The public has until October 1 to submit their comments on the ban to the Manitoba government. The province is providing guidance to the public through a paper entitled Play it Safe, which outlines the background on the proposed ban, explores restriction options, and raises awareness about pesticide use on lawns. The paper makes note of the importance of using a precautionary approach to the sale and use of lawn care pesticides, acknowledging the potential harm these chemicals can cause to the environment and human health, especially those at increased risk, such as pregnant women and children.

Research by the Ontario College of Family Physicians has identified scores of studies showing that human health is at risk from pesticide use. Other recent scientific evidence shows aquatic ecosystems are especially endangered. Minister Mackintosh said a May 2012 Ontario compilation of more than 140 medical studies links pesticides to several health risks, especially for children and pregnant women. The review links pesticides to autism, asthma and lung disease for fetuses exposed in utero. The Canadian Cancer Society has also warned pesticide exposure may increase the risk of certain cancers.

“There are studies looking at the health and environmental impacts of cosmetic pesticide use, and the science appears to indicate that there is a risk,” Minister Mackintosh said. “We also know that most Canadians do have different precautions across the country in place and … the obvious question is shouldn’t Manitoba children have the same benefits that most other Canadian children do enjoy?”

Environmental groups and public health organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), and The David Suzuki Foundation are all pushing the Manitoba government for a full ban on the sale and use of these toxic chemicals for lawn care.

The minister also noted that lawn care businesses have fared well in other Canadian jurisdictions where cosmetic pesticide bans are in place. During the past decade, over 150 municipalities and several other Canadian provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, have banned the use of “cosmetic” lawn care pesticides because of health and environmental concerns. The bans have had the support of the Canadian medical community, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

Across the U.S., many communities, school districts, and state policies are now following a systems approach that is designed to put a series of preventive steps in place that will solve pest (weed and insect) problems. This approach is based on three basic concepts: (i) natural, organic product where use is governed by soil testing, (ii) an understanding that the soil biomass plays a critical role in soil fertility and turf grass health, and (iii) specific and sound cultural practices. Communities that have recently taken steps to ban or limit pesticide use include the states of Connecticut and New York, Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, Cape Cod, over 30 communities in New Jersey, and Chicago’s City Parks.

Take Action:
For more information, see Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba. The coalition also has a petition that individuals may sign on to here. The Manitoba government is taking comments and feedback on the proposal until Oct 1, 2012. Comments can be submitted here.

Beautiful landscapes do not require toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage provides information on pesticide hazards and information on organic management strategies. The site also provides an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to assist in going pesticide-free. With the training, landscapers can learn the practical steps to transitioning to a natural program. Or, you can order Pesticide Free Zone yard signs to display to your neighbors. For assistance in proposing a policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

Sources: Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba Press Release,Global Winnepeg and Winnepeg Sun

The group, Jefferson County Ecological Roadsides, presented the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners with 4,700 signatories asking the commissioners to create an ordinance to stop the use of herbicides on county roadsides. The 4,700 signatures represent community members (majority), people from nearby counties who shop in Jefferson County, local organic farmers and providers, and local community leaders. According to the group, there was a 30-year moratorium on county roadside spraying due to a previous petition drive by community members. However, the moratorium was broken two years ago with an internal consent agenda by the county commissioners. This year, the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in the commercial herbicide known as Roundup, has been sprayed three times. Roadsides group members call for a strict one-year moratorium on the use of the chemical by the county, during which time its impact could be studied and other weed removal options could be explored, like the removal of weeds by volunteer groups who would do so by hand. Group members have said they are willing to talk with county officials about a compromise solution, but only after a moratorium is passed.

Along with the petition, Jefferson County Ecological Roadsides also outlined a plan to educate the public about the dangers of using herbicides. Along with enacting the ordinance to stop herbicide use on county roadsides, the plan also includes: replanting roadsides with native plants to suppress the spread of invasive plants, creating pollinator pathways to support bee and other pollinators, and creating opportunities for citizens to get involved and conduct research on alternative methods to suppress invasive plants without toxic chemicals. Find out more about Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection program.

Commissioner John Austin said during the meeting that the names on the petition should be used to create a database of people who are interested in the issue and should be kept apprised of future developments. After the meeting, Commissioner David Sullivan said that he did not see a need to change county policy in the use of the chemical, which he said has been done on a very limited basis over the last few years. According to Mr. Sullivan, commissioners approved limited spraying of herbicides three years ago under the auspices of the weed board.

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 organic farmers and chemically sensitive residents. Rights-of-way include roads, utility lines, and railroad corridors, although different states have varying policies for maintaining rights-of-way. In North Carolina, a utility company nearly destroyed one of the nation’s oldest and most famous vines, “Mother Vine,” when it accidentally sprayed a part of the plant while spraying the right-of-way.

In 2010, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Center for the Environment, Alaska Survival, Cook InletKeeper and the Native Village of Eklutna was granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for a planned program to treat rail lines with the herbicide glyphosate. The Rail Company argued that its vegetation problem has gotten too out of hand for “so-called ”˜alternative methods,” including flame throwers, a steam machine and inmate labor. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, which submitted comments against the use of glyphosate on the railroad, are opposed to the strategy because they say regulators have not considered the chemicals’ effects on drinking water and streams where salmon live. Glyphosate is a neurotoxicant irritant, and can cause liver, kidney and reproductive damage. It is also linked to non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Glyphosate has been identified as a common chemical found in acute agricultural worker poisonings, and linked to birth defects and intersex frogs.

Alternatives to Roadside Weed Management
Mechanical methods, which include cutting, girdling, mowing and grazing animals, provide effective means to eradicate unwanted vegetation along rights”of”way when used in a time effective manner. These methods can be labor intensive, but can be a source of employment to many. Utilizing herbivorous animals, such as goats, have been proven to be a cost effective and efficient way of controlling vegetation.

Biological methods, such as the use of native vegetation, used 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. Numerous states have established roadside wildflower programs for these reasons.

Other control methods include the use of corn”gluten and steam treatments. Corn gluten is a natural preemergence herbicide and is classified by EPA as a “minimum risk pesticide.” Steam treatments involve 800 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures and low pressure. This technique exposes the plant to high temperatures for a short period of time, disrupting the cell functions. Least toxic chemicals such as acetic acid (vinegar) or citric acid are known and registered herbicides and should not be discounted as effective chemical treatments.

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.

Take Action: Sign the petition to ask the Jefferson County commissioners to pass an ordinance to ban the use by county employees, contractors, and volunteers the use of all herbicides and pesticides along Jefferson County roadsides. See here for more details.

Sources: Peninsula Daily News, Jefferson County Ecological Roadsides

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

There are currently 88 drinking water contaminants and indicators regulated under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations which are legally enforceable for public water systems. EPA determines whether a contaminant should be regulated based on peer-reviewed science-based research, with a focus on the health impacts due to exposure. They then propose an enforceable standard in the form of a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), taking into account the risks of exposure and availability of technologies to remediate the contaminant. EPA has not established drinking water standards for all the pesticides found in water. Of the hundreds of pesticide active ingredients it registers, EPA (balancing consumer risk against water supplier cost) has established MCLs for only a couple dozen pesticides.

One major short-coming to this system is that often states are allowed to grant variances from these standards if they cannot afford to comply with rulings. While microbial contaminants must meet standards, exemptions for other chemicals may be granted so long as there are no “unreasonable risks to human health.” Indeed, according to Watertown Daily Times, EPA recently acknowledged drinking water concerns in a recent statement: “Concerns for man-made and naturally-occurring chemicals found in surface water, ground water, finished drinking water, and wastewaters pose a host of treatment and management challenges and potential health risks for communities served by public water systems, these challenges are exacerbated for small systems, those serving 10,000 persons or less.” Thus, many have looked to technological advances to eliminate these new and unregulated chemicals.

One new technology Dr. Bellona and associates are developing is a dual system to clean water requiring a membrane system and an oxidation process. Through this process, water passes through an ultra-fine membrane to sift out larger particles, then moving to the oxidation process which removes organic materials. The advanced oxidation process, as it is known, can effectively eliminate pesticides, aromatics, petroleum constituents and volatile organic compounds that may not be otherwise filtered. While this may prove to be an important strategy in diminishing the risks to human health, particularly for small treatment plants, it begs the question: Are there more effective hazard-management methods for providing potable water?

Reliance on technological solutions, particularly in the case of environmental stewardship, often ignores the problem (in this case pesticide use) and treats the symptom (dirty waters). Remediation is just one of many approaches that need to be considered when considering potable waters. In the long run though, stakeholders must consider applying the precautionary approach, considering that unforeseen threats to potable water can be averted through stricter regulation and management. The consequences of allowing harmful chemicals into our environment will oftentimes not be revealed until it is too late. The procedure our government takes to assess the risk that these chemicals pose makes all the difference. This is why Beyond Pesticides consistently advocates that the regulatory process should adopt an “alternatives assessment” (under the “unreasonable adverse effects” standard) in environmental rulemaking, which creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The “alternatives assessment” approach differs most dramatically from the current EPA risk assessment method by rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives.

In response to the challenges facing our waters, Beyond Pesticides is working to identify threats, educate individuals, engage with local and state agencies to encourage more stringent standards, while simultaneously protecting current regulations. To learn more about the threats to our waters, see Beyond Pesticides Threatened Waters Brochure.

Source: Watertown Daily Times

The study, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” which is being published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, PhD, at the University of Caen in France. The study followed 200 rats for two years, the life-span of the rat, but far longer than the typical 90-day feeding studies used in regulatory assessments and subsequent approval of GM crops. The rats were fed different amounts of NK603 corn developed by Monsanto to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. In some cases, the corn had been sprayed in the field with Roundup. Other rats were given different doses of Roundup in their drinking water, with the lowest dose corresponding to what might be found in tap water in the U.S.

Female rats developed fatal mammary tumors and pituitary disorders. Males suffered liver damage, developed kidney and skin tumors and experienced problems with their digestive system. The team also found that even the lowest doses were associated with severe health problems. Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group, and across all treatments and both sexes, researchers found treated rats developed 2-3 times more large tumors than the control group.

“The results were really alarming,” Dr. Séralini said. According to Dr. Séralini, the tumors did not develop until well after 90 days, meaning they might have been missed by shorter studies.

However, many have criticized the study’s methods and the ideological manner in which it was being presented. There are complaints that there is not enough data on the rats’ actual diet; that the sample size was too small; and that the rats in question are “very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted.” The statistical methods used are also called “unconventional” and “inadequate.”

However, the study does underscore the need for more research on the long-term health effects of GM crops. Previous studies with various types of GM crops have reported higher incidents of allergies, liver and kidney damage, and significantly reduced fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation in mice.

“We’ve never done this kind of study before, and we should have been doing it a long time ago,” said Andrew Kimbrell, of the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, a group critical of the regulations surrounding genetically engineered crops. “I’ve heard for two decades that no one’s shown any health impacts with GMO foods. As of September 19, 2012, that’s no longer true.”

This study comes at a time when efforts to block the passage of California’s Prop 37, which would require mandatory labeling on GM foods, is heating up. The Proposition 37 campaign, which is supported by organic food companies and health groups, has been vastly outspent by a campaign to defeat the ballot initiative funded by millions of dollars in donations from chemical companies and food manufacturers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Nestle. However, polls taken earlier this year show that 91% of consumers favor labeling for GM foods, with 81% of those ”˜strongly’ in favor of enacting these requirements.

Currently, there are commercially available Roundup-tolerant seed varieties for corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, and cotton, in addition to sugar beets, and recently approved Roundup-tolerant alfalfa. Earlier this year, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience petitioned USDA to yet again deregulate varieties of soybean and corn tolerant to multiple pesticides including 2,4-D and dicamba. In its petition, Dow states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to Roundup, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s GM roundup-tolerant crops. Farm research groups are also concerned with the impact of GM crops on organic farmers, whose organic crops are already at risk of contamination with Monsanto’s genetic material from pollen drift.

Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. One of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells. It is also of particular concern due to its toxicity to aquatic species as well as instances of serious human health effects from acute exposure. 2, 4-D is a highly toxic herbicide which has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and kidney and liver damage. It is also neurotoxic and is toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly elevated rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2, 4-D.

While the long-term health effects of eating GM crops are unclear, the environmental impacts of this technology are currently being documented. Increased herbicide use, water contamination, the spread of herbicide-resistant “superweeds,” and the loss of habitat and wildlife species as a result of increased pesticide use has all been attributed to the widespread use of GM crops.

For more information on genetically engineered food, read “Genetically Engineered Food Failed promises and hazardous outcomes,” from Pesticides and You, or go to our Genetic Engineering web page.

Sources: LA Times, St Louis Post Dispatch

Although organic arsenic occurs naturally in the environment, it is synthetic inorganic arsenic that poses the biggest health hazards to humans and animals. So, humans are exposed to two kinds of the carcinogen in air, water, soil, and food sources. But unlike organic arsenic, which is found naturally in the environment, inorganic arsenic is present in our food as a result of pesticide application and animal feed. Arsenic is added to chicken feed as a supplement to control intestinal parasites and promote growth. It is consequently transferred into the meat of the animals and turns up in chicken manure. Arsenic is also widely used in the treatment of utility poles and in the arsenical herbicide MSMA (monosodium methanearsonate), which is being phased out by December 31, 2013.

Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of lung, skin, bladder, liver, kidney, and prostate cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and EPA have determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from human data. In 1981, EPA published a Position Document with findings that inorganic arsenical wood preservatives could result in oncogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic and neurotoxic effects. In addition to cancer effects, arsenic in the body can also cause vomiting, diarrhea, blood vessel change, or death and can damage many tissues including nerves, stomach and intestines.

According to Consumer Reports,

“The results of our tests were even more troubling in some ways than our findings for juice. In virtually every product tested, we found measurable amounts of total arsenic in its two forms. We found significant levels of inorganic arsenic, which is a carcinogen, in almost every product category, along with organic arsenic, which is less toxic but still of concern. Moreover, the foods we checked are popular staples, eaten by adults and children alike. See the chart summarizing results of our tests for arsenic in rice or rice products.

Though rice isn’t the only dietary source of arsenic””some vegetables, fruits, and even water can harbor it””the Environmental Protection Agency assumes there is actually no “safe” level of exposure to inorganic arsenic.

No federal limit exists for arsenic in most foods, but the standard for drinking water is 10 parts per billion (ppb). Keep in mind: That level is twice the 5 ppb that the EPA originally proposed and that New Jersey actually established. Using the 5-ppb standard in our study, we found that a single serving of some rices could give an average adult almost one and a half times the inorganic arsenic he or she would get from a whole day’s consumption of water, about 1 liter.

We also discovered that some infant rice cereals, which are often a baby’s first solid food, had levels of inorganic arsenic at least five times more than has been found in alternatives such as oatmeal. Given our findings, we suggest limiting the consumption of rice products.”

See sources of arsenic in rice products.

Later in the day yesterday, according to Consumer Reports, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Illinois Attorney General confirmed that it had found residues in rice products that concurred with the Consumer Reports’ findings. FDA said it will prioritize continued study of the issue.

Source: Arsenic in your food: Our findings show a real need for federal standards for this toxin

Honey bees, the essential pollinators of many of our major crops have been dying of in massive numbers since 2006. This threatens the US agricultural system and the one in twelve American jobs that depends on it. There is growing evidence that a new class of pesticides -nerve toxicants called neonicotinoids- used on most U.S. crops, including almost all corn, may be toxic to bees. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowed neonicotinoids on the market without adequate tests to determine their toxicity to bees. Environmentalists want neonicotinoids banned until needed safety tests are done. While the U.S. government is slow to act and neonicotinoid sales reap billions for the chemical industry, bees continue to die.

The video is available to stream or download on Link TV’s website, as well as Beyond Pesticides’ YouTube page.

The disappearance of the bees alerts us to a fundamental and systemic flaw in our approach to the use of toxic chemicals —and highlights the question as to whether our risk assessment approach to regulation will slowly but surely cause our demise without a meaningful change of course. While admittedly uncertain and filled with deficiencies, risk assessments establish unsupported thresholds of acceptable chemical contamination of the ecosystem, despite the availability of non-toxic alternative practices and products. Why do we allow chemical-intensive practices in agriculture when organic practices that eliminate the vast majority of hazardous substances are commercially viable? Risk assessments, supported by environmental and public health statutes, in effect prop-up unnecessary poisoning.

Take Action:
Tell EPA to protect honey bees, other pollinators, and our food supply and suspend the uses of clothianidin now! EPA has opened a 60-day public comment period on the agency’s decision to deny the request by beekeepers to immediately suspend the use of clothianidin, a pesticide that poses harm to pollinators. Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2012. See yesterday’s Daily News entry for more background information.

Want to know what else you can do? See Beyond Pesticides’ Protecting honey bees and wild pollinators page for hands-on steps you can take to help honey bees and other wild pollinators.

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

Without your support, clothianidin’s effects on honey bees will continue to put beekeepers, rural economies, and our food system at risk. With one in three bites of food reliant on honey bee pollination, it’s imperative that we act now!

Tell EPA to suspend the use of the bee-killer clothianidin and protect pollinators.

See sample comments here. If you are having trouble submitting to the docket, click here.

Background
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is the name given to the mysterious decline of honey bee populations around the world beginning in 2006. On average, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that beekeepers have been losing over 30% of their honey bee colonies each year—but some are losing many more times that number. While CCD appears to have multiple interacting causes, including pathogens, a range of evidence points to sublethal pesticide exposures as important contributing factors. Neonicotinoids are a particularly suspect class of insecticides, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides found in honey bee hives. Key symptoms of CCD include: 1) inexplicable disappearance of the hive’s worker bees; 2) presence of the queen bee and absence of invaders; 3) presence of food stores and a capped brood.

Clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidicloprid are members of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides, which are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar, and gutation droplets from which bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems.

Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides began to take over the seed treatment market. Clothianidin is Bayer’s successor product to imidacloprid, which recently went off-patent. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in CCD. Together, the two products accounted for over a billion dollars in sales for Bayer Crop Science in 2009. Imidacloprid is the company’s best-selling product and among the most widely used insecticides in the U.S. Starting in about 2004, seed companies in the U.S. began to market seeds treated with a 5-X rate of neonicotinoids (1.25mg/seed, compared with the traditional 0.25 mg/seed).

The emergency legal petition, filed in March 2012 by beekeepers and environmental organizations, cites significant acute and chronic bee kills across the United States linked to neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly the insecticide clothianidin. The petition asks the agency to suspend all registrations for pesticides containing clothianidin. It further establishes that EPA failed to follow its own regulations when it granted a conditional, or temporary, registration to clothianidin in 2003 without required data establishing that the pesticide would have no “unreasonable adverse effects” on pollinators.

In July, after the French Agricultural Ministry banned the use of the neonicotinoid pesticide thimethoxam in order to protect pollinators, EPA told pollinators to buzz off. The agency formally refused to recognize that honey bees face an “imminent hazard.” EPA denied the request to ban the use of products containing clothianidin, turning its back on over one million citizen petition signatures worldwide. This denial prompted Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to write a letter to EPA calling for an expedited review of neonicotinoid pesticides.

In her letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Senator Gillibrand wrote, “Protecting honey bees and other pollinators is vital to American agriculture. In fact, one in three bites of food is reliant on honey bee pollination, and threats to pollinators concern the entire food system and could drive up the cost of food in this country. Highlighting the economic importance of pollinators, a recent study by Cornell University found that insect pollination results in a value of more than $15 billion annually.”

Representative Markey (D-MA) joined in the protection of honey bees in late August, calling on EPA to investigate the link between pesticides and honey bee deaths. “The proverb ”˜No bees, no honey, no work, no money’ may become all too true if we don’t investigate the impact of pesticides on our valuable honeybee population,” said Rep. Markey. “Bees are vital to our nation’s economy and food security. I urge the EPA to look more closely at the impacts of these commonly used pesticides on the bee population, and I look forward to the agency’s response.”

Although EPA denied the emergency petition, it did open a 60-day public comment docket in order to review additional points raised in the legal petition. This is where we need your help. We need to tell EPA to ban clothianidin once and for all.

In addition to the emergency petition, Beyond Pesticides has joined with the Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club, along with beekeepers from around the country, in filing a 60-Day Notice letter with them EPA, announcing the intent to jointly sue the agency for Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations. The potential lawsuit highlights EPA’s continuing failure to ensure, through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that its numerous product approvals for the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam are not likely to jeopardize any federally-listed threatened or endangered species.

Despite EPA’s recognition of the acute and chronic toxicity risks to endangered and threatened birds, mammals and insects from these chemicals nearly a decade ago, the agency has continued to ignore concerns surrounding the effects on these critical species. Over the past 12 years, EPA has approved a total of 86 products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and it permits the use of these insecticides on more than 30 crops, as well as ornamental, turfgrass and structural applications.

The 60-Day Notice cites several violations of the ESA, all of which address EPA actions that have enabled clothianidin and thiamethoxam to be applied over a vast amount of U.S. farmland and in, or near, a wide range of critical habitats and ecosystems. If the ESA violations are not resolved within 60 days, the letter signers may then sue EPA.

Make Your Voice Heard! We only have until September 25th to tell EPA to suspend clothianidin. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0334-0015 at www.regulations.gov, or by clicking on this link. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments (please note that only the fields with asterisks are required).

For more information on how pesticides affect pollinators and what you can do to help, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Program page.

Many of these herbicides are turning up in very concerning places. Over the past year, forty one residents, including several children, have submitted their urine to be tested for pesticides, and every sample has tested positive for the chemicals 2,4-D, and atrazine. The presence of atrazine is particularly concerning because it is very mobile in the environment, and should be able to pass through the body very quickly unless these residents are coming in contact with a constant source of this chemical.

Atrazine is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. Atrazine has shown to be harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians even when the amount used is less than the government allows. Atrazine is specifically associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may also harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species. There have been other reported cases of it leaching into drinking water both nationally and in Oregon. The effects of atrazine are so detrimental members of Congress are looking to ban its use.

2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Research by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that babies born in counties with high rates of chlorophenoxy herbicides application to farm fields are significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits, and extra digits. These birth defects were 60-90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates.

Experts argue the way in which these pesticides have been sprayed is unsafe. The mountainous terrain forces pilots to fly at heights that would not be tolerated in crop agriculture. Regular cropdusters typically fly at 10 feet above the field, but in this the case planes have flown at 50, 70, or even 80 feet above the trees, which increases the drift. These companies also spray while snow is still on the ground. Even when used correctly, aerial pesticide spraying is notorious for drifting off-site as the chemicals are picked up by wind currents. According Stu Turner, whose father pioneered crop-aviation insurance in the 1950s and who investigates cases of misapplication of pesticides, “When that snow melts, it’s ”¦ runoff.”

An even bigger concern to Mr. Turner is the timber companies spraying herbicide on forestland at more pints per acre than would be acceptable in crop agriculture. On average, timber companies spray a reported 1.1 million pounds of chemicals per year in this area, which is merely a fraction of the total spray because the figure represents only the active ingredient of the herbicides in undiluted containers. It does not include the diesel fuel or kerosene, for example, which are often mixed when spraying the herbicide triclopyr. It also does not include the so-called “inert” chemical agent mixed with glyphosate to make a version of Roundup that tenderizes a leaf’s defenses so that glyphosate can enter the plant. These additives have been shown to make Roundup more dangerous for living things than Roundup’s active ingredient alone.

It has been hard for residents to determine what specific chemicals private forest owners are spraying. Federal and state law does not require timber companies to notify residents of the compounds being sprayed. Even government agencies, such as the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), can find it hard to get information on what chemicals are being sprayed. Because of state law, OHA must request Oregon’s Forestry and Agriculture Departments to ask the timber companies which herbicides they are using. This indirect route of information can be slow to yield results. It took eight months for the health authority to receive the records after having to request them. Residents can pay a fee for the Oregon Department of Forestry to send them notifications when timber companies plan to spray, but the time frame for spraying is so wide —several months, even a year— that it’s difficult to judge when to stay inside.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for healthier and more environmentally friendly forestry practices. What is promising is that the U.S. Forest Service, the other major timber grower in Oregon, gave up nearly all herbicide use in the Northwest back in the 1980s. Making this transition can be economically possible, according to Jim Furnish, who managed the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon in the 1990s. “It was more costly, more labor intensive. But forestry in Oregon is profitable under many different scenarios,” said Mr. Furnish, who later became deputy chief of the Forest Service. “The Forest Service just saddled itself to a different horse and rode off into the future.”

Source: Center for Investigative Reporting , PBS

In a July 31 press release, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) announced that “aerial spraying the weekend of July 20-22 reduced the mosquito population by approximately 60 percent within the 21-community spray zone in Southeastern Massachusetts.” DPH Commissioner John Auerbach was quoted as crediting aerial spraying for causing “a significant reduction in the volume of mosquitoes.”

Immediately following that release, New England PEER Director Kyla Bennett submitted a public records request for the materials supporting these claims. More than a month later, DPH has still been unable to produce any records on which it based its press release. The matter is on appeal before the Secretary of State, the last administrative hurdle PEER needs to jump over in order to sue DPH to force the production of records.

PEER points out that agencies conducting aerial spraying concede that it does not eliminate risk from mosquito-borne diseases. So, even a 60% reduction of mosquitoes would not necessarily produce a concomitant reduction in disease risk. Moreover, a 60% kill rate claim is extremely dubious because:

– Droplet size of the sprayed pesticide is the primary factor affecting the efficacy of aerial spraying. In order for a mosquito to be killed by agent used in Massachusetts, the mosquito must be hit by 17 properly-sized pesticide droplets. If droplets are too big, they have less probability of making contact. If too small, they have lessened lethality and become more susceptible to atmospheric conditions, like wind;
-Vegetation prevents droplets from reaching their intended targets. One study on canopy penetration showed that only 7% of the target insects had been hit by pesticides; another showed the kill rate of mosquitoes under dense canopy was 0%. Other studies show no better than 34% mortality in vegetated areas. Significantly, mosquitoes prefer areas that are vegetated; and
-Spraying only targets flying adults, and not the eggs, larva or pupae. That means sequential applications of pesticide are necessary to control emerging adult mosquitoes — otherwise, mosquito control lasts for five to seven days, at most. Massachusetts has conducted aerial spraying during five summers since 1990. Of those five, three consisted of a single aerial spray, and two consisted of two aerial sprays a few weeks apart. None of these sporadic applications could be expected to interrupt the life history of mosquito populations or significantly cut disease risk.

“The Department of Public Health is peddling snake oil when it suggests aerial spraying is demonstrably effective in protecting against EEE,” stated Ms. Bennett, a biologist and attorney formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noting the dangers posed by mass pesticide application to both the public and the environment. “To effectively kill mosquitos from an aircraft requires perfect conditions, ideal terrain and a pilot who is an aerial Annie Oakley. It is not surprising that the Department is reluctant to reveal the real numbers behind its press releases.”

Beyond Pesticides has provided data that shows 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. Many municipalities around the country have consistently proven that dangerous pesticides are not necessary to effectively control mosquitoes and prevent outbreaks of West Nile virus. Prevention strategies, such as those listed above, have been adopted in such densely populated areas as Shaker Heights, OH and the District of Columbia.

For more information on safe and effective mosquito management strategies, see Beyond Pesticides’ page on Mosquitoes and Insect Borne Diseases, or contact us at [email protected], or call our office at 202-543-5450.

Source: PEER Press Release

Researchers outfitted 224 expectant mothers with air monitors during their third trimester of pregnancy and measured the levels of PBO and permethrin in the air around them. Then, once the children were 5 and 6, the same two chemicals were measured from air samples collected inside their home. Results showed that children exposed to PBO in the womb were at increased odds of reporting cough unrelated to cold or flu. Researchers found no correlation between prenatal or childhood exposure to permethrin, however they pointed out that this may be because PBO is easier to measure in air samples than permethrin. Coauthor of the study, “Prenatal exposure to pesticide ingredient piperonyl butoxide and childhood cough in an urban cohort,” Dr. Rachel Miller, indicates “these exposures may be a factor in a very common problem for children ””cough.”

PBO is a highly toxic substance that can cause a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system, is one of the most commonly used synergists in pesticide products. Synergists are chemicals added to pesticide formulations to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients. PBO is frequently used, especially in aerosol products and mosquito sprays, to increase the potency of pyrethrin and synthetic pyrethroids, as well as other types of insecticides. Products generally contain between five to ten times as much PBO as the pesticide product’s active ingredient.

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

Beyond Pesticides has long documented the increased risk pesticides pose to young children and pregnant mothers. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides. This current research follows a 2011 study that links high levels of prenatal exposure to pyrethriod pesticides containing PBO with a threefold increase in developmental disabilities compared to children with lower exposure levels. Philip Landrigan, M.D., pediatrics professor at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine indicates that those levels are similar to the intelligence loss caused by lead. A study in June found the chemical naphthalene, an active ingredient in mothballs and a common air pollutant, is linked to chromosomal aberrations in children that put them at increased risk of cancer as adults.

Given such compelling research on the risks associated with childhood exposure to pesticides, it is concerning how prevalent and persistent pesticides are in our living environment, and particularly in our homes. In 2008, researchers at Columbia’s CCCEH found PBO in 75% of homes occupied by pregnant women in inner-city New York. A 2009 study from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the pesticide permethrin in 89% of the 500 homes randomly selected for sampling. Another study conducted by the School of Medicine at The University of Texas San Antonio earlier this year found at least five pesticides in the air of 60% of 29 homes occupied by pregnant Hispanic women. Just earlier this week, results from 11 Oregon schools whose drinking water was tested for pesticides revealed a myriad of different chemicals in various combinations at each school.

In order to reduce exposure to these chemicals, expectant mothers should choose organic foods. Families should also stop using pesticides in and around the home and advocate banning cosmetic pesticides in their communities. For more information on what you can do, see our materials for new parents with tips on food choices and safer pest management, specifically designed for new moms and dads.

Source (including photo credit): Columbia Mailman School of Public Health Press Release

Scotts admitted to using Storcide II and Actellic 5E to prevent insects from damaging the bird food in storage, even though it knew both chemicals were toxic to birds, fish, and other wildlife. In 2008, Scotts Miracle-Gro ceased sales of the tainted birdseed but not before 70 million units of the pesticide-tainted food was sold. The sentence imposed in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, includes a $4 million criminal fine, the Justice Department said. Separately, the company agreed to pay more than $6 million in civil penalties to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and contribute $500,000 to organizations to protect bird habitats and restore and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of pesticides into waterways —valued at $2 million. EPA has identified more than 100 products produced or sold by Scotts Miracle-Gro that violated the federal pesticide laws over the past five years.

Storcide II contains chlorpyrifos-methyl and deltamethrin, while Actellic 5E contains pirimiphos-methyl. Chlorpyrifos-methyl, an organophosphate insecticide, was voluntary cancelled in 2000, and like its cousin chlorpyrifos, is a neurotoxin toxic to humans and wildlife. Pirimiphos-methyl is also an organophosphate and is noted as being highly toxic to birds and fish.

Scotts sold the illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees specifically warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides. The company also submitted false documents to the EPA and to state agencies in an attempt to deceive them, prosecutors said. At the time the criminal violations were discovered, EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered numerous civil violations spanning five years. Scotts’ FIFRA civil violations include the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, EPA issued more than 40 Stop ”˜Sale, Use or Removal’ Orders to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products. The company is guilty of illegally selling unregistered pesticides and marketing pesticides bearing labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by EPA. The falsified documents submitted to EPA and states were attributed to a federal product manager at Scotts.

Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon’s Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio to support the protection of bird populations and habitats through conservation, research, and education.

Scotts Products Involved in the Settlement:
o Banrot Broad Spectrum Fungicide 40% Wettable Powder (EPA Reg. No. 58185-10),
o Basics Solutions Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 71995-6-239),
o Brush-B-Gon Poison Ivy & Poison Oak Killer (EPA Reg. No. 239-2587),
o Contrast 70 WSP (EPA Reg. Nos. 432-1223-58185 and 45639-208-58185),
o Duosan WSB Wettable Powder Turf and Ornamental Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 58185-31),
o ORTHO Bug-B-Gon MAX Lawn & Garden Insect Killer Ready-To-Spray (EPA Reg. No. 1021-1778-239),
o ORTHO Bug B Gon MAX Lawn & Garden Insect Killer Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 1021-1645-239)
o ORTHO Bug-B-Gon Multi-Purpose Insect Killer Ready-To-Use Granules (aka Ortho Bug B Gon Lawn & Soil Insect Killer with Grub Control; EPA Reg. No. 28293-233-239),
o ORTHO Home Defense Max (aka Ortho Home Defense Indoor and Outdoor Insect Killer; EPA Reg. No. 239-2663),
o ORTHO Malathion 50 Insect Spray (EPA Reg. No. 239-739),
o ORTHO Orthonex Insect & Disease Control Formula III Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 239-2594),
o ORTHO ProSelect Roach, Ant & Spider Killer EPA Reg. No. 239-2679),
o ORTHO Weed B Gon Weed Killer for Lawns Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 2217-570-239), and
o Total Kill Lawn Weed Killer (aka Weed-Be-Gon Spot Weed Killer and Basic Solutions Lawn Weed Killer; EPA Reg. No. 239- 2691).

This is not the first time Scotts has been guilty of distributing unregistered pesticide products. EPA Region 5 issued a ”˜stop sale, use or removal’ order against Scotts Miracle-Gro in 2008 for illegal, unregistered, and misbranded weed and fertilizer products. The products were identified by the invalid EPA registration number listed on the package, marketed under names including “Garden Weed Preventer + Plant Food” and “Miracle Gro Shake ”˜n’ Feed All Purpose Plant Food Plus Weed Preventer.”

Pesticide violations are not uncommon, and when discovered, are met with fines. However, the damage to the public, wildlife, and the environment is already done. In 2009, a corporate tomato grower, Ag-Mart Produce Inc., faced an unprecedented penalty of more than $931,000 for misusing pesticides and jeopardizing the health and safety of workers in its New Jersey farm fields and packing houses. The company raked up hundreds of violations that included denying state environmental inspectors access to facilities, losing track of a highly toxic insecticide, failing to properly ventilate areas during pesticide use, failing to post important pesticide-safety information for workers, careless recordkeeping and using forbidden mixtures of pesticides. Ag-Mart has repeatedly been the defendant in pesticide violation cases, including the 2008 settlement for illegal pesticide exposures linked to severe birth defects to a farmworker family’s son.

In 2007 EPA announced that it was seeking damages from the Clorox Company for violating pesticide regulations. Fines were levied for multiple violations that involved mislabeled pesticides intended for export. A fine of $177,300 was issued based on 38 alleged violations involving unregistered and mislabeled disinfectant bleach, originally intended for export to Asia.

EPA’s labeling and reporting requirements under FIFRA establish risk standards for health and the environmental effects by restricting the handling, application, and disposal of pesticides, and by seeking to prevent false, misleading, or unverifiable product claims. The law also prohibits marketing of misbranded, improperly labeled, or adulterated pesticides.

Source: Reuters

EPA News Release

Some of the pesticides that were found in the Dixie school water include atrazine, bromacil, diuron, imidacloprid, metolachlor, norflurazon, and simazine. In the nine other schools that were found to have pesticides in their drinking water, seven different pesticides were found in the water at Applegate Elementary in Eugene, and multiple pesticides were also found in the drinking water of Ontario’s Pioneer and Cairo elementary.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 directs EPA to set pesticide residue standards ten times stricter than those considered acceptable for adults, however, this standard has often been ignored.

In addition to the harmful effects that these chemicals have on children, the combination of these chemicals can be more detrimental then each chemical individually. Teresa Huntsinger, who works on clean water issues for the Oregon Environmental Council, is concerned about the schools that have multiple pesticides in their water. “When drinking water levels are set, they’re assuming there’s one pollutant at a time and there’s very little science to understand what can happen when you have multiple chemicals together. There may be synergistic effects in the way these chemicals interact with each other,” Ms. Huntsinger said in a statement to Oregon public broadcasting.

Synergistic effects between multiple pesticides and chemicals are one of the largest gaps in the government’s ability to protect the public from adverse health effects. Mixing pesticides is a clear concern because they may have a stronger effect when combined. A 1999 study found that mixtures of three common groundwater contaminants ””two pesticides and a fertilizer (aldicarb, atrazine, and nitrate)”” at concentrations allowable in groundwater by EPA are capable of altering immune, endocrine, and nervous system functions in mice.

Atrazine, the chemical most found in this groundwater study, is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. Atrazine has been shown to be harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians even when the amount used is less than the government allows. Atrazine is also associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species, and there have been other reported cases of it leeching into drinking water both nationally and in Oregon. Additionally, frogs exhibit hermaphrodism when exposed to below below-legal allowable levels of the herbicide atrazine in waterways. The effects of atrazine are so detrimental that some members of Congress are looking to ban its use.

In addition to atrazine, diuron, metolachlor, norflurazon, and simazine, were found in the Fairplay ground water supply. Simizine has been known to be harmful to bees and aquatic species. Simazine also has a history as of leeching into water and has been detected in other groundwater studies.

In Ewing Elementary school drinking water, researchers discovered the presence of 2,4-D. 2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Research by EPA suggests that babies born in counties with high rates of chlorophenoxy herbicide applications to farm fields are significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also show a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

Children and pesticides don’t mix. Educate your Member of Congress about the School Environment Protection Act of 2012 (SEPA). Beyond Pesticides believes that this federal legislation will ensure a healthy learning environment for all students. In March, U.S. Representative Rush Holt and colleagues introduced the SEPA, which will protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. The legislation also bans the use of synthetic fertilizers. SEPA was first introduced in November 1999 in both the U.S. Senate and House. The bill language is based on state school pest management laws. It also mirrors the structure of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established a national committee to oversee the program as well as an established a list of synthetic substances allowed for use within the program. A form of SEPA has passed the U.S. Senate twice since and, together with other legislation, indicates broad support for a national mandate to stop hazardous pesticide use in schools.

To learn more about this legislation, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage or visit Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools program page.

Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting

“EPA has failed to uphold the clear standards of the Endangered Species Act,” said Peter Jenkins, attorney at the Center for Food Safety. “By continuing to ignore the growing number of reports and studies demonstrating the risks of neonicotinoids to honey bees and a large number of already threatened and endangered species, the EPA is exposing these already compromised populations to potentially irreversible harm.”

The Notice of Intent to Sue follows a legal petition previously filed by several environmental organizations and more than two dozen beekeepers requesting that EPA immediately suspend use of the chemical clothianidin that poses fatal harm to pollinators. While refusing to issue an immediate suspension, the EPA agreed to open a public comment docket to review additional points raised in the legal petition.

“EPA’s failure to follow the law potentially poses a direct, long-term threat to the sustainability of fragile ecosystems,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Given the known hazards of clothianidin and all neonicotinoid pesticides, EPA’s lack of respect for known scientific evidence and existing regulations endangers environments essential to our well-being.”

In the nine years since the EPA conditionally registered clothianidin for use on corn and canola, the agency has admitted to both the hazards of the insecticide and the need for compliance with ESA.

The EPA fact sheet on clothianidin reads as follows: “Clothianidin is expected to present acute and/or chronic toxicity risk to endangered/threatened birds and mammals via possible ingestion of treated corn and canola seeds. Endangered/threatened non-target insects may be impacted via residue laden pollen and nectar. The potential use sites cover the entire U.S. because corn is grown in almost all U.S. states.”

The agency has also made the same admission regarding thiamethoxam.

Despite EPA’s recognition of the acute and chronic toxicity risks to endangered and threatened birds, mammals and insects from these chemicals nearly a decade ago, the agency has continued to ignore concerns surrounding the effects on these critical species. Over the past 12 years, EPA has approved a total of 86 products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and it permits the use of these insecticides on more than 30 crops, as well as ornamental, turfgrass and structural applications.
“The disconnect at EPA between the serious risks these toxic chemicals pose to pollinators and the approval of the products that contain them is inexcusable,” said Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club’s Genetic Engineering Action Team chairwoman. “One-third of our food supply relies on the presence of pollinators. EPA should be protecting, not imperiling them.”

The 60-Day Notice cites several violations of the ESA, all of which address EPA actions that have enabled clothianidin and thiamethoxam to be applied over a vast amount of U.S. farmland and in, or near, a wide range of critical habitats and ecosystems. If the ESA violations are not resolved within 60 days, the letter signers may then sue EPA.

TAKE ACTION: We only have until September 25th to tell EPA to suspend clothianidin. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0334-0015 at www.regulations.gov, or by clicking on this link. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments (please note that only the fields with asterisks are required).

For more information on how pesticides affect pollinators and what you can do to help, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Program page.

To view the press release for this announcement, see here.

Researchers looked at 240 studies from around the world comparing nutritional value and levels of contaminants. Specifically, 17 studies focused on human populations consuming organic and conventional diets (six of which were randomized clinical trials). The rest of the studies examined nutrient and contaminant levels, comparing either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) grown organically and conventionally. It’s important to point out that there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food. The duration of the studies involving human subjects that were cited ranged from two days to two years.

Though the survey of studies on health benefits found that existing science does not show higher nutrient levels in organic produce, it does find conclusive evidence that organic produce is associated with lower levels of pesticide exposure and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the studies, detectable pesticide residues were found on 38% of conventional and 7% of organic produce. It also found that organic chicken and pork reduces exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Driving pesticide risks downward is important because recent science has established strong links between exposure to pesticides at critical stages of prenatal development and throughout childhood, and heightened risk of pre-term, underweight babies, developmental abnormalities impacting the brain and nervous system, as well as diabetes and cancer. Research shows that organic farming eliminates a significant source of toxic chemical contamination in the environment from groundwater pollution and runoff to drift. Organic farming also protects the farmworkers and their families from chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. For more information on the many chronic health effects associated with exposure to pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

As for what the findings mean for consumers, the researchers say that their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. “If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional,” noted Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the paper. She listed taste preferences and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons people choose organic products.

Beyond Pesticides advocates through its Eating with a Conscience website for consumers to choose organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use.

In order to understand the importance of eating organic food from the perspective of toxic pesticide contamination, we need to look at the whole picture. Organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture. Aside from contamination issues, conventional agricultural practices have contributed to climate change through heavy use of fossil fuels ””both directly on the farm and in the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers”” and through degradation of the soil, which releases carbon. The depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) through conventional farming has not only released carbon into the atmosphere, it has also limited the fertility and water holding capacity of soils worldwide. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce petroleum dependency and provide carbon sequestration in the soil. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: Stanford School of Medicine

In a ruling released last week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly referred to “the experimental nature of the LBAM Program,” observing, “There is no evidence that the Department has been able to identify with any certainty the effectiveness of particular strategies in containing, controlling, suppressing or eradicating LBAM.” The Judge also ruled that, without additional evaluation under California environmental laws, CDFA’s approval of the environmental document would “foreclose the Department from reinstating the aerial releases to the LBAM Plan.”

The court rejected a broader claim by a coalition of health and environmental organizations, which challenged CDFA’s failure to disclose or accurately describe all the harms caused by applying hazardous pesticides throughout the state. Concerns about health and environmental impacts of the program were elevated after hundreds of people reported illnesses in the wake of 2007 “emergency” spraying to eradicate the moth. CDFA justified its wide-reaching pesticide plan based on its unsubstantiated claims that the apple moth, which scientists say has been in California for decades, has to be controlled because it will harm crops and native plants and cause financial losses for the agriculture industry, even though the environmental impact report (EIR) reveals that the moth has done no damage. The apple moth program allows the state to apply pesticides anywhere in the state, at any time, and with no notice to affected communities.

“I’m disappointed and troubled that the court’s narrow interpretation of environmental protection laws could leave millions of Californians in the dark about risks associated with the application of pesticides potentially anywhere in the state,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “I’m convinced that the state agency pushing this controversial pesticide program has a legal and moral duty to explore cleaner, safer alternatives.”

“CDFA’s plans to apply pesticides in communities throughout California to control a moth that has little to no impact on agriculture are misguided at best,” said Erin Tobin, an attorney with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, which represents the groups in court. “Unfortunately, the burden is now on the public to protect themselves from chemicals that CDFA has not shown are necessary or even effective.”

CDFA’s apple moth treatments began when CDFA aerially sprayed communities in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in 2007 with CheckMate LBAM-F, an untested pesticide containing a pheromone with other unevaluated ingredients to purportedly eradicate the non-native moth. Even though evidence shows it has been in the state for a decade or more, the agency claims the moth’s presence is an “emergency” and sprayed without performing legally required health and environmental assessments. After the spraying, hundreds of people reported illnesses. In late 2007, CDFA revealed plans to expand the spraying to the Bay Area. Following an unprecedented public outcry, and rulings by both the Santa Cruz and Monterey superior courts requiring CDFA to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Department halted its spraying activities and prepared the EIR. The Santa Cruz County Court ruled the state did not prove that the invasive light brown apple moth poses an immediate threat to life or property. As a result, an emergency exception to spray was found to be unjustified. In 2010, after the EIR was published, several environmental and civic organizations challenged the pesticide program and EIR in court.

The coalition that filed suit includes Our Children’s Earth Foundation, Mothers of Marin Against the Spray (MOMAS), Stop the Spray East Bay, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Stop the Spray San Francisco, Pesticide Watch, Pesticide Action Network North America, the Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for East Shore Parks, the cities of Berkeley, Albany, and Richmond, and the City and County of San Francisco. The coalition is considering an appeal of the court’s decision.

The light brown apple moth, which federal officials say threatens more than 2,000 varieties of California plants and crops, was first spotted in the state in March 2007 and has infested ten counties stretching from north of San Francisco to Santa Barbara. Officials planned to use the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, which works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Uncertainties about the health effects of the so-called inert or undisclosed ingredients, included in many pesticide formulations, are a serious concern. The 2007 aerial spraying for LBAM resulted in 463 illness reports after spraying began. Another concern is the population of endangered and threatened moths and butterflies that could be affected by the aerial applications.

Source: Earthjustice

The proposal describes EPA’s plan to reach out to potentially affected pesticide users to discuss the technical and economic feasibility of draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) intended to avoid jeopardy to threatened and/or endangered species. It also describes the process by which public comments received on RPAs will be summarized and organized by EPA and provided to the Services, which will prepare a document to be included in the administrative record of the consultation explaining how comments were considered, and if appropriate, how the final biological opinion was modified to address the comments. The Services will provide the document to EPA, and both the Services and EPA will make the document available to the public upon request. These process changes are intended to provide clarity and transparency to the ESA Section 7 consultation process for pesticides.

Historically, EPA has run into problems when reaching out to pesticide users for advice on limiting pesticide use, since their practices of pesticide dependency have tended to bias the agency’s understanding of the viability of organic and non-toxic cultural practices that do not rely on toxic pesticides. As a result, EPA decisions (under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its amendments) typically do not take into account whether a pesticide’s use is necessary, given the availability of alternative practices and green products. One law that does require an essentiality review when evaluating the use of any synthetic materials, assuming they meet health, envronmental and biodiversity standards of review, is the Organic Foods Production Act.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires all federal agencies to consult with NMFS and FWS prior to any federal action if there is any potential impact on a protected species. Therefore, under ESA, EPA is required to determine how a pesticide will affect threatened and endangered species when that chemical is registered or has its registration reviewed; the agency must consult with FWS and NMFS for any necessary additional information and analysis. To implement these procedures, EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) utilizes risk assessment tools to evaluate any concerns about effects to listed endangered species. FIFRA’s standard to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment,” while broad enough to evaluate and reduce impacts on biodiversity, instead has been used to establish standards of use that result in levels of harm deemed acceptable.

EPA’s risk assessment process does not function to protect the most vulnerable in biological systems, but institutes restrictions intended to mitigate risks. The mandated consultations with FWS and NMFS could present the opportunity to evaluate alternative practices that would avoid harm to endangered species, but unfortunately has been largely limited to the risk management framework that has so long dominated EPA’s approach to regulating pesticides.

Prior to 2004, EPA believed the extensive environmental risk assessments required in the registration process also would include impacts on endangered species. However, represented by the public interest law group Earthjustice, several stakeholder organizations including the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit in January 2001 to force EPA to fulfill this requirement. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. The judge, in a lawsuit initiated in 2002, called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with NMFS regarding adverse impacts on the Northwest runs.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandates EPA to review all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA began that process in 2006 and has included ESA consultations in its reviews. However, EPA, NMFS, and FWS have not worked effectively in the consultation process. One reason for this problem is the difference in legal authorities — EPA registers pesticides under FIFRA, which is a risk-based process and must consider cost/benefit analyses in its decisions. NMFS and FWS, acting under ESA, is more precautionary in its approach and has no cost/benefit directive.

Take Action: Comments on the proposal are being accepted through Oct. 16, 2012. Go to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0442 at www.regulations.gov. Click here to go directly to the submit comments page. The proposal can be found on the docket page as well, or by clicking here.

Source: Western Farm Press

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

The new rules that are scheduled for approval early next year will affect about 3,000 farms in Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Kern counties, covering more than 1.6 million acres of farmland. More than 400 farmers and agriculture industry leaders packed an informational meeting held by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board last week to air their concerns over a plan to protect the region’s groundwater from contamination. The seven-member board heard a day-long presentation by staff members on a draft of the rules to monitor groundwater and control discharges of contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides.

For farmers, that could involve drilling monitoring wells, testing water, hiring consultants and completing paperwork. Staff for the Central Valley Regional Quality Control Board last month based cost estimates on the experience of other farming areas where the rules have already passed, and came up with the $100 million figure. Many farmers objected to the potential cost of water monitoring. Although the state initially estimated the cost at $120 per acre, that figure has since been revised to $21 an acre, more than 80% off the estimated cost.

Water board officials said one of the biggest causes of water contamination in the region is nitrates, a chemical that comes from fertilizers, septic tanks, animal waste and decaying plants. The chemical can cause a potentially fatal infant blood disease, called blue baby syndrome, and has been connected to several cancers. A National Institutes of Health study links increased risk of thyroid cancer with high nitrate levels in public water supplies. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and University of California at Davis have concluded that irrigated agriculture is a major source of nitrate pollution in groundwater. “And there is a significant issue with nitrates in Tulare County,” said Clay Rodgers, assistant executive officer for the board. “The area has some of the worst problems with nitrates.”

Pamela Creedon, executive officer of the regional Water Quality Control Board, told the audience that one of the goals of the water-monitoring program is to determine what farmers are doing on their farms to reduce water use and groundwater contamination. She also agreed that part of the nitrate contamination is the result of years of farming practices, not necessarily current ones. “But if it is polluted, we have to respond,” Ms. Creedon said. “Water-quality laws are there to protect everyone, agriculture included.” California has embarked on a campaign over the past decade to regulate water discharges from farms. The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Monitoring Program already has rules focused on protecting streams. Dairy farms have also been regulated. Now the state has begun to regulate discharges to underground water, a move applauded by water activists. But activists say state authorities need to lay out penalties clearly for polluters. The draft rules only spell out fixes for pollution problems, said lawyer Laurel Firestone of the Community Water Center in Visalia. “The draft doesn’t have a trigger for penalties,” she said.

California’s governments, communities, and agricultural industry have struggled over nitrate contamination for decades. According to the 2012 report by University of California, Davis researchers, Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water, nitrate runoff from agricultural regions is one of the state’s most widespread groundwater contaminants. Nearly 10 percent of the 2.6 million people living in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley might be drinking nitrate-contaminated water, the report found. If nothing is done to stem the problem, the report warned, those at risk for health and financial problems may number nearly 80 percent by 2050.

The report is the most comprehensive assessment so far of nitrate contamination in California’s agricultural areas. The study area includes four of the nation’s five counties with the largest agricultural production. It represents about 40% of California’s irrigated cropland (including 80 different crops) and over half of California’s dairy herd. Many communities in the area are among the poorest in California and have limited economic means or technical capacity to maintain safe drinking water, given threats from nitrate and other contaminants. Nitrate-contaminated water is well-documented in many of California’s farming communities. Rural residents are at greater risk because they depend on private wells, which are often shallower and not monitored to the same degree as public water sources. Current contamination likely came from nitrates introduced into the soil decades ago. That means even if nitrates were dramatically reduced today, groundwater would still suffer for decades to come.

The agricultural industry, however, has maintained that it is not solely responsible because nitrates come from many sources. According to the UC Davis report, 96 percent of nitrate contamination comes from agriculture, while only 4 percent can be traced to water treatment plants, septic systems, food processing, landscaping, and other sources. In order to reduce this pollution, the report recommends managing nitrogen fertilizer and manure to increase crop nitrogen use efficiency, managing crop plants to capture more nitrogen and decrease deep percolation, as well as improving the storage and handling of fertilizers and manure to decrease off-target discharge.

Similarly, a 2011 report found increased levels of chemical pollution, including pesticides, in California water bodies. According to the report, which gathered monitoring data for 2008-2010, more than half of the state’s water bodies do not meet existing water quality goals and many still need federal pollution control standards. While federal officials maintain that the increases are due to improved monitoring and not new pollution, the data presents a more accurate representation of real world contamination. Unfortunately, this also means that water pollution has been going under reported and underestimated for decades, with this new data more closely reflecting the state’s pollution problem.

Take Action: Want to do your own part to help reduce the release of dangerous and damaging chemicals in our homes, farms, and environment? Support organic agriculture and institutional IPM programs at schools and hospitals! You can even go organic in your own home, lawn, and garden. There are alternatives to toxic pesticides available for a wide range of pests whether in agriculture, or throughout the urban environment including structural and landscape pest problems.

Source: The Fresno Bee