An ordinance mandating the implementation of an organic land management program for all city parks, open space, trails, lawns, playgrounds, sports fields, rights-of-way and other real property owned or leased by the City; using organic fertilizers and eliminating the use of synthetic fertilizers on City property; promoting tolerance of a diversity of plants growing symbiotically with the grasses; employing non-synthetic chemical means for removal of weeds and pests; allowing the use of minimum risk pesticides after non-synthetic chemical means have been reasonably exhausted; resorting to higher risk pesticides only in the event of a public health emergency; designating an organic land management coordinator; and providing for the recovery of costs and attorney’s fees by citizens who are wholly or partially successful in bringing a civil action to enforce any provision of the ordinance.

There are currently two parks that are maintained without chemicals in the City of Durango, Brookside Park and Pioneer Park. According to a narrative report prepared by Organically Managed Parks Durango, the use of both of these parks has increased in popularity since the parks have become chemical-free, particularly among families with small children. The City of Durango’s Parks Master Plan, states that Brookside Park is in “excellent condition,” and the turf in both of the chemical-free Parks is a highly functional, beautiful green lawn and beckons to children of all ages for a pleasing roll about in the completely chemical-free grass.

The call for this ordinance adds to the growing movement across the country calling for increased restrictions on the use of dangerous chemicals in the public sphere. In addition to Durango, CO, Beyond Pesticides has worked with localities throughout the U.S. in an effort to promote organic land care systems and restrict the hazardous use of chemicals. Most recently, Richmond, CA approved a pesticide reform ordinance targeting the use of toxic chemical pesticides within city boundaries. Washington D.C. also recently passed legislation which restricts the use of pesticides on District property, near waterways, and in schools and day care centers. Ohio’s Cuyoga County successfully banned a majority of toxic pesticide uses on county property, prioritizing the use of natural, organic, horticultural and maintenance practices with an Organic Pest Management (OPM) program. The City of Greenbelt, Maryland also has a law that completely eliminates the use of cosmetic pesticides through a phase out period, and includes a requirement that all city contractors follow OPM and organic land care management. The village of New Paltz, New York has a “Healthy Turf and Landscape Policy,” which emphasizes the precautionary principle, and only allows the use of pesticides if a pest problem poses a threat to public health. While stopping short of an all-out ban, Connecticut currently has a statewide prohibition on the use of toxic pesticides on school grounds. The state of New York also acted to protect children by passing the “Child Safe Playing Field Act” in 2010, which requires that all schools, preschools, and day care centers stop using pesticides on any playgrounds or playing field. Additionally, several communities in Cape Cod, Massachusetts are currently in the process of moving towards organic land care as a norm in their public spaces.

Organic land management is practical and economical. Opponents may claim that organic management will cost more money, or put the fields at risk for disease and weed infestation; however, in a Cornell University study of turf, chemically maintained turf is more susceptible to disease. Another report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education and Beyond Pesticides’ Board Member Chip Osborne for the New York State legislature concludes that organic approaches can save money. The report compares the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and an organic program over a five-year period and finds that the annual cost of maintaining an organic field can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of chemical-based programs. The Parks and Recreation Department in Branford, Connecticut has a successful organic land care program resulting in more attractive playing fields at a decreased cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, Harvard University saved two million gallons of water a year by managing the grounds organically, as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent. Previously, it cost Harvard $35,000 a year to get rid of “landscape waste” from its campus grounds. Now that cost is gone because the school keeps all grass clippings, leaves and branches for composting and making compost teas. This in turn saves the university an additional $10,000 from having to purchase fertilizers elsewhere.

For more information on organic-based, pesticide-free lawn and landscape management, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page. Beyond Pesticides encourages concerned citizens to stand up and make their voices heard in their community. If you’d like to join Richmond, California and help ban pesticide use in your community’s public spaces, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or at [email protected].

Source: The Durango Telegraph

The widespread spraying of toxic pesticides (typically chemicals known as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, or other nervous system poisons) does not provide a long-term sustainable solution to mosquito control. “It has been shown that spraying pesticides that target adult mosquitoes is the least effective strategy, as well as the most risky response, since the pesticides used are linked to numerous adverse health effects, including respiratory inflammation, headaches, nausea, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other serious chronic diseases,” said Nichelle Harriott, staff scientist at Beyond Pesticides.

According to experts, the threat of WNv is best managed through an integrated program that does not expose vulnerable populations to pesticides, including children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with compromised immune or nervous systems. The most effective program to protect the public from WNv focuses on removing breeding areas, stopping mosquitoes at the larval stage, and mass public education on prevention and precaution.

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.

What people can do:

”¢ Clean up — ensure waterways are clear of debris; eliminate pooled or stagnant waters from debris, containers, drains, and pools.
”¢ Natural Predators — Use indigenous fish populations, like bluegills or minnows, to eat mosquito larvae in shallow waters and ornamental pools. Copepod crustaceans can also be used to eat mosquito larvae in ditches, pools and other areas of stagnant water.
”¢ Least-toxic Pesticide Options — Use Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bt), a biological larvicide that prevents mosquitoes from developing into breeding, biting adults, in standing waters that cannot be drained.
”¢ Behavior Modification — wear long sleeves and long pants/skirts, and use least-toxic mosquito repellent when outdoors. Avoid being outside at dusk when mosquitoes are most active.
”¢ Take Action — Let your local council members, mayor, or state delegates know that safer, more sustainable options exist. Download our Sample Letter (opens in Word) to send to public health officials in your area.

For more information on effective non-toxic community mosquito management, please see Beyond Pesticides’ West Nile Virus and Mosquito Management page.

Along with other chemicals such as formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, the company cites consumer concern over the safety of triclosan as among its reasons for the alteration in its products. While the company downplayed any need for concern over the safety of triclosan, it also hinted that it was uncomfortable with growing body of science linking triclosan to a number of health concerns. The phase out is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2015.

On a website the company developed specifically regarding the chemical phase out, it stated, in part,

“In recent years, some questions have been raised about the potential environmental impact of triclosan. And some have questioned whether its use may promote the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. While current science has not demonstrated evidence for these concerns, the issues will be studied further and are likely to be discussed for some time”¦ Despite triclosan having a long and extensive history of safe use, we want you to have peace of mind. So we have set a goal to phase out triclosan in our beauty and baby care products. We have made significant progress in developing alternatives that will allow us to replace triclosan.”

Although Johnson and Johnson publicly denies the evidence that triclosan can pose serious risks for human health, research is increasingly revealing its many causes for concern. Recently, researchers from the University of California at Davis and the University of Colorado found that the chemical impairs muscle function in fish and mice and stated the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure.” Beyond Pesticides has provided more 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 contaminate waterways and are present in fish, 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.

Johnson and Johnson did not provide a list of which of its products contain triclosan, but some of the company’s personal care brands include Aveeno, Neutrogeena, RoC, Clean & Clear, and Lubriderm. A partial list of consumer products known to contain triclosan can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterials page. Triclosan is present in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products, appearing in some of these products in a formulation known as Microban. Be sure to always read the ingredient list on the label of any personal care product or product that is labeled as “antimicrobial” that you use or consider buying.

Last Year, Colgate-Palmolive announced that it would be reformulating its products to remove triclosan from its product line, including dish and hand soaps. Similarly, major retailers like Staples, the world’s largest office products company, are also beginning to identify “bad actor” chemicals whose future use in the products they carry will be reconsidered. In 2010, Staples announced a new sustainability strategy for products and packaging, characterizing it as a “Race to the Top” challenge for its key suppliers. The strategy’s initial priority includes collaboratively developed scorecards for both products and packaging. Staples hopes to begin conservations with its suppliers about the possibility of removing these “bad actors” from products and to replace them with alternatives. Among these “bad actor” chemicals is triclosan, along with the pesticides permethrin, and propoxur.

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

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

Join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Avoid products containing triclosan, and encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

Source: CBS News

Previous efforts to reforest and fence off contaminated areas have been carried out to prevent local animals and residents from being exposed to soil contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), the potent dioxin contaminant of Agent Orange. TCDD is the most dangerous form of dioxin and the levels found in soil samples from Central Vietnam are more than 200 times the “acceptable” level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Efforts to educate the residents about the dangers of dioxin are difficult since most cannot read and many speak local tribal dialects and not Vietnamese.

Dioxin, which is very persistent in the environment, accumulates in animal fat, resulting in many grazing livestock contaminated with high levels of dioxins. Poor sanitation and a local diet that relies on fish caught in contaminated waters and fowl that peck on tainted soil keep dioxin exposure a constant threat to the locals. Many families living in nearby villages surrounding contaminated areas have health problems, such as limb deformities, blood disorders, and deafness that have been blamed on dioxin exposure. Elevated levels of TCDD have also been found in breast milk and blood of the local residents.

The U.S. sprayed about 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, halting only after scientists commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a report expressing concerns that dioxin showed “a significant potential to increase birth defects.” According to the New York Times, by the time the spraying stopped, Agent Orange and other herbicides had destroyed 2 million hectares, or 5.5 million acres, of forest and cropland, an area roughly the size of New Jersey. Three locations in Vietnam retain particularly high levels of the chemical in their soil. The U.S. will target one of these sites, a 19-hectare area near Da Nang Airport, to test the economic and technological feasibility of a soil treatment process, even though the U.S. is not admitting liability. Used in the U.S. to treat highly contaminated “superfund” military sites, the soil treatment process involves removing soil from the site and heating it to 355 °C to destroy dioxin. The U.S. is investing $43 million in the project, and it is expected to take about four years. Other potential clean-up options include putting all the soil in a toxic waste dump (the cheapest method) or, incinerate soil it at high temperatures (the most effective). Other proposals include pouring concrete all over the contaminated sites, or simply walling them off to humans and animals.

“This morning we celebrate a milestone in our bilateral relationship,” David B. Shear, the American ambassador to Vietnam, said at a ceremony attended by senior officers of the Vietnamese military. “We’re cleaning up this mess.”

“It’s a big step,” said Ngo Quang Xuan, a former Vietnamese ambassador to the United Nations. “But in the eyes of those who suffered the consequences, it’s not enough.”

Nguyen Van Rinh, a retired lieutenant general who is now the chairman of the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, has vivid memories of hearing American aircraft above the jungles of southern Vietnam and seeing Agent Orange raining down in sheets on him and his troops. Plants and animals exposed to the defoliant were dead within days. Many of his troops later suffered illnesses that he suspects were linked to the repeated exposure to Agent Orange, used in concentrations 20 to 55 times that of normal agricultural use. A class-action case against chemical companies filed in the U.S. on behalf of millions of Vietnamese was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that supplying the defoliant did not amount to a war crime and that the Vietnamese plaintiffs had not established a clear causal effect between exposure to Agent Orange and their health problems. However, a study investigating the long-term immune effects of dioxin found that exposure to dioxin during development or while nursing diminishes the young’s capacity to fight infection later in life. Another found that exposure to dioxin in the womb can affect female reproduction for generations, reducing fertility and increasing the chance for premature delivery.

“I would like to have one message sent to the American people,” Mr. Rinh said. “The plight of Agent Orange victims continues. I think the relationship would rise up to new heights if the American government took responsibility and helped their victims and address the consequences.”

The effects of Agent Orange are not only felt in Vietnam. Studies have found that U.S. war veterans exposed to Agent Orange have developed chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkins lymphoma and diabetes. Many children of exposed veterans have been affected by their parents’ exposure to the chemical and show a wide range of symptoms. Dioxin has been found in milk, cheese, beef, pork, fish, chicken, and other animals, as well as soil and sewage sludge in the U.S. High levels of dioxin still exist in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and floodplains in Michigan, after being dumped there decades ago by Dow Chemical Co. Clean-up and restoration for these systems are still being debated. Even though dioxin levels in the environment have dropped considerably in recent years from their peak in the late 1970’s, it is important to be vigilant in the foods consumed in order to avoid an exposure hazard, since dioxins are persistent and bioaccumulative.

Earlier this year, EPA released a revised dioxin exposure assessment for acute human health risks, despite objections from the chemical industry. In the report, EPA identified several adverse health endpoints associated with dioxin exposure including, decreased sperm concentrations and motility (semen quality) and increased thyroid-stimulating hormone levels in offspring, but generally found that the typical American has low risk exposures to dioxins, even though independent panels have called on the U.S. to reduce dioxin exposures.

Today, most dioxin exposure in the U.S. is attributable to emissions from waste incinerators, copper smelters, and makers of paper pulp, but dioxins are still manufactured and released as contaminants of pentachlorophenol and phenoxy herbicides like 2,4-D. Regulations have curtailed dioxin emissions by 90% since the 1980s, but the pollutants persist in the environment, so they continue to contaminate livestock forage and meat and dairy products. The structure of dioxins closely resembles that of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polychlorinated dibenzo furans (PCDFs), which also have similar toxicological and environmental effects.

Source: New York Times

Under a 2000 state Act Protecting Children and Families from Harmful Pesticides, schools and child care centers are required to submit plans detailing the pest problem that exists at their facilities, the pesticides that they plan to apply, and who will apply the pesticides — even if they are not planning to use pesticides at the current time. The law also requires them to notify parents and employees at least two days before any pesticides are applied at these facilities. Pesticide use is prohibited when children present. Outdoor, pesticides that are known, likely or probable carcinogens, contain a “List I” inert ingredient or for aesthetic reason alone are also prohibited from use.

Although the law was passed 12 years ago, inspectors have yet to visit every school in the state. It is not known how many schools are still to be checked, but according to Mr. Diemand, pesticide inspectors have not yet looked into Northhampton schools. Back in 2007, state auditors found that many of the schools throughout the state of Massachusetts were not in compliance with the state law. A corrective action plan to address the problem was supposed to take effect in September 2008 to ensure that children in childcare settings are properly protected against pesticides. However, the plan did not address the need for compliance by public and private schools.

The active ingredient in Lesco is glyphosate, a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk and neurotoxicity 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.

In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) showing new and emerging science which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risk to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration.

Some of the most widespread uses of glyphosate that have been attracting public attention include its use in invasive weed management and home gardening. The increase of glyphosate use in these areas is directly tied to the larger problem of poor land management, including over grazing, over development, soil compaction and other stressors. Glyphosate has replaced ecologically sound and sustainable cultural practices such as green-mulching and preventive maintenance such as aeration and dethatching.

According to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Northampton is the only school district in Hampshire County that has pesticides listed on all of its IPM plans. Most other school districts have adopted no-pesticide policies, but there are a few schools in the county that do allow the use of toxic pesticides in an emergency, including for wasp nests or poison ivy. Those school districts include: Berkshire Trail Elementary School in Cummington, Belchertown High School, Hopkins Academy in Hadley and South Hadley High School.

Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable to pesticides because of their rapid development and behavior patterns. Adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even if a pesticide is applied according to label directions. Pesticide exposure can have long-term adverse effects, including damage to a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system and increased asthma symptoms. Studies show that children living in households where pesticides are used suffer elevated rates of leukemia, brain cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

Exposure to toxic pesticides and other chemicals while children are at school is an unacceptable and completely unnecessary risk. This incident should not have happened and supports the need for a national policy to protect every child in the United States. Most recently introduced in the last Congress, federal legislation sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), would protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. To learn more about this legislation, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage.

Source: Daily Hampshire Gazette

ODA Director Katy Coba states in the department’s press release, “Since canola has been deregulated by USDA, ODA does not differentiate between conventional and GM canola or treat them differently.” Given that 93% of U.S planted canola crops are genetically modified, this move represents a large threat to the integrity of Oregon’s internationally recognized organic seed industry. The new rules are temporary for 180 days, but ODA plans to propose and implement permanent rules before the temporary ones expire. The department will begin accepting public input once the permanent rules are proposed, but by then the canola will already be in the ground.

ODA’s decision is a dramatic shift from its previous policy on canola planting in the valley. The previous regulation, ORS 603-052-0880(2) stated, “Production of rapeseed for oil or seed is incompatible with production of crops of the same or related species grown for seed or vegetables.” An Oregon State University report, “Outcrossing Potential for Brassica Species and Implications for Vegetable Crucifer Seed Crops of Growing Oilseed Brassicas in the Willamette Valley,” endorses this point. The study confirms that canola has the ability to hybridize with radish, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, collards, and kale crops.

Moreover, the report states, “Genetically modified canola presents the greatest risk to vegetable crucifer seed crops. Although it is very unlikely that transgenes would persist once transferred to the seed crop, the presence of the gene would make the seed crop unsuitable for markets that have strict tolerances on GMO contamination.”

Many organic seed crops are grown in the fertile alluvial plains of the Willamette Valley. Since organic standards do not permit the production of genetically modified crops, organic seed farmers may be imperiled by ODAs decision. Frank Morton of Wild Garden Seed, an organic seed production company located in Philomath, OR said in an article in the Eugene Weekly, “If we are to continue to exist, we have to resist the introduction of canola in the valley.”

ODA argues that their authority does not extend to protecting agriculture from market-based threats or concerns. The new rules would “refine” the boundaries of restricted planting areas and require an electronic pinning system for planted canola crops. ODA’s Director Coba states, “Producers are encouraged to communicate with each other and work together to provide the necessary isolation to protect specialty seed crops while allowing canola production.” To this assessment Frank Morton of Wild Garden Seed responds, “That’s like sort of like asking someone for permission to have a camel sleep in your bed,” he says. “It’s not collaboration if you have a gun held to your head.”

Oregon State University’s report indicates that a 1.2 mile distance between canola crops and seed fields is needed to minimize cross-pollination. While the pinning maps should make it easier to maintain that distance, they cannot account for other variables. The report explains, “The two greatest threats are canola seed blown from vehicles onto road shoulders and volunteers in fields previously planted to canola. Detecting and eliminating volunteers from a 2-kilometer [1.2 mile] radius around a seed field would be onerous and perhaps impossible.” This is very disconcerting news for the seed capital of the U.S.

Beyond Pesticides has long-documented the negative effects of genetic cross- contamination. In July of this year, we joined with farmers and environmental groups across the country to appeal a February court ruling dismissing Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. The plaintiffs in this case are suing preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crop ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

Genetic contamination of organic crops by pollen that originates from genetically engineered crops and drifts onto neighboring fields has been incontrovertibly confirmed by scientific research. Such contamination has proven 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 any potential 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. 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.”

Help Beyond Pesticides send the message to Director Coba that this is unacceptable: Take Action now!

Also, USDA is still accepting public comment on twelve petitions for new genetically engineered (GE) crops until September 11, 2012.

Help us protect organic integrity!

Source: ODA Press Release

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

In 2011, research led by Virginia Rauh, ScD, Co-Deputy Director of CCCEH, established a connection between prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos and deficits in working memory and IQ at age 7. Earlier this year, a follow-up study showed evidence in MRI scans that even low to moderate levels of exposure during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain. The latest study, led by Megan Horton, PhD, explored the impact of sex differences and the home environment on these health outcomes.

Dr. Horton and colleagues looked at a subset of 335 mother-child pairs enrolled in the ongoing inner-city study of environmental exposures, including measures of prenatal chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood. When the children reached age 3, the researchers measured the home environment using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) criteria, including two main categories: 1) environmental stimulation, defined as the availability of intellectually stimulating materials in the home and the mother’s encouragement of learning; and 2) parental nurturance, defined as attentiveness, displays of physical affection, encouragement of delayed gratification, limit setting, and the ability of the mother to control her negative reactions. The researchers tested IQ at age 7.

While home environment and sex had no moderating effect on IQ deficits related to chlorpyrifos exposure, the researchers uncovered two intriguing findings related to sex differences, albeit of borderline statistical strength: first, that chlorpyrifos exposure had a greater adverse cognitive impact in boys as compared to girls, lowering working memory scores by an average of three points more in boys than girls (96.5 vs. 99.8); and second, that parental nurturing was associated with better working memory, particularly in boys.

“There’s something about boys that makes them a little more susceptible to both bad exposures and good exposures,” says Dr. Horton. “One possible explanation for the greater sensitivity to chlorpyrifos is that the insecticide acts as an endocrine disruptor to suppress sex-specific hormones. In a study of rats, exposure to the chemical reduced testosterone, which plays a critical role in the development of the male brain.”

Going forward, Dr. Horton will look at how sex and the home environment may influence the effects of prenatal exposure to other environmental toxicants, such as those found in air pollution. “I expect this information will be useful in efforts to develop new interventions to protect children from the potentially negative consequences of early exposure to harmful chemicals,” says Dr. Horton.

The insecticide chlorpyrifos was widely used in homes until 2001 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency restricted indoor residential use, permitting continued commercial and agricultural applications. Since that time, a drop in residential levels of chlorpyrifos has been documented by Robin Whyatt, DrPH, Co-Deputy Director of CCCEH. The chemical continues to be present in the environment through its widespread use in agriculture (food and feed crops), wood treatments, and public spaces such as golf courses, some parks, and highway medians. People near these sources can be exposed by inhaling the chemical, which drifts on the wind. Low-level exposure can also occur by eating fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed with chlorpyrifos. Although the chemical is degraded rapidly by water and sunlight outdoors, it has been detected by the Columbia researchers in many urban residences several years after the ban went into effect. Many developing countries continue to use chlorpyrifos in the home setting.

One of the coauthors of the study, Dana Boyd Barr, PhD., spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ 29th annual National Pesticide Forum in Denver, CO last year. See her talk as part of the forum’s Health and Science Panel.

The best way for consumers to reduce the impact that these chemicals have on our health and the environment is to choose organic foods. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Source: Mailman School of Public Health press release

The GE sweet corn is the first consumer product developed by Monsanto that will go straight from the farm to the consumer’s plate, rather than first being processed into animal feed, sugars, oils, fibers and other ingredients found in a wide variety of conventional food. It is engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate. The product is also designed to produce a Bt toxin that will kill insects that feed on the plant. Monsanto’s new sweet corn is being harvested in the Midwest, Northwest, Southeast, and Texas.

“After closely looking at both sides of the debate and collaborating with a number of respected food safety experts, we see no scientifically validated safety reasons to implement restrictions on this product,” Wal-Mart officials told the Tribune.

However, there has been growing concern over the increasing prevalence of insect resistance to Bt crops. Earlier this year, a group of prominent entomologists sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urging caution in the agency’s approach to Bt crops. Additionally, in April researchers at Portland State University has found that GE corn modified to express Bt negatively impacts beneficial soil life. Their results reveal a decreased presence of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake, in the roots of Bt corn when compared to non-Bt corn. Experts have recently warned EPA that “rufuges” of non-GE crops should be increased due to the growing threat of insect resistance to Bt corn.

Furthermore, GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Pollen from GE crops can potentially drift and wreak havoc on both the surrounding ecosystem and for organic and non-GE farms. If organic farmers’ crops become polluted with GE pollen, they may be subject to loss of their organic certification and financial losses. Unfortunately, the burden to protect against genetic drift falls on organic farmers and conventional farmers who do not use GE products.

Labeling GE products is a crucial way to identify products containing GE ingredients in an effort to sway consumer demand. The European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, require labeling for GE foods. Earlier this year, the German corporation BASF announced that it would stop developing genetically engineered products targeting the European market, in part due to low consumer demand. Given that 93% of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, Beyond Pesticides believes that we can have the same impact here as in Europe. Enough signatures have been collected to put on the California ballot Prop 37, “Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute,” to require labelling of food produced with GE ingredients, and the industry is now fighting back with a well-funded campaign campaign. More information on the campaign for PROP 37 can be found at the California Right-to-Know website.

In reversing a 2011 appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court said Minnesota does not recognize trespassing by “particulate matter.” The high court said the earlier appeals court ruling that found otherwise went “beyond our precedent.” The case is that of organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson, who sued the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company in 2009. The Johnsons alleged that the co-op repeatedly sprayed pesticides that drifted onto their fields, preventing them from selling their crops as organic. The Johnsons transitioned their farm to organic in the 1990s to take advantage of the higher prices organic crops and seeds bring. They posted signs noting that the farm was organic, created a buffer between their property and neighboring farms, and asked the co-op to take precautions, according to court records. The ruling states that the Johnsons do not claim there was an invasion by a tangible object, but instead claim the co-op’s actions prevented them from using their land as they wanted. Therefore, the court ruled, “the Johnsons’ claim is one for nuisance, not trespass.” The dissenting opinion stated, “The court’s one-size-fits-all holding that particulate matter can never cause a trespass fails to take into account the differences between these various substances.”

The District Court in Minnesota previously ruled that pesticide drift cannot be trespass, but the Appeals Court disagreed. The Supreme Court, while upholding the dismissal of the trespassing charges, remanded the case to the district court so that the Johnsons’ negligence and nuisance claims can proceed. However, for negligence cases, the burden of proof required makes more difficult to take these cases to trial, thus making it more difficult for organic farmers to be compensated for their losses.

The court also analyzed organic farming regulations and found that organic farmers who experience pesticide drift from a third party, but do not intentionally apply the chemicals themselves, may still be certified as organic if the chemicals are below five percent of levels. Under the federal organic standards authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), produce may not be labeled organic if it is contaminated with pesticide residues, as a result of off-site use, no greater than five percent of the allowable pesticide tolerance levels. Pesticide tolerances are the pesticide residue limits used in the U.S. or by countries importing to the U.S. that are set by the federal government under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDA) and amendments to the act under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). As it is near impossible to be completely free of chemical contaminants, which can be found in the air and in waterways, a very small amount of pesticide contamination can be considered unavoidable and permitted in organic agriculture, based on an inspection and efforts on the farm to reduce contamination.

Similar cases of pesticide drift have made their way to the courts in other states. In 2011, a California’s 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose upheld Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo’s right to sue the pesticide applicator, Western Farm Service, and let stand the $1 million damage award a jury previously handed Jacobs Farm The ruling made it clear that in California pesticide users can be held liable for pesticide drift. Last month, the District Court in Delta, Colorado, granted a permanent injunction to prohibit a farmer from fogging for mosquitoes within 150 feet of his neighbor’s property or allowing the pesticides to drift, which in this case is considered a form of trespass.

Pesticide drift is not only a problem for organic growers. Pesticide drift has recently been suspected in the tree deaths throughout the East Coast and Mid-West. A 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) finds that pesticide drift from conventional farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents in recent years. Pesticides can volatilize into the gaseous state and be transported 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. For more information on pesticide drift, read Beyond Pesticides’ report, Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities.

Similar to the threat of pesticide drift faced by organic farmers, is the threat of genetic drift -typically pollen from a field of a genetically engineered (GE) crop being carried by wind or pollinators like honey bees, which are known to travel six miles or further. While organic food is not currently tested for GE drift contamination the way it is spot checked for pesticides, consumers paying a premium for organic food demand purity. Therefore, the growing threat of genetic contamination is a serious issue facing organic farmers as well.

Support organic agriculture for your family’s health, as well as the health of farmworkers and rural families, wildlife and pollinators, and the greater environment. For more information about the pesticides registered for use on foods we eat every day, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide, and the Organic Food program page.

Source: Faribault County Register

Opponents of the proposition raised over one million dollars this year for the “Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme.” Members of this coalition include the ”˜big 6’ chemical companies Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, and BASF, which have spent $375,000 alone through their exclusive lobbying group Council for Biotechnology Information. Overlapping ”˜big 6’ membership, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA), which also includes the corporations Pepsico Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, and Kelloggs, recently stated in a speech at the American Soybean Association that defeating the California initiative is “the single highest-priority of the GMA this year,” according to a story in The Huffington Post. GMA has also spent $375,000 this year lobbying against Prop 37.

“The Big Six chemical & seed companies are working diligently to monopolize the food system at the expense of consumers, farmers and smaller seed companies,” said Philip H. Howard, an associate professor at Michigan State University in an article in Examiner. “Polls consistently show that the public wants much more transparency in food production, yet the chemical/seed industry wants to suppress this information.”

A March survey revealed that 91% of consumers favor labeling for GE foods, with 81% of those ”˜strongly’ in favor of enacting these requirements. Given the current partisan divide in the country, this represents a remarkable consensus from consumers that cuts across party lines.

The California Right to Know campaign gathered 971,126 petition signatures for Prop 37, nearly double the 555,236 signatures required to qualify for inclusion on the ballot. If approved, Californians would join citizens from over 40 countries, including all of Europe, Japan, and China, who have the right to know whether they are eating GE food.

The chorus of Americans demanding that they be allowed to know if their food is genetically modified has been growing louder as more GE crops have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These approvals contradict scientific findings refuting the value agricultural companies’ claim these crops provide. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report in June detailing how Monsanto’s new drought tolerant corn, DroughtGard, does nothing to reduce the crop’s water requirements, and only reduces crop losses modestly during moderate droughts. The UCS report indicated that traditional breeding and improved farming practices do more to increase drought tolerance, and that further improvements in genetic engineering are unlikely to solve the drought problem in coming years. Additionally, in April researchers at Portland State University found that GE corn modified to express the insecticidal soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) negatively impacted beneficial soil life. Their results revealed a decreased presence of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake, in the roots of Bt corn when compared to non-Bt corn. Experts have recently warned the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that “rufuges” of non-GE crops should be increased due to the growing threat of insect resistance to Bt corn.

Monsanto claims that “requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws and consumer confidence.” While there are not many studies investigating the impacts of GE foods on mammals or even humans, the few studies that have looked at the toxicity of GE proteins do not indicate that there are no human health concerns. Studies have observed that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. World renowned geneticist and biophysicist, and co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has cited numerous observations on the adverse impacts of GE foods, including severe inflammation in the lungs in mice, liver and kidney toxicity, damage to the organ system of young rats fed GE potatoes, and severely stunted pups. A 2008 study reported that GE corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. These studies serve to illustrate the possible long term consequences of eating foods containing GE products.

This preliminary research indicates that not only is further investigation into the impacts of GE foods on human health needed, but a precautionary approach should be employed to limit the indiscriminate pervasion of GEs in the human food supply. Hence, claiming outright that GE products pose no health issues undermines consumer confidence. Beyond Pesticides feels that, given the current state of GE science, consumers should have the right to know whether their food contains GE crops.

If you’d like to weigh in on the debate but can’t make your voice heard on the California ballot initiative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is requesting public comment on twelve petitions for new genetically engineered (GE) crops. Currently, American consumers have no assurances that the conventionally produced foods they purchase and consume do not contain GE ingredients. The best way to avoid GE foods in the marketplace is by purchasing foods that are certified under the USDA organic certification program. USDA standards prohibit the use of genetic modification in the production and handling of organic food. 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 crticial issue for organic agricultural producers and the consumers of their products. There are significan costs to organic producers and handlers associated with preventing this contamination and market loss arising from it.”

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

In 2010, EPA negotiated a long phase-out agreement with endosulfan’s manufacturers that allows uses to continue through 2016, even though EPA concluded that endosulfan’s significant risks to agricultural workers and wildlife outweigh its limited benefits to growers and consumers, and that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan. This is an egregious example of how EPA uses phase out and existing stock provisions in negotiating with industry on removing known hazards from the market, placing economic interests over the protection of public health.

In 2010, EPA decided that data presented in response to its 2002 reregistration eligibility decision (RED) demonstrated that risks faced by workers are greater than previously known. EPA also found that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as to birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan. Farmworkers can be exposed to endosulfan through inhalation and contact with the skin.

A 2008 lawsuit filed on behalf of environmental and farmworker groups, including Beyond Pesticides, cited a glaring omission in the EPA’s decision in its failure to consider risks to children: a 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

As of July 31, 2012, over 30 crop uses plus use on ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants have been discontinued. About 12 other crop uses will end over the following four years. Of these 12, the last 4 endosulfan uses will end on July 31, 2016. During the phase-out, after the determination of hazard, EPA requires no special warning to those who use or are exposed to the chemical. To see the list of crop uses and last use dates, see EPA’s Endosulfan Pesticide Registration page.

Endosulfan use that will will continue through July 31, 2013, include: pears; through December 31, 2014, include All Florida uses of: (only Florida uses) apple, blueberry, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, sweet corn, tomato, winter squash; through July 31, 2015, include (nationwide) All Florida uses of: apple, blueberry, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, sweet corn, tomato, winter squash; through July 31, 2016, include livestock ear tag, pineapple, sStrawberry (perennial/biennial), vegetable crops for seed (alfalfa, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, chinese cabbage, collard greens, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga, turnip).

Acute poisoning from endosulfan can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, an increase in the risk of miscarriages and autism. It is also a potent environmental pollutant and is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life, and affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects.

Endosulfan is volatile, persistent, and has a high potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. A large body of scientific literature documents endosulfan’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media. The International Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee recommended that urgent “global action” was needed to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide in 2009. After the conclusion of scientific experts at the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) that endosulfan “is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects, such that global action is warranted,” a broad coalition of environmental groups sent another letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging EPA to finally take action to ban the use of endosulfan.

If consumers need yet another reason to go organic to protect themselves, their families, farmworkers, wildlife, and the environment, continued endosulfan uses through 2016 is it. For more information on organic, see Beyond Pesticides’ organic webpage.

For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News archives for endosulfan.

Scientists have long suspected a link between estrogen-mimicking pollutants and gynecological diseases. According to Environmental Health News, research investigating a link between hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment and gynecological diseases has had mixed results. But a new study, “Persistent Lipophilic Environmental Chemicals and Endometriosis: The ENDO Study,” from researchers at the National Institutes of Health and others, found that two groups of women in the Salt Lake City and San Francisco areas — one group with pelvic pain and the other with no symptoms — were more likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis if they had high blood levels of the estrogen-like pesticide hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) than women with low levels. HCH, a persistent organic pollutant (POP), and a byproduct of the production of the insecticide lindane (head lice treatments), has been banned as a crop pesticide in the United States but it persists in the environment and remains in some food supplies. Endometriosis is a female health disorder that occurs when uterine tissue grows in the ovaries or other parts of the body, often causing pelvic pain and infertility. It affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age.

Similarly, in Italy, women had endometriosis more often if they had higher levels of two chlorinated chemicals that can disrupt hormones —polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or residue of the insecticide DDT, according to a 2009 study, “Endometriosis and Organochlorinated Environmental Pollutants: A Case—Control Study on Italian Women of Reproductive Age,” which looked at exposure to organochlorine persistent pollutants as a risk factor for endometriosis.

Recent research has uncovered links to other gynecological problems. Women in Greece diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) -which causes irregular menstrual periods, infertility, weight gain and excessive hair growth— were more likely to have higher blood levels of the estrogen-mimicking chemical bisphenol A than women without the disease, according to a study published last year.

Another recent study, “Environmentally Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Ovarian Disease,” found that female rats exposed in the womb to high doses of several chemicals, including pesticides and plasticizers, develop cysts resembling human polycystic ovarian syndrome and premature menopause. These changes are passed down through three generations —great-granddaughters of the exposed rats also developed cysts and other ovarian problems, even though they were not directly exposed. In this study, vinclozolin, a fungicide commonly used in the wine industry, reprogrammed genes as the rat fetuses developed according to DNA analysis. Other chemicals in this study that caused multi-generational effects were dioxins, a pesticide mixture including permethrin and DEET, and a plastic mixture including BPA and two widely used phthalates.

Exposure to many hormone-disrupting chemicals starts in the womb, and some scientists suspect the timing may be important in determining reproductive disease risk later in life. But because decades can pass between exposure during fetal development or early childhood and the manifestation of the disease in adult life, it can be difficult to nail down a link.

Some studies have found no connection between women’s exposure to environmental chemicals and gynecological disease. For instance, among several hundred women in Italy highly exposed to dioxins from a 1976 factory explosion, UC Berkeley scientists found no significant increase in endometriosis linked to their contaminant levels. However, emerging data is beginning to paint another picture regarding environmental contaminants and reproductive health. Previous research documented by Beyond Pesticides has shown that women who drink water containing the widely used herbicide atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, even at concentrations far below federal drinking water standards considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The danger of estrogen-like chemicals already has been well-documented with DES, or diethylstilbestrol, a drug that was prescribed to millions of women at risk of miscarriages from 1940 through 1971. Daughters and granddaughters of the pregnant women who took the potent estrogenic drug had an increased risk of endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and rare reproductive cancers. In the case of uterine fibroids, the body’s natural estrogens turn genes on and off in the smooth muscle of the uterus that allow the tumors to grow, according to researchers. Investigations are underway to determine whether estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment affect these same genes.

“We know from animal models that there are critical periods during early development when cells are rapidly dividing and forming the circuitry through which cells will communicate with each other to form various tissues of the body,” said Retha Newbold, PhD, a reproductive biologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. “When chemicals alter this set-up, the changes may not be reversible.”

Pesticides have been linked to a host of diseases and other adverse effects like cancer, Parkinson’s disease and birth defects. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced-Disease Database documents these outcomes.

According to Roger Roberts of the Contra Costa Times, when the City Council first considered the ordinance in June, some were skeptical of the proposal. They felt that changing pest control practices would put an unnecessary burden on the city’s finances. However, after Parks and Landscape Superintendent Chris Chamberlain explained that his department had already begun to implement a least-toxic pest control strategy without increasing the financial cost to the city, dissenters of the proposal agreed to support the plan. “We just point you to it, and you get it done and do it well,” remarked Corky Booze, who was converted by Mr. Chamberlains’ assurances. The Parks and Landscape department oversees pest management practices on over 600 acres of city land on a $4 million budget. Mr. Chamberlain added that, within the past 2 years, the department has decreased their use of carcinogenic pesticides by over 40 percent.

The passage of this ordinance adds to the growing movement across the country calling for increased restrictions on the use of dangerous chemicals in the public sphere. In addition to Richmond, CA, Beyond Pesticides has worked with localities throughout the U.S. in an effort to promote organic land care systems and restrict the hazardous use of chemicals. Washington D.C. recently passed legislation which restricts the use of pesticides on District property, near waterways, and in schools and day care centers. Ohio’s Cuyoga County successfully banned a majority of toxic pesticide uses on county property, prioritizing the use of natural, organic, horticultural and maintenance practices with an Organic Pest Management (OPM) program. The City of Greenbelt, Maryland also has a law that completely eliminates the use of cosmetic pesticides through a phase out period, and includes a requirement that all city contractors follow OPM and organic land care management. The village of New Paltz, New York has a “Healthy Turf and Landscape Policy,” which emphasizes the precautionary principle, and only allows the use of pesticides if a pest problem poses a threat to public health. While stopping short of an all-out ban, Connecticut currently has a statewide prohibition on the use of toxic pesticides on school grounds. The state of New York also acted to protect children by passing the “Child Safe Playing Field Act” in 2010, which requires that all schools, preschools, and day care centers stop using pesticides on any playgrounds or playing field. Additionally, several communities in Cape Cod, Massachusetts are currently in the process of moving towards organic land care as a norm in their public spaces.

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogenicity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds.

Organic land management is practical and economical. Opponents may claim that organic management will cost more money, or put the fields at risk for disease and weed infestation; however, in a Cornell University study of turf, chemically maintained turf is more susceptible to disease. Another report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education and Beyond Pesticides’ Board Member Chip Osborne for the New York State legislature concludes that organic approaches can save money. The report compares the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and an organic program over a five-year period and finds that the annual cost of maintaining an organic field can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of chemical-based programs. The Parks and Recreation Department in Branford, Connecticut has a successful organic land care program resulting in more attractive playing fields at a decreased cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, Harvard University saved two million gallons of water a year by managing the grounds organically, as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent. Previously, it cost Harvard $35,000 a year to get rid of “landscape waste” from its campus grounds. Now that cost is gone because the school keeps all grass clippings, leaves and branches for composting and making compost teas. This in turn saves the university an additional $10,000 from having to purchase fertilizers elsewhere.

For more information on organic-based, pesticide-free lawn and landscape management, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page. Beyond Pesticides encourages concerned citizens to stand up and make their voices heard in their community. If you’d like to join Richmond, California and help ban pesticide use in your community’s public spaces, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or at [email protected].

“Our agriculture industry is vital to the upstate New York’s economy,” Senator Gillibrand said. “Our farmers need honey bees to pollinate our crops and produce. However, certain pesticides may be unintentionally killing off the honey bee population. By expediting this review, we can help save our honey bee population and grow our agricultural economies.” Honey bees are vital to the health of agricultural industries in New York as one in three bites of food is reliant on honey bee pollination.

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.”

This spring and summer, beekeepers from New York to Ohio and Minnesota are reporting extraordinarily large bee die-offs, due, in part, to exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides. The die-offs are similar to what beekeepers have reported in the past few weeks in Canada (where EPA has admitted there are 120 bee kill reports, a huge number). On average, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that beekeepers have been losing over 30% of their honey bee colonies each year since 2006 —but some are losing many more times that number.

Neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in addition to clothianidin, are highly toxic to a range of insects, including honey bees and other pollinators. They are particularly dangerous because, in addition to being acutely toxic in high doses, they also result in serious sublethal effects when insects are exposed to chronic low doses, as they are through pollen and water droplets laced with the chemical as well as dust that is released into the air when treated seeds that have been coated with the chemicals are planted. Previous research has shown that these effects cause significant problems for the health of individual honey bees as well as the overall health of honey bee colonies, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, and overall hive activity.

The emergency legal petition to EPA was filed on March 21, 2012 and asked the agency to suspend all registrations for pesticides containing clothianidin. The petition, which is supported by over one million citizen petition signatures worldwide, targets the pesticide for its harmful impacts on honey bees. The legal petition establishes that EPA failed to follow its own regulations when it granted a conditional, or temporary, registration to clothianidin in 2003 without a required field study establishing that the pesticide would have no “unreasonable adverse effects” on pollinators. The granting of the conditional registration was contingent upon the subsequent submission of an acceptable field study, but this requirement has not been met. EPA continues to allow the use of clothianidin nine years after acknowledging that it had an insufficient legal basis for initially allowing its use. Additionally, the product labels on pesticides containing clothianidin are inadequate to prevent excessive damage to non-target organisms, which is a second violation of the requirements for using a pesticide and further warrants removing all such mislabeled pesticides from use.

TAKE ACTION: 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).

The original petition can be found here. Additionally, the agency has published an electronic docket with the petition, the partial response, and other supporting material available for viewing.

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

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

APHIS originally deregulated RR sugar beets in 2005. A coalition of environmental groups and organic seed companies, led by the Center for Food Safety, challenged the USDA approval in 2008. It argued that GE sugar beets would contaminate organic and non-GE farmers of related crops, such as table beets and chard, as well as increase pesticide impacts on the environment and worsen the current Roundup-resistant “superweeds” epidemic in U.S. agriculture. In September 2009, Judge Jeffrey S. White in the federal district court in San Francisco agreed, and ordered USDA to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing these and other impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In August 2010, after a year of vigorous litigation over the proper remedy for USDA’s unlawful approval, the court again agreed with plaintiffs, threw out the USDA’s approval, and halted planting.

Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry, led by Monsanto, demanded the court allow planting to continue unabated. The district court refused to do so and instead set aside USDA’s approval of the crop based on the agency’s failure to comply with environmental laws. That precedential ruling was also preserved by the appeals court order. During this case’s appeal, USDA approved 2011-2012 planting of GE sugar beets under the terms of a novel permitting and “partial deregulation” scheme while it conducted the court-ordered analysis. The final EIS is available on the USDA website.

Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate). Growing other Roundup Ready crops, such as soy, cotton, and corn, have led to greater use of herbicides. It has also led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the U.S. and other countries where such crops are grown, as well as contamination of conventional and organic crops, that has been costly to U.S. farmers. Due to GE crops, in large part, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever.

Glyphosate is a general use herbicide and 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.

As researchers scramble to find new ways of chemically coping with increased weed resistance, they overlook the glaring fact that there already exist alternative systems such as organic farming, which erase the need for these drastic measures through systemic pest prevention approaches. Organic farming can be at least as productive as conventional, chemical-reliant farming while having none of the toxic side effects that create significant risks to ecosystems and human health. To learn more, see our page on organic food and agriculture.

Currently, there are commercially available glyphosate-tolerant seed varieties for corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, and cotton. In addition to sugar beets, USDA recently approved Roundup-Ready alfalfa. Due to serious questions regarding the integrity of USDA’s environmental evaluations, public interest groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit against the agency to stop its full deregulation of GE alfalfa. In January of this year, a judge in San Francisco found that the alfalfa deregulation was legal. However, organic farmers and public interest groups have vowed to appeal that decision.

The researchers sampled air in 25 households, finding at least five pesticides in 60 percent of the dwellings. Nine other pesticides were identified in less than one-third of the homes. All the women were in the third trimester of pregnancy, when the fetal brain undergoes a growth spurt. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides, especially exposures that adversely affect mental and motor development during infancy and childhood. This new report is in the summer issue of the Texas Public Health Journal sent to members this week.

The study found 92 percent of air samples contained o-phenylphenol, which is used as a fungicide, germicide and household disinfectant, while 80 percent of samples contained chlorpyrifos, used in agriculture and to kill mosquitoes and other insects. Chlorpyrifos has been well-documented as posing risks to babies exposed in the womb to brain abnormalities after birth. Researchers asked the women questions about pesticide use and exposure, proximity to agricultural fields, the frequency of spraying operations, and the detection of pesticide odors drifting from fields. Air samples were measured for multiple pesticides used in agriculture, given the close proximity of the fields to participant homes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week announced new mitigation measures to reduce bystander exposure to chlorpyrifos drift from agricultural fields, including the use of buffer zones for residential areas, schools, hospitals etc.

Propoxur, found in such products as granular baits and pet collars, was detected in 76 percent of samples. A 2011 study published in the journal NeuroToxicology found a positive link between exposure to the pesticide propoxur and poor motor development in infants. At the age of two, children exposed to propoxur in the womb experience poor development of motor skills, according to a test of mental development. Propoxur is a carbamate insecticide that was banned in 2007 for indoor uses to which children would be exposed; however, it is still commonly used in flea and tick pet collars.

The insecticide diazinon is found in 72 percent; and the herbicide trifluralin is found in 60 percent of homes. 12 percent of homes surveyed contain traces of agricultural pesticides. The study verifies the conclusions of a larger 2007 survey that found household pesticide levels are higher than desirable in the homes of 102 pregnant minority women in New York City.

“Increasingly, pesticide exposures are being linked to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),” said co-author Claudia S. Miller, M.D., M.S., professor in environmental and occupational medicine with the Department of Family and Community Medicine. “Planning for pregnancy today should include not only prenatal vitamins and a good diet, but also avoiding potentially hazardous pesticides. Instead, use non-toxic approaches for pest control and IPM.”

Authors of the study recommend managing household pests using integrated pest management (IPM), a low-cost strategy to replace the use of residential pesticides. IPM includes least-toxic techniques other than spraying, including sanitation, proper storage and food and water, caulking of windows and doors; installation of door and window screens; and the use of boric acid and diatomaceous earth. Beyond Pesticides’ Safer Choice brochure provides information on managing household pests with defined IPM principles.

“Once we educate our women of childbearing age about how they can safely and in a healthy manner diminish pests in their homes, they will feel empowered that they can make a difference in their family’s life,” says lead author Beatriz Tapia, M.D., M.P.H., lecturer at the UT Health Science Center ”” Regional Academic Health Center campus in Harlingen.

Organophosphates, like chlorpyrifos, are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission —acetylcholine esterase (AchE)— inactivating the enzyme. High concentrations of organophosphates have been found in the bodies of pregnant women and children.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the EPA has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain on the market. Furthermore, the cancellation of household uses does not restrict the use of remaining stocks, meaning homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase-out, may still use this product.

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.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health, including birth defects, see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Source: University of Texas Health Science Center Public Release

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