chronic health problems (such as cancer), 21 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 70 are poisonous to wildlife, including ethoprop, mancozeb, chlorothalonil, EPTC and metribuzin. Many leach to groundwater and contaminate surface waters.

Meanwhile, organic production systems have shown that potatoes can be grown without toxic pesticides. These systems nurture plant health through biologically active soil that supplies necessary nutrients, and the adoption of cultural practices like rotations, cultivation techniques, cover crops, and timing of planting. Without changes to the management system, continued reliance on toxic pesticides continues. Certified organic practices and allowed materials in organic agriculture undergo a strict public review process under the guidance of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which is now being undermined by USDA policies that weaken the review process and public oversight. See Beyond Pesticides’ Save Our Organic webpage to see how you can get involved to ensure the growth of organic potato production and all crops.  For more information on organic production, see Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture webpage.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Bismarck Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2014) The presence of triclosan in soaps and consumer products ranging from cutting boards to pencils means constant exposure to a chemical linked to a wide range of adverse health effects. New data to be presented at the 248^th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, reveals that 100% of pregnant women in a multiethnic urban population in Brooklyn, New York tested positive for triclosan in their urine. In half of the pregnant women tested, the chemical also showed up in umbilical cord blood.

“We looked at the exposure of pregnant women and their fetuses to triclosan and triclocarban, two of the most commonly used germ-killers in soaps and other everyday products,” says study co-author Benny Pycke, Ph.D at Arizona State University. “We found triclosan in all of the urine samples from the pregnant women that we screened. We also detected it in about half of the umbilical cord blood samples we took, which means it transfers to fetuses.”

In 2004, Beyond Pesticides published The Ubiquitous Triclosan, sounding the alarm on the rising use of an antibacterial chemical never adequately evaluated for adverse effects by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (while FDA regulates the use of triclosan and other antibacterials in soaps, washes, deodorants and other similar consumer goods, EPA regulates the use of triclosan as a pesticide, such as in anti-bacterial impregnated products like clothing and carpets). Within a short period of time, triclosan made its way into over 2,000 everyday consumer products. “If you cut off the source of exposure, eventually triclosan and triclocarban would quickly be diluted out, but the truth is that we have universal use of these chemicals, and therefore also universal exposure,” notes lead author of the recent study Rolf Halden, Ph.D at Arizona State University.

Previous studies also found triclosan to be present in the bodies of pregnant women. A 2011 study funded by the US Centers for Disease Control found levels of triclosan in pregnant women to be higher than those in non-pregnant women. A study published in 2010 by the University of Florida (UF) raised concerns about triclosan’s endocrine disrupting properties inhibiting proper fetal development. Margaret James, PhD, lead author of the UF study noted, “We suspect that makes this substance dangerous in pregnancy if enough of the triclosan gets through to the placenta to affect the enzyme. We know for sure it is a very potent inhibitor. What we don’t know is the kinds of levels you would have to be exposed to see a negative effect. If this process is interrupted then we wonder if that might affect how the fetus develops. There is a chance it may not produce some of the proteins that it should during development. Therefore there might be a chance at either growth retardation or something worse happening to the fetus.” The chemical also raises concerns immediately after birth. A 2008 study by Swedish researchers found triclosan in the breast milk of nursing mothers. The sum of these reports is especially concerning given a recent study showing that few doctors educate pregnant women on the dangers of environmental toxins.

Last year, FDA announced that it will require manufacturers of antibacterial soaps and body washes to prove that their products are both safe for long-term use and more effective than regular bar soap in order to remain on the market. EPA is accelerating the registration review of triclosan, and both agencies are collaborating to understand the health effects of the chemical. The state of Minnesota has not waited for a federal response to  triclosan; earlier this year Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill to prohibit the sale of triclosan-containing soaps and body washes within the state.

Meanwhile, private companies are phasing out triclosan from products due to direct pressure from educated consumers. Johnson & Johnson,  Procter & Gamble  and  Colgate-Palmolive  began reformulating to remove triclosan from their products for several years now. Avon joined these companies earlier in 2014, announcing    it will begin phasing the chemical out of “the few” products in its line that include it.

Beyond Pesticides urges concerned consumers to join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Read the label of personal care products in order to avoid those containing triclosan. Encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, school, or company to  adopt the model resolution  which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

For additional information on the human health and environmental effects of triclosan, see Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterials program page. And for further information on how to protect your baby form pesticides and other harmful chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides Information for New Moms webpage.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: American Chemical Society Press Release

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2014) Vermont Law School announced Friday that its campus is going neonicotinoid pesticide-free, making it the first higher-education campus in the country to earn official recognition from the  BEE Protective Campaign, led by Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety. The university joins an expanding list of communities across the country to take action to protect pollinators in the absence of federal regulation, including Eugene, OR,   Spokane, WA, and most recently, Shorewood, Minnesota.

“We are very pleased that Vermont Law School has taken the lead on going neonic-free, and hope other universities and communities will follow suit,” said Nichelle Harriott, Senior Staff Scientist at Beyond Pesticides.

Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. These systemic pesticides, which  move through the plant’s vascular system and express themselves through pollen and nectar,  include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. A growing body of science has implicated neonicotinoids, which are applied to or  incorporated into seeds for agricultural, ornamental  and garden plants, as a key factor in recent global bee die-offs. Beekeepers across the country reported losses of 40-90 percent of their bees last winter.

“Honey bees and other pollinators play a critical role in agricultural systems,” said Laurie Ristino, director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems and VLS associate professor of law. “Protecting their health and safety is a reflection of Vermont Law School’s commitment to the environment and CAFS’ mission to support sustainable food and agricultural systems. We hope more will follow our lead.”

“This is a historic day for pollinators,” said Larissa Walker, Pollinator Campaign Director at Center for Food Safety. “For the first time, a major university is taking steps to provide a sanctuary for the bees. Pollinators are too important to wait for the situation to get worse. We applaud Vermont Law School and thank them for their leadership. We look forward to many more institutions joining the movement and pledging to go neonic-free.”

BEE Protective in Your Community

One in every three bites of food we eat are reliant on bees, and pollinators contribute between $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually in the U.S. The decline of honey bees  and other pollinators due to pesticides, and other man-made causes demands immediate action. Encourage your own community or campus to be pollinator-friendly and make changes that will protect your local pollinator population. Get the Model Community Pollinator Resolution in the hands of local elected officials or school administrators. For help with your campaign, contact Beyond Pesticides.

National Efforts to BEE Protective

As EPA continues to stall, Beyond Pesticides, along with other groups are working to BEE Protective. Last year, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and others filed a lawsuit against EPA on its continued registration of these chemicals. The groups are also working to pressure on lawmakers in Congress to take action to protect pollinators with the Saving America’s Pollinator Act, H.R. 2692, introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), is gaining support in the House. The bill aims to suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of the scientific evidence has been conducted that demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators. Get your Representative to support this bill!

BEE Protective is a national campaign established by  Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety, which serves as a national public education effort supporting local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes. BEE Protective includes a variety of resources   to encourage municipalities, campuses, and homeowners to adopt policies that protect pollinators from bee-toxic pesticides. For more information on how to truly bee protective, join our campaign and take action at www.BeeProtective.org.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2014) Despite the continued documentation of weed resistance all over the United States, as well as the world, another line of herbicide-tolerant crops developed by Monsanto is currently in the pipeline awaiting likely approval by U.S. regulators. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on Tuesday, which, according to regulators, will pave the way for the approval of new  genetically modified cotton and soybean plants tolerant to a mixture of the herbicides glyphosate and dicamba.

Monsanto’s new soybean and cotton crops were developed to withstand their new herbicide formulation, called Roundup Xtend, which combines the pesticides dicamba and glyphosate. The “Roundup Ready Xtend crop system” was developed to curb the proliferation of millions of acres of weeds that have grown resistant to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup, which has been used on the company’s biotech corn, soybeans, and cotton.

Weed resistance due to cropping systems dependent on herbicides has been documented for years, making APHIS’ conclusions in the EIS all the more alarming. A report that Beyond Pesticides published 12 years ago, “The Environmental Risks of Transgenic Crops: An Agroecological Assessment is the failed pesticide paradigm being genetically engineered?” argued that as the industry pressures to increase herbicide sales, it will increase the acreage treated with these broad-spectrum herbicides, thus exacerbating the resistance problem and keeping farmers on a “pesticide treadmill.” Additionally, the occurrence of “super weeds” coincides strongly with the use of toxic herbicides on genetically engineered (GE) crops. According to one study, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. ””the first sixteen years,” author Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory of herbicide use. Glyphosate resistance is just one of many examples where overuse on GE crops has brought about not only environmental contamination and risk to human health, but the explosion of super weeds as well.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently denied a request by Texas regulators for the emergency use of propazine to combat glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, citing risks to drinking water and other hazards. However, this victory only serves to highlight the work that still needs to be done. Although Texas cotton growers who use chemical-intensive practices were denied the use of this toxic chemical due to drinking water concerns, EPA states in its letter that these Texas growers had otherwise met emergency criteria. But weed resistance in GE crop fields is predictable, and should be ineligible for requests such as this. Ultimately, chemical-intensive growers in Texas and throughout the U.S. should not, as EPA suggests, simply move to another pesticide when their unsustainable practices lead to weed resistance.

The health consequences of dicamba exposure include neurotoxicity and adverse reproductive and developmental effects, while glyphosate has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, as well as endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, and kidney and liver damage.

In stark contrast to these ecological and health concerns, Monsanto, the patent holder of the genetically engineered seed,  said that the APHIS action was “a noteworthy sign of progress.”

APHIS also issued a final EIS on Tuesday for genetically altered corn and soybean plants developed by Dow AgroSciences, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company. The EIS states that the agency intends to approve the products. APHIS said back in January that it was inching toward approval for Dow’s products, which are corn and soybean strains called Enlist that resist a new herbicide that includes glyphosate and 2,4-D, also developed by Dow. 2,4-D has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and birth and developmental effects.

The final EIS on 2,4-D resistant crops will be available for public review for 30 days upon publication in the Federal Register before APHIS makes its final regulatory determination on the petition for deregulation.  APHIS will publish its record of decision for the final EIS and its final regulatory determination after the conclusion of the 30-day public review period.

Regarding Monsanto’s new products, APHIS said in its Tuesday statement that farmers would see benefits, but also acknowledged that there would also likely be “an increased chance of the development of weeds resistant to dicamba.”

The draft EIS will be available for a 45-day public review and comment period upon publication by EPA in the Federal Register.

While APHIS finalizes its assessment of these GE plants, EPA is concluding its concurrent review of the related herbicides.

Pursuing sustainable alternatives can prevent the pesticide treadmill that results from the overuse of GE crops and pesticides like glyphosate. Integrated pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive would be the most appropriate and long-term solution to battling pigweed. Additionally, organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, mechanical production practices, and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving. To learn more about organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Program Page.

Source: Reuters

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2014) Residents of St. Louis, Michigan aren’t used to seeing large excavators and dump trucks haul piles of dirt from their front yards or entire blocks of big, neighborhood trees felled. What they are used to seeing are dead birds ””sometimes even spontaneous, mid-flight deaths of the birds”” and because of a toxic series of events, disasters, and delays spanning decades, the two sights are inextricably connected.

As one St. Louis resident described to the Detroit Free Press, dozens of dead robins and blackbirds had been collected from her backyard in the 18 years she has lived there, with the most recent just a couple weeks ago. This experience and other similar stories from the area prompted researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) to start figuratively and literally digging.

Matt Zwiernik, Ph.D., an environmental toxicologist at MSU, and volunteers collected 29 dead birds, including 22 robins, last year from a nine-block residential area in St. Louis. The scientific sampling was only a small portion of the dead birds they could have collected, Dr. Zwiernik explained to reporters at the Detroit Free Press, as time, distance, logistics, and access to property sometimes limited collection efforts. Nevertheless, it was enough to show some alarming results.

Forensic study of the bird carcasses reveal brain and liver abnormalities in 12 of the 29 birds, and the mean total level of DDT or its breakdown components in the collected robins’ brains was 552 parts per million ”” some of the greatest concentrations ever recorded in wild birds, Zwiernik said. To put it in perspective, thirty parts per million of DDT are known to cause death in many bird species. In the case of the St. Louis birds, sudden death was from feeding on contaminated worms, grubs and insects, poisoned by the area’s DDT-tainted soils.

DDT is an organochlorine pesticide that was banned in the U.S. in 1972 due to its persistent and highly toxic nature. DDT was widely used to control mosquitoes for malaria abatement, and in agriculture. Despite the fact that DDT was banned in the U.S. 40 years ago, concentrations of this toxic chemical’s major metabolite, DDE, have remained alarmingly high in many ecosystems, including  surface waters, the Arctic, and even  U.S. national parks. This is because DDT/DDE are persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, are capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, and biomagnify in food chains, as seen in the St. Louis birds.

Of course, unlike the many instances of DDT contamination and poisoning in humans and wildlife, the researchers and residents in St. Louis knew exactly where to look for the source of the DDT ””the nearby former Velsicol Chemical factory and superfund site. According to EPA, the Velsicol Chemical Corp. (formerly the Michigan Chemical Corp.) produced various chemical compounds and products at its 54-acre main plant site in St. Louis, Michigan, from 1936 until 1978. To address contamination discovered at the former plant site (after a catastrophic plant error mixed thousands of pounds of another toxic chemical””polybrominated biphenyl (PBB))””into lifestock feed), a consent judgment was entered into by Velsicol, EPA and the State of Michigan in 1982.

Because the Pine River borders the former main plant site on three sides and was known to also be significantly contaminated, part of the settlement involved Velsicol’s agreement to construct a slurry wall around the former plant site and put a clay cap over it. The river sediment pollution was addressed at that time by the State of Michigan, which issued a no-consumption advisory for all species of fish in the Pine River. The fish advisory remains in effect today.

But despite the $100 clean-up efforts targeting the water contamination, 2006 testing revealed that soil and water remained contaminated. This in addition to the remaining clean-up efforts still needed at the factory site itself and in the surrounding soil. More studies ensued, with an eventual Feasibility Study issued in 2011 and June 2012 Record of Decision that included clean-up of residential areas and a comprehensive clean-up of the main plant sit.

To add insult to injury, because of Velsicol’s declaration of bankruptcy in 1982, its consent decree only required a contribution of $20 million to the clean-up effort ””the remainder of the economic burden, past and future, being born by federal and state taxpayers.

Even more disturbing than the dead birds, dug up neighborhoods, and dumped economic responsibilities that span decades are the unaccounted for health impacts of DDT and other chemicals on the residents of the neighborhood. Organochlorines like DDT have been linked to a number of adverse effects to human health, including  birth defects, breast cancer  and  autism. DDT has also been linked to Vitamin D deficiency,  non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and  diabetes.

The severe delays and deficiencies in the federal and state toxic contamination clean-up process highlight the need for better precautionary measures and stricter health, environmental, and safety standards to be imposed before chemicals enter the homes, gardens, and air that surrounds us. Supporting organic systems and calling on the EPA and Congress to improve risk assessment frameworks are just a few of the steps you can take to avoid experiences like the one in St. Louis. Visit our website to learn more about pesticide impacts and what can be done to stop them before they happen!

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Detroit Free Press

Image: Romain Blanquart/ Detroit Free Press. The EPA loads waste soil after excavating it from around properties contaminated with the pesticide dichlorodiphenyl trichlorethane (DDT) that stand close to the former Velsicol Chemical Corp. on Center Street in St. Louis.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2014) Shorewood, Minnesota has become the first city in the state, and the third city in the nation to pass a bee friendly policy. The city council unanimously approved a “bee-safe” resolution that encourages planting bee-friendly flowers and restricts the bee-killing pesticides, neonicotinoids. The city has already begun planting clover, which will provide nectar and pollen forage for bees in city parks.

A group of Shorewood residents, concerned over reports of bee decline, came together to ensure that bees in their community have access to healthy forage and habitat. In a prime example of grassroots activism, the group urged their neighbors to plant pollinator-friendly plants, and to take care of lawns without using products harmful to bees. The resolution, passed last week, encourages the use of bee-safe processes in parks, education to residents on bee and pollinator safety, and other bee safe practices. Neonicotinoids, the class of chemicals identified as playing a major role in bee decline across the globe, have been banned from city property. While the city itself has not been using neonicotinoids, Mayor Scott Zerby says the policy ensures that the city does not use the chemicals in the future. The Minneapolis suburb is also planting clover, which can provide nectar and pollen for bees, in three city parks.

“This should be exciting for Minnesota,” said Patricia Hauser, a resident who pushed for the policy. “This is a big win for pollinators and bees.”

Community Activism

Patricia Hauser and her husband, hobby beekeepers, galvanized into action after noticing their bees were dying. In January, they started the group Humming for Bees. Since then, they have been actively engaging their community on the importance of bees and the factors affecting their decline. At churches, schools, farmers markets, nature centers and neighborhoods, they spread the word about the bees’ plight and how people can help. Now, the group is paying for, planting and watering clover seeds in vacant areas of Cathcart, Freeman and South Shore parks.

Earlier this year, Shorewood city leaders sent a letter of support to the state Legislature to pass the law forbidding nurseries from putting “bee-friendly” labels on plants containing neonicotinoids. In May, the bill – HF 2798 – was passed by Minnesota’s House and Senate stipulating that plants may not be labeled as beneficial to pollinators if they have been treated with detectible levels of systemic insecticides. In similar action, beekeepers in Minnesota this year have also called on the state’s Department of Agriculture to suspend the use of corn seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, citing the contamination of flowers and plants from field dust which leads to the poisoning of honey bees.

Shorewood follows the City of Eugene, Oregon which became the first community in the nation to specifically ban from city property the use of  neonicotinoid pesticides, citing recent research demonstrating a link between pesticides that contain neonicotinoids and the loss of plant pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, butterflies, moths, and other beneficial  insects. This action was driven by several bee-kill incidents that occurred in Oregon last summer, including one that killed more than 50,000 bumblebees after a licensed pesticide applicator sprayed blooming linden trees,  a violation of  the pesticide  label.

In June, the city of Spokane, WA voted to discontinue the use of neonicotinoids on city property, making Spokane the second in the nation to take action to protect pollinators. According to legislators, the ban is part of an undertaking to implement environmentally sustainable initiatives at City Hall. Other communities like the Melody-Catalpa neighborhood of Boulder became the first “bee-safe” locality in Colorado this past June, pledging to not use neonicotinoids and other systemic pesticides in the community.

In Congress, Saving America’s Pollinator Act, H.R. 2692, introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), is gaining support in the House. The bill aims to suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of the scientific evidence has been conducted that demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators. Get your Representative to support this bill!

Neonicotinoids, like imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid, and dinotefuran, are widely used as a seed coating on agricultural crops, and in home and garden products applied to flowering plants and vegetables.  Studies have found  that bees are exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides through pollen and nectar, as well as via contaminated soil, dust, and water. They have also been shown to impair bees’ ability to learn, to find their way back to the hive, to collect food, to produce new queens, and to maintain a healthy immune system. Most recently, a Harvard School of Public Health study, published in the Bulletin of Insectology, shows two widely used neonicotinoids appear to significantly harm honey bee colonies over the winter, especially during colder winters. Read the report No longer a Big Mystery.

Like the Hausers, you too can become a community activist and transform your community into one that supports bees and other pollinators, as well as encouraging your local leaders to pass bee-friendly policies. For more information, contact Beyond Pesticides. For more on pollinator protection efforts and what you can do in your community, visit BEE Protective. Also, sign the pledge to BEE Protective.

Source: Minnesota Star Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2014) A new study finds that female mice exposed in utero to the pesticide DDT are at greater risk for obesity and type-2 diabetes, adding to a growing body of literature linking metabolic diseases to pesticide exposure.

The study, titled Perinatal Exposure of Mice to the Pesticide DDT Impairs Energy Expenditure and Metabolism in Adult Female Offspring, was published in the journal PLoS One. Researchers measure and compare metabolic abnormalities in female mice that were exposed in utero to DDT against a control group of those that were unexposed. After exposure, the two groups were then fed high-fat diets for 12 weeks in adulthood. Females exposed to DDT around the time of their birth were more likely to develop insulin sensitivity, glucose intolerance, high cholesterol, and metabolic complications that could result in liver disease.

These results suggest that DDT exposure in and around the time of gestation cultivates conditions that increase an individual’s likelihood of accumulating excess fat over the course of one’s lifespan. Additionally, the results find that changes in the way fats and carbohydrates are metabolized can increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome, which is a precursor to type-2 diabetes.

The researchers’ observations also have other significant implications: the effects of early DDT exposure may not show up until much later in life, signaling a delay between cause and effect. Researchers initially noted subtle differences in DDT-exposed females in young adulthood —they had slightly lower core temperatures than their non-exposed counterparts and appeared to expend fewer calories as a result of their daily activities. Exposed female mice were slightly heavier and carried a bit more fat as young adults, or about two to five months after birth. Clearer signs did not appear until the DDT-exposed female mice reached six months of age. Researchers found impaired glucose tolerance, fasting glucose, insulin, and lipid levels in this group of mice. Furthermore, when the exposed and unexposed mice were put on a high-fat diet at six months, their weight and metabolic health diverged significantly.

DDT is also associated with multi-generational effects. A study published last year in the journal BMC Medicine found that the third generation of pregnant rats injected with DDT, while there was no change in obesity levels in their offspring, exhibited dramatically higher levels of fat and weight gain despite not being directly exposed to the pesticide themselves. “Here is an ancestral exposure in your great-grandmother, which is passed on to you and you’re going to pass on to your grandchildren,” said Michael Skinner, Ph.D., a professor of biological sciences at Washington State University who led the research. More recently, Dr. Skinner’s laboratory found that gestating rats exposed to the pesticide methoxychlor develop a higher incidence of kidney disease, ovary disease, and obesity in offspring spanning three generations, with the incidence of multiple diseases increasing in the third generation (the “great-grandchildren”) of the originally exposed rats. Methoxychlor, an organochlorine compound that was eventually cancelled in 2003, was initially developed as a “safer” replacement for DDT. Methoxychlor is similar to the hormone estrogen and profoundly affects the reproductive system. It is also listed as a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. PBT chemicals are of particular concern not only because they are toxic, but also because they remain in the environment for long periods of time, are not readily destroyed, and build up or accumulate in body tissue.

DDT was widely used in the United States and Europe to control mosquitoes and other insects carrying malaria, polio, and typhus from the late 1940s until 1972, the year it was banned. Although evidence of toxicity to the environment and health led the U.S. to ban its use, DDT is still used in some less-developed countries to control malaria. In addition to its toxicity, DDT is greatly persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment; in fact, it has been found in large amounts in areas like the San Francisco Bay canal where the chemical is still poisoning fish and posing a threat to human health despite cleanup attempts. EPA has classified DDT and its breakdown products DDE and DDD as PBT pollutants.

Although DDT is not hypothesized to be the sole contributor to the current obesity and diabetes epidemic in the US and other parts of the world, it is just one of many possible environmental factors, along with flame retardants and bisphenol A (BPA), that have been linked to growing incidence rates over the past few decades. Other pesticides, like the aforementioned methoxychlor, tributyltin, and hexachlorobenzene, for example, also are correlated with these diseases. These chemicals and many others are considered to be endocrine disruptors, or chemicals that interact with the body’s endocrine system and have the ability to affect the development (including sexual development), growth, reproduction, and behavior of both animals and humans. As a result, endocrine disruption is the mechanism for several health effect endpoints. More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors by the European Union and endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, Ph.D, founder and president emeritus of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX).

Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a great resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated rates of diabetes as well as other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides.

Source: Los  Angeles  Times

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2014) The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides critical safeguards for our nation’s waterways, with the goal of fishable and swimmable waters for all residents of the United States. Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to strip away an important part of these protections concerning pesticides applied directly to U.S. waters. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013 (HR 935) would reverse a 2009 ruling in National Cotton Council v. EPA that requires CWA permits for pesticide users who spray over waterways. After failing in a vote under a suspension of the rules last Monday, the House took the bill back up and passed it 267-161.

“This is a good bill that reduces burdensome regulations without rolling back any environmental safeguards,” said U.S. Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH), the bill’s sponsor, to The Hill. Unfortunately, Rep. Gibb’s statement couldn’t be farther from the truth. Under the deceptive title of “Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” this bill would instead eliminate critical CWA protections. “This legislation will undermine one of our nation’s most successful environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, in limiting the potential contamination of our nation’s waters by pesticides. All this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams and make accountability for these discharges even more difficult,” said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD). However, hope for the bill’s ultimate defeat remains, as the Burlington Free Press indicates that it is unlikely to advance through the Senate.

If passed, The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013 would:
(1) undermine federal authority to protect U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act,
(2) allow the spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight,
(3) not reduce claimed burdens to farmers since there is no burden as there is no real economic cost and agricultural activities are exempt, and
(4) contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life.

The CWA general permit lets authorities know what is sprayed and when it is sprayed, so that the public may know what chemicals are used in their waterways and the potential dangers to sensitive aquatic ecosystems. Existing pesticide regulations under the Federal Insecticide Rodenticide and Fungicide Act (FIFRA) do not achieve these protections and most agricultural pesticide applications are exempt from CWA permit requirements. Permits do not prevent applicators from using pesticides, especially for public health emergencies. The permits do require applicators to record their pesticide applications and monitor application sites for any adverse incidents, which must be reported. For many states the cost of the permit is as low as $25. The myth that the CWA permits for pesticide discharges near waterways are burdensome for farmers has not been substantiated. Read Clearing up the Confusion Surrounding the New NPDES General Permit.

Already, nearly 2,000 waterways are impaired  by pesticide contamination and many more have simply not been tested. The potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that can result from unchecked, indiscriminate pollution of waterways is being ignored by opponents of CWA regulation. The reality is that this permitting process encourages pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water. This is underscored by the recent federal report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) which finds that 83 percent of streams in agricultural and urban areas contain at least one aquatic community that was altered notably as a result of runoff from pesticides and contaminants. Previous USGS reports have documented pesticides and fertilizers in U.S. streams and drinking water. Herbicides like atrazine, metalachlor, and simizine are among those often found in surface waters of 186 rivers and streams sampled by USGS since the early 1990s, and are highly correlated with the presence of upstream wastewater sources or upstream agricultural and urban land use. Given this data and the vast knowledge that we have on organic pest management and non-chemical solutions, HR. 935 would be a disastrous step backwards.

Additionally, many believe that FIFRA sufficiently regulates pesticide use near waterways, but data shows this  to be  inaccurate, given the prevalence of surface and ground water contamination routinely detected in the nation’s streams, as well as numerous incidents of adverse ecological findings.  Furthermore, FIFRA and CWA have fundamentally different standards and methods in determining whether a pesticide will have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. CWA uses a health-based standard to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, whereas FIFRA uses a highly generalized risk assessment that identifies risk and  assumes  benefits (except in the case of public health pesticide uses). The result is the allowance of  a certain amount of pollution (i.e. harm) without consideration of  the availability of safer alternatives.

For more information about pesticide permits and the importance of Clean Water Act protections, read our factsheet, Clearing up the Confusion Surrounding the New NPDES General Permit  and visit our Threatened Waters page.

Source: Cleveland.com, The Hill

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2014) In a huge victory for environmental protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will phase out the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops to feed wildlife and ban neonicotinoid insecticides from all wildlife refuges nationwide by January 2016. The FWS decision, announced via internal memoranda July 17 and obtained by Center for Food Safety (CFS), follows a longstanding grassroots, legal, and policy campaign by CFS, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and joined by Beyond Pesticides, to end the harmful practices. This announcement builds on the recently announced decision to eliminate neonicotinoid pesticides, linked to the decline of pollinator health, from refuges in the Pacific Region. FWS is the first federal agency to restrict the use of GE crops in farming in the U.S. and the use of neonicotinoids based on a precautionary policy.

“We have demonstrated our ability to successfully accomplish refuge purposes over the past two years without using genetically modified crops, therefore, it is no longer possible to say that their use is essential to meet wildlife management objectives. We will no longer use genetically modified crops to meet wildlife management objectives System-wide,” wrote National Wildlife Refuge System Chief James Kurth in the memorandum. On the issue of the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, Mr. Kurth continued, “We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid  pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can potentially affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy. We make this decision based on a precautionary approach to our wildlife management practices and not on agricultural practices.” In the context of an  agricultural use of neonicotinoids, FWS notes that it will conduct a review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires and alternatives assessment. Certified organic agriculture does not allow the use of neonicotinoids.

“The FWS  decision represents an important and responsible departure from EPA’s decision to allow the widespread use of neonicotinoids despite the non-target effects to managed and wild bees and other beneficial organisms,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides, CFS and PEER have long urged FWS to prohibit the practice nationally. From 2005-2014, the groups filed five lawsuits, two legal petitions, and countless administrative actions, with resulting judicial decisions concluding that the allowance of GE crops on refuges violated environmental laws in multiple refuge regions across the country.

Despite the fact that these GE crops and neonicotinoid pesticides often interfere with the protection of wildlife that the national refuge system is designed to protect, these harmful practices are often used. Scientists warn that the use of GE crops can lead to increased pesticide use on refuges, negatively effecting birds, aquatic animals, and other wildlife. And a vast spectrum of recent scientific findings has implicated neonicotinoids in pollinator declines and ecosystem harm. A recent report from a sister agency to the FWS, the U.S. Geological Survey, found widespread contamination of neonicotinoids in surface waters throughout the Midwest.

The Department of Interior is aiming to phase out the use of neonicotinoids and genetically modified crops on federal wildlife refuge lands, finding that neither technology contributes to wildlife objectives and as a result should be restricted. Both practices will be phased out by January 2016, James Kurth, chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, said in the memo. The department will identify areas of agricultural production on its lands that should be restored to native habitats, an effort intended to fall in line with a plan to reduce the carbon foot print of the system, he says.

“We are gratified that the Fish and Wildlife Service has finally concluded that industrial agriculture, with GE crops and powerful pesticides, is both bad for wildlife and inappropriate on refuge lands,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Since refuges have already demonstrated that they do not need these practices, we would urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to make the ban immediate, not wait until 2016, and to eliminate the loopholes in its new policy.”

For nearly 10 years, Beyond Pesticides has joined CFS and PEER to campaign against GE crops and pesticide use on refuges. In March 2009, CFS and PEER won a lawsuit, filed in 2006, halting GE plantings on Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. In 2011, the groups forced a legal settlement ending GE planting on refuges throughout the 12-state Northeast Region. In 2012, a federal court formally halted the planting of GE crops on all National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeastern U.S. as well as ordered steps to mitigate environmental damage from their previous illegal cultivation. The groups have also petitioned FWS to prohibit GE Crops nationally twice and to prohibit neonicotinoid pesticides on refuges once. The Center for Biological Diversity and Beyond Pesticides co-signed the second legal petition, filed in February of this year.

CFS, PEER, Beyond Pesticides, and Sierra Club are currently litigating FWS’s allowance of industrial agriculture practices on Midwest Wildlife Refuges. This recent FWS announcement includes a partial GE phase out by January 2016, only allowing GE crops for habitat restoration. The groups maintain that the phase out is not adequately comprehensive and continue to advocate the FWS must take stronger measures.

For information on what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign information.

Source: Center for Food Safety

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.