(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2013) Loss of habitat to genetically engineered (GE) cropland, as well as increasingly warm temperatures are responsible for the dramatic decline in Monarch butterfly populations, according to scientists who say populations are the lowest they have seen in two decades.  This comes as the state of pollinators continues to reach crisis levels, with honey bee colonies also experiencing alarming declines.

Scientists who take the annual measure of Mexican forestland famously occupied by migrating monarch butterflies find that forestland occupied by the butterflies, once as high at 50 acres, dwindled to 2.94 acres. This is a 59 percent decline from the 7.14 acres of butterflies measured in December 2011. The survey carried out in December and January, reported nine monarch colonies wintering in central Mexico, occupying a total of 1.19 hectares, or 2.94 acres. The results were released by the World Wildlife Fund-Mexico, and Mexico’s National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP). This population is the smallest recorded since the Monarch colonies came to the attention of scientists in 1975.

To explain this drastic decline, researchers point to the loss of Monarch habitat in the U.S. and Mexico to increasing cropland and the widespread use of the herbicide glyphosate. Historically, for butterflies in the U.S., their key source of food, milkweed, was typically found in several key states where the butterfly feeds and breeds: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, parts of Ohio and the eastern Dakotas. But now fields have been planted with more than 120 million acres of corn and soybeans genetically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate, and many other herbicides, allowing farmers to use glyphosate to kill milkweed in the field. According to the researchers, the utilization of these GE crops has all but eliminated milkweeds from these fields, thus eliminating the butterfly’s source of food. A rapid expansion of farmland ””more than 25 million new acres in the United States since 2007”” has eaten away grasslands and conservation reserves that supplied the Monarchs with milkweed. Milkweed was once widespread throughout the U.S., but is considered a nuisance weed by farmers throughout the Midwest.

Also contributing to pollinator decline is intensive farming that reduces the area from the edge of the road to the field and management of roadsides with the use of herbicides (and excessive mowing) that also eliminates milkweeds. Loss of habitat through development of forestland also consumes 6000 acres at day or 2.2 million acres a year. Warmer weather is also cited by the researchers as impacting Monarch populations. Hot and dry conditions, which were observed in 2012 throughout Monarch habitat, have the effect of reducing adult lifespan and the number of eggs laid per female over their lifetime.

Monarch butterflies make their way from the U.S. and Canada, usually arriving in Mexico around the beginning of November, clustering by the thousands in the boughs of fir trees. Although the same trip occurs every year, no individual butterfly makes it twice, as the butterfly’s life span is too short. How the migration route lives on in the butterflies’ collective memory is an enduring scientific mystery.

By and large this is troubling news for the Mexican states of Michoacán and Mexico, where the yearly arrival of the butterflies is a major tourist attraction. For Monarch butterflies, the numbers have generally been trending downward. Of even greater concern, experts say, is the potential impact that a diminished butterfly population could have on interconnected habitats and species across North America. According to scientists, the loss of pollinating creatures like butterflies and bees, whose populations are also collapsing because of habitat loss, can result in a loss of plant diversity across the continent. “The fruits, nuts, seeds and foliage that everything else feeds on,” Chip Taylor, PhD, director of the conservation group Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas, said. “If we pull the monarchs out of the system, we’re really pulling the rug out from under a whole lot of other species.”

Researchers note that to compensate for the continued loss of habitat, refuges of milkweed must be set up to provide a source of food for butterflies. Pollinator populations have been hard hit by new farming technologies. Similar to Monarch butterflies, honey bees and other wild bees have also been experiencing a drastic decline in numbers that has been linked to the prevalent use of highly toxic herbicides and insecticides that have not been fully evaluated for their effects on insect pollinators. Recently, the American Bee Journal reported that almond growers in California may not have access to the honey bee colonies necessary to pollinate this year’s crop, due to heavy losses experienced by beekeepers.  Honey bees face numerous challenges from agricultural exposures to neonicotinoid insecticides, linked to impaired bee foraging, learning and navigational behavior. Contaminated pollen, nectar and dust expose bees to pesticide residues that are taken back to the hive, impacting colony health and survival.

Beyond Pesticides, and our partners have petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend the use of these chemicals pending a full review of their effects of pollinators. A recent report issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) states that certain neonicotinoid insecticides  pose an unacceptable hazard to honey bees. The EFSA report concludes that systemic contamination of neonicotinoid-treated crops, neonicotinoid dust exposure, and contaminated nectar and pollen contributes to declines in honey bees and weakens their hives. With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees   and other pollinators due to pesticides, and other man-made causes demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ “Pollinators and Pesticides.”

Join us April 5-6, for Beyond Pesticides’  31^st National Pesticide Forum, where New Mexico honey bee inspector, president of the New Mexico Beekeepers Association, and a beekeeper for over 30 years, Les Crowder, will discuss organic and natural solutions in beekeeping for problems commonly treated with chemicals, and the role beekeepers play in protecting biodiversity. Organic agriculture, beekeeping, resilient food systems, pesticides and much more will be discussed. Space is limited so register now.

Source: LA Times

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2013) The phase-out of antibiotic use in apple and pear production may continue beyond 2014 unless the public speaks out. Luckily, unlike the closed-door meetings that surround the rulemaking process in other government agencies, organic regulations are unique because they include a key ingredient: you, the public.

Twice a year, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) solicits comments from the public on materials petitioned for use in organic, and issues of concern to the organic community.

Below is a brief summary of select issues and proposed materials that are up for review at the Spring 2013 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting.

Your participation is vital as it will help determine the future of organic in the United States:

• Will antibiotics continue to be allowed in apple and pear production after years of delay?
• Will “inert” ingredients be reviewed after a workable policy for addressing them has now been developed?
• Will “other” ingredients continue to be surreptitiously added to organic food without review?

Your input is needed before midnight on Tuesday, March 19 to ensure that the NOSB keeps these and other hazardous synthetic substances out of organics. These materials are dangerous to our health and the environment, and are unnecessary in organic food production.

Please take a few minutes to review the issues below and let the NOSB and USDA know what you think. Or, if you’ve already commented, ask someone else to make their voice heard. Submit your comments before midnight, March 19, 2013!

For more detailed information, see Beyond Pesticides organic action webpage.

Keep These Harmful Synthetics Out of Organic

Tetracycline: Antibiotics don’t belong anywhere in organic production. The use of tetracycline to control fire blight in apples and pears meets none of the criteria of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). It presents significant adverse impacts to human health and the environment, is incompatible with organic and sustainable agriculture, and is not essential. The Board set a 2014 phase-out date and is now considering continued use in response to a petition from the apple industry.

Other Ingredients: There should be no such thing as “secret ingredients” in organic food. All ingredients, even “ingredients within ingredients” should be subject to review and oversight by the NOSB. Any ingredient of any kind in food labeled organic should be barred unless it is on the National List of Allowed Substances.

Inerts:  Since the Crops Subcommittee has created a workable policy to review so called “inert” ingredients, the process should begin immediately. Ingredients of pesticide products that are labeled as “inert” are generally not physically, chemically, or toxicologically inert. The use of a word that commonly means “harmless” has led policy makers and the public to discount the problems that might be caused by these chemicals. Therefore these ingredients must be reviewed immediately.

Polyoxin D Zinc Salt: As a broad spectrum fungicide, Polyoxin D is inherently incompatible with the basic principles of organic production. There are significant concerns about the capacity of this material to negatively affect non-target organisms, including beneficial fungi, insects, and aquatic species.

Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA): IBA is a plant hormone in the auxin family and is an ingredient in many commercial horticultural plant rooting products. However, this use of IBA does not meet organic standards””it does not fit into a category of allowed synthetic inputs, its health and environmental effects are not sufficiently known, there is no demonstrable need for IBA, and finally, it is inconsistent with a system of organic agriculture.

DBDMH: As an antimicrobial wash in meat packing, DBDMH is expected to have detrimental impacts to soil microorganisms, its products are toxic and tend to persist in the environment, and most importantly, DBDMH is “extremely destructive to the tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract,” posing a threat to workers handling DBDMH.

Keep GMOs Out of Organic Food

GMO and Seed Purity: Preventing contamination of organic crops by genetically engineered (GE) organisms is important to maintaining organic integrity. Organic growers need seeds that are not contaminated by GE genes, and that costs should be borne by the GE seed patent holders, who are responsible for the costs associated with their products.

Take Action!

You can submit your comments directly to USDA, by clicking this link. Please note that only the fields with an asterisk are required for entry, for organization name feel free to put “Private Citizen.”

To learn more about the issues before the NOSB, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage, which has our summary and positions on each of the issues, suggested language, and instructions on how to ensure your views are counted. Submit your comments before midnight, March 19.

Thank you!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2013) The bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides used for agriculture will continue to be used across the European Union (EU), as members failed to reach an agreement on the proposal to suspend their use on flowering crops over the next two years. The proposal had followed reports released by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which found the continued use of neonicotinoids to be an unacceptable “high acute risk” to pollinators, particularly honey bees. However, three EU members opposed the plan to suspend, blocking the European Commission from attaining a qualified majority to adopt the proposed suspension.

“The commission put the text to the vote and no qualified majority was reached, either in favor or against the text,” the European Commission said in a statement.

Those opposing the proposal, notably UK and German Ministers, argued that more scientific evidence was needed as a suspension could cause disproportionate damage to food production, counter to research indicating bee declines also damage crop productivity. Pesticide companies Bayer and Syngenta have pressed hard following the EFSA report to effect this outcome.

The decision, or lack thereof, runs contrary to a precautionary approach to ensuring healthy bees as critical for our food production system, as well as public understanding of the seriousness of the problem. According to YouGov poll released Wednesday by the Avaaz network, 71% of people in the UK supported the proposal for restriction on neonicotinoid pesticides, with an additional 2.5 million signatures backing the proposed ban.

France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia have all instituted bans on the neonicotinoid pesticides, including clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. However, the EC proposal would have extended ban across all 27 member states.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees due to pesticides, disease, pathogens, and a synergistic effect of other variables has prompted action from organizations around the world. Indeed, an abundance of scientific research has been released within the last year which convincingly link neonicotinoids to declines in honey bee health, honeybee deaths, and increases in bee disappearance during foraging.

The EC proposal would have suspended the use of three neonicotinoids from use on flowering crops like corn, oil seed rape, apples, carrots, strawberries, for a period of two years, with requirement to additional subsequent review.

Join us April 5-6, for Beyond Pesticides’  31^st National Pesticide Forum, where New Mexico honey bee inspector, president of the New Mexico Beekeepers Association, and a beekeeper for over 30 years, Les Crowder, will discuss organic and natural solutions in beekeeping for problems commonly treated with chemicals, and the role beekeepers play in protecting biodiversity. Organic agriculture, beekeeping, resilient food systems, pesticides and much more will be discussed. Space is limited so register now.

Source: The Guardian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2013) A group of Washington D.C. area activist led by Alan Cohen, the president of Safe Lawns for DC Kids and Critters, and Beyond Pesticides delivered a petition to the National Park Service (NPS) that urges officials to stop the seasonal spraying of Rodeo, a glyphosat-based herbicide, to control for fig buttercup in Rock Creek Park in the DC metropolitan area. The group is asking the park to adopt an alternative weed management strategy. According to Mr. Cohen, “We are not saying they should do nothing. We should do something to manage this invasive plant, but it shouldn’t be this treatment with Rodeo.”

The activist group gathered over 250 signatures to a petition that asks the park service to stop the spraying of Rodeo by canvassing in the park over several weekends and through their online petition. The group argues that spraying within 25 feet of waterways violates DC’s Pesticide Education and Revisions Act of 2012.  The group says that through this process of petitioning that they want to start a dialog between community members and the NPS on how to best manage fig butter cup. However, NPS has not been responsive to this request. The group argues that they could organize volunteers to manually remove the weed. The Department of Parks of Montgomery County, Maryland has already trained and certified more than 800 citizen volunteers as Weed Warriors who assist the park staff on a regular basis in monitoring and removing non-native invasive plant species (NNIs) from parkland.

According to a WJLA News report, “The park service insists that if people stay on trails and keep their dogs leashed there is little chance they will come in contact with it.” However, the activists refute this point. The group says they received an email from a dog owner who believed their dog was poisoned after being walked in the park following the spray of the herbicide. The dog’s owners were forced to rush their dog to an animal hospital where the dog was treated for its symptoms. Dogs and children may not understand the importance of staying on trails to avoid the chemical exposure that puts them at high risk.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the product Rodeo, is among the mostly widely used chemicals in pesticides. Glyphosate is most commonly known as the active ingredient in Roundup and is commonly used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. It is known to have negative chronic and acute effects on human health. Some glyphosate products are of higher acute toxicity, primarily associated with eye and or skin irritation. Symptoms following exposure to glyphosate formulations include: swollen eyes face and joints; facial numbness; burring and or itching; blisters; rapid heart rate; elevated blood pressure; chest pains; congestion; coughing; headache; and nausea. Glyphosate also has documented chronic effects. Studies have found that people exposed to glyphosate are 2.7 times more likely to contract non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

According to a statement by Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles, a spokesperson for NPS, “[N]o evidence has been found of endocrine effects in humans or other mammals when the product is used.” However, several studieshave indicated that glyphosate may be an endocrine disruptor as some agricultural workers using glyphosate have pregnancy problems. According to the authors of “Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase,” published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2005 June; 113(6): 716—720), “We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals. We suggest that the presence of Roundup adjuvants enhances glyphosate bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation.”

Glyphosate also has known environmental effects. Glyphosate persists in water and has a potential to contaminate surface waters. If glyphostate reaches surface water, it is not broken down readily by water or sunlight. For instance, the half-life of glyphosate in pond water ranges from 70 to 84 days. For the spraying happening in Rock Creek Park this may become a problem as the spraying is happening up to the edge of the creek. Glyphosate use directly impacts a variety of non-target animals including insects, earthworms, and fish, and indirectly impacts birds and small mammals. Because of the overuse of glyphosate products, glyphosate resistant weeds have been reported. In November 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted an emergency exemption for unregistered use of the herbicide fluridone on cotton in order to control glyphosate resistant weeds.

For more information on alternative weed management practices, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ alternative factsheets and Invasive Weed Management page.

For a discussion on pesticide alternatives and organic land management, join us for our 31st National Pesticide Forum in Albuquerque, New Mexico from April 5th-6th. Chip Osborne, president of Osborne Organics will be joined by local organic farmers and organizers to discuss the numerous benefits of managing land through organic practices. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

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

Source: WJLA News
Image Source: WJLA News, onlinemanuals.txt.gov

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2013) A group of over one hundred food businesses and retailers, and family farm, consumer, health, environmental and civil liberties groups, lead by Center for Food Safety and including Beyond Pesticides, have united to support an amendment by Senator John Tester (D-MT) (D-MT) to strike   a dangerous biotech policy rider into the Continuing Resolution (CR) now being debated on the Senate floor. The biotech industry has quietly inserted the “biotech rider” (Sec. 735) into the proposed Senate CR to end judicial oversight of the regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Groups say that this represents a serious and unique assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system, and would negatively effect farmers, the environment, and public health across America. We urge you to call your Senators to demand that Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)pull this dangerous and unconstitutional rider, and support the Tester amendment to preserve judicial oversight over regulatory decisions the allowance of GE crops: Find your Senators’ numbers here, or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your Senators’ office.

This dangerous rider was not included in the House-passed CR, and food safety, environmental and farm groups are extremely disappointed to see that the Senate has included it. Though wrapped in a “farmer-friendly” package, this industry-driven rider is simply a biotech industry ploy to continue to plant genetically engineered (GE) crops without court oversight of whether proper regulatory reviews were undertaken. The rider would not merely allow, but would compel the Secretary of Agriculture to immediately grant any requests for permits to allow continued planting and commercialization of an unlawfully approved GE crop.

The provision undermines USDA’s oversight of GE crops, unnecessarily interferes with the U.S. judicial review process, and could be unconstitutional. It is also completely unnecessary and serves only to offer “assurance” to agrichemical companies like Monsanto, not farmers.

On the heels of federal court decisions that have found approvals of several genetically engineered (GE) crops to be unlawful, the dangerous rider has been inserted into H.R. 933, the Senate Continuing Resolution (Sec. 735). The rider, not included in the current House CR, would strip federal courts of their authority to assess the legality of potentially hazardous GE crops. Wrapped in a “farmer-friendly” package, the so-called “farmer assurance provision” represents a serious assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system and would negatively impact farmers, the environment, and public health across America.

In addition to being completely unnecessary, the rider represents an unprecedented attack on U.S. judicial review, which is an essential element of U.S. law and provides a critical check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment, or livelihoods. Congress should not meddle with the fundamental principles of our Constitution — the separation of powers and the checks and balances among the three branches of government.

This provision must be stricken from the Senate Continuing Resolution on the following grounds:

• Apparent unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Judicial review is an essential element of U.S. law, providing a critical and impartial check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods. Maintaining the clear-cut boundary of a Constitutionally-guaranteed separation of powers is essential to our government. This provision will blur that line.
• Judicial review is a gateway, not a roadblock. Congress should be fully supportive of our nation’s independent judiciary. The ability of courts to review, evaluate and judge an issue that impacts public and environmental health is a strength, not a weakness, of our system. The loss of this fundamental safeguard could leave public health, the environment and livelihoods at risk.
• Removing the legal brakes that prevent fraud and abuse. In recent years, federal courts have ruled that several USDA GE crop approvals violated the law and required further study of their health and environmental impact. These judgments indicated that continued planting would cause harm to the environment and/or farmers and ordered interim planting restrictions pending further USDA analysis and consideration. This outlandish provision would prevent a federal court from putting in place court-ordered restrictions, even if the approval were fraudulent or involved bribery.
• Unnecessary and duplicative. Every court to decide these issues has carefully weighed the interests of all affected farmers, as is already required by law. No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed as a result. USDA already has working mechanisms in place to allow partial approvals, and the Department has used them, making this provision completely unnecessary.
• USDA shut out as well. The rider would not merely allow, it would compel the Secretary of Agriculture to immediately grant any requests for permits to allow continued planting and commercialization of an unlawfully approved GE crop. With this provision in place, USDA may not be able to prevent costly contamination episodes like Starlink or Liberty Link rice, which have already cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. The rider would also make a mockery of USDA’s legally mandated review, transforming it into a ”˜rubber stamp’ approval process.
• Back-door amendment of statute. This rider, quietly tacked onto an appropriations bill, is in effect a substantial amendment to USDA’s governing statute for GE crops, the Plant Protection Act. If Congress feels the law needs to be changed, it should be done in a transparent manner by holding hearings, soliciting expert testimony and including full opportunity for public debate.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2013) On March 6, 2013, pesticide manufacturer Reckitt
Benckiser Inc. requested a hearing in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Notice of Intent to Cancel 12 of the company’s d-CON mouse and rat poison products, delaying the ban that otherwise would have taken effect on March 7, 2013. This is the first time in more than 20 years that a company has declined to voluntarily implement EPA risk mitigation measures for pesticide products to ensure children are not exposed to what EPA identifies as an unacceptable risk. Reckitt Benckiser’s products would still be available to unknowing consumers until the case is resolved.

In submitting its request for a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge, Reckitt Benckiser is preparing to waylay federal law by engaging in a legal battle with EPA that could drag on for many years. This comes after EPA announced its decision to go ahead and cancel rodenticide products not in compliance with EPA’s new mitigation measures to reduce exposures to children and wildlife. Unfortunately, until the case is resolved, Reckitt Benckiser will be allowed to continue selling 12 of its d-CON rat poisons, despite the products not being in compliance with EPA standards and  putting children, pets and wildlife at risk.

EPA is confident it will prevail in the hearing but now has the added burden of defending to a judge its decision that continued exposures of d-CON products to children, pets and wildlife pose unreasonable risks. According to EPA, of the nearly 30 companies that produce or market mouse and rat poison products in the U.S., Reckitt Benckiser is the only one that has refused to adopt the new safety measures. The company will argue to continue selling its d-CON poisons as loose pellets and pastes, and other toxic formulations. The agency is advising consumers to be aware that d-CON products subject to the ban may be available for sale by some retailers during the course of the hearing. For a list of the d-CON products the EPA is working to ban, visit: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/mice-and-rats/cancellation-process.html#cancellation.

Every year, more than 10,000 children are exposed to rodent poison products, and the majority of calls to poison control centers concern children under the age of three. After more than a decade of research and review, and an unacceptably high number of poisoning incidents, EPA acknowledged that certain active ingredients are too dangerous to remain on the market, and has required all over-the-counter rodent control products to be in secured, tamper-resistant bait stations to reduce the incidents of accidental poisonings. In 2007, EPA proposed a requirement that all over-the-counter rodenticides sold for residential use only be available in tamper-resistant bait stations to reduce the incidents of accidental exposure to children. In 2008, EPA issued its risk mitigation decision under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to reduce the risks that mouse and rodent poison products pose to children, pets, and non-target wildlife, requiring manufacturers that distributed rodenticides to meet the risk management goals. Rodenticide products containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum, which are known to pose the greatest risk to wildlife, will no longer be allowed to be sold or distributed in the consumer market. These rodenticides are tied to the poisonings of federally listed threatened and endangered species, such as  the San Joaquin kit fox and Northern spotted owl via secondary exposures to poisoned rodents. However, use by professional applicators will be permitted, and bait stations will be required for all outdoor, above-ground uses for products containing these ingredients.   Those rodenticide manufacturers that initially failed (refused) to adopt the standards were given the order to remove and cancel their products.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is calling on Reckitt Benckiser to drop its legal challenge rather than engage EPA in a “lengthy and fruitless appeals process.” In its press release, ABC stated, “It is time for d-CON to put children’s health and animal welfare above corporate profits and to follow the rules like every other rat-poison manufacturer.”

Despite the availability of alternatives, many in industry argued that removing certain products from the market would lead to communities being overrun with rodents and infested with disease. While these claims are exaggerated, less toxic rodent control products and those secured in bait stations are available, shown to be effective, and more protective of children, pets and wildlife. Safer methods do exist to control rodents. For tips on controlling mice and other pests in your home, visit the Safer Choice.

Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages consumers not to use poisons as a means to control mice and rats, and especially not to use the products slated by EPA for cancellation. We believe that defined integrated pest management (IPM) practices for structural pest management are vital tools that aid in the rediscovery of non-toxic methods to control rodents and help facilitate the transition to a pesticide-free (and healthier) world. IPM, as defined by Beyond Pesticides, is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control that offers the opportunity to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides, and to minimize exposure to any products that are used. A well-defined IPM plan does this by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological and structural strategies to control a multitude of pest problems. Sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and biological control, and pest population monitoring are some IPM methods that can be undertaken to control rodents.

To learn more about rodenticides, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Rodenticides fact sheet.

Source: EPA News Release

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2013) Despite the loss of Proposition 37 in California last November, GMO labeling efforts are moving forward throughout the United States. Late last week Whole Foods Market announced its own plan to label food with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients sold in its stores, making it the  first grocery chain in the nation to do so. In addition to the recent introduction of a National GE labeling bill in Congress by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO), Hawaii, Vermont, and Minnesota join the ranks of numerous other states with pending GMO labeling legislation.

Whole Foods’ plan  requires a label for all GE food sold in its stores within the next  five years. The retailer notes that the move was made in response to customers’ increased demand for labeled products. “Some of our manufacturers say they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled [as non–GMO],” explains A.C. Gallo, Whole Foods president. The chain’s labeling requirements include all of its North American stores, as its European supermarkets already require this label. The Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA), an industry trade group that represents a number of major food retailers including Pepsico Inc., The Coca Cola Company, Kelloggs, and General Mills, but also agrichemical companies like Monsanto, Dow Agrosciences, and Bayer, opposes the move by Whole Foods. During the course of California’s Proposition 37 campaign, opponents of GE labeling poured over $46 million dollars into deceptive advertising, and still only narrowly defeated the ballot measure. As organic activist Jim Hightower notes in a recent editorial, “But Monsanto doesn’t win them all, and sometimes it actually loses when it appears to have won.” As more retailers begin to reconsider their relationship with the likes of GE producers, and polls continue to show overwhelming support for GE labeling, the movement continues to gain ground at the state level.

Hundreds of anti-GMO activists marched to bring awareness to a GMO labeling bill scheduled to be heard in the Hawaii State Senate March 14. Apart from an intrinsic right to know, organizers for the push to label GE products, such as GMO- Free Kaua’i and Hawai’I SEED, are concerned about the spillover effects of GE crop production on the islands. Many GE crops are developed to be resistant to herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, and the massive spraying campaigns these large agrichemical companies perform are affecting the health of Hawaiian citizens, the organizers say. “I think it is downright insensitive of politicians, chemical companies and corporations to not even take into consideration what they are doing and the effects on us,” says Loretta Ritte, founding member of Label it Hawai’i. In addition to the growing of GE crops on the island, Hawaii’s pristine climate is used by agrichemical giants to experiment with new forms of herbicide resistant crops. “We think that it is in the best interest of the (Hawai”˜i) Tourism Authority and all of the county agencies on the island to reform the use of pesticides to protect the visitor industry and our ability to grow food,” says Jeri DiPietro of GMO- Free Kaua’i.  Not only are these companies experimenting with new forms of herbicide resistant crops on the islands, they are also not telling the people exactly what, or how much they are spraying. Kaua’i County Councilman Gary Hooser explains in a recent blog post that these corporations are refusing to disclose to public officials the name and amount of chemicals they are spraying on the island. “For me,” Councilman Hooser says, “that alone is enough to keep me from buying their products or supporting their industry, and to support full labeling requirements.”

In other states around the country, GE labeling is looking more promising than ever. Vermont’s House Agriculture Committee recently approved a GE labeling bill. Although the bill was also moved through the same committee last year, it was introduced too late in order to bring to a  vote  of the entire Vermont legislature. The passage of the bill early in the year, notes Andrea Standler of Rural Vermont, means that it will have a good chance of making it through the legislative process. Meanwhile,  a GE labeling bill was recently   introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate. “It’s such a basic right, the right to know what’s in the food you’re eating,” says Representative Karen Clark, who introduced the House version of the bill. “This legislation is really a very moderate step. It doesn’t ban genetically modified ingredients. It just lets consumers know about them so they can make their own choices.”

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage. The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited. For many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers.

For a discussion on federal and local GE labeling efforts and what we can do to protect food security and biodiversity, including strategies to move forward, join us for our 31st National Pesticide Forum in New Mexico April 5-6. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety will be joined by local organic farmers and organizers, including: Eleanor Bravo of Food and Water Watch—NM, who helped with New Mexico’s labeling bill, and Isaura Andaluz, executive director of Cuatro Puertas and the only member of AC21 to dissent in the report on strengthening coexistence among agricultural production methods because of the undue burden it places on organic farmers. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source(s): New York Times, The Garden Island, CT Post, Natural News
Image Source: Justlabelit.org

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2013) Recent sequester cuts and new proposed Congressional legislation could dramatically affect the safety of American waterways. According to a February 25 email, the White House Council on Environmental Quality estimates that the recent sequester could reduce federal funding for state environmental programs by $154 million. These cuts, which kicked in March 1, impact all states, with California losing the most funding totaling $12.4 million. The email also contains estimates that grants to federal fish and wildlife programs would be cut by $46.2 million. As these cuts begin to take effect, U.S. Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH) introduced the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013 (H.R. 935) on March 4. This bill, which is similar to a piece of legislation that was passed in the house in 2011, will eliminate the requirement for pesticide applicators to file Clean Water Act (CWA) permits for applications where pesticides could be discharged into water.

The recent sequester has led to losses in “environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste,” according to the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The cuts that could most affect states’ ability to enforce pesticide regulations are the cuts to states’ clean water revolving funds. State clean water revolving funds were created in 1987 under section 319 of CWA. State revolving funds allow states to provide financial assistance to local municipalities to undertake water quality projects such as regulating agricultural runoff and other non-point pollution sources. Cuts to these programs may be higher than the estimated $154 million. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said in September of 2012 that state revolving funds could be cut by approximately $196 million in fiscal 2013 under sequestration.

These sequester cuts will come into effect at the same time Rep. Gibbs introduces H.R. 935. This legislation had passed the U.S. House of Representatives on March 31, 2011 as H.R. 872 but the full Senate failed to consider it during the last Congress, although it was adopted by the Senate Agriculture Committee. This bill, which has bipartisan support, would amend CWA by eliminating the requirement of a National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) permit for the use of pesticides already approved for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)FIFRA.

In 2009, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA that pesticides discharged into water are pollutants and use pertmits are required under the CWA’s NPDES. This ruling overturned Bush administration policy that created exemptions from regulation for pesticides under the CWA and applied the less protective standards of the FIFRA. CWA uses a health-based standard, known as maximum contamination levels (MCLs), to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, whereas FIFRA uses a highly generalized risk assessment that does not consider the availability of safer alternatives.

The proponents of this legislation claim that requiring a CWA permit creates a double layer of red tape that is costly to the agriculture industry and consumers. However, FIFRA and CWA are complementary laws and the CWA permit process only affects a relatively small number of pesticide applications. The two statutes have fundamentally different standards and methods in determining whether a pesticide will have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. CWA has a “zero discharge” standard, meaning any amount of discharge, no matter how small, without a permit, constitutes a violation of the CWA. Risk assessment-based standards under FIFRA, on the other hand, are weaker. Risk/benefit allows a certain amount of pollution (i.e. risk) in exchange for controversial calculations of benefit and use a threshold of harm that can vary upon EPA discretion. Since the lawsuit, EPA has adopted a general permit for agricultural use of pesticides, however, under the law states can adjust requirements for permits based on senstive areas or use patterns that they believe should be subject to health and safety reviews.

Companion legislation, A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides (S. 175), was introduced in the Senate this January by Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Mike Johanns (R-NE). The bill has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee.

A good example of problems that may arise when states cannot enforce CWA permits is captured in a recent report on water testing for a problem chemical not tracked currently in the state of Hawaii. The report found that atrazine had run off into rivers, streams and groundwater sources on the islands. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture almost exclusively relies on label compliance, according to Thomas Matsuda, manager of its pesticide program, which is similar to the sole reliance on pesticide registration under H.R 935.

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: Agri-Pulse, Bloomberg News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 8, 2013) Sugarcane and pineapple production in Hawaii is threatening aquatic life as years of atrazine applications, a pesticide regularly used for corn production too, has run off into rivers, streams, and groundwater sources.

Recent reviews by Hawaiian news service Civil Beat found that water testing for the chemical is not tracked currently in the state of Hawaii, despite requirements by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulatory limits under the Clean Water Act. Instead, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture almost exclusively relies on label compliance, according to Thomas Matsuda, manager of its pesticide program. Monitoring problems have been compounded by understaffing, with only six inspectors for the state of Hawaii. Not surprising, close examination of atrazine sales records by Civil Beat indicate that the largest buyers of the chemical are Hawaiian seed corn companies Monsanto and Mycogen. Syngenta recently reached a class action settlement in City of Greeneville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., providing the Kaua’i Department of Water with $6,692.96 for atrazine clean-up expenses.

Atrazine is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds primarily in corn crops. A potent toxicant, atrazine is known to be associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species, while the EPA acknowledges its toxicity to algae and plant life.

Clearly, there has been a major failure of the EPA to impose and enforce strong regulations on pesticides that are known to be harmful to human health and the environment. Recent reports released by the Natural Resources Defense Council indicate that one-third of waterways tested have levels of atrazine five to ten times higher than EPA limits. Likely, Hawaii has similar problems with its waterways, considering drinking water ””which is indeed tested”” has repeatedly been shown to be contaminated with low levels of atrazine, mostly on the Big Island, according to the Hawaii Department of Health. Notice from the image that Hawaii is ranked 10^th among the states for the percentage of its population exposed to atrazine in drinking water. While levels of exposure have been below the purported safe limits allowed by EPA, researchers have warned that fetal development may be impaired at levels below the EPA standards of 3.2 parts per billion.

Similarly, low levels of exposure to atrazine are known to impact plant and aquatic life. Particularly for the island state of Hawaii, water contamination has been shown to bleach corals and harm phytoplankton, an algae and important food source to much aquatic life. In fish and amphibians, atrazine can also reduce resilience against infections, disrupt endocrine hormones and slow growth rates, according to Jason Rohr, Ph.D., a specialist in ecotoxicology at the University of South Florida.

In 2011, EPA published a petition to ban atrazine. Beyond Pesticides submitted comments last year in support of this petition in which we outline in detail the numerous reasons that this chemical is harmful and unnecessary.

The role of environmental factors on growth and development in amphibians will be a topic of discussion at the 31st National Pesticide Forum on April 5-6, 2013 at University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Conference speaker Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D.,  professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, will discuss his research on pesticides, including atrazine, as a cause of serious deformities for amphibians. We invite you to join researchers, authors, organic business leaders, elected officials, activists, and others to discuss the latest pesticide science, policy solutions, and grassroots action. For more information, including a full speaker list please see the Forum webpage. Register now!

Source: Civil Beat

Image Source: New York Times

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2013) The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced on March 3rd that state agencies have been ordered by Governor Mark Dayton to stop buying products that contain triclosan, a synthetic, broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent that has become ubiquitous in consumer products ranging from face-washes to fabrics. This ban, which will go into effect in June, comes as the debate over the efficacy and necessity of triclosan intensifies in the Minnesota State legislature. A bill banning triclosan’s use outside of medical settings is expected to be introduced this week, and the legislature conducted a hearing Tuesday on the possible human health and environmental consequences of the chemical.

The state government, about 100 school districts, and local governments together currently buy about $1 million worth of cleaning products annually through joint purchasing contracts. Many of these products contain triclosan, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded in 2010 that products containing triclosan are no more effective than plain old-fashioned soap and water.

“There are alternatives, and they are at the same price,” said Cathy Moeger, sustainability manager for the Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency. “If it has an environmental benefit, why not do it?”

Triclosan has been used for over 30 years in the United States. Its original uses were confined mostly to health care settings, as it was first introduced in the health care industry as a surgical scrub in 1972.  Over the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in the use of triclosan-containing products. A marketplace study in 2000 by Eli Perencevich, M.D. and colleagues found that over 75% of liquid soaps and nearly 30% of bar soaps (45% of all the soaps on the market) contained some type of anti- bacterial agent. Triclosan was the most common agent found, and was discovered in nearly half of all commercial soaps. Other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in umbilical cord blood and human breast milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found triclosan to be present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.

There have also been concerns related to triclosan’s link to dioxin. Dioxin can be highly carcinogenic and can cause health problems as severe as weakening of the immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones, miscarriage, birth defects, and cancer. Because of the chemical structure as a polychlorophenoxy phenol, it is possible that dioxin can be found in triclosan from synthesis impurities. In addition to being formed during the manufacturing process, dioxin may also be formed upon incineration of triclosan.

Through several studies, triclosan has been shown to be harmful to human environmental health. Researchers from the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) and the University of Colorado found that the chemical impairs muscle function in fish and mice and stated that the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure.” Issac Passah, Ph.D., co-author of the muscle function study and chair of the Department of Molecular Biosciences  at UC Davis will be speaking at Beyond Pesticides’ 31st National Pesticide Forum. The forum takes place in Albuquerque, New Mexico and runs from Friday, April 5th to Saturday the 6th. Triclosan can alter thyroid function  and is an endocrine disruptor which has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development.

These policy changes in Minnesota come after a recent study that shows triclosan toxicants are accumulating in the bottom of lakes and rivers in Minnesota. Scientists tested  eight sediment samples from freshwater lakes across Minnesota, including Lake Superior.

Bill Arnold, Ph.D.,  co-author of the study and professor at University of Minnesota notes, “We found that in all the lakes there’s triclosan in the sediment, and in general, the concentration increased from when triclosan was invented in 1964 to present day. And we also found there are seven other compounds that are derivatives or degradation products of triclosan that are also in the sediment an also increasing in concentration with time.”

Some of the breakdown products that scientists discovered were polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), a group of chemicals known to be toxic to both humans and wildlife.

All of the lakes tested are end routes for wastewater treatment plants. Researchers explain that triclosan undergoes a chemical reaction in treatment plants during the last stage of the purification process, when chlorine is mixed with wastewater.

Dr. Arnold continues, “Triclosan goes through the wastewater treatment system, and the wastewater treatment plant actually does a pretty darn good job of removing it. 90 to 95 percent of it is taken out, but we use so much triclosan that the rest of it gets through, and three of the compounds we found are chlorinated triclosan derivatives, and they’re formed in the last step of wastewater treatment, when the wastewater is disinfected before it’s discharged and the disinfectant is chlorine. So that creates these three new compounds. And then triclosan and these three new compounds, when they’re exposed to sunlight, each of them undergoes a reaction that forms a dioxin, so that’s where the other four compounds come from.”

Dr. Arnold notes that triclosan and its breakdown contaminants have the potential to build up in the ocean, as well as in freshwater lakes. University of Minnesota’s research follows a 2010 study that showed triclosan’s potential to disrupt aquatic ecosystems by inhibiting photosynthesis in algae and killing beneficial bacteria.

This push for policy change is also coming from solid grassroots activist work by groups like Friends of the Mississippi River.  Trevor Russell, watershed program manager for Friends of the Mississippi River, said the decision, signed by Gov. Mark Dayton, sends an important signal.

“When the [state] steps up and says we are going to stop using, it builds public support,” he said.

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

To learn more about triclosan please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterial page.

Source: Star Tribune

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2013) Low concentrations of silver nanoparticles can cause significant disruptions to natural ecosystems, find scientists at Duke University. This research, published in the journal PLOS ONE, provides a “real-world” look at the effects of this increasingly ubiquitous material in our environment.

Although nanotechnology may have  great potential to provide critical breakthroughs in medicine and electronics, one specific material, silver nanoparticles or nanosilver, is particularly suspect in terms of human and environmental health due to its antimicrobial properties and a lack of thorough testing. Nanosilver is found in a  wide range of consumer products, including sun screen, children’s toys and pacifiers, toothpaste, and disinfectants. After the material is used, it often makes its way down our drains and into our wastewater treatment plants. Because of the material’s small size, treatment plants are unable to filter out the nanosilver. This causes them to be concentrated in the wastewater treatment plant’s sewage sludge, which is subsequently dried and marketed as a fertilizer under the innocuous label “biosolids.” Sewage sludge represents the primary pathway for nanosilver’s entry into our environment, as an estimated 60% of the average 5.6 million tons of biosolids produced each year in the U.S. are land applied.   While nanosilver is rapidly added to consumer goods and processed into sewage sludge, the emerging science surrounding this substance reinforces the need for a precautionary approach with stringent government regulation and oversight.

In order to get an idea of the real-world effects of nanosilver, the researchers created a number of mesocosms -small structures containing various plants and microorganisms intended to mimic the natural environment. Sewage sludge was then applied to the mesocosms in varying concentrations and compared after 50 days. Notably, the researchers included a positive control by creating a mesocosm with high levels of silver nitrate. Their expectations were that lower levels of nanosilver would not cause the same adverse effects as the high levels of silver nitrate. However, the scientists found a number of negative effects that were as large or larger than the effects of silver nitrate. Both microorganisms and plants were affected by the presence of low levels of nanosilver. One of the plants studied, a common grass known as Microstegium vimeneum, produced 32% less biomass in nanosilver treated mesocosms compared to the control. While both M. vimineum and another plant, Lobelia cardinalis, concentrated the nanosilver in their tissue, only M. vimineum showed reduced growth, indicating that the effects of nanosilver may vary from plant to plant.

Microorganism communities were significantly disturbed by the nanosilver treatment. Researchers observed changes in their abundance, function, and community composition. Enzymes that indicate a microbial community’s ability to decompose organic matter, and are also associated with a microbes’ ability to handle external stress showed marked decreases which fell in accord with the loss of overall microbial biomass. Along with the 35% drop in biomass was a decline in microbial diversity which occurred on the first day after the nanosilver application. This indicates that nanosilver may cause acute non-target effects on microbial communities, which jeopardizes an important aspect of maintaining healthy soil.

“Our results show that silver nanoparticles in the biosolids, added at concentrations that would be expected, caused ecosystem-level impacts,” notes lead author Benjamin Colman, Ph.D. “Specifically, the nanoparticles led to an increase in nitrous oxide fluxes, changes in microbial community composition, biomass, and extracellular enzyme activity, as well as species-specific effects on the above-ground vegetation.”

The scientists’ note that their next step is to look at the longer term effects of silver nanoparticles, and to examine another increasingly common nanoparticle, titanium dioxide.

This study comes on the heels of a Dutch study published early last month which revealed the harmful effects of silver imbued sewage sludge on earthworm health. With growing evidence that sewage sludge containing nanosilver damages soil and ecosystem health. Beyond Pesticides urges consumers to contact their representatives about this issue demand they tell the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate these substances.

Currently, the chemical testing methodologies for nanotechnology are outdated, manufacturers do not fully disclose the nanoparticles that are incorporated in their products, and there is a critical lack of governmental oversight and regulation. As there are no requirements for labeling nanoparticles in the U.S., consumers are largely in the dark. Many of the products containing nanomaterials on the market now are for skin care and cosmetics, but nanomaterials are also increasingly being used in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics. In 2009, developers generated $1 billion from the sale of nanomaterials, and the market for products that rely on these materials is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2015.

USDA organic certified products are the last refuge for consumers wanting to avoid nanomaterials. The National Organic Standards Board imposed a  general ban over nanotechnology in its fall 2010 meeting, although USDA’s National Organic Program has never initiated rulemaking on the subject.  Overall, little is being done to review, regulate, or safety test nanotechnology that is currently being used in conventional agriculture and food processing, ingredients and packaging. Avoid biosolids that are marketed as “organic” fertilizers, as they can contain ecosystem damaging nanosilver.

Speakers at the 31^st Annual Pesticide Forum will address the wide range of regulatory failures perpetuated by our current system of government oversight. Join us in Albuqueque, New Mexico from April 5-6 for a discussion on the alternatives already present and strategies we all can take to promote a future with Sustainable Families, Farms and Food.

Source(s):    Duke University, Futurity

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2013) Two studies released on February 28^th in the journal Science detail the dramatic decline of wild pollinators and their effectiveness in producing seeds and fruit on crops in comparison to domesticated honey bees. The study conducted on the effectiveness of wild pollinators, which was led by Lucas A. Garibaldi Sc.D. of Universidad Nacional de Río Negro in Argentina, collected data at 600 test fields on all continents except Antarctica for 41 crop systems.

These studies come on the heels of a possible suspension of neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), by states in the European Union. In the United States action currently looks less likely, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to register sulfoxaflor, which the agency has classified as “very highly toxic to bees.”

These studies note that even though large active colonies of honey bees are useful for pollination, they cannot fully replace the contributions of diverse, wild insects in plant pollinations. Dr. Garbaldi’s study calls for, among other policy recommendations, “consideration of pollinator safety as it relates to pesticide application.”

The first of these two studies, led by Laura A. Burkle Ph.D., was titled “Plant-Pollinator Interactions over 120 Years: Loss of Species, Co-Occurrence and Function.” Using historical data sets, the study found that more than half of wild bee species were lost in the 20^th Century in the U.S. and that the quantity and quality of pollination services have declined through time. The study also found that mismatches between when wild pollinators were active and when flowers were active was problematic and consistent with the growth of climate change. On the positive side, the study also found that pollination systems showed flexibly in response to disturbances, however these systems are also incredibly compromised and further loses would have dire impacts. The study stated, “Further interaction mismatches and reductions in population sizes are likely to have substantial negative consequences for this crucial ecosystem service.”

The second of these studies, led by Dr. Garibaldi, was titled “Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops regardless of Honey Bee Abundance.” This study also found that diversity and abundance of wild insect pollinators have declined in many areas of the world. This study then went on to examine and compare the effectiveness of wild pollinators and honey bees. The study found that wild insects pollinated crops more effectively because increases in their visitation enhanced fruit sets by twice as much as equivalent increase in honey bee visitation.

The study found that the amount of times a fruit was visited by pollinators and the amount of pollen that was deposited on the fruit affected fruit set less strongly than the quality of the pollen deposited on the fruit. On average honey bees deposited a much greater amount of pollen on fruits, however wild pollinators provided higher quality pollen, such as greater cross-pollination. Honey bees have been generally viewed as an acceptable substitute for wild pollinators; however this report highlights the importance of not just examining pollen deposits but also the amount of fruit sets. By only focusing on studies of pollen deposits, the importance of wild pollinators is understated. The study also helps stress the importance of biodiversity. Using a single species of bee, such as honey bees, as the lone pollinator of agricultural crops can leave our food system vulnerable. Lone pollinator species are more susceptible to diseases and parasites such as varroa mites, which can destabilize the colony and lead to crops being left unpollinated.

Pollinators from bats to bees have been facing greater and greater environmental pressures that limit their ability to perform critical agricultural services in the U.S. The European Union (EU), however, is looking to take steps to protect pollinators by pushing states to impose a two-year suspension of the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. The proposal, put forward at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, would restrict the application of neonicotinoids as granules, seed-treatment, or spray on crops that are attractive to bees, particularly sunflowers, rapeseed, corn, cotton, and cereal crops.

The announcement came after research conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) indicated that three neonicotinoid insecticides””imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam, produced by Switzerland’s Syngenta and Germany’s Bayer, pose an unacceptable hazards to honey bees.

In its report released January 16, EFSA concludes that systemic contamination of neonicotinoid-treated crops, neonicotinoid dust exposure, and contaminated nectar and pollen contributes to declines in honey bees and weakens their hives. High risks were also identified from exposure to guttation fluid from corn for thiamethoxam.

Even in the United Kingdom, where it seems less likely that the government will suspend the use of neonicitinoids, hardware retailers B&Q, Wicks, Homebase, and other garden stores will stop stocking products with these insecticides after a campaign run by Friends of the Earth.

“We are pleased to see action being taken in the EU to protect bees from hazardous insecticides,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director at Beyond Pesticides. “Their actions will set a precedent for future decisions at EPA.”

However, EPA has been far less receptive to acting on public demands to ban neonicitoniod insecticides. In 2012 EPA rejected a petition requesting the agency suspend the bee-killing pesticide clothianidin. EPA further jeopardized the safety of pollinators by proposing to register a new insecticide, sulfoxaflor, which the agency has classified as “very highly toxic” to honey bees.

Sulfoxaflor is a new active ingredient whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides -it acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects. Even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, it elicits similar neurological responses in honey bees, with many believing that sulfoxaflor is a new generation of neonicotinoid. EPA has noted that sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees, and other studies are reporting inconclusive effects on bee brood development, even though high mortalities were observed.

From April 5-6, Beyond Pesticides is convening its 31^st National Pesticide Forum. New Mexican honey bee inspector, president of the New Mexico Beekeepers Association, and a beekeeper for over 30 years, Les Crowder, will address the forum on organic and natural solutions for problems commonly treated with chemicals, and the role beekeepers can play in protecting biodiversity. Join us in Albuqueque, New Mexico for a discussion on strategies that we all can take to protect pollinators.

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

Source: The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2013) In a literature review published in Toxicology last week, researchers found that environmental and occupational pesticide exposure was strongly associated with declines in sperm count. Researchers Sheena Martenies, BS, and Melissa Perry, ScD., MHS., determined that of the 17 studies evaluated, 15 of them reported significant associations between pesticides and semen quality.

The researchers counted semen quality according to concentration of sperm over an area, their motility and ability to move, as well as their shapes. Researchers targeted studies on DDT, HCH, and abamectin, grouping pyrethroids and organophosphates by class. What they found was striking: almost all the studies reported a decrease in sperm concentration; decreased motility was also reported though less frequently; while morphological changes were not strongly associated in studies””only two indicated any changes to sperm shape. These findings build on a growing body of evidence that pesticide exposure at environmental or occupational levels diminished sperm health.

In addition to the U.S. findings,  studies conducted on French, New Zealander, Indian, Tunisian, and Israeli men have all found decline in sperm count. Some studies record a drop by approximately 50% between 1940 and 1990, no small amount.

These results might not be surprising as sperm production is regulated by the endocrine system, a highly sensitive system of hormone regulators. A study on Mexican workers in the floral industry, where workers  are routinely exposed to organophosphate, finds that workers not only have increased levels of testosterone, but also suppressed levels of follicle stimulating hormone and inhibin b, which are two sensitive markers for sperm production.

The study highlights the importance of generating strong pesticide regulations that incorporate endocrine disruptors for worker protection from pesticide exposure. In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with evaluating pesticides for endocrine disruption under the Food Quality Protection Act. While EPA has completed Tier 1 evaluations for 79 chemicals, it is unclear how its methodology is taking into account low-dose responses that deviate from traditional dose-response curves. With endocrine disruptors, it is only low levels of exposure that is required to severely threaten human and animal reproductive and hormonal functioning.

To learn more and contribute to our cause against the use of pesticides, join us in April 5-6, in Albuquerque, NM for Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st annual National Pesticide Forum, “Sustainable Families,Farms and Food.” With top national scientists, local and national activists, and concerned citizens as we share information on the issues local communities face, craft solutions and catalyze networks to manifest positive health and environmental policy and change. Discussions on the impact that pesticides and other endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have on human and environmental health would be led by renowned scientists and medical professionals like Tyrone Haynes, PhD, Lynn Carroll, PhD, Joel Forman, M.D., Issac Pessah, PhD, and others. For more information on the forum, visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/forum/.

For more on EDCs, download Beyond Pesticides’ Endocrine Disruption brochure (bi-fold), or read Beyond Pesticides article, “Pesticides That Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.”

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2013) Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) announced last Wednesday that he intends to co-sponsor a bill in Congress along with Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) to mandate the labeling of food containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in the U.S. Earlier this week, the Maryland House Health and Government Operations Committee held a public hearing on state House Bill 0903, which would set requirements for labeling and disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients in food.  Other state labeling efforts have been launched in California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, Missouri and Washington.

More than 90 percent of Americans believe that foods with GE ingredients should be required to be labeled; however, Rep. Polis recognizes that it is still going to be tough to get enough votes to pass. Corporate opponents have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying against GE labeling, and a bill introduced in the state of Colorado by Representative Jeanne Labuda (D-Denver) to label GE foods was stopped after just five hours of testimony. The House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee in Denver voted 7-2 against the bill just a day after Rep. Polis’ announcement. Despite testimony from concerned consumers, parents, and health advocates, the committee said the law would unfairly burden farmers and agricultural businesses, shifting the costs to consumers.

However, as it stands now, the current lax regulations of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. unfairly shifts the cost to organic growers and consumers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have high risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products containing GE ingredients, giving consumers the right to choose.

“I am proud to help lead the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Labeling Bill, which is all about consumer choice and information,” Polis said in a news release. “It’s important to empower people with the information they need to make their own healthy choices. People have the right to make consumer decisions based on accurate transparency in labeling, and knowledge is power.”

The announcement was held at a press conference at local food grocer, Alfalfa’s Market. Mark Retzloff, organic foods pioneer, co-founder and President of Alfalfa’s said, “As someone who has devoted his life and 43-year career to ensuring consumers have access to healthy organic foods, I think that consumers have a right to know how their food is produced, and the vast majority of consumers polled say they want to know if their food has been genetically modified.   A federal labeling standard for GMO ingredients is the best choice for consumers and product manufacturers, as it provides transparency on the label and requires the same labeling standard for all manufacturers, regardless of their location or production methods.”

GE food is prevalent in our food supply, however consumers have little ability to identify which products contain them:

• Over 50 countries around the world have significant restrictions or bans on GE foods.
• According to a recent Washington Post article, 94% of Americans believe genetically modified foods should be labeled.
• An estimated  85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered and 91 percent of soybeans.
• An estimated 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves—from soda to soup, crackers to condiments—contain genetically engineered ingredients.
• The organic food business, which is under threat from the uncontained spread of GE food, is estimated at 30 billion dollars a year in the U.S.
• Mandatory labeling requirements for genetically engineered food produced in the United States would facilitate national trade by allowing American farmers and companies to export and appropriately market their products to foreign customers.

The GE Labeling bill:

• States that consumers have a right to know whether the food they purchase contains or was produced with genetically engineered material.
• Defines the term genetically modified organism, including plants, animals and fish, and requires labeling.
• Provides a framework of civil penalties for violations.

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage. The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited. For many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers.

For a discussion on federal and local GE labeling efforts and what we can do to protect food security and biodiversity including strategies to move forward, join us for our 31^st National Pesticide Forum in New Mexico April 5-6. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety will be joined by local organic farmers and organizers, including: Eleanor Bravo of Food and Water Watch—NM, who helped with New Mexico’s labeling bill, and Isaura Andaluz, executive director of Cuatro Puertas and the only member of AC21 to dissent the report on strengthening coexistence among agricultural production methods because of the undue burden it places on organic farmers. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

Sources: Food Safety News

Boulder Weekly

Alfalfa’s Press Release

DenveriJournal

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2013) Last week a U.S. Court of Appeals found that pesticide restrictions to protect endangered salmon and steelhead proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in its Biological Opinion (BiOp) were “arbitrary and capricious,” supporting Dow AgroSciences LLC and other pesticide makers’ claims that the restrictions were based on “unsupported assumptions and conclusions.” The BiOp concluded that the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon, three of the most highly toxic pesticides still in use, pose risks to salmon, steelhead and their habitat.

In collaboration with NMFS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with implementation of any recommended pesticide restrictions to satisfy the mandate under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, to date, EPA has not taken any actions to implement any of the proposed measures to protect endangered salmon and steelhead, in part due to challenges from industry. Dow AgroScience LLC, Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., and Cheminova, Inc. USA first filed a suit in 2009 (Dow Agrosciences v. National Marine Fisheries ), challenging the NMFS’ 2008 BiOp to restrict  chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon as being based on numerous unsupported assumptions and conclusions, and faulty analyses. 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].” Last week, however, the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court reversed the previous decision, ruling that the BiOp is not the product of reasoned decision making because NMFS failed to explain or support several assumptions critical to its opinion. The court vacated the BiOp and remanded the case back to the district court. The decision also states that NMFS failed to supply an economic reason to ban pesticides from buffer strips of land abutting salmon habitats, even though environmental and fisheries groups argue that BiOps must be based on biology and toxicological impacts, not economic concerns.

(See the ruling here.)

The 2008 BiOp assesses the effects of pesticides containing chlorpyrifos, diazinon, or malathion on 28 listed Pacific salmonids, as required under Section 7 of ESA. Citing the goal of the recommendations, “to reduce exposure to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat,” the 2008 BiOp concludes that, “EPA’s proposed registration of pesticides containing chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 27 endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids and is likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for 25 threatened and endangered salmonids.” Further, it states, “Measured and predicted concentrations of the three active ingredients in salmonid habitats, particularly in off-channel habitats, are likely to cause adverse effects to listed species including significant reductions in survival, reproduction, migration, and growth,” and that  “EPA’s proposed registration of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of these endangered and threatened species because of adverse effects on salmonid prey and water quality in freshwater rearing, spawning, migration, and foraging areas.” Recommendations call for buffers surrounding streams and watersheds and requests that EPA encourage chemical companies to change their pesticide product labels to include buffer requirements, but EPA withheld action until the resolution of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case.

Stephen Mashuda, an attorney for Earthjustice, a San Francisco-based environmental advocacy group that joined the case defending the BiOp, predicted that NMFS will be able to supply the evidence to back up its position that the pesticides pose a threat to salmon and related species. “We’re still confident that the agency’s ultimate conclusions about the pesticides will stand,” Mr. Mashuda said. “These are three of the most toxic pesticides on the planet, to wildlife and to humans.”

NMFS has issued several Biological Opinions which call for several limitations on aerial spraying and ground application of the pesticides near salmon waters, as well as buffer zones around salmon waters and ditches that drain to salmon habitat, among others. EPA was court ordered to consult with NMFS to identify measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides as a result of a 2002 and 2007 lawsuit. As a result of these consultations, EPA in a letter to NMFS, explained how it planned to achieve protection goals through the methods outlined in the BiOps or by alternative methods drafted by the agency. However, pesticide manufacturers willfully ignored and challenged NMFS’ findings and EPA’s implementation of the recommendations. Dow AgroSciences LLC and Cheminova, in stated in correspondence to the EPA, said they were “baffled by the agency’s position,”  and that their products do not threaten endangered species. Citing their “solid scientific evidence” that they claim is “far more complete than is reflected in the NMFS Biological Opinion,” they are not prepared to make the registration revisions [to their products].

EPA, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), can force chemical companies to change their labels by cancelling existing labeling and issuing new ones. However, label changes are piecemeal efforts that do not address the larger problem that toxic pesticides pose to human health, wildlife, and environmental integrity. Beyond Pesticides calls for the full protection of endangered species through strong legislation that supports least-toxic chemical use. Throughout the years, chemicals have been poisoning our foods and sickening our children.

In a similar issue, a NMFS draft Biological Opinion found that the issuance of the proposed pesticides general permit by EPA is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species and cause the destruction or modification of critical habitat of the species without the implementation of a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA). NMFS stated that pesticide discharges were resulting in exposures to pesticide pollutants in concentrations, durations or frequencies that cause adverse effects to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat. The controversial pesticide general permit went into effect October 31, 2011 after a months-long unsuccessful  battle in Congress to have the water protections revoked.

Source: Bloomberg News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2013) The world’s most commonly used synthetic insect repellent is not  as effective as it once was, according to scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. While researchers found DEET to be an effective repellent after an initial application, subsequent rounds of testing mere hours later showed mosquitoes to be unaffected by its presence. The study, published in the journal PLOS One, underlines the need to develop safe, natural, effective alternative preventions to this hazardous chemical.

To perform their experiment, researchers took the mosquito species Aedes aegypti, a carrier for dengue and yellow fever, and exposed it to a human arm covered in DEET. A few hours later they repeated the experiment, but this time the mosquitoes largely ignored the presence of the chemical. To find out what caused this to occur, researchers placed electrodes on the antennas of the insects. “We were able to record the response of the receptors on the antenna to DEET, and what we found was the mosquitoes were no longer as sensitive to the chemical, so they weren’t picking it up as well,”   co-author James Logan, PhD told the BBC.  “There is something about being exposed to the chemical that first time that changes their olfactory system – changes their sense of smell – and their ability to smell DEET, which makes it less effective.”

The authors indicate that this current research does not contradict their earlier studies on DEET from 2010.  Published in the journal PNAS, the researchers discovered that A. aegypti females were able to pass down a trait which prevented the sensory cell on the insect’s antennae from detecting DEET. When mutated females were bred with males of unknown sensitivity in tests, the quantity of mosquitoes that were insensitive to DEET rose from 13% to 50% in one generation. Dr. Logan told the BBC that, “It was vital to understand both these permanent genetic and temporary olfactory changes that were taking place.”

“Mosquitoes are very good at evolving quickly,” Dr. Logan explains. Companies currently experimenting with genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes should take note of Dr. Logan’s statement. Environmental groups, such as the UK based Genewatch, are concerned about continued experiments by the biotechnology company Oxitec, which is attempting to develop mosquitoes genetically engineered to produce sterile offspring. The organization claims, citing confidential Oxitec documents, that there is a possibility of next-generation mosquitoes mutating further and surviving until breeding age. This would imply that the modification could only provide a temporary reduction in the number of mosquitoes, with further unknown human and environmental health effects as a result.

Scientists, medical doctors, and environmental groups have raised concerns about DEET for years – and not just because of issues with resistance. DEET is quickly absorbed through the skin and can cause severe skin reactions at high concentrations, including large blisters and burning sensations. A 2009 study found DEET to have the potential to cause neurological damage in humans, as it was shown to interfere with the prominent central nervous system enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE). AChE is crucial for regulating nerve impulses in both insects and mammals. Interference with the nerve signaling process can cause convulsions and lead to muscular paralysis. In humans, symptoms of this disruption include headache, exhaustion and mental confusion together with blurred vision, salivation, chest tightness, muscle twitching, and abdominal cramps. The study also investigated the consequences of DEET interactions with carbamate insecticides on the cholinergic system, and found that DEET has the capacity to strengthen the toxicity of carbamates, a class of insecticides also known to block acetylcholinesterase.

DEET’s synergistic toxicity with other pesticides is well documented. A 2001 study showed that a combination of DEET and permethrin, another chemical often sprayed for mosquito control, led to motor defects and memory dysfunction in humans. Although EPA does not test for the synergistic effects of pesticides, one should never combine pesticides with each other or use them with other medications. Even a drug as simple as an antihistamine could interact with DEET and cause toxic side effects.

There are many least-toxic options for repelling insects that include the use of citronella and other essential oils, like oil of lemon eucalyptus, which has been recommended as an efficacious alternative by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For more information on safer methods to protect yourself from insects, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet on repellents.

Given last year’s public health crisis as a result of a severe West Nile virus (WNv) outbreak, Beyond Pesticides encourages citizens concerned about the use of pesticides to control mosquitoes to begin attending, or encourage your own, community meetings on alternative strategies to control WNv. Contact Beyond Pesticides with any questions you may have at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

Source: BBC
Image Source: Wikipedia

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2013) Both current and future pesticide laws are under assault in several states. State-run agencies in Alaska are no longer required to solicit public comments or a review process for pesticide applications on state land due to new regulations adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). In Maine, the state Board of Pesticides Control is considering a proposal that weakens requirements for notification of pesticide spraying in fear of West Nile Virus (WNv) problems this summer. A state bill introduced in Hawaii to require neighbors to share specific information on pesticides being used to any abutting property owners was revised by various Hawaii statehouse committees until all notification rules in the bill were removed.

Alaska

The decision in Alaska, which will go into effect on March 7^th, allows state agencies to spray pesticides on state land without having the application subject to public comment. The new regulation replaces the former transparent process with one that only requires agencies to develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan and submit it to the DEC. This new regulation takes away the ability for the public’s input to have an impact on proposed pesticide applications on state land. The biggest effect of this new regulation will be in terms of how Alaskan railroad tracks and right-of-ways will be managed. Due to public opposition, The Alaska Railroad has used mostly non-chemical methods of vegetation control since 1985, the year the state took over the railroad. These new regulations could end the Alaskan Railroad’s reputation as the only herbicide-free stretch of rail in the county. However, Alaskans have also used other tactics to reduce the use of pesticides on railroads beyond utilizing the public comment process.

In 2006, several jurisdictions passed resolutions opposing the spraying of pesticides by the Alaska Railroad in their districts, including the Denali, Kenai Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna boroughs; the Municipality of Anchorage, the City of Seward, the Native Village of Eklutna; and the citizens advisory board for Matanuska-Susitna Valley state parks. The Alaskan Supreme Court also halted plans for the use of glyphosate to kill weeds along Alaskan Railroad track in 2010. Alaskans are particularly concerned with how pesticides can affect waterways and fishing. In 2008, several Alaskan Environmental groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to conduct a proper assessment of the environmental consequences of using herbicides to kill non-native species in Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.

Maine

In Maine, the state Board of Pesticide Control is considering a proposal to weaken public notification requirements so towns can more easily spray pesticides to control for insect-borne diseases.  The board is recommending changes after consulting with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Maine health authorities on preparing for public health threats from WNv and other insect-borne disease. The new changes would allow the state to preform aerial and ground applications if the CDC recommends spraying. The town would only have to give general public notice through media outlets or websites, for example, in comparison to giving advance notification to all landowners. Land owners can still request to opt out of ground spraying but would not be allowed to opt out of aerial spraying.

This proposal has raised concerns among organic farmers and environmental groups about the potential exposures to pesticides that people and crops may face. Katy Green, quoted in an article in the Portland Press Herald, organic transitions director with the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) in Unity, said the nonprofit organization, which represents some 7,000 members in Maine, is worried about “the feasibility of limiting aerial spraying.”

“If an organic farmer’s fields or orchards are inadvertently hit by drifting spray, they couldn’t sell any of those products as organic,” she said.   “They’re worried about their livelihoods.”

Evidence through scientific studies   and experiences from communities around the country has shown that spraying pesticides is not an effective or efficient way to prevent death or illness associated with insect-borne WNv. Moreover, spraying for WNv can be harmful to non-target species, adversely affect wildlife, and contaminate drinking water sources.

Hawaii

Hawaiian state legislators worked to craft a bill that requires neighbors to provide specific information about the pesticides being used to any abutting property owner who requests it. House Bill 673 was originally crafted after families living near Monsanto’s corn fields tried to get information from the company on when and what they were spraying. However, Monsanto gave these families very little information. Kauai County councilman Gary Hooser notes in a recent blog post published on the organization Hawai’i Seed’s website, “People on my island are getting sick… Yet when I’ve asked these companies directly and officially in writing to disclose what chemicals and in what quantities they are spraying, the industrial agrochemical GMO companies on Kauai have refused to do so.”

After being introduced, House Bill 673 bill was amended by the Committee on Health, which deleted the requirement that private or commercial pesticide applicators provide an inquiring property owner certain information about the application of pesticides. The focus of the bill now, after passing through two committees with amendments, is for the Legislative Reference Bureau of Hawaii to conduct a study of pesticide reporting requirements of other states. The bill, if it passes in its current form, has an effective date of July 1, 2050. Even though this bill has been watered down, there is an opportunity for the Hawaiian legislature to review other successful pesticide notification programs in the state and further amend the legislation to allow the legislation to take effect at an earlier date.

There is strong momentum for providing citizens greater protection from pesticides in Hawaii, despite efforts by agrichemical companies to spur this type of legislation. House Bill 1386 would establish a commercial pesticide-free buffer zone around schools, child care facilities, and health care institutions, imposing a 72-hour notice requirement in at least two newspapers or publications and to all schools, child care facilities, and health care institutions in the immediate area of commercial pesticide spraying.

The state Hawaii could also become the first state to impose labeling requirements   on imported genetically engineered (GE) food.  Hawaiian House Bill 174 has already passed the agriculture, and consumer protection and commerce committee and was scheduled to be heard by the finance committee on February 22^nd.

Notification of pesticide applications provides the public with the opportunity to take precautions to avoid direct exposures to hazardous pesticides. The weakening of these regulations particularly affects children, individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities, and other populations like the elderly, who are more sensitive to the effects of pesticides. For more information on pesticide notification laws read Beyond Pesticides’ “State Lawn Pesticide Notification Laws” fact sheet and visit Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes page.

Join the movement to promote policies which protect people from pesticide exposure by contacting Beyond Pesticides at [email protected], or call our office at 202-543-5450.

Source(s): Portland Press Hearld , KHON 2 , and Alaska Dispatch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2013) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has invited the public to submit comments concerning changes to organic standards being proposed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which will be voted on at the Board’s spring meeting on April 9-11,2013 in Portland, OR. The proposals will be open for public input until 11:59PM ET March 19, 2013.

The documents under Board consideration can be found on the NOSB website along with further information on the meeting, as well as where and how to register for in-person comments or to submit written comments. See Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage for more information on the upcoming issues and how to submit comments. We will be updating this webpage with our perspectives on the issues, so be sure to check back as new information is added.

Public participation is vital to the development of organic standards, as we are all stakeholders in ensuring a safe and sustainable food supply. The public comment process represents the best opportunity for consumers, as well as farmers and processors, to have a voice as these standards are debated and adopted by the NOSB. To read the recommendations from the various NOSB Subcommittees,   go to the NOSB website and select the subcommittee you are interested in from the drop down menu. The proposed recommendations are then sorted by date. You can also view the agenda and all committee proposals in the full meeting packet.

TAKE ACTION: Submit your comments on the NOSB Subcommittees proposals via Regulations.gov before Tuesday, March 19. You can search for the meeting using this docket number: AMS-NOP-12-0070, or by keywords such as NOSB, Organic, or Portland, or by clicking the link. This will bring you to a form in which to fill out your personal information and type your comment. When filling out your personal information, you only need to fill in the fields with a blue asterisk next to the label. Other fields, such as Submitter’s Representative and Government Agency should be left blank. Under Organization Name, enter the name of the group you are representing or “None” or “Private Citizen” if you are representing only yourself. You may then type your comment or upload it as a separate file. Finish by clicking the orange Submit button.

View the full docket Regulations.gov to see other comments already submitted. It should be noted that the NOSB meeting structure has been changed from how it was previously organized. There will now be an open public comment period on the first day of the meeting, Tuesday, April 9, during which you may present general comments or comments on multiple agenda items. If you wish to comment on a specific agenda item, there will be comment periods scheduled during each committee’s presentation for comments related to that committee’s items. Deadline to sign up of the in person oral comment is March 19, to reserve a spot click here.

We recommend using these guidelines and referring back to the organic law in order to organize your thoughts in your comments. This will help to clearly and succinctly lay out your points and make it easier for NOSB members to follow your reasoning.

Issues Before the NOSB for Spring 2013
A wide range of issues will be considered at the fall 2012 meeting. Beyond Pesticides will be updating our website in the coming weeks with our own comments that we will be submitting to the board on specific issues, as well with guidance that you may use in your own comments. All of these issues have direct bearing on organic integrity, so it is critical to have public input into the NOSB decision making process. As you write your comments, you may want to refer to the Principles of Organic Production and Handling adopted by the NOSB. Please submit your comments before March 19.

About the NOSB
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service oversees NOP and the NOSB. The NOSB includes four producers, two handlers, one retailer, three environmentalists, three consumers, one scientist and one certifying agent. The board is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic operations. The NOSB also may provide advice on other aspects of the organic program. For more information on the history of organic agriculture and why it is the best choice for your health and the environment, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food Program Page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2013) Scientists agree that farmland and grassland birds are on the decline worldwide, but the debate over the causes has been contentious. A study published Tuesday points to pesticide use as the single most important indicator of grassland bird declines in the U.S., raising long held concerns over wildlife impacts.

Researchers in the UK and Denmark have studied why grassland birds have declined faster than birds in any other biome –many linking declines to pesticide use– but similar research had not been conducted in the U.S. Proposed causes have ranged from: larger fields, the rise of uniform crop monocultures, the loss of native and natural habitat, the increase in autumn sowing and finally, the increase to fertilizer and pesticide inputs. Authors Pierre Mineau, PhD., senior research scientist on pesticide ecotoxicology with Environment Canada, and Melanie Whiteside sought to determine to what extent grassland bird declines were linked to agrochemical use in the U.S.

The results show that bird decline are, in fact, most correlated to pesticide use, rather than the intensification of crop production. Using information on agricultural intensity, pesticide use data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, as well as bird breeding surveys conducted by the U.S. Geological Service between 1980 and 2004, researchers found that the best predictors of bird declines were:

1. ‘Lethal Pesticide Risk’; 2. Insecticide use; and 3. Loss of cropped pasture.

“Our results suggest that the use of lethally toxic insecticides cannot be ignored when trying to identify causes of grassland population declines in North America. Indeed, they offer a more plausible explanation for overall declines than does the oft-cited ”˜habitat loss through agricultural intensification.’”

The study highlights the major difference between U.S. and European pesticide use patterns: while the Europe Union tends to ban or restrict on powerful pesticides, more lenient pesticide regulations in the U.S. continue to allow many more pesticides that are toxic to birds. With direct pesticide toxicity3.9 times more likely as a predictor of declines than loss of cropped pasture, the study has powerful implications for the future of U.S. pesticide regulations.

Our food choices have a direct effect on farmers, wildlife, and consumers around the world: This is why food labeled USDA Organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. See Beyond Pesticides’ guide Eating with a Conscience to see how your food choices make a difference.

Organic Solutions will be an important topic discussed further at the 31st Annual Pesticide Forum. Featured speakers will include Jeff Moyer, organic farm and gardening expert at the Rodale Institute and Courtney White, founder and creative director of the local organization, the Quivira Coalition. Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with local groups to bring many other speakers, top scientists, local and national activists and concerned citizens to share information on the issues local communities are facing. At the forum, participants and speakers alike will craft solutions and catalyze networks to advance positive health and environmental policy and change. Sustainable Families, Farms and Food: Resilient communities through organic practices will be held April 5-6, 2013 at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

Source: PLoS ONE
Image Source: Focusing on Wildlife

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 21, 2013) On February 6, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its preliminary volatilization assessment for the registration review of chlorpyrifos, finding that vapor phase chlorpyrifos may be emitted from treated fields at levels resulting in exposure to children and others who live, work, attend school, or otherwise spend time nearby.  In some circumstances, these bystanders may be exposed to chlorpyrifos and/or the transformation product chlorpyrifos-oxon at concentrations that could cause adverse effects. Citing uncertainties, the agency is requesting comments by March 8, 2013 on the potential risks to children and other bystanders from volatilization of chlorpyrifos from treated crops.

EPA’s preliminary volatilization assessment is also in response to a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN) in 2007, which requested that the agency revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos. In a letter to NRDC and to PAN dated January 25, 2013, updating these groups on EPA’s response to their September 12, 2007 joint petition regarding chlorpyrifos, EPA stated that, “This assessment represents a significant advancement in the evaluation of pesticide risks, as it will be the first probabilistic assessment of the risks posed by the post-application volatilization of a semi-volatile pesticide.” EPA further stated that it is “critical to involve the public in the development of this assessment before it is finalized,” given “the groundbreaking nature of the new assessment and its potential for use in guiding additional risk mitigation.” The implications of the draft assessment and possible regulatory pathways forward could be significant, particularly with regard to pesticide spray drift.

If the final, more refined, chlorpyrifos volatility assessment indicates that risks are similar to those found in the preliminary evaluation, EPA anticipates that it may be necessary to take action to reduce bystander risks. With more information, however, the agency’s preliminary assessment could be refined and result in lower exposure and risk estimates. Last year, EPA announced new mitigation measures to reduce bystander exposure to chlorpyrifos drift from agricultural fields, including the use of buffer zones for residential areas, schools, hospitals, etc. Chlorpyrifos  was voluntarily withdrawn by manufacturers from residential use after EPA determined that cumulative exposure resulted in serious adverse health outcomes, especially for children. Short-term effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos include chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death.

The preliminary evaluation of the potential risks from volatilization of chlorpyrifos supplements the EPA’s June 2011 preliminary human health risk assessment for the registration review of chlorpyrifos, and July 2012 spray drift assessment. The chlorpyrifos volatilization assessment includes approaches that the agency has used previously to assess inhalation exposures of fumigant pesticides. The assessment also is consistent with recommendations of the December 2009 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel meeting on the scientific issues associated with field volatilization of conventional pesticides.

Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic insecticide that was banned from residential applications after EPA determined that cumulative exposure resulted in serious adverse health outcomes, especially for children. Prenatal and early childhood exposure has been linked to low birth weights, developmental delays, ADHD and other health effects. Beyond Pesticides has cited EPA’s action regarding the organophosphate chlorpyrifos as a classic failure of the risk assessment process under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) —a failure that is repeated over and over again in agency chemical regulation decisions. The purpose of FQPA is to protect infants and children from pesticides, taking into account the potential for pre- and post-natal toxicity via any route of exposure, including exposures through structural and landscape uses, diet, and water. Advocates have pointed to chlorpyrifos as the poster child for why risk assessment does not work to protect the public, workers and the environment, given that safer practices, including organic practices and products are increasingly available in the marketplace.

By focusing on risk reduction strategies to come up with “acceptable,” but unnecessary, rates of illness across the population, EPA continues to underestimate the impact of the chemical’s continued widespread use in agriculture. Chlorpyrifos is a frequent water contaminant and a long range contaminant, exposing communities and contaminating pristine areas far from where it was applied. Residues in food and water continue to put public health at risk. Volatilization drift””the evaporation of the pesticide after application””is also part of the problem for chlorpyrifos, but the new restrictions do not take into account volatilization drift. EPA noted its intention to address volatilization drift when the chlorpyrifos risk assessment is finalized in 2014.

Take Action: Comments on the preliminary volatilization assessment are due March 8, 2013. EPA states that after reviewing comments received during the public comment period, it will issue a revised volatilization assessment, explain any changes to the preliminary volatilization assessment, respond to comments, and evaluate the need for risk mitigation for chlorpyrifos. The preliminary assessment is available online, and the docket is available online.

The chlorpyrifos preliminary volatility assessment , guide to commenters , and related documents are available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850 at www.regulations.gov.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2013) A new report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) has identified endocrine disrupting chemicals as having significant health implications for the global population. According to the report, these chemicals have the capacity to interfere with tissue and organ development and function, and therefore they may alter susceptibility to different types of diseases throughout life, and represents a global threat that needs to be resolved. The report cites insufficient reporting and information on chemicals in products, materials and goods and calls for more research and collaboration.

The State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals,   a joint study by UNEP and WHO, finds that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are important environmental risk factors for endocrine diseases. Exposures during critical phases of development play an important role in the onset of many diseases, affecting future generations. Trends indicate an increasing burden of certain endocrine diseases across the globe, and it is clear from human studies that populations are exposed to perhaps hundreds of environmental chemicals at any one time. This UN study, which is the most comprehensive report on EDCs to date, highlights some association between exposure to EDCs and health problems, including the potential for such chemicals to contribute to the development of non-descended testes  in young males, breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, developmental effects on the nervous system in children, attention deficit /hyperactivity in children   and thyroid cancer. The report notes that with more comprehensive assessments and better testing methods, potential disease risks could be reduced, with substantial savings to public health.

“We urgently need more research to obtain a fuller picture of the health and environment impacts of endocrine disruptors,” said Maria Neira, M.D., WHO’s Director for Public Health and Environment. “The latest science shows that communities across the globe are being exposed to EDCs, and their associated risks. WHO will work with partners to establish research priorities to investigate links to EDCs and human health impacts in order to mitigate the risks. We all have a responsibility to protect future generations.”

A healthy endocrine system is essential for healthy reproduction and development in human and wildlife. However, endocrine disruptors can change the function(s) of the body’s hormonal system, increasing the risk of adverse health effects. Chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties linked to disease outcomes in laboratory studies have been identified. According to the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), founded by Theo Colborn, PhD, endocrine effects include direct effects on traditional endocrine glands, their hormones and receptors   (such as estrogens, anti-androgens, and thyroid hormones), as well as signaling cascades that affect many of the body’s systems, including reproductive function     and fetal development , the nervous system and behavior, the immune and metabolic systems, the liver, bones and many other organs , glands and tissues. TEDX has identified approximately 870 endocrine disruptors, including chemicals like PCBs, Bisphenol A, pesticides like atrazine, triclosan, DDT and many others.

The report also raises similar concerns on the impact of EDCs on wildlife. In Alaska, exposure to such chemicals may contribute to reproductive defects, infertility and antler malformation in some deer populations. Population declines in species of otters and sea lions may also be partially due to their exposure to diverse mixtures of PCBs, the insecticide DDT, other persistent organic pollutants, and metals such as mercury. Meanwhile, bans and restrictions on the use of EDCs have been associated with the recovery of wildlife populations and a reduction in health problems.

The report identifies current needs to take advantage of existing knowledge to improve human and wildlife health by prevention of environmentally induced diseases:

–   Testing: known EDCs are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and more comprehensive testing methods are required to identify other possible endocrine disruptors, their sources, and routes of exposure.

–  Research: more scientific evidence is needed to identify the effects of mixtures of EDCs on humans and wildlife (mainly from industrial by-products) to which humans and wildlife are increasingly exposed.

–   Reporting: many sources of EDCs are not known because of insufficient reporting and information on chemicals in products, materials and goods.

–   Collaboration: more data sharing between scientists and between countries can fill gaps in data, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies.

The State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals””2012 report begins by explaining what endocrine disruption is all about and then reviews our current knowledge of endocrine disrupting effects in humans and in wildlife. The document ends with a review of sources of and exposures to EDCs. The Summary for Decision-Makers is also available.

A 2012 study from a group of renowned endocrinologists finds that even low doses of EDCs can influence certain human disorders, highlighting various epidemiological studies that show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. The authors conclude that the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses, and therefore recommend fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination to protect human health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandated to screen chemicals for potential endocrine disrupting effects. However, the agency has yet to finalize its screening and testing procedures since tasked to do so in 1996. The tests to be used by EPA were first recommended in 1998, but since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated, while EPA’s toxicological testing protocol has not been updated, according to some critics.

Some EDCs occur naturally, while synthetic varieties can be found in electronics, personal care products and cosmetics. They can also be found as additives or contaminants in food. A well-functioning endocrine system regulates the release of certain hormones that are essential for functions such as metabolism, growth and development, sleep and mood. Human exposure can occur via the ingestion of food, dust and water, inhalation of gases and particles in the air, and skin contact.

Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Disease Database  features a wealth of studies that have linked pesticide exposures to adverse impacts on the endocrine system. These studies explore outcomes and mechanisms for several health effect endpoints including cancer, developmental and learning disorders, Parkinson’s disease, reproductive health.

Join us at Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st annual National Pesticide Forum, “Sustainable Families,
Farms and Food,” with top national scientists, local and national activists, and concerned citizens as we share information on the issues local communities face, craft solutions and catalyze networks to manifest positive health and environmental policy and change. Discussions on the impact that pesticides and other EDCs have on human and environmental health would be led by renowned scientists and medical professionals like Tyrone Haynes, PhD, Lynn Carroll, PhD, Joel Forman, M.D., Issac Pessah, PhD, and others. For more information on the forum, visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/forum/.

For more on EDCs, download Beyond Pesticides’ Endocrine Disruption brochure (bi-fold), or read Beyond Pesticides article, “Pesticides That Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.”

Source: UNEP News Centre

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2013) On February 14, Beyond Pesticides joined with Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, and a number of other environmental and farmworker organizations to submit a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson, urging for long overdue revisions to the Workers Protection Standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The letter states that, “EPA’s inaction is unacceptable given farmworkers’ persistent exposure to harmful pesticides and ineffectual enforcement of the current WPS.” This letter comes after a previous petition in 2011 stressed the need for the agency to implement stronger protections for farmworkers. This letter also comes after fears from environmental and farmworker organizations over a recent EPA handout distributed during a November 2012 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) meeting that downplayed the details of a 2010 EPA document released on farmworker safety. EPA has not effectively updated WPS for almost 20 years, leaving farmworkers at risk.

Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. A 2008 study by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher finds that the incidence rate of pesticide poisoning is extremely high among U.S. agricultural workers. 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. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, they and their children, who often times also work on the farm, 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

The 2011 petition recommends that revisions to WPS focus on three key protections for the workers who handle and apply pesticides:

• Medical monitoring of workers using pesticides that inhibit enzymes necessary to the functioning of the nervous system;
• Use of “closed systems” for mixing and loading pesticides, which prevent splashing and blowing of pesticides onto workers;
• Use of enclosed cabs in tractors from which pesticides are being sprayed using an airblaster.

In addition, the petition requests a range of basic measures that would afford stronger protections for agricultural fieldworkers.

The groups argue that EPA is required to incorporate these protections into its revisions both under FIFRA, the federal statute regulating pesticides, and under the agency’s stated obligation to achieve environmental justice by addressing the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs and policies on minority and low-income populations.

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 has abruptly changed course. A handout distributed at the 2012 PPDC 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.

This recent letter submitted by Beyond Pesticides and other environmental and farmworker organizations highlights these fears and urges EPA to publish the proposed rule revising the WPS without further delay.   The letter argues:

“In sum, EPA has violated its legal and moral duty to protect farmworkers from being exposed to significant levels of toxic pesticides on the job. EPA must stop merely expressing its concern, and take meaningful steps to protect these workers, who are critical to the economy of the nation, from the pesticides they handle, including, at a minimum, adopting the safeguards we identify in the Petition.”

The letter was signed on to by Beyond Pesticides, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Earthjustice, Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Self-Help, Hispanic Federation, Kentucky Environmental Foundation, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, League of United Latin American Citizens, Migrant Clinicians Network, Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Latino Coalition on Climate Change, Pesticide Action Network North America, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste/Northwest Tree Planters and Farm Workers United, and United Farm Workers.

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why food  labeled organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. See Beyond Pesticides’ guide Eating with a Conscience to see how your food choices can protect farmworkers.

Farmworker safety will be an important topic discussed further at the 31st Annual Pesticide Forum. Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with local groups to bring top scientists together with local and national activists and concerned citizens to share information on the issues local communities are facing. At the forum, participants and speakers alike will craft solutions and catalyze networks to advance positive health and environmental policy and change. Sustainable Families, Farms and Food: Resilient communities through organic practices will be held April 5-6, 2013 at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

Source: Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

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