(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2013) In a sweeping victory for the protection of human health and the environment, the Takoma Park, Maryland  City Council on July 22, 2013  unanimously passed the Safe Grow Act of 2013, which generally restricts the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on both private and public property throughout the Maryland city. This is the first time that a local jurisdiction of this size has used its authority to restrict pesticide use broadly on private property, exercising it responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its residents through its local government. This landmark legislation stops involuntary poisoning and non-target contamination from pesticide drift and volatility that occurs as these toxic chemicals move off of treated  private yards. The new law fits into the city’s strategic plan to lead community efforts in environmental sustainability, protection and restoration, and secures Takoma Park’s role as a leader in sustainability in the state of Maryland and the nation.  The action in Takoma Park brings to the U.S. an approach to outlawing cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and landscapes that has been in place in Canadian provinces for many years.

The role of local government in imposing pesticide use requirements is important to the protection of public health and the environment. This right was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin Public Intervenor, Town of Casey v. Mortier, June 21, 1991. In this case, the Court affirmed the rights of U.S. cities and towns to regulate pesticides that are not explicitly curtailed by state legislatures. The Court found that in conferring on states the authority to “regulate the sale and use of pesticides so long as the state regulation does not permit a sale or use prohibited by the Act [USC 136v(a)],” the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) “leaves the allocation of regulatory authority to the ‘absolute discretion’ of the states themselves, including the option of leaving local regulation of pesticides in the hands of local authorities.” After the Supreme Court ruling, the chemical industry, both manufacturer and service provider trade groups, went to state legislatures across the country and lobbied the states to take away or restrict the authority of local political subdivisions to restrict pesticide use on private property. Maryland is one of seven states that does not prohibit the adoption of local pesticide legislation.  In  protecting the rights of  local political subdivisions within Maryland to exercise their authority to impose pesticide use restrictions, the state is enabling the protection of the health and welfare of Maryland residents.

The ordinance in Takoma Park was drafted by residents Julie Taddeo and Catherine Cummings, who both recognized a need to reduce pesticide use in their community for the long-term health and safety of their children. Ms. Taddeo and her family have lived in Takoma Park for 7 years; when she finally moved into a house with a yard after living in an apartment building for a long time, she was dismayed and baffled to see neighbors spray their yard for dandelions. It clicked for Ms. Cummings when she initially read about the cosmetic pesticide ban in Canadian provinces from Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News. When she realized that a “gold standard” had been created not too far from here, she thought there was no reason that Takoma Park couldn’t do it as well. What began as an effort to educate neighbors in their community grew into a full-fledged campaign, and the creation of Safe Grow Zone.

The City Council hopes that this ordinance will serve as a model for other communities. “Keep going with this,” Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen (Ward 3) urged Ms. Taddeo and Ms. Cummings. “You can take this to the next level. You can take it to the county, and keep going all the way through the state of Maryland . . . I think there’s more people out there than you realize who are in your courts.”

In addition to the Canadian laws which helped inspire the Takoma Park ordinance, two of the city’s neighbors have passed laws that restrict pesticide use on public land. Washington, DC enacted the Pesticide Education and Control Amendment Act of 2012 which offers protections from restricted use pesticides on public property near waterways, schools, daycare centers and city-owned property. To the East, the Sustainable Land Care Policy of 2011 in Greenbelt, MD strictly prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides on all city-owned land. Using these policies as guidance, Takoma Park took it a step forward by including private property restrictions. Maryland is one of only nine states that allow local governments to enact stronger protections from pesticides on private property because of preemption laws which prevent municipalities from passing pesticide policies that limit pesticide use restrictions to land owned by the local jurisdictions.

The Takoma Park law focuses on providing public educational materials, including brochures, classes, and public forums to the community on environmentally-friendly practices and compliance with the new restrictions on pesticides. Under the law, homeowners in Takoma Park can still use approved pesticides on gardens, invasive and noxious weeds and insecticides on disease-carrying insects. The Act specifically restricts pesticides for use on lawns that are: classified as “Carcinogenic to Humans” or “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Classified by EPA as a “Restricted Use Product”; Classified as a “Class 9” pesticide by the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of the Environment; and any pesticide classified as a “Category 1 Endocrine Disruptor” by the European Commission.

Of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are possible and/or known carcinogens,   18 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 19 are linked to reproductive effects and sexual dysfunction, 11 have been linked to birth defects, 14 are neurotoxic, 24 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 25 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure as they take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify toxic chemicals. Thinking of her children and future generations in Takoma Park, Ms. Cummings believes this ordinance is “close to the best thing we can offer for our kids.”

Though the ordinance passed unanimously, and with the support from many people in the community —including the local hospital— Safe Grow Zone was met with some  opposition. Some residents  expressed concern that while they were not supportive of widespread pesticide use, they  believed  the restrictions would be confusing for homeowners trying to decide what they could use, and could result in an abundance of “accidental” fines. They also raised the  enforcement issue, maintaining that the ordinance would create a culture of “tattling” on neighbors. The Councilmembers responded by pointing to the number of laws that create environmental and neighborhood stewardship, including littering, recycling, noise ordinances, and even picking up after pets. These laws are rarely enforced with fines, but most people follow them because they have become internalized. The laws also hold people accountable when there is a problem. The focus on the law is not to pit neighbors against each other or to impose an egregious amount of fines, according to the City Council; instead, it is to educate the public on hazardous pesticides and alternatives in an effort to promote a healthy community and cleaner environment.

Neither Ms. Cummings nor Ms. Taddeo look at the ordinance as restrictive, but rather as a freedom from the harmful effects of pesticides. “It takes the burden off of families and anyone else who cares about the environment, their health and the future. With every year that passes, there’s more information about how pesticides are hazardous,” said Ms. Cummings. “This law frees us from both the toxic effects of the use of pesticides, as well as the reliance on these chemicals.”

Though the ordinance puts Takoma Park on the leading edge of pesticide reform, Ms. Cummings says that it shouldn’t be such a huge deal. “We should have never become so reliant on these chemicals in the first place. How could we not do this?”

Read the testimony of Beyond Pesticides’ executive director Jay Feldman to the Takoma Park City Council.

For more information on the ordinance, see the City of Takoma Park Public Notice.

Start your own local movement

Are you interested in getting pesticides out of your community, but not sure where to start? It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support — either in friends, neighbors, or other people who share your interests in your community (See Beyond Pesticides’ state pages for local environmental organizations).   It’s also essential to reach out to your local politicians and government. We have several fact sheets available to help you organize in your community: “Calling All Activists,” “Preparing a Campaign” and “Getting the Message Across” are some good ones.

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

Finally, tell us what you’re doing to help stop or reduce pesticides in your community or ask us if you need assistance. We talk to people every day who, like you, want to change things in their communities. Call us at 202-543-5450, send us an email at [email protected], or post a note to our facebook page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2013) Gina McCarthy, a veteran environmental regulator and President Obama’s pick to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),  finally had her appointment confirmed by the U.S. Senate after an almost five month delay imposed by Senate Republicans. Ms. McCarthy’s appointment got caught up with other cabinet appointments that Republicans were blocking. News of her confirmation was applauded by environmental groups who urge her to focus of several key environmental issues before the agency including climate change, farmworker justice, and pollinator protection.

Last Friday the Senate confirmed Gina McCarthy to lead EPA, ending the agency’s longest period without a permanent administrator and closing the door on a contentious dispute over votes on executive nominees. Ms. McCarthy, who currently heads the agency’s Air and Radiation Office, was confirmed on a 59-40 vote. Ms. McCarthy will succeed Lisa Jackson, who stepped down in February, and replaces acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee cleared Ms. McCarthy’s nomination in May.

Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said ahead of the vote that the Senate could “not have a more qualified, more bipartisan nominee,” noting that Ms. McCarthy had worked for Republican governors in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Senator Boxer also slammed Republicans for holding up the nomination because of problems they have with the agency, not with the candidate. Environmental organizations see her as a key ally in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants over the next few years, but she has also won praise from business officials who view her as open to compromise.

Administrator McCarthy now has a tough job ahead of her. She will oversee the effort President Obama announced in a recent speech on climate change to develop regulations designed to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

Action Needed For Pollinators

Environmental organizations are calling on her, as they did with her predecessor,  to focus resources on addressing the pollinator crisis, specifically the negative environmental and economic impacts of outdoor uses of the EPA-approved neonicotinoid insecticides: imidacloprid, clothianidin  , thiamethoxam, dinetofuran and acetamiprid, which have been linked to bee declines across the globe.

Earlier this month, environmental and advocacy organizations in a joint letter urged President Obama to direct EPA   to follow Europe’s lead in suspending certain neonicotinoid pesticides uses, but requests even more protective measures, including a minimum two-year suspension for all outdoor uses of neonicotinoid insecticides pending resolution of their hazards to bees and beneficial organisms. Highlighting the negative environmental and economic impacts of EPA-approved neonicotinoid insecticides, as well as a recognition that the initial risk assessments for these chemicals fail to adequately consider key risks to bee health, the letter to President Obama notes that it “would not be responsible to continue to allow these threatening compounds to be used so broadly.”

According to the groups, EPA has refused to exercise its regulatory power to address the major contribution of these insecticides to bee declines. Instead, EPA has pointed to dust coming off of planters used by farmers, pathogens, bee nutrition, and factors outside the agency’s authority,  while  failing to adopt measures that could offer long-term sustainable  protection of  bee populations. The letter also cites emerging science that documents extensive surface water contamination and impacts on non-target organisms, such as aquatic invertebrates, birds and other pollinators.

Action Needed for Farmworker Protections

Urgent action is also needed to protect the health of farmworkers and their families. In February 2013,  a coalition of environmental and farmworker organizations submitted a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urging the agency implement long overdue revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). An estimated 5.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops annually in the U.S., and farmworkers face the greatest threat from these chemicals than any other sector of society, with thousands of farmworkers each year experiencing pesticide poisoning. The federal government estimates that there are 10,000-20,000 acute pesticide poisonings among workers in the agricultural industry annually, a figure that likely understates the actual number of acute poisonings since many affected farmworkers may not seek care from a physician. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, farmworkers and their children, who often work on the farm or live nearby, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments and Parkinson’s disease.

Farmworkers and advocates are calling for the following changes to the Worker Protection Standard:

• Provide more frequent and more comprehensible pesticide safety training for farmworkers
• Include information about farmworker families’ exposures to pesticides in the required training materials
• Ensure that workers receive information about specific pesticides used in their work
• Require safety precautions and protective equipment limiting farmworkers’ contact with pesticides
• Require medical monitoring of workers who handle neurotoxic pesticides

After a 2010 EPA document proposed WPS that would determine ways to increase training, improve safety requirements, provide clear emergency information, and create strong protection for applicators, the agency has abruptly changed course. But a handout distributed at a 2012 EPA meeting downplayed the details within those goals, calling into question the agency’s previous commitments

Environmental organizations have been frustrated by years of unresponsive regulators and hope that Administrator McCarthy will use her leadership to increase protections for human health and environment that have been ignored, removed, or spent years in the system waiting for action.

Source: Washington Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2013) When shopping for sportswear nowadays, you might notice the stickers or tags on some clothing items touting the apparel as “antimicrobial.” What’s not mentioned on those tags, however, is the point that these antimicrobials, often titanium dioxide or silver nanoparticles (nanosilver), are largely untested, and recent studies are revealing that these substances could seep into a person’s sweat and end up being absorbed through one’s skin. Lead researcher of the study published in Environmental Science and Technology, Natalie von Gotz, Ph.D,, found that some pieces of clothing released significant amounts of nanosilver.

Manufacturers are adding nanoparticles to clothing in order to tout their ability to block UV rays (titanium dioxide) or prevent mold and smells (nanosilver) on clothing. However, the long-term impacts of this new technology to human health and the environment are still unknown. There are concerns about the ability of nanomaterial to travel through the human body and damage brain, liver, stomach, testes and other organs, as well as pass from mother to fetus, according to a recent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report. Laundering these products ultimately washes them into our environment because sewage treatment plants are not set up to filter out the microscopic particles.  Beyond Pesticides has recently documented the ability of silver nanoparticles to disrupt ecosystems, cause deformities in fish, and harm earthworms by suppressing their immune system.

To estimate the risk of exposure from nanoparticles seeping through impregnated clothing, researchers simulated the wear-and-tear that occurs during normal physical activity. Samples were placed into plastic bottles containing acrylic balls and artificial sweat (a mixture of salt and organic compounds used to mimic human sweat), and then agitated in a washing machine for 30 minutes. The researchers then measured the amount and size of the nanoparticles that seeped into the artificial sweat. Exposure estimates for normal physical activity such as cycling were extrapolated based on this information, as well as a person’s weight, gender and the size of the apparel.

Researchers found that a 170 lb male and a 136 lb female could be exposed to up to 1.3 mg/day and .6 mg/day of nanosilver respectively. Comparatively, those taking supplements that contain nanosilver are at most exposed to .5mg/day. For titanium dioxide nanoparticles, the researchers concluded that exposure levels were negligible compared to other sources of exposure such as sunscreen, which can amount to 1000mg from a single application.

The researchers did not test the exposure levels expected in children, as most sportswear is marketed to adults. However, NRDC is currently engaged in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the conditional registration of nanosilver in textile products. In arguments over whether EPA lawfully granted conditional registration to the nanosilver pesticide product “HeiQ AGS-20,” NRDC is challenging EPA’s risk assessment for infants and children, arguing that the agency erred by assuming in its risk assessment that 3-year-olds would be the most vulnerable consumers. Instead, NRDC attorney Catherine Rahm maintains that, “Infants are more likely than any other subgroup to chew on fabrics that could contain this pesticide.” NRDC contends that EPA’s assessment is flawed in distinguishing the chewing action between infants and toddlers, arguing that infants are also at high risk from oral exposures.

Beyond Pesticides encourages consumers to avoid purchasing pesticide-impregnated clothing due to the potential risks associated with wearing these garments. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, these same properties —tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity— can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. In the past, Beyond Pesticides has  worked against clothing impregnated with the likely carcinogen and synthetic pyrethroid permethrin.

For more information on the potential hazards associated with untested nanotechnology, see Beyond Pesticides Nanosilver program page.

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

Source: Chemical and Engineering News

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2013) Organophosphate pesticide poisoning from contaminated school lunches is suspected as the cause of deaths for at least 25 children in India. The children, aged four to 12, became sick after eating a lunch provided to them by the school. Several reports suggest the rice or cooking oil used to prepare the food contained unsafe levels of organophosphates, a highly toxic class of pesticides that have the same mechanism of action as nerve gasses. In the U.S. most organophosphates pesticides were phased out of residential use; however, these neurological poisons are still widely used on agricultural crops and for mosquito control.

The schoolchildren began fainting soon after eating the contaminated food, and within hours at least 25 children were pronounced dead. Authorities discovered a container of organophosphate pesticides next to the cooking oil, but were not able to determine if this was the source of the poisoning or if the food itself was tainted with organophosphates. The school cooks, who both had children at the school that either fell ill or died from eating the food, told authorities that the cooking oil appeared different than usual, but the principal told them to use it anyway. The principal, who stored the food in her house, fled after the students became ill.

The food was provided to the children through a nationwide Indian program known as the “Mid-Day Scheme.” The program is one of the world’s biggest school nutrition programs; part of an effort by the government to address malnutrition which nearly half of all Indian children suffer. The scheme also acts as an incentive for poor parents to send their children to school.

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. According to Dana Boyd Barr, Ph.D, quoted National Geographic, “They’re more vulnerable because their detoxification systems are more immature, so they can’t eliminate the pesticide as well.”

Though the risk of acute poisonings in the U.S. is lower than countries like India because the registrations for most household organophosphate products have been phased out, Americans still face risks from long-term low-dose exposure. A 2012 study   that pulled data from 14 studies over the past 20 years found that long-term low-dose exposure to organophosphates can damage neurological and cognitive functions. Other studies have also connected low-dose exposure to organophosphates to ADHD,  reduced IQs, and Alzheimers. Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, in a comment to National Geographic on organophosphate exposure, said, “The focus tends to be on acute exposure. For chemicals whose risks are aggregated as a result of ongoing exposure… that is not adequately tested by regulators anywhere in the world.”

Organophosphates are also harmful to the environment. A recent study released by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found high levels of organophosphates including chorpyrifos and diazinon, in rural and urban streams. A recent chlorpyifos contamination in Great Britain’s Kennet River decimated aquatic invertebrate populations which could lead a decline in the river’s trout population. Organophosphates are toxic to bees, freshwater fish, other aquatic organisms, birds, domestic animals, and a variety of plants and soil organisms. They have been shown to bioaccumulate in fish and synergistically react with other chemicals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also failed to implement strong environmental protections from organophosphates.   According to Mr. Feldman, “We have the same problem that we have on the human side, which is that we’re not adequately assessing the risk of chronic, low-level exposure.”

Through our  Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides keeps track of the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms pesticides can cause, see our PIDD pages on Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, and other diseases.

Source: National Geographic, ABC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2013) A recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) examines the health of the nation’s streams over 20 years and finds that streams nationwide are severely degraded by humans, exhibiting elevated levels of pesticides and nutrients as well as streamflow modifications. Overall, the report finds that 83 percent of streams in agricultural and urban areas contain at least one aquatic community that was altered, or in other words, negatively affected.

With waterways in the U.S. increasingly imperiled from various agents including agricultural and industrial discharges, nutrient loading (nitrogen and phosphorus), and biological agents such as pathogens, assessments such as these provide further impetus to protect water quality for both human health and the environment.

The report, entitled “Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Ecological Health in the Nation’s Streams, 1993-2005,” describes the health of three biological communities ””algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish”” to  measure the overall quality of streams. A stream’s ability to support these community structures can directly measure the health of waterways. The report assesses streamflow modifications and measures over 100 chemical constituents in water and streambed sediments. The report is a comprehensive assessment of the variety of factors that contribute to stream health declines, notably runoff from pesticides and contaminants.

Daren Carlisle, Ph.D., an ecologist with the USGS and the lead author of the study, told Michigan Public Radio, “If you were feeling sick and went to the doctor and all they did was took your temperature, you’d say, ‘hey, wait a minute there’s more to this than that.'” He continues, “What we’re learning from this big assessment is just how many parts of the ecosystem need to be monitored and integrated together in order to really understand ‘what do we need to go fix now?'”

The assessment reveals several areas that need fixing as stream health has been severely degraded throughout the nation. Indeed, only one in five streams in agricultural and urban areas are considered relatively healthy, and those are streams that tend to have little physical modifications and less runoff from roads and agricultural areas.

As far as pesticides and contaminants are concerned, the report concludes that:

• Urban streams have pesticide concentrations that exceed one or more benchmarks at 83 percent of sites. The most frequently detected pesticides in urban streams are chlorpyrifos (a highly toxic organophosphate insecticides widely used in the US), carbaryl (a carbamate insecticide and contact nerve toxin), and diazinon (an organophosphate insecticide effecting the nervous system), all highly toxic pesticides that caused changes in macroinvertebrate communities.
• Agricultural streams have concentrations that exceed one or more benchmarks at 57 percent of sites. The most frequently detected pesticides in agricultural stream are chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, atrazine, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (a breakdown product of DDT), and alachlor.
• The frequency of altered macroinvertebrate communities increased from 20 to 42 percent as the potential toxicity of pesticide mixtures in stream water samples increased. Similarly, the frequency of altered macroinvertebrate communities increased from 23 to 51 percent as the potential toxicity in sediment contaminants increased.
• Streams with insecticide levels that exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Aquatic-Life Benchmarks have 12 percent fewer macroinvertebrate taxa than streams that did not exceed the benchmarks.

Collectively, these findings show that elevated pesticide and contaminant levels altered community levels by as much as 51 percent, with many pesticides are considered highly toxic to aquatic life. The report concludes that,  “Elevated concentrations of dissolved pesticide mixtures in stream water and contaminant mixtures in stream sediments have a high potential to diminish stream health across the Nation.”

While the report does not provide recommendations beyond the need to fill information gaps for understanding the ecological health of streams, the report does provide context for the interaction between human caused contaminants, pesticides, and streamflow modifications on the stream quality.

Previous USGS reports have documented pesticides and fertilizers in U.S. streams and drinking water. Herbicides like atrazine, metalachlor, and simizine are among those often found in surface waters of 186 rivers and streams sampled by USGS since the early 1990s, and are highly correlated with the presence of upstream wastewater sources or upstream agricultural and urban land use. Recently, USGS released a national assessment that shows the distribution and trends of pesticide use from 1992-2009, providing visible evidence that contamination of pesticides in our nation’s water is clearly a continuing threat.

Meanwhile, regulations that protect U.S. waterways from chemical contamination, including contamination from pesticides, have been attacked by industry groups and Congress. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA),  pesticide users who spray over waterways must have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This requirement  follows a 2009 federal appeals court ruling in National Cotton Council v. EPA, and simply lets authorities know what is sprayed and when it is sprayed, so that the public may know what chemicals are used in their waterways.  However, since the enaction of the NPDES permit requirement, in 2011, several pieces of legislation have been introduced in Congress that would eliminate these regulations.

In May, the Sensible Environmental Protection Act was introduced by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), with support from Larry Wooten, president of the North Carolina Farm Bureau, to eliminate NPDES permits. The claim from industry lobby groups is often that these permits are burdensome on farmers and costly, though fees can be as low as $25 for the permit, and states that oversee the permitting program stand to collect this revenue. For more information read  Clearing up the Confusion Surrounding the New NPDES General Permit.

Learn more about the health of our nation’s streams, from water quality surveys to peer-reviewed research relating the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. To keep up to date on Congressional and government agency actions, sign-up for Beyond Pesticides’ action alerts and visit our Threatened Waters page.

Source: USGS, USGS Newsroom

Photo Source: USGS

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2013) A few months after the groundbreaking decision to suspend the use of three neonicotinoids shown to be highly toxic to bees, the European Commission is moving forward again with a proposal to restrict the use of the insecticide fipronil, which has also   been identified as posing an acute risk to honey bees. The proposal is backed by a Member State experts meeting in the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health.

This proposal follows a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  scientific risk assessment, published on May 27, 2013, which found that seeds treated with pesticides containing fipronil pose an acute risk to Europe’s honey bee population. According to this assessment, it was found that fipronil poses a high acute risk to honeybees when used as a seed treatment for corn. Specifically, EFSA concluded that high acute risk from dust drift resulting from treated corn exists, and identified several data gaps and study limitations for other field crops. Data on nectar and pollen could not be evaluated.

23 Member States supported the fipronil restriction, 2 Member States voted against and 3 Member States abstained during the standing committee vote. This latest EU-wide restriction comes in the wake of a recent Commission decision to restrict the use of three pesticides that belong to the neonicotinoid family –  imidacloprid, clothianidin   and thiamethoxam, which will come into force on December 1, 2013 as well as a guidance document on a risk assessment of plant protection products on bees published by EFSA on July 12, 2013.

The EU’s proposed measure does the following:

• Restricts the crops where fipronil can be used as a seed treatment;
• Authorizations may be granted for the treatment of seeds that will only be sown in greenhouses. However, this exception does not apply to leeks, shallots, onions and brassica vegetables (such as brussel sprouts, cauliflower or broccoli), where treated seeds can also be sown in the field, as the harvest of these crops takes place before flowering;
• The treatment of maize and sunflower seeds will no longer be authorized.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign, outside the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, fipronil has been heavily implicated in elevated bee toxicity and decline. The chemical is widely used for indoor and turf pest control in the U.S., and is a generation of insecticide that is highly toxic. Fipronil has been shown to reduce behavioral function and learning performances in honeybees.  One 2011 French study reported that newly emerged honey bees exposed to low doses of fipronil and thiacloprid succumbed more readily to the parasite Nosema ceranae compared to healthy bees,  supporting the hypothesis that the synergistic combination of parasitic infection and high pesticide exposures in beehives may contribute to colony decline. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of pesticides on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

Tonio Borg, Commissioner for Health said, “A few weeks ago, in the aftermath of the restriction on use of neonicotinoids, I pledged to do my utmost to protect Europe’s honey bee population and today’s agreement with Member States, not only delivers on that pledge but marks another significant step in realizing the Commission’s overall strategy to tackling Europe’s bee decline.”

The new restriction on fipronil will apply from December 31, 2013. Seeds that have been treated can be sown up until  February 28,  2014. National authorities are responsible for ensuring that the restrictions are correctly applied.

On March 21, 3013 Beyond Pesticides joined beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups in filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The coalition seeks suspension of the registrations of insecticides -clothianidin and thiamethoxam- which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).  The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these bee-killing pesticides, as well as the agency’s practice of “conditional registration” and labeling deficiencies.

About Fipronil

Fipronil is classified by EPA as a Group C (Possible Human) carcinogen based on rat carcinogenicity studies. It has also been linked to hormone disruption, thyroid cancer, neurotoxicity and reproductive effects in mammals. Fipronil is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, highly toxic to bees, highly toxic to upland game birds, and moderately toxic to waterfowl, but is practically non-toxic to mallard ducks and other bird species. Some fipronil formulations present a risk to endangered bird, fish, and aquatic and marine invertebrates. The metabolite fipronil-sulfone is more toxic to birds, and both fipronil-sulfone and fipronil-thioether are more highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates than fipronil itself. See fipronil on the Pesticide Gateway

Alternatives to Fipronil

Fipronil is used mainly for structural pest control, i.e. control of termites, ants, cockroaches.

However there are many alternatives available for the control of structural pests. The recommended method is the implementation of an integrated pest management plan (IPM) that includes one or more pest control methods, including sanitation, structural repairs that prevent insects from entering structures, mechanical controls and other non-chemical methods.

Least-toxic pesticide options include:

• boric acid & disodium octobrate tetrahydrate
• diatomaceous earth and silica gels
• essential oils
• microbial pesticides
• nonvolitile baits

For more information on pest control alternatives, see the Least-toxic Control of Pests fact sheets at here.

Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign has all the educational tools you need to help pollinators. Sign the  Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly, or use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: European Commission Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2013) Capitol Hill is buzzing about a new bill that aims to provide long overdue protections for America’s imperiled pollinators. Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D- OR) introduced H.R. 2692,   The Saving America’s Pollinators Act, calling for the suspension of neonicotinoids, a class of systemic pesticides that are killing bees.

Tell your Representative to Save America’s Pollinators!

The United States is lagging behind our European neighbors when it comes to the protection of pollinator health. Earlier this year, the EU announced a two-year suspension on these bee-killing pesticides. Now it’s time for the U.S. to act.

The Save America’s Pollinators Act will suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators.

Following the introduction of the legislation, Reps. Conyers and Blumenauer issued the following statement:

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich): “One of every three bites of food we eat is from a crop pollinated by honey bees. These crops include apples, avocados, cranberries, cherries, broccoli, peaches, carrots, grapes, soybeans, sugar beets and onions. Unfortunately, unless swift action is taken, these crops, and numerous others, will soon disappear due to the dramatic decline of honey bee populations throughout the country.

“For over a decade now, honey bees have been suffering rapid population losses as a result of a phenomenon known as ”˜colony collapse disorder.’ Another decade of these mass die-offs will severely threaten our agricultural economy and food supply. Scientists have reported that common symptoms of this decline are attributed to the use of a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids. The ”˜Saving America’s Pollinators Act’ will address this threat to honey bee populations by suspending the use of certain neonicotinoids and by requiring the EPA to conduct a full review of the scientific evidence before allowing the entry of other neonicotinoids into the market.”

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.): “Pollinators are not only vital to a sustainable environment, but key to a stable food supply. When incidents like the alarming mass bee die-off of more than 50,000 bumblebees that happened recently in Wilsonville, Oregon occur, it is imperative that we take a step back to make sure we understand all the factors involved and move swiftly to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.”

Background:
The systemic residues of these pesticides not only contaminate pollen, nectar, and the wider environment, but have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other beneficial species for pollination, the decline of honey bees and other pollinators demands swift action. Mounting scientific evidence, along with unprecedented annual colony losses at 40 to 90 percent this year, demonstrate the impacts that these pesticides are having on these fragile species.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act of 2013 has been endorsed by the American Bird Conservancy, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice, Equal Exchange, Family Farm Defenders, Friends of the Earth, Food Democracy Now!, Food and Water Watch, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, the Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network North America, the Sierra Club, and the Xerces Society.

Let’s BEE Protective and support a shift away from the use of these toxic chemicals by encouraging organic methods and sustainable land management practices in your home, campus, or community.

Take Action to Protect America’s Pollinators Now!

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2013) Farmworkers from across the nation are meeting with their members of Congress today to call for stronger protections for farmworkers from hazardous pesticides. These simple, straightforward and commonsense protections have not been updated for more than 20 years. In February 2013, Beyond Pesticides joined with a coalition of environmental and farmworker organizations to submit a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urging the agency implement these long overdue revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). An estimated 5.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops annually in the United States, and farmworkers face the greatest threat from these chemicals than any other sector of society, with thousands of farmworkers each year experiencing pesticide poisoning.

The nation’s 1-2 million farmworkers form the backbone of the U.S. agricultural economy  and many are regularly exposed to pesticides.  An average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 agricultural workers experience acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year, the same order of magnitude as the annual incidence rate of breast cancer in the United States. The federal government estimates that there are 10,000-20,000 acute pesticide poisonings among workers in the agricultural industry annually, a figure that likely understates the actual number of acute poisonings since many affected farmworkers may not seek care from a physician. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, they and their children, who often times also work on the farm or live nearby, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments and Parkinson’s disease. Children, according to a recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) report, face even greater health risks compared to adults when exposed to pesticides.

Underscoring the urgent need for these reforms, Farmworker Justice released a new report yesterday, entitled Exposed and Ignored, How Pesticides are Endangering Our Nation’s Farmworkers.    In testimony on Capitol Hill, Occupational and Environmental Health Director of Farmworker Justice Virginia Ruiz painted a grim picture of the conditions farmworkers and their families face. She stated, “The close proximity of agricultural fields to residential areas and schools makes it nearly impossible for farmworkers and their families to escape exposure because pesticides are in the air they breathe and the food they eat, and the soil where they work and play.” She noted the heartbreaking point that, in order to minimize exposure, farmworkers are told not to hug their children when they come home from work — they must first remove their clothes, and take a shower.

Most workers in the U.S. look to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for standards to protect them from exposure to hazardous chemicals. However, farmworkers are not eligible for protection under these rules. Protection for farmworkers from pesticides is left to the EPA’s authority under the WPS, a standard that is far more lenient than OSHA rules and is fundamentally inadequate.

The farmworkers and advocates are calling for these following changes to the Worker Protection Standard:

Ӣ Provide more frequent and more comprehensible pesticide safety training for farmworkers

”¢ Include information about farmworker families’ exposures to pesticides in the required training materials

Ӣ Ensure that workers receive information about specific pesticides used in their work

”¢ Require safety precautions and protective equipment limiting farmworkers’ contact with pesticides

Ӣ Require medical monitoring of workers who handle neurotoxic pesticides

Despite the straightforward and commonsense nature of these new protections, environmental and farmworker groups have grown increasingly concerned over the possible changes to WPS. After a 2010 EPA document proposed WPS that would determine ways to increase training, improve safety requirements, provide clear emergency information, and create strong protection for applicators, the agency abruptly changed course. A handout distributed at the 2012 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee meeting downplayed the details within those goals, bringing into question the agency’s previous commitments. Advocacy groups are disturbed by EPA’s mercurial attitude towards farmworker protection, and fearful that there will be further delays in releasing WPS. The farmworkers meeting on Capitol Hill this week hope to spur lawmakers to call on EPA to implement these long-overdue standards, and provide funding for much needed national farmworker studies in order to accurately account for the hazardous effects of pesticides on farmworker health.

In testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday, Ed Zuroweste, MD, Chief Medical Officer at the Migrant Clinicians Network, summarized the importance of this issue, stating, “Prevention is key. In a perfect world the elimination of dangerous pesticides would guarantee that workers would not get poisoned. Until we reach that ”˜perfect world’ we should strive to substitute and use less toxic chemicals. We shouldn’t lose track that this should always be our ultimate goal. But since we are still far away from this perfect world, we need to emphasize other ways to keep the worker safe.”

In the absence of widespread adoption of organic practices, 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. Beyond Pesticides recently updated the Eating with a Conscience database to reflect the risk conventional produce poses to farmworker health. 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.

Source: EarthJustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2013) They’re wrecking the place; the chemicals they produce are  polluting groundwater  and  poisoning schoolchildren. In the absence of federal and state action, local communities are rising up to confront these agrichemical giants. As a testament to the power of local change, two Hawaiian counties, Kauai and the “Big Island” of Hawaii, have introduced legislation to restrict these practices.  Monsanto, Dow, BASF, DuPont Pioneer and Syngenta are using the Hawaiian Islands as their private testing grounds for experimental pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, but they don’t want residents to know where these fields are and what chemicals they are spraying on them; they don’t think they have that right. Federal and state governments have, in effect, sanctioned these practices and provided cover for these corporations to spray tons of restricted use pesticides  across the islands (18 tons annually— and that’s just on the island of Kauai).

Kauai County Councilmen Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum recently introduced County Bill 2491, which would provide long overdue protections from some of the most egregious chemical intrusions occurring on the island. Commercial pesticide applications from these giant corporations would require a 500 ft buffer zone near schools, hospitals, residential areas, public roadways and sensitive ecological sites such as streams, rivers and shorelines. The testing of experimental pesticides would be restricted only to greenhouses and other contained structures. A moratorium would be placed on the planting of new GE crops on the island, so that an Environmental and Public Health Impact Study (EPHIS) could be performed to properly assess health and environmental effects. All pesticide applications and GE crops would be subject to mandatory disclosure to the county. And the use of any pesticides by these corporations would require prior notification through the public posting of signs.

These requirements are not unreasonable or unduly burdensome; they are commonsense protections for people who are having dangerous experiments occurring in their backyard. As Councilman Hooser remarked to The Garden Island, “This is all about understanding what’s happening, and either putting to rest the fears, if they’re not valid, or putting in place protections if these fears are valid.” This ordinance is about health and life, and the agrichemical companies know that. In fact, that may be the reason why Senate Bill 727 was introduced to the Hawaii state legislature earlier this year.

There is a Hawaii Statute (Section 46-1.5) that grants individual counties “the power to enact ordinances deemed necessary to protect health, life and property, and to preserve the order and security of the county and its inhabitants.” Hawaii State Senate Bill 727 would have struck the words “life” and “health” from that statute, but it was recognized by Councilman Hooser and ultimately garnered enough opposition that it didn’t pass.

The huge public outpouring over this bill is surely a result of the reverberations felt by the citizens of Kauai from the footsteps of these giant agrichemical corporations, footsteps which kick up pesticide-laden fugitive dust that blows into local homes. Residents of Waimea, Kauai have sued DuPont Pioneer for this toxic trespass, alleging that long-term exposure to this dust, in addition to the pesticides drifting from experimental GE fields, has reduced property values, damaged homes, and caused residents to live in danger of pesticide-related health effects.

Applications of restricted use pesticides on the island affected children and their teachers directly in the classroom. After a number of incidents at Waimea Canyon Middle School in 2006 and 2007, administrators and teachers sat down with Syngenta and secured an agreement from the company not to spray before school was out at 3:30 pm. Syngenta broke that promise, according to Maluhia Group, a coalition of Waimea Canyon Middle School staff, parents and community members. There’s even a YouTube video showing the event.  Hawaii’s Department of Agriculture investigated the incidents, but came to the conclusion that Cleome gynandra, known on the islands as “stinkweed”, was the main culprit. However concerned residents are not convinced, as there have never been any recorded medical incidents of widespread poisoning by stinkweed.

Beyond Pesticides is actively supporting efforts in Kauai, and provided testimony for Bill 2491, which you can read here. The ordinance passed its first reading by a unanimous vote of 7-0, paving the way for a public hearing to take place on July 31^st. Expecting another massive crowd, the Kauai County Council has selected a local Performing Arts Center as the venue for the public event.

The “Big Island” of Hawaii County has also moved towards legislation, Bill 79, introduced by Councilwoman Margaret Wille, that would prohibit the planting of any GE crops that are not already grown on the island. Currently, only GE papaya is grown on the Big Island. This bill would prevent the introduction of new, experimental GE crops from being planted. While Bill 79 is a preventative measure for Hawaii County, the Kauai County government is being forced to work backwards, as these experimental GE crops are already being planted on that island.

It is evident and transparently so that, despite industry claims, GE agriculture has not resulted in decreased pesticide use, but instead encouraged resistance in many common weed species, which in turn has caused a dramatic rise in pesticide applications. A rational response to widespread resistance would be the adoption of organic management systems. Instead, industry’s “solution” to resistance is more powerful, more dangerous and highly toxic chemicals. Agrichemical giants are currently making an enormous push to bring combined herbicide-ready crops on to market. This includes Monsanto’s (produced in partnership with their “competitor,” agrichemical giant BASF) dicamba and glyphosate ready cotton and soybean and Dow’s 2,4-D and glyphosate ready corn. However, concern voiced by farmers, consumers, and public health officials during the comment period for these crops forced USDA to delay their introduction before an EIS is performed.

Despite federal government requirements that these new GE crops undergo an EIS, the residents of Kauai have not been afforded this simple protection. Have these new GE crops been experimented with on the island? Have even more toxic combinations been tested? There is absolutely no way to know; and the chemical giants prefer it stay that way.

For more information on the failed promises of GE agriculture, see Center for Food Safety senior attorney George Kimbrell’s speech to Beyond Pesticides 29^th National Pesticide Forum, or our Pesticides and You article “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market.” You can also learn more about how to get involved in these important efforts through the organization Hawaii Seed, or the website Stop Poisoning Paradise.

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

Source: Huffington Post, The Garden Island
Image Source: The Garden Island

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2013) New research concludes that exposure to a combination of both arsenic and estrogen, at levels U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers “safe” for humans, can cause cancer at elevated levels in prostate cells. Texas Tech University researchers revealed that humans exposed to a combination of both toxicants were almost twice as likely to develop cancerous cells in their prostate. The study is published in the peer-reviewed journal The Prostate.

While it is established that both arsenic and estrogen can cause cancer, the research raises concerns about the dangers of chemicals in combination, and the efficacy of regulations that are established by testing one chemical at a time. Kamaleshwar Singh, PhD., is an assistant professor at the Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech. “The majority of cancers are caused by environmental influences,” Dr. Singh remarked to Texas Tech Today, “Only about 5 to 10 percent of cancers are due to genetic predisposition. Science has looked at these chemicals, such as arsenic, and tested them in a lab to find the amounts that may cause cancer. But that’s just a single chemical in a single test. In the real world, we are getting exposed to many chemicals at once.”

The study contributes to the growing body of research on the interactive effects of pesticides on human health and the environment. For example, Tyrone Hayes, PhD., professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley conducted research on the interactive effects of atrazine and other pesticides in a study on frogs. The study compared the impact of exposure to realistic combinations of small concentrations of corn pesticides on frog metamorphosis. The study concluded that frog tadpoles exposed to mixtures of pesticides took longer to metamorphose to adults and were smaller at metamorphosis than those exposed to single pesticides, with consequences for frog survival. The study revealed that “estimating ecological risk and the impact of pesticides on amphibians using studies that examine only single pesticides at high concentrations may lead to gross underestimations of the role of pesticides in amphibian declines.” (Watch Dr. Hayes’ talk,  Protecting Life: From Research to Regulation.)

Similarly, pesticide products available for sale are often chemical mixtures of active ingredients that create a cocktail of toxins while studies on pesticide combinations have demonstrated neurological, endocrine, and immune effects at low doses. For example, research conducted by Warren Porter, PhD., professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, examined the effect of fetal exposures to   a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba exposure ””frequently used together in lawn products like Weed B Gone Max and Trillion”” on the mother’s ability to successfully bring young to birth and weaning. Researchers began by testing pesticide concentrations diluted to levels that are considered “safe” by EPA. The results were striking: Dr. Porter found that “this common lawn pesticide mixture is capable of inducing abortions and resorptions of fetuses at very low parts per billion. The greatest effect was at the lowest dose.” For more information on Dr. Porter’s work, read “Facing Scientific Realities, Debunking the ”˜Dose Makes the Poison’ Myth,” published in Pesticides and You.

The new study by Texas Tech researchers on arsenic and estrogen confirms that co-exposures have a greater impact on human health, particularly for the development of prostate cancer. Researchers treated human prostate cells with arsenic, estrogen and a combination of the two once a week for six months to determine changes in prostate cells. The results have major implications because estrogen mimics are ubiquitous, such as bisphenol A (BPA) used as a liner in food cans. Similarly, while most arsenate pesticides were banned for use in agriculture in the U.S. in the 1980s, monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA) may still be used legally on cotton crops. Copper sulfate fertilizers have been found to be contaminated with arsenic. Other sources of exposure to arsenic include rice, an arsenic accumulator, and non-organically produced chicken.

Residues of arsenic pesticides once used by farmers to fight cotton boll weevil are still found in soils and are present in foods like rice. Indeed, researchers at the Dartmouth College Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program have found that rice pulls arsenic from the soil in the same way it absorbs the chemically similar silicon, calling it a natural arsenic accumulator. While some of the accumulation is sourced from arsenic that naturally occurs in soil and water, and some from fertilizer (such as chicken manure), some is caused by residual contamination from arsenate pesticides used on cotton.

With exposure to both arsenic and estrogen together showing synergistic impacts on human health, the research also highlights the deficiencies of EPA’s risk assessment process which fail to look at chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, as well as certain health endpoints such as endocrine disruption. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for an alternatives assessment approach which rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but are unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where data shows clear links between pesticide use and cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. Regulatory restrictions that account for synergies and that begin to move chemicals off the market are necessary for the protection of human health and the environment.

For more information on pesticide synergy, see our article, “Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure,” published in our Winter 2004 issue of Pesticides and You. For information on individual pesticide health effects, see the Pesticide Gateway.

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

Source: The Prostate , Texas Tech Today

(July 16, 2013 update) On July 15, the Takoma Park City Council unanimously passed the first reading of the Safe Grow Zone ordinance, which could enact important protections for the health of Takoma Park residents and the environment. The ordinance is expected to get a second and final vote at the council’s meeting next Monday. Help us ensure that it passes on July 22! We urge Takoma Park residents to  call or write your Councilmember and tell them you support their efforts to curtail toxic pesticide drift and exposure within the town limits. If you are in the area, please also consider attending the July 22nd meeting to show your support. The meeting will be at 7:30pm Monday at the Takoma Park Community Center, 7500 Maple Ave, Takoma Park, MD 20912. See the current agenda here.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2013) In a show of support for a local initiative that would restrict the use of cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and gardens within the city limits of Takoma Park, MD, the Washington Adventist Hospital announced that as of June 17, 2013 it will no longer use insecticides or herbicides for its grounds maintenance program. The Safe Grow Zone Ordinance before the City Council is intended to protect the health of residents and the environment by stopping involuntary poisoning and nontarget contamination that occurs as pesticides move off of treated  private yards  as a result of  chemical drift and volatility.

“We’re proud to fully support this important community initiative,” said Joyce Newmyer, President of Washington Adventist Hospital in a press release. “We always strive to create the safest environment for the community we serve, and we worked quickly with our landscaping and turf management program managers to implement this change.”

Hospitals have a special obligation to demonstrate leadership in instituting effective and safer pest management in keeping with the medical profession’s basic tenet of “first, do no harm.” See Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Healthy Hospitals for more information on how to get toxic pesticides out of your hospital and advance management practices that take toxic chemical our of structural pest management and adopt organic turf and landscape methods. Washington Adventist Hospital is currently working on effective options for grounds maintenance that fits within the framework of the proposed Safe Grow Zone Ordinance. In addition, the hospital will continue with plans this year to review rainwater management and promote  the use of native and adaptive plants to reduce water needs.

The Safe Grow Zone Ordinance would immediately prohibit the use of cosmetic pesticides on City property, and phase in a public education campaign and restrictions on the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on private property within the City. It is similar to the Ontario Cosmetic Pesticide Ban, which was enacted back in 2009, and has been mirrored throughout Canada and is supported by the Canadian medical community, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians, as well as the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). Under the proposal, residents still would be allowed to use pesticides on invasive species and insects.

Opponents may claim that restricting pesticide use will cost more money, or put the fields at risk for disease and weed infestation, however, in a Cornell University study of turf, chemically maintained turf is more susceptible to disease. Another report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education concludes that organic approaches can save money. Furthermore, Harvard University saved two million gallons of water a year by managing the grounds organically, as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent.

High quality turf and landscapes can be achieved through proper management of soil health through proper fertilization that eliminates synthetic fertilizers and focuses on building the soil food web and the nurturing of soil microorganisms. This approach eliminates chemicals, adopts compost fertilizers and mulching systems, and focuses on managing weeds and insects through the development of healthier plants and turf that are not vulnerable to disease and infestation.

Many communities, school districts, and state policies are now following a systems approach that is designed to put a series of preventive steps in place that will solve pest (weed and insect) problems. The systems approach is based on three basic concepts: (i) natural, organic product where use is directed by soil testing, (ii) an understanding that the soil biomass plays a critical role in soil fertility and turf grass health, and (iii) specific and sound cultural practices. Experience, such as in Marblehead, Massachusssetts finds that this approach will build a soil environment rich in microbiology that will produce strong, healthy turf that is able to withstand many of the stresses that affect turf grass.

For additional information on land management strategies which eschew hazardous pesticides in favor of an organic, systems approach, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage. The site also provides an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to assist in going pesticide-free. With the training, landscapers can learn the practical steps to transitioning to a natural program.

The Takoma Park City Council is scheduled to vote on the ordinance on July 15. If a majority of councilmembers vote in support, there will be a second vote on July 22. For more information on the ordinance, see the City of Takoma Park Public Notice.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2013) Several beekeeping organizations have filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) to reverse a recent decision to register a new  pesticide, sulfoxaflor, which is highly toxic to bees. The beekeepers are not satisfied that their submitted concerns were properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted. Sulfoxaflor is a sub-class of the neonicotinoid pesticides that have been linked to global bee declines. The suit is filed as the beekeeping industry across the country struggles for survival, and faces the costly effects of pesticides upon their businesses.

The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith submitted the case in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes in the sulfoxaflor product label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA’s Risk Assessment Process. The requested changes would acknowledge pollinator’s critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws.

Another legal challenge submitted in March 2013 by beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups, including Beyond Pesticides, in Federal District Court challenges the agency’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. This lawsuit seeks suspension of the registrations of neonicotinoid insecticides- clothianidin and thiamethoxam– which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees.  The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these pesticides, as well as the agency’s registration process and labeling deficiencies.

In May 2013, EPA approved the full registration of sulfoxaflor,  which the agency classifies as highly toxic to honey bees, despite warnings and concerns raised by beekeepers and environmental groups that sulfoxaflor will further endanger bees and beekeeping.   Several comments were submitted to EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, including Beyond Pesticides, stating that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations. However, EPA outrightly dismissed these concerns and instead points to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective or resistant pesticide technologies.

EPA also  says that none of the objections to sulfoxaflor registrations point to any data “to support the opinion that registration of sulfoxaflor will pose a grave risks to bees,” even though the agency itself acknowledges that sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees.   The agency states that even though sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees it does not demonstrate substantial residual toxicity to exposed bees, nor are “catastrophic effects” on bees expected from its use. While sulfoxaflor exhibits  behavioral and navigational abnormalities in honey bees, EPA downplayed these effects as “short-lived.”

Beekeepers have experienced honey bee losses of over 40 percent over the 2012/2013 winter period, with some beekeepers reporting losses of over 70 percent, far exceeding the normal rate of 10-15 percent. Some have even been driven out of business. Current estimates of the number of surviving hives in the U.S. show that these colonies may not be able to meet the pollination demands of agricultural crops. Based on the approved registration, pollinators, especially honey bees, may potentially be exposed numerous times by sulfoxaflor applications as honey bees are moved across the country to pollinate crops, produce the nation’s supply of honey, and recuperate from the rigors of pollination. Since the early 20^th century, ”˜migratory’ beekeepers have provided a critical service to U.S. agriculture by moving their hives seasonally to pollinate a wide variety of crops. Commercial beekeeping adds between $20 to $30 billion dollars in economic value to agriculture each year.

The groups are being represented by the public interest law organization Earthjustice. The appeal process through the courts is the only mechanism open to challenge EPA’s decision; it is commonly used by commodity groups to rectify inadequate pesticide labeling.

The following are their statements:

Jeff Anderson, beekeeper: “EPA’s approval of Sulfoxaflor with no enforceable label protections for bees will speed our industry’s demise. EPA is charged under FIFRA with protecting non-target beneficial insects, not just honeybees. EPA’s Sulfoxaflor registration press release says,   ”˜”¦the final label includes robust terms for protecting pollinators”¦’ This is a bold-faced lie! There is absolutely no mandatory language on the label that protects pollinators. Further, the label’s advisory language leads spray applicators to believe that notifying a beekeeper of a planned application, absolves them of their legal responsibility in FIFRA to not kill pollinators.”

Bret Adee, President of the Board of the National Pollinator Defense Fund: “The EPA is charged with preventing unreasonable risk to our livestock, our livelihoods, and most importantly, the nation’s food supply. This situation requires an immediate correction from the EPA to ensure the survival of commercial pollinators, native pollinators, and the plentiful supply of seed, fruits, vegetables, and nuts that pollinators make possible.”

Randy Verhoek, President of the Board of the American Honey Producers Association: “The bee industry has had to absorb an unreasonable amount of damage in the last decade. Projected losses for our industry this year alone are over $337 million. While not all of the losses are due solely to pesticides, there are strong correlations between pesticide misuse killing bees and impairing colony performance.”

George Hansen, President of the Board of the American Beekeeping Federation: “The honey bee industry is very concerned since the EPA has failed to adequately address our comments about realistic risk to pollinators posed by sulfoxaflor. The EPA continues to use flawed and outdated assessments of long term and sub-lethal damage to honey bees.”

Rick Smith, beekeeper and farmer: “The beekeeping industry has proactively engaged EPA to address concerns for many years.   The industry is seriously concerned the comments it submitted during the Sulfoxaflor registration comment period were not adequately addressed before EPA granted full registration.   The sun is now rising on a day where pollinators are no longer plentiful.     They require protection 365 days a year in order to be abundant at the critical moment their pollination service is required by the plant.   Applying pesticides in a manner which does not expose pollinators during the period a pesticide is acutely toxic, and, knowing sub-lethal and delayed effects, are the cornerstones in their protection.   EPA’s assessment process has chosen not to use long established and accepted published information concerning pollinator foraging habits in the Environment Hazards Section of the Sulfoxaflor label.”

Given the global phenomenon of bee decline and the recent precautions  taken in the European Union regarding bee health with the two-year suspension of neonicotinoid pesticides known to be highly toxic to bees, it is irresponsible that EPA allowed yet another chemical with a high potential to be hazardous to bee health into the environment. It is also counterintuitive to current agency and interagency work to protect pollinators.

Bee Protective: For additional information on what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides Bee Protective webpage.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2013) A recent pesticide contamination incident in Great Britain’s Kennet River has decimated aquatic invertebrate populations on a ten mile stretch of river between the towns of  Marlborough and Hungerford. The contamination occurred after a spill of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos entered a Marlborough sewage system. The lack of aquatic invertebrates could lead to a dramatic decline of the river’s chalk trout population. A similar incident occurred in Great Britain on the Wey River in 2003, and in Sussex Ouse in 2001. This recent calamity helps to underscore the importance for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), across the Atlantic, to fully implement pesticide restrictions that U.S. conservation groups are seeking to enforce through court action.

The damage to the U.K. river may have been caused by, according to an Express article, only two tablespoons of the neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyifos. Members of the public have been advised by Britain’s Environment Agency to avoid skin contact with the water and not to eat fish caught from the river.  The contamination has occurred at the height of fly-fishing season. Environmental organizations are afraid that a decline in the number of aquatic invertebrates could lead chalk trout and other forms of wildlife to starve. Mark Owen, Freshwater and Environment Campaigns Manger for the Angling, was quoted in an Express article saying, “Even if fish stocks remain untouched there is now precious little left for the fish or other wildlife to eat which is why the Angling Trust is calling for measures to try and recolonize the affected stretches with invertebrates as quickly as possible.”

The chemical that contaminated the river, chlorpyrifos, is a neurotoxic insecticide that was banned from residential applications in the U.S. after EPA determined that cumulative exposure resulted in serious adverse health outcomes, especially for children. EPA has left virtually all agricultural uses, with the exception of tomatoes,  on the market. Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic life, and certain species of algae. Poisoning from chlorpyrifos affects the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system, and causes skin and eye irritation. A study of children exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero found that extensive and unusual patterns of birth defects, including brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, palate, teeth, heart, feet, nipples, and genitalia. The published literature and EPA documents contain reports that identify similarities in defects found in test animals and children exposed to chlorpyrifos.

There are also a wide range of adverse environmental effects linked to chlorpyrifos, including toxicity to: beneficial insects, freshwater fish, other aquatic organisms, bird, a variety of plants, soil organisms, and domestic animals. It has been shown to bioaccumulate in fish and synergistically react with other chemicals. Thus, even if no acute health issues are seen in fish contaminated by this incident, chronic problems may arise in the future.

Though chlorpyrifos use is banned for residential application in the U.S., EPA has not taken action to implement strong measures to protect fish from the threat of chlorpyrifos stream contamination. In 2008 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a biological opinion (BIOp) that set forth a plan to protect salmon and other fish from chlorpyrifos and other toxic organophosphates. Part of this plan included restrictions on sprayed within 500 to 1000 feet of waterways. Four years later, in 2012 Conservation groups filed lawsuits against EPA clamming that the agency had still not implemented the restrictions proposed by the NMFS. This lawsuit came after EPA had already been ordered to consult with NMFS after lawsuits in 2002 and 2007. EPA is mandated by law to protect dwindling species like salmon under the Endangered Species Act, and by failing to implement NMFS buffer mandates, EPA is responsible for endangering salmon.

However, last February a U.S. Court of Appeals found that the pesticide restrictions proposed by NMFS were “arbitrary and capricious.” This decision came after The U.S. District Court upheld NMFS’ BiOp in 2011, finding that the BiOp is rationally supported by the “voluminous facts and studies considered by the [Fisheries Service].” Even though this opinion was thrown out, EPA can still force chemical companies to change their labels to include buffer zones and other protections for aquatic life. The recent contamination of the Kennet River underscores the importance for the U.S. EPA to act to protect our threatened waters.

For more information on pesticides and water quality, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: Express

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2013) The Chinese government has just announced its work plan to manage and clean up contaminated groundwater in North China Plains, a region where many are completely dependent on groundwater for drinking water. Eighteen percent of water use in China is groundwater. Unfortunately, the report indicates this groundwater is highly contaminated with pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation waste water from agricultural expansion, as well as petrochemical industry wastewater, and domestic and industrial waste. Considering 400 of the approximately 655 cities in China are completely reliant on groundwater for drinking, the plan could not come sooner.

Likely though, “It will be very expensive to clean up, if it is even possible,” said Sun Ge, PhD., research hydrologist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Southern Research Station. Many of the chemicals are extremely persistent, remaining in the environment years after they were released.

The plan marks progress made after a massive government investigation launched in 2006, which found that groundwater of the North China Plains, home to nearly 130 million people, was almost irreparably contaminated. After six years of investigation and a year of planning, the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources has finally announced its work plan to manage and clean up contaminated waters.

While the results of the 2006 survey have not been made public, the government has acknowledged that water contamination levels are quite serious. Previous data released by the Land Ministry revealed that 41 percent of the groundwater monitoring sites across the country had poor water quality, including 4,929 monitoring sites spread out over 198 administrative regions. Iron, manganese, fluoride, nitrites, nitrates, ammonium and heavy metals were just some of the contaminants found, with some of them reaching levels above state safety levels.

The report builds on academic research conducted by Zhang Zhaoji, PhD., a hydrogeologist at the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences’ Institute of Hydrology and Environmental Geology in Hebei and project leader for the 2006 survey. Published in the Journal of Jilin University, the results indicated that 35.5 percent of shallow groundwater samples were contaminated by human activities.

The levels of water pollution are “not a surprise, as China is under rapid urbanization and industrialization that bring problems of water pollution for both surface and groundwater,” said Dr. Ge to the journal Nature. Regardless, the effects are already being seen in China. This summer agricultural runoff caused the largest algal bloom ever recorded in China, which has grown twice the size from the previous record years’ bloom. Additionally, fluoride exposure caused almost 38.8 million recorded cases of tooth-enamel damage and 2.84 million cases of bone disease. Humans are exposed to a wide range of fluoride-based compounds from agricultural sources, many of which leach into the groundwater or run off into local streams. While fluoride is often added to water sources to protect from tooth decay, it is also found in almost 150 fluoridated pesticide products. Three of the most widely used herbicides include triflualin, flumeturon, and benefin. Others include sodium fluoride, used as a rodenticide and insecticide; superphosphate fertilizer, used as a fertilizer and animal feed supplement, which contains up to 5 percent fluoride); and cryolite, used in fruit and vegetable crops against leaf eating pests but an aluminofluoride ion.

Although it is difficult to directly link fluoride exposure from water contamination as the primary cause of fluoride-related ailments, undoubtedly, “These diseases are closely related to environ ­mental and geological factors [and are] especially associated with contaminated groundwater,” says Yang Linsheng, PhD., Director of the Department of Environmental Geography and Health at the IGSNRR.

The government work plan states that it intends to divide the North China Plain into 30 units for pollution prevention and control, while simultaneously ranking each by severity levels, from serious to good. The journal Nature reports that they will also commit almost 500  million renminbi (US$81  million) between 2013 and 2020 to increase water pollution assessments, limit agricultural water pollution and point source pollution from industry and landfill, treat polluted waters, and conduct further water clean-up research. As of now, details of the plan are unavailable to the public.

However, the plan is expected to be a boon for the environment, requiring a harsher approval process for new industry products and stricter regulations for industrial and agricultural wastes.  Last week, Chinese authorities  announced that courts were now able to hand down the death penalty in cases of serious pollution.

For more information on pesticides and water quality, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: Nature

Photo Source: Grist

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2013) A bill recently introduced in the Ohio State Senate would grant state agencies new regulatory powers intended to stunt the spread of toxic blue green algae in Lake Erie. Senate Bill 150, introduced by Republican State Senator  Cliff Hite, will empower the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) to require reductions in the amount of fertilizer runoff that is produced by farms. Currently the state lacks authority to limit commercial fertilizer runoff. Swift action is needed as blue green algae blooms, which feed off phosphorus in fertilizer runoff, have increased dramatically in Lake Erie since the mid-1990’s.

The proposed legislation would provide ODNR the authority to cite farmers who allow fertilizers to runoff their field. Under the proposed bill, the Chief of ODNR would issue orders to farmers to comply with technical standards, to be created by ODNR,  that “achieve a level of management and conservation practices that will…abate the degradations of the waters of the state by soil amendments.”  Under this legislation, farmers will have to undergo training and receive a certificate from ODA to apply fertilizers and manure. “Farmers would apply for a fertilizer certificate in the same way they obtain pesticide certificates,” Erica Hawkins, an ODA spokeswoman, told the Columbus Dispatch.

The bill, however has several limitations. Importantly, the bill would not require any new permits or certifications for animal feeding facilities. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) produce 133 million tons of manure per year (on a dry weight basis) representing 13-fold more solid waste than human sanitary waste production. Waste is often disposed of in wastewater lagoons, through which the waste can leech into ground water. Runoff from CAFOs also provides nutrients for algae bloom growth. Additionally, the bill does not make individual farmer’s fertilizer and manure-management plans public record. However, the bill will have time to be revised as the bill’s sponsor looks to gather comments from farmers and others over the summer. Ohio State Senator Bob Peterson favors amending the bill by moving ODNR’s power to regulate manure and fertilizer pollution to ODA.

The proposed bill is designed to stop the spread of a toxic blue-green algae bloom in Lake Erie, which scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) predict to be significant this summer. Blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, grow thick after feeding phosphorus in fertilizers, and manure that runoff into nearby streams that feed into Lake Erie. After Cyanobacteria consumes phosphorus it excrete a liver poison that is toxic to humans and aquatic life. The problem is also exacerbated by the increase in invasive species like zebra mussels. Zebra mussels feed on planktonic algae which remove competitors of the toxic algae bloom.

Not only are these blooms toxic, they are also a sink for dissolved oxygen, causing so-called dead zones. Scientists say that the water chemistry of dead zones may also cause the release of additional sediments that would otherwise be stored in cool, oxygenated waters. This could lead to the release of  more toxins, such as mercury, in freshwater marine environments.

Studies have also found that as climate change creates hotter and more frequent extreme weather events, harmful algal blooms caused by fertilizer inputs will strike more often in water bodies like Lake Erie. In addition to the Great Lakes region, this summer the largest algal bloom ever recorded in China has grown twice the size from the previous record years’ bloom.

Agriculture is not the only source of excessive phosphorous pollution. Residential use of lawn care fertilizers represents a significant portion of the phosphorous load that runs into local water bodies in the U.S. For information on steps you can take to reduce the phosphorous contamination coming from your community, see Beyond Pesticides article, Maintaining a Delicate Balance.

Organic farming and land management uses natural, less soluble sources of nitrogen, phosphorous and magnesium, including cover crops, compost, manure and mineralized rock, that promote increases in soil organic matter and a healthy soil structure. Healthy soil structure allows water to infiltrate the ground slowly, rather than escaping across the surface and carrying soil particles, nutrients, and other inputs with it. Healthy soil structure also allows plants to establish vibrant root systems that resist erosion. For more information on the importance of an organic systems approach as a solution to pesticide use, see Beyond Pesticides’ article, Increasing Biodiversity As If Life Depends on It.

For additional information on the Lake Erie algae bloom, visit our Threatened Waters: What the Science Shows page. For additional information water quality, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: Columbus Dispatch

Photo Source: Great Lakes Echo

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2013) In light of recent action in Europe to suspend to use of certain neonicotinoid pesticides, Beyond Pesticides joined 12 other environmental and advocacy organizations in urging the Obama administration to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow the European Union’s (EU) lead in recognizing that risks posed by these pesticides are unacceptably high, and suspend the use of these chemicals in the U.S. to protect pollinators and the nation’s agricultural economy.

The letter urges the Obama administration to not only direct EPA to follow Europe’s lead in suspending certain neonicotinoid pesticides uses, but requests even more protective measures, including a minimum two-year suspension for all outdoor uses of neonicotinoid insecticides pending resolution of their hazards to bees and beneficial organisms. Highlighting the negative environmental and economic impacts of outdoor uses of the EPA-approved neonicotinoid insecticides: imidacloprid, clothianidin  , thiamethoxam, dinetofuran and acetamiprid, as well as a recognition that the initial risk assessments for these chemicals fail to adequately consider key risks to bee health, the letter to President Obama notes that it, “would not be responsible to continue to allow these threatening compounds to be used so broadly.”

On average, U.S. beekeepers lost 45.1% of the colonies in their operation during the winter of 2012/2013, with many reporting over 70 percent losses of their bee colonies. Recently, over 50,000 bumble bees,   representing approximately 300 colonies, were killed after the application of a neonicotinoid pesticide to trees in Oregon. Given that bee pollination is a $20 to $30 billion per year contributor to U.S. agriculture and vital to the majority of fruit and vegetable produce, current impacts on bees are rapidly evolving into devastating, perhaps irreversible, losses to farmers, consumers and the economy as a whole, which relies on domestically-produced bee-pollinated food and fiber crops.

The neonicotinoid class of insecticides has been identified as a leading factor in bee declines. Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides used primarily as seed treatment for corn and soybeans, as well as in home and garden products. See list of neonicotinoid products to avoid.   These chemicals contaminate nectar and pollen, as well as soil and surface water.   Foraging and navigational disruptions, immune suppression and learning/memory disorders have been documented in bees exposed to even low levels of these chemicals. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotinoids on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

In March 2013, commercial beekeepers and environmental organizations filed an emergency legal petition with EPA to suspend use of the pesticides linked to honey bee deaths, urging the agency to adopt safeguards. Meanwhile in Europe, the European Commission passed a continent-wide suspension on the neonicotinoids -imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, citing unacceptable hazards to bees, which is supported by a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report that finds the neonicotinoid class of insecticides of “critical concern” to bee health. Unfortunately, in the U.S., response from federal regulatory agencies is stymied. Despite the groundbreaking decision in Europe, EPA released a report which failed to address the overwhelming scientific evidence of neonicotinoid-related bee deaths or present any sustainable solution to address the bee crisis.

The letter also brings several key acknowledgments by federal officials made in public statements at recent meetings, in media statements, in EPA documents and other venues to the Administration, including:

”¢ EPA’s enforcement guidance for neonicotinoid use is inadequate.

”¢ EPA’s bee kill incident reporting system is inadequate.

Ӣ Labels on neonicotinoid products are inadequate to mitigate adverse environmental effects, specifically to avoid seed dust-mediated mortality to honey bees and other beneficial insects in or near corn fields.

Ӣ Current corn planting machinery poses significant dust-off risks and needs changing, while also recognizing that such changes will likely take many years and stating that EPA lacks authority to mandate machinery changes.

Ӣ Bee health and populations, and crop pollination, are in a near-crisis state based on several synergistic factors including insecticide use.

Ӣ EPA has not consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on potential effects on threatened or endangered species under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the neonicotinoid insecticides.

According to the concerned groups, EPA has refused to exercise its regulatory power to address the major contribution of these insecticides to bee declines. Instead, the agency has pointed to land use decisions, crop planting choices by farmers, pathogens, bee nutrition and other factors outside the agency’s authority,  while  failing to adopt measures that could offer long-term sustainable  protection of  bee populations. The letter also cites emerging science which documents extensive surface water contamination and impacts on non-target organisms such as aquatic invertebrates, birds and other pollinators.

“We could face a second “Silent Spring” above and beyond the threats to managed and wild pollinators,” the letter states. Additionally it states that  EPA’s planned 2018 deadline to complete its Registration Reviews for the major neonicotinoids “is far too slow in view of their potentially calamitous risks.”

The signatories to this letter include: Beyond Pesticides, The Center for Food Safety, Pesticides Action Network North America, Friends of the Earth, The Xerces Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Food and Water Watch, Center for Environmental Health, American Bird Conservancy, and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign has all the educational tools you need to help pollinators. Sign the  Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly, or use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2013) In the wake of massive bee kills, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is placing temporary restrictions on the use of pesticides with the active ingredient dinotefuran. Dinotefuran, a neonicotinoid pesticide, was confirmed as the cause of one massive bee die-off in Wilsonville, Oregon, and suspected as the cause of another bee die off in Hillsboro, Oregon. This temporary restriction will be in place for 180 days for a limited number of dinotefuran uses. Environmental advocates have sued EPA  on neonicotinoid  pesticides, citing its regulatory process  as deficient in  protecting bees and other beneficial organisms.

Just as Pollinator Week 2013 began, an estimated 50,000 bumblebees, likely representing over 300 colonies, were found dead or dying in Wilsonville. According to the Xerces Society, this was the largest known incident of bumblebee deaths ever recorded in the country. After a preliminary investigation, ODA confirmed that the massive bee die-off was caused by the use of the insecticide dinotefuran. Then, it was reported by The Oregonian that hundreds of bees were found dead after the same pesticide was used in the neighboring town of Hillsboro. Dan Hilburn, director of plant programs at the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), told Oregon Live that he had “never encountered anything quite like it in 30 years in the business.”

The new rule, which has already gone into effect, prohibits  the use of dinotefuran on any plant. According to the new rule, “This includes, but is not limited to, applications on landscape trees and shrubs, nursery and greenhouse plants, turfgrass, forests and agricultural crops.” Making an application of dinotefuran could result in the revocation of an applicator’s license or the imposition of a civil penalty. Regulators acknowledge that carrying out this new rule will be difficult to enforce on individual homeowners. Products containing dinotefuran are not being taken off shelves, so residents can still purchase these toxic chemicals. Dinotefuran use in flea collars, and ant and roach control will still be allowed under this new rule. Though this ban is a step in the right direction, it underscores the obvious risk neonicotinoid pesticides create for pollinators.

First introduced in the early 1990”²s as an alternative to the acutely toxic organophosphate and carbamate classes of pesticides, neonicotinoids are now the most widely used insecticides in the world. Neonicotinoids, including dinotefuran, can be broadly applied as a spray, soil drench, or seed treatment, and the ability of these chemicals to translocate through a plant as it grows has led to their widespread use in landscaping and agriculture.

Once these systemic pesticides are taken up by a plant’s vascular system, they are expressed through the pollen, nectar and guttation droplets from which pollinators such as bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beyond these chronic toxic effects neonicotinoid are also extremely acutely toxic to pollinators as the recent incident in Oregon helps illustrate. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides also began to take over the seed treatment market.  Clothianidin  and  imidacloprid  are two of the most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in  honey bee colony collapse disorder. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotiniods on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

Bumblebees have recently experienced dramatic population declines, a fate that is similar to other pollinators. Bumblebees are crucial to pollination of several different crops in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and crop seed production, which are grown in Oregon, all rely on bumblebees for pollination. Mace Vaughn, pollinator conservation program director with the Xerces Society, told Oregon Live, “Bumblebees are the single most important natural pollinator in Oregon.”

These staggering bumblebee losses are an important reminder that quick action is needed to protect pollinators. Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign has all the educational tools you need to help pollinators. Sign the    Pesticide Free Zone Declaration  and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly, or use our  model resolution  to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

Source: Oregon Live

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2013) Twenty-two groups, including Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Consumers Union, and the National Organic Coalition join Beyond Pesticides in urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to increase the allowable residue limits (tolerances) for glyphosate (Roundup) on certain food commodities, saying an increase in glyphosate tolerances and associated increases in glyphosate use puts the public at additional unreasonable risk. Given the recent science that has come out on glyphosate, human and environmental risks cannot be ignored, the groups say. Increasing tolerance limits would increase the dietary exposure risks from this chemical, which is unacceptable given that commercially viable alternatives are in place for growing food and controlling weeds. EPA is poised to raise the allowable limits of the herbicide glyphosate in certain food commodities like carrots, sweet potato, and mustard seeds.

Some of the allowable limits, or tolerances, will more than double. Increasing the levels of Roundup on food will pave the way for an overall increase in the use of this chemical in agriculture. Roundup is toxic to human and environmental health. In fact, a recent MIT study finds that glyphosate’s interference with important enzymes in the body can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Drinking water contaminated with Roundup can lead to congestion of the lungs and increased breathing rate, as well as kidney damage and reproductive effects. Increasing tolerances on glyphosate means not only higher dietary exposure but also more glyphosate use.

Beyond Pesticides Is Telling  EPA the following:  

According to the letter, while EPA in the tolerance setting process has focused on human health effects from dietary exposure, the agency as a part of this process must consider that its tolerance decision also drives the allowable use patterns of glyphosate. Therefore, this tolerance decision affects overall environmental health, which EPA is obligated to consider in its rulemaking when adjusting tolerances. Without this analysis of environmental impacts associated with tolerance setting, EPA is not fulfilling its statutory responsibility under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” [7 U.S.C. 136a] Food tolerances should serve as a deterrent to pesticide misuse and abuse. Theoretically, tolerance limits help ensure that pesticide applications do not exceed federal application rates, and that the human population is not exposed to residues that can adversely impact health. These set limits must be based on human health data and should not be amended without complete information or to simply accommodate special interests.

While major commodities like corn and soybeans are not affected by the tolerance adjustments, increasing tolerances can pave the way for further increases in glyphosate applications given the prevalence of genetically engineered (GE) crops tolerant to glyphosate (Roundup Ready crops) and the simultaneous increase in glyphosate resistant weed species across the country.

Adjusting tolerances for crops like carrots, sweet potato, and oilseed crops should not be done without adequate review of all the current independent, peer-reviewed science on glyphosate. While EPA suggests that increases in glyphosate exposure and use do not pose unreasonable risks to human and environmental health, recent independent, scientific, peer reviewed data paint a very different picture.

Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup. Read the letter here.

Tell EPA No More Roundup In Our Diet

Organic Solutions Pave a Way Forward

Sustainable, integrated farming solutions and systems must be instituted more broadly –where emphasis on feeding and maintaining healthy soils, cooperating with nature, and moving away from toxic chemical inputs are standard. The underlying standards of organic farming require that practices “maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.” This is the only viable and sustainable path forward that can take us off the toxic treadmill. Supporting and buying organic produce is the only way to ensure you and your family are protected from the dangers of Roundup in your food.

For more information on this issue, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450. For the future of food, our health, and the environment, tell EPA to say “No” to more Roundup in our food by July 1st, 2013.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2013) New research concludes that exposure to a combination of both arsenic and estrogen, at levels U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers ”safe” for humans, can cause cancer in prostate cells. Texas Tech University researchers revealed that humans exposed to a combination of both toxicants were almost twice as likely to develop cancerous cells in their prostate.   The study is published in the peer-reviewed journal The Prostate.

While it is established that both arsenic and estrogen can cause cancer, the research raises concerns about the dangers of chemicals in combination, and the efficacy of regulations that are established by testing one chemical at a time. Kamaleshwar Singh, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at The Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech. “The majority of cancers are caused by environmental influences,” Dr. Singh remarked to Texas Tech Today, “Only about 5 to 10 percent of cancers are due to genetic predisposition. Science has looked at these chemicals, such as arsenic, and tested them in a lab to find the amounts that may cause cancer. But that’s just a single chemical in a single test. In the real world, we are getting exposed to many chemicals at once.”

The study contributes to the growing body of research on the interactive effects of pesticides on human health and the environment.   For example, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley, conducted research on the interactive effects of atrazine and other pesticides in a study on frogs. His study compared the impact of exposure to realistic combinations of small concentrations of corn pesticides on on frog metamorphosis, concluding that frog tadpoles exposed to mixtures of pesticides took longer to metamorphose to adults and were smaller at metamorphosis than those exposed to single pesticides, with consequences for frog survival. The study revealed that “estimating ecological risk and the impact of pesticides on amphibians using studies that examine only single pesticides at high concentrations may lead to gross underestimations of the role of pesticides in amphibian declines.”

Pesticide products available for sale are often chemical mixtures of active ingredients that create a cocktail of toxins, even though studies on pesticide combinations have demonstrated neurological, endocrine, and immune effects at low doses. For example, research conducted by Warren Porter, Ph.D., professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, examined the effect of fetal exposures to   a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba exposure””frequently used together in lawn products like Weed B Gone Max or and Trillion””on the mother’s ability to succesfully bring young to birth and weaning. Researchers began by testing pesticide concentrations diluted to levels that are considered “safe” by EPA. The results were striking: Dr. Porter found that “this common lawn pesticide mixture is capable of inducing abortions and resorptions of fetuses at very low parts per billion. The greatest effect was at the lowest dose.” For more information on Dr. Porter’s work, read “Facing Scientific Realities, Debunking the ”˜Dose Makes the Poison’ Myth,” published in Pesticides and You.

The new study by Texas Tech researchers on arsenic and estrogen confirms that co-exposures have a greater impact on human health, particularly for the development of prostate cancer. Researchers treated human prostate cells with arsenic, estrogen, and a combination of the two once a week for six months to determine changes in prostate cells. The results have major implications because estrogen mimics are ubiquitous, such as bisphenol A (BPA) used as a liner in food cans. Similarly, while most arsenate pesticides were banned for use in agriculture in the U.S. in the 1980s, monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA), may still be used legally on cotton crops. Copper sulfate fertilizers have been found to be contaminated with arsenic with implications for human health and the environment. Other sources of exposure to arsenic include rice, an arsenic accumulator, and non-organically produced chicken.

Residues of arsenic pesticides once used to fight cotton boll weevil are still found in soils and are present in foods like rice. Indeed, researchers at the Dartmouth College Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program have found that rice pulls arsenic from the soil in the same way it absorbs the chemically similar silicon, calling it a natural arsenic accumulator. While most of the accumulation is sourced from arsenic that naturally occurs in soil and water, and some from fertilizer (such as chicken manure), some is caused by residual contamination from arsenate pesticides used on cotton.

With exposure to both arsenic and estrogen together showing synergistic impacts on human health, the research also highlights the deficiencies of EPA’s risk assessment process, which fail to look at chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, as well as certain health endpoints such as endocrine disruption. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for an alternatives assessment approach which rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but are unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where data shows clear links between pesticide use and cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. Regulatory restrictions that account for synergies and that begin to moves chemicals off the market are necessary for the protection of human health and the environment.

For more information on pesticide synergy, see our article, “Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure,” published in Beyond Pesticides’ Winter 2004 issue of Pesticides and You. For information on individual pesticide health effects, see the Pesticide Gateway.

Sources: The Prostate , Texas Tech Today

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2013) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to raise the allowable limits of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in certain food commodities like carrots, sweet potato, and mustard seeds. Some of the allowable limits, or tolerances, will more than double! Increasing the levels of Roundup on food will pave the way for an overall increase in the use of this chemical in agriculture. The problem is Roundup is toxic to human and environmental health. In fact, a recent MIT study finds that glyphosate’s interference with important enzymes in the body can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Drinking water contaminated with Roundup can lead to congestion of the lungs and increased breathing rate, as well as kidney damage and reproductive effects.

Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup.

Tell EPA No More Roundup In Our Diet by July 1st!

To have the most impact, EPA needs to hear directly from you with your comment in the docket! You may use the sample text below, however we recommend that you use your own words to have the most impact. Please note that only fields with an asterisk are required, and if you are not affiliated with an organization, you may put your own name in the Submitter’s Representative field. (If you are having problems accessing the docket, click here and we will enter it for you.)

****Sample Letter****

I am very concerned about the increase in the allowable levels of glyphosate in my diet. EPA should not be supporting an increase in human exposures to this herbicide, given the ecological and human health dangers that recent science has shown to be associated with glyphosate. Recent studies have linked glyphosate to endocrine disruption, increased risk of breast cancer, reproductive and liver damage. It also threatens amphibian and fish species, as well as contaminates waterways. Additionally, EPA’s review of the chemical is ongoing and must be completed before any adjustments to allowable food residues are made.

Given the available, sustainable alternatives to growing food in the U.S., including those of organic agriculture, it is unreasonable that EPA would increase human exposures to glyphosate. We urge the agency to reconsider and uphold its statutory authority to protect human and environmental health from glyphosate by not increasing the levels of this chemical in our diets.

Thank you for consideration of my comments.

Organic Solutions Pave a Way Forward

Sustainable, integrated farming solutions and systems must be instituted more broadly –where emphasis on feeding and maintaining healthy soils, cooperating with nature, and moving away from toxic chemical inputs are standard. The underlying standards of organic farming require that practices “maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.” This is the only viable and sustainable path forward that can take us off the toxic treadmill. Supporting and buying organic produce is the only way to ensure you and your family are protected from the dangers of Roundup in your food.

For more information on this issue, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450. For the future of food, our health, and the environment, tell EPA to say “No” to more Roundup in our food.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft “State of the Science” report last week acknowledging that low dose responses “do occur in biological systems” while defending its current risk assessment procedures as adequate for evaluating low dose effects. This report comes after EPA’s long running failure to fully implement a 1996 Congressionally mandated program to evaluate endocrine disruptors, and heavy criticism last year from prominent scientists who said EPA’s testing procedures are outdated.

In 1999 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to meet a statutory deadline for implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) required under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, forcing the EPA to make a settlement agreement. As a result of  NRDC et al. v. EPA (No. C-99-03701 CAL) filed in the Northern District of California, EPA agreed to start requiring screening and testing of certain chemicals varying by date, using a tiered system.

EPA’s two-tiered screening and testing system, requires that EPA will identify which chemicals are able to interact with the endocrine system in Tier 1. Tier 2 screening process was designed to go one step further, requiring EPA to determine endocrine effects at various doses. EPA is currently developing Tier 2 tests as well as selecting chemicals for screening. Despite the statutory mandate to screen chemicals for potential endocrine disrupting effects, EPA has yet to regulate endocrine disruptors through a finalized Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) and testing procedures.

In its draft report, EPA acknowledges for the first time that low dose responses to hormone altering chemicals “do occur in biological system but are generally not common.” The report states that low dose responses observed in endocrine endpoints may be biologically relevant and should be evaluated in contest with the totality of the available scientific data, including epidemiologic and human studies. While this is a great step forward for advancing science at the agency, especially when it comes to evaluating endocrine disrupting effects, the agency defended its current risk assessment procedures saying: “There currently is no reproducible evidence [that low dose responses] are predictive of outcomes that may be seen in humans or wildlife populations for estrogen, androgen or thyroid endpoints.”

The report is written by EPA, with input from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as input from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Institute of Child Health and Development, both of which review the science on endocrine-disruptors. The report will also be peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.

Last year, a team of 12 scientists who study hormone-altering chemicals, led by Laura Vandenberg, PhD,   Tufts University’s Levin Lab Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, criticized EPA ”˜s outdated testing methodologies . The scientists focused on the importance of “non-monotonic dose response” which demonstrates that some chemicals can act irregularly with greater health impacts at low doses. Generally, EPA tests the impact of high doses on humans and the environment and then extrapolates the results for exposure at lower doses. Currently, EPA uses high dose testing to predict low dose safety despite the research that shows many hormone altering chemicals do not act according to normal dose curves.

EPA’s report was praised by the American Chemistry Council, an industry-led group representing 135 chemical companies that has periodically launched campaigns to delay the release of EPA’s chemical risk assessment.Meanwhile many scientists have given EPA faint praise and much criticism. Dr. Vandenberg acknowledged that EPA’s admission that non-monotonic responses exist was a step in the right direction. However, the conclusion that high dose responses can predict for safety standards at low doses, “flies in the face of our knowledge of how hormones work,” said Dr. Vandenberg to Environmental Health News. Endocrine disruptors “are overtly toxic but act like hormones with completely different actions at low doses.”

Dr. Vandenburg also criticized EPA for using outdated science on atrazine, rather than using the multitude of current and new publications that show the, “consistent, low-dose effects of this chemical on amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds and mammals.” Similarly, the reports’ discussion of low-dose effects of bisphenol A””a common additive to plastic containers, toys, and receipts””on prostate, “are also about a decade out of date, and give credence to industry funded studies that had flawed experimental designs and failed positive controls,” she added.

Putting these chemicals through more rigorous testing that include low dose responses is in the interest of protecting human health and the environment.  “Accepting these phenomena should lead to paradigm shifts in toxicological studies, and will likely also have lasting effects on regulatory science,” wrote Dr. Vandenberg’s team.

On June 14, 2013, EPA made available the list of commercial chemicals identified for endocrine screening, which include 109 chemicals, 41 of which are pesticide active ingredients.   However, it remains unclear whether low dose effects of hormone altering drugs has been or will be integrated into the screening process. On June 25, 2013 they made that list open to a 30 day public comment period after which the OMB will initiate a review.   The review is the final step before EPA can actually begin issuing orders to chemical and pesticide manufacturers. See EPA’s EDSP webpage.

The annoucnment follows a May 2011 Inspector General report, EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Should Establish Management Controls to Ensure More Timely Results, that found that EPA had missed all its deadlines to implement the law. The report found that, “Fourteen years after passage of the FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act] and Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, EPA’s EDSP has not determined whether any chemical is a potential endocrine disruptor.

For more information on the effects of pesticides on human health, including endocrine disruption, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2013) After years of lobster decline, a new law in Connecticut seeks to protect and revive the crustacean population by banning the use of toxic mosquito pesticides in coastal areas. With the support of Connecticut’s remaining lobsterman, Governor Dannel Malloy last Friday signed into law  House Bill 6441,  which bans two chemicals, methoprene and resmethrin. Declines in the   sound’s lobster population have been alarmingly common for the past 15 years, devastating fishermen and the local economy that depends on them. The pesticides have long been suspected in killing off the lobsters; however last summer, it was officially linked when those chemicals were detected in lobster tissue last summer. Connecticut legislators say that they were convinced that banning the two mosquito pesticides after learning that Rhode Island and Massachusetts had enacted similar bans with successful results.

“The fisheries of Long Island Sound have been devastated by this lobster die-off, which has been terrible for our local economy and all the families that relied on this industry,” State Senator Bob Duff (D-Norwalk, Darien) said in a statement. “We should be doing everything we can to reverse the trend and bring the lobster population back to a healthy level. I am confident that spraying fewer pesticides in coastal areas will help accomplish that.”

Methoprene has a tendency to sink to the bottom of the ocean water, where lobsters live and feed. Additionally, lobsters are a distant cousin of mosquitoes, and the methoprene acts on them in much the same way that it does the insects. Finally, the western part of the sound was the hardest hit. Not only is this the area that is closest to New York, but it is also one of the areas more protected from ocean currents that would normally help to wash the chemical out into the open sea. In 2003, it was determined by researchers at the University of Connecticut that methoprene was deadly to lobsters at concentrations of only 33 parts per billion. The research was seized upon by the lobstering community as part of its quest to seek legal recourse against chemical companies whose pesticides they blamed for widespread lobster deaths in 1999.

A pilot program will be set up in September that will prohibit the use of methoprene or resmethrin in any storm drain or water system within the coastal boundary. Though the law is being met with resistant by some who worry about the increased risk of West Nile Virus (WNv) and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), the law explicitly allows the use of the chemicals if there is a documented case of WNv in a community with a population of over one hundred thousand residents, or per the recommendations of state environment and health officials if mosquito-borne disease is found or suspected. However, there are safer and effective options for dealing with mosquitoes and insect-borne diseases. The ideal mosquito management strategy comes from an integrated approach emphasizing education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. Beyond Pesticides advises communities to adopt a preventive, health-based mosquito management plan, and has several resource publications on the issue, including the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy: For Decision Makers and Communities.

Around the country, communities have consistently proven that dangerous pesticides are not necessary to effectively control mosquitoes and prevent outbreaks of West Nile virus. Prevention strategies, such as removing standing water and using least-toxic larvicides only as a last resort, have been adopted in such densely populated regions from Lyndhurst, OH to Marblehead, MA, Nashville, TN and the District of Columbia. To learn more about safe and effective mosquito management strategies, visit Beyond Pesticides page on Mosquitoes and Insect Borne Diseases.

Source: The Daily Voice

Photo Courtesy: Darien Patch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2013) Pesticide use has sharply reduced the regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates, such as mayflies and dragonflies, finds a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. While previous research has shown similar decreases in individual streams, this new study analyzes the effects of pesticides over broad regions. This is one of several recent findings that show pesticides pose a long-term threat to important ecosystems.

The study, entitled Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates, notes that losses of biodiversity caused by anthropogenic activities during the past 50 years are unprecedented in human history. A team of researchers sampled 23 streams in the central plains of Germany, 16 in the western plains of France, and 24 in southern Victoria, Australia. Researchers classified streams according to three different levels of pesticide contamination: uncontaminated, slightly contaminated, and highly contaminated. Utilizing a model-based approach to account for other environmental variables, the team observed that losses in taxonomic diversity were, to a large degree, determined by the loss of species specifically vulnerable to pesticides. Overall, they found that there were up to 42% fewer species in highly contaminated than in uncontaminated streams in Europe. Highly contaminated streams in Australia showed a decrease in the number of invertebrate families by up to 27% when contrasted with uncontaminated streams. The pesticides analyzed from the streams sampled in the study include several organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids and other pesticides currently banned in these countries.

Furthermore, the researchers note that  species losses were detected at pesticide concentrations that current legislation considers environmentally protective. This means, according to the authors, that current ecological risk assessments of pesticides falls short of protecting biodiversity, and new approaches linking ecology and ecotoxicology is needed. “If the aims of slowing the biodiversity loss rate   and minimizing the effects of contaminants on biodiversity are to be achieved, the existing pesticide registration, methods of application to fields, and mitigation practices (e.g., buffer zones near waterways) should be developed toward more protective standards,” the researchers state.

This study reinforces the findings of biologist Dave Goulson, PhD, of the University of Sussex, UK, who notes that bees, butterflies, moths, carabid beetles and birds (the groups for which good data are available) all show significant overall declines in recent years, particularly in agricultural regions. Dr. Goulson in his paper, An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides, discusses the impact of the environmental persistence of neonicotinoid pesticides on a broad range of non-target species including pollinators, and soil and aquatic invertebrates, which threatens a range of ecosystem services. This paper also notes that consumption of small numbers of neonicotinoid-treated seeds offers a route to direct mortality in birds and mammals. Similarly, a recent report by Pierre Mineau, PhD. finds that the major contributor to the decline in farmland and grassland birds is pesticide use. This report finds that the best predictor of bird declines is the lethal risk from insecticide use modeled from pesticide impact studies. In 2012, one study reported that widely used herbicides adversely impact non-target invertebrate organisms including endangered species. Researchers found that adult numbers of the Behr’s metalmark butterfly dropped by one-fourth to more than one-third when its larvae were exposed to herbicides applied in the vicinity of the butterfly’s preferred food source, the naked stem buckwheat plant.

Research strongly indicates that biodiversity promotes environmental productivity, stability, and resilience. In general, communities with greater biodiversity generate more biomass (the combined weight of all organisms), are more resistant to environmental disturbances, such as drought, and bounce back more quickly after being affected by such disturbances. Beyond Pesticides’ report, Preserving Biodiversity, As if Life Depends on it, notes that by targeting individual species — both as commodities to produce and pests to attack— chemical-intensive practices sacrifice the benefits of biodiversity and jeopardize the very species that comprise it. While causing harm to biodiversity, chemical-intensive strategies in agriculture are not proven to be necessary in light of effective organic practices.

The conservation of biodiversity is both a core premise of organic land management. For more on how organic management preserves biodiversity visit the organic program page. Read Do-it-yourself biodiversity, for backyard gardening tips.

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

Source: Nature News