(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2013)A federal grand jury in Macon, Georgia allege that Steven A. Murray and his company, Bio-Tech Management wrongly used pesticides in multiple nursing homes across the state of Georgia. This misapplication is particularly egregious as the elderly are  especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure and the resulting adverse effects. Since 2008, Beyond Pesticides has worked with health care and elder care facilities to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides at their institutions. Hospital administrators typically recognize that the population served by their facilities have elevated risk factors with weakened immune and neurological systems, respiratory illness, cancer, and other pre-existing conditions or  illnesses that make them especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure. However, hospitals regularly contract for  pest control services from vendors and do not independently evaluate practices and product choices of the companies they hire.

The indictment states that from October 2005 to June 2009, “[Bio-Tech] repeatedly misapplied the registered pesticide Termidor SC in nursing homes in the state of Georgia and falsified documents to conceal the unlawful use.” The indictment goes on to allege that Bio-Tech applied Termidor SC more than twice a year indoors. Termidor SC’s label clearly states that the pesticide can only be used outdoors and no more than twice a year. Termidor SC contains the active ingredient fipronil, which has been linked to several acute and chronic health effects.

Fipronil, a broad spectrum insecticide, was first introduced in the U.S. in 1996. Even when fipronil is used correctly according to label instructions individuals who are exposed can still experience negative health effects. Acute symptoms of exposure to fipronil include headaches, nausea, dizziness, and weakness. It may also cause mild irritation of the eyes. Once absorbed fipronil is rapidly metabolized and residues are widely distributed in tissues where significant amounts of residues remain, particularly in fat. Fipronil is also a neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies fipronil as a Group C (possible human) carcinogen based on rat carcinogenicity studies.

The ten counts of unlawful use of a pesticide were part of the 51 counts listed in the federal indictment. The other chargers included one count of conspiracy, ten counts of making false statements twenty counts of falsifying records, and ten counts of mail fraud. The mail fraud, falsifying records and false statement charges alone carry potential penalties of up to 650 years in prison and $10 million in fines.

The indictment alleges that after Mr. Murray was told that the Georgia Department of Agriculture was investigating his company for illegal use of pesticides he instructed co-conspirators to falsify service reports. The co-conspirators allegedly falsified service reports to say that they used CyKick T, which is a non-existent pesticide. The indictment goes on to allege that Bio-Tech sent invoices through the U.S. Mail to their clients to solicit payment for the unlawful pesticide applications.

Bio-Tech had contracts with a network of nursing homes that span the state of Georgia from Chattanooga to near the Florida border. The two dozen nursing homes that were involved in the charges were primarily private nursing homes, but also included the Georgia Veterans Home in Milledgeville. According to the indictment the nursing homes were unaware of the pesticide misuse.

The pesticide misapplications are particularly disturbing as they took place in nursing homes. The elderly are more susceptible to the health effects of certain pollutants, such as pesticides, than other age groups. Health care facilities such as nursing homes have a special obligation to demonstrate leadership in instituting effective and safer pest management in keeping with the medical profession’s basic tenet of “first, do no harm.”

In 2008 Beyond Pesticides, Maryland Pesticide Network, and leading Maryland health and elder care facilities released, Taking Toxics out of Maryland’s Health Care Sector: Transition to Green Pest Management Practices to Protect Health and the Environment, a report that documented practices and policies to eliminate toxic pesticide use. Since this report Beyond Pesticides and Maryland Pesticide Network have worked with hospitals in Maryland to move away from using toxic pesticides and implement a strong Integrated Pest Management strategy (IPM) in their facilities.

For more information on Beyond Pesticides Healthy Hospital program please visit our Healthy Hospitals page.

Source: The Telegraph

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2013) A three-month  extension of the  controversial budget provision protecting genetically-modified seed manufacturers  from litigation  was included in the  U.S. House of Representatives’ spending bill  on Tuesday evening.  Public interest and responsible business advocates say the provision  undermines the  federal courts’ ability to safeguard farmers and the environment from potentially hazardous genetically engineered (GE) crops. The controversial corporate earmark, also known as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” or “Biotech Rider,” was included in last spring’s 6-month Continuing Resolution (CR) spending bill, which funds the government until the end of this month. Beyond Pesticides joined Center for Food Safety (CFS)  and over 120 of the nation’s top organizations and businesses sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Mikulski Thursday calling on them to strip the rider from the bill on Thursday.

Wrapped in a “farmer-friendly” package, the rider represents a serious assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system and would negatively impact farmers, the environment and public health across America. The rider would strip federal courts of their authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop and compel USDA to allow continued planting of the same crop.

In addition to being completely unnecessary, the rider represents an unprecedented attack on U.S. judicial review, which is an essential element of U.S. law and provides a critical check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods. This also raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Agriculture and Judiciary Committees and merit a  hearing by the committees before adoption.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging ”˜Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of ”˜Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public and our justice system.”

In early March, Beyond Pesticides along with over one hundred food businesses and retailers, and family farm, consumer, health, environmental and civil liberties groups, led by CFS, united to oppose the biotech rider. Because the rider was added to a CR that was needed to avoid a government shutdown, some members of Congress were reluctant to oppose it.  However Senator leadership issued strong statements last spring opposing the rider. According to Senator John Tester (D-MT), who worked to remove the rider and is the only farmer in the Senate, “If the USDA makes a mistake when it issues a permit to plant a genetically modified crop, they can’t go back and pull that crop out of the ecosystem, out of our land. If a court finds that, in this case the USDA, a federal agency, finds this crop is bad, is harmful, the USDA, because of this rider, is required not to comply with that court ruling.”

In June, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee announced her intent to oppose the rider. The rider undermines the basic tenants of the U.S. constitution. It takes away the authority of federal courts to stop the sale or production of genetically modified crops, a blatant attack on the American system of checks and balances. In addition, the provision would compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately grant any requests for permits to allow continued planting and commercialization of unlawfully approved GE crops.

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage. As always, best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the USDA Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited.

Source: Center for Food Safety

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 12, 2013) Monsanto recently made a multi-million dollar contribution to an organization fighting to stop a ballot initiative in Washington State that would force food processors to label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Monsanto has poured millions of dollars into multiple anti-labeling efforts, previously contributing over $7 million against a similar proposition in California last year. In spite of being out fundraised, support for labeling GE ingredients remains strong in Washington State, and consumers across the country are becoming increasingly aware of the problems associated with GE crops.

Washington State’s Initiative 522 (I-522), which will be voted on this coming November, will require manufactured raw agricultural products that are genetically engineered, and processed foods with GE ingredients to be labeled by July 1, 2015. However, in the past week Monsanto contributed nearly $4.6 million to the ‘No on 522’ campaign. With this recent contribution by Monsanto, the No on 522 campaign, which opposes GE labeling, has raised close to $7.9 million, $3.5 million more than the Yes on 522 campaign. This influx of corporate money was predicted by Beyond Pesticides last month. In Washington state, individual and corporate contributions to campaigns for elected office cannot exceed $800-$1800 depending on the office. However, there are no restrictions to donations for ballot initiatives in the U.S., as they are protected as free speech.

Despite being outspent, polls in Washington show strong support for I-522 with 66% in support to only 22% opposed. The poll also dug further into how voters would react towards negative ad campaigns. The poll stated, “Support for labeling withstands a barrage of opposition attacks. After voters hear one message in favor of labeling and six messages against it, support for I-522 holds at 64%, while opposition only increases to 29%.” Though this poll is good news for supporters of I-522, the campaign still will face strong opposition by the heavily corporate funded No on 522 campaign.

This past November, Prop 37 in California, a similar ballot initiative to I-522 that would have required GE ingredients to be labeled, was narrowly defeated by a margin of 6.2%. Support for Prop 37 during the summer before the election was at 2-1; however, as the election grew closer the supporters of Prop 37 were outspent by over $30 million, and support for the measure weakened. The corporate money that was raised in opposition was used to promote misinformation and negative attack ads.

Despite the defeat of Prop 37, GE labeling activists started other legislative campaigns in states other than Washington and have won several high profile victories. In Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed House Bill 6527- An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Food. This bill will require GE ingredients to be labeled when similar legislation is passed by other states in the New England region with an aggregate population of 20 million. The Maine legislature also passed a similar law. Whole Foods Market announced in March that it would label GE ingredients sold in its stores, making it the first national chain to do so. Several other state legislatures have also introduced bills that would require GE ingredients to be labeled. In Minnesota H.F. 850 and S.F. 821 were introduced in February of 2013 and are still being considered by the legislature.   In Vermont the House of Representatives passed H.112, a GE labeling law, on May 10. The bill is expected to be taken up by the state Senate in January when the legislature reconvenes.

Activism around GE labeling will continue to grow around the country, as a recent  New York Times  poll shows  national support for GE labeling reaching 93%,  a number consistent with past polls showing broad support that cuts across race, gender, socio-economic class and party affiliation. On the Federal level Senator Barbra Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Peter Defazio (D-OR) introduced companion legislation that would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “clearly label” all GE ingredients. The bills, the  Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act,  H.R. 1699  and  S. 809, have 22 cosponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate.

GE labeling campaigns have drawn strong public support because consumers understand that they have a right-to-know the ingredients that are in their food. Though large companies have had short term success pouring money into state level campaigns, over time this strategy may help feed public opinion that these companies have something to hide. GE labeling campaigns come at a crucial time, as new varieties of GE crops are being introduced and evidence that GE foods are harmful to the environment continues to grow.

In Washington state, new GE crops such as Aquabounty’s  GE Salmon,  which are designed to reach maturity faster than their wild counterparts, and GE apples that won’t brown could have dramatic impacts on the state’s agricultural economy. On a national level, the  St. Louis Pots-Dispatch  reported in 2012 on progress that multinational chemical corporations Dow AgroSciences, BASF, and Monsanto are making to bring multi-herbicide resistant varieties to market. Under separate arrangements with each company, Monsanto adds glyphosate resistance to seeds that are simultaneously engineered to resist other herbicides. In October 2012, Dow AgroSciences obtained a  global patent  on its Enlist Duo technology, which packages an herbicide containing  2, 4-D  and  glyphosate  with seeds engineered to tolerate both materials. Monsanto has also been partnering with BASF on  dicamba  and glyphosate tolerant crop varieties since 2009 with a focus on soybeans, cotton, and corn.

The explosion of GE crops on the market  has led to growing  pest  and  weed  resistance, which has resulted in  increased pesticide use. Increased pesticide use threatens wildlife, particularly sensitive species. A  2012 study found the herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed on thousands of acres of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, to induce morphological changes in three species of frogs. GE crop-induced herbicide applications are also indirectly affecting the health of beneficial species. Widespread applications of Roundup destroy sanctuary land and the plant species that support beneficial insects and other wildlife.

The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited. To learn more about organic agriculture, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture, and Eating With a Conscious pages.

To support Washington State’s labeling efforts, get involved with the  Yes on I-522  campaign. National GE labeling efforts are being spearheaded by the  Just Label It!  campaign.  For more information on GE foods and labeling issues, see Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering website.

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

Source: KUOW

(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2013) In a report released Monday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s use and oversight of conditional registrations is lacking and unreliable. Conditional registration allows pesticides onto the consumer market without all the required data to assess the chemical’s safety. This has created many serious human and environmental health problems, including bee decline, tree death and potential increases in human health risks. GAO recommends that EPA better track conditional registrations, however, Beyond Pesticides and other concerned groups urge the agency to cancel registrations until all relevant data is submitted and reviewed.

According to the findings of the GAO’s report, EPA’s system for tracking pesticides with conditional registration is unreliable and thus, the total number of conditional registrations granted is unclear.   This lack of a reliable system for managing conditional registrations constitutes an ”˜internal control weakness’ because the agency lacks an effective mechanism for program oversight and decision making, according to federal internal control standards cited by GAO. The report states, “The extent to which EPA ensures that companies submit additional required data and EPA reviews these data is unknown. Specifically, EPA does not have a reliable system, such as an automated data system, to track key information related to conditional registrations, including whether companies have submitted additional data within required time frames.” However, these recommendations do not go far enough. Pesticides without all the data required for a full understanding of human and environmental toxicity should not be allowed on the market.

EPA lists several reasons for its shortcomings, including incorrectly classifying pesticides as conditional, database limitations that do not allow officials to change registration status, as well as a general weakness in guidance and training, management oversight, and data management. According to EPA documents, there is limited, organized management oversight to ensure that regulatory actions were not misclassified as conditional registrations. EPA instead relies on a variety of options including waiting on registrant changes to a pesticide’s registration to discover whether data are missing. However, these methods are dependent upon industry activity, and fall short of what is needed because they are neither comprehensive nor do they ensure timely submission of outstanding data. EPA officials told GAO that the agency has taken or is planning to take several actions to more accurately account for conditional registrations, including beginning to design a new automated data system to more accurately track conditional registrations.

Under  Section 3(c)(7) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  EPA has the authority to grant a “conditional registration” for a pesticide product under certain circumstances, if some necessary data have not been submitted by the registrant. As part of this process, EPA must determine that the pesticide will not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, while the data needed is generated. According to EPA, registrants typically have from 1 to 4 years to provide the missing data required by a conditional registration. An EPA attorney stated to the GAO that EPA views products conditionally registered as identical or substantially similar to currently registered pesticides, and as new uses of currently registered pesticides as meeting the same safety standards as products fully registered. According to this official, these products do not pose unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

However, this is not entirely accurate and highly doubtful given EPA’s inability to track and manage conditional registrations. In fact, recent conditional registrations have been responsible for severe environmental effects. In 2011, a new herbicide (Imprelis) granted conditional registration caused the deaths of millions of trees across the country in what some said was one of the biggest disasters of its kind. Outstanding data for this chemical included its impact on certain non-target plants, which went unevaluated. This product was quickly removed from the market after causing millions of dollars in damage. EPA has also recently granted conditional registration to nanosilver which is currently being challenged in federal court due to an inadequate review of data and the potential risks to children. Another controversial conditional registration involves that of clothianidin, which is linked to bee decline. Clothianidin was conditionally registered in 2003 without the required field studies for assessing risks to honey bees, even though EPA knew the chemical was highly toxic to bees. In 2010, EPA removed the conditional status for clothianidin and granted fully registered status, but it is still unclear whether the adequate bee data has been submitted. Read more about BEE Protective.

In 2011, EPA conducted an internal review of pesticide registrations under conditional registration and concluded that the agency may reduce its use of this “imprecise” category. In an April 25, 2011 post on its website, EPA provided details on its internal review on the use of conditional registration for pesticide products. According to the agency’s own review, which is now confirmed by this GAO report, the assignation of conditional registration for regulatory decisions has been vague. According to EPA, “There is no data system mechanism to identify or inform the agency of milestones or deadlines for conditional registration actions.” EPA states here that inaccurately termed conditional registrations have been used for decisions on label amendments, product-specific formulation data, and pesticides with already existing data based on other registrations, and finds that the term ”˜conditional registration’ is misleading and will explore reducing the use of conditional registrations.

Earlier this year, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published a scathing report on EPA’s conditional registration process noting that in terms of the agency’s ability to offer transparency and rigorously test these inherently toxic chemicals, “the public’s trust is misplaced.” This report asserts that nearly 65% of the more than 16,000 pesticides now on the market were first approved by the process of conditional registration.

GAO is recommending EPA consider implementing options for an automated system to better track conditional registrations. EPA agreed with GAO’s recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them. EPA told the GAO that it intends to: (1) conduct quarterly meetings to review the status of conditional registrations, (2) develop and implement new registration categories to more accurately reflect statutory basis for registration (as of July 2013, EPA indicated that the implementation of the new codes was completed), (3) train regulatory staff to use new codes, and (4) design a new automated system that will include tools to improve the identification, tracking, reporting, and program management of conditional registrations. EPA indicated that a portion of the maintenance fees collected from registrants would be used to start developing the system, however this new tool would require additional funding and it is unclear when a new systems would be integrated.

However, these recommendations do not go far enough. Pesticides without all data for a full understanding of toxicity should not be allowed to remain on the market. Doing so increases the probability of unknown risks to threaten public and environmental health. EPA has a long history of registering pesticides without adequately analyzing human and environmental health data, which even goes beyond the faulty ”˜conditional registration’ approach. Beyond Pesticides has for years said that EPA’s general registration process is flawed because the agency does not evaluate whether hazards are “unreasonable” in light of the availability of safer practices or products. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides urges EPA to take a more precautionary approach, given the history of incomplete data or assessments which can lead to mitigation measures decades after widespread pesticide use was approved. With some chronic endpoints, for example endocrine disruption, the agency has not adequately assessed chemicals for certain health risks. Several historic examples exist of pesticides that have been restricted or cancelled due to health risks decades after first registration. Chlorpyrifos, which is associated with numerous adverse health effects including reproductive and neurotoxic effects, had its residential uses cancelled in 2001. Others like propoxur, diazinon, carbaryl, aldicarb, carbofuran, and most recently endosulfan, have seen their uses restricted or canceled after years on the market due to unreasonable human and environmental effects.

For more information on pesticides and their adverse effects, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides Induced Disease Database.

Source: Government Accountability Office – Pesticides: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Oversight of Conditional Registrations. GAO-13-145

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 10, 2013) With mounting pressure from consumers and public advocacy organizations, multinational manufacturer Procter and Gamble (P&G) announced that it will eliminate the harmful antibacterial chemical triclosan from its products by 2014. P&G’s notice is the latest in a growing trend across the county, as both governments and private companies continue to move away from the use this dangerous and unnecessary substance.  In August 2012, the health care and cosmetics corporation Johnson and Johnson announced its own phase out of triclosan. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton announced in March of this year that all state-run agencies would stop purchasing products that contain triclosan. Colgate Palmolive announced in 2011 that it would reformulate many of its products to take out triclosan, but note that its mainstay Colgate Total brand toothpaste still contains the chemical.

Triclosan is currently used in a wide variety of products, including hand soaps, clothing, kitchenware, deodorants, and cosmetics. P&G’s website does not list the specific products from which it  will be removing triclosan, instead explaining that the only remaining uses of triclosan are in the company’s antibacterial dish soap, professional hand soap, and some other personal care products (P&G is the maker of brands such as Dawn and Safeguard Antibacterial Soaps). As with Johnson and Johnson’s phase out, P&G publicly denies that triclosan is a cause for health concerns. However, studies continue to show a number of adverse impacts on both human and environmental health as a result triclosan’s use. A study published last month reveals that triclosan alters the composition of bacterial communities in streams and can lead to bacterial resistance. Research shows that triclosan is entering aquatic environments at concerning rates, as wastewater treatment plants are unable to effectively filter out the chemical. A study from earlier this year found triclosan and many of its toxic derivatives showing up in the sediment of freshwater lakes.

Last year, researchers from the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) and the University of Colorado found that triclosan impairs muscle function in fish and mice and stated that the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure.” Issac Passah, Ph.D., co-author of the muscle function study and chair of the Department of Molecular Biosciences at UC Davis,  spoke on the issue of triclosan at Beyond Pesticides’ 31st National Pesticide Forum. You can see his presentation here.

Beyond Pesticides has provided extensive documentation of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in umbilical cord blood and human milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004. Studies even show that triclosan can react with the chlorine in tap water to form chloroform at rates of exposure considered significant by the authors of the research.

In May 2013, the Associated Press announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will rule on the safety of triclosan this year, nearly 40 years after the product first appeared on store shelves. In 2010, the agency acknowledged that triclosan provides no additional benefit over the use of simple hand soap and water, stating that the agency was “not aware of any evidence that antibacterial washes were superior to plain soap and water for reducing transmission of or preventing infection for consumers.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also reviewing the safety of triclosan this year. After pressure from consumer and environmental groups for its 2008 review of the chemical, the agency announced that it would review triclosan again this year, 5 years earlier than scheduled.

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both FDA and EPA requiring that the agencies immediately halt all non-medical uses of the chemical. In the absence of government action, take care to check the label on personal care products to make sure they do not contain triclosan. You can also do your part to keep your family and community safe by joining the ban triclosan campaign, and signing the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality and workplace to adopt a model resolution that commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

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

Source: examiner.com

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2013) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is now accepting public comments until October 1, 2013 for its upcoming fall meeting, to be held October 22-24, 2013 at the Galt House Hotel in Louisville, KY  (140 North Fourth St., Louisville, KY, 40202). Beyond Pesticides has compiled a list of the issues before the Board, which can be viewed on the Keeping Organic Strong website. We strongly encourage all those concerned about the future of organic food to review the issues and submit a public comment to the NOSB. The 15 member Board meets twice a year to review substances petitioned for allowance on the “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances” in organic production and processing.

Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong website provides a number of resources for people to participate in the organic review process alongside the Board. Note that throughout the week, we will be updating the page with sample comments, Beyond Pesticides’ full comments to the Board, and comments from key stakeholders in the organic community.

Written comments on the proposals can be submitted until 11:59 pm on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at regulations.gov. You can also attend the NOSB meeting in person to provide oral comments before the Board. Pre-registration to provide oral comments must be completed by October 1, 2013. You can register to provide a public comment here.

The NOSB acts as a life-line from the government to the organic community, as it considers input from you, the public – the concerned consumers and  residents upon which organic integrity depends. That is why your participation is vital to the development and the continual reassessment of organic standards. Rest assured, if you submit a public comment either in person or online, your concerns will be considered by the Board.

The Board is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.” The NOSB also may provide advice on other aspects of the organic program. OFPA and National Organic Program (NOP) regulations provide for the sunsetting of listed substances every five years and rely on public comment in evaluating their continuing uses. Sunset review, the process of reviewing substances on the National List every five years, is mandated by the OFPA. While no substances are up for sunset review at this meeting, there are other key issues related to organic integrity, including the question of whether the antibiotic streptomycin should be phased out next year from organic apple and pear production. There are, for instance, numerous substances that have been petitioned for use in organic production, including synthetic materials that would be used in yet to be defined organic aquaculture. To be added to the list of allowed synthetics, it must be shown that the use of such substances — (i) would not be harmful to human health or the environment; (ii) is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural product because of the unavailability of wholly natural substitute products; and, (iii) is consistent with organic farming and handling. The public may also file a petition to amend the National List, either by removing a material currently on the list or by adding a new one. In both cases, sunset and petition, the NOSB is authorized by OFPA to determine a substance’s status.

Background on upcoming NOSB Decisions

Streptomycin -The Board will be considering whether its previous decision to phase out streptomycin in organic apple and pear production will take effect next year. Along with tetracycline, streptomycin has been permitted for use to control fire blight. In April 2011, the NOSB voted to put an expiration date of October 21, 2014 on both antibiotics. The tree fruit industry petitioned to restore both materials to the National List. In April 2013, the NOSB voted to uphold the 2014 expiration date for tetracycline, but did not vote on streptomycin. Many issues are the same for the two materials. See Beyond Pesticides’ comments on tetracycline, Comments from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Statement from the IDSA on Resistance and the Pesticides and You articles “Antibiotics in Fruit Production,” “A is for Apples, Alar, and Antibiotics” for more information. At the October 2013 meeting, the NOSB will vote on whether to extend the use of streptomycin by restoring it to the National List with an extended expiration date. Beyond Pesticides opposes the extension of the use of streptomycin.

Synthetic materials in organic aquaculture -The Board is also considering allowed synthetic materials under yet to be established  organic aquaculture standards. At the October meeting, the NOSB will decide on proposals relating to synthetic chlorine, tocopherols, vitamins, and trace minerals as inputs in organic aquaculture systems, when the National Organic  Program (NOP) issues aquaculture rulemaking. NOP has not yet proposed regulations defining organic aquaculture systems. All of these materials are petitioned for routine use rather than under defined conditions when natural feeds are insufficient. Beyond Pesticides opposes the listing of any synthetics for routine use and the listing of any synthetic materials for use in aquaculture until regulations defining organic aquaculture systems have been adopted in final form and can be assessed in relation to previous board policy and the  petitioned materials.

Public comments are critical to maintaining organic integrity

Please  check back as we will be updating our Keeping Organic Strong webpage with more detailed information. And, as we raise our voices to protect organic integrity, don’t forget the big picture: 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. As opposed to conventional chemical agriculture, where there are tens of thousands of synthetic materials, including over 200 registered pesticide active ingredients, there are currently only around 50 entries on the “National List” of allowable synthetics. And all of these products have been reviewed for their human and environmental health effects, essentiality to organic production, and their compatibility with the values of organic as it pertains to the Organic Foods Production Act. To maintain this high standard, the public must maintain a strong voice in the organic review process.

Source: USDA News Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 6, 2013) The utility for northern California, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), has enlisted the help of over 900 goats to clear weeds and dried brush on 100 acres of its property. The goats will be used to clear poison oak and brush that is considered a fire hazard. Goats are being used across the country as an effective least-toxic solution for weed management.

The pilot project started this past August and will run through mid to late September. The project is overseen by Flying Mule Farm owner Dan Macon, who has been contracting goats for land clearance for close to 10 years. The goats for the project are coming from Macon’s farm as well as Star Creek Ranch, a goat and sheep operation in the Central Valley. Goats graze the area in fenced in 5-to 10-acre sections and have already proven to be incredibly effective by reducing one area with two foot high grass to less than an inch high in just 24 hours. The goats were brought in specifically to reduce dry flammable vegetation. “We don’t want fires being sparked and goats are the perfect opportunity,” said Lynne Tomachoff of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in a report by Fox40.

Four years ago a fire in Auburn, California  burned 340 acres, destroying 66 homes and 3 commercial buildings. Residents were worried that another fire was possible on the hillside being grazed by goats, as a similar hillside fed the earlier fire. Goats help reduce the risk of fire by grazing on dead and dry vegetation that easily burns. Goats also help reduce the risk of fire by replacing mechanical methods of brush removal like mowing. Though mowing is an effective form of brush control in most climates, mowers and other mechanical methods can create sparks that can ignite grass fires in extremely dry areas. Residents have responded positively to the use of goats as a fire control. Katy Smotherman, a local resident, was quoted by Fox40 saying, “I looked up and saw the goats. I was ecstatic. Like the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of  goats and grazing animals  as a least-toxic solution for weed management. Goats are often more efficient at eradicating weeds, and are more environmentally sustainable than using harmful pesticides and chemicals. Goats consume everything from shrubs and weeds to thistles and poisonous plants. They can graze up hills and down gullies that are too steep for mowers or machines. As they eat, the goats ensure that weeds do not go to seed. By snapping off flower heads and eating off all the leaves, weeds cannot photosynthesize sunlight to build a root system. Goats also boost soil health in two important ways: 1. fertilizing soils with their nutrient-rich feces and urine, and 2. tilling hard drought-stricken soils with their hooves.

The use of goats as a least-toxic solution for weed management has caught on all across the country. Recently, goats were used to control poison ivy, ground cover, vines and other invasive weeds at the congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C. Goats were used in Durango, Colorado to manage weeds, restore soil, and improve land quality on a 65-acre plot that was used for oil exploration. Goats have even been used at airports in Chicago, Atlanta, and San Francisco where overgrown property is difficult for machinery and pesticide applicators to reach because of hills and standing water.

For more information on natural, non-chemical land management strategies see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes  and  Invasive Weed Management pages. Also, watch Beyond Pesticides’ Board Member Lani Malmberg, a professional goat herder and owner of Ewe4ic Ecological Services, speak at the 31st National Pesticide Conference along with other experts on the  Organic Land Management and Cutting Edge Alternatives panel.

Source: Auburn Journal

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2013) One of Florida’s largest citrus growers, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., has been fined a mere $1,500 after a state investigation found that the farm illegally sprayed pesticides, resulting in the death of millions of managed honey bees. Beekeeper Randall Foti, a Crystal River-based beekeeper of 42 years, reported the bee kill to the state back in March. According to Mr. Roti, millions of his bees, as well as those owned by beekeeper Barry Hart of Fargo, GA, were dead as a result of over a dozen aerial pesticide sprayings in the orange groves. He estimates that due to the bee kills, his colonies were only able to produce half the amount of honey, resulting in a loss of $240,000 from honey alone.

”Every four days, they were spraying seven or eight different types of chemicals,” Mr. Foti told the Palm Beach Post.  “A $1,500 fine is not much of a deterrent.”

Though this is the first time the state of Florida has taken action against a citrus grower for a reported bee kill in relation to a pesticide violation, the Palm Beach Post reports that beekeepers have been arguing for this type of action since at least 2006. Mr. Foti alleges that he saw empty containers of Montana 2F in a burn pile in the grove.  According to the report, Montana 2F was applied to the roots of a total of 50 acres of young citrus trees.  The active ingredient of Montana 2F is imidacloprid, which is one of the most widely used chemicals in the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, which have been identified as a leading factor in bee decline. Beekeepers across the country reported losses of 40-90 percent of their bees last winter. The European Union (EU) is set to suspend the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides later this year, after a scientific review by European Food Safety Authority found that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees.

According to the Palm Beach Post, in a complaint letter sent August 21 to Steve Farr, vice president of Ben Hill Griffin’s Grove division, the state said that pesticide laws were violated on February 21-22 and March 8 and 19. Samples of dead bees, honey and honeycomb taken from one of the hives tested positive for imidacloprid, the complaint says.

The maximum fine for applying a pesticide in violation of the label in the state of Florida is $10,000 per occurrence. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently acknowledged that current pesticide labels do not adequately protect honey bees and announced new label language to prohibit the use of neonicotinoid pesticides when bees are present. The new labels will also include a “bee advisory box” and icon with information on routes of exposure and spray drift precautions. However, beekeepers and environmental groups question the efficacy and enforceability of the new label changes in curtailing systemic pesticides that result in long-term residues in the environment, contaminating nectar and pollen, and poison wild bees that EPA seems to ignore in its decision-making process. To date, EPA has ignored calls for a ban on these chemicals and continues to try to mitigate their impacts on bees and other pollinators.

The pesticides involved in the Florida incident were purportedly used to control Asian citrus psyllid, which can spread a disease, Huanglongbing (HLB), or citrus greening, to trees. A pysllid that is infected with HLB can transfer the bacterium every time it feeds on the tree, and once a tree is infected with the disease there is no known cure.  The disease can lie dormant for several years before tests are able to detect it. Though the disease does not harm humans, infected fruit is not suitable for consumer markets because of its green color, misshapen appearance, and distinctly bitter taste. The psyllids were first discovered in Florida in 1998 and has since spread to all of its 32 citrus growing counties. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has quarantined nine states, including California and Florida.

In California, efforts are currently underway to introduce parasitic wasps from the Asian citrus psyllid’s native range into California. Teams of invasive species experts have recently released tamarixia wasps to try to combat the pysllids in urban areas across southern California. The wasps curb pysllid populations by wasps laying eggs inside the psyllid nymph’s stomach. As the eggs hatch, larvae slowly eat away at the nymph. The teams hope that after the wasps hatch they will fly to neighboring trees and lay eggs in new nymphs and establish a growing population. Even though the team is only about a year and a half into this effort, at some release sites the population of psyllids has dramatically declined.

According to the University of Florida, there are approximately 6,000 acres of certified organic citrus in Florida. Farm operations that are USDA certified organic avoid the use of toxic chemicals by implementing holistic management systems plans. To learn more about why food labeled organic is the right choice, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating With A Conscience webpage, which has recently been updated to include information on how the food we eat impacts pollinators.

Given that one in every three bites of food is dependent on pollination, and that commercial beekeeping adds between $20 to $30 billion dollars in economic value to agriculture each year, it is imperative that action is taken to protect bees and other pollinators. Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective  supports nationwide local action to protect honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides.

Source: Palm Beach Post

Image Courtesy: University of Florida Magazine

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2013) More than a decade after Latino parents filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) detailing the dangerous levels of pesticides at Latino public schools throughout California, the parents are suing the agency for its continuing failure to protect Latino  students. The schools are near crop fields where methyl bromide and other fumigants are sprayed. In August 2011, EPA found that California’s Latino school children suffer disproportionately from exposure to pesticides due to spraying near their schools, but EPA has yet to remedy these exposures.

In attempts to finally force EPA to protect civil rights of hundreds of Latino children, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE), California Rural Legal Assistance Inc., Farmworker Justice, and The City Project filed a lawsuit on behalf of the original plaintiffs, the Garcia family, and multiple generations of Latino school children who still do not have substantive protection from the EPA. In 1999, the Garcia family alleged that their children and other Latino children were being exposed to dangerous levels of pesticides at their public schools, which are directly adjacent to several strawberry fields where methyl bromide and other fumigants are sprayed. The complaint was filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which prohibits intentional discrimination and discriminatory effects on the basis of race, color, and national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. The complaint alleged that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (CDPR) annual renewal of the registration of methyl bromide in 1999 discriminated against Latino school children based on the health impacts of this pesticide. Concerns were raised that there was an unintentional adverse and disparate impact on Latino children resulting from the use of methyl bromide during that period. This concern was based on the high percentage of Latino children in schools near fields where methyl bromide was applied.

In 2011, the EPA issued the first ever preliminary findings of racial discrimination based on Garcia’s claims. EPA then entered into secret negotiations without the Garcias and issued a settlement that does not remedy the discrimination suffered. As part of the negotiations, EPA and CDPR agreed to expand on-going monitoring of methyl bromide air concentrations by agreeing to monitor at or near one of the schools named in the original complaint. However, according to this new suit, EPA failed and continues to fail to protect the Garcias’ rights to freedom from racial discrimination, noting that CDPR’s measures fall short of actually providing relief to the children and their parents who were affected by the use of methyl bromide.

“I will keep fighting for my family,” said Maria Garcia, a mother and grandmother, as the lawsuit was filed. This discrimination has gone on so long that Maria’s son who participated in the original suit as a high school student is now a father with two children who will attend the same polluted schools he did.  These schools, like many other schools in California with high concentrations of Latino students, continue to face dangerous levels of pesticide exposure.

Remarkably, the Garcias continue to dream for justice for their children and Latino children throughout California. Their complaint challenges the EPA’s Civil Rights Act regulations and if successful the lawsuit has the potential to allow other people of color across the country more access to protections from racial discrimination. Most importantly, it will formally recognize that a healthy environment is not a luxury but a civil right.

Recently, CDPR announced that it detected the highly toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos in nearly 30% of air tests that are being conducted in three high risk communities surrounded by intensive agriculture. The state runs tests for air particles from methyl bromide and 32 other pesticides and breakdown products, and measures the results against screening levels established by CDPR. However, critics maintain that the state’s sampling is not representative of peak agricultural exposures and question whether any level of a toxicant in air is reasonable under the law, given the viability of alternative agricultural practices that do not rely on these chemicals. Pesticides can drift and volatilize, and move over long distances fairly rapidly through wind and rain. Documented exposure patterns result from drift cause particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups. Adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions.

Meanwhile, farmworkers and their families gathered on Capitol Hill this summer to meet with their members of Congress to urge for stronger protections for farmworkers from hazardous pesticides. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, farmworkers and their children, who often times also work on the farm or live nearby, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments and Parkinson’s disease. In testimony on Capitol Hill, Occupational and Environmental Health Director of Farmworker Justice Virginia Ruiz painted a grim picture of the conditions farmworkers and their families face. She stated, “The close proximity of agricultural fields to residential areas and schools makes it nearly impossible for farmworkers and their families to escape exposure because pesticides are in the air they breathe and the food they eat, and the soil where they work and play.” She noted the heartbreaking point that, in order to minimize exposure, farmworkers are told not to hug their children when they come home from work — they must first remove their clothes, and take a shower.

An estimated 5.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops annually in the U.S., and farmworkers face the greatest threat from these chemicals than any other sector of society, with thousands of farmworkers each year experiencing pesticide poisoning. The best way for consumers to prevent use  of hazardous fumigants and other pesticides is to buy organically produced food. Support organic farming and protect farmers, farmworkers, and their families and neighbors from toxic chemicals. Organic agriculture does not allow the use of the chemicals cited in the lawsuit as well as toxic chemicals that have been shown to drift and cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.

Beyond Pesticides recently updated the Eating with a Conscience database to reflect the risk conventional produce poses to farmworker health. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Sources:

Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment  

Treehugger

(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2013) For the past several years, corn rootworms  have  been widely reported to exhibit resistance  to corn genetically engineered (GE) with the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin. A  new report by  University of Illinois researchers found the resistant corn rootworm  in two of the state’s counties significantly damaged by western corn rootworm. The increasing lack of efficacy of GE corn, developed with the claim that it  is specifically designed to protect corn from rootworm, calls into question the efforts of agrichemical companies to patent new forms of GE crops.

The report by Joe Spencer, PhD, and Michael Gray, PhD,  identifies significant damage from western corn rootworms in farm field that were planted with GE corn that contain a Bt protein referred to as “Cry3Bb1,” which has been inserted into nearly one-third of the corn planted in the United States. This version of Bt corn was introduced by Monsanto in 2003, and was touted as a way to reduce insecticide use against rootworm pests. Evidence was gathered in two Illinois counties, Livingston and Kankakee, after fields that had severe root pruning and lodging were brought to the attention of Drs. Spencer and Gray. Dr. Gray was quoted in a Reuters article stating,”Farmers across ”˜a wide swath of Illinois’ could face formidable challenges protecting corn crops.”

Even more problematic is that western corn rootworms also appear to be resistant to crop rotation. The crop damage was found in fields where the GE corn had been planted in a rotation following soybeans. Rootworms were also collected in the adjacent soybean fields. The report found the number of adult rootworm beetles in the soybean field was reminiscent of densities in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. According to Dr. Spencer, “It looked like continuous corn and use of the same trait year after year is what produced resistant beetles. Growers thought their get-out-of-jail-free card was just to rotate to soybeans. But what we’re seeing in northeast and east-central Illinois are beetles that are also resistant to crop rotation.”

Western corn rootworm, along with northern corn rootworm, are the two species of rootworm that may cause severe damage to corn as both larvae and adults. Southern corn rootworms can cause damage to corn leaves, but because they cannot overwinter in most areas of the Midwest their larvae do not pose a major threat to Midwestern corn production. Western corn rootworms deposit their eggs in the soil from midsummer to autumn and the eggs begin hatching in late May and early June. Western corn rootworm larvae feed on the roots of corn plants, inhibiting the plant’s ability to absorb moisture and nutrients, while opening a pathway for attack from soil-borne pathogens. The agricultural chemicals bifenthrin, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, cyfluthrin, and deltamethrin are commonly used insecticides to control for western corn rootworm. As western corn rootworms have become resistant to Bt corn, farmers have begun to rely more heavily on chemical methods.

Corn rootworm resistance to Bt corn has been widely reported for the past several years. A January 17, 2013  release from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that “corn rootworm may not be completely controlled by Cry3Bb1 in certain parts of the corn belt.” In 2011, entomologists at Iowa State University  published a study  verifying the first field-evolved resistance of corn rootworm to a Bt toxin. The researchers documented resistance to the Bt toxin Cry3Bb1. The study found the western rootworm’s ability to adapt was strongest in fields where Bt corn was planted for three consecutive years and suggested that insufficient planting of refuges may have contributed to the resistance. This study was cited by a group of 22 prominent entomologists who submitted formal comments to the EPA on their concerns of the viability of Cry3Bb1 corn. Recent research also shows that the cultivation of Bt corn has negative impacts on beneficial soil life.

In their report, Drs. Gray and Spencer recommend that, “Producers in the most severely affected areas (central and east central) of Illinois should consider the use of pyramided Bt hybrids (hybrids expressing more than one rootworm Cry protein) in 2014.” However, pyramided or stacked GE corn varieties have also been  shown to be ineffective. A University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences study, published in the Journal PNAS, found that insects that were bred to be resistant to one form of Bt toxin were often cross-resistant to other forms of Bt toxin.

As insects and weeds become resistant to GE crops and the herbicides the crops are engineered to  resist, agrichemical companies are working to introduce a new generation of GE crops. The  St. Louis Pots-Dispatch  reported in 2012 on progress that multinational chemical corporations Dow AgroSciences, BASF, and Monsanto are making to bring multi-herbicide resistant varieties to market. Under separate arrangements with each company, Monsanto adds glyphosate resistance to seeds that are simultaneously engineered to resist other herbicides. In October 2012, Dow AgroSciences obtained a  global patent  on its Enlist Duo technology, which packages an herbicide containing 2, 4-D and glyphosate with seeds engineered to tolerate both materials. Monsanto has also been partnering with BASF on  dicamba  and glyphosate tolerant crop varieties since 2009 with a focus on soybeans, cotton, and corn.

The report by Drs. Gray and Spencer, though important for showing increased rootworm resistance to Bt corn, makes unsustainable recommendations to farmers that they use pyramided Bt hybrids or “planting-time soil insecticides” to reduce western corn rootworm in 2014. A sustainable solution to rootworm resistance is the transition to organic agriculture. 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.  For more reasons to support organic agriculture, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Why Organic page.

Source: Reuters

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2013) Months after Central American health ministries issued a  joint declaration citing kidney disease as a top public health priority, the World Bank just approved a new loan to expand sugar cane plantations in Nicaragua. The Bank’s loan represents renewed support for an industry whose workers have been devastated by the disease, which has increasingly been linked to pesticide exposure and exacerbated by heat stress. Kidney disease afflicts agricultural workers in sugar cane fields, killing thousands each year in Central America as well as in Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists have yet to definitively uncover the cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), although emerging research points to toxic heavy metals contained in pesticides as one of the primary culprits. CKD is a condition characterized by a gradual loss of kidney function and is often lethal for poor agricultural workers. As the kidneys begin to fail, wastes can build in the blood causing complications such as high blood pressure, anemia, weak bones, poor nutritional health and nerve damage. Several published studies demonstrate that exposure to certain  organochlorine pesticide products and their heavy metal contaminants used on sugar cane plantations are causally linked to CKD.

The recent joint declaration formally recognized the disease and its unique characteristics, with several of the region’s health ministries pledging meaningful new steps, including more detailed statistical tracking of CKD, the development of national and regional plans to investigate and treat the disease, and promotion of stronger regulation of pesticides. However, the approval of the new $15 million loan from the World Bank signals a disregard of the growing issue of CKD that plagues rural Central America and the efforts of these governments to tackle this public health problem.

Despite mounting  scientific evidence linking pesticide exposure to CKD, the World Bank approved the loan, stating in its environmental and social review that there is no proof that CKD is linked to sugarcane work. “Disease epidemiology and an alleged connection between sugar industries in general have previously been investigated through studies requested by the IFC Compliance Advisor Ombudsman,” stated the IFC’s review documents. “No direct relationship between the sugar sector and the disease has been established.”

The loan was provided by the private sector lending arm of the World Bank””the International Finance Corporation (IFC)””and will go toward expanding the Montelimar sugar cane plantation in western Nicaragua. The last year IFC provided Nicaragua with loans for sugar cane plantations was in 2006. At that time, farmworkers afflicted with CKD filed a formal complaint with the IFC ombudsman, charging that the loan did not consider the threats of the epidemic to farmworkers, in direct violation of the Bank’s requirements for a thorough environmental and social review.

The World Bank’s assessment relies on a Boston University  study,  which found, after studying workers over one six-month harvest season in Nicaragua, that the causes of CKD were still unclear. However, lead scientist of the study Daniel Brooks, PhD. said that, while the Bank’s assessment is technically accurate, it completely mischaracterizes the significance of the findings. “What I wouldn’t say there is that there’s no direct link and what I wouldn’t say is that the evidence is most consistent with no link,” Dr. Brooks said. “It’s pretty much the consensus of researchers in the region that heat stress and these occupational exposures are most likely to be playing a role.”

These concerns are backed by the Council of Health Ministers of Central America, which agreed in its declaration that,  “This disease fundamentally affects socially vulnerable groups of agricultural communities along the Pacific Coast of Central America, predominates has been associated with conditions including toxic environmental and occupational risk factors, dehydration, and habits that are damaging to renal health.”

Several pesticides have been implicated in the disease. An official study conducted by the World Health Organization and the Sri Lankan Health Ministry found high levels of cadmium and arsenic, heavy metals toxic to the kidneys, within environmental samples from the region as well as in the urine, hair and nails of patients. Other chemicals implicated include the herbicides 2,4-D and  glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. One study conducted in El Salvador, in a town highly effected by CKD, not only found that the patients exhibited elevated levels of heavy metals, but that 100% of its patients had been involved in the application of 2,4-D and 75% had applied glyphosate in the sugarcane plantations.

While Dow and Monsanto, manufacturers of the chemicals associated with higher risks of developing CKD, deny the linkage outright, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that excessive quantities of both 2,4-D and glyphosate can cause kidney damage. More research is needed on the other exposure pathways.

Unfortunately, IFC’s Review for the loan merely describes proper hydration as part of the occupational health and safety standards to protect its workers from CKD. It largely ignores the research demonstrating toxic chemical exposure causes serious health risks to at risk  agricultural workers.

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

Source: The Center for Public Integrity

Photo Source: Pulsamerica

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2013) A federal lawsuit was filed on Tuesday to stop the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops and restrict the widespread use of pesticides in national wildlife refuges in the Midwest Region. The lawsuit seeks to  enforce the legal requirement  that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which operates the refuges, conducts a comprehensive environmental review  and halts GE crops on these sites until environmental compliance standards are fully met.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and the Sierra Club. It states that FWS illegally entered into Cooperative Farming Agreements with private parties on five refuges in the four states of the Midwest Region””Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri”” allowing land in the region to be to be plowed over and planted with GE crops without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Refuge Improvement Act.

“Genetically engineered crops and pesticides have no place in the wildlife refuges, but must  be subject to clear standards of environmental protection. These refuges serve an integral function of preserving and fostering endangered species,” said Jay Feldman, executive director at Beyond Pesticides. “The cultivation of GE crops and pesticide use in refuges is a contradiction to FWS’ mission to restore degraded or modified habitats.”

The lawsuit is the fifth filed by these groups, challenging the planting of GE crops on refuges. In January 2011, FWS agreed to stop planting GE crops on all its refuges in twelve Northeastern states, following a settlement agreement that challenged the approval of GE planting in two wildlife refuges in Delaware. The suit was followed by a ruling that barred FWS from entering into Cooperative Farming Agreements in 128 refuges across eight states in the Southeast. Unfortunately, a separate ruling in October 2012 found that the FWS Environmental Assessment for GE planting in the Midwest region was adequate. So, it is yet to be seen whether this newest lawsuit will successfully stop GE planting in refuges in the Midwest.

Aside from charges that FWS stop GE planting, the lawsuit challenges the use of harmful pesticides that peer-reviewed science has shown to:

• Cause devastating declines to bee populations and harm to other beneficial pollinator insects like the monarch butterfly;
• Severely contaminate waterways and harm aquatic organisms; and
• Damage the reproduction and morphology of amphibian populations.

FWS manages over 500 national wildlife refuges in the U.S.  and has allowed farming on these lands. However, the practice is losing support among refuge managers. Refuge policy states that GE crops should not be used except when essential to accomplish a refuge purpose. In contrast, GE crops require more frequent and increased applications of toxic herbicides, which has fostered an epidemic of “super weeds” as weeds have mutated.   Recent research demonstrates a rise in these resistant  weeds, adding to the extant problem that GE crops increase pesticide use, harming birds, aquatic animals and other wildlife. Likely, environmental advocacy groups will continue to launch lawsuits until the FWS changes its practices and policy on the use of GE crops in wildlife refuges throughout the country.

For more on genetically engineered agriculture read Beyond Pesticides’ article “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market” on our Genetic Engineering program page.

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

Source: PEER

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2013) Industry giant, Syngenta, has filed a legal challenge to the European Union’s suspension of one of its insecticides, thiamethoxam, linked to the decline in bee populations that has been observed in Europe and the rest of the world. Thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid and active ingredient in Syngenta’s Cruiser seed treatments, is widely used to treat seed and degrades into another neonicotinoid, clothianidin, also subject to a moratorium in the  European Union. Both chemicals are cited in a lawsuit seeking their suspension, which was brought by beekeepers and environmental groups in the U.S.

Earlier this year, the European Commission made a landmark decision announcing a two-year continent-wide ban on the neonicotinoid pesticides: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. The decision came in response to a scientific report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that identified “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of the neonicotinoid chemicals. Thiamethoxam, as well as clothianidin, are routinely used to treat seeds, especially for major crops like corn. A  15 member states majority  supported the ban, with eight against, and four abstaining. However, in its press release, Syngenta claims that the European Commission made its  decision on the basis of a flawed process, an inaccurate and incomplete assessment by EFSA, and without the full support of EU member states.

Syngenta’s chief operating officer, John Atkin, said the company “would prefer not to take legal action but have no other choice given our firm belief that the Commission wrongly linked thiamethoxam to the decline in bee health. In suspending the product, it breached EU pesticide legislation and incorrectly applied the precautionary principle.”

A second major pesticide producer, Bayer Crop Science, filed a similar legal challenge with the Court of Justice of the European Union in mid-August. Bayer claims that its pesticides, imidacloprid and clothianidin, have been on the market for many years and have been extensively tested and approved. According to EU guidelines, approved products can only be banned if there is new evidence of their negative effects, Bayer Crop Science said.

However, these latest industry actions ignore the increasing body of science that documents neonicotinoid toxicity to bees and other pollinators. Neonicotinoids can be broadly applied as a spray, soil drench, or seed treatment, and have the ability to translocate throughout a plant, systemically contaminating the entire plant, including pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids work by disrupting insects’ nervous systems. Honey bees exhibit reduced foraging, learning, and navigational behavior when exposed to even low levels of neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids have also been observed to suppress their immune systems, making bees more susceptible to pathogens and disease, ultimately reducing the health and long-term viability of the colony. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotinoids on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows webpage.

Syngenta and Bayer have dismissed the calls from beekeepers worldwide to suspend the use of neonicotinoids because of their connection to bee losses. Beekeepers have protested across Europe and also here in the U.S., calling for a moratorium on bee-killing pesticides. Several beekeepers are co-plaintiffs in a 2013 lawsuit challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. This lawsuit seeks suspension of the registrations of clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees and clear contributors to ongoing mortality of bees.  The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these pesticides, as well as EPA’s registration process and labeling deficiencies.   In July, several beekeeping organizations -the National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation- and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith filed suit against EPA to reverse a decision to register a new  pesticide, sulfoxaflor, which is related to neonicotinoids and also highly toxic to bees.

While legal wrangling over the use of these chemicals continues on both continents, bees and other pollinators continue to suffer alarmingly high mortalities. On average, losses have increased by 40 percent over the last couple years. This past June, an estimated 50,000 bumblebees, likely representing over 300 colonies, were found dead or dying in a shopping mall parking lot in Wilsonville, Oregon. Authorities confirmed that the massive bee die-off was caused by the use of a neonicotinoid pesticide, dinotefuran, on nearby trees. A few days later it was reported that hundreds of bees were found dead after a similar pesticide use in a neighboring town. Several state level incidents of large scale honey bee colony losses have been reported. In Florida, application of imidacloprid to citrus groves resulted in severely damaged colonies: 1000-1500 colonies were killed, while 10,000-13,000 colonies suffered severe damage. In Maryland, close to 60 percent of managed hives died during the 2012/2013 winter, leading one beekeeper to remark that it was were worst losses seen in 35 years. In Canada, millions of bees were killed soon after late spring planting which lead the Ontario Beekeepers Association to launch a petition to get the province to ban neonicotinoid pesticides.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., EPA acknowledged that current pesticide labels do not adequately protect honey bees and announced new label language to prohibit the use of neonicotinoid pesticides when bees are present. The new labels will also include a “bee advisory box” and icon with information on routes of exposure and spray drift precautions. However, beekeepers and environmental groups question the efficacy and enforceability of the new label changes in curtailing systemic pesticides that result in long-term residues in the environment, contaminating nectar and pollen, and poison wild bees that EPA seems to ignore in its decision-making process. To date, EPA has ignored calls for a ban on these chemicals and continues to try to mitigate their impacts on bees and other pollinators.

Given that one in every three bites of food is dependent on pollination, and that commercial beekeeping adds between $20 to $30 billion dollars in economic value to agriculture each year, it is imperative that action is taken to protect bees and other pollinators. Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective  supports nationwide local action to protect honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides. Numerous educations materials are available to encourage municipalities, campuses, and homeowners to adopt policies that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. For more visit BEE Protective.

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

Source: Syngenta Press release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2013) A new study by scientists at the University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources is shedding light on the persistence of nanopesticides in our food. Researchers focused their attention on silver nanoparticles (nanosilver), a substance that has been linked to environmental harm, bacterial resistance, and not fully understood impacts on human health. Scientists say their findings represent a reliable method of testing foods for the harmful particles and hope to more broadly implement their technique in the future.

The last decade has witnessed a large influx in the use of nanotechnology in consumer products, including food, clothing, cosmetics, fertilizers, and pesticides. The growth of this technology has elicited strong reactions from scientists across the globe, with many asserting that further research is urgently needed to evaluate the potential impacts of these novel substances. As Mengshi Lin, Ph.D, associate professor at the University of Missouri (MU) and co-author of the study states, “More than 1,000 products on the market are nanotechnology-based products. This is a concern because we do not know the toxicity of the nanoparticles. Our goal is to detect, identify and quantify these nanoparticles in food and food products and study their toxicity as soon as possible.”

MU scientists began their testing by immersing several pears in a solution containing nanosilver at 20 nanometers (nm) and 70 nm, effectively mimicking a pesticide application. The team then repeatedly washed and rinsed the pears and observed the presence of nanoparticles on the pear’s skin and pulp. Results showed that both the 20 and 70nm nanosilver particles remained on the pears skin after 4 days, while the 20nm particles were in fact also able to penetrate the pear’s skin and reach the inside of the pear’s pulp. “The penetration of silver nanoparticles is dangerous to consumers because they have the ability to relocate in the human body after digestion,” Dr. Lin said. “Therefore, smaller nanoparticles may be more harmful to consumers than larger counterparts.”

The scientists note that, once ingested, nanoparticles can pass into the blood and lymph system, circulate through the body and reach potentially sensitive sites such as the spleen, brain, liver, and heart. Nanosilver’s presence in clothing and cosmetics provides another potential route of exposure. A recent study revealed that athletic wear impregnated with nanosilver can cause the substance to seep into a person’s skin through one’s sweat. A 2009 study showed that washing these types of nanosilver-impregnated textiles resulted in an unknown spread of the substance into the environment. Due to its small size, nanosilver is often not filtered out by conventional wastewater treatment plants. After entering the environment, past studies show nanosilver can have devastating impacts on wildlife, including deformities in fish and immune suppression in earthworms.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been criticized by scientists and consumer and environmental groups for its role in regulating emerging nanotechnology. A 2013 National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report provided a scathing account of EPA’s “conditional” registration of nanosilver, which the agency approved under the assumption that its use would reduce the overall burden of conventional silver in the environment. However, despite its novel antibacterial properties, the material did not undergo a full range of required tests, and there is no labeling system that would alert consumers to the presence of this largely untested substance in consumer products. A 2012 industry newsletter placed EPA’s delay over nanotechnology regulation on White House officials in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Richard Denison, PhD, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund explained, “My understanding is that there is a view in some circles in the White House that they do not want to stigmatize nanomaterials nor stifle the technology even by requiring the reporting of information that EPA needs to make judgments as to whether there are risks.”

The only surefire way to avoid nanomaterials in food is to buy USDA organic certified products. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) imposed a general ban over nanotechnology in its fall 2010 meeting, although USDA’s National Organic Program has never initiated rulemaking on the subject. The growth and success of organic agriculture shows that risky nanosilver pesticides are not necessary to feed the world.  Organic practices that build soil and microbial diversity create natural pest resilience, and produce yields comparable to conventional agriculture. To find out more about the benefits certified organic products and production systems, visit Beyond Pesticides’ organic food program page.

Additional information on the regulatory history and risks associated with nanotechnology can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ nanosilver webpage.

Source: MU News Bureau

Image Source: Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2013) A recent study presented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)   at the International Conference on Lyme Borreliosis and other Tick-Borne Diseases in Boston finds that spraying lawns with the insecticide bifenthrin does not reduce the incidence of tick-borne diseases. The study could have important policy implications for towns and communities that are feeling pressure to spray as prevalence of tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, continue to rise.  There are least-toxic alternative management strategies that are effective and safer than chemical controls.

The recently released study by CDC included 2,500 households in Fairfield, Litchfield, and New Haven Counties in Connecticut; Dutchess County in New York; and four counties in Maryland. Half of the households’ lawns were sprayed with bifenthrin and the other half was sprayed with water as a control. The study, conducted over two years, found that the households that were sprayed with bifentrhin saw a 60 percent reduction in ticks on their propriety but still had similar levels of tick encounters and tick-borne illnesses. These final results are similar to the results the study found after its first year.   This research reveals that using pesticides is not an effective way to curb tick-borne disease and can leave families dealing with another medical issue: the negative health effects that can be brought on by the use toxic pesticides.

This study’s findings are also important because as tick-borne illness are increasing there will be greater pressure for communities to use toxic controls for ticks.  A few days before CDC released its study on pesticides the CDC reported preliminary estimates indicating the number of Americans diagnosed with Lyme disease each year is around 300,000. The new estimate suggests that the total number of people diagnosed with Lyme disease is roughly 10 times higher than the yearly reported number to CDC. Lyme disease cases, which are caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi being transmitted to humans through the bite of infected ticks,  are concentrated heavily in the Northeast and upper Midwest, with 96 percent of cases in 13 states. Paul Mead, M.D., M.P.H, chief of epidemiology and surveillance for CDC’s Lyme disease program, cautioned in a CDC press release, “This new preliminary estimate confirms that Lyme disease is a tremendous public health problem in the United States, and clearly highlights the urgent need for prevention.”

Beyond Pesticides was critical of CDC and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s decision to enroll Maryland households into the recently released pesticide study in 2012 after its first year because of the lack of (i) public disclosure of the test pesticides’ potential health effects and (ii) attention to the efficacy of alternative management strategies. Beyond Pesticides  maintains that it was wrong to put test families at risk of pesticide exposure, especially since the study found pesticides are ineffective in curbing tick-borne illnesses in its first year. Beyond Pesticides also found the information about the study posted on the CDC’s website misleading, as it did not fully inform participants of the hazards posed by bifenthrin. Beyond Pesticides spoke directly with state health officials in an effort to relate concerns about this study. “It’s improper to be conducting a human experiment like this,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Bifenthrin, the insecticide used in the recent CDC pesticide study, is identified as an endocrine disruptor by the European Union (May 2010), and is considered a possible carcinogen by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is a pyrethroid class pesticide, a group of known neurotoxic chemicals. A recent study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (2007) of infants born to women with agricultural exposure shows a possible impact of bifenthrin on the occurrence of autism spectrum disorders. Bifenthrin is also toxic to birds, fish and bees.

Though toxic methods have been proven unsuccessful in stopping tick-borne illnesses, there are safe, non-toxic alternatives that are successful. In areas that are potential tick habitats, you should wear light-colored clothing that covers the body (especially your legs) because it makes it easier to spot ticks so they can be removed before they bite.

Another effective way to avoid ticks is to only use unscented deodorant, soap and shampoo. An exception is Packers Tar Soap, which has a natural pine scent which can keep ticks from biting once they have been picked up. Similarly, you can try using least-toxic herbal repellants such as oil of lemon eucalyptus and essential oils. Most importantly, after you have walked through high grass in a tick infested area, check the entire body for ticks and shower to wash off any ticks that have not yet become embedded.

If you do find an embedded tick, remove it carefully. Protect your hands with gloves or a tissue. Use blunt, curved tweezers, not your bare fingers, and exert pressure on the head of the tick and gently pulling the tick straight out very slowly. Do not twist and do not crush the tick. The body fluids can cause infection if exposed to even unbroken skin. Do not kill the tick while still embedded. Kill the tick in soapy water or alcohol, clean the wound with antiseptic, and monitor carefully for any signs of infection. If you observe symptoms of Lyme disease such as a bull’s-eye rash near the bite, consult a physician.

For more information on alternative pest management, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ alternative factsheets page.

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

Source: Poughkeepsie Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2013) Beyond Pesticides, along with upwards of 150 U.S. farm and food businesses and organizations, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) calling on the department to strengthen their oversight of field trials of experimental, genetically engineered (GE) crops. The letter comes in response to the USDA’s announcement in May 2013, that unapproved GE wheat developed by Monsanto was discovered in a farmer’s field in eastern Oregon. GE material drifts  and contaminates non-GE   and organic fields, economically crippling these farmers.

The letter, which was addressed to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, is supported by food and farming organizations calling for tighter regulations and oversight of GE crops, particularly for experimental field trials. “Current U.S. policy includes neither mandatory contamination prevention measures nor an adequate system for monitoring the success of containment following trials,” charged the Organic Seed Alliance and the Rural Advancement Foundation International in a recent press release.

Many of these farmers and members of these groups require this oversight to protect their very livelihoods. “Annually, we use over 10 million pounds of organic wheat,” said Steve Crider, government and industry liaison for Amy’s Kitchen. “Therefore, the integrity of non-GMO wheat is essential to our continued success as a business. ”˜GMO-free’ is what our customers demand and expect, both domestically here in the U.S. and our extensive export program abroad into Asia, the E.U., and the Middle East markets we serve.”

The letter was sent to USDA in late July and as a follow up groups met with Secretary Tom Vilsack last week in Washington D.C. to discuss the concerns laid out in the letter. The groups asked that USDA “fix its rubber-stamp approach to GE crops” and continued that “improvements in regulations and oversight must start at the field trial stage.”

Courtney Rowe, USDA spokeswoman told Reuters that the meeting between Mr. Vilsack and the groups was productive. “We are currently carefully reviewing the concerns and information shared with us and will be responding in full in the near future,” Ms. Rowe said.

Groups await USDA’s response to their requests which include the following:

•  “USDA should halt new approvals of GE wheat field trials at least until the Oregon contamination investigation is complete.
• USDA should fully implement recommendations made by investigative bodies and Congress that aim to improve field trial oversight.
• USDA should publish a final report detailing the department’s investigation into the Oregon wheat event, including sampling and testing methodologies.
• Before approving field trials, USDA should have the appropriate tools in hand to test for unapproved GE traits in cases of suspected and confirmed contamination events.
• USDA should require mandated containment protocols for all GE crop field trials.”

USDA says, in a conversation with Reuters, that it has in fact strengthened its oversight of biotech crop field trials in recent years. Since 2007, USDA  has   increased the number of inspections by about 200 inspections per year, from 500 inspections in 2007 up to 700 this last year. Additionally, the department has improved training for monitoring compliance with test protocols.

However, GE contamination of non-GE crops is not isolated to the wheat fields in eastern Oregon. Biotech rice developed by Bayer to resist herbicides, was found in food supplies in 2006, despite being unapproved for human consumption. The event crippled more than 7,000 long-grain rice producers, as Japan and the European Union (EU) restricted the importation of U.S. rice, causing rice prices to plunge. Bayer CropScience announced in 2011 that it would pay up to $750 million to settle claims. Similarly, corn contaminated with unapproved GE traits was found in U.S. corn crops in 2005 and 2006. Clearly, the problems with regulatory oversight of GE crops are not restricted to the recent event in Oregon; the letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack highlights the issues.

In addition to the economic harm, the growth of GE crops also has severe negative impacts on the environment. A recent study by researcher Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. shows that GE crops have significantly increased pesticide use and weed resistance, contrary to industry claims that the technology would reduce herbicide applications. As weed resistance increases, growers have started to look towards other chemically intense methods to fight weeds. The explosion of GE crops has also been linked to a decline in pollinator populations.

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

Source: Reuters, RAFI

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2013) After four years of relying on non-toxic mechanical controls to clear weeds on rights-of-way across Cape Cod, the Massachusetts-based power company NStar announced that it will begin using herbicides again this fall. All 15 Cape Cod towns have signed a no-spray resolution in 2011 and 2013, requesting NStar to use non-chemical means to defoliate transmission line easements, citing concerns for pesticide drift into the ground and surface water. Yet, despite extensive local opposition to the spraying, and evidence of the efficacy of organic land management to control weeds, NStar has refused to seriously consider alternative methods to spraying toxic herbicides.

Many of the targeted spray areas where power lines are located are in close proximity to homes with private wells, in areas that drain into public water supplies, and adjacent to bike and walking paths. The pesticides can persist in the soil and be tracked into homes, or enter the surface or ground water where drinking water is sourced. Nearby residents can be exposed to drift, which can cause numerous adverse health effects.

Following the announcement, there is a 45-day comment period (which commenced August 7) overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), which will have to grant approval before spraying can begin. Communities scheduled to be a part of the program include: Barnstable, Bourne, Brewster, Chatham, Falmouth, Harwich, Orleans and Sandwich. Many of these areas have taken steps toward organic land management on public property, and have previously fought against right-of-way applications by NStar.

Before 2004, NStar used effective non-chemical methods for controlling weeds along its rights-of-way, including mechanical cutting and hand-mowing. Between 2004 and 2007, NStar quietly began spraying herbicides. In 2008, when NStar filed a new Vegetation Management Plan, residents became aware of this practice, which prompted concerns.   Several organizations and businesses formed a coalition, Cape Cod for a Truly Green NStar, in an effort to convince NStar to stop using herbicides on rights-of-way, in support of a ban on herbicides along rights-of-way. After months of public outcry, NStar agreed to a one-year moratorium on spraying until the end of 2010; increased pressure from local activists and residents resulted in NSTAR agreeing with the regional planning authority, Cape Cod Commission, to postpone the use of herbicides on rights-of-way until 2011.

“We suspended our use of herbicides on Cape Cod so we could listen and respond to local concerns about the program, and work cooperatively to address those concerns,” said Steve Sullivan, Vice President of Operations Services for Northeast Utilities, NSTAR’s parent company. “In the meantime, we’ve had to exclusively rely on less effective mechanical methods in order to protect electric service reliability on the Cape. An Integrated Vegetation Management program is a much more sustainable practice, as it does not rely on the repeated mowing down of everything growing within a right-of-way.”

However, when used in an effective manner, mechanical practices, which include cutting, girdling, mowing and grazing animals, provide effective means to eradicate unwanted vegetation along rights”of”way. Bad mowing practices, on the other hand, can actually cause many problems. Mowing too low, for instance, can kill the root system by preventing photosynthesis, and invites sunlight in for weeds to sprout.

Sue Phelan, director of GreenCAPE, a grassroots organization in Cape Cod that works to eliminate hazardous pesticides from the region, told the Cape Cod Online that NStar did not thoroughly consider alternatives to the use of herbicides. There are a number of different types of habitats in the Cape, and it is not a “one size fits all,” she said.

The company has previously refused to use goats, despite local attempts to utilize them. NStar has said that its customers do not want the clear cutting that mowing mimics and would not consider it, even with an electrical fence to keep them out of unwanted areas. However, grazing goats is a great option for land that suffers from unwanted plants, low organic matter and soil compaction, and they can be penned out of areas where the vegetation should remain intact. In fact, many places across the country, including the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, DC, have found success with using goats to for weed control.

Each year, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, railroad corridors and other types of rights-of-way are treated with herbicides to control the growth of unwanted plants. Unfortunately, drift from the application of these herbicides can negatively affect waterways, residents and organic farmers. Rights-of-way include roads, utility lines, and railroad corridors, although different states have varying policies for maintaining rights-of-way.

The best management strategy for weeds is to prevent them in the first place or manage ecosystems that are healthier and less susceptible to invasion. Beyond creating stronger ecosystems and working to prevent invasion, there are successful least-toxic weed management practices that can be used if an invasive species has been introduced into an area.

Biological methods, such as the use of native vegetation, in conjunction with mechanical means, create and encourage stable, low”maintenance vegetation that is a more permanent vegetation management strategy. The establishment of desirable plant species that can out”compete undesirable species requires little maintenance and meets the requirements for management. Although native vegetation may take more time to establish itself, native flower and grass species are better adapted to local climate and stress. Native plant species are especially effective in providing increased erosion control, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity.

The combination of using these mechanical, biological and nontoxic vegetation control methods, along with planting native plant species effectively, reduces and eliminates the need for pesticide applications. Ultimately, creating and encouraging stable, low-maintenance vegetation is a more permanent vegetation management strategy than the constant application of toxic pesticides.

To learn more about how states can and have handled rights-of-way management, read Beyond Pesticides article “The Right Way To Vegetation Management.”

Take Action (Massachusetts):

• Call or write the Director of Rights-of-Way Program/Pesticide Bureau Mike McLean [email protected], and MDAR Commissioner [email protected] or Phone: 617-626-1701. Tell them you object to the application of herbicides on NStar rights-of-ways, particularly given that safer alternative exist. Be sure to get a tracking receipt for your e-mails. GreenCAPE recommends CCing your state Representative and Senator as well (see www.mass.gov for information). Additionally, GreenCAPE is asking folks to send pictures of the right-of-way in your back yard or neighborhood, particularly where children live and play.
• Call NStar and tell its representative that you object to the use of herbicides along the Cape’s rights-of-way and that you would like to see a more long-term, sustainable approach to vegetative management. Ask NStar to maintain the power line easements the way they have for many years-selective cutting and mowing.   NStar President and CEO Tom May at (617) 424-2527 and Investor Relations at (781) 441-8338 or (https://www.nu.com/forms/formInvestors.asp).
• Call your local officials (town administrators, select boards and town councils) and urge them to remind NStar (in a letter and verbally) that the town has already adopted a resolution opposing the NStar spraying.

For more information, see GreenCAPE’s factsheet. For more information on what you can do and what’s happening on Cape Cod, see GreenCAPE’s facebook page.

Take Action (Nationally):  Some states allow residents the right to refuse herbicide use on their property and people can post their property with no spraying signs provided by the utilities. For example, Maine, North Carolina, and Oregon all have no-spray agreements. If you are interested in becoming active in your community to stop spraying on rights-of-way or other public spaces, such as parks and schools, please refer to our Tools for Change webpage and read The Right Way To Vegetation Management, which contains information about spraying policies along rights-of-way in different states.

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

Photo courtesy: Sue Phelan, GreenCAPE.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2013) Suffolk County, New York, Legislator Jay Schneiderman (I-Montauk) introduced a bill on July 30, 2013 to establish strict guidelines for the use of methoprene within estuaries in Suffolk County.   Methoprene, an insect growth regulator, is commonly used in mosquito control programs, but is highly toxic to estuarine invertebrates, including crabs and lobsters, which are the backbone of the fishing industry along the East coast. This bill follows similar legislation already passed in Connecticut and Rhode Island to help protect lobster populations.

The lobster population in the Long Island Sound has decreased dramatically over the last decade, corresponding with the introduction of pesticides such as methoprene in mosquito control programs. Methoprene  is an insect growth regulator that prevents development to the adult reproductive stages so that insects die in arrested immaturity. It is an insecticide that is acutely toxic to estuarine invertebrates, including valuable food and commercial species like crabs and lobsters.  The effect of mosquito pesticides on marine life, especially lobsters, has come under scrutiny in recent years as mosquito spray programs in various states escalated efforts to suppress West Nile virus (WNv). Other mosquito-killing chemicals suspected of causing damage to aquatic life include many pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides, which are known to be toxic to many aquatic species, including crustaceans.

Mr. Schneiderman’s  bill (IR 1692-13) stipulates that methoprene could only be applied in estuaries when one or more disease threats have been identified in local mosquito populations, or two or more bacterial insecticide treatments, such as Bacillus Thuringiensis Israelensis (BTI), have been unsuccessful in limiting mosquito population numbers.

“The county should be doing everything it can to limit the unnecessary introduction of toxins into our environment. Methoprene poses the possibility of causing damage to key species that our recreational and commercial fishermen depend on. There are alternatives to methoprene that have not been shown to be harmful to our crabs and lobsters,” said Mr. Schneiderman.

Declines in the Long Island Sound’s lobster population have been alarmingly common for the past 15 years, devastating fishermen and the local economy that depends on them. Lobster populations fell from 3.7 million pounds in 1998 to 142,000 pounds in recent years, and pesticides have long been suspected in killing off lobsters. In 2003, researchers at the University of Connecticut found that methoprene was deadly to lobsters at concentrations of only 33 parts per billion, and in 2012  a Connecticut state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection study detected residues of mosquito control pesticides: malathion, methoprene, and resmethrin in lobsters pulled from Long Island Sound. Lobstermen have long challenged the use of methoprene and other mosquito control pesticides, and have been vocal about the need for alternative methods for WNv control, including switching to the use of the less toxic Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt).

Connecticut recently passed legislation banning methoprene. This bill was in direct response to decreased lobster population in the Long Island Sound. The Connecticut law prohibits the introduction of methoprene into any storm drain or conveyance of water in the coastal boundary zone in an effort to prevent these chemicals from being introduced into the Long Island Sound. Similarly, cities and towns throughout Rhode Island have also stopped using methoprene in storm drains and instead use Bacillus Sphaericus – a naturally occurring bacterium related to Bt that kills mosquitoes without affecting lobsters or other non-target organisms. Maine is the only East Coast fishery where methoprene has been banned for an extended period. As a result, the lobster population is at acceptable, sustainable levels.

Mr. Schneiderman first introduced similar controversial restrictions in 2007, but they were not adopted by the legislature after opposition from Suffolk County Vector Control officials, even though New York City banned the use of methoprene in 2001 in areas where it would spread into wetlands and groundwater. Mr. Schneiderman hopes his bill will fare better this time in light of the new studies and legislative action in Connecticut, Rhode Island and other areas. The new legislation in Connecticut and Rhode Island are being met with resistance from some who believe that these policies will lead to an  increased risk of West Nile Virus (WNv) and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE). However, these new laws explicitly allow the use of the chemicals if a mosquito-borne disease is found or suspected.

Mosquito spraying programs have been legally challenged in Suffolk County. A 2004 lawsuit was filed by Peconic Baykeeper, part of the Riverkeeper environmental action network, against Suffolk county’s mosquito spray program to reform mosquito control practices in the county. The suit charged that Suffolk County violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by filling wetlands with dredge spoil, discharging pollutants conveyed through mosquito ditches, and discharging restricted pesticides into surface waters. For four years prior to the legal action under New York State environmental law, Peconic Baykeeper’s advocacy  helped persuade Suffolk County to adopt methods of mosquito control that are health-based, scientifically-justified, and not destructive to the environment.

There are safer and effective options for dealing with mosquitoes and insect-borne diseases. The ideal mosquito management strategy comes from an integrated approach emphasizing education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. Beyond Pesticides advises communities to adopt a preventive, health-based mosquito management plan, and has several resource publications on the issue, including the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy: For Decision Makers and Communities. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ West Nile Virus/Mosquito Management for more details.

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

Source: News Release: Office of Jay H. Schneiderman, Suffolk County Legislator, Second District

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2013) In a victory for consumers and Willamette Valley’s $50 million vegetable seed industry, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber signed HB 2427 last week, banning the commercial production of canola in the region until at least 2019. Supporters of the law assert that the moratorium is necessary to maintain the integrity of the region’s internationally recognized organic vegetable seed industry.

Farmers in Oregon’s specialty seed and organic vegetable industries, valued at well over $50 million in annual sales, have been fighting the planting of  canola, an oilseed plant in the brassica family, in the Willamette Valley because it readily cross-pollinates with specialty crops grown there, the brassica specialty seed crops like broccoli, kale, and cabbage. Canola can  spread plant diseases and pests to brassica vegetable and seed crops; and can contaminate pure lots of vegetable and clover seed, rendering them unsalable in international and local markets. Additionally, genetically engineered (GE)  herbicide resistant varieties of canola can further cross-pollinate with weeds, creating new invasive species problems as herbicide resistant traits spread to native weed populations.

The canola controversy emerged after  a decision by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) last year to temporarily allow the planting of GE canola in areas   of the Willamette Valley previously deemed off-limits. The new rules were not subject to a public comment period. At the time, ODA Director Katy Coba stated that, “Since canola has been deregulated by USDA, ODA does not differentiate between conventional and [GE] canola or treat them differently.” The new rules spurred a lawsuit, filed by the groups Center for Food Safety and Oregon-based Friends of Family Farmers, in conjunction with Oregon specialty seed producers Universal Seed, Wild West Seeds, and Wild Garden Seeds. Shortly after the announcement, the Oregon Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs a temporary halt to canola planting. In response, ODA agreed to hold two public comment periods, one in November 2012 and another in January 2013. Widespread public opposition did not compel ODA to withdraw the proposal, however, and in February 2013 the department officially approved a spring 2013 planting of the  canola in the Willamette Valley Protected District.

Heeding the public’s outcry, Oregon’s legislature acted swiftly to advance HB 2427, which now in effect overturns ODA’s previous rulings. George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety, explains, “Working closely with the farmers and allies, we were able to act fast to prevent ODA’s disastrous decision from taking effect. Our court case prevented any canola from being planted, allowing time for our legislative strategy to work. Fortunately, this new law will trump the agency’s unlawful rule that would have allowed planting. This valuable industry is safe from the threat of canola.” Apart from the moratorium, the law also requires Oregon State University to conduct a study to determine whether the canola is compatible with other crop production within the protected planting district of the Willamette Valley. This will ensure that any decisions made will follow the principles of rigorous, peer-reviewed science, notes Ivan Maluski, policy director at Friends of Family Farmers.

A previous Oregon State University report, “Outcrossing Potential for Brassica Species and Implications for Vegetable Crucifer Seed Crops of Growing Oilseed Brassicas in the Willamette Valley,” confirms that canola has the ability to hybridize with brassica seed crops such as radish, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, collards, and kale.

Organic growers are particularly concerned about canola planting because certification does not allow the introduction of GE material in organic seeds or vegetables. Such contamination has proven to be  extremely costly to farmers raising organic and non-genetically engineered crops whose loads are rejected by buyers when trace levels of contamination are detected. Farmers in these circumstances lose a price premium for the extra effort and expense taken to preserve their crop’s integrity and they typically have no recourse but to dump the load on generic markets. The signing of HB 2427 comes only a few months after an Oregon wheat farmer discovered the presence of unregulated GE wheat in his field, which prompted international markets in Europe, Japan, and South Korea to reject U.S. wheat imports.

Under the current interpretation of relevant law, genetic seed producers bear no legal or financial responsibility for such contamination. In an effort to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to act on this issue, in its spring 2012 meeting, the National Organic Standards Board, with a unanimous vote, sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack saying, “We see the potential of contamination by genetically engineered crops as a critical issue for organic agricultural producers and the consumers of their products. There are significant costs to organic producers and handlers associated with preventing this contamination and market loss arising from it.”

The fall National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting, scheduled for October 22-24^th in Louisville, KY, is fast approaching. Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage for an overview of the issues to be discussed, which will include the issue of GE contamination of organic crops. Previous board meetings and topics can be viewed on Beyond Pesticides’ NOSB Archives page. For additional information, see our issue pages on Organic Agriculture and Genetic Engineering.

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

Source(s): Center for Food Safety, Processing Magazine

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new pesticide label for honey bee protection, announced Thursday, has been widely criticized by beekeepers and environmentalists as offering inadequate protection in the face of devastating bee decline. Under the new guidelines, the label will prohibit the use of some neonicotinoid pesticides when bees are present, and includes a “bee advisory box” and icon with information on routes of exposure and spray drift precautions. Critics question the efficacy of the label change in curtailing a systemic pesticide that contaminates nectar and pollen, poisoning bees indiscriminately, and the enforceability of the label language, which is geared to managed not wild bees. EPA has not formally acknowledged the peer-reviewed science linking neonicotinoid pesticides to colony collapse disorder and bee decline, as is the case with the European Union’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), where neonicotinoids are being phased out.

Specifically, the new label applies to pesticide products containing the neonicotinoids imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. Peer-reviewed science has repeatedly identified these insecticides as highly toxic to honey bees and other pollinators. The neonicotinoid class of insecticides has been identified as a leading factor in bee decline.

“Multiple factors play a role in bee colony declines, including pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency is taking action to protect bees from pesticide exposure and these label changes will further our efforts,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

Unfortunately, this label change does not address the fact that neonicotinoids are systemic, meaning plants take up these pesticides and exude them in their pollen and nectar, with residues remaining in the plant for its lifetime, continually endangering any pollinators that forage or pollinate   these contaminated plants.  Additionally, the bulk of neonicotinoid uses are in fact for treated seed, which accounts for the majority of corn planted in the U.S.   Contaminated dust that originates from the planting of these seeds drift off fields and have been known to kill large numbers of bees. Recently, 37 million honeybees were reported dead across a single farm in Ontario from the dust associated with planting neonicotinoid-treated corn seeds.   According to New York beekeeper Jim Doan, “In New York state, for example, foliar application of neonics are used only for apples and some vegetables, and not used for the majority of the crops out there — corn and soybeans — which are seed coatings. When I heard about the new labeling requirements, my first question was, so are we going to put these labels on the bags of corn? No.”

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

There is also concern that the new label language is unenforceable. EPA is aware that label directions such as these are not adhered to in the real-world. Many beekeepers can attest to this and have repeatedly communicated this to EPA enforcement and registration officials. Addressing lack of compliance has been an area the agency has not sufficiently addressed throughout the years. For instance, after specifying that, “the product may not be applied while bees are foraging. Do not apply this product until flowering is complete and all petals have fallen,” EPA adopts the loophole:

“If an application must be made when managed bees are at the treatment site, the beekeeper providing the pollination services must be notified no less than 48-hours prior to the time of the planned application so that the bees can be removed, covered or otherwise protected prior to spraying.”

This keeps the onus on the beekeepers to make sure their bees are safe.

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

In the meantime, EPA has stated it would support short-term mitigation measures, such as improved seed coatings to reduce contaminated dust, and improved farming equipment, measures which do not go far enough to protect both commercial and wild bee populations. These new label changes, while an improvement from current pollinator hazard statement on pesticide labels, also do not go far enough to protect bees, especially wild bees.

“This is a step forward, certainly, but it does not address the issue that we need to address. EPA deserves a pat on the back for coming up with something, but we have a long ways to go,” said Mr. Doan. “We need to continue to put pressure on the agency and the industry and keep moving forward.”

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

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

Take Action: Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign has all the educational tools you need to stand up for pollinators. Some specific ways you can help are:

• Join us  in asking Lowe’s and Home Depot and other leading garden centers to take action and stop the sale of neonicotinoids and plants treated with these chemicals.
• Tell your member of Congress to support the Save America’s Pollinators Act.  
• Sign the  Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly.
• Use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.

For information on what you can do to keep the momentum going, see www.BEEprotective.org.

Source: EPA Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2013) Beyond Pesticides just helped release a new report with Friends of the Earth and other allies, revealing that the world’s most popular pesticide, neonicotinoids, implicated as a key factor in global bee die-offs, may be lurking in our own gardens. As we celebrate National Honey Bee Day this weekend, join in asking Lowe’s, Home Depot and other leading garden centers to take action and stop the sale of neonicotinoids and plants treated with these bee-killing chemicals.

Take Action: Bee Protective! Tell Home Depot, Lowe’s and others to stop selling bee-killing products.

There are now dozens of insecticides on retail shelves that contain neonicotinoids. Product labels show the active ingredients of these products, including: imidacloprid,  acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. While neonicotinoids is a relatively new class of insecticide that affects the central nervous system of insects, a growing body of science has demonstrated neonicotinoids (neonics) are a key factor in bee decline nationwide, with beekeepers recording losses of up to 90 percent of their bees this winter. Recently, 50,000 bumblebees, likely representing over 300 colonies, were found dead or dying in a shopping mall parking lot in Wilsonville, Oregon. Authorities confirmed that this massive bee die-off was indeed caused by the use of a neonicotinoid pesticide, dinotefuran, on nearby trees.   Similarly, 37 million honeybees were reported dead across a single farm in Ontario from the dust associated with planting neonicotinoid-treated corn seeds. Exposure to these chemicals also poses long-term risks to bees and can affect bee reproduction, foraging, navigation and memory, and also impairs their immune systems making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.

A recent study by researchers at USDA finds that honey bees exposed to neonicotinoids are more susceptible to the deadly gut parasite, Nosema ceranae, contributing  further to declines in bee populations. Neonicotinoids have also been found to be toxic to grassland birds who eat neonicotinoid treated seed. A recent review by David Goulson, PhD, finds overall that broad ranging negative impacts occur from neoniconinoid use, not only on beneficial pollinators, but on overall biodiversity and ecosystem health.

The European Union (EU) is set to suspend the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides later this year, after a scientific review by European Food Safety Authority found that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees. In the U.S. these chemicals are subject to a lawsuit in Federal District Court over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failure to protect pollinators.

In addition to asking Lowe’s and Home Depot to stop the sale of of these products, we urge you to download and customize this sample letter and take it in to your local retailer customer service manager. Please tell us when you do (include store name, city and state), so we can follow-up!

Sample Letter:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to [insert company name] to commit to not sell neonicotinoid pesticides, as well as plants and seeds treated with these pesticides. A growing body of science shows that these pesticides are a key factor in global bee die-offs. Neonicotinoids, such as imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid, are highly toxic to bees and other beneficial organisms including birds and aquatic organisms. These chemicals contaminate the entire plant, including nectar and pollen, throughout the life of the plant, and also persist in soil and contaminate surface water. Recently, 50,000 bumble bees died in Oregon as a result of neonicotinoid application on trees. Beekeepers have lost as high as 90 percent of their hives this year alone. As a result of this, garden supply retailers should stop the sale of neonicotinoid pesticides to protect honey bees and other pollinators, essential for one in three bites of food in the U.S. and 20-30 billion dollars in our agricultural economy.

The European Union has already banned neonics and a majority of the UK’s largest home improvement retailers, including Homebase, B&Q and Wickes, have made public commitments to no longer sell products containing pesticides linked to declining bee populations. We call on to your company to join these leaders in sustainability and pollinator health by making this same commitment here in the U.S. to remove neonicotinoids from your shelves.

As a loyal customer, my family, friends, and I would appreciate your company taking a stand to protect honey bee health by discontinuing the sale of neonicotinoid-containing products at your store.

I look forward to hearing back from you and the opportunity to provide you with additional information. In the meantime, you can learn more about the effects of Neonicotinoids at www.BEEprotective.com.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

____________________

Other Ways to BEE Protective for National Honey Bee Day

Through the BEE Protective campaign, Beyond Pesticides is leading a national public education effort supporting local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated efforts. Bees are in trouble and policy makers are just not acting quickly enough to help them, it’s your turn to join us in taking action to protect these beneficial insects.

• Tell your member of Congress to support the Save American’s Pollinators Act introduced last month by U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D, Ore.) and John Conyers (D, Mich.) to suspend the use of neonics on bee-attractive plants until EPA reviews all of the available data, including field studies. The bill, which Beyond Pesticides helped draft, aims to provide long overdue protections for America’s imperiled pollinators.
• Take the pollinator protection pledge to devote your own yard, garden, park, and backyard as a Pesticide-Free Zone that you can manage as organic pollinator habitat. We already have  6,529.74 acres pledged as organically managed and pollinator friendly, help us reach our goal of 10,000 acres this summer!
• Encourage your local schools, government agencies, religious institutions and businesses to use their buying power to go neonic-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which makes the commitment to protect pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms.
• Plant your own colorful, bee-friendly garden using our BEE Protective Habitat Guide.
• Tell your friends and family about the dangers of neonicotinoids to honey bees and pollinators and tell them how they can Manage Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind.
• BEE the Change T-Shirts. HoneyColony will donate 15% of the proceeds from their “Bee the change” T-shirts to Beyond Pesticides! Just be sure to type in “beyondpesticides” in the coupon code!
• Join us on Facebook and/or our email list to get updates on the grassroots campaign.

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2013) Many “bee friendly” home garden plants sold at Home Depot (NYSE: HD), Lowe’s (NYSE: LOW) and other leading garden centers have been treated with pesticides shown to harm and kill bees, according to a pilot study released yesterday by   Friends of the Earth-US, Beyond Pesticides,  and others.  Supporting organizations sent a  letter  yesterday —along with petitions signed by more than 175,000 people— to Lowe’s, Home Depot, Target and other top garden retailers, asking the stores to stop selling neonicotinoids and plants treated with the pesticides. A majority of the UK’s largest garden retailers, including Homebase, B&Q and Wickes, have already stopped selling neonicotinoids.

The pilot study, co-authored by the Pesticide Research Institute, found that 7 of 13 samples of garden plants purchased at top retailers in Washington DC, the San Francisco Bay Area and Minneapolis contain neurotoxic pesticides known as neonicotinoids that studies show harm or kill bees and other pollinators.

Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. These systemic pesticides, which  move through the plant’s vascular system and express themselves through pollen and nectar,  include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. A growing body of science has implicated neonicotinoids (neonics), which are applied to or  incorporated into seeds for agricultural, ornamental  and garden plants, as a key factor in recent global bee die-offs. Beekeepers across the country reported losses of 40-90 percent of their bees last winter. The European Union (EU) is set to suspend the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides later this year, after a scientific review by European Food Safety Authority found that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees.

“The widespread use of bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides reflects a failure of the highest magnitude by  EPA’s regulatory system, which has allowed the continued poisoning of bees to the brink of extinction while the scientific data mounts and other countries take action,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “In the absence of adequate regulation and congressional action, we turn to the marketplace for leadership in removing these deadly toxic chemicals and contaminated plants from U.S. commerce.”

“Our investigation is the first to show that so called ”˜bee-friendly’ garden plants contain pesticides that can poison bees, with no warning to gardeners,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Food and Technology Program at Friends of the Earth-US. “Bees are essential to our food system and they are dying at alarming rates. Neonic pesticides are a key part of the problem we can start to fix right now in our own backyards.”

“The bees and beekeepers are telling us they cannot wait until EPA’s planned review of neonicotinoids  in 2018–and neither can we,” said Nichelle Harriott, staff scientist at Beyond Pesticides. “Retailers, EPA and Congress need to step up their efforts to protect pollinators.”

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of insecticides in the world. Bees are exposed through multiple routes, including ”” as the pilot study highlights””common home garden plants. “The pilot study confirms that many of the plants sold in nurseries and garden stores across the U.S. have been pre-treated with systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, making them potentially toxic to pollinators,” said Timothy Brown, PhD, of the Pesticide Research Institute. “Unfortunately, these pesticides don’t break down quickly ”” they remain in the plants and the soil and can continue to affect pollinators for months to years after the treatment.”

The high percentage of contaminated plants and their neonicotinoid concentrations suggest that this problem is widespread, and that many home gardens have likely become a source of harm for bees. “Bees have enough troubles; there’s no need for home gardens to add to the problem,” said Emily Marquez, staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network. “Studies indicate that widespread use of systemic pesticides like neonicotinoids is contributing to major bee kills around the globe. And even at doses that don’t kill bees, neonics weaken bee immune systems and impair critical brain functions, making it hard for bees to find their food sources and return to the hive.”

“We must take immediate action to address this crisis. Europe has banned bee-harming pesticides, retailers in the UK are refusing to sell them, and stores like Home Depot and Lowe’s have a moral obligation to make the same commitment here in the U.S.,” said Lisa Archer. “In the meantime, gardeners should start their plants from untreated seeds or choose organic plants for their gardens.”

In addition to pressuring retailers, U.S. groups are calling for the government to restrict the use of neonics in the United States.

“While neonics may not be the only factor in bee die offs, they are a significant factor, and one that we can do something about. It’s time for EPA to step in and suspend use of these pesticides on bee-attractive plants,” said Larissa Walker, policy & campaign coordinator at the Center for Food Safety.

In the face of mounting evidence linking neonics to bee colony declines, and more than a million public comments urging swift protections for bees, the EPA has delayed action until 2018.

Last month, U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D, Ore.) and John Conyers (D, Mich.) introduced the “Save American’s Pollinators Act,” which seeks to suspend the use of neonics on bee-attractive plants until EPA reviews all of the available data, including field studies. Please tell your member of Congress to support the Save American’s Pollinator Act.

Rep. Blumenauer introduced the bill after 50,000 bumblebees died in a Target parking lot in Wilsonville, Ore. when the neonic pesticide dinotefuran was applied to nearby trees. The bee massacre also prompted the Oregon Department of Agriculture to prohibit further cosmetic use of pesticides containing dinotefuran for the remainder of 2013.

In July, 37 million honeybees were reported dead across a single farm in Ontario from the dust associated with planting neonic-treated corn seeds.

“The weight of accumulated evidence from scientists across Europe and North America shows that neonicotinoids harm honey bees, bumble bees, and other important pollinators,” said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society.  “Swift action is needed by all sectors of society to reduce the prevalence of these insecticides in our environment. By phasing out their use, nurseries can play a leadership role in this change.”

Beyond Pesticides launched the BEE Protective campaign, a national public education effort supporting local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes on Earth Day of this year. BEE Protective includes a variety of educational materials, including the BEE Protective Habitat Guide, which provides information on creating native pollinator habitat in communities, eliminating bee-toxic chemicals, as well as advocacy tools. BEE Protective encourages municipalities, campuses, and homeowners to adopt policies that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. In addition to scientific and regulatory information, BEE Protective also includes a model community pollinator resolution and a pollinator protection pledge.

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

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

Source: Friends of the Earth-US

Sign the pledge and go triclosan-free.

 Don’t Let DEET Get You Down

Recently, there have been recommendations that DEET, the mosquito repellent, can be used safely. But do not believe this misinformation. Studies have shown the DEET can impair muscle movement and function, learning and memory. When used together with permethrin, another ingredient commonly found in mosquito products, the risk of these effects increases.

First, the best way to protect your kids from these mosquito pesticides is to wear long pants and long sleeves, especially when mosquitoes are most active (dusk). There are other viable alternatives including:

• Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus – CDC recommends lemon eucalyptus oil repellents as a good alternative to DEET. According to CDC, this plant-based mosquito repellent provides protection time similar to low concentration DEET products.
• Picaridin (KBR 3023), dervived from pepper, also provides comparable protection as DEET products with similar concentrations.
• Essential oils – Other essential oils used in repellents include Cedarwood, Soybean Oil, Garlic Oil, and Geraniol can provide protection against mosquitoes.

For more information on keeping your family safe from mosquitoes, visit Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito management web page.

BEE Protective

Pollinators are very important to our ecosystem and agriculture. However, many pollinators, like honey bees, bumble bees, birds, and butterflies, are declining due to loss of habitat, widespread use of toxic pesticides, parasites, and disease. You and your school can play a part to help these important creatures by (1) not using toxic pesticides, (2) planting pollinator habitat, and (3) educating your friends and family. Here are some steps to BEE Protective:

– Encourage your school to plant pollinator-attractive plants in its garden as part of its biology class. If your school does not have a garden, request one be integrated into the curriculum. Wildflowers, native plant and grass species should be encouraged on school grounds. See our BEE Protective Habitat Guide for more information on attractive flowers.

– Improve your school’s integrated pest management (IPM) policy by encouraging staff not to use pesticides that are harmful to honey bees and other pollinators, and to apply least-toxic pesticides only when bees or other pollinators are not foraging on blooming flowers. See a list of neonicotinoid products to especially avoid.

– Have your school pass a resolution to ban neonicotinoid pesticides that are toxic to honey bees and other pollinators. A model resolution can be obtained here.If you school has pollinator-friendly habitat, pledge your school as pollinator-friendly and indicate how many acres (or fraction of an acre) your school can declare.

For more on how to BEE Protective, click here.

Keep Schools Green: Take Pesticides Out of Schools and Playgrounds

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure because of their small size and developing organ systems. Many school officials and groundskeepers think that the only way to ensure pests are kept at bay and good turf growth is with chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. However, many schools around the country are realizing that a defined integrated pest management (IPM) program is one of the best ways to eliminate children’s exposure to pesticides in school buildings, and organic turf management, similarly, eliminates hazards on playing fields and playgrounds.

A good IPM is a program will have strictly defined processes of prevention, monitoring and control, as well as record keeping, which offers the opportunity to eliminate harmful pesticides in schools, where only the least toxic option is used. Improving a school’s pest management program requires perseverance, as administrators and grounds staff may be uninformed. One major selling point is that, when it comes to playing fields, organic turf management systems cost as much as 25% less than chemical-intensive systems.

To learn more about how to improve your school’s pest management policy, both indoors and outdoors, see our School Organizing guide. Learn more about the 30 of the most commonly used chemicals on athletic fields that can cause numerous health risks to children, including glyphosate (Roundup) and 2,4-D. Also see organic management of school fields in our Pesticides and Playing Fields fact sheet and the Lawns and Landscapes page.

Give Your Kids An Organic Diet Where Possible

In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farmworkers, and stewardship of the earth. Buying certified organic food is the only way to be sure that what you and your family eat comes from a system that rejects hazardous synthetic chemicals. There is documented evidence that children fed a pure organic diet have significantly lower levels of pesticides in their system than children fed a diet of conventionally produced food. The American Academy of Pediatricians has states that foods without pesticide residues are significant for children.  If you are unable to eat all organic, purchase organic varieties of the foods you and your kids eat most often.

It’s easiest to go organic when you grow organic. School gardens and other farm-to-school programs teach children where food comes from and establish healthy relationships with food and the natural world. An organic garden starts with healthy soil using natural sources of fertility such as compost, and schools have a great built-in source of potential compost feedstock in kitchen scraps and cafeteria leftovers.

You can increase the amount of organic food your child eats while decreasing his or her exposure to toxic pesticides and lessening your impact on the environment by asking your school to adopt an organic lunch program or helping to start an organic school garden. For more information, see Eating with a Conscience,   “School Lunches Go Organic,” and “The Organic School Garden.”

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