(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2014) According to a new study, few obstetricians offer their pregnant  patients advice on how to avoid environmental toxins that might harm their babies, even though doctors recognize that exposure to chemicals like pesticides, bisphenol-A (BPA), and metals can affect  a pregnancy. The study recommends that the medical community improve medical education and training, develop recommendations for prevention and less toxic alternatives, as well as lend support to policy change.

The first of its kind study of prenatal counselling, published in the journal  PLOS ONE, Counseling Patients on Preventing Prenatal Environmental Exposures – A Mixed-Methods Study of Obstetricians, found that U.S. obstetricians and gynaecologists feel they lack the medical education and training, and evidence-based guidelines and tools for communicating potential environmental risks to patients. Exposure to environmental toxins, the researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) found, is rarely discussed with pregnant patients, even though a national survey shows that 80 percent of physicians agree they should play a part in reducing patients’ exposure to toxins. But, of the 2,500 respondents, only one in five routinely asked  their  patients about these exposures, and just one in 15 said they received training on the harmful reproductive effects of toxic chemicals.

Survey participants believe that environmental exposures are important and that reproductive health professionals had a role in prevention. However, this concern did not translate into clinical practice. Few respondents reported routine counseling about exposure to environmental chemicals known to be harmful to reproductive health, and most felt ill-prepared to deal routinely with the issue. Many doctors felt they have a limited amount of time to talk, and more immediate concerns like vitamin intake and sexual health are often at the top of patients’ priority lists.

Pregnant women, studies have found, carry a toxic soup of hazardous chemicals  in their bodies including high levels of organophosphate pesticides, endocrine disrupting compounds including triclosan, BPA and phthalates. A CDC study,  Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the US: NHANES 2003-2004, found almost all —99 to 100 percent— of the pregnant women sampled carry in their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, phenols like triclosan, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate.Recent research has shown that environmental toxins can have profound effects on fetal development. Numerous studies have reported  birth defects  and  developmental problems  when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides, especially exposures that adversely affect mental and motor development during infancy and childhood.   For instance, pesticides like chlorpyrifos   have been shown to pose risks to babies exposed in the womb to  brain abnormalities  after birth.

A study published recently in  Environmental Health Perspectives  shows that pesticide exposure can increase a woman’s risk of giving birth to a child with autism.  Another study  found that maternal exposure to air pollution is associated with low birth weight in infants. Other areas of concern include exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) in household plastics and flame retardant chemicals in fabrics.

Doctors in this new study reported in focus groups that they felt pregnant women were already stressed about reproductive and developmental health issues, and that doctors did not want to burden them further with conversations about toxins.  Similarly, providers who care for lower-income women feel that they have limited time and more pressing issues to cover, such as poor diet, poverty and psycho-social stressors. However, according to the authors of the study, this fear may be unwarranted, as biomonitoring studies have shown that women want to know and can react in a productive way to information about potentially harmful exposures

The authors put forward several recommendations to pregnant women to reduce their exposures, including switching to organic food, and choosing less toxic alternatives for pest control and household cleansers. They also acknowledged that women with occupational exposures have limited legal protections, as regulations do not always recognize well-documented chronic health impacts. However, doctors can help reduce harmful exposures for pregnant women by lending their support for policy change. See commentary on the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standards.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a landmark policy statement,  Pesticide Exposure in Children, and an accompanying technical report  on the effects of pesticide exposure in children. The AAP highlighted current shortfalls in medical training, public health tracking, and regulatory action on pesticides. This report provided recommendations to both pediatricians and government health agencies. Similarly, AAP made a previous policy statement citing the benefits of eating organic food in order to reduce pesticide exposure, especially in children.

In 2008, Beyond Pesticides, Maryland Pesticide Network, and leading Maryland health and elder care facilities released Taking Toxics out of Maryland’s Health Care Sector: Transition to Green Pest Management Practices to Protect Health and the Environment,  a report that documented practices and policies to eliminate toxic pesticide use. Since this report, Beyond Pesticides and Maryland Pesticide Network have worked with  hospital and administrative officials to move away from using toxic pesticides and implement a defined Integrated Pest Management  strategy (IPM) in their facilities, as well as educate new mothers on the importance of reducing pesticide use and exposures.
For more information on Beyond Pesticides Healthy Hospital program, please visit our  Healthy Hospitals page, and for how pesticides affect children, visit the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database.

Source: Health-Line

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2014) Early last month, Maui County residents gathered enough signatures to require a county-wide vote on legislation that will put in place a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops. This achievement represents the first ever citizen driven initiative in Maui County, which encompasses Maui, Molokai and Lanai islands. The petition drive was spearheaded by the SHAKA (Sustainable Hawaiian Agriculture for the Keiki and the Aina) Movement, a grassroots campaign that is “preserving paradise for future generation by reclaiming, restoring and revitalizing depleted soil, and growing healthy foods without a dependence on chemicals,” according to Mark Sheehan, a spokesman for the group.

Maui’s citizen initiative is part of a growing movement on the Hawaiian Islands that seeks to protect health and the environment while strengthening local food economies and resiliency. Residents living on the Hawaiian Islands are subject to a particularly pronounced form of environmental assault, as the state’s premiere growing conditions have made it a prime target for agrichemical companies to test new, experimental forms of GE crops. Data released earlier this year reveals that high levels of restricted use pesticides, in some cases almost double the pounds per acre average of other states, are being used in Kauai County. Residents of the Hawaiian Islands that live, work, or go to school near these fields are subject to incessant pesticide spraying, as the climate provides a year-round growing season for GE crops. A May 2014 report found 25 herbicides, 11 insecticides and 6 fungicides in Hawaii’s waterways, underscoring resident concerns for both the land and human health.

The SHAKA movement faced a steep climb in gathering petition signatures, as Maui’s law only allows citizen initiatives if signatures are collected from 20 percent of residents who voted in the county’s last election. Over 9,000 valid signatures were collected by the group, more than enough to place the measure on the ballot. Before heading to the voting booth, however, the ordinance moves to the county council, which has two months to decide whether to enact the initiative or bring it to a vote in November. The citizen bill was referred to the county committee on intergovernmental affairs, which earlier this year failed to move legislation that would have require fewer restrictions for GE plantings than the current initiative. So if previous action from the council is any indication, it is likely that Maui residents will be deciding the fate of this bill.

Late last year, Kauai, Hawaii became the first locality in the nation to enact restrictions on the planting of genetically modified crops and the associated use of hazardous pesticides. Hawaii County (The Big Island) also passed a bill that banned the open growing of any new GE organisms. Although both of these bills were a response to an outpouring of public support for increased health protections from GE crops and associated pesticide use, they were hard fought, as agrichemical companies worked furiously to lobby local and state leaders to weaken or drop the bills. And even after hard-won passage, agrichemical giants have continued their assault on the rights of localities, suing both Kauai and Hawaii County. Apart from lawsuits and lobbying, agrichemical companies have been pouring money into political candidates in an effort to sway or stop legislation that restricts GE agriculture. The Center for Media and Democracy put together a break-down of agrichemical industry spending in the state.

Despite the deep pockets of the agrichemical industry, residents both in Hawaii and across the United States continue to raise their voices for increased protections from GE crops and the hazardous pesticide use that is associated with their planting. If Maui’s measure ultimately goes to the ballot, the county won’t be the first U.S locality that gets a chance to bar the planting of GE crops. In May, Jackson and Josephine County, Oregon voted overwhelmingly to ban the cultivation, production, and distribution of GE crops within their borders. “We fought the most powerful and influential chemical companies in the world and we won,” said Elise Higley, a Jackson County farmer and representative from  Our Family Farms Coalition told Oregon Live. The fights may be long, drawn out, and grueling, but concerned residents continue to stand up for common sense protections in order to safeguard the health of themselves, their families, their community members, and the unique areas in which they live.

You can support the SHAKA Movement by visiting them through their website. Additional background on the fight for increased protections on the Hawaiian Islands, including testimony Beyond Pesticides provided in support of Kauai’s Bill 2491, can be found here. For more information on the hazards that continue to be associated with the growth of GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering webpage.

Source: Civil Beat, SHAKA Movement

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2014) Decades later there are still horrifying impacts from a legacy of dumping in the environment tens of thousands of pounds of chemical waste used in the production of pesticides. The production  by the Hooker Chemical Company of C-56, the progenitor of many now banned organochlorine pesticides, has resulted in contamination and hardship. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for the elimination of hazardous synthetic pesticides, due to unnecessary risks that put the health of both people and entire communities in jeopardy.

Long after the Depression Era in Montague, MI, there were still many families who were left jobless and looking for any means to bring back a better life. The town decided to stimulate the local economy by recruiting Hooker Electrochemical Company; a chemical manufacturer originally based in New York, where it had been using an old canal bed for disposal of waste in the 1940s and was looking for a new site to build a chlor-alkali plant. Ninety-six percent of local residents signed the petition to bring them in. The situation was perfect for Hooker, which needed the vast underground reserves of salt and the lake water in the town for cooling during its industrial pesticide manufacturing processes. According to a local attorney, Winton Dahlstrom, “Hooker had been welcomed into the community because as individuals they were well-educated, well-spoken and nobody at the time had any idea what the attitude of industry was toward our natural environment.”

In the 1980s, three individuals, Marjory Erdman, Beth Manchesky and Kristy Anderson, all from Montague, MI had formed a friendship at very early age, and had grown up, got married and started families, remaining very close. One day in 2010 they were all having lunch together and it was discovered each one had a deadly disease that was predicted to cut their lives short. Kristy had a rare sarcoma, Beth had a rare form of mantle cell lymphoma, and Marjory had developed a rare cancer in her uterus. They all had one thing in common, living in the same town that had a history of industrial pollution. However, they found, they were not the only ones having these problems. Many other longtime residents can list their family members and friends with similar health problems as well. Sadly, this affected a boy, Zachary Peterson,  who was only 15 years old and diagnosed with a rare hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer), which usually affects men in their 50’s whose liver is damaged.

“There is a good chance it’s from the environment ”” that either the water or the air or something in our environment (contributed),” said Zachary’s father. “But how do you prove it?”

A couple years back, Claire Schlaff took it upon herself to answer this question. After the death of her son at age 35, she began to collect information that would possibly help answer some of the questions that arose within the community. Along with a few volunteers, they began the White Lake Cancer Mapping Project, which collected information on people who lived in the area and who had been diagnosed or died from cancer. With the information collected, they were able to track the cases over time and establish a pattern. She had to often deliver bad news to those looking for closure and links between the environment and the death of a loved one. “It’s very difficult when you’re talking about exposure to chemicals in the environment and proving they have caused any individual illness,” she said. “There are lots of reasons, starting with the people. Every person comes to the table with different hereditary genetics and disposition to disease. While you can have a group of people exposed to a chemical, all at the same level and same time, each person will react differently.”

Another individual during the late 1970s to the early 1980s, James Truchan, was given the task of investigating the company. He became convinced that the issues could be directly related to the chemical compound C-56. “C-56 as a compound is extremely toxic,” he said. “It’s extremely mutagenic and it’s also fetotoxic. It’s extremely bad stuff. My only hope is that people exposed to it don’t have some kind of detrimental health effects down the road from it 20, 30 or 40 years from now.” (Compound 56) C-56, also known as hexachlorocyclopentadiene, is an organochlorine compound from which many now banned pesticides, including DDT, methoxychlor, dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphene, mirex, kepone, lindane, and benzene hexachloride which are derived and produced.

Organochlorine compounds contain at least one covalently bonded (sharing one electron pair) atom of chlorine. They  are highly  persistent organic pollutants (POPs), resistant to degradation. Organochlorines  are of  particular concern to  human and environmental health because they are highly fat soluble and bioaccumulate throughout the food chain. In 2011, a study was published in the journal Pediatrics, in which researchers suggest that the changes in infants sizes at birth are due to the chemicals’ interference with hormones of the thyroid, a part of the endocrine system that regulates growth and development.

Although DDT has historically received the most press of all the organochlorine pesticides, this class of chemicals encompasses a large number of pesticides, most of which are no longer registered for  use in the U.S., but still enter the country on imported food, transcontinental drift, or as contaminants in other pesticides.  These chemicals, while inducing various harmful health effects, have in common their persistence in the environment and human bodies. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) took action to end all of the uses of endosulfan, an organochlorine has  is still used  in the U.S. on  apples and some fruits, and tomatoes and other vegetable crops, but banned in over 20 countries. While many uses are phasing out, EPA, which negotiates decisions with chemical companies and typically agrees to long phase-out periods on highly hazardous pesticides, has a phase-out plans for endosulfan that still allows the following:  Florida — Use ends December 31, 2014 –  All Florida uses on:   apple,  blueberry,  peppers,  potatoes,  pumpkins,  sweet corn,  tomato,  winter squash;  Use ends July 31, 2015 –   apple,  blueberry,  peppers,  potatoes,  pumpkins,  sweet corn,  tomato,  winter squash;  Use ends July 31, 2016 –  livestock ear tags,  pineapple,  strawberry (perennial/biennial)
vegetable crops for seed (alfalfa, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, chinese cabbage, collard greens, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga, turnip).

Lindane, another organochlorine still registered for use as an anti-lice shampoo in the U.S., has been banned in California and is under consideration for severe restrictions in the Michigan Senate. Beyond Pesticides and public health advocates continue to call for a complete phase-out remaining organochlorine chemicals given evidence of their persistence and harmful effects on health and the environment.

A key element of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which provides the statutory foundation for the USDA organic food label, is an evaluation of the production processes associated with inputs allowed to be used in organic production and processing.  Situations like the poisoning and contamination of Montague, MI  by a chemical company producing chemicals used in pesticides or other processing/production aids provides the basis for OFPA’s statutory requirement that  any synthetic material allowed to be used in the organic production or processing of organic food must be evaluated to ensure that it does not adversely affect health or the environment. The story of Montague frames a key aspect of the organic law, distinct from any other food safety law. Compliance with organic law offers a response to polluting practices, but there is tremendous pressure coming from USDA and the Organic Trade Association  to weaken the rigor with which synthetic materials are reviewed and, therefore, the integrity of the organic food label. Please see Beyond Pesticides’ Save Our Organic campaign and learn what you can do and more about the details.

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

Source: The Detroit News, The Alicia Patterson Foundation, Report on Carcinogens 12 Edition, Wikipedia

(Beyond Pesticides,  June 27, 2014) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a  request  by Texas regulators to allow the use of a controversial herbicide, propazine, to battle Palmer amaranth, a glyphosate-resistant “super weed” that has been plaguing growers of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-tolerant cotton in the state. Propazine, an active ingredient in Milo-Pro, would be sprayed on up to 3 million acres, which amounts to approximately half of the state’s estimated crop acreage for this season. As currently proposed, the maximum amount of product to be applied would be 70,314 gallons.

The Texas Department of Agriculture, on behalf of  chemical-intensive GE cotton growers,  asked EPA last month for an exemption to permit growers to spray fields with the herbicide this summer in order to control this highly invasive plant, also known as pigweed. Pigweed can grow up to 3 inches a day and is one of many plant species that has developed a resistance to  glyphosate, a systemic herbicide found in Roundup that has become one of the most widely used pesticides on the market.  Public comments are due by July 3, 2014.

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. This makes Texas’s push to use propazine all the more troubling, as it would contribute to a “pesticide treadmill,” or positive feedback loop, generating new super weeds and necessitating the use of increasingly more toxic chemicals to control them. Emergency exemptions have already been granted to compensate for the failure of glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready (RR) crops. EPA allowed the unregistered use of the herbicide fluridone on GE cotton in order to battle pigweed back in Arkansas in 2012.  More disturbingly, Dow Chemical has been promoting its  2,4-D-tolerant corn and soybean varieties to replace RR crops. Subsequently, the use of 2,4-D, a highly toxic herbicide, on these GE crops has been estimated to increase 1.75-3 times current use, with independent estimates much higher.

A number of environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, oppose the propazine proposal on the basis that the pesticide presents a potential risk to human health. Propazine is a restricted-use pesticide that requires a license to purchase and apply, according to Milo-Pro’s manufacturer. Propazine is also closely related to  atrazine, an herbicide used by corn growers that is banned in the European Union. A number of  studies  conducted by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., of the University of California, Berkeley, cite that atrazine can disrupt sexual reproduction in certain frog species.  Studies  that investigated the effects of subchronic and chronic exposure to propazine found that a variety of animal species were shown to exhibit neuroendocrine effects resulting in both reproductive and developmental consequences that are considered relevant to humans. In 1989, EPA classified propazine as a Group “C” (possible human carcinogen) chemical on the basis of “significant increases in mammary gland adenomas and adenomas/carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats. The EPA used the Q1* approach with Q1*= 4.45 x 10-2 based on the Multi-Stage Weib model using a 3/4 scaling factor” (EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet, 1998). More than 15 years later, EPA reversed this classification. The Agency had received mode of action data on the ability of atrazine to induce mammary tumors in rats through the neuroendocrine mechanism of toxicity the chemical shares with propazine, which lead to the conclusion that the events leading to tumor formation are species/strain specific and therefore not operative in humans. As a result, EPA reclassified atrazine in 2000 as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Propazine was similarly reclassified in 2005 on the evidence that it is not genotoxic and operates via a mode of action for mammary and pituitary tumor development in female rats similar to atrazine. Interestingly enough, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a  notice of intent to list  propazine and atrazine under Proposition 65, which requires the state to regulate chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm and forces manufacturers to label their products to warn consumers.

Pursuing sustainable alternatives can prevent the pesticide treadmill that results from the overuse of GE crops and pesticides like propazine. 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.

Please consider submitting public comments against the issuance of this emergency exemption  by July 3, 2014.

Learn more about toxic pesticides and their effects on health by checking out Beyond Pesticide’s  Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. You can also read more about genetic engineering, including latest news,  here.

Source:  The Wall Street Journal, EPA

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2014) Over half of the “bee-friendly” home garden plants sold at garden supply centers such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Walmart have been pre-treated with pesticides shown to harm and kill bees, according to a study released yesterday by Friends of the Earth, Beyond Pesticides and allies.

The study, Gardeners Beware 2014, shows that 36 out of 71 (51 percent) of garden plant samples purchased at top garden retailers in 18 cities in the United States and Canada contain neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides — a key contributor to recent bee declines. Some of the flowers contained neonic levels high enough to kill bees outright and concentrations in the flowers’ pollen and nectar are assumed to be comparable. Further, 40% of the positive samples contained two or more neonics.

Gardeners Beware 2014 is a larger follow up to a first-of-its-kind pilot study co-released by Friends of the Earth, Beyond Pesticides, and other groups last August. The new study expanded the number of samples and number of locations where plants were purchased, and also assessed the distribution of neonic pesticides between flowers and the rest of the plant.

“Our data indicate that many plants sold in nurseries and garden stores across the U.S. and Canada are being pre-treated with systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, making them potentially toxic to pollinators,” said Timothy Brown, Ph.D., co-author of the report from the Pesticide Research Institute. “Unfortunately, these pesticides don’t break down quickly so these plants could be toxic to bees for years to come.”

The Problem with Neonics

Bees and other pollinators, essential for the two-thirds of the food crops humans eat every day, are in decline in countries around the world. The European Union banned the three most widely used neonicotinoids, based on strong science indicating that neonics can kill bees outright and make them more vulnerable to pests, pathogens and other stressors.

This data adds to a new meta-analysis of 800 peer-reviewed studies released yesterday by the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides — a group of global, independent scientists — confirming neonics as a key factor in bee declines and harm to beneficial organisms essential to functional ecosystems and food production, including soil microbes, butterflies, earthworms, reptiles, and birds. The Task Force called for immediate regulatory action to restrict neonicotinoids.

Neonicotinoid insecticides have been responsible for several high profile bee kills from high doses of the pesticides, but a strong and growing body of science shows that neonics contribute to impairment in reproduction, learning and memory, hive communications and immune response at doses far below those that cause bee kills. In this study, all of the nursery plant samples where neonics were detected have the potential to harm or even kill bees.

Despite these serious issues and calls for action surrounding pollinator health and the dangers linked to neonics, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delayed taking substantive action on neonicotinoids until registration review is complete, forcing consumers, some retailers, and even legislators to find alternative efforts to stem the tide of neonics and protect pollinators.

Consumer Action

Advocates ask that consumers  choose not only “bee-friendly” plants, meaning those plants and flowers shown to attract and sustain pollinators, but also  make  sure that those plants are sourced from growers and suppliers that do not apply neonics to the seed or the plant. The easiest way to ensure that seeds are not treated with neonics is to buy seeds that are certified organic or plants grown with organic practices. To assist consumers in making the best choice for pollinator protections, Beyond Pesticides has launched the Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory, a comprehensive list of companies that sell organic seeds to the general public.  Toxic pesticides harmful to bees, including neonics,  are not permitted in  seeds certified organic, which display the USDA Organic label on their packaging. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs. As bees suffer serious declines in their populations, we urge people and communities to plant habitat that supports pollinator populations, and have provided information to facilitate this in our BEE Protective Habitat Guide, as well as our how-to guide on managing landscapes with pollinators in mind.

“The high percentage of contaminated plants and their neonicotinoid concentrations suggest that this problem continues to be widespread,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Food & Technology program at Friends of the Earth-U.S. “Most gardeners have no idea that their gardens may be a source of harm to bees. We’re calling on retailers to get neonicotinoid pesticides out of their plants and off their shelves as soon as possible. Until then, gardeners should buy organic plants to ensure the safety of bees.”

Retailer Action

While a majority of the UK’s largest garden retailers, including Homebase, B&Q and Wickes, have already voluntarily stopped selling neonics, U.S. retailers lag behind.

More than half a million Americans have signed petitions demanding that Lowe’s and Home Depot stop selling neonics. In the face of mounting evidence and growing consumer demand, nearly a dozen nurseries, landscaping companies and retailers, are taking steps to eliminate bee harming pesticides from their garden plants and their stores. BJ’s Wholesale Club, with more than 200 locations in 15 states, announced June 25, 2014 that it will require its vendors to disallow neonic  in plant production  by the end of 2014 and/or require warning labels for plants treated with neonics.

“A growing number of responsible retailers have decided to be part of the solution to the bee crisis and are taking bee-harming pesticides off their shelves,” said Archer. “We urge Home Depot, Lowe’s and other major retailers to join these leaders in making our backyards and communities safe havens for bees.”

Legislative and Executive Action

In 2013, U.S Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, which seeks to suspend the use of neonics on bee-attractive plants until EPA reviews all available data, including field studies. This bill has bi-partisan support and 68 cosponsors. Last week, President Obama announced a federal strategy to protect pollinators and called on EPA to assess the effect of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bees and other pollinators within 180 days.

Communities Take Action

Monday night, the city of Spokane, WA officially voted to discontinue the use of neonicotinoids by government officials on city owned property. The city is now the second in the nation, following the City of Eugene’s ban in February, to take action to protect pollinators in the absence of action by the federal legislation. In California, beekeepers and local advocates are supporting a bill that would force the state of California to complete its evaluation of neonicotinoid pesticides, years ahead of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review which is not scheduled to be completed before 2018. Other communities joining the movement include Bee Safe Neighborhoods in Boulder, Colorado, and Minnesota, which passed a bill to label garden plants for pollinators. In Maryland, a bill containing language to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides was unfortunately recently withdrawn, after an “unfavorable report” by the environmental committee. In New York and New Jersey, language has been drafted in the state legislature to restrict neonicotinoids in various ways.

Join Us and Other Groups to Take Action for Pollinators

Friends of the Earth U.S., the Pesticide Research Institute and SumOfUs, released the report with American Bird Conservancy, Atlanta Audubon Society, Bee Safe Neighborhoods, Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Ecology Center, Environment New York, Environment Texas, Environmental Youth Council, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth Canada, Georgia Organics, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Maryland Pesticide Network, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network North America, Toxics Action Center, Toxic Free North Carolina, Turner Environmental Law Clinic, and The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in the following cities: Ann Arbor, MI, Atlanta, GA, Austin, TX, Boulder, CO, Boston, MA, Baltimore area, MD, Eugene, OR, London, Ontario, Minneapolis, MN, Montreal, Quebec, New York, New York, Portland, ME, Raleigh, NC, Sacramento, CA, San Francisco, CA, St. Augustine, FL, Vancouver, British Columbia and Washington, DC.

We urge you and other pollinator supporters to continue to pressure retailers, legislators, and other government officials to take meaningful action to protect pollinators. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage to learn about more about pollinator protection and see what you can do to help.

Source: Friends of the Earth

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2014) Following last week’s celebration of “National Pollinator Week” and a presidential memorandum mandating federal action on bees, the first wide-scale scientific analysis has been released that links  two classes of pesticides  to declining bee populations. Twenty-nine scientists representing many disciplines reviewed over 800 peer-reviewed publications  on the impacts of systemic pesticides, and are recommending  more restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides. This report is the single most comprehensive study of  neonicotinoids ever  undertaken.

The “Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA)” ”” undertaken by the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides ”” documents significant harms to bees and ecosystems. While some aspects of this report have been broadly acknowledged  before (e.g. risks to honey bees), some, including risks to earthworms, birds and aquatic invertebrates, have not. The analysis focuses not only on impacts to particular  organisms and habitats, but also on  biodiversity and ecosystem impacts, taking a holistic view of pesticide effects. The scientists are calling for new, dramatic restrictions on bee-harming pesticides in the United States and beyond. The report  finds that the current regulatory system has failed to consider the full  range of pesticide effects.

“This report should be a final wake up call for American regulators who have been slow to respond to the science,” said Emily Marquez, PhD, staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America. “The weight of the evidence showing harm to bees and other pollinators should move EPA to restrict neonicotinoids sooner than later. And the same regulatory loopholes that allowed these pesticides to be brought to the market in the first place ”” and remain on the shelf ”” need to be closed.”

“The science clearly shows that, not only are these systemic pesticides lethal to pollinators, but even low doses can disrupt critical brain functions and reduce their immunity to common pathogens,” said Nichelle Harriott, staff scientist at Beyond Pesticides.

The report will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research and is being released at events in Brussels, Manila, Montreal and Tokyo over the next couple days. It underscores that neonicotinoid pesticides and their breakdown products are persistent and harmful, even at very low levels. 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.

In addition to bees, the report highlights the far-reaching impacts of neonicotinoids on entire ecosystems, from direct exposure to persistence in soil and water. Bumble bees, butterflies and other pollinators that serve both agriculture and provide ecosystem support services are also in jeopardy from these pesticides. In addition to neonicotinoids, the report also focuses on the insecticide fipronil, which is also linked to impacts on bees and has been targeted by European regulators for an additional ban.

According to the scientists, “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,” and  suggest that regulatory agencies consider applying the principles of prevention and precaution to further tighten regulations on neonicotinoids and fipronil, and consider formulating plans for a substantial reduction of the global scale of use, and encourage the adoption of alternate agricultural strategies to manage pests.

“To save our invaluable pollinators, EPA, USDA and all Federal agencies must read this report and immediately implement regulatory remedies against the ongoing neonicotinoid disaster,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, senior scientist for Center for Food Safety. “We know from recent studies that neonicotinoid seed treatments are generally not improving yields or even keeping common pests at bay. They aren’t serving farmers and they certainly aren’t serving pollinators. It is time to address this common route of exposure.”

The neonicotinoids, imidacloprid (Bayer), then later clothianidin (Bayer), thiamethoxam (Syngenta) and dinotefuran first came into heavy use in the mid-2000s. At the same time, beekeepers started observing widespread cases of colony losses, leaving beekeepers unable to recoup their losses. This past year was another challenging one for farmers and beekeepers, with beekeepers reporting average losses of over 45%.

“The report lends credence to what beekeepers have been saying for several years,” said Jeff Anderson, beekeeper and owner of California-Minnesota Honey Farms. “Our country depends on bees for crop pollination and honey production. It’s high time regulators realize that applying toxins to plants makes them toxic to bees.”

Over the past few years, Beyond Pesticides, other advocacy groups, and beekeepers have filed legal petitions and lawsuits with EPA, calling on the agency to suspend the use of neonicotinoids.  Yet, over two years later, the agency has refused and indicated it will not finish its review for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as other neonicotinoids, until 2018. But according to advocates,  bee deaths in Oregon last week  from the use of a neonicotinoid  and mounting scientific evidence require an urgent response that necessitates removing these chemicals from the market.  Meanwhile, environmental regulators in Europe instituted a two-year moratorium on the chemicals last December based on the evidence from independent studies.

Last Friday, the White House released a Presidential Memorandum  on pollinator health to the heads of federal agencies requiring action to “reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels.” The President is directing agencies to establish a Pollinator Health Task Force, and to develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy, including a Pollinator Research Action Plan.  The memorandum recognizes the severe losses in the populations of the nation’s pollinators, including honey bees, wild bees, monarch butterflies, and others. In accordance with these losses and acknowledging the importance pollinators have to the agricultural economy. Read related article by the Washington Post.

Source: Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2014) Research from the University of California, Davis CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment) study finds that pregnant women who lived within a mile of agricultural fields treated with insecticides are more likely to have their child develop autism. The results of the CHARGE study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, strengthens calls from public health and environmental groups urging regulators take a precautionary approach to agricultural chemicals and institute increased protections for those who live, work, or go to school near pesticide-treated fields.

The CHARGE study looked at pregnant women’s addresses to determine their location relative to fields treated with pesticides. For women who lived less than one mile from crops sprayed with organophosphate insecticides during their pregnancy, researchers found the likelihood of their child being diagnosed with autism increased 60%. Women in the second trimester living near fields treated with chlorpyrifos, a widely used organophosphate insecticide banned for household use in 2001, are 3.3 times more likely to have their children diagnosed with autism. In response to a legal petition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012 instituted risk mitigation measures for chlorpyrifos, including reduced application rates and no-spray buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as where children play. Although EPA is continuing to study how drift from chlorpyrifos treated fields impact those that live nearby, Beyond Pesticides and health advocates urge a complete ban on the use of this chemical. Chlorpyrifos is often referred to as the “poster child” for why EPA’s risk assessment, the current method for evaluating pesticides, does not work to protect the public, workers and the environment, given that safer methods, including organic practices and products are increasingly available in the marketplace.

The UC Davis team also found links to the application of another class of insecticides not previously studied for associations with autism: synthetic pyrethroids. Living near a field where pyrethroids were applied during a woman’s third trimester corresponded with an 87% increased risk of having a child with autism. Synthetic pyrethroids, often touted as safer alternatives to organophosphates, or “as safe as chrysanthemum flowers” by pest control companies, are allowed for use in and around homes, in addition to their application on crop fields. But recent studies are showing significant concerns with this class of chemicals; linking them to learning problems, and adverse behavioral and emotional development in children. Despite new data on concerning health affects to children, in 2012 EPA expanded the allowed uses of these pesticides, and removed the protective safety factor for children.

Autism is on the rise in the United States. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, one in 68 U.S. children has been identified with an autism spectrum disorder. In 1981 this number was one in 10,000. Since only 2002, autism rates have increased 123% (from 1 in 150 children) in America. Although many attribute the increase to changes in the criteria for an autism diagnosis, and genetics have been shown to play a major role, a growing number of health advocates are concerned about how exposure to industrial chemicals relates to the rise in autism spectrum diagnoses. “It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an epidemiology professor at University of California, Davis, in response to a 2009 study linking autism to environmental exposures. A Swedish study earlier this year found that genetic risk for autism accounted for only 50% of overall risk, leaving an interplay of environmental factors to account for the rest. Scientists are sounding the alarm on environmental chemicals linked to a long list of neurodevelopmental disabilities in children, ranging from autism, ADD, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments. “We need to know if some moms are at higher risk than others and what that risk is. Knowing who is most vulnerable is key to understanding how to better protect them,”  said Janie Shelton, PhD, the CHARGE study’s lead author.

Across the country, localities where residents live near pesticide treated fields are taking precautionary action to prevent the harmful effects of exposure. In Kauai County, Hawaii, the county council passed a measure that would implement pesticide buffer zones around crop fields where these chemicals are sprayed. However, agrichemical companies have sued the small island in attempts to stop the implementation of the law.

For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, where we track the science on how pesticides are contributing to the rise of learning and developmental disorders in children.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2014) During the close of National Pollinator Week, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum on pollinator health to the heads of federal agencies requiring action to “reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels.” The President is directing agencies to establish a Pollinator Health Task Force, and to develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy, including a Pollinator Research Action Plan. Beyond Pesticides applauds this announcement and action that recognizes and elevates the plight of pollinators in the U.S. Download the Press Release.

Friday, June 20, 2014, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum that recognizes the severe losses in the populations of the nation’s pollinators, including honey bees, wild bees, monarch butterflies, and others. In accordance with these losses and acknowledging the importance pollinators have to the agricultural economy, the Memorandum directs federal agencies to establish a Pollinator Health Task Force, to be chaired by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), develop a pollinator health strategy within 180 days, and support and create pollinator habitat. This federal strategy will include a pollinator research action plan, with a focus on preventing and recovering from pollinator losses, including studying how various stressors, like pesticides, pathogens, and management practices contribute to pollinator losses. The task force will also engage in a public education initiative and develop public-private partnerships with various stakeholders.

“Today, President Obama set a precedent, elevating the plight of our nation’s pollinators by acknowledging not only their importance to our economy, but directing federal agencies to be leaders in finding meaningful solutions to our current pollinator crisis,” said Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. Federal agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA have been slow to respond to pollinator losses and must take immediate action, especially on pesticides known to be toxic to bees and other pollinators.

EPA Fails to Restrict Pesticides Linked to Bee Decline

The President highlights many factors that contribute to pollinator decline; however it is the neonicotinoid class of pesticides that have been receiving the most scrutiny from beekeepers and scientists. These pesticides are not only highly toxic to bees, but studies find that even at low levels neonicotinoids impair foraging ability, navigation, learning behavior, and suppress the immune system, making bees more susceptible to pathogens and disease. While EPA announced Friday that it has released two tools in an effort to protect pollinators Friday, the availability of its new Pollinator Risk Assessment Guidance, and new Residual Time to 25% Bee Mortality (RT25 data), the agency still falls short of restricting the harmful systemic pesticides that are linked to bee decline.

The guidance will purportedly allow the agency to assess effects from systemic pesticides quantitatively on individual bees as well as on bee colonies. The agency is implementing elements of the guidance in its ongoing registration review of neonicotinoid pesticides as well as other pesticide regulatory work. The ongoing review includes new required of the registrants, including refined semi-field studies under more real-world application conditions, however the agency admits that other data from ongoing full-field studies will take up to several years to complete. Additionally, at the request of beekeepers and growers, the agency has also posted RT25 Data online, which gauges the amount of time after application that a particular pesticide product remains toxic enough under real-world conditions to kill 25 percent of bees that are exposed to residues on treated plant surfaces.

Though the science very clearly points to neonicotinoids as a main culprit behind bee-deaths, and while successful organically managed systems prove that these pesticides are not necessary, EPA has yet to take meaningful action to reduce exposure to these harmful chemicals. According to advocates, bee deaths in Oregon last week from the use of a neonicotinoid and mounting scientific evidence require an urgent response that necessitates removing these chemicals from the market. With continued incidents like these, beekeepers and many other concerned groups and citizens continue to urge EPA to suspend the use of neonicotinoids.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act

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. H.R. 2692, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA), introduced last year by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D- OR) would suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators. Three new co-sponsors signed on Friday, including Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), bringing the total number of cosponsors to 68! With one in three bites of food reliant on pollinators, it is imperative that solutions be found quickly to protect bees and other pollinators. Tell your member of Congress to support SAPA!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2014) The city of Spokane, Washington is inching ever closer to a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, a class of chemicals that has been linked to the global disappearance of honey bee populations. If the ban passes, Spokane will soon be part of a growing movement to protect pollinators.

The Spokane City Council will be voting on the neonicotinoid ordinance this Monday, June 23. The ban will halt both the purchase and use by the city of products that contain neonicotinoids. The ordinance specifically names six types of neonicotinoids used on crops, imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, acetamiprid, and thiacloprid, and explains that the majority of these chemicals “are highly toxic to bees, can reduced [sic] fecundity, depress the bees immune system, and increase susceptibility to biological infections, and, depending on the amount of exposure, can be lethal/ sub-lethal to the honey bees.” You can read more about the exact wording of this proposed ordinance here.

Council President Ben Stuckart, who introduced the ordinance, wants the city to stop using the chemicals on its properties. The ban would be part of an undertaking to implement environmentally sustainable initiatives at City Hall.

The ordinance would affect all city departments excluding the Parks Department land, which is governed by its own board. According to Stuckart, 32 percent of Spokane is city-owned land on which pesticides might be used. Another 18 percent is controlled by the Parks Department, but Stuckart is hopeful that the Parks Board might follow the city’s lead in banning the products. The ban would not affect private home use on personal property.

If the Spokane City Council does vote to ban neonicotinoids, they will not be alone. Eugene, Oregon took a similar step earlier this year, and the European Union has placed a two-year moratorium on the pesticides. In Congress, Saving America’s Pollinator Act, H.R. 2692, introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), is gaining bipartisan 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 and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators. In the meantime, communities, such as one in Boulder, Colorado, are already taking the initiative to protect pollinators from harmful neonicotinoid pesticides by creating Bee Safe Neighborhoods.

Seattle and Washington State residents, please let elected officials know how you feel about the city protecting bees. Interested in reading up on the issue? Check out Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective page. And don’t forget – this week is Pollinator Week! See all our daily and ongoing events: participate in our photo contest, Twitter chats (#pollinatorchat), and more!

Source: Inlander

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2014) Just in time for Pollinator Week, the Melody-Catalpa neighborhood of Boulder has become the first “bee-safe” locality in Colorado that has pledged to not use neonicotinoids and other systemic pesticides in the community, in an effort to protect bees and other pollinators, and provide safe forage and habitat.

Melody-Catalpa joins other small communities across the country in taking a stand against bee decline by committing to not use pesticides toxic to bees and other pollinators. The small community north of Boulder signed a pledge not to use neonicotinoids and similar systemic pesticides, and is buzzing with excitement over earning the distinction. This past spring, the City of Eugene, Oregon 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.

Melody-Catalpa’s grassroots action began earlier this year when three neighborhood residents banded together to sign on about 20 volunteers to go door to door to get more than half of the area’s 389 households to sign a pledge not to use the highly neurotoxic chemicals the science is showing is contributing to declines reported in global bee populations. Residents who signed the pledge were awarded “bee safe” flags, signifying their commitment to plant in their front lawns. For more information on getting your community to pledge to be neonicotinoid-free, contact Beyond Pesticides.

The organization certifying Melody-Catalpa’s status as the first neighborhood in Colorado to earn the “bee-safe” label is the Living Systems Institute of Golden, which promotes sustainable ecosystems and zero waste. David Braden, founder and executive director of the Living Systems Institute, confirmed that Melody-Catalpa is “the first one to provide documentation to us of at least 75 contiguous homes agreeing not to use systemic poisons,” 75 being the minimum number to qualify for the institute’s bee-safe designation. Explaining the impetus for encouraging more communities to make such a commitment, Mr. Braden said, “If we poison all of our pollinators, then there’s a problem for us as a species surviving on the planet.”

The decision by Melody-Catalpa to pursue ”˜bee-safe’ designation is applauded by Rella Abernathy, integrated pest management coordinator for the city of Boulder.”We think it’s a great idea,” Ms. Abernathy said. “The city always encourages residents to reduce or decrease their use of pesticides. We’re supportive of it, and we would like to see more and more bee-safe neighborhoods in the city.” Ms. Abernathy said the city has not used pesticides on any of its managed turf for 12 years, does not apply it to its landscape plants, and that the only neonicotinoid on the list of approved insecticides for use by the city is imidacloprid, for targeted injection in trees by its forestry department.  However, the city recently banned its use for treatment of emerald ash borer management, and imidacloprid is not now in use at all, according to Ms. Abernathy.

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.

With one in three bites of food reliant on pollinators, it is imperative that local action be taken to protect bees and other pollinators in light of federal inaction. In fact, a recent study out of the University of California, Berkeley, reports that not only do pollinators help increase crop yields, but they may be even more important than fertilizers to our agricultural economy.

This week, Pollinator Week, Beyond Pesticides  is doing all we can  to  BEE Protective  of honey bees and other wild pollinators, and we want to help elevate your voice, and provide you with the tools to make real change in your community that will help save the bees.

Catch the buzz this Pollinator Week, June 16-22, 2014, to celebrate and protect these beneficial creatures with BEE Protective!

• Use our  model resolution  to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.
• Join us  in asking Lowe’s and Home Depot  and other leading garden centers to take action and stop the sale of neonicotinoids and plants treated with these chemicals.
• Tell your member of Congress to support the  Save America’s Pollinators Act.  
• Sign the    Pesticide Free Zone Declaration  and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly

Source and Photo Courtesy: Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_25960458/boulder-neighborhood-states-first-be-declared-bee-safe

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

Groups Petition USDA to Restore Organic Board’s Independent Authorities Set by Congress

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2014) Today, 20 organic farm and consumer groups filed a petition with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to protect the authority and permanence of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The petitioners object to recent changes to the NOSB charter, renewed on May 8, 2014, that undermine the mandatory and continuing duties of the Board as established by Congress under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990.

The NOSB, intended to safeguard the integrity of the organic food label, was created by Congress with independent authorities that operate outside the discretion of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Petitioners maintain that in renewing the charter under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), USDA mistakenly re-categorized the NOSB as a time-limited Advisory Board subject to USDA’s discretion and a narrowing of responsibilities.

“These changes to the NOSB Charter are significant and directly controvert the specific mandates of OFPA and Congress that NOSB is a permanent, non-discretionary committee that must fulfill a long list of statutorily mandated duties integral to the organic program,” said Aimee Simpson policy director and staff attorney for Beyond Pesticides.

The NOSB Board, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, is comprised of a wide swath of organic interests, including farmers, consumers, environmentalists, processors, a retailer, and a certifier. It is charged with a number of specific duties, including establishing and renewing the list of synthetic and non-organic materials allowed to be used in organic production, known as the National List.

“Congress created the Board so that a balance of organic interests, from consumer to industry, would have an irrevocable seat at the table in defining, maintaining and enhancing organic standards. That independent voice is now seriously jeopardized,” noted Paige Tomaselli, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety.

In response to one of several recent moves by USDA to reclassify the NOSB’s role as a purely advisory and discretionary committee, petitioners urge USDA to reverse what they consider missteps. The petition finds that to comply with organic law, USDA must immediately revise the most recent NOSB Charter to accurately reflect the mandatory, non-discretionary duties and ongoing status of the NOSB as described in OFPA.

“One of the most unique things about organic is that consumers can get involved in setting the standards behind the label. For that to remain true, we need to have a strong National Organic Standards Board process,” comments Patty Lovera of Food & Water Watch.

“We have made our living from selling certified organic seed and food for over thirty years,” said Jim Gerritsen, an organic farmer in Maine and President of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. “NOSB integrity and fulfillment of its unique legal responsibility to represent the interests of the organic community is critical to maintaining consumer confidence in organic food and to the success of organic farming.”

The groups signing the petition include: Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, The Cornucopia Institute, Food & Water Watch, Equal Exchange, La Montanita Co-op (New Mexico), Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Interstate Council, Connecticut NOFA, NOFA/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc., NOFA New Hampshire, NOFA New Jersey, NOFA-New York, Inc., NOFA Vermont, Organic Consumers Association, Organically Grown Company, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, and PCC Natural Markets.

Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for the voice of all organic interests and the invaluable role of the NOSB in making those voices heard. Take action to ensure a strong organic program and increasing public trust in the organic food label by logging on to Beyond Pesticides’ Save Our Organics page and following the suggested steps.

Download the Press Release.

###

For more information, contact:
Aimee Simpson, 202-543-5450,[email protected], www.beyondpesticides.org
Abigail Seiler, 443-854-4368, [email protected], www.centerforfoodsafety.org

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2014) Given that plant starts in many garden centers across the country are grown from seeds coated with bee-harming neonicotinoid pesticides, or drenched with them, Beyond Pesticides has launched the Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory, a comprehensive list of companies that sell organic seeds to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs. As bees suffer serious declines in their populations, we urge people and communities to plant habitat that supports pollinator populations, and have provided information to facilitate this in our BEE Protective Habitat Guide, as well as our how-to guide on managing landscapes with pollinators in mind.

Unfortunately, plants are too often grown with hazardous pesticides that either harm pollinators in their cultivation or threaten bees as they pollinate or forage on treated plants. Last summer, a groundbreaking report revealed that many bee-friendly garden plants sold at Home Depot and Lowe’s contain neonicotinoid pesticides with no warning to consumers. Neonicotinoid residues were detected in seven out of thirteen samples (54 percent) of commercial nursery plants. In response to this report, Beyond Pesticides, along with Friends of the Earth and other allies, launched a campaign to tell major retailers to stop selling poisoned plants. Taking this a step further, Beyond Pesticides is urging you to support organic growers by purchasing seeds and plants that are organic.

Certified organic seeds and products are really the only way to ensure that the seed production practices are protective of bees, and that residual chemicals do not contaminate the plant. Although many seed companies indicate that they sell untreated seeds, Beyond Pesticides encourages supporters to avoid purchasing these products. While untreated seeds are a step in the right direction, they do not ensure that the seed production practices are protective of bees or that residual chemicals do not contaminate the plant. Seeds and plants that are certified organic, on the other hand, do not permit the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation.

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.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees  and other pollinators due to pesticides, and other man-made causes demands immediate action. For more information on how to truly bee protective, join our campaign to protect honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes by taking action on our BEE Protective webpage, and catch the buzz on Pollinator Week festivities, held all week long by Beyond Pesticides and allies June 16-22, 2014.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2014) As pollinator week begins, the critical importance of pollinators is exemplified in a recent study out of the University of California, Berkeley. Not only do pollinators help increase crop yields, they may be even more important than fertilizers,  according to  the study suggests.

Ecologist Alexandra-Maria Klein, Ph.D. and her colleagues at UC Berkeley found that when there is a lack of pollination, via bees and other pollinators, there is a stronger reduction in harvest yields than when there is a lack of either fertilizer or sufficient water for the crops. Their results, which were published in the journals Plant Biology and PLoS ONE, found that when crops were pollinated, the plants bear more fruit along with a change in their nutrient content.

Dr. Klein and her team observed the effects that different conditions and treatment combinations had on almond trees. The conditions involved: preventing bees from pollinating blossoms via cages, allowing the bees to pollinate the blossoms, or pollinating the blossoms by hand. Additionally, researchers combined these conditions with four different treatments: watering and fertilizing the trees according to local practices, reduced watering, no fertilization, or reduced watering with no fertilization. In the case of several almond trees, they combined the various manipulations in order to study in isolation and in combination the effects on harvest yield and the composition of nutrients in the nuts. The almond trees that were pollinated by hand produced the most nuts, but they were very small. Conversely, a tree that was left un-pollinated produced very few nuts, although the ones that it did produce were very large. The trees pollinated by bees had an approximately 200 percent higher yield than the trees that had self-pollinated.

Fertilization and watering had an effect on harvest yield only when combined with the pollination manipulations. However, when trees were insufficiently watered, they lost more leaves, and the leaves of unfertilized trees increasingly turned yellow.

Based on these results, scientists concluded that an almond tree can compensate for the lack of nutrients and water in the short term by storing the nutrients and water in the fruits instead, but cannot compensate for insufficient pollination. Scientists also found that the nutrient composition varied according to the mode of pollination. Nuts from self-pollinated trees had a lower proportion of linoleic acid, but a higher proportion of vitamin E.

Honey bees and other pollinators have been experiencing a rapid and ongoing population decline in the U.S and other parts of the world since 2006. This has a profound impact on the stability of ecosystems, the economy, and our food supply. A May 2013 report by USDA found that one in three bites of food depends on pollination, mainly by honey bees, and that pollination is valued at $20 to $30 billion annually.

The results of Dr. Klein’s study continue to emphasize the important role that pollinators play in our daily lives. As a result, convincing the government to restrict the use of an increasingly popular class of pesticides, called neonicotinoids, has become more important than ever. You can help Beyond Pesticides put the pressure on retailers, administrators, and policy makers by visiting our BEE Protective page. You can also learn more about the basic facts behind honey bee declines here and Beyond Pesticides’ report summarizing the science behind these declines here.

Don’t forget – Pollinator Week begins today! Check out our post last Friday detailing all the different festivities hosted by Beyond Pesticides and allies throughout the next seven days. You can help us kick off Pollinator Week today with an Online Town Hall at 9 p.m. EST/6 p.m. PST with your RSVP here. We hope to see you there!

Source: ScienceDaily

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2014) Monday marks the beginning of a week of celebration for the irreplaceable species that pollinate one in three bites of food we eat, yet are threatened by the rampant use of pesticides in landscapes across the country. Beyond Pesticides is doing all we can to BEE Protective of honey bees and other wild pollinators, and we want to help elevate your voice, and provide you with the tools to make real change in your community that will help save the bees!

Here’s the buzz on the festivities hosted by Beyond Pesticides and allies during Pollinator Week June 16th- 22nd, 2014.

Kick off Pollinator Week with an Online Town Hall!
Monday, June 16th at 9 p.m EST/6 p.m PST —RSVP Here!
What’s the Buzz About? A conversation about bee declines, impacts on our food system and what you can do about it.

Join the Berkeley Food Institute, Pesticide Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and TakePart for a lively discussion with academics, beekeepers and journalists about what’s driving the declines, what it means to our food and farming system, and what we can do about it. Join in online via Youtube! (video will not be available until 9p.m. EST/6p.m.PST) Please RSVP!

Participate in the Daily Twitter Chat! – Search the hashtag #pollinatorchat
Monday, June 16th through Friday, June 20th at 1 p.m. EST/10 a.m PST
Discussion Topics:
Ӣ Monday РThe importance of bees and other pollinators, with a focus on the food system
Ӣ Tuesday РWhat can we do to help bees Рin our backyard, community, at the state and federal level or in the marketplace?
”¢ Wednesday – “Beewashing” by industry and Bayer’s Bee Care Tour
Ӣ Thursday РStories from the hive. Question and answer session with beekeeper Jim Doan, who lost all of his bees to pesticides.
Ӣ Friday РBroaden the scope of the discussion to all pollinators that deserve respect: bees, bats, birds, butterflies, moths, beetles, and other insects!

Pollinator Photo Contest!
Send your best pollinator photo to [email protected]! We will choose three winning photographs to be featured in the Fall 2014 issue of our quarterly newsletter, Pesticides and You! Select photos will be highlighted on Beyond Pesticides’ Facebook and Twitter pages throughout Pollinator Week. Photos are due to Beyond Pesticides by midnight Wednesday, June 18th. Read more about the contest here!

Have You Asked Your U.S. Representative to Support the Saving America’s Pollinator’s Act?
The Saving America’s Pollinators Act would suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators. Contact your Rep. now!

Take the Pollinator Pledge and Request Bee-Friendly Material and Pollinator Safe Seeds!
Throughout Pollinator Week Beyond Pesticides will provide activists with BEE Protective campaign materials and pollinator safe seeds free of charge! Send an email to [email protected] – simply let us know how you’ll be using the material to raise awareness in your community! See our BEE Protective website for the list of campaign materials we can provide.

In addition, help Beyond Pesticides build a network of safe spaces for pollinators across the country by recording your property as the pollinator haven that it surely is!

USDA Pollinator Week Festival!
If you’re in the Washington D.C. area, stop by the USDA Pollinator Week Festival (located on 12th Street between Jefferson Drive and Independence Ave, SW) on Friday afternoon, June 20th! Beyond Pesticides and the Center for Food Safety will be tabling and handling out informational material on pollinator protection.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2014) According to a new study in the Journal of Animal Ecology, the deficiency of milkweed plants due to the rapid spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops is one of the primary reasons for the decline in monarch butterflies. The widespread adoption of GE agriculture and the ever growing use of herbicides is contributing extensively to the loss of milkweed covered areas, which is the butterfly’s main food source and the only place where they lay their eggs. This study adds weight to previous reports linking GE crops, as well as climate change, to the decline of butterfly populations, which are at their lowest in two decades.

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. Pollinator populations have been hard hit by new farming technologies. 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 highly toxic herbicides and insecticides that have not been fully evaluated for their effects on insect pollinators.

Researchers from the University of Guelph have three hypotheses to explain the drop in butterflies: habitat loss in wintering grounds, habitat loss in breeding grounds in the U.S. and Canada, and harsh weather settings. They developed a model that contains migration patterns and demographic data across the monarch’s annual life cycle. Scientists looked at the single effects of each threat and compared them to the model as a whole. Lastly, they created predictions assessing the risks of habitat plant lost due to GE crops on current and future monarch butterfly population size and predicted the probability of extinction. The authors conclude that climate change and deforestation do not cause as drastic an impact on monarch population declines compared to the lack of milkweed plants on breeding grounds.

Though researchers found no conclusive evidence on what is causing the decline of milkweed, all indications point to the rise of GE soy and corn crops, and increasing herbicide use, as the most likely culprit for eradicating the milkweed. Scientists 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. The study affirms that the only way to help bring back the monarch butterflies is to have more milkweed plants.

In addition to widespread herbicide use and GE crops, other factors may also be leading to the displacement of milkweed habitat, including agricultural practices. With chemical-intensive agriculture, farmers use every square inch of farmland, leaving very little space for habitat for beneficials such as the monarch. One way to combat this issue 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.

Beyond Pesticides publicizes the serious health and pest resistance problems associated with the chemical-intensive practices and provides important links to activists working to advance sustainable practices. Over 70% of all GE crops are altered to be herbicide-resistant. Increased planting of herbicide-resistant GE crops has led to a dramatic increase in herbicide use. The over use of herbicide-resistant crops has also led to “super weeds,” and the destruction of pollinator habitat.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees   and other pollinators due to pesticides, and other man-made causes demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

Join us next week for Pollinator Week! It provides an opportunity to show respect for the numerous benefits pollinators provide to agriculture and the environment.

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

Sources: Vox , Journal of Animal Ecology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2014) Vermont is currently gearing up to defend against possible litigation its groundbreaking law to label genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients. The law, which is the first of its kind in the nation, was specially written so that it created  the Food Fight Fund that allows individuals to donate to defend the law if it were to be challenged in court. The Vermont law and polling data  show that consumers strongly want to know what is going into their food and are willing to stand up to industries that do not want consumers to have this right.

As of the first week of June, the  Food Fight Fund raised just over $15,000, with over $$9,000 of it coming from outside the state. Most of the donations come in small amounts of less than $50, which is indicative of the grassroots structure of the GE labeling movement. The fund will be the initial money used by the Vermont attorney general’s office if the state’s GE labeling law is challenged in court.

Currently, the $15,000 is not  enough funds to cover legal fees to  defend this law. Lawsuits brought against the state, according to testimony by Assistant Attorney General Bridget Asay, could add up to as much as $5 million if the state loses the case. If the state wins the case, defense costs could still add up to about $1 million. It has become clear that industry does plan on challenging this law in court. In May, the Grocery Manufactures Association (GMA) said it planned to file suit in federal court to overturn the Vermont labeling Law.

Beyond the  Food Fight Fund, the state authorized the attorney general’s office to devote any unbudgeted settlement revenues to the case.

“We do anticipate that once [a lawsuit] is filed and there’s more publicity across the state and across the nation, that we would expect that donations would increase into the fund,” said Sarah Clark, deputy commissioner of finance and management, quoted by VPR News.

The legislation,  An Act Relating to the Labeling of Food Produced with Genetic Engineering, was signed into law on May 8, requiring  foods to be labeled by July 2016. The law  does not include a “trigger clause,” which is contained in  labeling bills passed last year in  Maine  and  Connecticut.    Before  going into effect, these laws require other states in the New England region (including one boarding state) with an aggregate population of 20 million to pass similar laws.

The momentum and excitement in Vermont and other states shows that the attempts by the biotechnology industry to squash GE labeling have not discouraged proponents, but instead have galvanized more and more people to become educated about the issue and take action. The defeat of GE labeling referendums in  California  in  Washington  has only spurred additional measures in other states that will be voted on this year, notably  Oregon  and Colorado, where advocates recently overcame their own court battle  with the biotech industry to exercise the right to  put a  labeling initiative on the ballot.

Beyond these state efforts, buying organically labeled food is another way  to stop  GE ingredients from being purposely added during food production and handling. Under organic certification standards, GE organisms are prohibited, although because of USDA policies that allow the proliferation of GE crops, organic production is subject to genetic drift contamination.  For this and many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers. For more information on GE foods and labeling issues, see Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering  website. You can also help support the Vermont labeling law by donating to the  Food Fight Fund.

Source: VPR New

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2014) Triclosan, the antibacterial pesticide found in numerous hand soaps, toothpastes, and other cosmetics, has had a ubiquitous presence on the consumer market for over 30 years. But due to public pressure led by Beyond Pesticides, our allies, and concerned supporters, many manufacturers have been washing their hands of triclosan.

Now after years of inaction, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going to require data to support triclosan’s claims of being “safe and effective.” The time is now to let the agency know that triclosan is NOT safe or effective for human and environmental health.

Raise your voice with a unique public comment to FDA!
Use the sample letter below for guidance.

Rising Evidence Against Safety

Beyond Pesticides has generated 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. This is alarming given that the CDC has found that 75% of the U.S. population contain triclosan in their bodies, even in breast milk, and at levels that are rising. 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 also linked triclosan to the growth of breast cancer cells.

Additionally, triclosan contaminates waterways, aquatic wildlife, and possibly even drinking water. In a study published last month evaluating sewage sludge (biosolids) contaminants, triclosan was found at the highest concentrations in deeper soils, reaching 156 parts per billion in 7 to 14 inches of soil. A study published in August 2013 found that triclosan altered the bacterial composition of stream communities, resulting in a “dramatic die-off of algae.”

No Evidence of Efficacy

Triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water in controlling germs and bacteria. In fact, an FDA Advisory Committee,   and the American Medical Association both find that there is no evidence that triclosan is effective for its intended use. Instead, triclosan is linked to increasing bacterial resistance and cross-resistance to crucial antibiotic medications – possibly threatening public health. A study published in April found that individuals exposed to triclosan were more likely to carry staph bacteria. Rather than eliminate dangerous bacteria in and on the body, the study found that triclosan promotes the binding of staph to human proteins making them “stickier.” Triclosan also allows staph to better attach to other surfaces such as glass and plastic.

States and Corporations Phasing the Chemical Out

Last month, 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. This follows previous actions by Governor Mark Dayton in 2013, when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced that state agencies were ordered by the Governor to stop buying products that contain triclosan. These policy changes in Minnesota came after a 2013 study  showed triclosan toxicants  accumulating in the bottom of lakes and rivers in Minnesota. Scientists tested  eight sediment samples from freshwater lakes across Minnesota, including Lake Superior and found triclosan in all of the sediment tested.

In addition to state action, multinational corporations such as 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.  Avon cites customer concern as its reason for reformulating.

Take Action!
Given the mounting scientific evidence, as well as state and corporate action against triclosan use, FDA must not continue to lag. FDA is accepting public comments on triclosan until June 16, 2014.

Click here to tell FDA that triclosan is not safe or effective and it should be removed from consumer products.

**Sample letter**

For over 30 years, FDA has allowed the use of triclosan to go unchecked. During that time triclosan has become a pervasive presence not only on store shelves, but in our bodies and waterways as well.

There is serious concern based on a substantial body of scientific studies, reports and other sources, that the pervasive and diverse uses of triclosan pose an actual and imminent threat to human health and the environment. FDA must find that triclosan is not safe and effective for intended use based on:

Ӣ The presence of triclosan in the human body (as evidenced by scientific studies of its activity in blood, urine and breast milk) imposes an immense and dangerous body burden. This presence raises concerns about a multitude of threats to humans.
Ӣ Endocrine disruption as a result of triclosan bioaccumulation in the body. This effect, in turn, poses serious threats to thyroid, estrogen, and other hormonal systems, and it can also influence the development of other endpoints of concern, including developmental and carcinogenic effects.
Ӣ Bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers is just one category of threats emanating from the growing body burden of triclosan. Such resistance renders humans (especially vulnerable subpopulations) wide open to bacteria-induced illnesses and possibly, death.
Ӣ Triclosan is not effective for many of its major intended uses. Therefore, consumers and other users of triclosan products suffer, at a minimum, economic detriment from having purchased a product that fails to perform as indicated, and, at maximum, potential danger to their health and safety.
Ӣ Once in the larger environment, triclosan poses numerous additional dangers including contaminating waterways and aquatic wildlife.

I urge the agency to find that triclosan is not safe or effective for its intended use, and use its statutory authority to ban triclosan from consumer products.

Sincerely,

Xxxxx

For additional information on the human health and environmental effects of triclosan see Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterials program page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2014) A recent talk given by Donald Weston, PhD, a professor emeritus in UC Berkeley’s Department of Integrative Biology, to a community group in San Jose, California warned residents about the dangers that  lawn care insecticides present to  local aquatic life. The talk focused on the problems synthetic pyrethroids and fipronil can have on Hyalella azteca and Chironomus dilutes. Increasing levels of pesticide runoff in local stream systems have not only led to decreased populations of these aquatic crustaceans, but also populations that have become resistant to pesticides. Aquatic invertebrates are extremely sensitive to pesticide runoff and different states around the country have struggled with creating pesticide regulations that foster a healthy aquatic ecosystem. A good way to reduce pesticide runoff is to transition away from toxic land care methods and adopt organic practices.

Hyalella crustaceans, a tiny shrimp-like animal, are hypersensitive to pyrethroids, which are a class of insecticides used by professional lawn care companies and found in common products like Raid and mixed with fertilizer products like Scotts Turf Builder under the name SummerGuard. Chironomus dilutes, a red worm-like invertebrate, is sensitive to fipronil, which is used to kill fleas on dogs and cats and on lawns to control ants and termites. Currently, Contra County, California professional pest control operators use  13,300 pounds of pesticides, which do not include pesticides used by private citizens. Hyalella curstaceasn, which live in Contra County creeks, are exposed to such high levels of these chemicals that they have begun building resistance to pyrethroids.

Dr. Weston was quoted in a San Jose Mercury News article  saying, “It scares us, because that tells us there’s enough pyrethroid in the creek to cause them to mutate. The sensitive pests have been killed off; the rest have mutated and survived.”

Previous studies performed by Dr. Weston have found pyrethroids at high levels in streams throughout California. Urban runoff data, taken between 2006 and 2010, showed all communities in the Sacramento area and the Bay Area had toxic levels, especially after a rainfall. Dr. Weston first began looking at pyrethroid levels in streams bordering farm fields in 2004, and reported levels in some creek sediments high enough to kill Hyalella curstaceasns, which are used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an indicator of the health of freshwater sediment.

The streams have become so contaminated with pyrethroids that, according to Dr. Weston, “We’d have to flood the county 6,046 feet deep to dilute it enough so that Hyalella could live. That’s equal to two Mount Diablos, stacked on top of each other.”

Pyrethroids are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural insecticide found in certain species of chrysanthemum. It initially was introduced on the market as a ”˜safer’ alternative to the highly toxic  organophosphates,  such as chlorpyrifos  and  diazinon  which were banned for homeowner use in 2001 and 2004, respectively. They are now one of the most popular class of household pesticides, available in the form of powders and sprays to control ants, mosquitoes, fleas, flies, and cockroaches. Pyrethroids are dangerous to aquatic life even at concentrations used to eliminate mosquitoes. Of the varieties of pyrethroids used, befinthrin was most commonly found in  previous research conducted  by Dr. Weston.

Fipronil, a broad spectrum insecticide, was first introduced in the U.S. in 1996 and is highly toxic to aquatic life. and understood not  to be readily biodegradable. In water and sediment that lack oxygen, fipronil degrades more slowly, with a half-life of 116-130 days and its breakdown products are also considered to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Beyond it being incredibly toxic to fresh water invertebrates, it is also highly toxic to bees.

Other states besides California have also struggled with the effects that pesticides can have on aquatic invertebrates.  Last summer,  Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy signed into law  House Bill 6441,  which banned methoprene  and  resmethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide,  in coastal areas such as the Long Island Sound because of declines in lobster populations. Declines in the  Sound’s lobster population have been  alarmingly common  for the past 15 years, devastating fishermen and the local economy that depends on them.  Connecticut legislators say that they were convinced that banning the two mosquito pesticides after learning that Rhode Island and Massachusetts had enacted similar bans with successful results.  A similar bill  to ban the use of methoprene was also introduced in Suffolk County, New York last summer.

One way to help change this problem is to start managing your lawn organically. For information on how to manage your lawn without the use of harmful pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’  Lawns and Landscapes webpage. The site also provides an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to assist in going pesticide-free.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2014) On June 4,  after a two year dispute between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a coalition of conservation organizations and fishing groups, an agreement  was finally reached to set reasonable no-spray buffer zones to protect salmon from five harmful insecticides: diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, carbaryl, and methomyl.

These buffer zones protect salmon habitat by stopping aerial spraying of pesticides within 300 feet, and ground based spraying within 60 feet of salmon supporting waters. According to the agreement, it also provides detailed notifications to state regulators, pesticide applicators, farmers and the public about the mandatory no-spray buffer zones. These stipulations will remain in place until the National Marine Fisheries Service has completed their analysis of the impacts of those five pesticides.  Then, once the analysis is completed, EPA will execute permanent protections based on their findings.

EPA is required by law under the Endangered Species Act to protect what little salmon are left on the Pacific Coast. Salmon are a  critical indicator of how well we are maintaining both marine and terrestrial ecosystems, because their habitats are in streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries and the ocean. The fish  are extremely sensitive to changes in water quality, and changes to the river flow. The more salmon there are the more diverse and productive a freshwater ecosystem can be. Salmon runs are also important because they provide a wealth of marine nutrients upstream to waters that are otherwise low in  productivity. Declines in salmon can lead to drastic effects up the food chain because they are the main food source for numerous animals.

As said by Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), the conservation groups and fishing organizations, “This is a huge step forward for the health of our rivers and salmon fisheries. Before this agreement, we lacked effective ways to keep these poisons from entering our rivers and streams. EPA and the Fisheries Service can now continue to work together toward permanent protections that keep pesticides out of our waters.”

According to Jason Rylander with Defenders of Wildlife, “It’s kind of a no-brainer that salmon and pesticides don’t mix. Today’s agreement will go a long way towards ensuring that these highly toxic chemicals stay out rivers and streams and out of the food chain.”

Todd Steiner, executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network stated, “Keeping these highly toxic pesticides out of streams and rivers protects the health of salmon and our children. It is way more cost effective than trying to clean up the mess after the fact.”

A 2004 court order required EPA to consult with the Fisheries Service over the impacts of these chemicals on salmon. That particular court order had expired when the Fisheries Service completed its analysis of the chemicals in 2008 and 2009.   When the Fisheries Service required the EPA to implement a wider range of protections within a year, EPA failed to do so, leaving salmon and steelhead exposed and unprotected. This current agreement resolved years of litigation and will force the EPA to focus its time and energy on permanent solutions that will protect salmon.

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. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified  malathion  as a toxicity class III pesticide, bearing the signal word “Caution.” 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.

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.

For more information, read one of our Pesticides and You articles, Threatened Waters.

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

Source:   Earthjustice

Photo source: World Wildlife Fund

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2014) Environmental advocacy groups filed an Administration Objection and a court appeal last week in order to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to quickly correct errors in pesticide registrations and immediately implement measures to protect children from exposure to dangerous pesticides that drift from fields during and after application.

EPA’s continued refusal to protect children’s health from pesticide drift is being criticized by numerous environmental, health, and farmworker advocacy groups. The groups, which include  United Farmworkers, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Pesticide Action Network of North America, Sea Mar Community Health Centers, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Farm Labor Organizing Committee, originally filed a petition back in 2009 titled “Pesticides in the Air””Kids at Risk: Petition to EPA to Protect Children from Pesticide Drift (2009).” The petition asked that the agency properly comply with an existing law that requires EPA to protect children’s health from exposure to pesticides that drift from fields and orchards. After a more than four-year wait and a court appeal, EPA finally provided a response last March. These groups object to EPA’s recent response to their 2009 petition on the basis of two issues, both of which violate the agency’s obligations under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA):

• The tolerances originally developed under FQPA were not formulated with the consideration of pesticide drift, leaving children at risk to additional exposures.
• EPA failed to  include a tenfold safety factor to protect infants and children due to incomplete data on pesticide drift and failure to assess all aggregate exposures for which it did have information on back in 2006, when the agency originally set the tolerances.

Essentially, EPA’s response was a refusal to correct pesticide registration errors and implement measures to protect children from exposure to dangerous pesticide drift in a timely manner, potentially prolonging compliance by another eight years. While EPA officials acknowledge that the agency had failed to consider drift when setting pesticide limits, the original deadline to complete this obligation under the Act came and went back in 2006; in face of this acknowledgement, however, EPA is declining to implement immediate protection or change its current plans and timelines, which extend to 2022. The petitioners are asking the EPA to immediately rectify the agency’s failure to consider pesticide drift in tolerances. Whether this request is fulfilled on time or not, however, petitioners ask that EPA at minimum immediately adjust tolerances to include the additional tenfold safety factor, as required by FQPA.

A number of health effects have been linked to pesticide exposure in children, including birth defects, respiratory disorders, and cancer. Additionally, a recent report from the California Department of Public Health finds that over a third of public schools in the state have pesticides of public health concern applied within a quarter mile of the school, including persistent and toxic substances like chlorpyrifos, methyl bromide, and malathion. While EPA has required pesticide labels to include warnings regarding spray drift for decades, the agency has also recognized that this measure is insufficient to protect populations like children. In fact, poisoning incident reports show that drift continues to pose significant risks. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation documented 3,997 reported pesticide drift incidents in the state between 1992 and 2007, which may reflect just a fraction of total incidents. These reports and studies highlight the importance of reducing children’s pesticide exposure. The failure to include pesticide drift and a safety factor when setting tolerances in a timely manner precludes an entire generation of children from getting the protection that they need.

For more information on spray drift and children’s health, read Beyond Pesticides’ past articles here and here. Learn more about how to protect your family’s health and the environment by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience Guide.

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

Source: Earthjustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2014)  A county in southern Ontario has become the first Canadian municipality, according to reports,  to temporarily ban a controversial class of insecticides linked to be bee deaths in Canada and around the world. Last week, officials in Prince Edward County passed a motion prohibiting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on municipal lands, effective immediately.

The rural county, nestled in the heart of Ontario’s agricultural heartland, also wants the federal and provincial government to “declare a moratorium surrounding the use of neonicotinoid crop treatments, as soon as possible, pending further study.” The motion requires letters to be sent to several federal and provincial ministers —including the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, and Health Minister Rona Ambrose— outlining the county’s position.

Mounting science has documented the neonicotinoid class of pesticides  as a major factor in bee decline. Neonicotinoids have been shown, even a low levels, to impair foraging, navigational and learning behavior in bees, as well as suppress their immune system to point of making them susceptible to pathogens and disease. Read: No Longer a Big Mystery. These chemicals are also systemic, meaning they contaminate the entire plant, including pollen and nectar, leading to contamination of the entire colony, including juvenile bees, when pollen is taken back to the hive. More recent research is even finding that neonicotinoids persist for long periods of time in the  environment, contaminating soil and water, and  adversely affecting  other non-target organisms. New research from Harvard University’s School of Public Health confirms the role of these insecticides in bee decline. Harvard researchers found the slightest exposure to neonicotinoids would cause a colony to collapse and die. The pesticides, the study said, also impede a bee’s ability to survive the winter.

Neonicotinoids, like imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, have already been given a two year moratorium in the European Union (EU). Despite calls for similar action from beekeepers and environmentalists, Canadian officials, and their counterparts in the U.S., have refused to follow suit. Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, and beekeepers  filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2013 calling for a ban on clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which are used extensively on corn, soybean and canola seeds, even though a recent report finds that this use pattern provides no additional benefit to agriculture.

In September 2013, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) —responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada— discovered neonicotinoid contaminated dust had caused severe bee mortality in Ontario and Quebec. A final report is expected in 2015. In the U.S., a government-sponsored survey reports preliminary findings that bee declines continue to be above average during the 2013/2014 winter. Last summer, thousands of dead bees were found in Oregon after the application of a neonicotinoid pesticide. This prompted local action on neonicotinoids, with the city of Eugene, Oregon becoming the first community in the U.S. to  ban the chemicals earlier this year. In response to growing concern over neonicotinoids, Minnesota passed legislation prohibiting treated plants from being labeled as bee-friendly.

The Canadian motion also highlighted the concerning trend that non-treated seed are unavailable to farmers wanting to stay away from using neonicotinoids. Non-treated seed are not readily available. It is estimated that  92 to 95 per cent of corn acreage in Canada and the U.S. are planted in seed coated in neonicotinoids. “We urge seed companies to make adequate supplies [of non-treated seed] available,” the motion reads. Farmers, meanwhile, are encouraged to “order seed not treated with insecticide for the 2015 growing season.”

Prince Edward County is one of the highest producing agriculture regions in Ontario, Canada. A hub for dairy, poultry and hog production, the region is famous for its major cheese festival and local wines.

The plight of bees and other pollinators is an important one for all to be concerned. One third of the foods we eat are dependent on pollination services, which contribute $20-30 billion to the agricultural economy. The reliance on toxic, systemic inputs that dominate our agricultural systems and how we manage pests, is being found to have more environmental costs than benefits. The time for action  is now.

Take Action: Join the BEE Protective Campaign

• Use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.
• Join us in asking Lowe’s and Home Depot and other leading garden centers to take action and stop the sale of neonicotinoids and plants treated with these chemicals.
• Tell your member of Congressto support the Save America’s Pollinators Act.  
• Sign the  Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly.
• Use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.

Source: Ipolitics

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2014) In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) challenged EPA’s position that seeds coated with pesticides, commonly neonicotinoid pesticides, are exempt from regulation  under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA currently is arguing that pesticide-coated seeds are treated articles, exempting them from being regulated as a pesticide and should be regulated by USDA under the Federal Seed Act.   However, CFS argues in its letter that FIFRA precludes EPA from approving language at any stage of the pesticide’s supply chain that allows for exposures likely to adversely affect the environment, and which are not mitigated or investigated by EPA or state agencies.

Neonicotinod seed treatments have become increasing common and are linked to the explosion of genetically engineered (GE) crops. At least 94% of the nation’s 92 million acres of corn –greater than the total size of the state of Minnesota, Nebraska, or both Dakotas–  will be treated with one of two neonicotinoids, both manufactured by Bayer.

According the letter, CFS believes this inaction by EPA has led state regulators to avoid investigating bee deaths from exposure to dust from planting seeds treated with the controversial neonicotinoid insecticides. CFS says that language added to treated seed bags could reduce or mitigate the impact that  pesticidal ‘dust has on pollinators.

Currently, when farmers plant pesticide treated seeds using a mechanical seeder, small amounts of the chemical coating can be scraped off of the seeds and expelled through the planter’s exhaust as dust. Bees that are near the area or are flying through then come into direct physical contact with the chemical dust. A 2012 study found that high amounts of neonicotinoids are present in the exhaust of corn seed planters and that bees are exposed to these potentially lethal concentrations of the chemical simply by flying through the area during planting.

Last summer, EPA amended label requirements for foliar applications of neonicotinoids after the controversial class of pesticides were suspected in bee kills following pesticide sprays at several sites in Oregon. Critics have questioned the efficacy of these restrictions as they do not address the systemic nature of neonicotinoids and focuses solely on managed and not wild bees. The new regulations also clearly do not affect treated seeds.

According to an Inside EPA article, state and federal officials as well as industry representatives have been working to revise treated seed labels for several years. However, CFS argues that industry’s clear influence in changing seed bag labels violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires public notification of, and balanced representation on, advisory panels.

The science clearly indicates that neonicotinoids are highly toxic to a range of insects, including honey bees and other pollinators. The systemic insecticides are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets that bees forage, pollinate, or  rink. They are particularly dangerous because, in addition to being acutely toxic in high doses, they also result in serious sublethal effects when insects are exposed to chronic low doses, as they are through pollen and water droplets laced with the chemical as well as dust that is released into the air when treated seeds that have been coated with the chemicals are planted.

Recently, research on neonicotinoids conducted by Chensheng (Alex) Lu and colleagues at the Department of Environmental Health at the Harvard School of Public Health has been the subject of criticism because of the dose levels used in the study.  However, the concentration used by Lu and colleagues (136 µg/L of imidacloprid) is comparable to the maximum sample value seen by Bayer in their joint citrus study with the University of California (Byrne et al. 2013) in freshly capped honey (95.2 µg/L). A blog post from the Pesticide Research Institute  concludes that Bayer’s claims that this new research is “deceptive and represents a disservice to genuine scientific investigation related to honey bee health” lacks credibility.

Concerns over massive wild bee die offs and consistently high losses reported from managed hives led to public demands for stronger pollinator protections. Last Friday, beekeepers and advocates like NC Toxic Free protested Lowe’s annual shareholder meeting. Protesters demanded the home improvement store stop selling neonicotinoid pesticides. These actions were part of a larger campaign supported by Beyond Pesticides to pressure retailers to stop selling these chemicals and treated garden plants.

You Can Also Take Action:  Join Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign:

• Use our  model resolution  to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.
• Join us  in asking Lowe’s and Home Depot  and other leading garden centers to take action and stop the sale of neonicotinoids and plants treated with these chemicals.
• Tell your member of Congressto support the  Save America’s Pollinators Act.  
• Sign the    Pesticide Free Zone Declaration  and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly.
• Use our  model resolution  to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.

Source: Inside EPA

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2014) With Friday’s announcement that the production of deadly rodent baits will stop by year’s end, a national public health and environmental group is renewing its request of the nation’s retailers to immediately stop the sale of d-CON ® anticoagulant rodent bait products, citing the poisoning of children, pets, and wildlife. This call comes as the manufacturer of d-CON ®, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, announced an agreement today with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in which it will cease production, but not sale, of the product by the end of 2014.

“It is outrageous that a highly toxic product associated with the poisoning of children, pets, and wildlife remains on the market one more day, let alone for the years it will take to exhaust supplies,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “One child harmed from the continued sale of this product is one child too many,” said Mr. Feldman. Between 1993 and 2008, the American Association of Poison Control Centers logged 12,000 to 15,000 poison exposure reports of children under the age of six from mouse and rat baits.

Early in 2013, EPA issued a notice to cancel the registration of 12 rodenticide products manufactured by Reckitt Benckiser LLC after the company refused to adopt voluntary risk mitigation measures established in 2008. The measures required that products be sold in bait stations and secured bait forms, instead of loose baits that children can more readily access, and not contain the most toxic and persistent active ingredients. On March 6, 2013, the company challenged EPA’s decision, delaying a decision that was to have taken effect on March 7, 2013. This was the first time in more than 20 years that a company declined to implement EPA risk mitigation measures for pesticide products.

EPA has been criticized for agreements with manufacturers that allow products that exceed the agency’s safety standards to remain in the marketplace, without warning to consumers and users, years after their products have been de-registered.

Beyond Pesticides urges families with small children to utilize 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 many baits traps on the market that do not utilize toxic chemicals.

While some local stores and national retailers have taken steps to remove the toxic rodenticide products, all the major national retailers are being urged by Beyond Pesticides to immediately stop sales of the 12 dangerous d-CON ® products and ensure that regional stores pull these products from shelves.

In March, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) adopted rules that, starting July 1, “second generation anticoagulant rodenticides,” including the chemicals brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone found in d-CON brand products, will be classified as California-restricted materials, and only allowed to be used by certified pesticide applicators. This will take the products off of retail store shelves. A week after this action, d-CON ® manufacturer,  Reckitt Benckiser  sued  California to stop it from acting.

For more information, go to Beyond Pesticides Care for Kids rodenticide page.