Dow’s GE corn is modified to be tolerant to 2,4-D, which is contaminated with dioxin and linked to cancer, birth defects, and more. The company is introducing the new GE corn variety because weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup, the previous chemical of choice for herbicide-tolerant plants. However, solving herbicide resistance with a new, more toxic chemical is like using gasoline to put out a fire. It will cause even more damage to health and the environment, and in a few years, the pesticide industry will be marketing their next “solution” to the growing resistance problem. Dow states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops. When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D, which has been extensively linked to cancer and other health problems.

In addition to 2,4-D corn, Monsanto has been partnering with BASF on dicamba and glyphosate-tolerant crop varieties since 2009 with a focus on soybeans. Dicamba is a neurotoxic chlorinated benzoic acid herbicide and recognized eye irritant, moderately persistent in the environment and highly mobile in both soil and water. Chronic exposure is linked to reproductive and developmental effects. The Ottawa Citizen reports that Monsanto would like to roll out its dicamba-tolerant soybean in 2014 and Dow hopes to have its 2,4-D-tolerant soybeans on the market by 2015.

Genetic engineering has grown drastically in the U.S. in the past two decades —from seven percent of soybean acres and only one percent of corn acres in 1996 to 94 percent of soybean and 88 percent of corn acres in 2011. In recent years, USDA has been on a fast-track to deregulate GE crops, leaving leery consumers and organic farmers behind to fend for themselves.

The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to choose organic. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited from being used. Unlike chemical-intensive agriculture and genetically engineered food, researchers continue to discover the environmental and health benefits of eating and growing organic food. There are numerous health benefits to eating organic, besides a reduction in pesticide exposure.

For more information on the failure of genetically engineered food, read “Genetically Engineered Food Failed promises and hazardous outcomes,” from the Summer 2011 issue of Pesticides and You, or go to our Genetic Engineering web page.

“The poll shows nearly two-thirds of Vancouverites know pesticides are linked to childhood cancer,” said Canadian Association for Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) Executive Director Gideon Forman. “Among people with kids, support for a pesticide ban is at 76 per cent,” said Mr. Forman. “Candidates who endorse a strong provincial pesticide ban will be very popular with families.”

It’s believed to be the first time in British Columbia that the legislation has had such a high level of endorsement from supporters of all three parties. The poll results coincide with the announcement that a network of BC environmental and health organizations has launched a non-partisan voter education project to make pesticides a campaign issue in the Port Moody-Coquitlam by-election. Groups, including Greenpeace, Sierra Club BC and Wildsight, are partnering on the voter education with the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). The project includes a website — IVote4SafeLawns.ca — which helps voters send a pesticide ban message to all candidates.

During the past decade, over 150 municipalities and several Canadian provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, have banned the use of “cosmetic” lawn care pesticides because of health and environmental concerns. The bans have had the support of the Canadian medical community, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

Across the U.S. many communities, school districts, and state policies are now following a systems approach that is designed to put a series of preventive steps in place that will solve pest (weed and insect) problems. The systems 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.

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management, considering that 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. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 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) phenomena.

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

Sources: Canadian Cancer Society Press Release, Times Colonist

The “Take the Flour Back” campaign is protesting the outdoor field trials of a new strain of GM wheat which has the potential to contaminate surrounding fields and spread GM material to others areas off-site. Campaigners say controlled indoor trials should be done instead before the crop is planted outdoors. The trial at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Herts in South East England is evaluating the efficacy of wheat modified to deter aphids, an insect pest. Rothamsted Research insists this minimizes crop losses due to aphid attack and the fungal infections and viruses that can follow in their wake, and reduces the need for chemical spraying against aphids. Rothamsted agricultural research establishment is set to conduct open air trials of wheat to be planted in spring 2012 and 2013.

The wheat has been engineered to include genes for antibiotic-resistance and an artificial gene ”˜most similar to a cow.’ The wheat is designed to produce a pheromone called E-beta-farnesene that is normally emitted by aphids when they feel threatened, repelling the insects. E-beta-farnesene itself is produced naturally by a number of plants, including peppermint and potatoes. The other gene in question -a promoter gene, which switches on other genes- is a synthetic variant of one found in many organisms, including wheat itself. However, Rothamsted researchers explained that they chose a variant closer to the cow version than the wheat one in order to prevent other genes in the wheat from recognizing its activity and regulating it.

There is serious doubt that the aphid alarm pheromone as found in this GM crop would even work. Other scientists have raised concerns that if aphids get habituated and insufficient predators are available, this may increase the aphid burden on the wheat and thus potentially increasing the need for pesticides and chemical spraying against aphids.

One activist, Welch farmer Gerald Miles, is leading the calls against “irresponsible” and “negligent” GM crop research. Mr. Miles stated, “The wheat is being injected with genes from a cow, antibiotic genes and peppermint genes in order to detract aphids from the crops. This is totally irresponsible on many levels. Firstly, it is totally negligent to conduct an open air trial where there is a significant risk of cross contamination with other wheat crops in the area and the wider country.”

Last week, the Real Bread Campaign, which is also opposed to GM wheat, delivered a pledge to the government from more than 350 bakers, millers, farmers and consumers not to sell or buy GM wheat. The pledge was accompanied by a letter to Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, expressing deep concerns about the testing of GM wheat at Rothamsted. ”˜Take the Flour Back’ is organizing a day of protest on May 27th advertising it as a “nice day out in the country, with picnics, music from Seize the Day and a decontamination.”

GM wheat poses high risk of environmental contamination since wheat is a wind pollinated crop. GM wheat, like other GM crops, can cause serious environmental damage, including the development of resistant weeds, contamination of non-GM crops and organic farms and the unknown impacts of human health. Other GM crops, like corn and soy, have already been shown to produce resistant weeds contaminated with GM material due to result of cross-pollination. Resistant insects are also a growing problem. Thus far, much of industry’s promises for GM crops have not come to pass. Instead of decreased pesticide use, herbicide use has soared, mostly due to the onset of weed resistance.
GM crops have faced fierce resistance in Europe. Given the persistent wariness of GM organisms in Europe, biotechnology companies like BASF have stopped developing new products targeting the European market. Research and development on transgenic products aimed solely at the European market, including a mildew resistant high-starch potato and a variety of fungus resistant wheat, have been halted. European farmers have long defended their right to grow non-GMO food. In 2009, farmers, consumers and civil society organizations in Australia, Canada, and the U.S. released a joint statement confirming their collective commitment to stop commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) wheat. The EU has several policies that strongly regulate genetically modified materials from food, including one for honey that states that honey produced though cross-pollination with a GM crop must be authorized as a GM product before being sold. In 2009, Ireland passed a policy banning the cultivation of all GM crops and introduced a voluntary GM-free label for food.

On the contrary, the U.S. has in recent times moved to deregulate GM crops. Most recently, the USDA is considering deregulating GM corn engineered to be tolerant to 2,4-D in order for farmers to control weeds that have become resistant to Roundup. GM crops tolerant to Roundup have proliferated over the last decade and have directly resulted in resistant “super weeds.” Beyond Pesticides and dozens of other organic and environmental organizations wrote comments to USDA, urging the agency to not allow this new strain of GM corn to enter the environment.

The U.S. decision to welcome and deregulate GM crops fails to take into account several scientifically-validated environmental concerns, such as the indiscriminate nature of genetically modified gene flow in crops, a heavy reliance on faulty data, and a high degree of uncertainties in making safety determinations. It also overlooks the problem of herbicide-resistant weeds and insects, as well as the widespread corruption of conventional seed varieties by GM strains, along with documented severe economic injury to farmers and markets. There is also an oversight of possible health consequences from eating GMOs, despite the fact that long-term health effects of consuming GM food are still largely unstudied and unknown.

Fortunately, GM crops are not permitted in organic food production. For more information about why organic is the right choice, see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience Guide and visit the Organic Program page. For more information on the failure of genetically engineered food, read “Genetically Engineered Food Failed promises and hazardous outcomes,” from the Summer 2011 issue of Pesticides and You, or go to our Genetic Engineering web page.

Sources: Wales Online , BBC News, and Take the Flour Back

Photo: Take the Flour Back

“The Vermont Legislature deserves tremendous praise for having the courage to stand up to all of the lobbying, the full page ads, and the legal threats of the oil and gas industry,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. “This is a shot that will be heard, if not around the world then at least around the country.”

According to a minority staff report released last year by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, more than 650 commonly used fracking products contain chemicals that are “known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.” In its report, The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking, Food and Water Watch summarizes data by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange showing that 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, 37 percent could disrupt the endocrine system, 40 to 50 percent could affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems, and more than 75 percent could affect the sensory organs and respiratory system, likely causing problems such as skin and eye irritation and flu-like symptoms.

Hydraulic fracking operations use biocides because microbes, which are present beneath the surface of the earth, can interfere with the flow of gas in the pipelines. Sandra Steingraber, PhD, an ecolologist and author, recently explained the possible role of these microbes and the use of biocides to the participants of the 30th National Pesticide Forum and in an article published in the Huffington Post, like this:

Carbon-rich geological formations are also living ecosystems. They are the home to relic organisms collectively called “deep life.” Some of these microbes form complex colonies, sending nanowires out into the surrounding rock for purposes of electron transfer. Deep-life organisms are ubiquitous and almost certainly play a role in the Earth’s carbon cycle. They may, in ways we do not yet understand, contribute to climate stability.

Living organisms also interfere with the flow of gas through pipelines. To prevent this biofouling, gas companies send powerful biocides into the shale, killing everything that inhabits it. The use of biocides, among other factors, makes fracking a highly toxic form of energy extraction.

While the basic fracking technology has been in use for decades, only much more recently has the industry developed the capacity to drill at depth horizontally within the rock formation for thousands of additional feet. This new drilling technique has allowed the gas industry to reach large reserves that were previously considered uneconomical, particularly in shale formations. But unlike traditional vertical fracking, horizontal fracking requires massive amounts of water and toxic chemicals. Enormous holding ponds or tanks are also needed to store the chemically contaminated waste water that comes back up the hole after wells have been fractured.

“Fracking has caused enormous problems with underground water contamination and above ground waste disposal —entire streams have been destroyed,” said noted author and environmentalist Bill McKibben. “A ban on this process makes sense, if for no other reason than it will keep the oil industry from pumping lobbying dollars into the state three years hence.”

Mr. McKibben was referring to an alternative proposal initially backed by the House, which would have established a three-year moratorium on fracking.

“Vermonters were able to see through the smokescreen put out by the gas industry,” said VPIRG organizer Leah Marsters. “They understand the threat that fracking poses to public health, as well as our air, land and water,” she added.

Other organizations joining VPIRG in pressing the legislature to act on fracking this year included the Vermont Natural Resources Council, 350 Vermont, the Vermont Sierra Club, and Democracy for America. Representatives of the Catskill Mountainkeepers in New York, and the Natural Resources Defense Council also provided expert testimony before Senator Lyons’ committee this session.

“No one is suggesting that Vermont is likely to be the home of bountiful natural gas supplies,” said Mr. Burns. “But sometimes all it takes is one state to have the courage to lead in order to change the direction of the country. And if you look at how hard the industry fought this, you begin to see that they believe that’s true too.”

The origin and transmission of BSE to hundreds of thousands of cattle has been widely attributed to using cattle rendered protein produced from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep or cattle with a previously unidentified form of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy as livestock feed. This widespread practice of feeding substances derived from animals to other animals (even of the same species) was sharply curtailed following the BSE epidemic in the U.S. and Europe, but never fully eliminated. For example, livestock feed regulations in the U.S. continue to allow the feeding of certain mammalian slaughter by-products to calves as well as the inter-species feeding of rendered animal proteins, such as feeding poultry waste and litter to ruminants. USDA also announced that since the discovery of the infected cow, they have identified 10 different feed suppliers that delivered animal feed to the farm. Determining if the cow became sick from feed is an area where investigators are focusing close attention

The producer of an organic livestock operation must provide livestock with a total feed ration composed of agricultural products, including pasture and forage that are organically produced and handled by operations certified to the National Organic Program (NOP). The only exceptions to these requirements are synthetic feed additives and supplements, which have been approved after review by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). For example, synthetic trace minerals and vitamins are allowed as synthetic feed additives in organically managed livestock. The organic livestock feed standards also prohibit the feeding of mammalian or poultry slaughter by-products to mammals or poultry. Additionally, USDA has implemented the comprehensive NOSB recommendation that requires organically managed ruminants to receive a substantial portion of their feed ration from pasture.

BSE, sometimes referred to as “mad cow disease” because of the uncontrollable trembling that cattle suffer in its latter stages, is a chronic degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system. The disease belongs to the group of transmissible brain illnesses which also includes scrapie of sheep and goats and chronic wasting disease of elk and deer. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), BSE was first diagnosed in 1986 in Great Britain. Since that time, more than 190,000 cases have been confirmed in the Great Britain alone with tens of thousands more across Europe. The number of cases peaked in 1992, and has declined continuously since that time, with 29 cases worldwide in 2011. The recent case in California, which was detected when the 10-year old cow was tested at a rendering facility, was the fourth ever confirmed in the U.S., following earlier confirmed detections in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

In 1996, a variant of a spongiform encephalopathy known to occur in humans called Creutzfeldt- Jakob Disease (vCJD) was first reported in Europe. CDC subsequently determined that, “There is now strong scientific evidence that the agent responsible for the outbreak of prion disease in cows, BSE, is the same agent responsible for the outbreak of vCJD in humans” and that the consumption of BSE-contaminated beef was responsible for the transmission of the disease. Health authorities in Europe attribute more than 100 human cases of vCJD, which is inevitably fatal, to consumption of BSE-contaminated beef. There are different scientific hypotheses concerning the origins of BSE.

Mark Purdey, a courageous British dairy farmer, advanced an alternative theory that BSE was attributable to the drenching of cattle with certain organophosphate pesticides that entered the animal’s bloodstream to kill parasites. Mr. Purdey was not able to scientifically validate his theory, but he was successful in bringing an end to the drenching requirement that has previously been mandated for all ruminants. Mr. Purdey passed away in 2006.

Source: USDA

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

“I am so proud of the army of volunteers, many of them mothers and grandmothers, who stood tireless in the rain and cold to gather signatures,” said Pamm Larry, a former midwife, farmer, and longtime Chico resident, who initiated the California Right to Know campaign through her group Label GMOs. “Thousands of volunteers across the state contributed to this victory. The people of California have spoken: we will have the right to know what we’re eating and no one will stop us.”

“This bumper crop of signatures is a testament to the desire of Californians to know what’s really in our food,” said Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms and a third generation rice farmer and food processor. “It is a rich harvest of support for the right to know and the right to choose.”

Labeling genetically engineered foods is a wildly popular idea and enjoys nearly unanimous support across the political spectrum. A March 2012 Mellman Group poll found that 9 out of 10 American voters favor labeling for genetically engineered food. “In a country seemingly dominated by partisan polarization on everything from the cause of hurricanes to the state of the economy, it’s hard to find issues, outside of motherhood and apple pie, that can muster over 90 percent support ”¦we found one,” pollster Mark Mellman wrote in a recent article in The Hill newspaper. “Voters express almost unanimous support for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods,” Mr. Mellman wrote.

“The right to know is a fundamental right and a bedrock American value,” said Stacy Malkan, media director of the California Right to Know campaign. “This November, the voters of California will surely vindicate our right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children.”

The chorus of Americans demanding that they be allowed the right 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. Last month, over a million signatures were submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of the Just Label It campaign in support of a petition filed by the Center for Food Safety asking the agency to require labeling of GMO foods.

The proliferation of GE crops, especially among corn, soybean and cotton seed varieties, has had significant adverse economic and environmental effects for American agriculture. Commodity production systems dependent on GE crops drive up the price of land and impede younger and limited resource farmers from getting started or staying in agriculture. GE crops also promote a technological dependency in which farmers must rely upon —and pay the price set by- a shrinking pool of multinational seed and input providers. There is also substantial evidence that the rapid and widespread adoption of GE crops is dramatically accelerating resistance among agricultural pests, while doing little or nothing to reduce the volume of pesticides applied.

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. This prohibition is one of several reasons why shopping for organic is the right choice for consumers. Until federal or state agencies act to implement labeling requirements, American consumers will have no assurance that the conventionally produced foods they purchase and consume do not contain GE ingredients.

For more information on GE food and crops, see Beyond Pesticides’ page on genetic engineering.

Source: CA Right to Know press release

Researchers say that the nanocomposite filling will be able to neutralize residual bacteria that dentists are unable to remove after a dentist drills out a decayed tooth. Though nanotechnology is often heralded for its promising applications, scientists and researchers are becoming increasingly concerned with the lack of regulatory oversight and the potential impacts of these particles on public health and the environment.

In addition to testing in animal teeth, the products will be tested in human volunteers in collaboration with the Federal University of Ceara in Brazil. So far, the products have been laboratory tested using biofilms from saliva of volunteers. In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took several actions to limit human testing with strict guidelines. Human testing was initially stopped by a moratorium in 1998, but later reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit.

A silver nanoparticle consists of many silver atoms or ions clustered together to form a particle 1-100nm 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, 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.

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.

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

Source: University of Maryland News

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

Entitled, “Brain anomalies in children exposed prenatally to a common organophosphate pesticide,” the study investigated associations between chlorpyrifos exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 New York City children. It found significant associations of prenatal exposure, at standard use levels, with structural changes in the developing human brain, including enlargement of superior temporal, posterior middle temporal, and enlarged superior frontal gyrus, gyrus rectus, cuneus, and precuneus along the mesial wall of the right hemisphere. These areas of the brain impacted are related to attention, language, reward systems, emotions and control may be affected by the chemical.

Twenty high-exposure children (upper third of chlorpyrifos concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children. The children, ages 6-11 years, considered to have a high exposure to the chemical, have levels that are much lower than doses shown to cause no effect in laboratory animals. The study also shows that high-exposure children did not have expected sex differences in their brains, which may reflect future impacts on their hormones and behavior.

The study is the first to use imaging scans to show that prenatal exposure to the chemical is linked to structural changes in the brain five to 10 years after exposure, said Virginia Rauh, PhD, the lead author. While the chemical’s use was banned in residential areas 12 years ago, many women are exposed to moderate levels in agricultural settings and through food residue. Dr. Rauh believes studies are needed to look at what effect the chemical has on the children as they grow.

“Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is risky for pregnant women and should be avoided,” said Dr. Rauh, a professor of clinical population and family health at Columbia University in New York. “Mother breathes or ingests the chlorpyrifos, which then enters her blood stream. The chemical crosses the placenta and enters the infants’ blood stream.”

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that has been linked to a host of neurodevelopmental problems, especially in children. This is important to study since roughly one in six children in the U.S. has one or more developmental disabilities, ranging from a learning disability to a serious behavioral or emotional disorder. Emerging science demonstrate that the amount of toxic chemicals in the environment that causes developmental and neurological damage and contributes to the rise of physical and mental effects being found in children. 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.

Previous studies have shown that exposure to some organophosphate compounds cause hyperactivity and cognitive deficits in animals. A study published in Pediatrics found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Researchers discovered that for children with a 10-fold increase in the concentration of the most common phosphate metabolites measured in their urine, the odds of ADHD increases by more than half compared to those without detectable levels. A recent study found that exposure of pregnant women to organophosphate pesticides may affect both length of pregnancy and birth weight. Women with higher levels of organophosphates were found to have pregnancies that were 3 to 4 days shorter and babies that were about â…“ pound lighter on average than women with lower levels of pesticides.

Chlorpyrifos, like many organophosphates, have had their household uses cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children. However, agricultural uses remain on the market. In 2010 Beyond Pesticides and over 13,000 other organizations sent a letter to the EPA, calling for a ban on chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Chlorpyrifos was phased out for residential use under a 2000 agreement between EPA and Dow Agrosciences but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture. EPA’s decision in 2000 and subsequent action removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses but retains all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf course and public health mosquito spraying. The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but ignored the special risks to farmworkers’ children, as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable.

In order to reduce exposure to these chemicals, Beyond Pesticides recommends that expectant mothers choose organic foods. Families should also stop using pesticides in and around the home and to be vigilant about the cosmetic ingredients they use. For more information on what you can do, see Beyond Pesticides’ 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 neurodevelopmental abnormalities, see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

“This report sends a strong message that doing what’s good for the environment and what’s good for industry economics are not mutually exclusive,” said U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA). “The organic food processing industry is creating jobs, stimulating our economy, and delivering the products that consumers increasingly demand. This report is only the latest testament on why supporting organic is a no-brainer.”

The report shows that for every $1 billion in retail sales of organic products, 21,000 more jobs were created throughout the economy. In addition, the use of organically produced ingredients resulted in the creation of 21 percent more jobs than would have been generated if the food industry had relied solely on conventional farms for its ingredients. The study compared labor and input use on a wide range of conventional and organic farms, and attributed the job-creation differences largely to greater labor intensity on organic farms, smaller farm size, the need for an organic certification industry, and reliance on smaller retail outlets.

Of course, most people choose organic because of its health and environmental benefits. Organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality. In order to understand the importance of eating organic food from the perspective of toxic pesticide contamination, we need to look at the whole picture ””from the farmworkers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture.

Aside from contamination issues, conventional agricultural practices have contributed to climate change through heavy use of fossil fuels ””both directly on the farm and in the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers”” and through degradation of the soil, which releases carbon. The depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) through conventional farming has not only released carbon into the atmosphere, it has also limited the fertility and water holding capacity of soils worldwide. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce petroleum dependency and provide carbon sequestration in the soil.

EPA identified multiple FIFRA labeling violations after analyzing a sample of the product, which it collected on May 26, 2011. FIFRA requires a pesticide labeled as an antimicrobial pesticide to “disinfect, sanitize, reduce or mitigate growth or development of microbiological organisms.” When laboratory analysis established that “ZEP Formula 165” used in accordance with the label instructions was not effective against Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, the false label claim constituted a FIFRA violation. EPA cited the manufacturer for a second violation after determining that the sample it collected contained an amount of the active ingredient Para-tertiary-amyl phenyl that exceeded the upper certified limit that was established for that ingredient in the registration for that specific pesticide formulation.

The SSURO prohibits all further sale of “ZEP Formula 165” under the manufacturer’s control or custody. The manufacturer is also required to notify EPA of the location and amount of product that it distributed during the past year. Furthermore, EPA recommended that the manufacturer take immediate steps to remove the pesticide from market by initiating a voluntary recall of all product shipped within the U.S. in the last year.

Through ATP, EPA is requires testing of antimicrobial products, including hospital disinfectants and tuberculocides, to ensure that they meet health standards and that the claims on the product labels are accurate. However, a 2011 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that ATP was largely inadequate for testing products to ensure safety and efficacy, and also failed to remove products that did not meet program standards. The report noted that although testing began in 1991, more than 40% of antimicrobials (or 277 of 656) on the market have yet to be tested. OIG concluded that, “EPA does not have a strategy for informing hospitals and other likely end-users of failed test results or when enforcement actions are taken” and that, “EPA’s implementation of the ATP has not delivered on its mission.”

A surprisingly high number of products that were eventually tested by ATP failed to meet EPA standards and were found to require regulatory action. Since 2004, an average of one-third of products tested in a year failed. However, according to the OIG report, “EPA does not have a strategy for informing hospitals and other likely end-users of failed test results or when enforcement actions are taken.” It simply relies on posting a notice to the ATP website. This means that ineffective products that can potentially be of risk to public health often remain in use by hospitals and health professionals.

The OIG report is especially of concern because some antimicrobials, such as triclosan, are known to cause dangerous public health and environmental hazards. Triclosan is one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in products ranging from soaps and toothpastes to fabrics and toys. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban) to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial, endocrine disruption, and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Nanomaterials have been formulated in consumer products for years without any regulatory oversight. Hundreds of products have been identified as containing nanomaterials, including toys, sunscreens, food packaging, and clothing. 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. Now FDA is recommending that industry consult with the agency on the safety of their products before marketing. The two draft guidance documents, “Guidance for Industry: Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, including Emerging Technologies, on the Safety and Regulatory Status of Food Ingredients and Food Contact Substances, Including Food Ingredients that are Color Additives” and “Guidance for Industry: Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products,” state that such consultations can help agency experts address questions related to the safety or other attributes of nanotechnology products, or answer questions about their regulatory status.

FDA advised companies that use nanomaterials in food additives or food packaging to consult with the agency and show that changes in manufacturing are safe before selling their products. Usually, manufacturers of most U.S. food additives and ingredients tell the FDA that their ingredients are “generally recognized as safe” in order to legally sell them. FDA now believes nanotechnology does not automatically fall into this category, meaning companies would have to provide additional safety data before approval. For cosmetics, companies should do additional testing of products that use nanotechnology to enhance their products.

“The consequences (to consumers and to the food industry) of broadly distributing a food substance that is later recognized to present a safety concern have the potential to be significant,” the draft guide says. However, these guidelines are just voluntary and may not go far enough in assessing and regulating nanomaterials in consumer products. Currently, cosmetics are not strongly regulated by FDA and cosmetic companies are not required to submit safety data before selling their products. Conversely, the European Union requires companies to prove a product with nanomaterial is safe before it can be sold to consumers. But according to the agency, it is investing in an FDA-wide nanotechnology regulatory science program to further enhance FDA’s scientific capabilities, including developing necessary data and tools to identify properties of nanomaterials and assess the impact they may have on products.

“Understanding nanotechnology remains a top FDA priority. FDA is strengthening the scientific tools and methods for evaluating food products, cosmetics, drugs and medical devices,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. She continued, “We are taking a prudent scientific approach to assess each product on its own merits and to not make broad, general assumptions about the safety of nanotechnology products.”

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, improving 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.’ The National Research Council (NRC) released a report earlier this year finding that insufficient understanding remains about the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials.

Nanomaterials Affect Plant Growth and DNA

Studies have found that nanomaterials pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. A recent study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass) have provided the first evidence that engineered nanoparticles are able to accumulate within plants and damage their DNA. The NIST/UMass researchers first exposed radishes and the two ryegrasses to cupric oxide nanoparticles. Twice as many lesions were induced in plants exposed to nanoparticles as were in those exposed to larger particles. Additionally, the cellular uptake of copper from the nanoparticles was significantly greater than the uptake of copper from the larger particles. The DNA damage profiles for the ryegrasses differed from the radish profiles, indicating that nanoparticle-induced DNA damage is dependent on the plant species and on the nanoparticle concentration. The researchers showed that cupric oxide nanoparticles had a significant effect on growth, stunting the development of both roots and shoots in all three plant species tested. “To our knowledge, this is first evidence that there could be a ‘nano-based effect’ for cupric oxide in the environment where size plays a role in the increased generation and accumulation of numerous mutagenic DNA lesions in plants,” say researchers leading this team. The study, “Copper oxide nanoparticle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models,” was published in Environmental Science and Technology.

Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells or tissue) by accumulating in the brain over a long period of time. 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.

In December 2011, a coalition of six consumer safety groups filed suit against FDA, citing the agency’s chronic failure to regulate nanomaterials used in sunscreens, cosmetics and drugs. The lawsuit demands that FDA respond to a May 2006 petition that the coalition filed in which it calls for regulatory action, including nano-specific product labeling, health and safety testing, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. FDA rejected this petition.

Last year, EPA announced its intentions to obtain information on nanomaterials in pesticide products to determine whether the registration of a pesticide may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health. The agency also proposed a new approach for the agency to consider a nanoscale ingredient as a “new” active or inert ingredient for purposes of scientific evaluation under the pesticide laws. Additionally, 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 information on nanotechnology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Sources: Reuters, FDA News Release, and NIST Tech Beat

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

Research shows direct links between a school’s poor indoor environment and higher rates of asthma and other respiratory ailments. Other studies show that improving indoor air quality has measurable impacts on student and teacher health and productivity. Children are especially vulnerable to negative effects of toxic pesticide and chemical exposure as they take in more toxins relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems that are less able to detox.

In a statement of support for the efforts of Healthy School’s Network, Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman says, “Children need better protection from toxic chemical exposure while at school. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels. Fortunately, effective and safer pest management strategies that do not rely on harmful pesticides exist. Beyond Pesticides is proud to join as a co-sponsor for the 10th National Healthy Schools Day and continue working to improve our children’s health.”

In commemorating a growing movement on National Healthy Schools Day, Healthy Schools Network is recognizing New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s efforts. Governor Cuomo has set an example with a proclamation that highlights the connection between poor indoor air quality and poor learning and behavior.

“We know that toxic and allergen-ridden indoor air environments are making our children and teachers sick and impairing their ability to succeed in the classroom,” said Claire Barnett, Executive Director of the Healthy Schools Network said. “When you take in the missed work days and the health costs and the moms who are teachers staying home with their kids who are sick, that’s a double and triple whammy on our economy and educational system we can’t afford.”

The proclamation promotes construction guidelines that incorporate environmental health practices and also lower operating costs; it also highlights the state’s green cleaning in schools program. Some additional highlights that Healthy Schools Network points out are:

Federal Initiatives. The federal government is kicking off initiatives to address school environments. U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has established voluntary school siting and indoor environments guidelines and grants for states, and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has initiated a Green Ribbon Schools award to recognize schools that save energy, have healthy facilities, and offer environmental education. President Obama has proposed $25 billion to modernize 35,000 public schools, which would provide much-needed funds to, among other purposes, eliminate environmental hazards in schools.

Other state and local Healthy Schools Day activities are also underway: in Texas and Massachusetts, for example, U.S. EPA regional staff are leading conferences or participating in urban school walk-throughs. In Wisconsin, a state senator will present his resolution to school children who have done art projects on indoor air.

But, more must be done at all levels. The negative impact on women and children is severe, and Healthy Schools Network points to the following research:

* Pediatric asthma hospitalizations often triple in the days after summer vacations, according to a 2011 New York Health Department study. School children also face increased risks of asthma hospitalizations on return to school after winter and spring breaks. Asthma is also a leading cause of work-related illnesses among teachers and custodians.
* 40 percent of nurses who are members of the National Association of School Nurses said they knew children and personnel affected by pollutants in schools.
* A June 2011 Institute of Medicine report stated that polluted indoor environments are already damaging health and learning, and that measures to prevent exposures indoors should be a priority. The report noted, “By one estimate, poor indoor conditions cost the nation’s economy tens of billions of dollars a year in exacerbation of illnesses and allergenic symptoms and in lost productivity.”

In the report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws — 2010 Update, Beyond Pesticides finds that 35 states have taken limited action to step in and provide protective measures to address pesticide use in, around or near their schools. There is some growth, for instance: 21 states recommend or require schools to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which is a 24 percent increase from the original report in 1998. However, these actions respresent a patchwork of laws that are uneven and inadequate as the majority of school children continue to be exposed to toxic pesticides while at school.

Earlier this year, a bill to prohibit the use of most lawn pesticides on public and private playgrounds, recreation fields and daycare centers that was introduced in New Jersey failed to pass the state legislature despite overwhelming support. Legislators and advocates are working to block an effort in the Connecticut General Assembly that would repeal the state’s current ban on toxic pesticide use on school grounds by allowing their use as part of a poorly defined IPM program.

What can you do?

Healthy Schools Network has created a “Healthy Schools Day Proclamation Toolkit” in order to help urge political leaders to act on their convictions and to “be on the record” for resolutions to promote healthy school environments. They also provide a list of ways in which teachers, parents, organizations and community members can help improve the environmental health of their school. See healthyschools.org for more information.

Federal Legislation Needed

Ask your Member of Congress to support the School Environment Protection Act of 2012 (SEPA). Beyond Pesticides believes that federal legislation is needed to ensure a healthy learning environment for all students. In March, U.S. Represenative Rush Holt and colleagues introduced the School Environment Protection Act, which would protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. The legislation also bans the use of synthetic fertilizers. SEPA was first introduced in November 1999 in both the U.S. Senate and House. The bill language is based on state school pest management laws. It also mirrors the structure of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established a national committee to oversee the program as well as established a list of pesticides allowed for use within the program. A form of SEPA has passed the U.S. Senate twice since and, together with other legislation, indicates broad support for a national mandate to stop hazardous pesticide use in schools. To learn more about this legislation and help its passage, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage.

Healthy Schools Day is coordinated by Healthy Schools Network in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Council of Educational Facility Planners – International that celebrates School Building Week annually.

In fact, Dow introduced a new GE corn variety because weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup, the previous chemical of choice for herbicide-tolerant plants. However, solving herbicide resistance with a new, more toxic chemical is like using gasoline to put out a fire. It will cause even more damage to health and the environment, and in a few years, the pesticide industry will be marketing their next “solution” to the growing resistance problem.

Read Beyond Pesticides full comments to USDA for Dow’s petition to approve 2-4,D-resistant GE corn.

Tell USDA to stop this toxic experiment and deny Dow’s petition for 2,4-D tolerant corn. Sign your organization or business onto Beyond Pesticides’ comments or submit comments directly to the USDA docket. The deadline to sign on is Friday, April 27 at noon.

Background:

In a radio interview on WBAI in New York City, Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman said, “The USDA is proposing approving a new GE corn variety that is resistant to a different toxic herbicide, escalating the toxic treadmill in chemical-dependent agriculture. This is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem, and will only give rise to more superweeds, more herbicide pollution in our environment, more herbicide poisoning, while likely leading to the need for even more toxic herbicides a couple of years down the line. This foolish circle has to end.”

While USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide. 2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

This technology, which will increase 2,4-D use, poses a particular hazard for those who live and work in rural areas. Research by EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also show a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

In its petition, Dow states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops. Farm research groups are also concerned with the impact of genetically engineered crops on organic farmers, whose organic crops are already at risk of contamination with Monsanto’s unnatural DNA from pollen drift.

The petition raises specific concerns about the increased 2, 4-D and dicamba usage due to the timing of the herbicide applications. The new blended 2,4-D or dicamba and glyphosate herbicides will be sprayed repeatedly during the growing season after weeds emerge and begin to compete with crops. Spraying herbicides, which are known to volatilize and drift during periods when specialty crops are at their greatest risk of exposure, is likely to increase the incidence of and resultant damage to non-target crops. The coalition stated it expects the newly 2,4-D and dicamba tolerant varieties to be grown in close proximity to crops like soybeans, tomatoes, grapes, green beans, peas, cucumbers, squash, melons, pumpkins, all of which are highly sensitive to exposure to these herbicides.

“My farming operation was decimated by 2,4-D exposure. The government’s consideration of the impact of its actions is a necessary first step in ensuring no other specialty crop producer has to endure the devastation that my farm has experienced,” said Gary Phelps, a tree farmer based in Kentucky. “The dramatic increase in the use of 2,4-D and dicamba, and these herbicides known impacts on off-target crops threaten the survival of the specialty crop production in the Midwest. It’s time USDA, the stewards of American agriculture, stood up and considered the cumulative impacts of all these crops,” said Steve Smith of Red Gold, an Indiana-based food processor and coalition member.

2, 4-D is a highly toxic herbicide which has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and kidney and liver damage. It is also neurotoxic and is toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly elevated rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2, 4-D. Dicamba is a neurotoxic chlorinated benzoic acid herbicide that the EPA classifies as acute toxicity class III, slightly toxic. The material is a recognized eye irritant, moderately persistent in the environment and highly mobile in soil and water as well through the air. Chronic exposure to Dicamba is linked to reproductive and developmental effects.

The Save Our Crops Coalition represents more than 2,000 farmers and groups such as the Organic Valley Cooperative, the Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers Association, and major food processors Seneca and Red Gold. While the coalition does not categorically object to the use of GM materials in agriculture, its petition specifically faults the draft environmental impact statement prepared by USDAs Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for inadequately assessing the cumulative effects of multiple new 2,4-D and dicamba resistant varieties entering the market simultaneously. The petition cites one scientific expert who projects a 1,070% increase in the amount of 2,4-D alone being applied to corn within five years. The coalition submitted its petition to an open docket that APHIS maintains for public comment on the proposed release by Dow AgroScience of a 2,4-D corn variety. The public is welcome to submit comments to this docket.

Farmers do not have to remain stuck on a pesticide treadmill that demands ever greater amounts of synthetic inputs and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of farm profitability and the environment. Organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, and mechanical production practices and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that chemical inputs such as synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics are marketed as solving.

GE crops have also yet to deliver on the early promises made by the biotechnology industry to increase crop yields. A 2009 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary GE food and feed crops grown in the United States. The report concludes that GE herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, is largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

Source: Planet Ark

Student Government (SG) representative and public affairs graduate student Robert Love, who initiated the ban, says that officials in several different campus purchasing departments are open to phasing out antibacterial soap. For financial and environmental reasons, the University phased out the use of the triclosan-containing soap in restrooms across campus in 2008; however, it is still being used in other places on campus. According to a university spokeswoman, a campus-wide phase out would require an official decision.

“What we’re saying is we need an outright ban on campus, and we need to kind of make a bold statement,” said urban studies senior and SG representative John Lawler in a statement to The Daily Texan. “In a lot of places it’s not being banned; it’s not being considered a harmful chemical.””ƒ

Triclosan’s efficacy has been called into as a result of numerous studies, despite the fact that triclosan is marketed as a germ-killing substance. To the contrary, there is evidence that the widespread use of antibacterial compounds promote the emergence of bacterial resistance, which may actually contribute to greater vulnerability to bacteria.

In a comment to The Statesman about the possibility of illness spreading on campus after antibacterial soap is phased out, Mr. Love said, “The science doesn’t support that. The science shows that antibacterial soap is no more effective than regular soap and water … outside of extreme conditions of disease.”

Public Radio International’s Living on Earth recently interviewed Beyond Pesticides research associate Nichelle Harriott about the toxicity of triclosan (download the show). Beyond Pesticides in 2004 began voicing concern about the dangers of triclosan and in 2009 and 2010 submitted petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which call for the removal of triclosan from consumer products. Since then, many major companies are quietly and quickly removing triclosan from their products. After opening the petition for public comment in 2011, over 10,000 individuals told EPA via email and docketed comments to ban triclosan. Additionally, scores of public health and advocacy groups, local state departments of health and the environment, as well as municipal and national wastewater treatment agencies, submitted comments requesting an end to triclosan in consumer products.

Take Action: Encourage your community go triclosan=free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution that establishes a commitment to not procuring or using products containing triclosan. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’Ban Triclosan page.

Sources: The Statesman and The Daily Texan

EPA notes in a newly released April 2012 factsheet, “Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides,” that, “EPA has developed a table of human health benchmarks for approximately 350 pesticides that are currently registered for use on food crops. The benchmarks are for pesticides for which the agency has not previously issued a drinking water health advisory or set an enforceable federal drinking water standard. These benchmarks for pesticides will enable states, water systems and the public to better determine whether the detection of a pesticide in drinking water or source waters for drinking water indicate a potential health risk.”

Previously, water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water were set for only handful pesticides. The new benchmarks are for acute (one-day) and chronic (lifetime) exposures for the most sensitive populations (children, pregnant women) from exposure to pesticides that may be found in surface or ground water sources of drinking water. Concentrations of pesticides in drinking water that have the potential for cancer risk are not currently included in the benchmarks, however, EPA intends to include these concentrations “later.” In an important move to be transparent, the EPA factsheet states, “The human health benchmarks for pesticides table includes mainly active ingredients at this time, and thus inert compounds used in pesticide formulations are not included.”

If a water sample exceeds a benchmark, the state or local water municipality would consider how frequently the benchmark is exceeded and the magnitude of the exceedance in other samples. Read EPA’s factsheet. Exceeding the benchmark consistently means that aquatic life and human health may be at risk from continued exposures. However, despite these new benchmarks, pesticide contamination will continue to plague U.S. waterways since oversight and enforcement are lacking at both federal and state levels. Currently, 56 percent of streams sampled have one or more pesticides in water that exceed at least one aquatic-life benchmark. Similarly, more than 20 percent of private domestic wells sampled nationwide contain at least one contaminant at levels of potential health concern.

Research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) finds that when pesticides are applied on fields, gardens, parks and lawns, a percentage of the chemicals end up running off the treated site. More than 80 percent of urban streams and more than 50 percent of agricultural streams have concentrations of at least one pesticide. Drinking water supplies, including groundwater, have been plagued by pesticide and other chemical contamination. Pesticide compounds analyzed in water by USGS include many of the most heavily used herbicides and insecticides, and one or more pesticides or their degradates are detected in water more than 90 percent of the time during the year in agricultural streams, urban streams, and mixed-land-use streams. Pesticides like atrazine, chlorpyrifos and malathion are routinely detected in waterways. EPA has been criticized by the USGS’ National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) for not setting water quality benchmarks for pesticides. According to NAWQA “standards and guidelines do not completely eliminate risks posed by pesticides in waterways because: (1) values are not established for many pesticides, (2) mixtures and breakdown products are not considered, (3) the effects of seasonal exposure to high concentrations have not been evaluated, and (4) some types of potential effects, such as endocrine disruption and unique responses of sensitive individuals, have not yet been assessed.”

Pesticides in waterways have been attributed to the feminization of male amphibians, and intersex fish- male fish producing eggs in the Potomac. Studies link increased seasonal concentration of pesticides in surface water with the peak in birth defects in infants conceived during the spring and summer months, when pesticide use increases and high concentrations of pesticides are found in surface waters. A 2009 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Poisoning the Well, found that atrazine goes undetected by regular monitoring, and that in the 139 municipal water systems from which EPA collected data on a biweekly basis in 2003 and 2004, atrazine is found 90% of the time. Furthermore, 54 of these water systems had at least one spike above 3 parts per billion, atrazine’s current benchmark. Atrazine in drinking water was recently linked to menstrual irregularities in women.

The publication of the new benchmarks follows the March 22, 2010 announcement by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson of a new drinking water strategy that outlines four principles to expand public health protection. One of the principles is to use the authority of multiple laws to more effectively protect drinking water, by sharing data collected under different statutes. The new benchmarks include those for pyrethroids like bifenthrin, cypermethrin, and permethrin, dichlorvos, imidacloprid, maneb, naled, propiconazole and triclosan.

Attempts to protect U.S. waterways from pesticide contamination have recently been attacked by industry groups and Congress. The bill H.R. 872, “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011,” sought to revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, an attempt to reverse a 2007 federal court order instructing EPA to require permits under the Clean Water Act for pesticide discharges. (See Daily News coverage.) Soon after H.R. 872 was passed, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,” H.R. 2018. This act would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. It would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Thus far there have been a staggering 125 pieces of legislation that will reduce environmental protection including 50 bills targeting EPA, 16 to dismantle the Clean Water Act, 31 against actions that can prevent pollution, and 22 to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives.

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

“This is a watershed ordinance, certainly for the state of Ohio,” said Barry Zucker, executive director of Beyond Pesticides Ohio and long-time advocate for this type of county-wide ordinance. “This is a terrific achievement and a tremendous model for other communities in Ohio and the rest of the nation.”

People in the county have long recognized the dangers posed by pesticides and the availability of viable alternatives. Under the leadership of Beyond Pesticides Ohio, the town of Cleveland Heights became the first municipality in the nation to legislatively prohibit the application of lawn chemicals on city property, including schools and day care centers. The group also worked with the town of Lyndhurst, Ohio and helped pass legislation prohibiting the Cuyahoga County Board of Health from doing any broadcast spraying of pesticides to control mosquitoes, instead relying on education, prevention, and larval control with great success. In 2010, Beyond Pesticides Ohio joined with Beyond Pesticides and the Case Western University School of Medicine’s Swetland Center for Environmental Health to host Greening the Community, the 28th National Pesticide Forum, which focused on green communities and economies.

While the seeds for the ordinance were originally planted at the Greening the Community Forum, Mr. Zucker explains that the momentum really picked up a year later when Beyond Pesticides’ board member and national organic turf expert Chip Osborne returned to Cleveland as a keynote speaker at an April 2011 conference organized by Beyond Pesticides Ohio and the Cleveland Botanical Garden. After attending Mr. Osborne’s talk, “Fabulous Lawns and Landscapes: Transitioning to cost effective, organic landscape management,” County Council members Sunny Simon and Julian Rogers approached Beyond Pesticides Ohio about the county ordinance. Mr. Zucker, his group and allies worked with the Council over the past year leading up to its April 10, 2012 passage.

“I think it’s fantastic, and I think it’s landmark, too,” Mr. Zucker told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “This is the direction turf care is going, for health reasons, for pets, the environment. Lots of times pesticides will leach into the water system and provide a whole host of other problems.”

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogencity, 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 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 Mr. 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.

For more information on organic-based, pesticide-free lawn and landscape management, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page.

NMFS prepared the draft Opinion in response to EPA’s initial assessment of the risk that current uses of the herbicides oryzalin, pendimethalin and trifluralin pose for the threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead species. NMFS’ findings contradict significant conclusions from 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 failure 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. The draft Opinion concludes that if oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin remain in use as currently authorized, they are “likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead populations.

The draft Opinion represents another step forward in a decade-long struggle to compel EPA to exercise its full statutory authority to protect and conserve biodiversity. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA is required to determine how a pesticide will affect threatened and endangered species when that chemical is registered or has its registration reviewed. Represented by the public interest law group Earthjustice, several stakeholder organizations including the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit in January 2001 to force EPA to fulfill this requirement. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. In 2002, a federal court ruling called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with NMFS regarding adverse impacts on the Northwest runs. (Salmon and steelhead are classified as marine fish; EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service when the protected species lives in freshwater).

“This is a huge step forward for the health of our rivers,” said NCAP Environmental Health Associate Aimee Code. She continued, “These findings are a reminder that chemical pest control comes at a high cost. The true solution is to expand the use of non-chemical solutions.” Glen Spain of PCFFA stated, “These pesticides are poisons and do not belong in salmon streams. The bottom line for us is that poisoning salmon rivers puts our people out of work as well as creates a public health hazard. It is far more cost effective to keep these poisons out of our rivers to begin with than to try to clean up messes afterwards.”

NMFS notified EPA that current use patterns for oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin are likely to jeopardize half of the 26 salmon populations on the West Coast protected by the ESA. All three pesticides belong to the dinitroaniline sulfonamide class of herbicides and are widely used in agricultural, lawn and home garden and right-of-way applications. The use restrictions called for in the draft Opinion 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.

The new draft Opinion is the fifth prepared by NMFS since the settlement of a second lawsuit in 2007 in which the federal government committed to a four-year time-line for completing reviews of the pesticides remaining from the original suit against EPA. Reviews of the pesticides considered to be most damaging to protected species were completed first and there are eleven compounds still under review now that oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin have been completed. 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.

Source: Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides

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

In the study, Lower acetylcholinesterase activity among children living with flower plantation workers (Environ Res. 2012 Apr;114:53-9. Epub 2012 Mar 10), children whose parents work on a flower plantation are more than three times more likely to be in the group of lowest AChE activity. Additionally, the children who live the longest with a flower plantation worker are four times more likely to have lower enzyme activity than children who never live with a plantation worker. The researchers obtained their results by sampling AChE activity levels in 277 children between ages 4 and 9 from the Pedro Moncayo region of Ecuador where plantation flower production is concentrated. Plantation workers are routinely exposed to pesticides during and/or after application to the flowers and often return home without showering or changing clothes. The researchers accounted for age, gender, pesticide use within the household, and other factors that might skew the results.

The health risks of secondary pesticide exposure faced by the families of flower plantation workers are in addition to the documented damage caused by direct contact to such materials. Poisonings from direct exposure to organophosphates and carbamates are linked to 71 percent of the 14,145 pesticide poisonings reported in Ecuador between 2001 and 2007.

Now mostly used in agricultural applications, organophosphate and carbamate compounds remain among the most heavily used pesticides in the United States. Exposure to organophosphate insecticides, such as chlorpyrifos is linked to numerous learning and development disorders, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and autism. Widely-used insecticides in the carbamate family include aldicarb and carbaryl. Both classes of pesticides affect pests and non-target organisms, including humans and other vertebrates, through a similar mode of action. Acetylcholine is an essential neuro-transmitter that relays signals from the brain throughout the nervous system and under normal conditions it is broken down by AChE after each signal is sent. Pesticides that suppress AChE activity inhibit the necessary breakdown of acetylcholine and prevent the healthy feedback needed for the nervous system to function properly. Poisoning from such pesticides may cause sensory and behavioral disturbances, incoordination, headache, dizziness, restlessness, anxiety, depressed motor function, and seizures. Severe intoxication may result in psychosis, seizures, and coma.

Several Latin American countries have in recent years promoted exports of fresh cut flowers to the United States and Ecuador alone supplies 23% of the American market. Consumers who are turning to organic and fair trade options for their food purchases are finding that many similar options exist for buying fresh cut flowers. Sources for organic and fair trade floral products include:
Organic Bouquet
California Organic Flowers
Local Harvest
The Fifty Mile Bouquet

Source: Environmental Health News