(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2012) For consumers, the holiday season is full of complicated choices, including the conundrum of how to find the perfect Christmas tree. The most important part of selecting a tree is not its size and shape, but rather finding one that will pose the least risk to the health of your family and the environment. Thus, the safest holiday choice for you and yours is purchasing an organic tree as opposed to one that is artificial or grown using harsh chemical methods. However, because the organic tree industry is still a sapling in its own right, follow these helpful tips to make sure you not only purchase the organic tree of your dreams but also dispose of it in a responsible way as you usher in the New Year.

The Case for Going Organic

Christmas trees are a big business in the United States. In 2011, Americans purchased over 30 million trees. However, organic Christmas trees, which follow the same U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards as agricultural crops, make up less than 1% of all Christmas trees farmed. Thankfully though, much like other non-edible organic products, such as cotton, growing public awareness of the need for a greener tree is on the rise and more organic trees are being produced to meet this demand.

Organic trees are a dramatic improvement from conventionally grown and artificial trees in several ways. The pesticides that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers for use on conventionally grown Christmas trees are linked to numerous adverse health effects, including cancer, hormonal disruption, neurotoxicity, organ damage, reproductive/birth defects, asthma, and more. Additionally, artificial trees can be equally bad for the environment and children’s health as their conventional counterparts. Most artificial Christmas trees are made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic. Lead can be used to stabilize certain PVC products, and some labels on artificial Christmas trees caution individuals to avoid inhaling or eating any bits of lead dust that may fall from the branches.

Where to Find Christmas Trees

If you’d prefer to go pesticide free this holiday, purchase your organic tree as soon as possible – because of limited supplies they tend sell out quickly. As of 2008, there are only 63 organic Christmas tree farms in the U.S. but, as organic agriculture has grown over the last five years, it is safe to assume that this number may now be greater.

Here are some online resources to help you find some organic trees in your area:
Ӣ Green Promise. This website has an organic Christmas tree sources list with operations in 22 states. It also has eco-friendly gift guide to help you put green gifts under the tree.
”¢ Local Harvest. Along with Christmas trees, this site can also be used to find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area. The Christmas trees can be found under the wreath section.
Ӣ If you do not live close to any of the many farms on the above websites, other farms such as Silvertip Tree Farms in North Fork California will let you purchase trees on-line and ship them anywhere in the country.

If the cost of shipping a tree to your home is prohibitive, or you are unable to locate an organic tree farm using the resources above, the next best option is to try your local Christmas tree farm or a farmers’ market. If you purchase trees from tree lots or from large chain stores, it can be hard to determine where your tree is coming from. It is also easier to find “Charlie Brown” or “wild” trees at a tree farm than at big box stores or tree lots. These trees have a different physical appearance than pruned trees, but this more traditional aesthetic is appealing to some consumers. Going to a local tree farm or farmers’ market does not guarantee you will be purchasing a tree that is grown organically or without synthetic pesticides, however these settings give you the opportunity to speak with the farmer about their growing methods. Often, you can find trees that haven’t been overly pruned and grown without many chemical inputs. However, be aware that without organic certification, unless you know the farmer, any claims of sustainability hold very little weight since it has not been verified by a third party.

Cutting Down and Bringing a Tree Home

This can be a fun family activity and a nice way to spend a little more time outdoors. It may also be more economical, as tree farms may charge you less if you cut the tree yourself.

However, cutting your own tree does require some advanced planning:
Ӣ Before cutting down a tree be sure it will fit in the place you plan on putting it in your house. It is important to measure the space where you will set up your tree before cutting or purchasing any tree.
Ӣ Make sure when you cut the tree that you cut as close to the ground as possible, and that the cut is even along its base.
Ӣ Bring friends or family to help you carry the tree and to possibly tie the tree to the top of your car. These tasks, if done alone and in the dark, have the potential to make you lose your holiday cheer.
Ӣ Be prepared by bringing rope and a hand saw in case the tree farm does not provide you with one. Remember, most tree farms do not allow customers to bring chainsaws or more industrial equipment to remove trees.

Caring for Your Tree

Once you have brought the organic tree of your dreams back to your home it is important to give it proper care and attention so it remains fresh throughout the holiday season:
Ӣ Make a fresh cut to remove about a 1/2-inch thick disk of wood from the base of the trunk before putting the tree in the stand. Do not cut the trunk at an angle, or into a V-shape, which makes it far more difficult to hold the tree in the stand and also reduces the amount of water available to the tree.
Ӣ Use a stand that fits your tree. Avoid whittling the sides of the trunk down to fit a stand. The outer layers of wood are the most efficient in taking up water and should not be removed. Also make sure this stand can hold enough water. Stands should provide 1 quart of water per inch of stem diameter.
”¢ When it’s time to decorate, string lights that produce low heat, which will reduce drying of the tree. For additional tree maintenance tips, the National Christmas Tree Association has helpful information on different tree species.

Buy a Living Tree!

The best option, and probably the most adventurous, is to buy a tree that still has its roots and can be planted again after the holidays.

To take this project on there are several things to take into account:
Ӣ Consider the adaptability of the species to your environment. A good option for people in a temperate climate is the Scotch pine as this tree has an excellent survival rate, and is easy to replant.
Ӣ Living trees can be very heavy and bulky. A six foot tall balled and burlapped tree can weigh as much as 250 pounds.
Ӣ Avoid having to dig a hole while the ground is frozen. Dig the hole you plan on planting the tree in as soon as you purchase the tree. After you dig the hole fill it with mulch to keep it from freezing over.

Adding a Christmas tree to your yard could become a fun tradition for your family, and if you purchase a small tree you could re-dig and re-plant the tree for several years!

Disposing of Your Tree

If planting a tree seems too daunting or is just not feasible, there are ways to dispose of your tree in an eco-friendly way. First and foremost, it is important to make sure your tree avoids a landfill after the festivities. According to Sierra Club, an estimated 10 million Christmas trees unnecessarily end up there each year.

Here are some tips on how to recycle your tree:
Ӣ Goats love to recycle Christmas trees! They will strip the whole tree by eating all of the needles leaving just the trunk, which can be turned into firewood.
Ӣ Turn your old Christmas tree into a bird feeder by placing the tree in your garden or backyard and place fresh orange slices or strung popcorn on it. This will attract the birds who can sit in the branches for shelter.
Ӣ Mulch your tree by removing its branches and putting it through a wood chipper. These chips can be used as mulch in your garden or as part of your compost. If you plan on using this mulch in your garden be sure it is from an organic tree because conventionally grown trees can retain pesticides in its wood.
Ӣ Create habits for fish by sinking your tree into a nearby pond with deep water. Trees make an excellent refuge and feeding area for fish.
Ӣ Most communities have a curbside-pick up option for tree recycling. Check with your city to see if they offer this service, and if they do, make sure to remove all ornaments and decorations before you put your tree out!
Ӣ If curbside pickup is not available in your community, many local nonprofit organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, will offer to pick up your tree and recycle it for a small donation.

Holidays can be complicated, but one decision that you can feel confident about is your Christmas tree purchase. By purchasing an organic Christmas tree, you are making the responsible choice for the health of your loved ones and the environment. Also, by recycling your tree responsibly after the holiday season, you will make sure that your tree can be a gift that keeps on giving to your garden, birds, fish, or goats.

For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides webpage on Pesticide-Free Holidays.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2012) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has denied a 2010 petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN) to ban the insecticide lindane, which is harmful to human health and ineffective in controlling lice and scabies. Pressure had been mounting on FDA to halt the pharmaceutical use of lindane as, in addition to this petition, Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, asked FDA to stop the pharmaceutical use of lindane this past summer. Because of FDA’s decision, lindane is still an active ingredient in pharmaceutical insecticide products such as lice shampoos and lotions. Lindane was formerly used in agricultural insecticides until it was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use on crops in 2006. FDA regulates pharmaceuticals that contain insecticides and pesticides, such as triclosan, that are in cosmetics.

Over 160 countries including the United States have signed on to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in 2001 which aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic polluntants. Lindane along with nine other chemcials was added to this list on May 9th 2009 with these countries thereby agreeing to end their use allowane of lindane by 2014, but the treaty still allows for pharmaceutical use until the existing stocks are depleted. Before this treaty, 50 countries and the state of California had already banned the use of this toxic chemical.

The dangers of lindane are well documented. Lindane is an organochlorine class pesticide, similar in structure to DDT, and a known neurotoxicant and endocrine disruptor. In addition to being a carcinogen, perhaps the most startling health effect associated with the use of lindane is seizures in young children and adults at doses of 1.6 and 45 grams, respectively. Children are clearly more sensitive to the use of this product. That should come as no surprise after a recent report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” Children are often the ones treated with these chemicals since they are more susceptible to lice then adults. Lindane has been classified by EPA as a class B2/C possible human carcinogen, based on liver and lung tumors in mice. The chemical has been linked to reproductive problems in mice, such as adverse fetal development and body weight. It is also slightly estrogenic to female rodents, and causes the testes of male rats to become atrophied.

The use of lindane can also be harmful to the environment. Lindane is moderately toxic to bird species and pollinators, and is highly persistent in most soils. The chemical moves quickly through soils and water, posing a significant risk of groundwater contamination. A recent study by Elizabeth H. Humphreys and several colleges published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that California’s successful ban on lindane led to cleaner drinking water. According to this study, since the ban on lindane was enacted, levels in waste-water treatment facilities have decreased to almost undetectable levels.

In addition to the human and environmental health risks that lindane presents, it is also ineffective at controlling lice and scabies. Over time, lice and scabies have become resistant to lindane. Results of a recent study from the Miami School of Medicine reveal that even amongst five other harmful chemical head lice shampoo treatments, the lindane-based shampoo was the least effective product. Another Belgium study declared that lindane-based products are “not sufficiently effective to justify their use.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the use of non- and least-toxic methods to control for head lice, as these methods have been proven to be both safer and more effective. One of the safest methods to combat lice is to coat one’s hair with oil and carefully pick through the hair with a nit comb. Remember to place the lice in hot soapy water after they have been removed from the hair. Another method is to use hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, ultimately killing them. A recent study from the University of Utah found this method outperformed insecticidal shampoos at killing adult lice and their eggs.

For more information on controlling head lice without toxic chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides’ alternatives webpage and our fact sheets on Head Lice and Scabies and Getting Nit Picky about Head Lice.

Source: PAN press release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2012) A health care institution is weighing in to warn people about potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) food. On the heels of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ warning on pesticides, the nation’s largest nonprofit health care plan, Kaiser Permanente, has published in its print newsletter, Partners in Health, tips on limiting exposure to genetically engineered food. In the Fall 2012, Kaiser Permanente has published an article, “What you need to know about GMO: Limit exposure to genetically engineered organisms with these tips.”

This discussion in the health care sector is part of a growing involvement by health care practitioners in environmental health concerns related to pesticides and genetic engineering of the food supply. While Canadian medical groups have warned the public about the dangers of pesticides and supported phase-outs, institutions representing the medical community in the U.S. have been more reserved. In 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) in Canada strongly recommended that people reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever possible, after releasing a comprehensive review of research on the effects of pesticides on human health. OCFP’s Systematic Review of Pesticide Human Health Effects shows consistent pesticide links to serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases, among others. The study also shows that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides.

In an interview with the Salem Weekly, an official with Kaiser indicated that the article does not represent Kaiser policy, but presents information that the plan thinks is important for its members to have. The official said, “Kaiser Permanente believes the ongoing research and debate on bioengineered foods, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is important. We also recognize there are important conversations about related initiatives and propositions. While we believe these are important scientific and political debates, we do not have policy positions on these subjects.”

In the piece that was written by a Kaiser nutritionist, readers are told, “Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health, independent researchers have found that several varieties of GMO corn caused organ damage in rats. Other studies have found GMOs may lead to an inability in animals to reproduce.” The article suggests that eating USDA certified organic food can help limit exposure to GMOs.

Because of the widespread and growing allowance of genetically engineered crops contamination through genetic drift has become an increasing problem for non-GE and organic crops.

This summer before the release of AC21’s (Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture) report, Enhancing Coexistence: A Report of the AC21 to the Secretary of Agriculture, to the Secretary of Agriculture in November, Beyond Pesticides said, “Specifically, we suggest the inclusion of a phrase in the definition [of the coexistence of GE and non-GE agriculture] stipulating that all parties are entitled to assurances against trespass from genetic drift. Coexistence of any kind should include a shared understanding of boundaries and a requirement under the penalty of law to respect those boundaries. Without any guarantee that coexistence will ensure cultivation without trespass, organic and non-GE farmers will be at a significant disadvantage and “coexistence” will result in a severely imbalanced system. Where trespass occurs, operations that are trespassing should be prevented from doing so.” Because of the certainty of GE contamination of organic crops, the National Organic Coalition commented on the AC21 report, “At the bare minimum, USDA must stop approving additional GE crops, and prevent GE contamination by mandating pollution prevention measures, as well as make transgenic polluters, including GE technology owners, pay for their contamination.”

California’s Prop 37 was defeated at the polls in November. Had it been approved, California would have required labels for raw or processed food with GE ingredients and the state would have prohibited the labeling and advertising of foods using the misleading term “natural.”

Adding to the 4.2 million Californians who cast their ballots for the right to know what’s in their food, Beyond Pesticides, as a part of the Just Label It campaign, is asking supporters to do three things: sign the FDA petition for mandatory food labeling, tell friends and family to do the same, and urge your elected representatives to support GE labeling. Beyond Pesticides is a party to a petition seeking product disclosure of GE ingredients, which was written by attorneys at the Center for Food Safety and filed in October 2011 with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Source: WillametteLive.com

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2012) Preliminary research from Penn State finds that a natural fungus, Beauveria bassiana, may be used to control bedbugs. The study, entitled “A preliminary evaluation of the potential of Beauveria bassiana for bed bug control,” finds that all of the bedbugs exposed to the biopesticide became infected and died within five days. The research found no differences in insect’s susceptibility to the fungus due to feeding status, sex, strain, or life stage. Most importantly, the infected bedbugs carried the biopesticide back to their hiding places, infecting those that did not go out in search of blood.

“We exposed half of a population of bedbugs to a spray residue for one hour and then allowed them to go into a harborage with unexposed individuals,” said Nina Jenkins, senior research associate in entomology. “The fungal spores were transferred from the exposed bug to their unexposed companions, and we observed almost a hundred percent infection. So they don’t even need to be directly exposed, and that’s something chemicals cannot do.”

This result is important because bedbugs live in hard-to-reach places. “Bedbugs tend to be cryptic, and they’ll hide in the tiniest crevices,” said Ms. Jenkins. “They don’t just live in your bed. They hide behind light switches and power sockets and in between the cracks of the baseboard and underneath your carpet.”

Ms. Jenkins, working with Alexis Barbarin, Ph.D., a former Penn State postgraduate student now at the University of Pennsylvania, Edwin Rajotte, Ph.D., professor of entomology, and Matthew Thomas, Ph.D., professor of entomology, looked at how B. bassiana acts through contact with its insect host. The researchers used an airbrush sprayer to apply spore formulations to paper and cotton jersey, a common bed sheet material. Then control surfaces, again paper and cotton jersey, were sprayed with blank oil only. The surfaces were allowed to dry at room temperature overnight. Three groups of 10 bedbugs were then exposed to one of the two surfaces for one hour. Afterward, they were placed on clean filter paper in a petri dish and monitored. The research is published in the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology.

“They are natural diseases that exist in the environment,” Ms. Jenkins said. “They are relatively easy to produce in a lab and stable, so you can use them much like chemical pesticides.”

Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of non-toxic and least-toxic pesticide alternatives; however, while biopesticides are traditionally classified as a least-toxic method for pest management, products that are designed to kill living organisms should always be treated with caution. In order to successfully deal with any pest infestation, one must embrace an organic, or integrative pest management (IPM) approach which is a program of prevention, monitoring and control, using least-toxic pesticide products, including biological controls, only as a last resort. Methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat can control an infestation without dangerous or unwanted side effects. This approach, as well as taking steps such as sealing cracks and crevices, reducing clutter and encasing mattresses, can also help to prevent an infestation in the first place.

This is not the first time a fungus has proven to be an effective natural pesticide. The fungus B. bassiana is also known to be an effective biological control for many other household pests, including termites, aphids, and chinch bugs. The naturally occurring fungus Metarhizium anisopliae has shown promise in reducing blacklegged, or “deer” ticks, and is effective at controlling a wide range of crop pests. In 2009, an Australian government study has shown that lice on sheep may be controlled by fungal biopesticides. Researchers at Utah State University are studying a fungus that kills Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex) by depositing spores inside them that multiply and eventually break through their exoskeletons.

For more information on how to prevent and manage bedbugs, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bedbugs program page.

Source: Penn State Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 28, 2012) Earlier this year the maker of the fumigant methyl iodide indicated it would stop producing the toxic chemical. Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the registrant, Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to formally terminate all agricultural use of methyl iodide in the U.S. by the end of 2012 and ultimately remove all methyl iodide products from the U.S. market.

EPA is opening a 30-day comment period for Arysta’s request for voluntary cancellation of all of the company’s methyl iodide product registrations, as stipulated in the agreement. Methyl iodide, or iodomethane, has been registered since 2007 for use as a pre-plant soil fumigant to control pests in soil where fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and turf are to be grown. In March 2012, Arysta, the sole registrant, announced its plans to immediately suspend all sales of its methyl iodide MIDAS ® products in the U.S.

Under the recently signed agreement and the voluntary cancellation request, all of Arysta’s existing methyl iodide end-use product registrations will be cancelled and use of existing stocks in the U.S. will be prohibited effective December 31, 2012. Further distribution and sale of methyl iodide end-use products will be prohibited, and users and distributors are expected to return the products to Arysta (the company will take back existing stocks) or for proper disposal or export. As of January 1, 2013, Arysta may no longer produce methyl iodide for use in the U.S. The technical product registration will be cancelled effective December 1, 2015. After that date, all sale and distribution of the technical product to formulators will also be prohibited, however stocks are permitted to be exported until supplies are exhausted. Arysta will send methyl iodide product purchasers and retailers a letter describing these provisions.

All of this is announced in EPA’s November 21, 2012 Federal Register notice (77 FR 69840). EPA anticipates finalizing the cancellation order by the end of 2012, after which the agency plans to respond to a March 2010 petition from Earthjustice and other organizations requesting that the agency suspend and cancel all methyl iodide registrations. Earthjustice, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), Pesticide Watch, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Farmworker Association of Florida, and others petitioned EPA to exercise its authority under Section 6 of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to suspend and cancel all registrations for the pesticide methyl iodide, citing that the chemical poses “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

At the same time, several environmental groups sued the State of California in an attempt to reverse the state’s approval of the chemical. Environmental advocacy groups and other opponents of methyl iodide use in the state have released documents detailing dissension in the ranks of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) over the risk assessment of methyl iodide and its subsequent approval. The court case revealed documents showing CDPR manipulated data and that department scientists were worried risk managers minimized health dangers and did not take strong enough steps to mitigate the threats. One of the released documents, a memo from one disapproving CDPR scientist, chastised the agency for its cut-and-paste approach to calculations determining how big buffer zones should be to protect public health. A California Superior Court Judge raised concerns about whether CDPR complied with its legal obligation to consider alternative options before approving the use. The voluntary cancellation appears to end the need to pursue legal action for U.S. uses.

Methyl iodide was developed as an alternative to the fumigant methyl bromide, a notorious ozone-depletor. Methyl bromide has been nominally banned in industrialized countries by international treaty. While methyl iodide’s impact on the ozone layer is unquestionably far less than that of methyl bromide, its toxicity is now known to be significantly greater than assumed by EPA at the time of registration, as is its potential to contaminate sources of drinking water. In 2007, EPA approved a time-limited, one-year conditional registration of methyl iodide despite serious concerns raised by a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. These scientists sent a letter of concern to EPA explaining, “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people.” In, 2008, EPA issued a new registration notice converting the time-limited conditional registration to a time-unlimited conditional registration, leaving as conditions only the requirements that the registrant provide a product training/stewardship program and that it follow the data and label submission requirements of other soil fumigants.

Methyl iodide is applied to much of California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling millions of pounds of use. Though methyl iodide was to be used primarily on strawberries, it was also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.

Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, contaminates groundwater and is so reliably carcinogenic that it’s used to create cancer cells in laboratories. It is on California’s official list of known carcinogenic chemicals and has been linked to serious risks in reproductive and neurological health. The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and those in the surrounding communities because of the volume applied to fields and its tendency to drift off-site through the air. As a result, use of the fumigant carries severe restrictions on use near schools and residential areas.

Luckily, there are less toxic ways to grow strawberries and other crops that have relied on fumigant pesticides like methyl iodide. Organic agriculture for instance does not allow fumigants or hazardous pesticides when growing crops, and there is a thriving organic strawberry industry in California and around the country. However, organic certifiers have allowed strawberry plant stock, or starts, to be grown with methyl bromide, even though a commercially viable method had been developed without its use. This issue is now be considered by the National Organic Program, as it develops guidance on non-organic planting stock in organic production. See Draft Guidance on Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop Production. Beyond Pesticides has submitted extensive comments on this issue and called for an end to the practice of using methyl bromide in organic strawberry planting stock, pointing to a 2005 National Organic Standards Board recommendation on commercial availability and other issues.

Other alternatives to methyl bromide include selecting more resilient varieties and improved cultivars of strawberries, as well as incorporating traditional cultural practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, and physical methods such as soil solarization and anaerobic disinfestation.

The methyl iodide Memorandum of Agreement and the EPA’s Federal Register notice announcing the voluntary cancellation request is available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252 at www.regulations.gov and on EPA’s methyl iodide page.

Source: EPA News Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2012) On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a landmark policy statement, Pesticide Exposure in Children, and an accompanying technical report on the effects of pesticide exposure in children. In the documents, released in the December 2012 issue of Pediatrics magazine and online on November 26, AAP makes note of the current shortfalls in medical training, public health tracking, and regulatory action on pesticides. Acknowledging the risks to children from both acute and chronic effects, AAP’s report provides recommendations to both pediatricians and government health agencies. AAP’s policy statement comes on the heels of an October 2012 report citing the benefits of eating organic food in order to reduce pesticide exposure. Lead authors on the documents for the AAP’s Council on Environmental Health are James R. Roberts, MD, MPH, Medical University of South Carolina, and Catherine J. Karr, MD, PhD, University of Washington.

AAP’s statement notes that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” The report discusses how kids are exposed to pesticides every day in air, food, dust, and soil. Children also frequently come into contact with pesticide residue on pets and after lawn, garden, or household pesticide applications. The authors explain how diet is likely the main pathway for pesticide exposure in children, citing a 2006 intervention study, which found that switching children to an all-organic diet had an immediate and substantial decrease in the concentration of pesticides in their bodies.

Labeling
Pesticide labels are cited as a specific area of concern in the report. The authors note that current labels do not include the pesticides’ class, a listing of “inert” ingredients in the product, or information on chronic toxicity. AAP recommends pediatricians understand the usefulness and limitations of pesticide information on product labels. The policy statement advises government to require manufacturers to disclosure inert ingredients either on the product’s label or on the company’s web site. AAP also recommends the creation of a “risks to children” section on pesticide labels, which should inform potential applicators whether active or inert ingredients in the product pose chronic or developmental health concerns for children. Beyond Pesticides has long called for the disclosure of inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. A 2009 study showing that the “inert” ingredient in Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells provides additional evidence of this need.

Acute Toxicity
In terms of acute pesticide toxicity, AAP is instructing pediatricians to become more familiar with the various signs and symptoms of exposure. The report states, “Pediatric care providers have a poor track record for recognition of acute pesticide poisoning. This reflects their self-reported lack of medical education and self-efficacy on the topic.” However, AAP also notes that formal data systems that track pesticide exposure incidents are inadequate, and those that track usage trends are outdated (the last national survey on home pesticide use was in 1993). AAP recommends government “make pesticide—related suspected poisoning universally reportable and support a systematic central repository of such incidents to optimize national surveillance.”

Chronic Effects
AAP’s policy statement explains that the past decade has seen an expansion of the evidence showing adverse effects after chronic pesticide exposure. The authors note that the strongest links between pesticides and health effects to children concern pediatric cancer and adverse neurodevelopment. However, low birth weight, preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, cognitive deficits (ADHD, Lower IQ) and asthma are also cited as being pesticide-induced. AAP recommends pediatricians become familiar with the “subclinical” effects of chronic exposures.

General Recommendations
AAP’s policy statement provides a number of general recommendations to pediatricians and government apart from those mentioned above. The authors advise government to set a goal of reducing overall exposure by promoting methods and practices which minimize pesticide contact. AAP explains that government can accomplish this by supporting least toxic pesticide alternatives through integrated pest management (IPM). The statement recommends government provide economic incentives to growers who adopt IPM, and support research to expand IPM in both agriculture and non-agricultural pest control.

The report also recommends government agencies adopt community education and outreach, letting people know when pesticide spraying will occur in public areas. Strengthening procedures and enforcement standards for removing hazardous products is also cited as an area where government should focus its efforts. AAP strongly recommends government require a human biomarker (such as a urinary or blood measure of pesticide concentrations) that could be used to identify exposure or early health implications with new or reregistered products.

The policy statement also encourages government to provide increased education and support to health care providers. This includes providing systems such as Poison Control Centers for timely advice on exposures, and developing diagnostic tests to assist providers with diagnosing pesticide poisoning.

For pediatricians, AAP recommends that providers speak with the parents of their patients about the risks associated with pesticide use, and endorse the use of least-toxic products and IPM methods when possible. The Academy also asks pediatricians to work with schools and government agencies to advocate for IPM principles and a community’s right to know when pesticide sprayings occur. “Pediatricians can play a role in promotion of development of model programs and practices in the communities and schools of their patients,” the AAP policy statement says.

This policy statement is a sobering wake-up call for government agencies and elected officials that our children are not being adequately protected from exposure to toxic compounds. Beyond Pesticides would like to see the AAP recommendations swiftly enacted by government, as well as a broader adoption of organic practices, in order to safeguard the health of future generations.

If you’d like to work with Beyond Pesticides to change the pesticide laws in your community, contact [email protected] or call 202-543-5450. For more information on how pesticides affect kids’ health, refer to our Children and Schools program page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2012) The U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment process does not account for cumulative dietary exposure to the multitude of pesticides on conventional foods. The agency typically analyzes the exposure risk associated with each pesticide on an individual basis, except for those determined to have a common mechanism of toxicity. In light of these gaps in America’s regulatory process, researchers at UC Davis and UCLA in Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment conducted an analysis of the toxics children and adults are exposed to through a normal diet. Rainbow Vogt, Ph.D., lead author of the study published in the journal Environmental Health, explains, “We focused on children because early exposure can have long-term effects on disease outcomes.”

Researchers preformed their risk assessment by estimating exposure to food contaminants based on self-reported food frequency data for eleven toxic compounds- acrylamide, arsenic, lead, mercury, chlorpyrifos, permethrin, endosulfan, dieldrin, chlordane, DDE, and dioxin. Data was drawn from the 2007 Study of the Use of Products and Exposure-Related Behavior, which examines behaviors that influence exposure to toxicants in the home environment. Normal consumption patterns were then measured against established benchmarks for cancer risks and other non-cancer health risks.

Results of the study are of particular concern for parents with young children. Every child in the study exceeded the cancer benchmarks for arsenic, dieldrin, DDE and dioxin. Moreover, children exceeded the non-cancer and cancer benchmarks by a greater margin than adults for all compounds. In fact, preschool-age children (years 2-4) were significantly more likely to have higher dietary intakes relative to their body weight for acrylamide, lead, chlordane, dieldrin, DDE, and dioxins compared to older children (years 5-7). As co-author of the study, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Ph.D. notes, “We need to be especially careful about children, because they tend to be more vulnerable to many of these chemicals and their effects on the developing brain.”

The study authors note that data on cumulative exposure to individual pesticides does not provide a holistic view of the chemicals children are exposed to throughout their young lives. The study explains, “Since exposures may operate synergistically, additively, or even antagonistically, a more comprehensive approach to establishing safe contaminant levels in food would consider the hundreds of chemicals humans are exposed to on a daily basis through a number of different routes and from different sources.”

Of particular note for environmental regulators is the significant presence of DDE, a breakdown product of the legacy chemical DDT. Co-author of the study Deborah Bennett, Ph.D. notes, “Given the significant exposure to legacy pollutants, society should be concerned about the persistence of compounds we are currently introducing into the environment. If we later discover a chemical has significant health risks, it will be decades before it’s completely removed from the ecosystem.”

Beyond Pesticides has long called for an alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from the current approach of risk assessment by rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, when studies show (see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide—Induced Diseases Database) clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment”based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical”intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.

The study does review alternative strategies to reduce risk. Researchers put forward the idea of eating a varied diet and consuming many different types of foods because, for instance, certain chemicals may be found in lettuce and broccoli, while others in peaches in apples. The goal in this approach would be to minimize excessive exposure to a certain chemical. However, as the authors noted early in the study, attempting to minimize risk by eating a varied diet could lead to unknown consequences. Different chemicals can operate synergistically, possibly increasing the potency of other chemicals. For a look at the numerous chemicals found on conventional produce, refer to Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience Webpage.

The only sure way to avoid exposure to multiple pesticides and chemicals is to choose organic food, and the authors note this as a plausible strategy to avoid chemical exposure. Organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic -pesticides that contaminate our food, water, and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife. For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: ScienceDaily, Environmental Health

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2012) The National Organic Coalition (NOC) yesterday sharply condemned recommendations contained in the final report of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), a group appointed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address transgenic contamination of organic and non-genetically engineered (GE) crops. Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination. NOC strongly asserts that this proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination, while making the victim of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.

“The AC21 report takes responsibility for GE contamination prevention out of the hands of USDA and the biotech industry where it belongs and puts it squarely on the backs of organic and non-GE farmers,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety and a NOC member. “This ill-conceived solution of penalizing the victim is fundamentally unjust and fails to address the root cause of the problem – transgenic contamination.”

In August 2011, USDA convened AC21 and charged it with identifying compensation mechanisms to address GE contamination. The underlying assumption of USDA’s work plan for the committee was that as long as farmers are adequately compensated, GE contamination is a permissible and acceptable cost of doing business for organic and non-GE farmers. NOC has rejected this assumption, as did several members of the AC21. True to its charge, the committee’s final report failed to make a single recommendation holding the patent holders of genetic engineering technologies responsible and liable for damages caused by its use.

“This is a completely wrong approach to tackling the GE contamination problem,” said, Liana Hoodes, NOC’s executive director. “At the bare minimum, USDA must stop approving additional GE crops, and prevent GE contamination by mandating pollution prevention measures, as well as make transgenic polluters, including GE technology owners, pay for their contamination.”

Contamination from GE crops can cause both economic and social harms to farmers in the form of lost livelihood and reputation, and by compromising long-established partnerships and markets in the U.S. and elsewhere. Contamination can severely curtail or eliminate the rights of farmers to sow the crop of their choice and to practice their preferred method of farming. It can also limit a farmer’s ability to collect and preserve non-GE, identity preserved and organic seeds.

According to NOC, an additional shortcoming of the report is the recommendation that GE and non-GE farmer neighbors develop “co-existence agreements” as a means of moderating relationships in light of inevitable contamination. However, “co-existence” indicates some form of equality or a level playing in the situation. This is not the case. It is clear that organic and non-GE farmers are the clear losers under these conditions, as GE contamination precludes them from growing the crops of their choice. Moreover, the recommendation ignores the real-life issues farmers face, including absentee landowners, unwilling or uninformed neighbors, and the power and money backing biotech growers.

“Floating the pie-in-the-sky idea of farmer coexistence agreements is an obvious diversion from the critical issues non-GE farmers routinely confront with respect to GE contamination,” said Ed Maltby, executive director of Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and NOC member. “We urgently need meaningful regulatory change that institutionalizes mandatory GE contamination prevention practices. USDA needs to stop dragging its heels, get serious and focus on making this happen.”

Beyond Pesticides, a member of NOC, submitted comments in August 2012 expressing concerns about the report’s definition of “coexistence.” Beyond Pesticides wrote that the definition in the draft report fell far short of any true understanding of what it is to coexist and lacked any assurance that the involved parties would receive the necessary protection required in order to effectively coexist. Specifically, it was suggested that the inclusion of a phrase in the definition stipulating that all parties are entitled to assurances against trespass from genetic drift. Coexistence of any kind should include a shared understanding of boundaries and a requirement under the penalty of law to respect those boundaries. Without any guarantee that coexistence will ensure cultivation without trespass, organic and non-GE farmers will be at a significant disadvantage and “coexistence” will result in a severely imbalanced system.

Additionally, Beyond Pesticides notes that if contamination occurs and harm is done, appropriate compensation should always be determined and made available to all affected parties. However, it is more proper to put enforceable measures in place to prevent contamination in the first place, thus minimizing the issue of determining compensation in most cases. Much greater emphasis needs to be placed on the adoption of preventive measures by all parties, in order to minimize circumstances in which contamination could occur.

Earlier this year a U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto in which organic farmers, seed growers, and agricultural organizations argued to prevent farmers from being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto should they become contaminated by drift of the company’s GE seed, a legal strategy Monsanto has been pursuing for years. The plaintiffs are in the process of appealing this decision. Monsanto’s history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers in America has been a source of concern for organic and non-GMO agricultural producers since Monsanto’s first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-”˜90s. Since then, 144 farmers have had lawsuits filed against them by Monsanto for alleged violations of their patented seed technology. Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court, rather than face Monsanto’s belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions. Seed contamination and pollen drift from genetically engineered crops often migrate to neighboring fields. If Monsanto’s seed technology is found on a farmer’s land without a contract, the farmer can be found liable for patent infringement. Under the current interpretation of relevant law, Monsanto bears no legal or financial responsibility for such contamination.

Organic producers are prohibited by the Organic Foods Production Act from using any crop materials that are genetically engineered. Consumers have come to expect and demand that organic foods are GMO-free. Based on these expectations, some retailers specializing in organic products will test shipments of organic material they receive to ensure that they are not deceiving their customers. A rejection of a shipment from a large retail store can be financially devastating to an organic producer and can be crippling to a farmer’s reputation, community standing, and trust from consumers. This can happen despite the farmer’s best efforts and due entirely to forces outside his or her control stemming from the actions of others. GE contamination can cause serious environmental damage in addition to contaminating non-GM crops and organic farms, including the development of resistant weeds and insects, and the unknown impacts on human health.

For more information on Genetic Engineering visit the program page.

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

Source: NOC Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2012) Thanksgiving offers an opportunity for family and friends to eat, drink and be thankful for the bounty of the organic harvest. Unfortunately, there are a host of pesticides, genetically engineered materials, and others in conventional Thanksgiving foods that not only impact human health, but threaten the environment. Read below for some easy tips and suggestions for a healthful Thanksgiving day feast.

Organic, free-range, and local turkeys
The turkey is the symbol of a traditional Thanksgiving meal. However, turkeys are often fed grains treated with pesticides, medicated with antibiotics, and engorged with steroids and hormones. Additionally, turkeys are often fed an inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, which is used to promote growth and for pigmentation. In order to avoid all these, your best bet is to invest in an organic free-range turkey (pictured right), which is free of hormones, steroids or antibiotics. Want to forgo the turkey altogether? Be sure to choose an organic meatless option.

Avoid Genetically Engineered Food: Go Organic
There are additionally, a number of Thanksgiving products that probably contain genetically-engineered (GE) ingredients (although the formulations are often considered proprietary trade secrets). According to GMO Inside, some common GE foods used during Thanksgiving include: Campbell’s Tomato Soup, Wesson Canola Oil, Bruce’s Yams, Hershey Milk Chocolate, Pepperidge Farm Crackers, Kraft Classic Ranch Dressing, Rice-a-Roni chicken flavored rice, Ocean Spray Cranberry Sauce, and Kraft’s Stove Top Stuffing.

Thankfully, the majority of these products can easily be substituted with organic counterparts. Canned yams for instance often contain GE ingredients, but can be replaced by fresh organic yams. Another staple like Pepperidge Farm Crackers can be substituted for organic crackers like Mary’s Gone Crackers or Nature’s Pathway Crackers. Consider substituting GE cranberry sauce with home-made jellies made with organic cranberries and fair trade sugar. Organic jellied cranberries, such as Tree of Life or Grown Right, are fast alternatives. Finally, pre-made stuffing, like Kraft’s Stove Top stuffing, should be replaced with your own home-made stuffing or organic stuffing mix from Arrowhead.

Cleaning with Non-Toxics
An easy way to improve the health of your Thanksgiving guests and the environment is to use non-toxic or least-toxic cleaning materials. Mixing baking soda and water can quickly take out carpet stains, while vinegar can be applied to newspaper and used to clean your windows. If you don’t have time to make these at home, simply shop in the non-toxic aisle of the grocery store can significantly decrease exposure to toxics like triclosan, which is known to disrupt reproduction and development.

Cutting Wastes
Outside of pesticide exposure, a responsible Thanksgiving should include a range of waste-cutting measures. Planning your meals for the number of guests will reduce food waste. Instead of covering your table with plastic or disposable centerpieces, decorate lightly with potted plants. When waste cannot be eliminated, make sure to recycle your plastic bottles and cans and compost if possible.

Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks in a way that eliminates exposure to toxic chemicals in food, supports environmental and public health through least-toxic materials, and reduces consumer wastes.

Beyond Pesticides advocates through its 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.

Source: Living Green Mag

Photo Source: Really Natural

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2012) At its October 15-18, 2012 Fall meeting in Providence, Rhode Island the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) conducted standards reviews affecting the integrity of organic food and farming and rejected proposals that would have weakened the standards. As it does twice a year, the NOSB (a 15-member board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and intended by Congress to represent all stakeholders in the organic sector, including farmers, certifiers, processors, retailers, consumers, environmentalists, and a scientist) met in public, received public comments, and voted on a range of topics from biodegradable bioplastic mulch, supplemental infant formula ingredients, inert ingredients in allowed pesticides, fertilizers, to allowed synthetic substances. The Board considered subcommittee recommendations that had been proposed by each of the issue subcommittees -including crops, livestock, handling, materials, policy development, and certification, accreditation, and compliance- and subject to a public comment period that preceded the meeting.

There were several highly controversial issues discussed, including the addition of supplemental chemical nutrients to organic infant formula, the use and removal of biodegradable biobased-bioplastic mulch film, and the new review requirement for inert ingredients that are integral to allowed pesticide products. You can find details for the meeting on Beyond Pesticides’ organic action page.

Over the course of the four-day meeting, over 80 members of the public gave testimony on a wide array of issues. NOSB’s decision-making took into consideration these comments in conjunction with about 620 written public comments, before voting on final recommendations. Some of the decisions that drew considerable discussion are highlighted below. To see the full results of each proposal and vote, go to Beyond Pesticides’ Fall 2011 meeting page https://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/action/archives/fall2012-results.php

Inert Ingredients
Beyond Pesticides is supportive of the NOSB’s decision to require a review of so-called “inert ingredients,” those ingredients in pesticide products on the National List that are not claimed to have pesticidal effects, but may be carriers, surfactants, or other ingredients of the formulation. The recommendation includes a tentative list of the proposed groups, new regulatory language, screening guidelines for Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs), and a rough timeline and procedures for review and completion. An Inerts Working Group (IWG) has developed the review process and will continue to improve it as it consults with the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA).

Currently, this list of inert ingredient contains 126 individual substances, including inert ingredients previously petitioned. The IWG is working to categorize the substances in the “other” category into additional or existing groups, and likely 4-6 groups of chemicals will be evaluated every year over a five-year period beginning in 2013. A review of all the inerts currently in use is expected to be completed by October 2017.

Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film
In the motion approving the product, the NOSB changed the name from the material as petitioned, “mulch made from bioplastic” to “biobased mulch film.” Although Beyond Pesticides originally supported the decision to add biodegradable mulch to the National List, further examination indicates the product may not completely degrade (due to variable conditions that affect degradation, including soil microbial activity and amount of water and moisture) before application of the next session’s mulch, which raises concern about its impacts on soil and wildlife. Beyond Pesticides would have preferred explicit requirements for degradation ensure safeguards and compliance with the statute (the Organic Foods Production Act), which requires that plastic mulch is removed at the end of each growing season or after harvest. However, at the very least NOP has agreed to work with the Board in producing guidance to ensure practices that are optimum for degradation. Within the motion, the Board clarified that biobased film derived from genetically engineered (GE) materials or produced with nanomaterials is strictly prohibited.

Organic Infant Formula
Organic regulations stipulate that allowed substances must be considered essential for handling and must be produced without synthetic ingredients (except as provided in sections 205.601 and 205.603, which require a review of cradle-to-grave adverse effects to human health, wildlife, and biodiversity) to the organic production. As such, NOSB deliberated over use of several proposed supplemental nutrients in organic infant formula, including: ascorbic palmitate, a synthetic ingredient; lutein a synthetic ingredient that can be substituted with organic approved lutein; beta carotene, a non-essential ingredient; nucleotides, which are synthetic; and taurine, L-carnitine, and lycopene, which are all considered non-essential.

Only L-methionine was approved for use only in soy-based infant formula, which is made with isolated soy-based protein. Beyond Pesticides agrees with this decision, as L-methionine is deemed essential, or is an FDA-mandated nutrient for infants in soy-based formula. The body cannot synthesize the protein on its own, there are no alternate non-milk sources of the protein, and without this product there would be no organic soy based infant formula, as soy formula alone does not provide adequate levels of L-methionine, a required nutrient. We encourage the Board to promote organic sources of extracted L-methionine. However, Beyond Pesticides would like to see a separate discussion on the essentiality of synthetically produced soy-based formula.

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2012) New research suggests that the drug Stromectal (manufactured by Merck & Co.), which is typically used to treat parasitic worms, may also kill bed bugs. The active ingredient in the drug is ivermectin, which has also been getting publicity recently for its efficacy in killing head lice. Unfortunately, ivermectin, a member of the avermectin family of compounds, appears risky, and even unnecessary given that there are safe non-toxic methods to control and prevent bed bug and head lice infestations.

John Sheele, M.D., an emergency physician at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk who led the bed bug study, tested ivermectin on himself and three colleagues over the course of five different blood meals using three adult and three juvenile bed bugs. They allowed the bed bugs to feed on them before taking the drug and 3, 8, 22 and 54 hours after consuming the same combinations of different insecticides. Within three hours of feeding on blood containing ivermectin, the bed bugs began to die.

David Pariser, M.D., also of Eastern Virginia Medical School, led a different study that looked at the efficacy of using ivermectin applied topically to control head lice. Researchers found that after 14 days, a lotion with .5 percent ivermectin worked on 73.8 of the 141 volunteers, who were mostly children under the age of 12.

“Ivermectin is effective against a broad range of insects -body lice, head lice, scabies,” Dr. Sheele said in an interview with Bloomberg. “What I’d like to be able to do is a real-world experiment where we find people who have bed bugs, treat them with the regimen and see if it gets rid of their infestation.”

However, taking avermectin does come with risks. A number of adverse event reports related to its use, especially among the elderly, where deaths associated with ivermectin prompted a 1997 warning in the medical literature that it not be used at all. Side effects of ivermectin may include dizziness, loss of appetite, nausea vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, constipation, weakness, sleepiness, uncontrollable shaking and chest discomfort, among others.

Ivermectin and other avermectins are nerve poisons. They stimulate the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) system, a chemical “transmitter” produced at nerve endings, which inhibits both nerve to nerve and nerve to muscle communication. The affected insect becomes paralyzed, stops feeding, and dies after a few days.

In addition to human health effects, the problem with introducing more chemicals to combat pests is that it’s only a matter of time before they are rendered ineffective through resistance. Bed bugs have slowly been developing resistance mechanisms and have become resistant to most, if not all, insecticides on the market. On average, insecticides labeled for bed bug control can take over 150 hours to kill a bed bug, compared to seconds or minutes in previous years. An Ohio State study, “Transcriptomics of the Bed Bug,” published January 2011 in the journal PLoS One, confirms bed bug resistance to pyrethroid insecticides and highlights the need to adopt non-chemical methods for controlling bed bugs and other insect pests.

Fortunately, the chemical treatments that are more harmful to humans than bed bugs or lice are also not actually necessary, as these pests can be effectively controlled with non-toxic approaches. An Integrative Pest Management (IPM) approach, which includes methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat can control an infestation without dangerous side effects. This approach, as well as taking steps such as sealing cracks and crevices, reducing clutter and encasing mattresses can also help to prevent an infestation in the first place.

Head lice management involves the basic steps of education, prevention, monitoring, and control. Following these steps should prevent a serious infestation from occurring in your home or school. Simple precautions such as telling children not to share combs, hats, and blankets are a good start in preventing the spread of lice. If you do find lice, there are simple and safe ways to get rid of them. One effective procedure involves combing through oiled hair with a special nit comb (available at most pharmacies) and drowning any lice you find in soapy water. Learn more in our factsheet, Getting Nit Picky About Head Lice.

For more information, on bed bugs, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bed Bug webpage, which includes news updates and a detailed fact sheet discussing bed bugs, the problems with pesticide treatments, and alternative control methods.

Source: Bloomberg

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2012) The National Organic Program (NOP) will now require organic certifiers to conduct periodic residue tests each year on at least 5% of the farms they certify, beginning in 2013. Periodic residue testing is required by the 1990 Organic Food Production Act (OFPA). This recent policy change comes after a 2010 audit of NOP by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Inspector General (IG). Periodic residue testing on organic farms originally was to begin in September of 2010, however, confusion over NOP’s initial testing rules resulted in only a small amount of periodic residue tests being conducted.

The new rules on periodic residue testing mean that the independent agencies that certify organic farms must test up to 5% of the farms they oversee. Certifiers will test for pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and genetically modified organisms. Certifiers can test not only finished organic products, but also soil, water, waste, seeds, plant tissue, and processed product samples. Under OFPA, certifiers are required to test pre-and post-harvest residues even when there is no apparent problem. Although NOP’s revised rule on testing also eliminates the requirement for certifiers to report all test results, results must be kept by certifiers for at least three years, and must be available for public review. The NOP is moving to the new standard of 5% minimum testing because there had been confusion over the standards for what constitutes periodic testing.

This new NOP rule on periodic residue testing results from the IG’s 2010 recommendations after its audit of NOP. The audit was spurred on by organic advocates who criticized USDA’s implementation of the federal organic law during the second Bush administration. After the IG found that NOP was not conducting periodic residue testing, NOP justified this lack of testing by stating that the cost of testing would be too high. The budget of the NOP was then increased in 2010 from $3.9 million to $6.3 million and the staff was nearly doubled from 16 to 31. This larger staff and budget should allow the NOP to carry out the testing requirement in OFPA. Miles McEvoy, deputy administrator of NOP, asserts that organic standards have been strengthened under the Obama administration. The NOP has already moved to implement 12 of the other 14 recommendations made by the IG in the audit.

Beyond Pesticides believes in the strong enforcement of the OFPA, and that moving to conduct periodic residue testing would help assure consumers of the quality and safety of organic products. Organic standards are far more rigorous than the procedures used in chemically intensive agriculture, and as a result lead to greater human and environmental health benefits.

Source: The Grower

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2012) For years, scientists have shown that pesticide exposures are linked to the onset of Parkinson’s disease. Now a new study by researchers at University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) finds that exposure to pesticides and suffering a head injury are associated with a three-fold increase in one’s chances of developing Parkinson’s disease.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, and occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region of the brain are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nerve-signaling molecule that helps control muscle movement. People with Parkinson’s disease have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control, trembling and lack of coordination. Over time, symptoms intensify. At least one million Americans have Parkinson’s and about 50,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

The study, “Traumatic brain injury, paraquat exposure, and their relationship to Parkinson disease,” published in the journal Neurology surveyed more than 1,000 adults ages 35 and older who lived in central California. Some 357 of the participants were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Participants with the disease were nearly twice as likely as those without the disease to report having had a head injury in which they lost consciousness for more than five minutes. Forty-two Parkinson’s patients, or 12 percent of that group, reported receiving a head injury that knocked them unconscious for five or more minutes, as compared to 50 people in the non-Parkinson’s group, or seven percent. The Parkinson’s patients are nearly twice as likely to have had such injuries. Using a geographical tracking system, the researchers also found that those with Parkinson’s disease were also more likely to live within 500 meters of a spot where the herbicide paraquat was used. Parkinson’s patients are 36 percent more likely to be exposed to paraquat, which is toxic to both humans and animals. Nearly half of the study subjects with Parkinson’s had been exposed to paraquat, as opposed to 39 percent of the non-Parkinson’s subjects.

“While each of these two factors is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s on their own, the combination is associated with greater risk than just adding the two factors together,” Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, lead author of the study, said in a public statement. Dr. Ritz says her work suggests that a head injury may trigger a physiological process that increases brain cells’ vulnerability to attacks from toxic pesticides, or vice versa. Constant low-dose exposure to pesticides could place a person at greater risk for Parkinson’s to strike after a head injury.

While there are no definitive causes for Parkinson’s disease, this study is one of many to suggest that environmental influences, like exposure to pesticides, not just genetic variations, may be likely triggers in some cases. Pesticides are long suspected of being tied to Parkinson’s, at least in part, because of the high rate of the disease among farmworkers. Farmworkers have nearly double the risk for the disease if exposed to pesticides, with a dose-effect for the number of years of exposure. Exposure to the pesticides, paraquat and maneb, within 500 meters of an individual’s home, has been shown to increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s by 75 percent, according to a University of California, Berkeley study. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) found suggestive but limited evidence that exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam War is associated with an increased chance of developing ischemic heart disease and Parkinson’s disease in Vietnam veterans. Another publication found that rural residents who drank contaminated well water had an increased (up to 90 percent) risk of developing Parkinson’s. French researchers also found that among men exposed to pesticides such as DDT, carriers of the gene variants are three and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson’s than those with the more common version of the gene. Last year, researchers at the University of Missouri School of Medicine took some of the first steps toward understanding the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s, and unraveling the molecular dysfunction that occurs when proteins are exposed to environmental toxicants.

Previous work has shown a link between the pesticides, rotenone and paraquat, and Parkinson’s disease. One study found that people who used either pesticide developed Parkinson’s disease approximately 2.5 times more often than non-users. Scientists have also been aware for many years that both paraquat and rotenone are neurotoxicants that, when given to animals, reproduce features of Parkinson’s in the brain. Paraquat is known to increase the production of certain proteins in the brain that damages cells that produce dopamine. People with Parkinson’s have a dopamine shortage that causes the motor problems, muscle tremors, and rigidity that characterize Parkinson’s. Rotenone inhibits the function of mitochondria in the brain, which is responsible for regenerating certain brain cells. Both pesticides are largely restricted, due to concerns about links to Parkinson’s. Paraquat is restricted to certified applicators and rotenone is only permitted to kill invasive fish species.

For more information, read Beyond Pesticides’ report “Pesticides Trigger Parkinson’s Disease,” a review of published toxicological and epidemiological studies that link exposure to pesticides, as well as gene-pesticide interactions, to Parkinson’s disease.

The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database captures the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

Source: ABC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2012) There’s a new tool in the fight against aphids. Research published in the journal Horticultural Science discovered that reducing the amount of ultra-violet (UV) light in an environment can shrink the population of an aphid infestation. This study is encouraging as it has the ability to dramatically reduce pesticide applications.

Scientists carried out their study in two “tunnel type” greenhouses over three separate lettuce growing seasons. The crops in one greenhouse were covered with standard mesh netting, while crops in the other greenhouse were covered with netting that filtered radiation in the UV spectrum (the product ‘Bionet’ was used in the study). Researchers then artificially introduced aphid pests into the environment, and tracked their dispersal patterns and overall population weekly through a statistical analysis. Although the aphid population grew exponentially in both environments, it was significantly lower in the greenhouse where the aphids were covered by the UV-absorbing material. This has important implications for greenhouse-grown greens. Using this technique, farmers can reduce the costs associated with pesticide use, concurrently protecting the health of the surrounding environment and consumers purchasing their crops.

The researchers note that UV radiation acts as an important visual cue not only for aphids, but also other insect pests such as whiteflies, moths, and thrips. The study explains, “In fact, UV radiation is important in the visual cues of most insects, modifying their flying and alighting behavior, thus, governing its dispersal activity.” Modifying an insect pest’s dispersal pattern can help to cue farmers in on problem areas and prevent widespread infestations, making it easier to deal with the pests through non-toxic means.

It’s important to note that UV absorbing nets are not a perfect solution, but instead represent an effective strategy within a properly developed Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system. IPM is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control that eliminates or drastically reduces the use of pesticides. This is accomplished by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological, and structural strategies. It also stipulates the use of least-toxic chemical options only as the last resort. UV absorbing covers fit very well into an integrated pest management (IPM) program as they represent a method which minimizes waste material and avoids damage to the surrounding environment.

Aphids are harmful to both indoor and outdoor crops, and can cause substantial losses if not managed. The small pests, typically discovered eating the backside of a plant’s leaves, have the ability to transmit dozens of plant viruses and diseases. However there are a variety of ways to control an aphid infestation without resorting to harmful pesticides.

Mechanical methods of controlling aphids can be quite effective. This includes spraying aphids off of infected plants with a blast of water early in the day, or pruning or pinching heavily infested areas of the plant. However, pruning and pinching may only delay an aphid infestation and biological controls may need to be employed. When attempting to control aphids through biological means, the surrounding environment becomes very important. If predator species do not have an area to breed, natural pest control services are diminished. By introducing habitat for beneficial species, such as ladybugs, lacewings, or parasitic wasps, biological controls begin to put a check on aphid populations. As the beneficial insects feed, their population numbers go up while aphid numbers go down, eventually reaching a satisfactory medium where the remaining population can be dealt with through mechanical techniques. The fungus Beauvaria bassinana is also known to be an effective biological control for aphids, and it is commercially available under the product names Naturalis-O and Botanigard. Another noteworthy prevention technique is to avoid quick-release fertilizers, as aphid populations can explode as a result of high nitrogen levels in plants.

Embracing IPM in this sense means embracing an ecological approach to pest management. Mechanical controls, such as UV absorbing netting are effective tools, but in order to completely handle pest problems, they must be supported by an ecological strategy that increases the resiliency of the surrounding environment. By embracing biological diversity, no species breeds to the point where it becomes a pest problem, as the surrounding environment puts a natural “check” on its growth.

Learn more about controlling pest problems through non-toxic or least-toxic means by viewing our Organic Food program page. Organic systems embrace this approach, and are prohibited from employing any harmful synthetic pesticides. Learn more about controlling aphids indoors by viewing our “How to Manage Houseplant Pests” factsheet.

Source: ScienceDaily, Horticultural Science
Image Source: ScienceDaily

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2012) During the recent elections, North Dakotans voted to accept a controversial amendment to the North Dakota Constitution that protects practices used in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that are harmful to human health and the environment. The North Dakota Farming and Ranching Amendment states, “No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.” This amendment, supported by the North Dakota Farm Bureau, was created in response to pressure from organizations, such as the Humane Society and other organizations, that pushed for laws to ban small crates for chickens and pregnant pigs.

This constitutional amendment, which is vaguely and broadly worded, was designed to protect the use of CAFOs. These industrial operations are often viewed as cruel and can create significant problems for the environment and human health. The unsanitary conditions of CAFOs are produced by packing excessive numbers of animals into an unnatural environment. This process creates the risk of infectious disease outbreaks that would be averted under living conditions appropriate for animal species. To prevent these outbreaks from happening, CAFO operators feed sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics, such as penicillin and tetracycline, to livestock. This practice has become so common that, it accounts for upwards of 80% of those materials’ annual usage in the U.S.

Hundreds of organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (IOM), have recommended that livestock producers be prohibited from using antibiotics for growth promotion if those antibiotics are also used in human medicine. Feeding sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to healthy livestock can lead to accelerated resistance among dangerous infectious organisms that can harm human health. In 2009, the Cook County Hospital in Illinois and the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics estimates that the total health care cost of antibiotic-resistant infections in the U.S. is $16 to $26 billion annually.

Fortunately, the animal uses of antibiotics my soon be banned, as a federal judge recently ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must act promptly to determine whether to ban sub-therapeutic uses of antibiotics in livestock. Judge Theodore Katz ordered FDA to notify drug manufacturers of its intention to revoke approval for uses of penicillin and tetracycline to promote growth in livestock. However, as long as animals are confined to crowded spaces, antibiotics will be needed to stop the spread of large scale diseases.

Another environmental problem that CAFOs create is the animal waste that is produced from these operations. According to a recent report, CAFOs produce 133 million tons of manure per year (on a dry weight basis) representing 13-fold more solid waste than human sanitary waste production. Waste is often disposed of in wastewater lagoons through which the waste can leech into ground water. Water can also be contaminated as waste lagoons overflow or runoff from applications of waste to farm fields. This waste can contain heavy metals, pesticides such as dithiocrabamatees which are applied to spray fields, and the antibiotics which can lead to resistance among dangerous infectious organisms. Ingestion of contaminated water may result in diarrhea or other gastrointestinal tract distress from waterborne pathogens, and dermal contact during swimming may cause skin, eye, or ear infections.

This constitutional amendment is not only problematic because it gives unchecked power to CAFO operators, but also because it takes power away from local communities to control what happens near their homes and schools. According to the North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU), which opposed the amendment, this new regulation would trump local and state laws. It is a form of preemption law which effectively denies local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better public health protection when the community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient to protect local public and environmental health. The NDFU also argues that the amendment doesn’t require that a farmer/rancher use sound agricultural practices or operate without negligence, as the measure guarantees an unlimited right to use any “modern” practice.

Beyond Pesticides strongly believes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification standard creates the safest guidelines for raising livestock. USDA organic certification standards prohibit treating livestock with any amount of antibiotics. The standards also require that producers maintain living conditions that prevent infectious diseases from becoming established and adversely impacting livestock health.

For more information on organics, please visit our organics page and our guide to Eating With a Conscience.

Source: ABC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2012) Proposition 37, the statewide proposition California voted on to label foods produced with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, was narrowly defeated at the polls on Wednesday night by a margin of 6.2 percentage points, however uncounted votes may shift the results. Had it been approved, Californians would have required labels for raw or processed food with GE ingredients and it would have prohibited the labeling and advertising of foods using the misleading term “natural.” Though campaign organizers and most news outlets are announcing defeat, the fight is not over yet. Organizers of the “Yes on 37” campaign have begun to regroup, focusing on 4.2 million Californians that voted yes and building a grassroots movement with 10,000 volunteers. Their campaign’s optimism is highlighted by their campaign statement that was released yesterday online:

Yesterday, we showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop. We always knew we were the underdogs, and the underdogs nearly took the day. Dirty money and dirty tactics may have won this skirmish, but they will not win the war.

If Prop 37 passed, California would have been the first state in the nation to require labeling for raw GE materials and processed foods. While it might not take that seat, it has generated considerable scrutiny over GE food and sparked discussions in other states over their own labeling laws. Washington State’s grassroots organization “Label GMO Food” has taken up the cause for Proposition I-522 “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”. Volunteers have at last begun gathering signatures for the 2013 ballot, with 241,153 valid signatures required by December 31. Likely, the food labeling initiative will gather enough signatures for the November 2013 ballot.

Suffice it to say that supporters of GE labeling are springing up nationwide. The “Just Label It” campaign has continued to grow, with volunteers in Maine and Vermont gathering more than one million signatures to petition FDA for a labeling standard within their states. Rumblings of an initiative in Oregon have started as the GMO Free Oregon group has grown. Signatures are not yet being collected. However, if it did become a proposition this would be the second time in ten years Oregon voters would weigh in on labeling of genetically modified foods, as similar legislation has already been voted down.

Most importantly, the proposition has brought the discussion of GE food into the public spotlight. While half of California has so far voted against Prop 37, the food movement is alive and well. Food writers, such as Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, and Marion Nestle, will ensure that the GE conversation will continue. Mother Jones’ writer Tom Philpott gave a strong assessment of the movement: “Given the formidability and deep pockets of the opposition, I think it’s overblown to treat Prop 37 as a pass-fail test of the food movement’s political viability.”

The amount of money spent by the opposition is proof that this movement is a serious concern for those in industry who want to keep consumers from knowing what’s in their food. Even after being outspent 5:1, $46 million to $9 million, with the “No” folks spending close to $1 million dollars a day in the month leading up to the vote, the poll numbers were razor thin right up until Election Day.

And on Election Day, as a testament to the staying power of this movement, over 4.2 million Californians cast their ballots for the right to know what’s in their food. The next step requires national action, and Beyond Pesticides and the Just Label It campaign are asking supporters to do three things: sign the FDA petition for mandatory food labeling, tell friends and family to do the same, and urge your elected representatives to support GE labeling. Recall, in 2007 on the campaign trail President Obama endorsed the idea that Americans have a right to know what’s in the food they’re buying. So we have had support from the President, but we need to let him know that we’re paying attention, and he needs to act. With pressure from this burgeoning movement of concerned Americans across the county, we can bring much needed transparency to our food system. While California has voted down labeling of GE foods for the moment, consumers who want to avoid GE foods can always buy USDA organic certified products which prohibit their use.

Source: San Francisco Weekly, California Right to Know

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2012) In response to an emergency exemption granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the unregistered use of the herbicide fluridone on cotton in order to control glyphosate-resistant weeds, the agency announced in the Federal Register Monday that it is establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of the chemical on food. Because resistance to herbicides in genetically engineered crops is predictable and expected, Beyond Pesticides has challenged EPA’s use of the emergency exemption provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 18, in this and other similar cases.

According to EPA, of the glyphosate-resistant weeds, Palmer amaranth has become the most severe weed problem in Arkansas cotton production. It can reduce yields of cotton by more than 50 percent if there is a density of at least 10 of these weeds per row. Over 95% of Arkansas cotton and 80% of soybeans is genetically engineered (GE) to be glyphosate tolerant. Because glyphosate is the base herbicide used for weed control in this region, economic loss is expected on nearly 25% of acres grown. Over-reliance on herbicide-tolerant GE crops have caused the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers on the pesticide treadmill to increase herbicide application rates, spray more often, and add new herbicides that work through alternate modes of action into their spray programs.

In August 2011, a series of studies found that at least 21 different species of weeds are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, commonly sold as Roundup and used across thousands of acres of “RoundUp Ready” GE crops. Over-application by farmers on glyphosate to solve all of their weed problems has led to the proliferation of so-called “super weeds,” which have evolved to survive the treatments through repeated exposure. The spread of resistance is what has led farmers to increasingly rely on more toxic alternative mixtures. There has also been an increased push by chemical companies to engineer seed varieties that are tolerant to multiple herbicide treatments, such as dicamba, glyphosate and 2,4-D, or glyphosate and acetochlor. Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience recently petitioned the USDA to deregulate 2,4-D GE corn and soybeans in order for 2,4-D and other herbicides to be used to tackle weeds resistant to glyphosate.

This is the first time EPA has granted an emergency exemption request for the use of fluridone on cotton. The exemptions will expire in 2014 unless evidence is brought to EPA showing the chemical to be unsafe. Through its Section 18, or emergency exemption program, EPA allows the use of pesticides that are not registered for a particular crop, or in some cases not registered for use at all, but making progress toward registration. As a result of this use pattern, EPA sets tolerances for affected crops that are time-limited, usually for the season in which they are allowed. As a result, the database notes that these pesticides have an expiration date that is often renewed. The Section 18 emergency exemption loophole has been used in the past to skirt pesticide regulations meant to ensure health and safety and has resulted in the widespread application of unreviewed, and often unnecessary hazardous substances. In some cases, exemptions have been granted each season, challenging the concept that this is an urgent, non-routine situation as ”˜emergency’ is defined under Section 18. Reoccurring problems like weed resistance to herbicides should be a wake-up call for farmers and EPA to reevaluate and implement alternative biological and cultural management practices for the long-term prevention of diseases and end the reliance on the “chemical fix” that will exacerbate the problem when pest resistance to the chemical inevitably occurs.

Fluridone is an aquatic herbicide used to control large aquatic plants. It is currently registered for residential use on ponds and is used for the control of hydrilla and Eurasian milfoil. The registration review process for fluridone began in 2009. The most recent ecological risk assessment was done in 1991, however no assessment has been completed for endangered species, and ecological data was called in as part of the review process. A human health risk assessment was completed in 2004. EPA estimated aggregate exposure and risk from dietary exposure and exposures from swimming in treated water and the risks were considered “below levels of concern.” Most fluridone products have not been assessed for occupational exposures but EPA believes application exposure is negligible and does not anticipate conducting a post-application assessment. Final registration review is expected in 2015.

Although the mechanism of action of fluridone in plants is understood, the mechanism of action of fluridone in mammals is not well characterized. Fluridone is rapidly absorbed, metabolized, and excreted by mammals. At sufficiently high doses, fluridone is associated primarily with changes in the liver, reduced body weight, and reduced food consumption. Fluridone does not appear to be carcinogenic, based on standard life-time toxicity studies in rats and mice. Similarly, there is little indication that fluridone will cause specific neurotoxic effects or impairment of immune or endocrine function.

Fluridone has two degradates of concern: N-methyl formamide (NMF) and 3-trifluoromethyl benzois acid. Ecological data has been called in for these as part of the registration review. There is some evidence that its major degradate, NMF, causes birth defects. In rats, a significant increase in the incidence of malformations including cephalocele and sternoschisis was observed in fetuses exposed to high doses of NMF. However, due to current limited use, NMF has only been detected in the lab and not following actual fluridone field treatments.

The hope that additional herbicide options like fluridone will stem the tide of herbicide-resistant weeds is like feeding fuel to the fire in hopes it will go out. This process ensures that farmers are stuck on a pesticide treadmill which constantly demands greater amounts of synthetic inputs, including GE seeds, and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of farm profitability and the environment. Sustainable, integrated pest management strategies, including organic practices, and not chemical-intensive solutions, are the appropriate solutions at this time. Organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, and mechanical production practices, and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving.

Take Action: Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. Public comment on this final rule will be accepted until January 7, 2013. Comments may be submitted to the docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0756, at www.regulations.gov.

Source: Federal Register Notice

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2012) Pregnant beluga whales pass to their fetus a portion of the persistent organic pollutants, PCBs and flame retardants, they carry in their bodies, report researchers who measured the chemicals in the animals’ blubber. The study is one of the first to show whales, like people, can transfer and expose their developing offspring to persistent contaminants, whose long-term health effects continue to remain unclear.

A study of Arctic beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) confirms that mothers can pass more than a tenth of their chemical burden of PBDE flame retardants and PCBs to their unborn calves. This study found that the mother whales transferred, on average, 11.4% (7.5”‰mg) and 11.1% (0.1”‰mg) of their polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) blubber burden to their near-term fetuses. Mammals transfer contaminants, usually persistent organic pollutants (POPs), during pregnancy to the developing fetus and during lactation when the baby is nursing. Lactation transfer has been well studied in marine mammals, but very little is known about the transfer of pollutants during pregnancy. POPs are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, to be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and to have potential significant impacts on wildlife and human health.

Previous reports have documented toxic chemicals in the brains of marine mammals and identified several contaminants including organochlorine pesticides like DDT, PCBs and flame retardants in the cerebrospinal fluid and cerebellum gray matter of several species of marine mammals including the short-beaked common dolphins, Atlantic white-sided dolphins and the gray seal. PCBs have been found in alarmingly high concentrations. Researchers also found low levels of PCBs in the cerebrospinal fluid of a gray seal. The antibacterial triclosan has also been detected in the in the blood of bottlenose dolphins.

This new study is unique because it examines blubber from healthy pregnant whales. Previously most research has investigated beached or ill whales. This study is only the second to report mother to fetus transfer of PBDE flame retardants in whales. The study is also important because it focuses specifically on the amount of chemicals transferred to the fetus during pregnancy. Chemical exposure during critical times of gestation is known to cause abnormal growth and development. In some instances, prenatal exposures can impact health in adults many years later. Both classes of chemicals measured in the study are persistent and accumulate in animals at the top of the food chain.

As for humans, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published the first study to look at a broad range of chemicals specifically in pregnant women which analyzed biomonitoring data to characterize both individual and multiple chemical exposures in U.S. pregnant women. Researchers analyzed the data for 163 chemicals and detected about three-quarters of them at varying levels in some or all of the women. They found almost all — 99 to 100 percent — of the pregnant women carry PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, phenols such as triclosan, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate.

Various studies have reported that prenatal exposure to chemical pollutants, like PCBs, PBDEs and pesticides can negatively impact the developing fetus. One study reports that the antibacterial pesticide, triclosan, has a high potency to act as an inhibitor of estrogen sulfotransferase activity raising concerns about its possible effects on the ability of the placenta to supply estrogen to the fetus. Another found significant associations of prenatal pesticide exposure with structural changes in the developing human brain, and also may affect both length of pregnancy and birth weight.

These findings further understanding of potential risks associated with chemical exposures to the developing fetus before birth and nursing begins. In mammals, hormones direct critical physical and mental development during gestation. The fetus is vulnerable to chemicals that can alter hormones — generally called endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Both the PCBs and PBDEs targeted in the study can disrupt hormone functions. PCBs, PBDEs and various pesticides are known to cause a diverse range of health effects, including cancer, immune system problems and thyroid diseases. In addition, early exposure to PCBs has been linked to cardiac diseases in animals. Even though PCBs have been banned and PBDEs restricted they are still routinely detected in the environment, people and wildlife. In the environment, PCBs, PBDEs, and other persistent organic pollutants breakdown very slowly and can travel long distances, accumulating in wildlife, people and remote locations such as the Arctic.

The study illustrates that the health impacts of pesticides are often subtle and delayed, and that pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health years after being pulled from the market. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, to capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2012) In efforts to stamp out the deadly disease Dengue fever, officials in Brazil are in the process of releasing millions of genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes into the environment. However, some in the environmental community are concerned about the possible non-target effects of this experiment, and urge additional research in the lab before releasing the insects into the natural world.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the experiment is taking place in the small town of Itaberaba, in Brazil’s Bahia state. The company overseeing the release, London-based Oxitec, also developed the GE insects. GE mosquitoes are raised in the laboratory, where the eggs of female mosquitoes are injected with a gene that produces sterile male mosquitoes. The modified male mosquitoes are then released into the environment en masse where they crowd out native males and mate with available females. The offspring from these mosquitoes are supposed to die before they hatch.

In the town of Itaberaba, 84% of mosquito larvae now carry the modified gene, and the state government has approved an expansion of the program into five additional neighborhoods. GE mosquitoes have previously been released into uninhabited areas of India and Malaysia, and future plans include a release of the insects in the Florida Keys; though local officials are waiting on a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analysis before moving forward. Farther south, the Los Angeles Times indicates, “Scientists in Brazil are waiting for permission to take the next step: the carpet bombing of an entire city, Jacobina, with the male zombie mosquitoes.”

While much talk has focused on the grand possibility for GE mosquitoes to eliminate all mosquitoes worldwide, some in the environmental community are concerned that Oxitec is rushing into these experiments without seriously considering the possible risks associated with their work. British-based environmental group Genewatch is issuing an alert over the release of modified mosquitoes in Brazil, indicating that there is a possibility of some next-generation mosquitoes mutating further and surviving into breeding age. Genewatch is concerned because GE mosquitoes rely on the antibiotic tetracycline to act as a chemical switch, allowing the GE larvae to develop under lab conditions. The organization cites confidential company documents that show 15% of GE insects surviving to adulthood in the presence of low levels of tetracycline contamination. These results imply that the modification may only provide a temporary reduction in the spread of the disease, with further unknown human and environmental health effects as a result. Dr. Helen Wallace, director of Genewatch, notes in an interview with The Financial Times, “Staff would be better employed using the well-established public health approach of removing mosquito breeding sites [water containers] rather than in placing GM mosquito larvae at intervals across a site. Plans to scale up releases of GM mosquitoes in dengue-endemic Brazil should be halted. Authorities in other places where releases are planned, such as Florida and Panama, should also stop and think again.”

Researchers involved in the experiment respond to these claims by stressing that the potential benefits of their work outweigh the risks. They claim that no mosquitoes have survived so far, and that even if they did, it would be unlikely to cause problems because the altered gene is nontoxic and not spread by saliva. Although, as Genewatch revealed, the gene doesn’t necessarily have to be toxic in order to cause adverse effects. Professor Anthony James from UC Irvine compares the use of GE mosquitoes to the widespread use of pesticides, stating to the Los Angeles Times, “Most of the concerns are about some unintended off-target effects [involving species beyond the Aedes], but we know exactly what the off-target effects of insecticide are.”

While insecticides are surely not the answer to mosquito borne illnesses, given the current evidence on GE mosquitoes, Beyond Pesticides continues to recommend cultural controls as the main method for stopping mosquito borne disease. As a result of the massive West Nile virus outbreak this year, the issue of GE mosquitoes will surely not retreat by next summer. It is therefore of utmost importance that regulators and government officials not only assess hazards, but also consider alternatives when reviewing proposals to introduce gene altered insects into the open environment. In terms of biological controls, New Jersey’s Cape May County provides an excellent example of a low-risk alternative to employing insecticides or introducing GE species. Cape May relies on mosquitoes’ natural predators, tiny copepods that eat the larvae of the mosquito. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, there shouldn’t be a need to choose between GE mosquitoes or toxic chemicals.

For more information on safer mosquito control, see Beyond Pesticides program page on mosquito management.

Source: LA Times

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2012) An ongoing study in the United Kingdom has found that in areas of southern England up to 75% of the rat population is potentially resistant to the common rodenticides warfarin, bromadiolone, and difenacoum. Pesticide resistance was documented in rats as early as the 1950’s. Common rodenticides used in homes already pose a high risk to human and animal health, but as more rodents become resistant to these pesticides individuals face the greater danger of pest control companies using higher doses of more lethal chemicals to deal with “super rats.”

The rodenticides being tested in this study are anticoagulant pesticides that work by blocking vitamin K-dependent synthesis of the blood clotting substance prothrombin. These chemicals cause the animal to bleed to death internally. Not only are these chemicals toxic to mammals, but they are often used in dangerous loose bait and pellet traps.

These traps put children at particular risk for exposure because the products are typically placed on floors, and young children sometimes put bait pellets in their mouths. The American Association of Poison Control Centers annually receives between 12,000 and 15,000 reports of children under the age of six being exposed to these types of products, with Black and Hispanic children living below the poverty line being disproportionately affected. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that these rodenticides “are, by far, the leading cause of [pesticide-related] visits to health care facilities in children under the age of six years and the second leading cause of hospitalization.”

In 2008, EPA proposed to phase out these loose bait and pellet traps. However, Reckitt, the producers of d-Con, has challenged EPA’s proposal and until EPA completes its administrative process the products can be legally sold and used. Growing rat resistance however, means these products are not only dangerous but also ineffective.

An inability to control rodent populations is problematic because they can spread disease, gnaw through electrical cables, and get into food resources. Pesticide resistant rodents can also be harmful to predator species. Animals that hunt these rats, such as domesticated cats, will ingest the built up rodenticides that these rats have eaten and potentially cause secondary poisoning. A recent study published in PLoS One reveals the dangers rodenticides can cause to predators when they feed upon poisoned mice and rats. The study found instances of fisher cats dying as a direct result of eating poisoned rodents. The irony of this is that animal populations that often work to naturally control rodents are being poisoned by these rodents, which in turn makes them less effective at controlling rodent populations.

Resistance to rodenticides in rodents develops the same way as insecticide or herbicide resistance in insects or plants. The resistant strain has always been present in the rat population, and has been noted since the introduction of the poisons in the 1950’s. As these rats reproduced they have had distinct survival advantages where the poison is used because of their resistance. Previously, studying resistance in rats was difficult and this research was halted in the 1990’s. Over the past two decades, the problem has increased, creating an impetus to restart this research. The research is now easier because researchers now know the gene responsible for resistance and merely need to test for its presence–instead of carrying out lengthy feeding experiments.

As this “super rat” population grows and the rodenticides that they are resistant to continue to poison children and non-target animals, there is a greater need to look toward alternatives to these harmful pesticides. This must happen before individuals resort to the use of more toxic pesticides, continuing on the cycle of pesticide dependence. It is because of these types of problems that Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages consumers not to use poisons as a means to control mice and rats. We believe that defined integrated pest management (IPM) practices are vital tools that aid in the advancement of non-toxic methods to control rodents and help facilitate the transition toward pesticide-free (and healthier) methods.

IPM, as defined by Beyond Pesticides, is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control that offers the opportunity to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides, and to minimize exposure to any products that are used. A well-defined IPM plan does this by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological and structural strategies to control a multitude of pest problems. Exclusion practices (sealing up structures), sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and biological control, and pest population monitoring are some IPM methods that can be undertaken to control rodents.

To learn more about rodenticides, go to Beyond Pesticides’ Rodenticides fact sheet. For least toxic control of mice and other pests, visit our alternatives page.

Source: Phys.org

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2012) Despite the onslaught of advertisements saying otherwise, on November 6th California voters will be asked a simple yes or no question: Do you have a right to know if the food you purchase contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients?

Industrial chemical corporations and conventional food manufacturers think your answer to this simple question could dent their profits, possibly damage their image. So they’re attempting to make it as confusing as possible for citizens to understand the issue. The “No on 37” campaign has flooded California’s airwaves with dubious statements and misrepresentations in attempts to scare consumers away from voting in their best interests.

And they’ve made a difference. Back in March, a survey revealed that 91% of consumers nationwide favor the labeling of GE foods, a remarkable consensus that cut across party lines. Up until the past few weeks, before the “No on 37” ads started appearing, there was a 2:1 margin in favor or labeling GE foods. However, recent polls show Prop 37 in a dead heat.

What happened?

In early August, Beyond Pesticides reported on how pesticide manufacturers are “pushing hard” to block the passage of this proposition. At the time, the “No” campaign had contributed $750,000 to defeat Prop 37. Fast-forward to today, where the latest reports show the “No” campaign working with over $40 million, and receiving exponentially more every day that the election nears. To date, the largest “Yes on 37” group has only raised around $5.5 million. This is a substantial difference, and it truly is “”¦a great example of the power of advertising,” according to pollster Chris Condon in an article with the LA Times.

Money can buy speech, but the “No” folks don’t seem to be providing consumers with a more reasoned assessment of the issue. From a brief overview of their claim, one is likely to think that Prop 37 would place onerous regulations on groceries and retailers, hurt farmers, raise the cost of food, and provide arbitrary exemptions to certain foods. Moreover, the “No” folks claim there’s no point to this endeavor anyhow, as GE foods are proven safe. Given this flood of money and disinformation, it’s not difficult to see how the “No” crowd has been effective at drowning out the the “Yes” voices.

Here’s a quick run-down of the fallacious claims, followed by the real story:

“Prop 37 would place onerous regulations on farmers, groceries, and retailers, exposing them to lawsuits”

Under Prop 37’s language the onus and responsibility is on the manufacturer to label GE ingredients. They are the ones legally obligated to place the label on the product. Grocers would only have to label raw agricultural commodities, such as GE corn, which Walmart intends to place on supermarket shelves.

“Prop 37 would raise the cost of food”

An independent cost-estimating assessment from Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey, Ph.D of Emory University’s School of Law reveals that the initiative would not result in any additional expense to California taxpayers; Prop 37 is self-enforced and requires no new bureaucracy. This is the same argument that was made to citizens of the European Union (EU) before they began labeling GE foods in the late 1990’s. Manufacturers change their labels all the time without raising food costs, and the EU did not experience a dramatic rise in food prices as the result of a little more ink on a product’s package.

The fact is that conventional manufacturers are concerned that labeling will change consumers’ minds about their products, or move them towards safer products. This happened in the EU earlier this year, as chemical giant BASF reluctantly chose to pull out of the EU market because, “Biotechnologies are not accepted enough in many parts of Europe by the majority of consumers, farmers and political leaders. That is why it does not make sense economically to continue to invest in products aimed exclusively at this market,” a BASF spokesperson said.

In coordination with this move, the company decided to redouble its efforts here in the U.S. If money is any indication of how important BASF views the American market, the company has contributed around $2 million dollars to the “No” campaign.

“Prop 37 would provide arbitrary exemptions to certain foods”

It does provide for exemptions, but they are not arbitrary because they make sense and are consistent with other laws. While there are strict rules governing what’s listed on the products we buy at the grocery store, there are currently no laws requiring restaurants or bake sales to do the same, and Prop 37 does not wade into this territory. For meat, cheese, milk and eggs, Prop 37 doesn’t require these products to be labeled if they were fed a GE diet, but this aligns with other worldwide GE labeling laws. The Organic Consumer’s Association asks, “Would the NO on 37 campaign have preferred a stricter law than the international standard for GMO labeling?” In terms of alcohol, the labeling of alcoholic beverages is regulated under different laws than food, and because California initiatives can only apply to one subject, Prop 37 does not include alcohol. There should be no argument over whether organic food should be exempt from any labeling, because by definition organic foods are not allowed to contain any GE ingredients.

“Prop 37 is not necessary because GE products have been proven safe”

Beyond Pesticides, as a clearinghouse for scientific studies and information on the hazards associated with the growth of GE products, repudiates this claim. Study after study has shown GE crops and GE products to be dangerous to human and environmental health. Studies have observed that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects, such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. World renowned geneticist and biophysicist, and co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has cited numerous observations on the adverse impacts of GE foods, including severe inflammation in the lungs in mice, liver and kidney toxicity, damage to the organ system of young rats fed GE potatoes, and severely stunted pups. A 2008 study reported that GE corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. The most recent study showing that GE corn causes cancer in rats may be controversial, but it underscores the need for a precautionary approach to this issue.

In terms of effects on the environment, in April researchers at Portland State University found that GE corn modified to express the insecticidal soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) negatively affected beneficial soil life. Their results revealed a decreased presence of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake, in the roots of Bt corn when compared to non-Bt corn. Experts have recently warned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that “rufuges” of non-GE crops should be increased due to the growing threat of insect resistance to Bt corn. Moreover, a study early last month by researcher Charles Benbrook, PhD, shows that GE crops have significantly increased pesticide use and weed resistance, contrary to industry claims that the technology would reduce herbicide applications.

For a further debunking of the claims by Prop 37 opponents, the Organic Consumers Association has a concise article on the subject. If you’d like to take further action before the election, consider volunteering for California Right to Know’s phone bank.

We’d love to take all day dismantling the arguments by the “No” advocates, but time is running out, and the question is simple: Do you have a right to know if the food you purchase contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients?

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2012) Conservation groups and fisherman have filed lawsuits against U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding that pesticide restrictions be implemented around salmon streams. Regulatory buffers surrounding streams and watersheds have not been fully implemented by EPA, though it is required to by law. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which promotes sustainable fisheries, recovery of protected species, and the health of coastal marine habitats, commented that common pesticides should not be sprayed within 500 to 1000 feet of waterways. Its comments focused on the impacts of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion, which jeopardize the health of federally protected salmon species. Despite this and other evidence that supports the need for buffer zones, EPA has withheld action until the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolves the case.

EPA is mandated by law to protect dwindling species like salmon under the Endangered Species Act. Salmon, in particular, are a good indicator of how well we are taking care of both the marine and terrestrial ecosystems, because they live in streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and open ocean. They are also extremely sensitive to changes in water quality and upstream changes to the river flow, turbidity, and temperature. It goes to show that generally, the more pristine, diverse and productive the freshwater ecosystem is, the healthier the salmon stocks. Declines to juvenile salmon populations indicate failing ecosystem health and have dramatic impacts up the food chain as salmon are the primary food source for terrestrial fauna, ranging from eagles, ducks and songbirds to brown bears and grizzlies. Thus, by failing to implement buffer mandates EPA is responsible for endangering salmon and ecosystem health under the Endangered Species Act.

While EPA has requested that chemical companies change their pesticide product labels voluntarily to include buffer requirements, Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim Agan, and Cheminova have refused to take the request seriously. Primarily, they believe that the comments made by NMFS will not hold up in court. EPA can force these chemical companies to change their labels by cancelling existing labeling and issuing new ones, but it would have to prove in federal court that the conclusions made by the NMFS are correct, and officials are reluctant to be involved in a long court battle. Pesticide manufacturers have already requested that the judge throw out the 2008 biological opinion by NMFS on spraying common pesticides near waterways. Credit is due to NMFS for standing by its study and for its concern for endangered species. All things considered, the biological impact cannot be overlooked by the judge. When asked by a 4th Circuit judge about the economic effects of buffers, attorney Mark Haag said, “The determination of jeopardy is based on biology. It’s not based on economic impact.”

Needless to say, label changes are piecemeal efforts that do not address the larger problem that toxic pesticides pose to human health, wildlife, and environmental integrity. Beyond Pesticides calls for the full protection of endangered species through strong legislation that supports least-toxic chemical use. Throughout the years, chemicals have been poisoning our foods and sickening our children. Those chemicals cited by the NMFS are all organophosphates, which is a group of highly toxic insecticides that affect the functioning of the nervous system.

Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic life, and certain species of algae. Poisoning from chlorpyrifos may affect the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system as well as a skin and eye irritant. A study of children exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero found that extensive and unusual patterns of birth defects, including brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, palate, teeth, heart, feet, nipples, and genitalia. The published literature and EPA documents contain reports that identify similarities in defects found in test animals and children exposed to chlorpyrifos. There are also a wide range of adverse environmental effects linked to chlorpyrifos, including toxic to: beneficial insects, freshwater fish, other aquatic organisms, bird, a variety of plants, soil organisms, and domestic animals. It has been shown to bioaccumulate in fish and synergistically react with other chemicals.

Diazinon is a moderately acutely toxic broad-spectrum insecticide. Like chlorpyrifos, diazinon affects the nervous system through the inhibition of AchE, an enzyme needed for proper nervous system function. Diazinon is easily absorbed through the skin, and is synergistic with other chemicals, including pyrethrins and certain chemicals used in pharmaceuticals. Repeated exposure to low doses may cause muscle twitching, anorexia, malaise, depression, irritability, confusion, anxiety, and dizziness. Damage to the pancreas has developed in some people and in laboratory animals exposed to large amounts of diazinon. Diazinon is also considered a mutagen, as long-term exposure may damage the developing fetus or cause birth defects, nerve damage, and/or liver damage.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified malathion as a toxicity class III pesticide, bearing the signal word “Caution.” Despite the fact that malathion is one of the less acutely toxic synthetic pesticides, numerous human poisoning have been reported. It is slightly toxic via the oral route and dermal route. Malathion is rapidly and effectively absorbed by practically all routes, including the gastrointestinal tract, skin, mucous membranes, and lungs. Animal studies indicate it is eliminated through urine and feces, with a reported half-life of approximately 8 hours in rats and approximately 2 days in cows. All organophosphate pesticides act on the body, particularly the nervous system in the same way and their effects are cumulative, which raises questions about multiple exposure to these chemicals through many uses in and around homes and food production.

EPA’s failure to protect endangered species, human health and ecosystem integrity needs to be addressed, if only by implementing buffer zone requirements for toxic pesticides. In the long-term, focus should be guided towards least-toxic pest management methods that are proven effective, cheap, and safe!

Source: Capital Press
Photo source: The Bay Institute

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2012) On Halloween, scarier things then spooky ghouls and goblins may be lurking in places that you don’t expect; places like your child’s candy bag. Over 80% of processed food in the U.S. contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, and most major candy products are no exception. As responsible parents and adults, none of us willingly intend to pass out candy that contains GE ingredients to our children, but as it currently stands we don’t have the right to know whether we are or not. However, nobody wants to be “those neighbors” who give out pennies or pamphlets instead. Luckily, alternatives like candy with all organic ingredients can keep trick-or-treaters happy and give you piece of mind.

Halloween candies can contain a wide variety of GE ingredients. According to Green Halloween the top GE ingredients in candy are sugar (GE sugar beets), high fructose corn syrup (GE corn), corn starch (GE corn), soy lecithin (GE soy), soybean oil (GE soy), modified food starch (GE corn), fructose, dextrose, glucose (GE corn, cottonseed oil (GE cotton), and canola oil (GE canola). GE crops have become ubiquitous in U.S. agriculture with 93% of soy, 93% of cotton, and 86% of corn grown in the U.S., according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Studies reveal that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. A recent study also found that the use of herbicides has increased in GE crop production which has led to mounting numbers of herbicide resistant weeds.

As more and more GE crops enter our food supply, it is becoming harder to find food and treats that do not contain GE ingredients. Reading ingredient labels can also be confusing and time consuming when you are shopping at the grocery store. The easiest way to make sure the candy you buy has no GE ingredients is to purchase USDA organic certified products because by law organic food should not contain GE ingredients. Also, by purchasing organic candy you will reduce trick-or-treaters exposure to pesticides.

Shoppers can also use the Green Halloween and the Non-GE project’s “Guide to a Non-GE Halloween” and Veritey’s list of non-GE candy to help you find GE-free candy. Veritey’s founder Amy Ziff also recently put out this list of GE free treats in a Huffington Post article:

1. Endangered Species individually-wrapped chocolates — in dark chocolate, rainforest mint, chocolate cashew and more. These chocolates are good-tasting (some even have nuts), individually-wrapped, and reasonably priced. The company donates 10 percent of net profits to supporting species, habitat and humanity.

2. Maple candies — the positive thing about these treats is that they’re 100 percent made from organic maple syrup, which has some potential health benefits, and is nutritionally better and less processed than refined sugar. However, it’s also still a very sweet sugar to your system. And these candies are not individually-wrapped, so you’ll have to save them for trick-or-treaters you know well.

3. Yummy Gummy Candies — this is a candy that’s free of common allergens like peanut, gluten and soy and is also free of dyes, corn syrup, GEs and more.

4. Annie’s — gummy snacks or pretzels or cheddar crackers in snack-size packs for something savory. All Annie’s items are non-GE.

5. Trader Joe’s Organic Pops –these are individually-wrapped lollipops that use natural food coloring from vegetable colors, specifically red cabbage, purple carrots, tumeric and annatto, to keep their candies real.

For residents of California buying candy that has no GE ingredients could become much easier if proposition 37, which would require mandatory labeling on GE foods, passes in the upcoming November election. This ballot initiative would give Californians the same right that citizens in over 40 countries around the world, including all of Europe, Japan, and China, have that allows them to know if they are eating GE food. This ballot initiative is facing extreme opposition from corporations such as Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer, and other food industry companies who have raised over $35 million to defeat this initiative, compared to the $4 million raised by the propositions supporters. This flood of corporate money has tightened the race. According to California polls, support for proposition 37 has gone from a 2-1 margin in support for the initiative to a close 44% in favor and 42% opposed.

This tightening of the race is a testament to the problems of corporate money in politics. A March survey revealed that 91% of consumers favor labeling for GE foods, with 81% of those ”˜strongly’ in favor of enacting these requirements. Given the current partisan divide in the country, this represents a remarkable consensus from consumers.

If you’d like more information on choosing foods without pesticides and GE ingredients, visit our guide to Eating With a Conscience.

Source: The Huffington Post

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