(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.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2013) Bats around the U.S. are being decimated by White Nose Syndrome (WNS). The deadly disease was detected recently at Kentucky’s Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, according to the National Park Service. Based on laboratory testing, three bats were discovered with WNS, coming from three separate caves in the park.

The cold-loving fungus thrives on hibernating bats, spreading in 2006 from a cave in New York State to 21 other states in the East and Midwest. In 19 of these states there have been confirmed cases of WNS, not including detections in four Canadian Provinces (see map).  White nose syndrome is usually transmitted bat-to-bat, although the spore can also spread through human clothing, shoes or gear. The fungus causing WNS, Geomyces destructan, is extremely lethal to hibernating bats–though posing no health threats to humans, pets, or other animals– killing 90% of bats where the fungus had persisted for a year or more, totaling 5.8 million bat deaths since 2006.

There are six species of cave-dwelling bats that are susceptible to WNS, including the endangered Indiana bat. There are also three species of tree-dwelling bats in the parks, but these are less at risk for contamination as they are more mobile, wintering at the park but flying to other areas in the summer. Though they are at risk for exposure to other contaminated bats, tree-dwelling bats are not exposed to the soils and particulate matter within the caves that harbor the fungal spores.

While location certainly plays a role in bat susceptibility, bat mortality is largely attributable to changes in their immune system during hibernation. Research published by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012   indicates that bats are susceptible to infection during their hibernation period as their body temperature and their immune system are depressed, allowing the fungus to spread unchecked over their wings, wears and muzzles. Without any cellular response to the disease, the pathogen destroys important tissue particularly in the wings. Infected bats often emerge from hibernation early and can be seen flying around in midwinter. These bats usually freeze or starve to death. If the infected bats actually survive the winter, they face the challenge of openly inflamed wounds prone to infection, as well as tears in their wings caused by the disease.

The startling impact to North American bats is in part because they have not yet developed an immune response or tolerance for the fungus as bats in Europe have, but may also be linked to toxic chemicals or other environmental factors interacting with the disease. In light of a 2010 study showing high concentrations of   polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), DDT, and chlordanes in the fat tissue of WNS stricken bats, it is evident that the role environmental contaminants play in the spread of WNS should be researched further.

While park officials can use decontamination protocol for visitors to the caves, unfortunately there  is little they can do to stop the bat-to-bat transmission of WNS. “The bats are moving it pretty quickly and efficiently on their own, and we don’t have any way we can prevent that spread,” said spokeswoman Ann Froschauer, of the federal Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bats are a crucial species in ecosystem functioning. They are one of the only nocturnal pollinators and the only nocturnal insect predator in the US, playing a key role both for plants and for farmers. Organic farmers in particular, are reliant on bat pollinators as a pest management tool: one brown bat can kill between 3000 and 7000 insects per night. A study published in 2011 in the journal Science estimated that bats provide $3.7 Billion to $53 Billion per year worth of pest control services to agricultural operations, and that number does not include pollination services.

Bat pollination, technically known as chiropterophily, is integral for many wild and commercial tropical fruits. The next time you eat a guava, avocado, fig, peach, clove, cashew, or mango you might want to thank the bat. Indeed, over 500 plants worldwide are completely or partially dependent on bat pollination.

Beyond Pesticides will continue to advocate for pollinator species, including bats, to learn more about our work go to our Pollinator Protection website. For more information bats  or white nose syndrome, go to Bat Conservation International   or WhiteNoseSyndrome.org.

Source: National Park Service

Photo Source: Bat Conservation International  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 14, 2013)   Beyond Pesticides’ 31st National Pesticide Forum brings together top national scientists with local and national activists and concerned citizens to share information on the issues local communities are facing, 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.

The 2013 conference will focus on building resilience in our food system and bringing ecosystems back to balance, incorporating regional issues such as water and food sovereignty in the Southwest. The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, University of New Mexico Sustainability Studies Program (UNM SSP) and La Montanita Food Co-op.Local co-sponsors include: Agri-cultura Network, Amigos Bravos, Cuatro Puerta, Farm to Table, Food and Water Watch NM, Holistic Management International, Mid-Region Council of Governments Agriculture Collaborative, New Mexico Department of Agriculture’s Organic Program, Our Endangered Aquifer Working Group, Skarsgard Farms, South Valley Economic Development Center (SVEDC).

Registration is $15 for students, $35 for activists, $75 for non-members (includes a 1-year membership) and $175 for businesses. Registration covers access to all sessions, including organic food and beverage, Friday night performance and farm tours on Friday afternoon. Register online.

Highlights from the Program:

Friday Afternoon Tour
Beginning at 1pm on Friday, April 5, Beyond Pesticides, La Montanita Coop and UNM SSP invite you to join in on a whirlwind tour of a New Mexican food hub, Food Hub Fun for Local Flavor: Healthy Food, Healthy Communities, Healthy Economy. Many of the food that we will be serving at the conference this year will come from the farms that we’ll be visiting, including Agri-cultura Network’s farms, South Valley Economic Development Center, UNM Lobo Gardens the Veteran Farmer Project, and La Montanita Co-op’s Distribution Center.

Performance Friday Night: A Sense of Wonder
A Sense of Wonder, which is written, produced, and performed by Kaiulani Lee, is the story of Rachel Carson’s   love for the natural world and her fight to defend it. It is the story of the extremely private Ms. Carson thrust into the role of controversial public figure with the publication of Silent Spring. This powerful one-woman, two-act play brings to life on stage Ms. Carson’s passionate message on the adverse health and environmental effects of pesticides, just as these toxic chemicals were becoming an increasingly common part of modern life. Kaiulani Lee brings to the writing and acting of A Sense of Wonder and Can’t Scare Me, the story of Mother Jones more than 35 years of experience in theatre, film and television.

Cutting Edge Science
Researchers in endocrine disruption, birth defects, learning disabilities and more. Featured speakers include:

• Joel Forman, MD, on his American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) organic food report
• Tyrone Hayes, PhD, UC Berkeley on frog deformities
• Isaac Pessah, PhD, UC Davis, on his research linking pesticides and autism as well as research which finds that the antibacterial triclosan impairs muscle function
• Lynn Caroll, PhD, senior scientist at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) on recent scientific literature on pesticides end endocrine disruption

Protecting Cultural Food Security and Biodiversity
Food and culture are indelibly linked both to each other and to the biodiversity of a region. Speakers will discuss how to balance the needs of all people to create a sustainable future. Featured speakers include:

• Don Bustos, traditional farmer, IATP Food and Community Fellow and program director for the American Friends Service Committee- New Mexico
• Clayton Brascoupe, founding member and program director of Traditional Native American Farmers Association
• Loretta Sandoval, owner of Zulu’s Petals Certified Organic Produce and Nursery, working to preserve local pepper and corn varieties

Organic Land Management
Researchers and practitioners discuss the most cutting edge approaches to managing land without the use of harmful chemicals.

• Lani Malmberg, board member of Beyond Pesticides and director of Ewe4ic Ecological Services which provides goat grazing service for noxious weed control and land restoration
• Matthew Chew, Arizona State University on non-native species and their ecological roles in nature
• Ann Adams, director of community services at Holistic Management International

Fighting GE Crops
From labeling food to preventing the planting of genetically engineered seeds, experts will discuss national and local policies moving forward. Featured speakers include:

• Andy Kimbrell, Executive Director of Center for Food Safety
• Eleanor Bravo, New Mexico Food and Water Watch
• Isaura Andaluz, Cuatro Puertas

Protecting Pollinators
Protecting against declining honeybee health and colony collapse, featuring:

• Les Crowder, Author of Top-Bar Beekeeping: Organic Practices for Honeybee Health and President of the NM Beekeeping Association
• Loretta McGrath, director of the Pollinator Partners Project at Farm to Table NM

Organic Solutions
Building resilience in our food system and bringing our ecosystem back to balance. Facing climate change, limited natural resources, and deteriorating agro-industrial infrastructures demand we reevaluate and change our dependence upon chemically-intensive agriculture to maintain a sustainable food supply. We will explore the ways in which policy, planning, and community-based organizing are localizing our food systems and making them more adaptable to physical and cultural change. Featured speakers include:

• Jeff Moyer, organic farm and gardening expert at Rodale Institute
• Richard Moore, program director for Los Jardines Institute which advocates for stronger
• Courtney White, founder and creative director of The Quivira Coalition

For full list of speakers,  click here.

For more information on the program, local logistics and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2013) After years of scrutiny and criticism, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson signed amendments strengthening existing standards for human research involving pesticides submitted by third parties for consideration in EPA decisionmaking. These amendments apply to studies involving the controlled exposure of participants to pesticides, with the hope that these “tougher” new standards will decrease the number of intentional human dosing studies conducted for pesticides.

Even though EPA stated in 2001 that it will not consider or rely on human studies in its regulatory decisionmaking, subsequent industry pressure resulted in EPA invoking the Common Rule (40 CFR 26 – Protection of Human Subjects) for third-party intentional dosing studies. The agency promulgated new rules and made revisions to these rules, stemming from the lawsuit and settlement by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) et al., to broaden and refine rules relating to human research involving pesticides.

In 2010, EPA published the proposed rule to amend EPA’s protocol for the testing of pesticides on humans. Now finalized, the rule strengthens EPA’s 2006 rule, Protections for Subjects in Human Research. Now prohibited is testing on nursing and pregnant women, children, as well as testing on individuals who may be unable to consent for themselves, e.g. the mentally disabled or incapacitated.  The new rule will also provide guidance to third parties, including pesticide manufacturers and other research institutions who intend to conduct pesticide research involving intentional exposures to human subjects. These guidelines will now require the submission to EPA, and the newly created independent Human Studies Review Board (HSRB), proposals for new research prior to study initiation, and additional review after completion. Materials to be submitted include information concerning the ethical conduct of the human study, including copies of relevant records, and copies of records relevant to the key ethical considerations. According to EPA, only after an external, rigorous review including opportunities for public involvement, will EPA reach decisions on whether to accept a human study.   The new amendments also implement the recommendations from a 2004 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

“With this action, EPA is underscoring the critical importance and fundamental compatibility of sound science and high ethical standards,” said James Jones, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These amendments will ensure that EPA decisions will only consider human research that has been conducted according to the highest ethical standards.”

Although these new amendments theoretically set a higher standard for the review of human studies, concern remains that EPA’s history of lax oversight and review process would lead to the unconditional approval of many questionable human studies. Beyond Pesticides believes conducting experiments on human subjects, intentionally exposing them to chemicals that can cause both short and long-term adverse effects, is unproductive, unethical and lacking in scientific integrity.

Background
Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling in a pesticide industry suit. This allowed experiments in which people are intentionally dosed with pesticide effects, and allows EPA to use these experiments to set allowable exposure standards. In such experiments, people are paid to eat or drink pesticides, to enter pesticide vapor “chambers,” and to have pesticides sprayed into their eyes or rubbed onto their skin. Following the reintroduction of human studies, and under industry pressure, EPA began developing human testing rules, despite flaws found in studies, and subsequently approved testing in children, among other allowances. EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite a Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”

A coalition led by NRDC argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the 2006 rule ignored scientific criteria proposed by the National Academy of Sciences, did not prohibit testing on pregnant women and children, and even violated the most basic elements of the Nuremberg Code, including fully informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, a set of standards governing medical experiments on humans, was put in place after World War II following criminal medical experiments performed by Nazi doctors. A settlement agreement reached on June 2010 to amend EPA’s 2006 final rule.

These recent amendments do not make any changes to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the “Common Rule”), which governs research with human subjects conducted or supported by the EPA and many other Federal departments and agencies.

Source: EPA News Release

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2013)   Is 2013 the year colony collapse disorder (CCD) begins impacting our food supply? According to the American Bee Journal, almond growers in California may not have access to the honey bee colonies necessary to pollinate this year’s crop. “We need 1.6 million colonies, or two colonies per acre, and California has only about 500,000 colonies that can be used for that purpose. We need to bring in a million more colonies but due to the winter losses, we may not have enough bees,” says Eric Mussen, PhD,  extension apiculturist at the University of California Davis (UC Davis) Department of Entomology.

The problem, Dr. Mussen explains, is due to heavy losses this winter and less populous hives overall. Some beekeepers are reporting astonishing winter losses upwards of 90 percent, and in select cases complete colony loss. Honey production in 2012 was one of the worst years in the history of the United States, Dr. Mussen notes. Less honey means less food for overwintering bees, putting increased stress on colonies attempting to fight off the spread of CCD.

CCD is the name given to the precipitous decline of honey bee populations around the world beginning in 2006. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that, on average, beekeepers are losing over 30% of their honey bee colonies each year, twice what is considered normal. However, winter 2012 may turn out to be the “worst year for bees.” While CCD appears to have multiple interacting causes, including malnutrition, pests, parasites, pathogens, and stress, a range of scientific evidence points to sublethal pesticide exposures as important contributing factors. Neonicotiniods, a class of potent systemic insecticides, are particularly suspect, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides bees are exposed to in their hive and when foraging.

Key symptoms of CCD include:
1) disappearance of the hive’s worker bees;
2) presence of the queen bee and absence of invaders;
3) presence of food stores and a capped brood.

Clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidicloprid, and new systemic pesticide sulfoxaflor, currently under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review,  represent enormous threats to the long-term survival of honey bee colonies both in the U.S. and across the globe. Most recently, the European Commission announced its position against the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, urging member states within the European Union (EU) to impose a two year suspension on their use. However, in the U.S., EPA has failed  to act. In 2012, beekeepers, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed an emergency legal petition with EPA to suspend the use of clothianidin, urging the agency to adopt safeguards. The petition, supported by over one million citizen petition signatures, targets the pesticide for its harmful impacts on honey bees.   The legal petition cites that EPA failed to adequately review relevant data to support the “no unreasonable adverse effects” standards for pollinators. Despite the absence of a relevant field study for pollinators, EPA has not only refused to take action, but is currently in the process of attempting to conditionally register another systemic pesticide “sulfoxaflor” without a long-term study on colony health.

Since the early 20^th century, ”˜migratory’ beekeepers have provided a critical service to U.S. agriculture by moving their hives seasonally to pollinate a wide variety of crops. Commercial beekeeping adds between $15 to $20 billion dollars in economic value to agriculture each year.

Almonds are one of the most bee-dependent crops, relying almost completely on honey bees and other pollinators in order to set fruit. California is responsible for nearly 80% of global almond production; as the state’s largest export, 70% of California almonds are shipped overseas for consumption. For the winter of 2010/11, California’s almond crops were worth approximately $2.84 billion dollars, with honey bees accounting for $2 billion dollars in value through pollination services.

This year, fewer honey bees could mean a smaller almond crop for California. Even the colonies that will be available to pollinate won’t be as populous, Dr. Mussen notes. “Almond growers usually want at least eight frames of bees per hive,” Dr. Mussen remarked to the American Bee Journal, “but this year they may be lucky to get six.  That’s one-third less bees per hive to pollinate the orchards.”

And almond growers pay a significant cost to get bee colonies on their farm — an average of $150 dollars a hive. According to the American Bee Journal, “Already brokers are getting calls from beekeepers saying ”˜I can’t fulfill the contract. I’m going to be short.’”

Dr. Mussen does hold out a bit of hope for this year’s almond crop though. “Bees pollinate almonds on a community basis,” he says, “The strong colonies will make up for the weak colonies. The strong colonies will clean the orchard of pollen by early afternoon and then go down the street and grab food from nearby orchards.” Good weather is also an important part of a successful almond harvest. “It’s not always  the bees’ fault if the nuts fail to grow,” he says.

Even if this year’s record-breaking forecast harvest of 2.10 billion pounds of almonds does narrowly come to fruition, it is evident that, given such sustained and continuing honey bee losses, we need our regulators to act. Now is the time to fight back against the unnecessary risks government agencies have allowed our pollinators to be exposed to. Take Action by midnight tonight and provide a public comment to EPA over the proposed conditional registration of sulfoxaflor. For additional information on what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides pollinators webpage.

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: American Bee Journal, Daily Democrat (mirror)
Photo Source: NPR

(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its decision to allow residues of the cancer causing insecticide endosulfan on imported Chinese teas until July 31, 2016. Its decision to provide “additional time to transition to an alternative to endosulfan” raises serious concerns of further exposure to the toxic carcinogen for farmworkers and consumers.

In May 2011, EPA proposed to revoke all tolerances for endosulfan, as, “It can pose unacceptable health risks to farmworkers and wildlife and can persist in the environment.” The agency proposed transition time that would allow growers time to adopt alternatives, with the last four uses ending on July 31, 2016. For tea, EPA proposed an immediate revocation, since there is little if any endosulfan used in tea production in the U.S. However, the Chamber of Commerce of the Zhejiang International Tea Industry filed a complaint indicating that it would need five years or less to find feasible alternatives to endosulfan. It also indicated that it was unable to provide comment on the tolerance revocation ruling as the EPA did not provide proper notice to the World Trade Organization. In acknowledging this oversight, EPA will allow endosulfan residues of 24 parts per million (ppm) in imported Chinese tea, until July 31, 2016. Despite the risks posed by endosulfan residues, EPA sees the decision as “appropriate,” raising questions of whether EPA is putting economic interests ahead of public health.

EPA has historically favored long phase-out periods, despite the risks posed by prolonging the use of toxic pesticides. Indeed, EPA has allowed the use of endosulfan to be extended till mid 2016 for use in livestock ear tags, pineapples, strawberries, and vegetable crops for seed such as broccoli and kale, despite the fact that the DDT-era pesticide, endosulfan, is known to be extremely toxic: More than 74 countries have already banned endosulfan in recognition of its impacts to human health and the environment. Acute poisoning from endosulfan includes headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, an increase in the risk of miscarriages and autism. It is also a potent environmental pollutant and is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life, and affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects.

Endosulfan is volatile, persistent, and has a high potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. A large body of scientific literature documents endosulfan’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media. In May 2011, endosulfan was finally added to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances. The decision follows recommendations from the December 2009 Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), which called for urgent “global action” to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide. Scientific experts at the POPRC concluded that endosulfan is likely to cause significant adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of the chemical’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media.

EPA’s announcement underscores the continuing problem of toxic contamination of commodities coming from China. China, as well as other countries like India and Sri Lanka, uses pesticides extensively in tea production. In April 2012, the environmental group Greenpeace released a report that Unilever’s Lipton tea bags made in China contain pesticide residues that exceeded European Union’s (EU) maximum levels, three of these pesticides were banned for use in tea production by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, and seven of them were prohibited in the European Union, including endosulfan and bifenthrin. Of the tested teas, 13 pesticides were found in the green and tieguanyin tea and residue from nine was found in jasmine tea, according to Greenpeace.

“Despite their statement that their pesticides comply with national standards and that they are determined to minimize the amount of chemicals, the facts prove it is nothing but empty promises,” said a Greenpeace executive, Wang Jing, at his office in Beijing. The evidence exemplifies sharp criticism that the Chinese have not adequately addressed health violations in its food sector and continues to raise concerns on their impacts to human health and the environment.

According to the Tea Association of the USA, “Tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world next to water, and can be found in almost all U.S. households”¦ On any given day, about one half of the American population drinks tea.” Of the tea that American’s drinks, over 22 percent comes from China, representing 24,821 MT of tea, second only to Argentina. Consumers ask, if EPA is concerned about reducing exposures to endosulfan, wouldn’t it put more restrictive revocation timelines for widely consumed products?

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

Take Action: Tell EPA that we need strong regulations against tea tainted with endosulfan.
We urge citizens concerned about the integrity of our food to speak out and provide a public comment to EPA. Submit your comments to the federal docket (the best way to get your voiced heard) using docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0104 at http://www.regulations.gov.

Source: Federal Register Rules and Regulations

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2013) A recent study conducted at the University of Granada, Spain and published in the Journal Environmental Research proposes a link between exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in food, air, and water and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in adults, regardless of age, gender, and body mass index. The paper concludes that people with higher concentrations of DDE, the break down product of DDT, are four times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes compared to other participants in the study. Increased rates of type 2 diabetes are also associated with exposure to beta-hexachlorocyclohexane, a break down product of the toxic chemical lindane, which in still allowed for use in agriculture and certain formulations of products used to treat lice and scabies.

The study was carried out by analyzing the concentrations of specific POPs in adipose, or fat, tissue of 386 adults undergoing non-cancer-related surgery in Spain. According to one of the authors of the study, Juan Pedro Arrebola, “Human adipose tissue acts as an energy reservoir and has an important metabolic function. However, adipose tissue can store potentially harmful substances, such as POPs.”    The study found that as concentrations of POPs grows in participants they are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. The prevalence of diabetes has increased significantly worldwide. According to a 2009 study, the world prevalence of diabetes among adults (aged 20-79 years) is estimated at 6.4%, affecting 285 million adults in 2010, and will increase to 7.7%, and 439 million adults by 2030.

POPs are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and have the potential for major impacts on human health and the environment. Many POPs are currently or were in the past used as pesticides. Others are used in industrial processes and in the production of a range of goods such as solvents, polyvinyl chloride, and pharmaceuticals. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, an international environmental treaty, aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.

DDT, an organochlorine pesticide classified as a POP, is the infamous pesticide that was the focus of Rachel Carson’s seminal book Silent Spring, published in 1962. The book details the wide range of detrimental effects that pesticides create in the natural environment, with specific focus on DDT and other POPs. Silent Spring was instrumental in setting off a chain of events including Earth Day and the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which subsequently banned DDT use in 1972.

Although DDT has been banned in the U.S. for over 40 years, it can still be present in homes and in the environment. A 2009 study randomly selected homes to be tested for 24 insecticides including DDT. Researchers found DDT in 42% of homes and DDE in 33 percent of homes. It is concerning that DDT was found in a higher percentage of homes than its breakdown product, DDE. This could mean that DDT does not degrade well in homes, possibly due to a lack of sunlight or microbes, and that residents are being exposed to current sources of DDT. Another study in 2005 shows elevated concentrations of DDT in fish samples taken in National Parks. As these studies show, once toxic chemicals are released into the environment they often times end up in unintended areas with the potential to cause long-term damage to human health and the environment.

DDT has long been connected to a wide array of human health problems beyond diabetes. A long line of recent studies associated with the negative health effects of DDT include breast cancer and autism. DDT has also been linked to Vitamin D deficiency   and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Lindane , also an organochlorine  POP, is carcinogenic and can lead to seizures in both children and adults. Lindane has not been registered for agricultural use since 2006, however it is still registered for use in pharmaceutical products such as lice and scabies shampoos and lotions.

This recent study is not the first study to document connections between organochlorines and other POPs with type 2 diabetes. A 2010 study found that even low dose exposure to certain POPs may play a role in the increased incidences of diabetes. Another study released in 2011 tested for development of type 2 diabetes in the elderly. The study found that subjects who have been exposed to organochlorine pesticides are up to three times as likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Kaiulani Lee will perform a Sense of Wonder at Beyond Pesticides’ 31st Annual Pesticide Forum. Sense of Wonder is a play based on Rachel Carson’s life, her love for the natural world, and her fight to defend it from pesticides such as DDT. 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: Deccan Herald

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2013) Despite passing the Senate Public Affairs Committee last week after an overwhelmingly positive discussion, Senate Bill 18 to amend the New Mexico Food Act, which would require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food and feed,  was “deemed lost” after a majority of the Senate, in an extremely rare action, voted on the Senate Floor not to adopt the committee’s report. Under Senate rules, this stopped the bill in its tracks and cut off any further debate or public input.

“Even though SB 18 is dead this year, it’s clear that New Mexicans want and deserve a label that tells them whether or not their food has been genetically engineered,” said the bill’s author Senator Peter Wirth (D-25 Santa Fe). “I greatly appreciate the Public Affairs Committee’s feedback and discussion around the issue of labeling GE food, as well as Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez’s leadership on this issue. GE food labels are a right New Mexican consumers deserve and, while this defeat is a setback, this discussion will continue at the state and national level.”

The bill passed the Public Affairs Committee five to three with Senators Craig Brandt (R-Dist 40), Ron Griggs (R-Dist 34) and Gay Kernan (R-Dist. 42) voting against. In a roll call vote on the Senate Floor Thursday morning, 23 senators voted to reject the report submitted by Public Affairs Committee Chair Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino (D-Dist 12). The senators, traditionally supporters of  peoples’ rights, who voted the report down were: President Pro Tempore Mary Kay Papen (D-Dist 38), John Arthur Smith (D-Dist 35), George Munoz (D-Dist 4) and three members of the Corporations Committee, Clemente Sanchez (D-Dist 30), Phil Griego (D-Dist 39), John Sapien (D-Dist 9).

“Food & Water Watch is disappointed that the Senate did not stand up for the rights of consumers to   have basic information about their food this week, but we are not discouraged,” said Food & Water Watch’s New Mexico Organizer Eleanor Bravo. “Support for mandatory GE food labels has never been stronger. Just like nutrition and country-of-origin labels before, consumers have the basic right to choose for themselves whether or not to buy and eat GE foods. The time for transparency and truth about GE foods has come and we hope New Mexico’s congressional delegation will lead on this issue the next time around. We will continue to build broad public support for our right to know.”

In other states, local groups in Oregon have been working to ban GE crops in various counties, and in the state of Washington, the sponsor of labeling Initiative 522 submitted more than the required number of signatures that will require the legislature to consider its adoption or place it on the ballot. 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.

Ms. Bravo will be speaking at Beyond Pesticides’ 31st Annual Pesticide Forum to discuss the labeling efforts in New Mexico and strategies for moving forward. Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with local groups, including co-sponsor group Food and Water Watch- NM, to bring together top scientists with local and national activists and concerned citizens to share information on the issues local communities are facing, craft solutions, and catalyze networks to manifest 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: Food and Water Watch Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to register a new insecticide, sulfoxaflor, which the agency has classified as “very highly toxic” to honey bees. Despite efforts underway in Europe to protect bee populations, and continued warnings from beekeepers, EPA is poised to allow another chemical toxic to bees into the environment without proper field studies evaluating long-term effects to bee colonies and with label statements that are impractical and unenforceable. With continuing reports of bee deaths, would sulfoxaflor be yet another bee disaster waiting to happen? Take action and tell EPA not to repeat past missteps and protect pollinators from sulfoxaflor by providing a public comment to EPA.   (see below for sample comments).

Last month, EPA opened the comment period for the proposed conditional registration of sulfoxaflor, 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 the new generation of neonicotinoid.  EPA has noted that sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees, and other studies reporting inconclusive effects on bee brood development, even though high mortalities were observed. Despite this, the agency believes that observed adverse effects in bees are “relatively short-lived” even though a long- term study on colony health is still outstanding.   According to the agency, sulfoxaflor residues in nectar and pollen are estimated to exceed levels of concern for honey bees, and so EPA is proposing to lower the application rate from that initially requested by the registrant, Dow AgroSciences LLC, as well as reduce minimum spray intervals. However, given sulfoxaflor’s highly neurotoxic nature, and that pertinent data gaps exists (i.e. field studies for bee colony strength and for assessing residues in bee attractive crops), it is irresponsible for EPA to allow sulfoxaflor into the environment.

EPA has routinely allowed chemicals into the environment without a firm understanding of human and ecological effects. In fact, in spite of not being formally registered, sulfoxaflor has been granted for use through emergency use permits (section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) by various states on cotton in 2012. This means that without proper ecological assessments, sulfoxaflor was introduced into the environment posing unknown risks to honey bees for some time now. Similarly, label statements proposed for sulfoxaflor underscore the potential risks to bees, but like most product labels may be unrealistic and unenforceable.

The case of sulfoxaflor is reminiscent of clothianidin,   a neonicotinoid highly toxic to bees, which was conditionally registered in 2003 without the required field studies for assessing risks to honey bees. Clothianidin, and its parent compound, thiamethoxam, have since been linked to bee decline and are now subject to restrictions  in Europe. Clothianidin is primarily used as a seed treatment on corn and translocates throughout the plant to pollen and nectar, which exposes bees to residues which leads to disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior. Sublethal exposures have been shown to decrease foraging activity, along with olfactory learning performance and decrease hive activity.

Just last week, the European Commission announced its position against the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, pushing nations within the European Union (EU) to impose a two year suspension on their use. 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. This announcement was issued in reaction to a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report that three neonicotinoid insecticides ””imidacloprid, clothianidin,   and thiamethoxam,  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. High risks were also identified from exposure to guttation fluid from corn for thiamethoxam.

Additionally, the human health assessment for sulfoxaflor reveals the occurrence of developmental abnormalities in laboratory organisms, as well as an increased incidence of several types of tumors in both male and female rats and mice, leading EPA to classify sulfoxaflor as “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.”  Sulfoxaflor is proposed for use on various agricultural commodities, including numerous vegetables, canola, soybeans, beans, turfgrass and wheat among others for aerial and ground broadcast applications. There are currently no residential uses requested for sulfoxaflor.

New Mexican honey bee inspector, president of the New Mexico Beekeepers Association, and a beekeeper for over 30 years, Les Crowder, will be speaking at Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st National Pesticide Forum,   addressing 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.

Take Action: Tell EPA Not To Repeat Missteps of the Past and Protect Pollinators. Send a Public Comment to EPA!
Given recent action in Europe to protect pollinators from hazardous pesticides, EPA should be doing the same in the U.S. Sulfoxaflor is too toxic to honey bees to be allow widespread use in the environment. Submit your comments to the federal docket (the best way to get your voiced heard) using docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889   by February 12, 2013.

(If you have problems accessing the docket, click here)

Sample Public Comment:

To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

I am writing to express concern regarding the proposed conditional registration of the new pesticide active ingredient, sulfoxaflor. This chemical is highly toxic to honey bees and its use will compound the already growing problem of bee decline. There are many aspects of EPA’s risk assessment for sulfoxaflor that I find troubling and which I believe should disqualify this chemical from being granted conditional registration.

Sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees according to EPA, and there are still outstanding ecological data regarding honey bees, including field studies for assessing colony heath. Given the global phenomenon of bee population decline and the recent precautions taken in the European Union to protect bee health with the pending suspension of certain pesticides known to elicit adverse effects in bees, it is irresponsible that the agency would allow yet another chemical with a high potential to be hazardous to bee health into the environment, with unknown risks.

With continuing reports of bee deaths, I am concerned that sulfoxaflor may create yet another bee calamity. I urge the agency to protect honeybees and reject the pending registration for sulfoxaflor..

Thank you,
Your_Name

(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2013) Although nanoparticles are increasingly added to a wide range of consumer products, very little is known about the potential risks these materials pose to the health of our environment. A study by the Dutch research institute Alterra looked at the effects of nanoparticles on earthworms, revealing the ability of nanomaterials to cause significant harm to the beneficial organisms.

Earthworms are excellent indicators of soil health, and provide vitally important ecosystem services by aerating the soil, cycling nutrients, and increasing microbial activity. The Alterra study, led by Doctoral candidate Merel van der Ploeg, compared the health and growth of earthworms in soil containing carbon and silver nanoparticles at varying amounts with worms in regular soil. Mr. Van der Ploeg found the soil containing nanoparticles reduced reproduction, slowed growth, and increased the mortality rate of exposed earthworms. Young worms are particularly sensitive to the effects of the nanomaterial.

Mr. Van der Ploeg notes, “I also found damage to the skin tissue and intestinal wall, often accompanied by damage to the underlying muscle, but even though tissue damage is usually associated with inflammation, I did not observe this in the earthworms. There seemed to be a suppression of the immune system.”

The results of this research reinforce calls by environmental groups to increase federal oversight of nanomaterials. Previous studies have also shown nanoparticles to cause negative impacts on the environment. A 2010 study found that silver nanoparticles can harm plant life at levels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported finding in biosolids (sewage sludge). Where silver nanoparticles were present in the soil, plant species were reduced by 22 percent, with an additional 20 percent reduction of microbial biomass, as compared to those plants without the presence of nanoparticles. A 2012 study   on zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles, found in cosmetic products and diesel fuels respectively, demonstrated the capacity for nanoparticles to accumulate in plant tissue and impair the ability of leguminous plants to fix nitrogen from the air. Additional research published in 2010 describes the toxicity of nanosilver products on fat head minnows, with the particles causing developmental deformities and death.

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. Whether via biosolids, from impregnated clothing, or the range of other products containing nanomaterials, these particles are entering our environment and our food chain, with little information on their environmental fate or potential health impacts.

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.

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 for a discussion on the alternatives already present and strategies we all can take to promote their adoption into mainstream consumer sentiments.

Sources: Bloomberg,   Wageningen UR

Photo Credit: Phys.org

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2013) U.S. Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Mike Johanns (R-NE) re-introduced legislation that would reduce the review requirements for pesticides applied directly to water. Similar legislation was passed in the House of Representatives in March 2011. The previous Senate version of the bill, called the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, passed through the Senate Agriculture Committee but never reached the Senate floor because of a hold placed on the legislation by Senators Barbra Boxer (D-CA) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD). This re-introduced legislation would reduce pesticide testing by ensuring that Clean Water Act (CWA) permits are not required for the application of pesticides.

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 required to be permitted under the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This ruling overturned Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under the CWA and applied the less protective standards of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (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 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. The CWA statute is more stringent than FIFRA. 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, on the other hand, used under FIFRA, is weaker than a “zero” standard. 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 CWA statute is more stringent in its oversight of U.S. waterways, and thus provides increased safeguards for human health and the environment, FIFRA should not be allowed to override the CWA.

Proponents of this legislation also claim that this permit process would restrict public health officials from using pesticides to control mosquitoes and the spread of West Nile virus (WNv). However, as evidenced through scientific studies and experiences from communities around the country, 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.

EPA first proposed draft language   in June 2010 for a Pesticide General Permit (PGP) in response to the court ruling. Under the PGP, pesticide applicators are required to reduce pesticide discharges by using the lowest effective amount of pesticide, and prevent leaks and spills, in addition to reporting any pesticide-related incidents. Pesticide applicators that exceed annual treatment area thresholds would be required to apply integrated pest management (IPM) practices, as defined by the agency. EPA’s brand of IPM is “a program of prevention, monitoring, and control, that when done correctly can greatly reduce or eliminate the amount of pesticides used.” Before the application of a pesticide, the applicator would be required to identify the specific pests, and causes of infestation. The pesticide applicator must then evaluate the following management options before selecting a pesticides: (1) no action, (2) preventive measures, (3) mechanical control, (4) cultural methods, and (5) biological control agents. EPA estimates the regulations now in place affect 365,000 pesticide applicators that use an estimated 5.6 million pounds of pesticides annually.

Waterways in the United States are increasingly imperiled from excessive pesticide contamination, and these toxic chemicals are a threat to people and wildlife. Pesticides discharged in our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams can harm or kill fish and amphibians. These toxicants have the potential to accumulate in the fish we eat and the water we drink. By eliminating the permit process under CWA, this legislation would create a dangerous vacuum in protecting wildlife, human health and natural ecosystems.

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
Image Source: United States Geographic Survey

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2013) The European Commission announced yesterday its position against the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, pushing nations within the European Union (EU) to impose a two year suspension on their use. 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. Environmental groups say that this decision should signal the way forward for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend neonicotinoids in the U.S.

“It’s a great thing,” said New York beekeeper Jim Doan, “I’m hoping that the EPA follows in their footsteps. While I recognize our government works differently, it says something that the European government has recognized the overwhelming data on the impact of these pesticides.”

The announcement comes on the heels of research conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which 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^th, 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.

“Independent science increasingly points to pesticides, especially neonicotinoids, as a critical factor in honeybee declines. Europe’s action, based on this growing body of research, should spur EPA to impose new restrictions on these pesticides,” said Paul Towers, a spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network North America.

In light of these findings, the EU Commission is urging member states to suspend neonicotinoid treatment on crops that are considered attractive to bees, i.e. flowering crops. Commission health spokesman Frederic Vincent indicated that, “We hope the regulation can be adopted before March,” and at the latest by July 1, 2013.

“Our declining U.S. honey bees, bumblebees and other pollinators, and of course our struggling beekeepers nationwide, need at least the same protections from the far-too-deadly neonicotinoids as their European counterparts are getting,” said Peter Jenkins, attorney at the Center for Food Safety.

“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.”

Beekeepers and environmental groups including the Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides and the Pesticide Action Network North America, filed an emergency legal petition in 2012 with the EPA seeking an immediate halt to the use of clothianidin until adequate studies have been completed and safeguards put in place. The agency denied the petition and is considering other less immediate action.

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

Source: Europa

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to go ahead with the cancellation of 12 rodenticide products which posed “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” The decision came after manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser’s refusal to adopt EPA safety standards for its d-CON mouse and rat control products.

The action follows EPA’s Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC), issued in 2011, to Reckitt Benckiser and two other companies, Liphatech and Spectrum Group Division of United Industries Corporation, which voluntarily removed eight of their products from the market and were therefore not listed for cancelation by EPA.

EPA requires that rodenticide products sold to individual consumers are in tamper-resistant bait stations, rather than in pellet or powder form. Additionally, EPA recognizes the risks that rodenticide products containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum pose to wildlife and will no longer allow them to be sold or distributed in the consumer market. However, use by professional applicators and in agriculture will still be permitted as long as they are in bait stations. EPA says this will reduce the amount of product in the environment, providing additional protection for wildlife from poisonings by these more toxic and persistent products. However, many wildlife poisonings do not come from direct contact with the bait. These rodenticides have been tied to the poisonings of federally listed threatened and endangered species, such as  the San Joaquin kit fox and Northern spotted owl. Rodents can feed on poisoned bait multiple times before death, and as a result their carcasses contain residues that may be many times the lethal dose. Poisonings occur when predators or scavengers feed on these poisoned rodents.

While Beyond Pesticides commends EPA for following through with its NOIC in order to protect residential consumers and children, unfortunately,  there are several shortcomings to its decision. Human and wildlife exposures to these toxic chemicals, though slightly minimized, will nevertheless continue because of their continued availability for use in agricultural production and to pest control operators. Pest control operators will still be allowed to use these chemicals in homes, at their discretion, which means residential exposures continue, albeit at slightly lower levels. These measures also do not apply to rodenticide field uses, or to tracking powder products, which may utilize any of the ten rodenticides, and thus continue to impact residential consumers and non-target wildlife.

EPA expects Reckitt Benckiser will request an administrative hearing to challenge the ruling, and if so   the company’s products can continue to be sold until a finding is made. EPA official Rusty Wasem estimated that if the company decides to challenge the decision, it will be another 12 to 18 months before the products are canceled.

For more information on rodenticides and their impacts on human health, wildlife, pets, and the environment, read Beyond Pesticides’ recent article in Pesticides and You. Or for least toxic control of mice and other pests, visit the alternatives page.

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

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2012) A new study finds that a mother’s exposure to pesticides before, during and after pregnancy may increase the risk of infant leukemia diagnosed before the age of two. Researchers in Brazil found that children are twice as likely to develop the rare cancers if their mothers were exposed three months before conception when compared to mothers who reported no exposures. A mother’s exposure at any time to the insecticide permethrin also raised the cancer risk for infants. The results support recommendations for women of reproductive age to minimize their pesticide exposure before and during pregnancy and while breastfeeding, and adds to the growing weight of evidence of the dangers of using synthetic pyrethroid pesticides.

The study, entitled, “In utero pesticide exposure and leukemia in Brazilian children less than 2 years of age,” is published in Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers asked mothers in Brazil about their pesticide exposure three months before pregnancy, while pregnant and three months after pregnancy when they were nursing. The women reported their home, work and agricultural contact with pesticides (at least once) between 1999 and 2007. Pesticide exposures from mothers of 252 children younger than two years old and diagnosed with either acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were compared to exposures from mothers of 423 children of the same age without cancer. Researchers found that children from birth to 11 months old whose mothers were exposed to pesticides during pregnancy are two times more likely to be diagnosed with ALL and five times more likely to be diagnosed with AML, compared to children of mothers who did not report such use. Children 12 to 23 months old whose mothers reported pesticide use during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with ALL compared to those who did not report such exposure.

The findings support previous studies that indicate maternal pesticide exposure may play a role in childhood leukemia. Prenatal pesticide exposure has been linked to leukemia in older children. Few of these studies have looked at infants and toddlers or considered household pesticide use during the prenatal period. Also, most of the studies focused on occupational exposures.

Permethrin belongs to the chemical class of synthetic pyrethroid pesticides, which are chemically formulated versions of the natural-based pesticide pyrethrum, made from extracts from plants in the chrysanthemum family. Synthetic pyrethroids are one of the most widely used class of insecticides around the home, due in part to the prevalent myth that it is “natural,” and safer than organophosphate insecticides, which have been phased-out of most residential uses. Unfortunately, they have not been widely evaluated for developmental toxicity, despite the fact that they are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore more potent to insects and pose elevated risks to humans. Permethrin is a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, and exposure can cause immunotoxicity, and reproductive effects.

Ignoring a wealth of independent data that links this class of chemicals to certain cancers, respiratory and reproductive problems, and the onset of insect resistance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroid class of insecticides in 2011, concluding that these pesticides “do not pose risk concerns for children or adults.” However, serious issues, such as the carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting potential of several pyrethroids, are not mentioned in EPA’s risk assessment even though a another study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that low-dose, short-term exposure to esfenvalerate, a synthetic pyrethroid pesticide, delays the onset of puberty in at doses two times lower than EPA’s stated no observable effect level.

Beyond Pesticides has long documented the increased risk pesticides pose to young children and pregnant mothers. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides. Synthetic pyrethroids are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore are more potent to insects and pose elevated risks to humans. Exposure to these chemicals can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. Many synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system, and increase chances of breast cancer. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks.

Given such compelling research on the risks associated with childhood exposure to pesticides, it is concerning how prevalent and persistent pesticides are in our living environment, and particularly in our homes. A 2009 study from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the pesticide permethrin in 89% of the 500 homes randomly selected for sampling. Another study conducted by the School of Medicine at The University of Texas San Antonio earlier this year found at least five pesticides in the air of 60% of 29 homes occupied by pregnant Hispanic women. In 2008, researchers at Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) found PBO in 75% of homes occupied by pregnant women in inner-city New York.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health, including birth defects, see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. For more information on what you can do, see our materials for new parents with tips on food choices and safer pest management, specifically designed for new moms and dads.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2013) A new report, “Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation,” from the European Environment Agency (EEA) concludes that concerns raised by the scientific community on bee death, genetically engineered (GE) food, and nanotechnology support the need for a precautionary approach to public policy. Significantly, the report concludes that the “precautionary principle,” whereby industry and policy makers are advised to take seriously  early warnings about potential environmental impacts is “nearly always beneficial.” The report cites some industry efforts to undermine precautionary decision making.

The report features case studies on environmental impacts, such as mercury poisoning, effects on fertility caused by pesticides, and the impact of pharmaceuticals on some ecosystems, and raises questions about the potential wider impacts of GE crops, nanotechnology, nuclear power, and the effect of pesticides on bee populations.

The report lays the blame for numerous environmental crises squarely at the feet of corporations and policy makers who ignore early warnings about environmental impacts. “The historical case studies show that warnings were ignored or sidelined until damage to health and the environment was inevitable,” the EEA said. “In some instances, companies put short-term profits ahead of public safety, either hiding or ignoring the evidence of risk. In others, scientists downplayed risks, sometimes under pressure from vested interests. Such lessons could help avoid harm from emerging technologies.”

The agency also finds that risk assessments for new technologies should be improved and more clearly articulated. “No evidence of harm” has often been misinterpreted to mean ‘evidence of no harm’ when the relevant research was not available,” the report states. Currently, risk assessment approaches underestimate real-world risks and attempt to mitigate adverse impacts with tools that prove insufficient and impractical in real-world scenarios.   For instance, U.S. chemical risk assessment approaches make determinations that the risks are “reasonable” while failing to take into account numerous circumstances and realities that make some people and ecosystems more vulnerable to chemical exposures. EEA  goes a step further to accuse industry of working to undermine regulation by manipulating research and applying pressure on governments for financial benefit. The report states, industry interests have, “deliberately recruited reputable scientists, media experts and politicians to call on if their products were linked to possible hazards. Manufacturing doubt, disregarding scientific evidence of risks and claiming over-regulation appear to be a deliberate strategy for some industry groups and think tanks to undermine precautionary decision-making.”

On GE Foods

The report  finds that  GE crops provide no direct benefit to consumers, are over-hyped, not necessarily safe and are largely unsuitable for the great majority of the world’s farmers. It argues that “top-down” GE companies manipulate international patent and subsidy systems to gain maximum returns. “Modifying genotypes and capturing them as [intellectual property] through plant variety protection and patents is a far easier means of capturing financial benefits than attempting to [innovate] with cover crops, rotation schedules and composting, farmer-initiated training and education and small scale marketing and credit programs,” the report says.

The report notes, “Evidence is accumulating of inflated benefit claims and of adverse effects. The benefits that may have been overstated are the reduction in pesticide use, the reduced use of more toxic pesticides, higher yields and farmer income. The safety of GE crops is presumed when there is a lack of evidence of harm, as if this were equivalent to evidence of lack of harm, when it clearly is not. Hence many of the safety conclusions ”¦ are assumption-based, rather than evidence-based, reasoning.” In fact, GE crops are now being documented as being directly related to increased herbicide use as the rise of weeds resistant to GE technologies increases, leading to the degradation of habitat and ecosystems. Similarly, insect resistance   to GE technologies is also being observed. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that corn rootworm is now resistant to GE corn infused with a toxin derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, casting doubt on the future viability of GE corn. The growing number of resistant species can potentially rake up economic and environmental costs for farmers and the public and destroy the viability of biological controls that may be used in organic farming systems.

The study does not dismiss GE crops but says they have limited value as presently employed. “Despite more than 30 years of research and development and nearly 20 years of commercialization of GE crops, surprisingly only two traits have been significant in the marketplace – herbicide tolerance and insecticide production.”

On Emerging Nanotechnology

The report points out that nanotechnology development has occurred in the absence of “clear design rules for chemists and materials developers on how to integrate health, safety and environmental concerns into design.” While the emerging area of ‘green nanotechnology’ offers promise for the future with its focus on preventive design, it is important that research on the sustainability of materials is funded at levels significant enough to identify early warnings and potential harms, and that regulatory systems provide incentives for safer and sustainable materials.  Regulators and policy-makers have yet to address many of the shortcomings in legislation, research and development, and limitations in risk assessment. EEA concludes that as a result, “There remains a developmental environment that hinders the adoption of precautionary yet socially and economically responsive strategies in the field of nanotechnology. If left unresolved, this could hamper society’s ability to ensure responsible development of nanotechnologies.”

Recently, EPA announced plans to obtain information on nanoscale materials in pesticide products and to register nanoscale materials as new active pesticide ingredients. The agency stated it will gather information on nanoscale materials present in pesticide products to determine whether the registration of the pesticide product may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health.

On Emerging Bee Decline

Some European countries suspended neonicotinoid seed”‘dressing insecticides, linked to bee decline. In Italy, after the ban, the number of reports of high mortality during spring decreased from 185 cases in 2008 to two cases in 2009. According to the report, evidence of the toxicity of neonicotinoids highlights the major weaknesses of regulatory risk assessment and marketing authorization of pesticides, and particularly neonicotinoids. These insights were recently confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority, which concludedthat neonicotinoids pose unacceptable risks to bees.

The report cautioned that when dealing with new technologies, in this case systemic insecticides, it is important to verify whether the methods already in use for risk assessment are relevant, given the specific new properties and characteristics of new risks. Systemic insecticides endure in the plant, throughout the life of the plant, with residues translocating to pollen and nectar. It also emphasizes the prioritization of the potential causal factors and addresses them separately before assessing potential correlation or synergies among them.

EEA finds that while honey bee losses can be influenced by many factors, this should not become an excuse for not dealing with particular clinical signs and particular causes. It states, “There are some harmful effects which occur only at the level of the system, such as a bee colony, which cannot be predicted from analyzing a single part of the system, such as an individual bee.” The report also notes that all key actors, including beekeepers and experts with relevant research experience, should be properly engaged so that the monitoring and regulatory processes do not become discredited and ineffective. In response, Bayer CropScience critiqued what it claims as bias against “Bayer-funded research” and against research that supports the use of neonicotinoids.

In 2012, beekeepers, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network North America filed an emergency legal petition with the EPA to suspend the use of clothianidin that is linked to honey bee deaths, urging the agency to adopt safeguards. The petition, which  is supported by over one million citizen petition signatures, targets the pesticide for its harmful impacts on honey bees.   The legal petition cites that EPA failed to adequately review relevant data to support the “no unreasonable adverse effects” standards for pollinators.  EPA has failed  to act.

For more information on bee and pollinator health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection Program page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2013) A new study has discovered the anti-bacterial chemical triclosan and several of its toxic derivatives in sediment samples taken from freshwater lakes. Research published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology reveals the chemical to be present in increasing concentrations since it was first invented in the 1960’s. The results of this study put increased pressure on lawmakers and cosmetic companies to remove this chemical from consumer products. Beyond Pesticides and other groups, which have petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove triclosan from a vast array of consumer products, continues to urge cosmetic companies to take action on the chemical in the face of inadequate regulation to protect human health and the environment.

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. This current research follows a 2010 study which showed triclosan’s potential to disrupt aquatic ecosystems by inhibiting photosynthesis in algae and killing beneficial bacteria.

Other research on triclosan’s human health and environmental effects reinforce Beyond Pesticides’ message to regulators and cosmetic companies to stop the use of this chemical. Last year, 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 is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in umbilical cord blood and human milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.

Triclosan is present in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products, appearing in some of these products in a formulation known as Microban. In the absence of overarching federal regulations, and in response to consumer outrage, a few large companies began phasing out or reformulating products to not contain triclosan. Last year, Johnson and Johnson announced it would begin removing the chemical from its consumer products, following a 2011 announcement by Colgate-Palmolive indicating that they would do the same (although the company is retaining use of triclosan in its Colgate Total brand toothpaste, a line the company claims fights gingivitis).

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 80 other groups, submitted petitions to both FDA   and EPA   in 2009 and 2010 requiring that they end the use of all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate numerous federal statutes. Echoing these petitions, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also submitted letters of concern to both EPA and FDA. In FDA’s response, the agency acknowledged that soaps containing triclosan offer no additional benefit over regular soap and water. FDA stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients” and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. FDA also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects. Additionally, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) and two colleagues asked FDA to ban triclosan in 2010 due to the hazards that the chemical poses, including antibiotic resistance and potential health problems leading to higher health care costs.

In March of 2012, Canadian officials announced that they are set to declare triclosan toxic to the environment, an action that triggers a process to find ways to curtail a chemical’s use, including a possible ban in a range of personal-care products.

In the words of Dr. Arnold, co-author of the recent study, “I think this is a case where consumers can certainly put pressure on the market. So if consumers look at their products and don’t buy things with triclosan, they’re making their voice heard. Or they can also talk to the retailers and the manufacturers and tell them they don’t want this product if that’s the choice they make, if they don’t like the fact that it’s going beyond their sink and into the environment.”

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

For more information or to register for the 31st National Pesticide Forum, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage.

Sources: Michigan Radio, Voice of America

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2013) Research published Thursday indicates that pesticides widely used on farms are highly toxic to frogs. Researcher Carsten Brühl, Ph.D., at the University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany called the results “alarming” with the potential for “large-scale effects” on amphibians. Two chemicals commonly used in orchards and on grains demonstrated a 100% mortality rate when researchers applied doses recommended on the label, raising serious concerns about the strength of pesticide regulations. The research builds on Brühl’s previous work on the ability of frogs to absorb pesticides through their porous skin, which is necessary for breathing underwater. More importantly, the study highlights the threats that pesticides post to biodiversity.

Amphibians are considered the most threatened and rapidly declining vertebrate group, with more than a third of all amphibians listed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) “Red List” of threatened species. The organization lists loss of habitat, climate change, and disease as the most serious threats to amphibian populations. The scientific community is increasingly recognizing the role of chemical pollutants in amphibian decline. Though sadly, regulatory agencies do not: pesticides are not even required to be tested on amphibians before the pesticide is approved. Brühl commented to The Guardian that “We could only find one study for one pesticide that was using an exposure likely to occur on farmland.”

This study, then, fills a research void in understanding the impacts of pesticides to amphibians. The study tested an array of seven insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides on the juvenile European Common Frog (Rana temporaria)   at three different doses, the recommended dose, a tenth the dose, and ten times the recommended dose. One of the most striking results was  for pyraclostrobin, a fungicide manufactured by BASF and sold as the product “Headline”: The product killed all of the frog within an hour when applied at label recommended rates. Others demonstrated acute toxicity even when researchers applied a tenth of the dose recommended on the label. For example, dimethoate, a toxic insecticide used on everything from asparagus and cherries, to tangerines and wheat, killed 40% of all frogs within a week of application.

The results confirmed research indicating that frog skin is highly permeable. Its skin is designed to allow easy gas, water, and electrolyte exchange, allowing them to breathe underwater and metabolize quickly. However, because frogs can absorb chemicals twice as quickly mammals, they are also extremely susceptible to changes in their environment.

The exposure of frogs to commonly used pesticides like Headline and Captain, both of which demonstrated a 100% mortality rate at recommended doses, is likely to have large scale negative impacts on amphibian populations worldwide. The use of Headline is ubiquitous, applied to 90 different crops from wheat production in Canada to soybean production in Argentina.

The manufacturer, BASF, responded by dismissing the report: “This study was performed under laboratory ”˜worst-case conditions,’ under normal agricultural conditions amphibians are not exposed to such pesticide concentrations.” In fact, the study found frog mortality at application rates at a tenth of label requirements, which is similar to real life circumstances. Similarly, farmers often apply multiple sprays of various chemicals which were not assessed here, despite likely synergistic impacts. Finally, the impact of chemicals like pyraclostrobin and dimethoate, both with known development impacts, to frog health, reproduction, and survival were also not included in the analysis.

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: Scientific Reports

Photo Source: Wikipedia

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has  concluded that corn rootworm is now resistant to genetically engineered corn infused with a toxin derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, in certain parts of the Corn Belt, casting doubt on the future viability of GE corn. The conclusion of the Insect Resistance Management (IRM) Team is based on several years of data indicating that the Cry3Bb1 protein strain of Bt is ineffective at controlling corn rootworm.

The press release on January 17 states: “The EPA IRM Team has concluded that corn rootworm may not be completely controlled by Cry3Bb1 in certain parts of the Corn Belt. While ”˜confirmed resistance’ as defined in registration documents has not been met, given the nature of the data, the manufacturer, Monsanto, has agreed to several actions and changes related to the registration of Cry3Bb1 products to address these matters.”

Originally marketed by Monsanto in 2003, the protein Cry3Bb1 is designed to destroy the gut of the western corn rootworm. The rootworm has historically devastated corn fields, causing greatest damage in chemical-intensive agriculture during its larval stage by feeding upon the plant’s roots, inhibiting the plant’s ability to absorb moisture and nutrients while opening a pathway for attack from soil-borne pathogens. Monsanto genetically engineered corn plants to produce Cry3Bb1 derived from a gene in Bt in order to control these insects.

Before the introduction of insecticide-producing corn plants, Midwest farmers typically tried to keep pests like the rootworm in check by changing what they grew in a field each year, often rotating between corn and soybeans. That way, the offspring of corn-loving insects would starve the next year. As proponents of genetically engineered crops claimed they would reduce pesticide use and increase drought resistance, many large scale farms have shifted their practices. In fact, studies have shown since the widespread adoption of GE in the 1990s that, to the contrary, pesticide use increases with GE crops. Insect resistance, weed resistance, and cross contamination of other crops have also been documented. Research on corn rootworm by entomologists at Iowa State University, published in 2011, verified the first field-evolved resistance of corn rootworm to a Bt toxin. The researchers documented resistance to the Bt toxin Cry3Bb1, which has been inserted into nearly one third of the corn planted in the U.S. Additionally, data released in February of 2012 shows that more than 40% of American farmers are neglecting to comply with mandatory management practices for Bt planting that are designed to minimize the risk of insect resistance.

Not only does insect resistance to Bt and its strains raise concerns about their efficacy, but the continued use of  Cry3Bb1 poses serious threats to public and environmental health. Indeed, one recent study, led by scientists at the University of Caen in France, demonstrates that at very high doses Bt is toxic to human cells, and glyphosate in the formulated product Roundup, which is used in high volume  with GE  herbicide- tolerant corn,  damages human cells, even in extremely low doses. In their investigations, the researchers examined several products, including the Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac, other Bt toxins developed by Monsanto for inclusion in GE crops, as well as the glyphosate formulation Roundup. The study supports research published in the May 2011 edition of the journal Reproductive Toxicology which found that pregnant women and their fetuses were contaminated with pesticides and metabolites of the herbicide gluphosinate and the Cry1Ab protein.

In addition, Bt impacts on non-target organisms as well as environmental contamination cannot be dismissed. A study conducted by Hellmich et al. (2001) investigated the sensitivity of the monarch butterfly to Cry proteins and found that the first instars (stage between molts) were sensitive to Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins, with Cry1Ab having the most impact on the species. Kim et al. (2008) also found that Cry1Ac lead to decreased survival rates and body weights among the non-target larvae of silkworms, Bomyx mori. These studies support the notion that non-target organisms are indeed at risk from exposure to GE crops on agricultural fields and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides believes that whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide-resistant crop, the GE approach to agriculture and pest management is short sighted and dangerous. There are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GE crops. The failure of the EPA to properly exercise its authority to regulate the plant incorporated protected used in Bt corn products is unacceptable. EPA’s faulty determination of refuge requirements and registrants’ failed oversight of the corresponding compliance practices have contributed to the confirmed in-field emergence of western corn rootworm resistance to the Cry3Bb1 toxin. Confirmed in-field resistance combined with EPA’s outright acknowledgment of  corn rootworm resistance to the Cry3Bb1 toxin makes it clear that the refuge requirements and compliance provisions underlying all Bt corn product registrations urgently need reconsideration. Failure or further delay on EPA’s part to implement refuge requirements and compliance activities that seek to  preserve the efficacy of Bt corn products and extend their utility in the field will result in undue adverse environmental, human health and economic consequences, as well as undermine the use of Bt as a biological pest management tool in organic production.

For more news and information on GE crops, see Beyond Pesticides’ genetic engineering page, or for information on alternatives to GE crops and chemical dependence, visit our organic food and farming page.

Genetic engineering, food as well as the effects of pesticides on human health will be topics of discussion at the 31st National Pesticide Forum on April 5-6, 2013 at University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Conference speakers include Joel Forman, MD, author of the recent report “Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages,” and public interest attorney, activist and author Andrew Kimbrell, executive director  of the Center for Food Safety, and many more.

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2013) Checks are now being sent to 1,085 community water systems across the U.S. in the final phase of a $105 million settlement with Syngenta, the largest manufacturer of the toxic weed killer atrazine. The class action settlement, City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Case No.: 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF, stems from a lawsuit spanning eight years and is meant to help reimburse communities for past expenses associated with atrazine removal.

“Science has been fighting an uphill battle against giant pesticide manufacturers like Syngenta who claim that a little weed killer in your drinking water won’t hurt you. Independent scientists now believe that even trace amounts can harm you and your children for generations to come,” the lead plaintiff’s lawyer Stephen M. Tillery told the media.

Atrazine is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. A potent toxicant, it is the most prevalent herbicide found in Minnesota’s waters. It is widely applied in the midwestern states and has been found in the drinking water supplies in the Midwest at high levels. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. Atrazine is harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians even when the amount used is less than the government allows. Atrazine is specifically associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may also harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey found atrazine in approximately 75 percent of stream water and 40 percent of groundwater sampled near agricultural areas. In 2012, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) reintroduced a bill (H.R.4318) that  would ban the production, sale, importation or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. However, as it currently stands, nearly 10 years after atrazine was banned in the European Union, the chemical is still sold in the United States.

The settlement formula allocates the proceeds among claimants by first awarding each claimant a payment of $5,000, which is equal to the approximate cost of 20 water tests. Each claimant is then allocated a percentage of the remaining fund based on evidence of: (1) the levels of atrazine in its water; (2) how often atrazine has been found in its water; (3) how long ago atrazine was found in its water; and (4) the claimant’s size. Generally, if a system processed more water or frequently had high concentrations of atrazine, it is eligible for more money. Plaintiffs that are a part of the class will not be able to sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit regarding the presence of atrazine in their drinking water or water sources for the next 10 years.

In approving the settlement back in October, United States District Judge J. Phil Gilbert noted that the case had been extremely hard-fought and that in the course of the litigation, the parties collected, reviewed, and produced more than 10 million pages of discovery. The Court found that:  “The settlement was reached after arm’s-length negotiations in a matter where the plaintiffs faced a number of very serious obstacles to their claims — any one of which might leave them with no recovery whatsoever. Nevertheless, even with immense risks, Plaintiffs were able to secure a $105 million settlement fund. The amount represents approximately 76 % of the $139 million estimated by Plaintiffs’ expert to be the class’s maximum potential recovery for past damages. This is a substantial recovery in any litigation and is far greater than the percentages found adequate by numerous other courts.”

Community Water Systems will receive payments under the formula approved by the Court:

Dollar Amount – Number of Claims
$5,000 to $10,000 – 545
$10,000.01 to $25,000 – 165
$25,000.01 to $50,000 – 105
$50,000.01 to $100,000 – 99
$100,000.01 to $250,000 – 116
$250,000.01 to $500,000 – 38
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000 – 14
Above $1,000,000 – 3
Total Claims        1,085

Below is a rundown of some of the funds that have been distributed:

Illinois:

The state will receive over $15 million. Claims were filed by 143 cities and towns to help recoup the cost of removing atrazine from their drinking water. Of this, 46 cities will receive between $100,000 and $1.3 million. (Source: The Bengil Post)

Indiana:

Indiana will receive over $7 million. Fifty-one cities and towns in Indiana filed claims to help recoup the cost of removing atrazine from their drinking water, with 16 cities receiving at least $100,000. Indianapolis will receive checks of more than $1 million. (Source: The Indiana Lawyer, Courier Press)

Nebraska:

Approximately $2 million is set to go to 106 Nebraska communities. The largest amount in the state will go to the city of Lincoln, at $800,000.   (Source: Journal Star)

Ohio:

Five Hancock County towns are receiving settlement checks for an atrazine problem that started 20 years ago. The City of Carthage will receive a check from the settlement fund for $123,618.39 to help reimburse the cost of removing atrazine from its drinking water supply. LaHarpe received $27,539.27; Nauvoo receives $9,227.01; Warsaw receives $8,967.88 and Hamilton receives $6,345.84.

“From 1994 to 1997, we were spending $25,000 to $30,000 to straighten out our atrazine problem,” Carthage mayor, Jim Nightingale told the Journal Pilot. “In 1995 we had a meeting with a meal and started brainstorming.”

Additionally, the city of Wilmington will receive $181,468.82. The city of Lima received $227,000. (Sources: Wilmington News Journal, The Lima News, Journal Pilot)

Missouri:

City of Cameron has received $274,785.51 (Source: My Cameron News)

Hawaii:

Kaua’i will receive $6,692.96. According to Kaua’i Department of Water Manager and Chief Engineer David Craddick, “The money we received does not cover the full cost of testing for atrazine, but we would have received nothing if not for the diligence of the County Attorney and the Water Department lab personnel.”(Source: Kauia Department of Water)

For additional information on the settlement, visit www.atrazinesettlement.com.

Source: Korein Tillery Press Releases, January 16, 2013, October 23, 2012

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2013) A new federal report finds toxic contamination remains widespread in the Chesapeake Bay, with severe impacts in some places, which health and environmental advocates say lends support to their push in Maryland for legislative action on pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. In spite of some cleanup, the health of the Bay has not significantly improved.

The report, “Technical Report on Toxic Contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed: Extent and Severity of Occurrence and Potential Biological Effects” is based on a review of integrated water-quality assessment reports from the jurisdictions in the Bay watershed (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.), Federal and State reports, and articles in scientific journals. It notes that nearly three-fourths of the Bay’s tidal waters are “fully or partially impaired” by toxic chemicals, with people warned to limit fish consumption from certain areas. Contamination is severe in a handful of “hot spots” around the Bay, including Baltimore’s harbor, largely a legacy of past industrial and shipping activity.

Previous reports have called on federal, state and local government to accelerate research into what threats chemical contamination may pose to the Bay, and to step up efforts to reduce such toxic pollution that is increasingly linked to declines in frogs across the region and intersex fish seen in the Potomac River. According to this latest report, widespread contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), herbicides (primarily atrazine, simazine, metolachlor, and their degradation products), and mercury persists and indicates the extent of occurrence throughout the Bay watershed. Localized contamination of dioxins/furans, petroleum hydrocarbons, some chlorinated insecticides (aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT/DDE, heptachlor epoxide, mirex), and some metals (aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, zinc) are also documented.

As a result of this widespread contamination, compromised fish health has been observed within populations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including an  increased incidence of infectious disease and parasite infestations contributing to increased mortality in several species of fish; feminization (intersex, plasma vitellogenin) of largemouth and smallmouth bass and other signs of endocrine disruption; reduced reproductive success and recruitment of yellow perch in tributaries in certain highly urbanized drainage basins; and tumors in bottom-dwelling fish. Similarly, organochlorine pesticides have been found in eggs of predatory birds at concentrations associated with embryo lethality.

According to the report, several studies are cited in which PCB concentrations in addled bald eagle eggs may have been high enough to contribute to the failure to hatch. Even though PCBs were banned years ago over health concerns, residues linger and continue to show up in fish tissue. Detectable concentrations of PBDEs have been found in the eggs of predatory birds and in a few locations, eggshell thinning associated with p,p’-DDE is apparent, suggesting reproduction may be impaired.

“Since 2000, new concerns, such as intersex conditions in fish, have arisen,” the report says. “Although the causes are undetermined, there is increasing evidence that contaminant exposures may play a role.”
The report also notes there are other widely dispersed contaminants found around the Bay that pose disputed or unknown threats to wildlife and people, such as the agricultural herbicide atrazine, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, like triclosan and triclocarban.

A group of health and environmental advocates say this new report demonstrates the need for more information about pesticide use in Maryland. They point to its finding that researchers do not know enough about the use of some pesticides to determine the extent and severity of their contamination.

“Our current lack of information about pesticide usage results in dangerous data gaps,” said Robert Lawrence, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. “Environmental scientists and public health professionals need to know what, when and where pesticides are being used in order to identify which pesticides have adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, the ecosystem, and the health of the public.”

Pesticide reporting is one of Maryland’s environmental community’s top legislative priorities. A bill is planned that would require pesticide applicators and sellers of certain pesticides to report data on sales and use that they are already required to maintain. The bill, ”˜The Pesticide Information Act’ would require pesticide use information be compiled and made available to health and environmental officials. The Maryland Pesticide Network ad Maryland Environmental Health Network called for state action to increase data collection and research into the use and potential effects of pesticides and other chemicals citing children and pregnant mothers are especially vulnerable to even tiny doses of pesticides and other chemicals. Beyond Pesticides encourages Maryland residents to sign the petition to pass this bill.

While the report does not address potential effects on human health except in recognizing fish impairments and the status of fish consumption advisories established by jurisdictions in the watershed, it provides considerations for developing reduction goals if established, and identifies research and monitoring that could be conducted to better define the extent and severity of groups of contaminants. The report also focuses on the severity of adverse effects of toxic contaminants on natural resources in the Bay and its watershed. The findings will be used by the regional partnership  Chesapeake Bay Program to consider whether to establish new or updated goals for reduction of toxic contaminants.

Source: Baltimore Sun

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