(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2014) A recent review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, examines the interaction between widely used agricultural herbicides, like glyphosate, the active ingredient of Roundup products, and the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). The study represents one of the most comprehensive reviews on the topic of occupational exposure to pesticides in scientific literature, demonstrating their clear harm to human health.

The study, “Non Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” reviews almost thirty years of epidemiological research, examining occupational exposure of farmers to 80 active ingredients, and 21 chemicals groups to clarify their role in the development of NHL. Analyzing 44 papers, the study opens its discussion by mentioning the ”˜striking increase’ in incidents of NHL over the past 30 years. The study attempts to reconcile apparent trends of low mortality but high incidents of cancer among farm workers, pointing out that exposure to agricultural pesticides are often associated with signficint sub-lethal impacts.

Researchers Maria Leon Roux, PhD., and Leah Schinasi, PhD. at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in the Environment and Radiation section, said that the challenge of expensive and therefore the need for more comprehensive data “motivated us to systematically review the published epidemiological literature of relationships of NHL with occupational exposures to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients.”

In addition to linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the researchers  also found that carbamate insecticides, organophosphate insecticides, phenoxy herbicide MCPA, and lindane were positively associated with NHL cancer.

The study comes just as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering registering yet another herbicide containing  glyphosate  and 2, 4-D  with seeds engineered to tolerate both materials. The chemical, Enlist Duo technology, is made by Dow AgroSciences in an effort to stem growing insect  and  weed  resistance, which has resulted in  increased pesticide use. Registering another toxic chemical mix is not only ineffective in reducing resistance, it ignores the science presented in this and many other scientific articles that links pesticide impacts to human health and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides has assembled  extensive documentation on the human health and environmental risks of glyphosate. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. One of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), has also been shown to kill human embryonic cells. In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) showing new and emerging science that illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risk to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Public policy must advance this shift, rather than continue to allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides.

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

Sources: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2014) A recent study, Reduction in urinary organophosphate pesticide metabolites in adults after a week-long organic diet, led by Liza Oates found lower trances of organophosphate metabolites in consumers that ate organic food for a week compared to those who ate a conventional diet. The study  adds to the scientific literature that shows consuming organic food minimize consumers’ exposure to pesticides residue. Because organic agriculture is a healthier system for consumers it is important we protect strict organic standards.

The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Research, found that participants who ate a diet that was at least 80 percent organic had 89 percent lower levels of dialkylphosphates (DAPs), non-selective organophosphate metabolites, in their urine. The study was conducted in Melbourne, Australia with non-smoking participates between the age of 18 and 65. Participants were asked to eat a diet of conventional food for a week than on the morning of day eight participants provided a urine sample to the researchers. This process was repeated with the same participants after they spent a week eating at least 80 percent organic food. The levels of DAPs found in participants during the week in which they ate conventional were comparable to previous studies done on the general population.

The study was expressly concerned with the health impacts that organophosphates can have on consumers. Organophosphate pesticides originally were derived from World War II nerve agents. According to the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  over 73 million pounds of organophosphates  were used on U.S. crops in 2001. Organophosphates inhibit cholinesterase, a neurotransmitter that carries signals between nerves and muscles. Inhibiting cholinesterase can cause poisoning victims to suffocate due to paralysis and cause lungs to fill up with fluid. Children are at an elevated risk  for organophosphate pesticide poisoning.

The study  adds to the growing literature that eating organic clearly is a healthier option because it allows consumers to reduce their exposures to pesticide residues. The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) released a report in 2012  on organic foods that stated organic foods provide health advantages by reducing exposure to pesticides, especially for children, even reporting “sound evidence” that organic foods contain more vitamin C and phosphorus. According to the report, “in terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease.”

There were however several limitations with this study such as a small sample size and variation of when participates entered and exited the study. Future large scale studies investigating the relationship between exposure and health outcomes are required to determine if the reduction in organophosphates associated with an organic diet has clinical relevance.

Current Fights over Organic Standards in the U.S.

Strong organic standards are necessary to maintain for consumers to remain confident that organic foods have the health advantages that are expressed in this study. Currently, The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the board which maintains the list of allowable synthetic substances, is meeting in San Antonio Texas.

Yesterday a protest, staged by representatives of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and March against Monsanto San Antonio (MAMSA), disrupted the NOSB meeting.

The activists came to protest the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program’s (NOP) changes to the sunset process for removing non-organic ingredients and materials from the NOP’s National List of substances allowed and prohibited in products certified as organic.

You can help these efforts to maintain a strong organic program by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong page and taking action with our Save Our Organics page. You can also follow the meeting in real time by following Beyond Pesticides on Twitter and Facebook.

Source: The Conversation

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2014) A new report, released this week by author  Michele Simon  and Friends of the Earth  documents the tactics used by Bayer and other pesticide companies to delay regulatory action on neonicotinoid pesticides —a key contributor to bee declines. The report identifies public relations tactics reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry, is now being used by Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto. Meanwhile, a Congressional hearing on pollinator health, with a panel dominated by industry, ignored the risks pesticides pose to pollinators, and failed to address sustainable solutions to bee decline.

The report,  Follow the Honey: 7 Ways Pesticide Companies Are Spinning the Bee Crisis to Protect Profits,  uncovers the deceptive public relations tactics used by industry giants Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto, to deflect blame from their products’ contributions to bee declines. The products in question are the chemicals now widely used for seed treatment  —neonicotinoids— as well as on residential sites. They are highly toxic to bees and have been linked to bee decline. Last year, the European Union banned the three most widely used neonicotinoids —imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam— based on strong science indicating these insecticides can kill bees outright and make them more vulnerable to pests, pathogens and other stressors. However, these pesticides are still widely used in the U.S., despite massive bee losses that threaten vital food crops, from almonds in California to apples in Washington.

A Congressional hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill, convened on pollinator health, reinforced the report’s findings as no mention of pesticide risks were discussed by the industry dominated panel. The hearing for the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture included no independent scientists on the leading edge of bee research, and no beekeepers who are experiencing firsthand dire losses of bees responsible for pollinating many of our food crops. The hearing is being viewed as just another tactic to marginalize the role of pesticides, the beekeeping industry most impacted by bee losses, and the Saving America’s Pollinators Act– a bill that would suspend the use of four of the most toxic neonicotinoid chemicals until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a full review of their safety and can make an informed and scientifically-sound decision about their use.

“These pesticide companies use PR tricks straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook to manufacture doubt about science and fool politicians and the public to delay action, while they keep profiting from bee-killing pesticides,” said  Ms.Simon,  a public health attorney who tracks corporate tactics.

PR tactics revealed in the new report include:

• Spinning the Science and “Manufacturing Doubt” about the role of pesticides:  Aggressive efforts to promote the varroa mite and other factors as the leading causes of bee deaths while downplaying or dismissing the role of pesticides. What they don’t say: neonicotinoid pesticides are a key compounding factor that makes bees more vulnerable to the varroa mite and other pests and pathogens.
• “Bee Care” PR Blitz:  PR campaigns to create the appearance of being “out in front” and taking a lead role in “saving bees” by promoting “bee health,” building “Bee Care Centers” and launching a “Bee Care Tour” while downplaying the role of pesticides in bee deaths.
• Buying Credibility:  Funding scientific studies, cultivating alliances and strategic partnerships with farmers, beekeepers, and agricultural organizations in order to buy credibility for their “anything but pesticides” talking points and position themselves as “friends of the bees.”
• Blaming Farmers and Beekeepers:  While denying criticism of pesticides, blaming farmers who use pesticides for any “rare” negative effects on bees, and blaming beekeepers for poor bee care.
• Targeting Children:  Propaganda to win young hearts and minds, such as Bayer’s children’s book entitled “Toby and the Bees” in which a friendly beekeeper tells young Toby the bees are getting sick, but “not to worry,” it’s just a problem with mites, and there is special medicine (made by Bayer) to make bees healthy.

Neonicotinoid residues pose a major risk to bees from  fugitive dust off seed planters, which EPA has recognized as a causing several bee kills nationwide. These chemicals are particularly dangerous because, in addition to being highly acutely toxic, their use also results in serious sublethal effects when insects are exposed to chronic low doses, as they are through pollen, nectar, and water droplets contaminated with the chemicals, in addition to  dust that is released into the air when treated seeds are planted with seed planters across millions of acres of corn fields in the U.S. Neonicotinoids are also systemic pesticides, meaning residues remain in plants, soil and water for very long periods of time. This causes significant problems for the long-term health of individual honey bees, as well as the overall health of honey bee colonies. Effects observed in exposed bees include disruptions in mobility and navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, suppressed immune function, and overall decreased hive activity.

Despite a growing body of evidence (read: No Longer a Big Mystery) showing acute, sublethal, and chronic effects of neonicotinoid pesticides in bees, industry giants like Syngenta and Bayer continue to ignore the impact of their products and instead focus on beekeeper practices, nutrition, and viruses and pathogens as the main culprits of bee decline. In fact, both Bayer and Syngenta are challenging the EU’s suspension of their chemicals, claiming the European Commission made its  decision on the basis of a flawed process. Beekeepers have protested across Europe and also here in the U.S., calling for a moratorium on bee-killing pesticides. Several beekeepers are co-plaintiffs in a 2013 lawsuit challenging EPA’s failure to protect pollinators. This lawsuit seeks suspension of the registrations of clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees and clear contributors to ongoing mortality of bees.  The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these pesticides, as well as EPA’s registration process and labeling deficiencies.

With bee-kill incidents in Oregon last summer, including one that killed more than 50,000 bumblebees, and the bee deaths in California’s almond groves, and ”˜mysterious’ road-side bee deaths in Oregon, as well as astronomical overwintering losses in Ohio, bees continue to face challenges. In spite of recent efforts in Europe to help reverse bee decline by suspending the use of three widely neonicotinoids, U.S. officials have yet to move definitely on the issue. EPA recognizing that these chemicals can pose risks to bees published revised product labels stipulating users not to apply when bees are near. These labels, according to advocates and beekeepers, do not go far enough to protect bees from these chemicals.

BEE Protective

Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety  have joined forces with the BEE Protective Campaign, with the goal of  protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides. The BEE Protective Campaign gives you the tools to help honey bees and other pollinators right in your own community. Here are some ways to take action:

• Plant bee friendly habitat in your own backyard
• Pledge   to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organic and pollinator friendly.
• 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.  
• Learn more about the science behind bee declines in No Longer a BIG Mystery
• Use our  model resolution  to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.

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

Source: Friends of the Earth

(Beyond Pesticides, April, 29, 2014) According to a recent study published in the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the chemicals triclosan and octylphenol are linked to the growth of breast cancer cells. Triclosan is an antibacterial and antifungal agent found in numerous commonly known household products. Octylphenol is a commercial solvent that can be found in paints and plastics, and is often used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.

Researchers investigated whether these two endocrine-disrupting chemicals (ECDs) contributed to the growth of cancer cells. In their study, Progression of Breast Cancer Cells Was Enhanced by Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals, Triclosan and Octylphenol, via an Estrogen Receptor-Dependent Signaling Pathway in Cellular and Mouse Xenograft Models, scientists performed both in vitro tests on human breast cancer cells in petri dishes, and in vivo tests via tissue grafts on mice. “Although the doses of EDCs were somewhat high, we did this to simulate their effects of daily exposure, as well as body accumulation due to long-term exposure, simultaneously in animal experiments,” said Kyung-Chul Choi, PhD, co-author of the research. Results of the study established that both triclosan and octylphenol interfered with the genes involved in breast cancer growth. In human breast cancer cells, these chemicals altered the expression of two cell cycle regulators, ultimately leading to proliferation of the cancerous cells. Mice exposed to the chemicals experienced larger and denser breast cancer tumors compared to the control group. “Thus, exposure to EDCs may significantly increase the risk of breast cancer development and adversely affect human health,” the researchers state in the paper.

Endocrine disruptors function by: (i) Mimicking the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (ii) Blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or (iii) Affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. In addition to cancer, recent studies have linked EDCs to declines in sperm count, increased risk of endometriosis, and the impairment of fish hearts.

Octylphenol is regulated as an inert ingredient by the Environmental Protections Agency. Under this status, the chemical can be added to formulated pesticide products without providing knowledge to the consumer. Last month, Beyond Pesticides and allies filed a complaint against EPA for the agency’s failure to disclose inert ingredients on pesticide project labels. Pesticide labels only identify the weight percentage of inert ingredients, which often comprise 50 to 99 percent of a formulation, and mislead the public into thinking that these other “inert” ingredients are safe.“Consumers and users of pesticide products have a right to know all the ingredients that are in products they purchase so that they can make more informed choices in the marketplace,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. Read more about the pending litigation here.

Due to its widespread use, and numerous studies showing adverse health impacts, triclosan, the other chemical tested in this recent study, has been a particular focus for environmental, health, and consumer advocates. In 1972, Congress required FDA to set guidelines for many common antibacterial chemicals found in over-the-counter soaps and scrubs. FDA published tentative guidelines for chemicals used in liquid hand soaps and washes by 1978, stating triclosan was “not generally recognized as safe and effective.” This was due to a lack of scientific research demonstrating the chemical’s safety and effectiveness. While many major manufacturers, including  Johnson and Johnson  and  Proctor and Gamble, have already announced their intent to eliminate triclosan from their products, the chemical still remains  widespread in a number of consumer goods.

Due to these growing concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a new rule last December that requires manufacturers of antibacterial hand soaps, body washes, and other consumer goods to prove that their products are both safe for long-term use and more effective than regular bar soap in order to remain on the market. This announcement, though long-delayed, represents a positive step toward reining in the unnecessary use of antibacterial chemicals. Toothpaste containing triclosan is not subject to this rulemaking as FDA has indicated that the chemical is effective as an anti-gingivitis ingredient.

As new science emerges, Beyond Pesticides continues to urge concerned consumers to join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge   to stop using triclosan. Since the rule will not go into effect until at least 2016, make sure to continue to read the label of personal care products in order to avoid those containing triclosan. You can also encourage your local schools, government agencies, and businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, school, or company to  adopt the model resolution  that commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

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

Source: American Chemical Society,

(Beyond Pesticides, April 28, 2014) Last week,  the  Rodale Institute, home to America’s longest-running side-by-side comparison of chemical and organic agriculture, published a white paper to support its announcement of a global campaign to generate public awareness of organic agricultural practices ability to limit the effects of climate change. The paper singles out several “regenerative organic agriculture” practices that help sequester carbon leading to less CO₂ in the atmosphere. This campaign will help deliver the growing scientific literature that connects agricultural practices with climate change.

The white paper,  Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming, argues that it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO₂ emissions by switching to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which are referred to in the paper as “regenerative organic agriculture.” According to the report soil sequestration can potentially sequester greenhouse gas emissions of roughly 52 gigatonnes of CO₂. Even if modest assumption about soil’s carbon sequestration potential are made, regenerative agriculture can easily keep annual emissions to within the desirable lower end of the 41-47 gigatonnes of CO₂, which is identified as necessary reduction to limit warming to 1.5 °C.

Rodale highlights several examples of management practices that, if shifted, could help sequester CO_2. These practices include (at a minimum) cover crops, residue mulching, composting and crop rotation. The report also includes information on conservation tillage however, this practices is still not widely used in organic systems. The report notes that changes to individual management practices should not be the sole focus as regenerative organic agriculture is a holistic system. However, data for specific practices are used in this study to help readers better understand the mechanisms at work in soil carbon sequestration.

The report specifically points to bare soil as one of the largest sources of carbon lose in conventional agriculture. According to Rodale:

“Agricultural soils that are left fallow [bare] or are heavily tilled are exposed to wind and water leading to erosion of the carbon-rich topsoil. Fallow land also fails to accumulate biomass carbon that it would otherwise by continuously growing plants. Tilled, exposed, eroded soils lead to the breakdown of soil aggregates, allowing formerly stable soil carbon to be released as a greenhouse gas.”

Growing cover crops, reducing tillage, and enhancing crop rotations does not allow for land to be left bare and fixes carbon in the soil rather than allowing it to be lost to the atmosphere.

The paper was released as part of Rodale Institute’s global campaign to generate public awareness of soil’s ability to reverse climate change. The campaign will call for the restructuring of our global food system with the goal of reversing climate change through photosynthesis and biology.

According to “Coach” Mark Smallwood, executive director of Rodale Institute, “The white paper is to encourage new research, new policy and the rapid expansion of regenerative agricultural methods. The media campaign brings the broader vision to the public much faster.   The idea is to stoke the public outcry that already exists and to validate those who demand these changes be made now.”

This white paper adds to the growing literature that connects industrial agriculture to climate change and the effects climate changes can have on agriculture production. Algal blooms, which cause bright green scum that completely covers the Western part of Lake Erie, occurs from mid-July to October, in part because of farming practices surrounding the Lake and in part due to climate change. Runoff from phosphorus fertilizers provide nutrients for blooms, which is compounded by warmer weather. Climate change also increases the movement of toxic chemicals. The study,  The toxicology of climate change: Environmental contaminants in a warming world, found that climate change will general increase the toxicity of contaminates such as  DDT, DDE, and  hexachlorobenzene (HCB).

A study produced by Sanford University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have also tied increases in crop losses and increased pest populations to climate change. The study warns that wheat, corn and barley are especially affected, with 40 million fewer metric tons of the crops produced each year. For every 1 degree increase in temperature, the researchers say, crop yields drop by about 3 percent to 5 percent, and the decline is clearly caused by human activity.

Beyond Pesticides has long be a supporter of organic agriculture as a solution to climate change because of its potential to sequester carbon. For more information visit Beyond Pesticides’ Environmental Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Also, read Beyond Pesticides’ 2007 Pesticides and You Climate Change: Consequences and the Organic Response and Jeff Moyer’s, Rodale Farm Director, talk at Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st National Pesticide Forum.

Source: Nation of Change

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2014) Reports of honey bee deaths have been emerging around the nation: from bee deaths in California’s almond groves and ”˜mysterious’ road-side bee deaths in Oregon, to astronomical overwintering losses in Ohio. The reports are intensifying the ecological crises of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) ””a phenomenon typified by the mass abandonment of hives and bee die-off. CCD poses significant issues for many agricultural crops, such as almonds, apples, cherries and blueberries, that are almost completely reliant on honey bees for their pollination services.

In California, a total of 80,000 dead or damaged bee hives were reported after pollinating almond trees in the San Joaquin Valley, a region that is known for its agricultural productivity. Beekeepers have pointed to pesticides as the primary culprit. Almond pollination in California requires an army of 1,300 commercial beekeepers from around the nation. However, this year beekeepers have seen higher damages to hives than usual.

Damage to the honey bee hives this spring has been so pronounced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened an impromptu meeting with beekeepers in Los Banos, California. The meeting brought together 75 beekeepers who testified that 75 percent of their hives showed severe damage following almond pollination. Beekeepers pointed to ”˜tank mixing’ of several insecticides, which are toxic by themselves and even more so in combination. Almond farmers often use clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam  ””chemicals that have been banned in the European Union (EU) due to an unreasonably high-risk to honey bees”” as well as tolfenpyrad and cyantraniliprole, products that just recently came on the market after EPA registration.

Beekeeper Gene Brandi of Los Banos told The Sacramento Bee that pesticides used do not have explicit label warnings about their possible effects on bees. Although EPA assessed their toxicity for adult bees, and found them to be nontoxic, “Nonetheless, these chemicals affect the bee colony by affecting the brood,” Mr. Brandi said. “The damaged hives are a significant number, and enough to cause alarm.”

In Oregon, officials are now investigating the death of thousands of honeybees along a highway running southwest of Portland. Bruce Pokarney of the Oregon Department of Agriculture estimated that the swarm of bees could have ranged in number from one to 10,000. Officials told Reuters that  they are currently working under the assumption that the bees swarmed while attempting to cross the road and ended up as roadkill, however samples have been sent to Oregon State University to check for possible disease or so-called “other issues,” such as pesticides. The die-off marks the second in Oregon this year, after 50,000 bumblebees were found dead in a parking lot in Wilsonville after feeding on a linden tree doused with the bee-killing pesticide dinotefuran.

Across the U.S., Ohioan beekeepers have just reported overwintering losses between 50 and 80 percent, according the The Columbus Dispatch, which come on top of 30 to 60 percent die-offs the previous year. “It’s a pretty devastating loss,” said Ohio beekeeper Barry Conrad, who maintains 76 hives. “It’s been getting worse each year.” The winter was an unusually harsh one, however, beekeepers including Mr. Conrad have pointed to pesticides as the key issue.

Every year the Bee Informed Partnership, in collaboration with the Apiary Inspectors of America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides a national survey of honey bee winter losses (see 2012-2013 losses). When the  survey is released in  May, we should see whether these reported events are demonstrating nationwide trends.

BEE Protective

On Earth Day 2013, Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety  joined forces to launch the BEE Protective Campaign, with the goal of  protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides.The BEE Protective Campaign gives you the tools to help honey bees and other pollinators right in your own community. Here are some ways to take action:

• Plant bee friendly habitat in your own backyard
• 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.  
• Learn more about the science behind bee declines in No Longer a BIG Mystery
• 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.

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

Sources: The Sacramento Bee, Reuters, The Columbus Dispatch

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2014) France’s lower house of parliament passed a bill last week banning the cultivation of all strains of genetically engineered (GE) corn within its borders, even those strains that might not yet be approved within the European Union (EU). The law follows a decree adopted last month, which targeted the only GE crop permitted for cultivation in the EU””Monsanto’s insect-resistant MON810 corn. Back in the U.S., Vermont became the first state to pass a  bill requiring the labeling of food containing GE ingredients  (You can read the House bill as it was introduced here and the Senate amendments to this bill here). The bill, which the Governor said he will sign, passed by large majorities in both houses of the legislature and does not contain a trigger provision similar to laws adopted in Connecticut and Maine  –with a  requirement that  similar action is taken in contiguous states before the law goes into effect.

The action in France is not  the first time it has closed the door on MON810, even in the face of its highest court’s rulings that similar bans did not have sufficient justification. Yet, undaunted by these defeats the French General Assembly went even further than these past actions and extended the ban to all GE corn crops through more permanent legislation.

Jean-Marie Le Guen, National Assembly delegate, explained, “It is essential today to renew a widely shared desire to maintain the French ban. This bill strengthens the decree passed last March by preventing the immediate cultivation of [GE] and extending their reach to all transgenic maize varieties.”

The bold move in the name of environmental protection must still clear some significant legislative and legal hurdles. The upper house of France’ parliament, the Senate, has yet to vote on the bill and most likely will reject the law as it has done in the past. Unlike the U.S. legislative system, however, this does not mean absolute defeat, and according to some resources, the National Assembly will still have the final say.

Whether or not that final say survives yet another legal challenge from industry and pro-GE crop farmers, is a separate issue. France must also continue its battle at the EU level to restructure EU rules concerning GE cultivation approvals and those countries who oppose such approvals.

France Is Right to Be Concerned

Insecticide-resistant corn, like MON810, poses serious threats to both the environment and human health. Researchers have found numerous instances of insect resistance, a difficult to contain environmental and agricultural impact often leading to overall increases in insecticide sales and emergency uses of even more dangerous pesticides. Animal studies have also produced evidence of insecticide-incorporated corn causing increased chances of infertility. Couple these risks with the fact that little evidence of the supposed economic benefits that proponents of GE crops laud has been substantiated and France’s actions seem more than sufficient.

GE Efforts Here at Home

While efforts to curb GE crop cultivation in the U.S. through all-out bans are few and far between, many states have attempted to pass GE labeling laws.   Few have been successful and those that have passed, have included trigger provisions that prevent them going into effect””until yesterday.   A Vermont bill requiring the labeling of GE foods passed the Vermont House of Representatives by a 114-30 vote, making it the first GE labeling bill to clear both houses of the state legislature and head to the governor for a likely signature. Much like France, Vermont faces almost certain legal challenges from the GE-industry, as well as federal-level preemptive legislation.

Beyond Pesticides continues to support the efforts of all farmers, counties, states, and countries to protect themselves against the unwanted invasion of GE crops and the risks that they bring to the environment and health. Please visit our Genetic Engineering webpage to learn more about the issues surrounding GE crops both at home and abroad.

Source: Reuters; Nation of Change, Burlington Free Press

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2014) Last week the Vermont state Senate voted 28-2 to authorize the mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. The bill, H.112, “An Act Relating to the Labeling of Food Produced with Genetic Engineering,” passed the Vermont House of Representatives back in May, and now goes back to the House for approval before moving to the Governor. Vermont’s legislation does not include a “trigger clause,” which is contained in  labeling bills passed last year in Maine and Connecticut  that, before  going into effect,  require other states in the New England region (including one boarding state) with an aggregate population of 20 million to pass similar laws.

If the last hurdles in the state legislature are cleared and the bill is signed by Governor Peter Shumlin (D), Vermont’s labeling law would not allow manufacturers to describe any food containing GE ingredients as “all natural” or “natural.” Processed foods that contain a product or products with GE would be required to display in clear and conspicuous language the words, “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.”

But even if passed, Vermont’s bill faces numerous challenges from the deep pockets of the biotechnology industry and its backers in the U.S. Congress. While states such as Vermont are working to shed light on the ingredients in our food, industry found U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) to assist in helping keep Americans in the dark through HR 4432, accurately dubbed the “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know Act” or DARK Act. The DARK Act would preempt states like Vermont from implementing mandatory labeling laws by giving the authority to label GE ingredients to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In effect, it would also allow food companies to give products with GE ingredients the “natural” label, despite the fact that there is nothing natural about crops engineered in a lab to produce their own insecticide or tolerate  dangerous herbicides.

Advocates of the Vermont labeling bill also expect a fight in the courts. To that end, the bill’s language currently contains a provision setting up a fund to pay for the expected legal wrangling. The biotechnology industry has made numerous threats to sue states that pass labeling laws, but testimony to the state Senate from Vermont Law School professors and state public interest groups asserted that HR 112 is constitutional and could withstand legal challenges.

The momentum and excitement in Vermont only shows that the attempts by the biotechnology industry to squash GE labeling have not discouraged proponents, but instead 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.

And we can’t forget that a national GE labeling bill is awaiting action in both Houses of Congress, but has yet to be voted on in committee in either the Senate or the House. National GE labeling efforts are being spearheaded by the  Just Label It!  Campaign and has garnered thousands of supporters across the country. In the meantime, the best way to avoid food with GE ingredients being purposely added to food  is to buy organic. 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.

Source: Reuters, Vermont Public Research Intrest Group (VPRIG)

(Beyond Pesticides, April 22, 2014) As we reflect on the beauty and wonder of the natural world this Earth Day and seek to restore  and preserve  the intricate web of life on the planet, we face an urgent need to stop ongoing toxic chemical contamination.  The hard truth of our time is that the natural world on which life depends  is under grave threat from numerous toxic insults resulting from mechanized and industrial human activity. Massive die-offs of beneficial organisms, increased rates of autoimmune diseases, endocrine disrupting and transgenerational chemical effects, and widespread pollution of our air and waterways —all linked to pesticides and other toxic chemicals, establish the critical  need  to adopt organic standards in sync with ecosystems.

This Earth Day we ask you to spread awareness of toxic chemicals that pollute the environment. Get active to safeguard your community and the surrounding environment from toxic insults: teach your neighbors how to maintain their land without toxic pesticides, protect honeybees from neonicotinoids insecticides, aquatic species from endocrine disrupting chemicals, and the streams, lakes, and rivers we all depend on from the widespread use of harmful synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Beyond Pesticides has the tools needed to increase environmental awareness in your community through our Databases that Support Action.

Learn about the chemicals entering our communities and globe. Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management provides information on the health and environmental effects of nearly 350 registered pesticide active ingredients. It is searchable by chemical name, product name, or health and environmental effects. The database is designed to provide decision and policy makers, practitioners, and activists with easier access to current and historical information on pesticide hazards and safe pest management, drawing on and linking to numerous sources and organizations that include information related to pesticide science, policy and activism.

Discover how environmental exposure impacts human health. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database presents scientific studies that document elevated rates of chronic diseases among people exposed to pesticides, with increased numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of diseases. Currently, the database is searchable for over 600 scientific references relating to Alzheimer’s, asthma, birth defects, body burden, cancer, diabetes, endocrine dysfunction, learning and developmental disabilities, Parkinson’s and sexual reproductive dysfunction. The current database is updated consistently. As you become educated, consider assisting our work — send studies that you think should be added to the database to [email protected].

Consider a food system that enhances, not harms, environmental health. Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database is designed to help explain the urgent need for a major shift to organic food consumption. Though this list is helpful in alerting consumers to hazardous residues on food, food residues are only part of the story. Those foods that are often referenced as “clean” commodities may be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife, while not all showing up at detectable or elevated levels on our food. Database users select an individual crop which will brings up a page that lists all of the pesticides that have registered tolerance (legal residue) allowances on that specific crop. The database lists the human health (acute, and chronic effects) and environmental (surface water contaminant, ground water contaminant, wildlife poison, bee poison, long-range transport) effects linked to each pesticide. The page also includes reported California farmworker poisoning incidents.

Earth Day last year saw the launch of the BEE Protective campaign spearheaded by Beyond Pesticides and our friends at Center for Food Safety. One year in, the campaign has generated a tremendous outpouring of support through local action, social media, and information requests to Beyond Pesticides. New backyard beekeepers and gardeners are fostering local pollinator resilience and creating bee friendly habitat that brings communities together and fuels the campaign to BEE Protective of pollinators. And thousands across the country continue raise their voices in multi-pronged efforts to pressure Congress, federal regulators, and the marketplace to stop using neonicotinoid pesticides proven to be harmful to honey bees. As we say in our recent issue of Pesticides and You, it’s No Longer a BIG Mystery why bees are dying. Neonicotinoid pesticides pose an imminent threat to pollinators and numerous other beneficial species.

As we appreciate the Earth and all it provides on this Earth Day, we hope you will use our resources, take action, and educate others on the ways toxic chemicals jeopardize the complex natural processes on which we rely. Through the promotion and adoption of alternative systems like organic, we can work with the Earth’s natural systems to produce a safer, healthier world for all living species.

To make your community sustainable and take it off the pesticide treadmill, join Beyond Pesticides’ community-based campaigns through our website, or contact us directly at [email protected].

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2014) A study has found that increased human exposure to triclosan is correlated with elevated numbers of individuals carrying staph bacteria. This research adds to the growing scientific literature that questions the safety and efficacy of triclosan, an anti-bacterial chemical widely used in consumer products.

The study, Triclosan Promotes Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Colonization, authored by Blaise R. Boles, PhD and published in mBio, found that nasal secretions that contain triclosan is linked to higher rates of the variety of staph bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus. Dr. Boles and colleagues found that 64 percent of individuals with detectable levels of triclosan in nostrils carried staph compared to 27 percent of individuals that had little or no antimicrobial compounds carrying staph. The researchers also found that triclosan also promotes the binding of staph to human proteins making them “stickier.” This allows staph to hunker down in the nose, giving it an advantage over other nose-dwelling microbes. Triclosan also allows staph to better attach to other surfaces such as glass and plastic.

Beyond the human tests, researchers found a similar link in rat experiments. They used a breed of rat known to take about a week to shake off a mild nasal invasion by staph. When the researchers gave the rats triclosan-laced food and stuck a small batch of staph in the rodents’ noses, the rats could not get rid of the microbes. According to a Science New article, microbiologist Hanne Ingmer of the University of Copenhagen says the finding has troubling implications for public health. Triclosan, she points out, could provide footholds for the most worrisome forms of staph, such as methicillin-resistant MRSA.

Triclosan, commercially introduced in 1972,  is a ubiquitous antibacterial chemical found in an increasing variety of household products. While many major manufacturers, including  Johnson and Johnson  and  Proctor and Gamble, have already announced their intent to eliminate triclosan from their products, the chemical still remains  widespread in a number of consumer goods. Though Colgate Palmolive announced in 2011 that it would reformulate many of its products to take out triclosan, it has refused to change the formula for its mainstay Colgate Total brand toothpaste.

Due to these growing concerns the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a new rule last December that requires manufacturers of antibacterial hand soaps, body washes, and other consumer goods to prove that their products are both safe for long-term use and more effective than regular bar soap in order to remain on the market. This announcement, though long-delayed, represents a positive step toward reining in the unnecessary use of antibacterial chemicals.Toothpaste containing triclosan is not subject to this rulemaking as FDA has indicated that the chemical is effective as an anti-gingivitis ingredient.

This study adds to the growing literature that questions the safety and efficacy of triclosan. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly  fetal development. It has also been shown to  alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in umbilical cord blood and human milk. The CDC estimates that  triclosan is present  in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.Studies even show that triclosan can react with the chlorine in tap water  to form chloroform  at rates of exposure considered significant by the authors of the research.

As new science emerges, Beyond Pesticides continues to urge concerned consumers to join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge   to stop using triclosan. Since the rule will not go into effect until at least 2016, make sure to continue to read the label of personal care products in order to avoid those containing triclosan. You can also encourage your local schools, government agencies, and businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, school, or company to  adopt the model resolution  that commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan. See Beyond Pesticides Triclosan webpage for additional information. Source: Science News All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2014) Test results have confirmed that the charismatic mountain lion named P-22 ””that frequently roams the hills of the San Gabriel Mountains surrounding Los Angeles, California”” has been exposed to highly toxic rat poisons. When remote cameras in Griffith Park caught images of the puma, state park officials saw a thin mangy cat, far different from the majestic shots taken months ago by National Geographic against the Hollywood sign as a backdrop. Upon performing blood testing analysis, they found that P-22 had been exposed to anticoagulant pesticides, stoking the debate around rodenticide use, as further research suggests that these pesticide poisonings are a common occurrence.

Researchers already know of the link between pesticides and mange””parasitic mites which burrow into the skin or hair follicles causing bald spots, scabbing and sore, which left untreated has contributed to the death of wild and domestic animals. Previous research by the National Park Service (NPS) has shown that bobcats that have ingested rodenticide are much more likely to suffer from mange. While the cougar has been treated with topical ointments for mange, and a dose of vitamin  D with vitamin  K as an antidote to the rat poisons, it is still unclear whether P-22 will fully recover. However, the event has brought media attention to the possible impacts of pest management practices on beneficial wildlife.

In late 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that loose pelleted rat poison products were unnecessarily harmful to human health and the environment, taking action to pass a Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) for certain products””namely d-CON. In response, manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser LLC has refused to adopt the  risk mitigation measures established by EPA in 2008, and is currently also challenging EPA’s decision to protect the public from these products, effectively keeping its products on the shelf until litigation is resolved.

In the meantime, California and its local municipalities have stepped in to provide preliminary restrictions on rat killers. In total, nearly 20 municipalities in California including San Francisco, Calabasas, and Malibu have pass resolutions to urge residents and businesses not to purchase or sell second generation anticoagulants.  Reckitt Benckiser has met the opposition head on aggressively challenging California’s rule to remove from store shelves several rodenticide products by suing the state. The manufacturers say that “new regulation will unnecessarily put Californians at an increased public health risk from rodent infestation and place a greater financial burden on families and individuals who cannot afford professional pest control services.”

These assertions have already been addressed by the EPA, which stood behind research showing that low-income and minority children are disproportionately affected by these products.  One study in New York found that 57 percent of children hospitalized for eating rat poison from 1990 to 1997 were African  American and 26 percent were Latino. It stood to reason that taking them off the shelves and providing snap traps would provide much safer methods of rodent control.

Over the past 20 years, park service officials of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area have found widespread sublethal exposure in carnivores to rodenticides. Indeed, 88% of wildlife tested, including 140 bobcats, mountain lions, coyotes, tested positive for one or more anticoagulants. Two mountain lions have been found dead due to poisoning. Reports also show that federally listed threatened and endangered species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox and Northern spotted owl, have been adversely affected by these chemicals.

“Anti-coagulant rodenticides are designed to kill rodents by thinning the blood and preventing clotting,” said urban wildlife expert at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Seth Riley, PhD. “When people put these bait traps outside their homes or businesses, they may not realize that the poison works its way up the food chain, becoming more lethal as the dose accumulates in larger animals.”

In July of 2011, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requested California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) restrict the use of anticoagulant rodenticides due to numerous incidents involving direct and indirect poisoning of wildlife. Anticoagulants impair blood clotting and eventually cause internal bleeding in target animals. However, rodents can feed on poisoned bait multiple times before death, and as a result their carcasses may contain residues that are many times the lethal dose. Those that are not lethally exposed   become lethargic and are likely to be hit by cars or develop diseases like mange.

Beyond Pesticides has responded to the irresponsible actions of Reckitt Benckiser by launching the Care About Kids campaign to urge major retailers to stop selling dangerous d-CON rodenticides.  In lieu of federal action, Beyond Pesticides argues that retailers have an obligation to stop selling products that EPA has determined are too dangerous to children, pets, and wildlife.

For more information about Beyond Pesticides “Care About Kids” campaign, see our Rodenticides program page, where you can learn more about the harmful effects of these chemicals and find effective alternatives to their use.

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

Source: LA Times

Photo Source: LA Times

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2014) Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) recently introduced H.R. 4432, a bill that would give full authority of  genetically engineered (GE) labeling to the Food and Drug Administration, which now favors a voluntary approach to the issue.  The bill is designed by industry to undercut a growing number of states that are taking on GE labeling by preempting state authority. The bill is being fought by environmental and food safety groups that are backing federal legislation that would label all GE ingredients.

H.R. 4432, or what is being dubbed as the “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know Act” (DARK Act) by activists, would dramatically change food labeling by giving the preemptive authority of labeling GE ingredients to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The act will prevent states from adopting their own GE labeling laws, allow food companies to put a “natural” label on products that contain GE ingredients, and prevent the FDA from requiring companies to label GE ingredients and continue its current “voluntary” labeling policy. This codification of a voluntary labeling standard clearly does not meet consumers growing demands for more information. In the 13 years that FDA has allowed companies to voluntarily label genetically engineered foods, not one single company has done so.

This legislation is almost identical to discussion points produced earlier this year by the Grocery Manufactures Association (GMA), which is seeking a federal solution to growing state efforts to label GE foods. GMA, which is  being sued for violating campaign law  in Washington for shielding the identity of its donors, worked to defeat GE labeling initiatives in Washington and California after raising millions of dollars and outspending pro-GE labeling groups by a 5-1 margin. GMA in these campaigns has represented food and beverage leaders such as ConAgra, PepsiCo, Kraft, Monsanto, and Dow.

Environmental and food safety groups have already started to mobilize to defeat this anti-labeling legislation. Groups including Just Label It, the Environmental Working Group and Center for Food Safety (CFS) took to Capitol Hill earlier last week to meet with more than 100 offices, said Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label it. The legislation is also being opposed by some influential farm interest groups. The National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger Johnson issued the following statement in opposition to the “DARK” Act, stating, “Surveys have consistently shown that consumers want more information about their food, not less. The prevalence of state-led efforts to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) only corroborates these findings.”

FDA may also have a problem implementing these changes, particularly the requirement that the agency define the term “natural” to describe food ingredients on labels. FDA has suggested it is in no hurry to define the term because of its subjectivity, the number of parties and agencies that would need to be involved, and the likelihood that a substantive and clear definition is difficult to craft.

The act also will give FDA  the responsibility to  require food companies to notify the agency before any new GMO ingredient goes on the market.  Currently that process is voluntary. The agency would have the authority to mandate a label should any safety issue arise.

Opposing federal legislation has already been introduced to label all GE ingredients. On  April 24, 2013, U.S. Senator Barbra Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Representative Peter Defazio (D-OR) introduced companion legislation that would require FDA to “clearly label” all GE whole and processed foods, including fish and other seafood. The bills, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, H.R. 1699andS. 809, have 22 cosponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate.

To learn more about GE policy and varieties of GE crops please visit Beyond Pesticides genetic engineering issue page.

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

Source: Politico

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2014) The U.S. District Court of Hawaii granted a Motion to Intervene jointly presented by Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice on behalf of several community non-profit groups. The order allows the groups to participate in a lawsuit filed by Syngenta and other pesticide companies challenging Kauai’s County Ordinance 960, which  establishes a  county program to monitor pesticide use and genetically engineered (GE) crops. The federal order allows the groups to defend the County of Kauai’s 2013 pesticide disclosure law against the pesticide companies’ legal challenge. The non-profit groups intervening include Center for Food Safety, Surfrider Foundation, Pesticide Action Network North America, and Ka Makani Ho”˜opono.

Ordinance 960 (formerly known as Bill 2491) provides residents of Kauai public access to information related to the application of pesticides used in experimental and commercial agricultural operations within the County of Kauai. It also affords County residents and their environment greater protection from and information about potential pesticide drift and the impact of growing experimental GE crops on Kauai. The Kauai County Council voted to enact Ordinance 960 in November 2013, overriding the Mayor’s veto. The Ordinance 960 is set to take effect in August.

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

Specifically, Ordinance 960 strengthens pesticide disclosure now requiring the industry to submit weekly reports to nearby residents beginning  nine months after the passage of the legislation. It also requires pesticide companies to provide the county and public with an annual accounting of pesticide use, disclose the location of GE crops, and conduct an Environmental and Public Health Impact Study on the effects of the agrichemical industry. The ordinance also restricts the application of all pesticides within 500 feet of schools and other medical facilities, and within 100 feet of any park, public roadway or shoreline that flows into the ocean. Unfortunately, some of the more stringent measures were removed from previous drafts, including a moratorium on the future planting of GE crops and regulations governing experimental pesticides.

In January, Syngenta, BASF Plant Science LP, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., and other biotech companies filed  a lawsuit to stop Kauai County  from moving ahead with the new law  to restrict GE agriculture and toxic pesticide applications in sensitive areas, claiming the law is not legally valid. As the first Hawaiian Island to pass restrictions on pesticides and GE agriculture, Kauai County saw an unprecedented outpouring of public support for the then bill,   despite numerous attempts by agrichemical companies to derail the bill.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which allows us to vigorously defend this sound and important law,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety. “The judge said specifically that he wanted to include the perspective and voices of the people in Kauai who were being affected,” Mr. Kimbrell said. “So that’s very, very encouraging, and we’re pleased to bring the intervention on behalf of the people on Kauai.”

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff commented, “These community groups deserve to have their own lawyers represent them in court. They’re the Kauai residents who are most affected by the chemical companies’ activities.”

The decision to allow these groups to intervene and defend the new ordinance serves to strengthen the county’s defense, which was hindered by lack of support from the mayor and the county’s budget constraints. The federal ruling comes during the last month of the 2014 legislative session in which there’s been much fanfare but little action on bills to override county regulations on genetic engineering. According to reports, there is still a possibility state lawmakers may revisit those proposals during conference committee over the next couple of weeks. But House Majority Leader Scott Saiki said previously that the House wants to wait to see how the court handles the controversial new rules.

The escalating court battle over Kauai’s ordinance is just one aspect of the ongoing fight over genetic engineering in Hawaii. On Maui, a group of residents wants to put the question of GE farming on the ballot this year. A Maui County Council bill that echoes Kauai’s disclosure requirements has stalled in committee. If successful, the citizens’ ballot initiative will impose a temporary moratorium on growing GE crops.

Beyond Pesticides believes that every community in the United States has  the right to self-determination when it comes to the chemicals that are applied in and around where they live, work, and play. Read Beyond Pesticides testimony on Bill 2491 for additional information. If you’d like to become involved in a campaign in your community, send an email to [email protected], or call 202-543-5450.

Sources: Center for Food Safety Press Release, The Garden Island

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2014) A new study released last week by the National Park Service on contaminant use in Alaska, found traces of pesticides in fish ””pesticides which have long been banned and likely never been used within the Alaskan wilderness areas. Researchers examined three Alaskan parks renowned for their remote, pristine and protected wilderness ””Lake Clark National Park, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Katmai National Park”” only to find that contaminants, including PCBs at concentrations exceeding those in the lower 48 states.

The study, Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Fish from Western US and Alaska National Parks””Spatial Distribution and Health Thresholds, published in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association, sought to compare contaminant level found within fish across the nation. Generally, researchers found that Alaskan fish were more likely to have traces of older chemicals, while those in the lower 48 tended to be dominated by newer chemicals. The most commonly detected chemicals are PCBs, endosulfan, sulfate and p,p’-DDE, a breakdown product of DDT.  Some of these long-banned chemicals actually exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidelines for human subsistence on fish and wildlife.

Among those exceeding acceptable levels, dieldrin, chlordane, and p,p’-DDE have been identified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) by EPA and by the parties of the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty established in 2001 to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment. Although the treaty was signed in 2001 by the U.S., it has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Senate

The cause for the surge in older chemical contaminant concentrations, researchers suspect, is that fish in Alaska tend to be much larger in Alaska than elsewhere. “The bigger fish accumulate more contaminants because they are older,” explained co-author Colleen Flanagan Pritz, ecologist with the National Park Service’s Air Resources Division.

Transport of contaminant to northerly environmental has long been a problem. Researchers suspect that they are carried through atmospheric currents, which are then deposited during rain events as moisture condenses over cold regions ””at high altitudes and latitudes. Previous studies have shown DDT/DDE to have alarmingly high concentrations in the Arctic, and other U.S. national parks. DDT and other POPs are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, are capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, and biomagnify in food chains, causing harm to all exposed.

For example, the now-banned insecticide mirex, previously used for the control of fire ants in the southeastern U.S., has been found to accumulate in traditional food staples of fish and wildlife in the north, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Also found in the blood of people in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Russia and other northerly regions, exposure to mirex has been linked to a number of adverse effects to human health, including serious reproductive disorders causing infertility and type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately banning all uses of production of chemicals will not prevent their presence in the environment or harmful effects for decades to come. This troubling fact means that every effort to stop all additional introductions of these dangerous chemicals into the environment should be made.

Source: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Alaska Dispatch

Photo Source: Alaska Dispatch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2014) Bowing to political pressure and agrochemical industry opposition Sri Lanka’s government has taken a step back from its original decision to place a ban on one of the most widely used herbicides worldwide ””glyphosate. Scientific evidence has tied glyphosate to the incurable, deadly kidney disease that has afflicted thousands of Sri Lankans. The delay marks a setback in efforts by scientists and activists to remove from the shelves  a chemical widely used on tea and rice paddy plantations in Sri Lanka.  

The decision to ban the chemical was initiated following the publication of a scientific report demonstrating that kidney disease was primarily caused by glyphosate. The report provides a summary of existing scientific information demonstrating kidney failure among farmers who were exposed to the popular herbicide. Indeed lead author Channa Jayasumana, PhD. explains that glyphosate bonds with toxic heavy metals in the environment such as cadmium and arsenic, forming stable compounds that are consumed in food and water and do not break down until they reach the kidneys.

“Glyphosate acts as a carrier or a vector of these heavy metals to the kidney,” said Dr. Jayasumana. The chemical was initially created as a chelating agent in industrial processes to form strong chemical bonds with metals, which now are showing up in the kidneys of exposed farmworkers in Sri Lanka, India, and Central America ””where farmers are exposed to extreme heat, likely to become dehydrated, and certainly exposed to chemicals.

The study’s results are bolstered by a joint investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Sri Lankan government who detected both cadmium and glyphosate, as well as other pesticides and heavy metals, in the environment of endemic areas, and in kidney patients’ urine, blood and tissues.

The agrichemical manufacturer Monsanto disputes the idea that glyphosate is well suited to create bonds with heavy metals. “There is no evidence that glyphosate complexes effectively with arsenic, cadmium, or other nephrotoxic metals,” said Thomas Helscher. Director of Corporate Affairs at Monsanto. “Glyphosate is actually a relatively poor chelator for heavy metals when compared to pharmacological chelation agents.” However, glyphosate does form strong bonds with heavy metals: Glyphosate’s chemical composition contains three different chemical groups allowing it to be a highly versatile chelator, forming strong bonds with heavy metals such as calcium manganese, and iron, as studies show.

In an interview with The Center for Public Integrity Paul Capel, PhD., an hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said that glyphosate formed stronger bonds with metals than those formed by other herbicides. “As far as I know, there are no other common herbicides that would have this same sort of strength of interactions with metals,” said Dr. Capel.

Other countries around the world have taken steps to target glyphosate for its role in chronic kidney disease. Notably, El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly approved a ban on 53 agrichemicals including glyphosate in 2013 ””a ban which has not yet been signed into law. Meanwhile, the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing the registration of glyphosate, the review is expected to be completed by 2015. However, according to the Center for Public Integrity, the EPA has “not seen any pattern of kidney health effects” in its study of scientific literature.

In the absence of widespread adoption of organic practices that eliminate hazardous pesticides, worker protections for farmworkers must be strengthened. Consumers can do their part and help encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic. By buying organic, you support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Photo Source: BBC News Magazine

Source: Center for Public Integrity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2014) Connecticut State Senate bill no.443, an act that bans the sale of genetically engineered (GE) grass seeds, passed the state Senate on Wednesday by a vote of 25-11. The bill shows Connecticut legislators are taking seriously the risks that increased pesticide use in residential areas pose to the health of the states residents, especially children, and pets.

The bill will ban the sale, use, and marketing of lawn or turf seeds that are genetically engineered to be resistant to pesticides. The GE grass seed that is being developed by Monsanto and Scotts is currently not available in consumer markets and is being tested by Scotts employees in their front yards. The bill may face stronger challenges from Connecticut’s House as it is unclear if the House speaker, J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, will call for a vote on the bill before the session ends May 7.

One of the major concerns  the bill addresses  is that allowing GE grass seeds for consumer use would lead to dramatic increases in residential pesticide use. “So you will spread this pesticide all across your lawn, back and forth, on your lawn,” said Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, as quoted in a The Day article,  “The more you pour it onto the land, the more it is going to affect the water supply, the Long Island Sound, and our well water.”

Increasing use of glyphosate in herbicide-tolerant crops has also led to increased herbicide resistance. A study published by Washington State University’s research professor Charles Benbrook, PhD, found that the use of herbicides in the production of three GE crops ””cotton, soybeans and corn”” had increased. Heavy reliance on the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, has placed weed populations under progressively intense and unprecedented selection pressure, triggering a perfect storm for the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds. “Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Dr. Benbrook said.

“Blanketing lawns, parks, and athletic fields in these dangerous chemicals will endanger the children and pets that play on them, while eventually risking the development of weeds that are resistant to current herbicides and pesticides, requiring even more toxic substances be used,” said Sen. Ed Meyer, quoted by the Connecticut Mirror.

Aside from the likely increase in residential herbicide applications as a result of home plantings, allowance of the GE bluegrass presents the potential for increased difficulties for organic farmers and ranchers. Because of the popularity of the grass in yards, pastures, and prairies, its use is expected to be quite widespread. This will make conversion of new land to organic food production more difficult as, according to APHIS’s fact sheet on the decision, “Once established, GE Kentucky bluegrass may prevent transition to organic status unless eradicated from the acreage to be transitioned.”

GE grass seed was deregulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2011. The agency issued issued a decision stating that it does not consider genetically engineered (GE) turf grass to be subject to federal regulations. In the decision announced by the USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the agency stated that it does not have the authority to regulate introduction or transportation of the GE grass seed under the provisions of the Plant Protection Act.

While the original bill included a provision that would ban the use of toxic pesticides on high school grounds and parks, playgrounds, and playing fields, the final bill was amended to only include the ban on GE grass. Thus, SB 68 has been amended to include this original language. Beyond Pesticides has worked to gain support for these important protections, and we strongly encourage concerned Connecticut residents to visit the Connecticut-based environmental advocacy group ConnFACT’s action alert page on this issue, where you can find out how to contact key members of the CT legislature and voice your support.

Tomorrow is the start of Beyond Pesticides’  32nd  National Pesticide Forum,  “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,”  in Portland, OR April 11-12!  The Forum will focus  on creating healthy buildings, schools and homes, improving farmworker protections, solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, and strengthening organic agriculture. Space is limited so  register now!

Source: Connecticut Mirror

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2014) — The results of an on-going investigation into allegations of improper pesticide spraying on timberland near residential areas in Southern Oregon confirmed what residents of the small towns had known since the day they were unwillingly sprayed with dangerous pesticides””the applications were illegal.

Statements released on April 8, 2014, by Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) concerning its investigation into the allegations, indicated multiple violations by the pesticide operator and applicator responsible for the spraying had been found, as well as evidence of the presence of pesticides on properties in Cedar Valley, near Gold Beach, Oregon.

Specifically, ODA concluded that Pacific Air Research — a licensed commercial pesticide operator based in White City, Oregon— and its aerial applicator, allowed pesticide products to fall on properties other than the intended application site, applied one product at a rate above the maximum allowed by the label instructions, and provided multiple false records that misled ODA about the actual products used.

The confirmed pesticides at issue, 2,4-D and triclopyr, are a serious matter, exacerbated by spray applications  in excess of pesticide label restrictions and other regulations. Under the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the nation’s primary pesticide registration and control law, federal and state “acceptable” risk standards of pesticides are completely dependent on the applicator following the detailed use and warning labels that must accompany all registered pesticides.

While FIFRA’s standards are severely lacking and inadequate on several fronts, this incident highlights a key problem with the nation’s pesticide safety law ””even weak health and environmental protections can be further undermined by  the applicator’s lack of compliance with the pesticide product label’s instructions. Ultimately, however, public protections are undermined by a lack of state enforcement of pesticide use disclosure requirements and the unwillingness of state lawmakers and regulators to establish more expansive environmental and health standards in situations like aerial forest applications, school and residential zones, and agriculture.

An Eye on Enforcement

In this instance, ODA acknowledges that serious violations have occurred that “may result in civil penalties to be determined,” and notes that, “ODA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) are collaborating on enforcement actions.” Despite the state’s seemingly promising stance on enforcement, residents across Oregon and environmental advocates alike question ODA’s commitment to enforcement in this case and overall when it comes to pesticide application violations and establishing meaningful protections.

As one local environmental group, Beyond Toxics, reminds the public, “The owner of the timber company who had hired the helicopter operator claimed that there was no way any helicopter was near the sickened residents. [ODA], the agency in charge of the investigation, went public claiming that only glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round Up) had been sprayed and laid seeds of doubts that the community had been exposed at all.” It took Beyond Toxics challenging ODA through a petition to the Oregon Attorney General, to get ODA to release information concerning the spraying and spur further investigation, resulting in this week’s findings.

Additionally, ODA’s statements on enforcement are  viewed as  tepid at best. Under both FIFRA and even the weak Oregon pesticide laws, civil penalties should not be the only option on the table. Civil penalties under FIFRA and Oregon State laws offer little deterrence value, even with a finding of gross negligence on the part of the applicator. Knowingly withholding information, lying to regulators, and violating both federal and state laws, warrants consideration of criminal violations. What is also needed is for Oregon lawmakers to establish stronger penalties, such as license revocations, and protective standards in the form of buffer zones.

Beyond Pesticides, along with other local Oregon environmental advocacy groups will be meeting in Portland, Oregon, April 11 through 12, to discuss solutions to these problems and more at our annual pesticide forum: Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, pollinators, and practices.

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

Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting, Beyond Toxics, Oregon Department of Agriculture

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2014)   Cosmetics giant Avon will join several other notable cosmetics and personal care companies in committing to remove the antibacterial pesticide triclosan from their products. This announcement comes months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it will require manufacturers of antibacterial soaps and other consumer goods to prove that their products are both safe for long-term use and more effective than regular bar soap. Avon is just the latest company to demonstrate the notable market shift away from triclosan which has been occurring quietly over the past few years due to consumer awareness and government stagnation. Avon’s action marks a trend in which companies using toxic chemicals are forced by consumers to switch to nontoxic ingredients and  get out in front of regulators whose actions lags behind the science on adverse health and environmental effects.

Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive began reformulating to remove triclosan from their products for a couple years now. Avon joined these companies last week, 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. On its website, Avon notes that its decision is “based on the preferences expressed by some of our customers for products without triclosan. We are no longer using triclosan in new product development and have begun replacing it in existing products.” GlaxoSmithKline, makers of Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpastes, have reformulated their products to also exclude triclosan, according to media reports. Others, including L’Oreal, The Body Shop, and Staples, have also started phasing it out.

“We are not going to use it in new products and the process is underway for identifying alternatives or changing formulations for the small number of existing products that had included triclosan among their ingredients,” Avon spokeswoman, Jennifer Vargas.

Triclosan is currently used in a wide variety of products, including hand soaps, clothing, kitchenware, deodorants, and cosmetics. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have revealed a laundry list of adverse impacts resulting from its use. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It has also been shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in umbilical cord blood and human milk. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 40% since 2004. Researchers from the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) and the University of Colorado found that triclosan impairs muscle function in fish and mice and stated that the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure. Last year, a published study revealed that triclosan can alter the composition of bacterial communities in streams and can lead to bacterial resistance. Research also shows that triclosan is entering aquatic environments at elevated rates, as wastewater treatment plants are unable to completely remove the chemical.

In a statement about the Avon announcement, Janet Nudelman, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and director of program and policy at the nonprofit Breast Cancer Fund, urged the company to quit playing catchup and take a leadership role.

“We have been urging companies and the government, through our campaign and petitions over the last decade,  to remove triclosan from products  and are glad to see Avon joining other company to take responsible action,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “The story of triclosan represents a deep failure in our regulatory system, which allows toxic products on the market that have no proven benefit, while raising serious health and environmental concerns that clearly should be avoided with precautionary action,” Mr. Feldman continued.

“The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics congratulates  Avon  for finally giving triclosan the boot,” said Janet Nudelman, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and   director of program and policy at the Breast Cancer Fund.. “It’s a hormonally active chemical that has no business being in cosmetics and personal care products,” she continued.

Groups have been calling on FDA and its counterpart, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (which regulates non-cosmetic products with triclosan) to immediately ban triclosan from consumer products, citing endocrine disruption, and other human health concerns. Last December, FDA announced it will now require manufacturers to prove their antibacterial soaps are safe and effective. The agency is accepting public comments until June 16, 2014. Submit your comment here. However, this announcement comes years late as many manufacturers have already been removing triclosan from their products due to public pressure. There has also been local action around the procurement of triclosan. For instance, Minnesota announced that all state-run agencies would stop purchasing products that contain triclosan.

In many antibacterial soaps, triclosan has been replaced with L-Lactic acid, normally found in the human body and in several foods. This agent is of low toxicity and suppresses the growth of bacteria. Under EPA, L-lactic acid is registered and used as an antimicrobial pesticide, disinfectant, indirect food contact surface sanitizer, and fungicide and virucide on hard, non-porous surfaces.  However, Beyond Pesticides has pointed to scientific findings that triclosan in soap products is no more effective than soap and water in managing germs. FDA has categorized L-Lactic acid as generally recognized as safe and is allowed for use as an antimicrobial agent and for other uses in food. In other products, triclosan has been replaced with quaternary ammonium compounds such as benzalkonium chloride. These compounds have a variety of registered uses, are widely used, and are considered more toxic.

Since 2004, Beyond Pesticides worked to bring public attention to the dangers surrounding the proliferate use of triclosan in consumer goods. A petition submitted to both FDA and EPA by Beyond Pesticides in 2010 calls for the ban on triclosan based on the unnecessary health and environmental risks involved with its use, given the availability of safer alternatives. Now that growing public awareness and the evolving market shift away from triclosan, the time is now for a federal ban on this unnecessary chemical.

For more on triclosan, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterial page.

Source: The Guardian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2014) With less than a week until the 2014 National Pesticide Forum, please take a moment to consider three reasons why you should attend this exciting and important event:

1. Learn from Leading Scientists and Experts: Many of the conference speakers are top leading experts in their fields, and you just aren’t exposed to these kinds of people every day. While you’re at the Forum you’ll have the opportunity to listen to them speak and interact with them during panel sessions:

• Longtime leader and visionary in sustainable organic agriculture, Fred Kirschenmann.
• Center for Food Safety’s leading environmental attorney George Kimbrell on genetic engineering and pollinators;
• Pierre Mineau, PhD, world-renowned environmental toxicologist;
• Cutting edge scientist on transgenerational effects of pesticide exposure, Michael Skinner, PhD;
• Mace Vaughan, Pollinator Program Director for The Xerces Society;
• and so much more.

These highlighted speakers do not diminish the importance of all the incredible speakers on the program, from lawyers, scientists, town officials, and activists, to the Beyond Pesticides’ board of directors. Check out the full program for more information.

2. Engage with Organic Land Management Practitioners: The Forum presents a unique opportunity to learn and discuss ways to tackle turf, landscape, and agricultural management without the use of harmful chemicals. Getting tips and tools for practical, cost-effective techniques that can be extended beyond the home, yard, and gardens, to community wide land-management.

3. Recharge and Inspire New Action: Talking with local organic activists, learning new tools for pest prevention, and strategizing on local policies, is a good way to create the energy for action. The Forum provides a productive space for a fresh perspective, new tools, and firm knowledge to join the fight for local, state, and national policies that protect health and the environment.

Not to mention, you’ll come away with a belly full of organic food and beverages which will be provided for breakfast, lunch and dinner Saturday, in addition to hors d’oeuvres, beer and wine for receptions on Friday and Saturday night. All for a low registration price! We urge you to join us in attending:

Advancing Sustainable Communities:
People, pollinators and practices

The 32nd National Pesticide Forum
University Place Hotel at Portland State University
Portland, OR
April 11-12, 2014

For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

We hope to see you there!

The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides and Portland State University’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions.

Co-sponsors include Beyond Toxics, Center for Food Safety, John A. Green MD III-The EverGreen Center, Healthy Bees=Healthy Gardens, Lewis & Clark Law School, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon Sustainable Beekeepers, Oregon Tilth, The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), Pestcide Action Network, PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), Portland Urban Beekeepers, University of Portland’s Environmental Studies Department, and The Xerces Society.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2014) A recent report by The Oregonian found that enormous amounts of money are being spent by agrichemical and biotechnology companies in  one Oregon  county to stop an ordinance that would ban farmers from being able to plant genetically engineered (GE) Crops. This current legislative fight encapsulates the uphill funding battle that anti-GE activists face when organizing state and local level campaigns.

The ordinance that will appear on the upcoming May ballot in Jackson County, Oregon will ban the planting and rising of GE plants within the county. The ordinance also calls for the county to conduct inspections and allows enforcement through citizen lawsuits. Jackson County was the only county exempt from a law enacted last fall that made the state the regulator of agricultural seeds.

The county’s measure qualified for the May ballot before the Oregon Senate passed S.B. 863, which preempts localities ability to regulate seed, so it was exempted in the bill. The bill preempts efforts the efforts in Benton and Lane counties to restrict GE agriculture. Despite state preemption, Josephine County has a similar measure on the May ballot to ban GE crops.

According to a recent report in The Oregonian, the ordinance is facing strong opposition from out of state funding sources. According to the report, six pesticide and plant biotechnology firms have donated $455,000  to Good Neighcbor Farms, an organization fighting the GE crop ban. Pesticide and biotech firm Monsanto Company donated $183,294, GMO seed producer DuPont Pioneer $129,647, biotech firm Syngenta Crop Protection $75,000, and $22,353 each from biotech firms Bayer CropScience, BASF Plant Science and Dow AgroSciences. Good Neighbor Farms has more than $556,000 cash on hand which is a colossal amount for a local measure.

The opposition to this measure has dramatically out-fundraised the two political action committees supporting the measure,  GMO Free Jackson County  and  Our Family Farms Coalition, which have a combined $102,368 cash on hand. The lead up to this ballot measure is reminiscent of recent GE labeling efforts in California and Washington where anti-GE labeling efforts flooded the states with outside corporate money.

One of the original concerns  behind the ordinance is organic farmers’ inability to protect themselves from GE crops drifting or cross-pollinating with their crops. A recent survey by Food & Water Watch,  Organic Farmers Pay the Price for GMO Contamination, found that a third of U.S. organic farmers have experienced problems in their fields due to the nearby use of GE crops, and over half of those growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination.  In May of 2013, USDA announced that  unapproved GE wheat  was found growing in an Oregon wheat field. After this discovery, Japan cancelled its order to buy U.S. western white wheat. Monsanto has not conducted field trials in Oregon since 2001 when it reportedly withdrew from the state.

Join us at Beyond Pesticides’  32^nd  National Pesticide Forum,  “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,”  in Portland, OR April 11-12.  The Forum will focus  on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so  register now.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2014) Habitat destruction, pesticide contamination, agricultural intensification and climate change threaten 24 percent of Europe’s bumblebees, according to research conducted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and funded by the European Commission. The study is part an ongoing project called European Red List of pollinators, with contribution from experts of the “Status and Trends of European Pollinators”  (STEP) project,  which assesses the conservation status of all bees ””approximately 2000 species”” occurring throughout Europe.

The study concludes that almost half of the 68 species in the European Union (EU) are in decline, including those at risk of extinction. Of these, a total of 16 species are listed as at risk according to the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, which represents the world most trusted authority on the conservation status of species. In comparison, only 13 percent of bumblebee populations are increasing.

“We are very concerned with these findings. Such a high proportion of threatened bumblebees can have serious implications for our food production,” says Ana Nieto, European Biodiversity Officer of IUCN and coordinator of the study. “Protecting bumblebee species and habitats, restoring degraded ecosystems and promoting biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices will be essential to reverse the negative trends in European bumblebee populations.”

Bumblebees, like honey bees, are crucial for a functional food system, “Of the five most important insect pollinators of European crops, three are bumblebees, says the IUCN press statement, adding that they contribute 22 billion euros ($30.35 billion) to European agriculture. Some crops, including tomatoes, almost completely rely on bumblebees to produce fruit. Through a technique known as ”˜buzz pollination’ bumblebees are able to release the pollen tightly held by the flower —essentially by rapidly moving their wings, causing resonant vibrations bumblebees can   shake loose the pollen to accomplish pollination. No bumblebees, no tomatoes.

Of course, the EU recently implemented a two-year ban on the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides ””imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam”” follows a report identifying “high acute risk” to honey bees. “However, efforts clearly need to be scaled up,” said Janez Potoćnik, EU Environmental Commissioner on the ban, continuing to say that integrating biodiversity requirements into other policies would be necessary.

In addition to pesticide exposure, the study found that changes in land use, intensification of agriculture, and climate change have severely reduced the habitat available for bumblebees, some of which are highly specialized. For example, Bombus culllumanus, listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List has declined by more than 80 percent over the past decade, due primarily to the loss of important forage like clover which farmer practices have removed. The populations that were once widespread now only exists in small fragments across Europe.

Improving forage availability, planting hedgerows, and reducing the use of bee-toxic pesticides would all help underpin stable populations of pollinators, says the IUCN press statement.

BEE Protective

Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety launched the BEE Protective campaign, a national public education effort supporting local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes. BEE Protective includes a variety of educational materials to help encourage municipalities, campuses, and individual homeowners to adopt policies and practices that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. In addition to scientific and regulatory information, BEE Protective also includes a model community pollinator resolution and a pollinator protection pledge. Pollinators are a vital part of our environment and a barometer for healthy ecosystems. Let’s all do our part to BEE Protective of these critical species. Please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage to learn more about our efforts to save pollinators and what you can do to help.

Continue your commitment to helping pollinators by joining us April 11-12 for Beyond Pesticides’ 32^nd National Pesticide Forum, “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, pollinators, and practices,”   in Portland, OR. The Forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so register now.

Source: International Union for Conservation of Nature news release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2014) A food container production company in New Jersey is finding out that the smallest of ingredients can have big implications for public health. Earlier this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it had issued a stop sale order to Pathway Investment Corp., manufacturer of Kinetic Go Green Premium Food Storage Containers and Kinetic Smartwist Series Containers. In addition to the order sent to Pathway, the EPA has also issued warning letters to Amazon, Sears, Wal-Mart and other large retailers directing them not to sell these products.

The reason for the order: nanosilver””an extremely small particle of silver that has been added to consumer products of all kinds during the last decade to combat bacteria, mold, and other microorganisms.

Because of nanosilver’s properties, it is considered a pesticide and active ingredient under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the primary federal law governing pesticide use in the United States. Under FIFRA, any product containing an active ingredient that acts as a pesticide must be registered with EPA. For public health claims associated with pesticide use, EPA requires manufacturers to show that the product  performs as intended and does not  pose “unreasonable” adverse effects to the environment. “Unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” is defined as one of two ways: (1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act  (FFDCA). The manufacturer must also submit a proposed label for the product that meets all of FIFRA’s labeling requirements.

Considering that Pathway did not register its food container products that incorporate nanosilver into the plastic and thus failed to meet FIFRA’s registration requirements, EPA appears to have a pretty straightforward case. “Claims that mold, fungus or bacteria are controlled or destroyed by a particular product must be backed up with testing so that consumers know that the products do what the labels say,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Unless these products are registered with the EPA, consumers have no information about whether the claims are accurate. The EPA will continue to take action against companies making unverified public health claims.”

Small Ingredients Have Big Unresolved Safety Issues

EPA’s focus on Pathway’s failure to register and back up its performance claims, while applauded and legally accurate under FIFRA, ignores the real issue underlying nanosilver and its presence in any consumer products, let alone a food container: EPA’s own failure to apply the unreasonable adverse effects standard and perform an adequate registration process on all nanosilver products.

In November 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling concerning litigation filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against EPA. The lawsuit challenged EPA’s conditional registration of nanosilver-laced textiles, because under the dubious conditional registration process (a loophole registration option that defers submission of normally required environmental effects and toxicity studies for indefinite periods of time) EPA did not require submission of a full breadth of toxicity data and thus did not properly evaluate the unreasonable adverse effects to the environment for the nanosilver textile products. NRDC argued that if EPA had conducted a thorough examination of toxicity data, it would have found unreasonable adverse effects to the environment, particularly with regard to aquatic species and the aggregate pesticide tolerance dose limits permitted in toddlers under the FFDCA. The Ninth Circuit agreed with NRDC and suspended the conditional registration of the textile products.

However, this ruling did not apply to the numerous other products containing nanosilver and underscores the issue that federal regulation of nanoparticles has thus far been lacking as a whole, despite studies highlighting concerns and some serious unanswered questions. In no case is this more evident than in the fact that the Kinetic products targeted in EPA’s stop-sale order had been allegedly approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the usual authority from which food container manufacturers must seek approval before placing a product on the market.

Beyond Pesticides continually advocates for stronger, clearer, and enforceable legal and regulatory standards that prevent dangerous and untested pesticides and products from entering the marketplace before they pose a threat to public health and the environment. Join us at our 32^nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices, to continue the discussion, strategize, and interact with advocates, scientists, and policymakers on solutions to improve public health and environmental protections.

Source: EPA, NRDC

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2014) Just last week it was announced that California ruled to remove from store shelves several rodenticide products identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as unsafe for children and wildlife.   The maker of these products, Reckitt Benckiser, aggressive in  challenging regulators who want to restrict the company’s loose bait products,  is  suing  California to stop it from acting. The state’s new restriction on retail sales of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, due to take effect July 1, 2014, seeks to protect wildlife and pets from accidental poisoning from rat poisons. Reckitt Benckiser is also embroiled in challenging EPA’s decision to remove these products from the national marketplace for failure to meet federal standards.

The California’ Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) ruled last week that second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, including the chemicals brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone, found in d-CON brand products, must be classified as California-restricted materials, and only allowed to be used by certified pesticide applicators. This follows EPA’s 2013 issuance of a Notice of Intent to Cancel the registrations of rodenticide products that do not meet the agency’s new mitigation measures to reduce poisonings to children and wildlife. However, manufacturer of d-CON, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, refuses to adopt the  risk mitigation measures established by EPA in 2008, and is currently also challenging EPA’s decision to protect the public from these products. All other manufacturers have complied with EPA’s order. See more of EPA’s risk mitigation decision here.

“It’s disgusting that d-CON continues to challenge common-sense controls for protecting wildlife, children and pets,” said Jonathan Evans, toxics and endangered species campaign director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s time to put public safety before corporate profits.”

Reckitt Benckiser argues in its suit that CDPR “violated its own statutory mandate and exceeded its statutory authority.” The company states that California’s decision would effectively “halt the legal sale to individual consumers” of its products, and claims the agency failed to follow proper procedures for adopting or amending regulations.

The regulations from CDPR target products sold to the general public in retail outlets and limits highly toxic rodenticide use beyond 50 feet of manmade structures. These highly toxic poisons, specifically formulations with second-generation anticoagulant chemicals, will still be available for widespread use by licensed commercial and agricultural pest-control operators. EPA’s mitigation measures to reduce direct and secondary exposures now requires products to use bait stations and secured bait forms, instead of loose baits that children can more readily access, as well as eliminates the most toxic and persistent active ingredients.

“Reckitt Benckiser knows that California’s bold decision to take d-CON off the shelves is a preview of things to come in other states,” said Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice. “Reckitt is fighting hard to hold on to the past, but the corporation should know that we’re prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure d-CON does not become the DDT of our time.”

While California’s recent efforts on d-CON products specifically addresses the impact of these chemicals on wildlife, the removal of d-CON rodenticides from store shelves will ultimately have the added effect of protecting young children. Between 1993 and 2008, the American Association of Poison Control Centers logged somewhere in the range of 12,000 to 15,000 reports of rat and mouse poison exposures each year for children under the age of 6. Children can be incidentally exposed to rodent poisons when they are placed in unsecured “loose bait” stations, and research shows that low-income and minority children are disproportionately impacted by these products.  One study in New York found that 57 percent of children hospitalized for eating rat poison from 1990 to 1997 were African-American and 26 percent were Latino. In California alone, wildlife poisonings have been documented in at least 25 species of wild animals in California, including mountain lions, hawks, endangered San Joaquin kit foxes and northern spotted owls, as well as numerous cats and dogs.

“So much for corporate responsibility,” said Jason Rylander, senior attorney with Defenders of Wildlife. “Now that both EPA and the state of California have moved to curb the use of d-Con and other risky poisons, Reckitt Benckiser needs to do the right thing and stop fighting measures that could save kids and protect wildlife.”

Beyond Pesticides responded to the irresponsible actions of Reckitt Benckiser by launching the Care About Kids campaign to urge major retailers to stop selling dangerous d-CON rodenticides.  In lieu of federal action, Beyond Pesticides argues that retailers have an obligation to stop selling products that EPA has determined are too dangerous to children, pets, and wildlife.

For more information about Beyond Pesticides Care About Kids campaign, see our Rodenticides program page, where you can learn more about the harmful effects of these chemicals and find effective alternatives to their use.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Earthjustice Press Release