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.

In his official comments, Rep. Gara wrote, “I believe Alaskans should have a right to comment on important state issues. Elimination of a public commenting process by a state agency is always cause for concern, and when the public process pertains to human health and safety, the action is particularly disconcerting.”

Not all of the proposed changes are bad. For instance, the proposed pesticide regulation changes will require the state land managers to develop an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan that requires consideration of alternative methods to control pests before pesticides are used. Although IPM can be a helpful tool in the transition from a pesticide-intensive to a non-toxic management system, it still allows for pesticide use. With the elimination of the pesticide permitting program, citizens will lose the right to comment on when these pesticides are used on public lands, as well as the right to know when and where pesticides were used.

According to Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), which is urging residents to take action, proposed pesticide regulations would:
Ӣ Eliminate permit requirements for the spraying of pesticides on state public lands with no safeguards for the protection of sensitive waterways, drinking water sources, fish and wildlife habitat, or public health;
”¢ Block public participation in decisions about pesticide spraying on public lands””with no public hearings, opportunity for written public comments, or way to appeal bad decisions. This would deprive Alaskans of the right to speak out about potential harm to drinking water, fishing streams, subsistence uses, dangers to our children and public health;
Ӣ Promote the application of potentially harmful pesticides and herbicides without consideration of toxicity and effects to health and the environment;
Ӣ Weaken public right-to-know requirements to notify the public about places where the pesticides will be sprayed.

“We are deeply concerned that the governor would weaken our democracy by eliminating public participation in decisions that affect our water quality, fish habitat, and public health,” Pamela Miller, biologist and executive director of ACAT.

TAKE ACTION: If you live in Alaska, please submit a letter (sample text provided) to Rebecca Colvin, Solid Waste and Pesticide Program, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation. Or, you can email her directly at [email protected]. The comments must be received no later than 5 pm on August 2, 2012.

Because the summer season is a busy time for many Alaskans, and Alaskans who work away from home in the summer, Rep. Gara has asked Commissioner Hartig of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to extend the public comment period on the proposed changes to the pesticide regulations another 60 days to October 2, 2012.

Sources: ACAT Pesticide Action Alert, Alaska House Democratic Caucus Press Release

Silver nanoparticles are used just about everywhere, including in cosmetics, socks, food containers, detergents, sprays and a wide range of other products to stop the spread of germs. Researchers have debated the mechanisms by which nanosilver particles exert toxicity to bacteria and other organisms. They have long known that silver ions, which flow from nanoparticles when oxidized, are deadly to bacteria. In the study, “Negligible Particle-Specific Antibacterial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles,” published in NanoLetters, the researchers explain that the nanoparticles are practically benign in the presence of microbes. But when in soluble ionic form, that is, when activated via oxidation, nanosilver becomes toxic to bacteria. The research team decided to test nanoparticle toxicity in an anaerobic environment —with no exposure to oxygen ”” to control the silver ions’ release. They found that the filtered particles are a lot less toxic to microbes than silver ions.

Surprisingly, when the nanosilver was tested against E. coli, the team found that E. coli survival was stimulated by relatively low (sublethal) concentrations of nanosilver, suggesting a hormetic response (U-shaped dose-response curve) that would be counterproductive to antimicrobial applications. Overall, the researchers suggest that nanosilver morphological properties known to affect antimicrobial activity are indirect effectors that primarily influence silver ion release. The researchers hypothesize antibacterial activity could be controlled (and environmental impacts could be mitigated) by modulating silver ion release, possibly through manipulation of oxygen availability, particle size, shape, and/or type of coating.

NanoSilver Docket Open for Comment

EPA has published a Federal Register notice announcing the establishment of a registration review docket for nanosilver and is seeking public comment on a summary document for the registration review of nanosilver. The summary document (1) identifies nanosilver products, (2) outlines data gaps and requirements and (3) contains a preliminary workplan and fact sheet, along with ecological risk assessment problem formulation and human health scoping sections describing scientific analyses expected to be necessary to complete nanosilver review.

A silver nanoparticle consists of many silver atoms or ions clustered together to form a particle 1-300nm in size. Due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, these same properties —tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity— can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks.

A study conducted in 2008 and confirmed by another study in 2009 shows that washing nano-silver textiles releases substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. A study found nanosilver to cause malformations and to be lethal to small fish at various stages of development since they are able to cross the egg membranes and move into the fish embryos. A 2010 study by scientists at Oregon State University and in the European Union highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides.

Nanotechnology, the science involving manipulation of materials on an atomic or molecular scale, is an emerging technology with a broad range of potential applications, such as increasing bioavailability of a drug, used in food packaging, and in cosmetics. There are hundreds of products currently on the market that contain nanomaterials of various types and functions, the most popular application being the use of nanosilver as an antibacterial substance in many consumer products. Given this, the federal government at this point is playing a game of ”˜catch-up.’

A recent report finds the current level of knowledge does not allow a fair assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that will result from the use of nanopesticides, and a better understanding of the fate and effect of nanopesticides after their application is required. The suitability of current regulations should also be analyzed so that refinements can be implemented if needed. Research on nanopesticides is therefore a priority for preserving the safety of both the food chain and the environment. Similarly, the findings of a U.S. Government Accountability Office report identified concerns about the quality of environmental, health and safety research on nanotechnology.

Federal regulation of nanoparticles has been lacking. In 2011, EPA announced plans to obtain information on nanoscale materials in pesticide products. According to EPA, the agency will gather information on what nanoscale materials are present in pesticide products to determine whether the registration of a pesticide may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health. However, thus far pending nanotechnology regulations have been placed on hold by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

A coalition of six consumer safety groups filed suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 21, 2011, citing FDA’s chronic failure to regulate nanomaterials used in these products. The lawsuit demands that FDA respond to a May 2006 petition that the coalition filed calling for regulatory actions, including nano-specific product labeling, health and safety testing, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. After years of no federal regulatory oversight, FDA in April 2012 issued two draft guidance documents addressing the use of nanotechnology by the food and cosmetics industries. The documents “encourage” safety assessments for cosmetic products containing nanomaterials, including the need for modification or development of new methods for standardized safety tests. The new guidelines for the first time show the FDA believes nanomaterials deserve greater scrutiny.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. While there is overwhelming agreement to prohibit nanotechnology in organics generally, there is still confusion over the definition of what exactly should be prohibited and how to prohibit nanotech products in the organic industry. The recommendation deals specifically with engineered nanomaterials and purposefully omits those that are naturally occurring. Further it would block petitions seeking an exemption and keep nanomaterials out of food packaging and contact surfaces.

For more on nanosilver and nanotechnology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Take Action: The federal register docket is now open for public comment for the registration review of nanosilver. During the comment period, anyone may submit comments, relevant data or information for the agency’s consideration. Public comment may be submitted until August 19, 2012 at www.regulations.gov in docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0370.

Source: Rice University News and Media

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

The plaintiffs brought the preemptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 in the Southern District of New York and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto’s most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act preemptively to protect themselves from Monsanto’s abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement. Beyond Pesticides signed on as a plaintiff in the suit in June 2011.

“Monsanto is known for bullying farmers by making baseless accusations of patent infringement,” said attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit legal services organization Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), which represents the plaintiffs in the suit against Monsanto known as Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto. “They’ve sued and harassed other farmers who wanted nothing to do with their genetically modified seed and now that organic and conventional farmers are fighting back, they claim they would never do such a thing without backing up their words with an enforceable promise.”

In an attempt to sidestep the challenge, Monsanto moved to have the case dismissed, saying that the plaintiffs’ concerns are unrealistic. In February 2012, after hearing plaintiff’s arguments, the district court took Monsanto’s side and dismissed the case, ridiculing the farmers in the process. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs are at risk for being contaminated by genetically modified seed and then sued for patent infringement by Monsanto, Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York dismissed the case because she did not find a case worthy of adjudication, saying, “It is clear that these circumstances do not amount to a substantial controversy and that there has been no injury traceable to defendants.”

Plaintiffs feel otherwise. Two of the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations in the case highlighting the prevalence of contamination by genetically modified seed. Both Chuck Noble, an alfalfa farmer from South Dakota, and Fedco Seeds, a seed distributor in Maine, have repeatedly discovered GMO contamination in purportedly conventional seed they sought to purchase. To protect themselves from being contaminated, they have had to adopt expensive and time-consuming genetic testing procedures.

“We have a right to farm the way we choose,” said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA). “Yet Monsanto is unwilling to control their GMO pollution and they refuse to sign a binding covenant not-to-sue our family farmers for patent infringement should their seed contaminate our crops. Monsanto’s publicized ”˜Commitment’ promising that they would not sue farmers was described by Monsanto’s own lawyers as being ”˜vague.’ The law says we deserve protection under the Declaratory Judgment Act. We will continue to pursue our right to farm, and the right of our customers to have access to good clean food and seed.”

Other plaintiffs have simply stopped growing certain types of crops due to the threat of contamination. Bryce Stephens, a certified organic farmer from northwest Kansas, had to give up on trying to grow organic corn and soy once his neighbors started using Monsanto’s genetically modified seed because it could easily spread onto his property and contaminate his organic crops, which would put him at risk of being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto.

A recent court decision in Colorado may be of significance to the issue of genetic drift in ruling that another form of drift constitutes trespassing in affecting the way a neighboring farm conducts its business. Judge Charles Greenacre determined that an application of the insecticide malathion had drifted, and thus trespassed, onto the neighboring organic farm of Rosemary Bilchak and her husband, Gordon MacAlpine. In granting the permanent injunction, Judge Greenacre decided that: “Plaintiffs have an interest, shared by the public in general, in not having their property invaded by third persons or things. Plaintiffs also have a specific interest in not having pesticides invade their property because such invasions will delay or negate their efforts to have their property certified for the production of organic crops.” The same argument could reasonably be made regarding genetic drift.

In the newly filed brief, the plaintiffs point out numerous errors in the district court decision that warrant reversal. Among them are the lower court’s failure to accept certain facts alleged by the plaintiffs that were undisputed by Monsanto, application of too harsh a legal standard on the plaintiffs to show the existence of a controversy, and neglect of public policy that encourages broad jurisdiction be available to those challenging bogus patents like Monsanto’s.

The brief filed by the plaintiffs with the Court of Appeals is available here.

The Appellants in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. (OCIA); Food Democracy Now!; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Mendocino Organic Network (California); Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems (Montana); Global Organic Alliance; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; Weston A. Price Foundation; Center for Food Safety; Beyond Pesticides; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Rhode Island; Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut; Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York; Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (Wisconsin); Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Florida Organic Growers; Peace River Organic Producers Association (Alberta and British Columbia); FEDCO Seeds, Inc. (Maine); Adaptive Seeds, LLC (Oregon); Sow True Seed (North Carolina); Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (Virginia); Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds (Saskatchewan); Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC (Missouri); Comstock, Ferre & Co. LLC (Connecticut); Seedkeepers, LLC (California); Siskiyou Seeds (Oregon); Countryside Organics (Virginia); Cuatro Puertas (New Mexico); Seed We Need (Montana), Wild Garden Seed (Oregon); Alba Ranch (Kansas); Wild Plum Farm (Montana); Gratitude Gardens (Washington); Richard Everett Farm, LLC (Nebraska); Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc. (Wisconsin); Genesis Farm (New Jersey); Chispas Farms, LLC (New Mexico); Midheaven Farms (Minnesota); Koskan Farms (South Dakota); California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm (North Dakota); Taylor Farms, Inc. (Utah); Ron Gargasz Organic Farms (Pennsylvania); Abundant Acres (Missouri); T & D Willey Farms (California); Quinella Ranch (Saskatchewan); Nature’s Way Farm, Ltd. (Alberta); Levke and Peter Eggers Farm (Alberta); Frey Vineyards, Ltd. (California); Bryce Stephens (Kansas); Chuck Noble (South Dakota); LaRhea Pepper (Texas); Paul Romero (New Mexico); Donald Wright Patterson, Jr. (Virginia); Common Good Farm; LLC (Nebraska); American Buffalo Company (Nebraska); Full Moon Farm, Inc. (Vermont); Radiance Dairy (Iowa); Brian L. Wickert (Wisconsin); Bruce Drinkman (Wisconsin); and Murray Bast (Ontario).

Source: PUBPAT press release

The passage of this Act adds to the growing movement across the country calling for increased restrictions on the use of dangerous chemicals in the public sphere. 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. Recently, 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 state-wide 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.

The District’s new legislation authorizes the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) to designate pesticides registered in the District as either ”˜restricted use’ or ”˜minimum risk’ based on certain criteria such as toxicity to human and environmental health. The legislation prohibits the use of pesticides designated as ”˜restricted use’ on public use property, schools, child-occupied facilities, waterway-contingent property, and District property –unless DDOE grants an exemption in the event an emergency pest outbreak poses an imminent threat to public health, or if significant economic damage would result from not using the pesticide. Under the Act, DDOE will restrict the use of pesticides otherwise allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because less toxic means are available. Those seeking an exemption to use a ”˜restricted use’ pesticide are required to make a good-faith effort to find alternatives by clearly demonstrating through a reasonable plan that effective, economical alternatives to the prohibited pesticide are unavailable.

The Act represents a step forward for D.C and the nation by creating a framework for administrators at DDOE to minimize pesticide use. To ensure exemptions are not overused and the spirit and intent of the law is upheld, concerned citizens and residents in the District of Columbia will have to be vigilant.

Opponents of the law may claim that organic management will cost taxpayers more money; however there is much evidence to the contrary. A report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education 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. Futhermore, 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.

Take action: Tell Mayor Vincent Gray to sign the Pesticide Education and Amendment Control Act of 2012.

For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes page. If you would like assistance proposing a pesticide reform policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

More than 2,000 fish have been scooped from the near two-mile stretch of Barclay Brook in Coleman since last Thursday following heavy rainfall, more than triple the amount of fish that washed up on the same shores of the brook last year, although the current discovery is concentrated in a smaller area. It is believed the actual number of dead fish is much higher, as predators and river currents would have quickly taken away the remains of other fish. Barclay Brook is part of the Trout River watershed, the scene of a devastating fish kill last July that mainly wiped out large fish. An investigation is underway to determine the exact cause of the fish kill, given that water temperature and oxygen levels were within acceptable ranges and the fish looked healthy and well-fed. As a result, officials believe that an acute toxic event was responsible for the kill. The provincial government is collecting fish, water and soil samples from the latest kill. They are also inspecting fields and conducting an aerial survey to try to pinpoint a possible source.

Local environmental leaders say legislation that requires a 15-meter buffer zone between waterways and farm fields is not working. They believe pesticides should be eliminated from the province’s agriculture industry altogether, as pesticide runoff has historically been a major cause of fish kills.

“There’s a lot of support in Prince Edward Island for a 100 per cent organic province,” said Provincial Green party Leader Sharon Labchuk. “There’s a very strong sense in Prince Edward Island that the root cause of all this is industrial agriculture and that there are no ways that these kind of effects can be mitigated through ”¦ (a piece) of new legislation.”

In July 2007, investigators suggested that pesticides from farmers’ fields had killed thousands of fish that were found floating in the Dunk and Tryon Rivers in western Prince Edward Island. Two farmers in that area were charged with violating buffer zone regulations. That fish kill prompted the provincial government to draft changes to regulations that she hopes will be introduced in the legislature this fall.

Agricultural runoff into streams and other aquatic habitat is not a rare occurrence. Runoff can impact aquatic life, especially sensitive and endangered species. Sizeable fish kills have resulted from pesticide use, and have often made sensational news headlines, including the 1991 death of over one million fish in Louisiana after aerial spraying of the insecticide azinphos-methyl (Guthion) on sugarcane fields. In 1995, toxic concentrations of endosulfan and methyl parathion along a 16-mile stretch of the Tennessee River in Alabama resulted in 240,000 fish killed. In 2005, an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 black crappie fish died suddenly in Clear Lake in Waseca County, Minnesota. Water samples show the presence of permethrin, the pesticide that had been used two days prior for mosquito control. The pesticide apparently contaminated the lake as runoff from a subsequent rainstorm.

Pesticide regulation in the U.S. under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not go far enough to protect aquatic environments from pesticide contamination, as a result of the prevalence of data gaps in the scientific knowledge of many of the registered pesticides, and a general lack of compliance with pesticide labels. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that current use patterns for certain pesticides are “likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of endangered salmon and steelhead populations on the West Coast protected by the Endangered Species Act. NMFS calls for use restrictions in several draft Biological Opinions that would prohibit aerial applications of the pesticides within 300 feet of salmon waters; mandate a 10-foot vegetated strip or a 20-foot no spray zone between salmon waters and places where these herbicides are applied; and establish mandatory reporting of fish kills near where these chemicals are applied.

NMFS’ findings contradict significant conclusions of EPA’s work and highlight weaknesses in the agency’s current ecological risk assessment process that underestimate risk and fail to meet modern standards of analysis. For example, NMFS cites EPA’s failures to provide any analysis of the pesticides’ breakdown products or of the other ingredients -whether active or inert, which are added to commercial product formulations. Additionally, NMFS states that EPA’s modeling procedures would likely underestimate exposure to the pesticides and the resulting risk and that the EPA-approved pesticide labels lack sufficient information to prevent excessive and unnecessary applications.

In November 2011, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Dow AgroSciences that challenged EPA’s authority to implement new use restrictions based on the NMFS Biological Opinions. Due to the delay resulting from that lawsuit, none of the use restrictions designed to protect threatened and endangered species from the pesticides deemed to pose the greatest risk, including chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion, have been implemented.

The recently implemented National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for pesticide discharges, while it does not prevent pesticides from being discharged into waterways, would help authorities know what is sprayed and when it is sprayed, so that the public may know what chemicals are used in their waterways which can then be monitored for any downstream adverse effects, including fish kills and the contamination of drinking waters. For more information on the pesticide NPDES permit, read, “Clearing up the Confusion Surrounding the New NPDES General Permit.” Currently, pesticide labels typically provide the user with direction to avoid runoff to nearby aquatic streams, however these measures have been proven to be ineffective.

Source: The Chronicle Herald Canada

Judge Charles Greenacre determined that an application of the insecticide, Fyfanon, a form of malathion, had drifted, and thus trespassed, onto the neighboring organic farm of Rosemary Bilchak and her husband, Gordon MacAlpine. In granting the permanent injunction, Judge Greenacre decided that: “Plaintiffs have an interest, shared by the public in general, in not having their property invaded by third persons or things. Plaintiffs also have a specific interest in not having pesticides invade their property because such invasions will delay or negate their efforts to have their property certified for the production of organic crops.”

Last year, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that pesticides drifting from one farm to another may constitute trespass, and courts in other states have ruled in favor of organic farmers. 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 midwest. A 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has found that pesticide drift from chemical-intensive 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 resulting from drift causes particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups, as 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.

Delta County, Colorado is a major center for organic growing. During the hearings in this case, plaintiffs presented testimony from Elizabeth Collins, who manages mosquitoes for the local mosquito abatement district, businessman Ed Tuft, president of Mountain Rim/Leroux Creek Farms, the largest organic farmer/processor in Colorado, Mr. MacAlpine’s oncologist, Douglas Rovira, M.D., and pesticide drift expert Susan Kegley from San Francisco.

Rosemary Bilchak and her husband, Gordon MacAlpine, whose fight against leukemia led them to develop their organic farm, hailed the ruling. “We feel vindicated in our attempts to protect our property and our lifestyle. It has been a long legal battle to be allowed to do a simple thing: Grow our own organic food.” Ms. Bilchak attended Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum in Denver, Colorado in 2011 and spoke with experts there as she pursued the litigation.

Randall Weiner, an environmental lawyer, successfully obtained a temporary restraining order, summary judgment and a permanent injunction. He noted that this is the first decision in Colorado treating pesticide sprays as a trespass, let alone one which can be halted by injunction.’

The injunction recognizes that while West Nile Virus, carried by mosquitoes, is a serious public health threat, there are many different ways to manage mosquito populations that do not involve using adulticides that are only 50 percent effective and are likely to be less effective over time, due to mosquito’s developing resistance. Though the injunction does not support finding one form of mosquito management over another, this method of mosquito management is widely considered by experts to be the least effective and most risky response to this important public health concern. Many adulticides, including the malathion in this case, have been linked to numerous adverse health effects including asthma and respiratory problems, dermatological reactions, endocrine disruption, chemical sensitivities, and cancer. Adulticides can also be harmful or fatal to non-target wildlife. A program involving regular monitoring, eliminating breeding sites, and the use of least-toxic methods are the most effect, sustainable, long term mosquito management strategy. For more information on protecting your community from mosquito spraying, visit Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito management tools page.

Source: Law Offices of Randall M. Weiner, P.C. Press Release

Both of these chemicals, discussed at length in Rachael Carson’s seminal book Silent Spring, were widely used throughout the country before their ban in the late 1980s. Since then, these chemicals have revealed themselves to be pervasive in our environment. In 2007, Beyond Pesticides wrote on the discovery of chlordane on the grounds of a New Jersey middle school at levels above EPA limits. In 2009, the U.S Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and EPA conducted a survey that found chlordane in 64% of U.S households sampled. In 2010, we reported on the occurrence of these two historic-use chemicals in what are considered “pristine” National Parks. Unfortunately, if the water contamination residents are finding turns out to be a consequence of past use, the results from Stamford, CT are only the tip of the iceberg.

The Stamford Health Department began its study in 2009 after testing revealed pesticide contamination near a local town dump. Health officials expected the results to be localized, but were caught off guard as the chemicals were identified in areas away from the dump. Sharee Rusnak, epidemiologist for the Connecticut Department of Public Health said, “We believe that this problem in Stamford could reach much further than Stamford itself and it could exist even beyond Fairfield County.”

The town of Stamford has a map on their website listing the locations and results of testing sites. While other communities have been slow to perform their own testing, Stamford Health Director Anne Fountain remarked, “As you can see, one house may have it and the one next door may not. This is happening in Stamford and I don’t think it stops at the borders.” Around 2.3 million people in New England get their water from private wells, and most all do not require pesticide testing before use.

Chlordane was used on lawns and agricultural crops until a five-year phase out for above ground use began in 1979. From 1983 to 1988, the chemical could still be applied to the foundation of houses as a termicide (termite insecticide). In 1987, Beyond Pesticides petitioned the EPA to ban all uses of chlordane, citing EPA findings that the chemical posed an “imminent hazard” to public health. After the ban went into effect, we called on Congress to establish a special Superfund remediation program to clean up all the contamination of homes and the environment caused by this use. However, Congress never acted, and now, because this toxicant can persist in the environment for over 40 years, it can still be found in our homes, soil, water, and even the food we eat. This bioaccumulative organochlorine pesticide is considered a probable human carcinogen by EPA, with links to nonHodgkin’s lymphoma and adverse neurological, reproductive, and gastrointestinal effects.

Dieldrin, another organochlorine pesticide with a history similar to chlordane, was most commonly used to control agricultural pests and termites. It was prohibited for most uses by EPA in 1974, and in 1987, after it was found to be harmful to fish and other wildlife, all uses of the chemical were banned. Although no longer used, dieldrin can also persist in the environment for decades and move up through the food chain, particularly in dairy products and meats, to humans. EPA notes that the chemical decreases the effectiveness of our immune system, may cause cancer and birth defects, increase infant mortality, and damage the kidney. Low-level exposure of the chemical has been linked to changes in brain function that may speed up the onset of Parkinson’s disease.

The results of this and numerous other studies show that 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 these chemicals pose makes all the difference. This is why Beyond Pesticides consistently advocates for EPA to adopt an “alternatives assessment” 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.

For additional information on testing your private well, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

Source: The CT Mirror, Stamford Advocate

The New York Times reports that DuPont has set aside $225 million for claims that have already been submitted, and that the payout could ultimately reach $575 million. These figures do not include costs related to a class-action lawsuit filed by thousands of homeowners, landscapers and others, consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia. Some claimants are frustrated by the pace of the claims process and communications from the company. “We’re hearing nothing,” said Janet DaPrato of Columbus, Ohio, who had two trees die last year and has had two more die since. “We put in a claim for two trees, and now the problem is getting worse.”

Conditional registration is allowed under Section 3(c)(7) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act prior to the registrant submitting all statutorily required data. EPA is authorized to grant a conditional registration on the assumption that no unreasonable adverse effects on environmental and human health will result. As the case of Imprelis confirms, conditional registration actually allows EPA to bypass statutory safeguards and rush pesticides with unknown and unevaluated risks to market. It often takes years before EPA receives the relevant data, and sometimes that data is not submitted before the 15-year reregistration review cycle required for all pesticides.

EPA’s decision to grant conditional registration to the systemic insecticide clothianidin further illustrates the dangers of approving a pesticide before completing a rigorous and comprehensive appraisal of its risks. EPA granted a conditional registration to clothianidin in 2003 despite the absence of a required field study satisfying the statutory requirement that the pesticide not impose “unreasonable adverse risks” to pollinators including honey bees. Nine years later, EPA still lacks an acceptable study satisfying this legal requirement yet the agency continues to allow the widespread use of clothianidin and similar neonicotinoid insecticides. Substantial new research is emerging that neonicotinoid insecticides have cumulative, sublethal effects on bees including neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions that are contributing to the Colony Collapse Disorder that is decimating bee hives globally. To take action to reverse the catastrophic damage caused by clothianidin and other neonicotinoid insecticides, please visit Beyond Pesticide’s Pollinators and Pesticides webpage.

The active ingredient in Imprelis, aminocyclopyrachlor, is biologically active in soil and rapidly absorbed by roots and leaves. Aminocyclopyrachlor is in the chemical class of the pyrimidine carboxylic acids, which is similar to pyridine carboxylic acid herbicides that includes the herbicides aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram. The two classes of herbicides share characteristics, including high persistence in the environment, systemic incorporation into plants, and high toxicity during seedling emergence. The pyridine carboxylic acid herbicides are so persistent that they resist breakdown even when passing through the gut of ruminants that consume forage on which the pesticides have been applied. Organic farmers and gardeners have linked herbicide-contaminated manure and compost obtained from non-organic farms and dairies to severe crop damages.

Source: New York Times

In 2001, EPA found that insecticides azinphos-methyl (AZM) posed unacceptable risks to farmworkers and announced that 28 crop uses were being canceled, seven crop uses were to be phased-out over four years, and eight crop uses were to be allowed to continue under a “time-limited” registration for another four years. Farmworker advocates challenged that decision in federal court citing that EPA failed to take into account the costs of poisoning workers, exposing children, and polluting rivers and streams. A settlement agreement effectively stayed the legal challenge pending EPA’s reconsideration of the “time limited” uses of AZM. In November 2006, EPA decided that AZM poses unreasonable adverse effects and issued a final decision to cancel AZM, but allowed continued use on some fruit crops (apples, cherries, pears) for six more years – until 2012 – and on nut crops for three more years until 2009. After September 2012, it would become illegal to use AZM on any fruit or nut crops in the U.S.

Now EPA is reconsidering the phase out and may consider extending AZM use. According to the agency, it is committed to conducting a new benefit analysis (analysis of the impacts of cancellation) to determine whether AZM alternatives are working as expected. A benefit analysis was conducted for apples, pears, highbush blueberry, and tart and sweet cherry. EPA will use these analyses to make a determination in the next three months whether to keep in place or amend the cancellation order that becomes effective September 30, 2012.

Despite resounding objections from the environmental and public health community, AZM’s phase out was instituted provided that certain risk mitigation provisions (reduced applications and application rates, as well as buffer zones around water bodies and certain structures) were implemented to reduce risk to workers and the environment. Even with the mitigation, EPA determined that the risks exceeded levels of concern for workers and non-target wildlife. The United Farm Workers of America, Beyond Pesticides and others, represented by lawyers from Earthjustice, argued in federal court that EPA’s decision to allow the use of azinphos-methyl until 2012 was unconscionable. The plaintiffs contend that the phase-out period was too long because of the immediate and sevefacilitate this transition, growers, registrants and other stakeholders met periodically during the phase re risks it poses to farm workers and their families. However, EPA stated that it expected growers dependent on the AZM uses being phased out to successfully transition to the available alternative pesticides, including newer ones in the pipeline to replace AZM.

AZM is a highly neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide. Organophosphate insecticides attack the human brain and nervous system. Exposure can cause dizziness, vomiting, convulsions, numbness in the limbs, loss of intellectual function, and death. AZM poses risks to agricultural workers, water quality, and aquatic ecosystems. In 1991, AZM runoff was responsible for killing up to a million fish, along with turtles, alligators, snakes and birds in Louisiana. EPA reported that exposure to the pesticide caused enzyme changes in the red blood cells of 127 Californian farm workers, creating fears about potential long-term nervous system damage.

New information submitted to EPA by the registrants contends that alternatives to AZM are more expensive than estimates previously made, and must be used more frequently to control pests. However, a 2010 analysis conducted in Washington state found that the ban on AZM only modestly affected sales, prices and employment in the apple industry with a negligible impacts on the overall state’s economy. EPA’s document, Re-evaluation of the Grower Impacts of Cancelling Azinphos-methyl from EPA’s Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) outlines the economic costs, the possibility of load rejections of fruit due to insect contamination, and possible loss of access to export markets due to restrictions on residues of alternative insecticides.

EPA has an astounding history of negotiated multi-year phase-outs with industry, placing economic gains over the protection of the health of the public. As seen in other EPA decisions, cancellation of a toxic pesticide does not mean that the chemical would be removed from the market, but it is allowed to linger on the market for years continuing in the endangerment of farmworker health and environmental contamination. For instance, 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 wildlife and agricultural workers 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.

Take Action: Tell EPA to ban the hazardous insecticide azinphos-methyl (AZM) to protect farmworkers and the environment.

For more information, see federal register docket EPA-HQ_OPP_2009-0365.

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

Thiamethoxam is a neonicotinoid insecticide used to coat seeds prior to planting. When the seed germinates, the plant that grows from it takes the chemical up through its vascular system and expresses it through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets from which bees forage and drink. Thiamethoxam is very closely related to another neonicotinoid insecticide, clothianidin. When insects ingest thiamethoxam, their digestive system metabolizes it to clothianidin, killing the insect.

As France acts to protect its pollinators from pesticides, the U.S. continues to allow the uses of these highly toxic chemicals to continue. The French ban comes more than a week after the passage of the 90 day period during which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was asked to take action on clothianidin in a legal petition filed in March by a coalition of commercial beekeepers and environmental organizations. It is not unusual for an agency to miss a petition deadline such as this, but due to the urgent nature of this particular issue, the petitioners are deeply concerned about any added delay. Tell Congress and EPA that the U.S. should join France in taking a precautionary approach to our pollinator crisis.

Neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid in addition to clothianidin and thiamethoxam, 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.

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

Source: Farmer’s Weekly (UK)

People with the disorder, called REM sleep behavior disorder, do not have the normal lack of muscle tone that occurs during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, causing them to act out their dreams. The movements can sometimes be violent, causing injury to the person or their bed partner. The disorder is estimated to occur in 0.5 percent of adults.

“Until now, we didn’t know much about the risk factors for this disorder, except that it was more common in men and in older people,” said study author Ronald B. Postuma, MD, MSc, with the Research Institute at MUHC and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. “Because it is a rare disorder, it was difficult to gather information about enough patients for a full study. For this study, we worked with 13 institutions in 10 countries to get a full picture of the disorder.”

The disorder can also be a precursor to neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and a type of dementia. Studies have shown that more than 50 percent of people with REM sleep behavior disorder go on to develop a neurodegenerative disorder years or even decades later. “Due to this connection, we wanted to investigate whether the risk factors for REM sleep behavior disorder were similar to those for Parkinson’s disease or dementia,” Dr. Postuma said.

The results were mixed. While smoking has been found to be a protective factor for Parkinson’s disease, people who smoked were found to be more likely to develop REM sleep behavior disorder. Pesticide use, on the other hand, is a risk factor for both disorders. Studies have shown that people who drink coffee are less likely to develop Parkinson’s, but this study found no relationship between coffee drinking and REM sleep behavior disorder.

For the study, 347 people with REM sleep behavior disorder were compared to 347 people who did not have the disorder. Of those, 218 had other sleep disorders and 129 had no sleep disorders. Those with REM sleep behavior disorder were 43 percent more likely to be smokers, with 64 percent of those with the disorder having ever smoked, compared to 56 percent of those without the disorder. They were 59 percent more likely to have had a previous head injury with loss of consciousness, 67 percent more likely to have worked as farmers, and more than twice as likely to have been exposed to pesticides through work. Those with the disorder also had fewer years of education, with an average of 11.1 years, compared to 12.7 years for those without the disorder.

For more information on how pesticides affect human health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

Source: American Academy of Neurology

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 titled 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. 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.

British Columbia’s special committee recommendation comes as a disappointment to health and environmental advocacy groups. The proposed rules would restrict the use and sale of some cosmetic pesticides and expand public education programs, but stop short of sanctioning an all-out ban. Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Bill Bennett explains, “The majority of the committee does not think the scientific evidence, at this time, warrants an outright ban.” The committee’s conclusion is in opposition to overwhelming support from the public (over 70% of British Columbians supported the legislation) and scientific community, and the Liberal BC Premier’s explicit endorsement of the ban.

New Democrat Party (NDP) MLA Rob Fleming was incredulous in response to the news, saying, “We had an unprecedented level of public interest and participation for a legislative committee, reflecting a widespread consensus among the public and scientific community that the cosmetic use of pesticides pose an unnecessary health risk to children, pets and our water supply.”

The Canadian Cancer Society sent out a press release on the day of the committee’s decision. Barbara Kaminsky, CEO of Canadian Cancer Society BC and Yukon decried, “We waited years for the BC government to follow the lead of other provinces and BC municipalities, and this is the result? The report was slow in coming and is weak in content. It is disappointing overall.”

Advocacy groups are not giving up the fight though. CAPE Executive Director Gideon Forman proclaimed, “We will continue to urge the BC government to implement strong province-wide cosmetic pesticide legislation, similar to Ontario’s.”

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management considering, contrary to the BC special committee’s conclusion, of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (RoundUp) have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

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.

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].

Source: CBC

The latest weapon in the battle against mosquitoes is barely visible. The crustaceans, known as copepods, are cousins to crayfish and water fleas, and do not get much bigger than two millimeters. They are voracious predators of mosquito larvae. New Jersey recently delivered 10,000 of the tiny shrimp-like crustaceans to Cape May County. They are already being used to fight mosquitoes in Bergen, Passaic, and Morris counties. Ocean County is next on the delivery list and six other counties will follow.

“The days of driving a truck down the street and spraying pesticides are long gone. These copepods can pick up where fish leave off,” according to Administrator Robert Kent, of the state Office of Mosquito Control.

Natural Predators as a Solution for Mosquito Control

New Jersey has used mosquitofish, fathead minnows, killifish, bluegill and other fish to combat the blood-sucking pests in larger waterways. Sometimes this involves digging ditches, not to drain the swamp as in the early days of mosquito control, but to give the fish access to the mosquitoes. Copepods, which eat mosquito larvae but not adult mosquitoes, are meant for smaller freshwater applications, such as roadside ditches, small pools, and near schools where there are strict regulations limiting pesticides. The hope is birds and other wildlife will also move the copepods around.

Peter Bozak, Cape May County’s director of Mosquito Control, set up a test plot with six small water holes. Copepods were put in four of them and left two as control plots. How many mosquito larvae are eaten and at what stage in their development is being monitored. Mosquitoes hatch from eggs and then go through several stages toward adulthood.

“We’re trying to use our native species and take pesticides out of the environment,” Mr. Bozak said.

The county also put some of the copepods in water-filled tires to see how they do in one of the smaller mosquito-breeding environments, and a batch has been applied to a scour hole filled with rainwater at Middle Township High School. According to a study by the New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board, copepods have proved more effective for practical mosquito control than any other invertebrate predator of mosquito larvae. The most effective copepod species have the capacity to kill more than 40 mosquito larvae/copepod/day, typically reduce mosquito production by 99-100%, and maintain large populations in habitat for as long as there is water. However, while copepods by themselves may not eliminate Culex pipiens production or other mosquito species that transmit West Nile Virus, they can reinforce and augment control by other methods.

Least-Toxic and Cost-Effective

Reducing the use of pesticides is one of the big selling points. Copepods are natural and native to New Jersey, though this is the farthest north they have ever been used for mosquito control. New Orleans was the first to use copepods, and it taught New Jersey its system of growing them in a laboratory. New Jersey is only the second state to use them. They are also inexpensive to produce at the state Department of Agriculture’s Philip Alampi Beneficial Insect Rearing Laboratory in West Trenton. It takes about six weeks to make a batch using distilled water and wheat seed as a medium, feeding them paramecium.

Pesticide spraying for mosquito management is widely considered by experts to be the least effective and most risky response to this important public health concern. Pesticides typically used in mosquito spray programs are synthetic pyrethroids and in some cases organophosphates, both of which are associated with a host of adverse health effects, including neurological disorders and cancers. The frequency of pesticide applications required for aerial applications to be effective, combined with the public health risk caused as a result of these applications, makes aerial mosquito spraying campaigns ineffective both in terms of cost and public safety. In fact, the CDC and many local mosquito abatement districts emphasize public education and the control of larval populations as the first line of defense against mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases. Additionally, there is no credible evidence that spraying pesticides used to kill adult mosquitoes reduce or prevent mosquito-borne incidents or illnesses.

Beyond Pesticides believes 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. The first step in avoiding mosquitoes around your property is prevention. Remove any standing water where mosquitoes can breed around the home, such as potted plants, leaky hoses, empty buckets, toys, gutters, and old tires. When outdoors in the evening, while mosquitoes are most active, the best way to avoid them is to wear long pants and long sleeves and use natural least-toxic mosquito repellents. Burning citronella candles outside also helps repel mosquitoes. It is important to read labels carefully before buying or spraying repellents.

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],

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

“A good understanding of nano-materials is essential to evaluate whether the benefits overcome potential new risks,” explains co-author Thilo Hofmann, Ph.D., of the University of Vienna study.

According to the researchers, the current level of knowledge does not allow a fair assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that will result from the use of nano-pesticides. As a prerequisite for such assessment, a better understanding of the fate and effect of nano-pesticides after their application is required. The suitability of current regulations should also be analyzed so that refinements can be implemented if needed. Research on nano-pesticides is therefore a priority for preserving the safety of both the food chain and the environment.

The study echoes similar findings of a U.S. Government Accountability Office report, entitled “Improved Performance Information Needed for Environmental, Health and Safety Research,” published last month. The report looked at changes in federal funding for environmental, health and safety research (EHS) on nanotechnology for the fiscal years 2006-2010 and noted a more than doubling of National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) member agencies’ funding. GAO identified several reporting problems, raising concerns about the quality of EHS funding data reported. For example, for 18 percent of the 2010 projects GAO reviewed, that were reported as EHS research, it was not clear that the projects were primarily directed at EHS risks. In addition, NNI member agencies did not always report funding using comparable data.

Nanotechnology is a relatively new technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, those same new properties —tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity— can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Nanoscale engineering manipulates materials at the molecular level to create structures with unique and useful properties -materials that are both very strong and very light, for example. Many of the products containing nanomaterials on the market now are for skin care and cosmetics, but nanomaterials are also increasingly being used in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics. In 2009, developers generated $1 billion from the sale of nanomaterials, and the market for products that rely on these materials is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2015.

In the meantime, consumer products that contain nanosilver and other nanomaterials continue to grow with little to no regulatory oversight. So far, there are hundreds of products with nanosilver from toys to band-aids. For more information on nanotechnology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Source: University of Vienna

Neonicitinoids are highly toxic to a range of insects, including honey bees and other pollinators. They are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar, and gutation droplets from which bees forage and drink. Neonicotinoids 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. Pollinators are commonly exposed to these doses through pollen and water droplets laced with the chemical as well as dust that is released into the air when coated seeds are planted. These effects cause significant problems for the health of individual honey bees as well as the overall health of honey bee colonies and they include disruptions in mobility, navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, and overall hive activity. Emerging research from Europe and the U.S. clearly implicates neonicotinoid pesticides in CCD.

On March 21, 2012, an alliance of commercial beekeepers and environmental organizations filed an emergency legal petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend all registrations for pesticides containing clothianidin. The legal petition, which is supported by over one million citizen petition signatures, 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. Granting 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. Tell Congress and EPA that the U.S. must join in the emerging international recognition that neonicotinoid pesticides cannot be used safely and that their use must be prohibited.

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.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides recently discussed the connection between pesticides and bees in an interview on Link TV/Earth Focus. For the most recent updates on pollinator protection and CCD, see Beyond Pesticides’ resource page.

Source: Health Canada