2,4-D has been used in the U.S. since the 1940s, and as such is one of the oldest registered herbicides in the country. It made up roughly half of the herbicide known as Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War. According to EPA, 2,4-D is currently found in approximately 600 products registered for agricultural, residential, industrial, and aquatic uses.

The use of 2,4-D is expected to increase significantly in the next few years with the recent announcement that Dow AgroSciences, the main manufacturer of the chemical, is seeking federal approval to sell corn seeds that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide. [Listen to a radio interview on this subject by Beyond Pesticides’ Executive Director Jay Feldman.]

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

Unfortunately, the agency’s ruling states that there is not enough data to conclude that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between exposure to 2,4-D and health effects. EPA reviewers said that though some studies have shown higher risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among farmers, it was too difficult to point to 2,4-D as the cause because of the farmer’s exposure to so many other chemicals. Instead, according to the New York Times, the agency relies heavily on an industry funded study by 2,4-D manufacturers and conducted by Dow. The study found that when 2,4-D was put into food for rats, the rats had no reproductive problems, or problems in their offspring.

Gina Solomon, MD, MPH, the co-author of the NRDC petition to ban 2,4-D, responded to EPA’s decision in a blog post:

“Essentially, the Agency is saying that in the absence of animal studies showing a link to cancer, EPA will continue to ignore the multiple human studies which repeatedly show increased rates of this particular cancer in farmers and agricultural workers exposed to the chemical. Accordingly, the EPA stands by its classification of 2,4-D as “unclassifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” This remains unconvincing to many, and it is alarming that a pesticide that has been on the market for more than 60 years is still “unclassifiable.”

TAKE ACTION: There is a 60-day period for filing objections to this conclusion that begins when it is published in the Federal Register. Documents are available at www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877.

Send comments on the proposed approval of Dow’s 2,4-D tolerant corn until APRIL 27, 2012. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov. You only need to fill out fields that have an asterisk (*) beside it.

Additionally, an online petition by Center for Food Safety can be signed here; The Cornucopia Institute also has a letter opposing Dow’s 2,4-D corn variety, which will be sent to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, which can be signed here.

Sources: NY Times, NRDC Switchboard

Previously, a similar bill was introduced in 2010 (H.R. 5124), which remained in committee. H.R. 4318 states, “The toxicity of atrazine is well documented and has shown to have adverse endocrine effects in amphibians, mammals, and humans. There is evidence that atrazine exposure is associated with low sperm counts and poor motility in exposed adult men, and that prebirth atrazine exposure is associated with small birth weight and abnormal development of the gut wall in infants. In laboratory mammals, exposure is associated with abnormal reproductive system development, impaired prostate gland formation, and abnormal breast tissue development. In aquatic wildlife, exposure is associated with abnormal reproductive system development, impaired reproduction, and impaired immune system function.”

Atrazine is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. A potent toxicant, it is the most prevalent herbicide found in Minnesota’s waters. It is widely applied in the midwestern states and has been found in the drinking water supplies in the Midwest at high levels. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. Atrazine is harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians even when the amount used is less than the government allows. Atrazine is specifically associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may also harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species.

New research shows that women who drink water containing atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, even at concentrations far below federal drinking water standards considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Researchers compared women living in Illinois farm towns where atrazine is used regularly to women living in Vermont where the herbicide is used sparingly, and found that the women in Illinois were almost five times more likely to report irregular menstrual cycles, including more than six weeks between periods. A French study published last year found that prenatal exposure to the herbicide atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction. The authors say that the study “raises particular concerns for countries where atrazine is still in use.” The European Union banned atrazine in 2004 after repeated testing found the herbicide in drinking water supplies, and health officials were unable to find sufficient evidence that the chemical is safe. However, the U.S. continues to support its use.

“No one should ever have to worry if the water they drink is making them sick or affecting fertility,” said Rep. Ellison. “Germany and Italy banned atrazine use in 1991 and Euro zone health officials banned its use in 2003. Yet, almost 10 years later the United States is still using it. We need to remove toxins like atrazine from our waterways.”

“While exposure to atrazine puts all of our communities at increased risk of diseases such as prostate and breast cancer, infant mortality, and birth defects, it is farm workers and their families -most of whom are low-income people and people of color- who are at the greatest risk,” Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota noted. [Officials] estimate that each year as many 20,000 farm workers are poisoned due to exposure to agricultural chemicals such as atrazine. Congressman Ellison’s bill is a significant step toward improving human and environmental health for all Americans.”

In 2011, Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to EPA in response to a petition by the group Save the Frogs urging the agency to ban atrazine. In Beyond Pesticides’ comments, several studies are highlighted that have been published in the scientific literature since EPA began reevaluating atrazine under its registration review process in 2009. This research includes a 2011 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, showing that prenatal exposure to atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction; a study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2010 finds male rats prenatally exposed to low doses of atrazine are more likely to develop prostate inflammation and to go through puberty later than non-exposed animals; and, a 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that male frogs exposed to atrazine can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs. Even at low levels that are considered “safe” by EPA standards, atrazine is known to harm fish, and has been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites -creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

Take Action: Contact your Member of Congress and let them know what you think about H.R.4318. Ask them to support a ban on atrazine in order to safeguard healthy waters and human health.

Source: Press Release Congressman Keith Ellison’s Office

The researchers collected urine from each of the women in Cincinnati twice during their pregnancies for organophosphate metabolites as well as other factors that could influence the fetus’ health, including exposure to second hand smoke, race, and poverty. Women with higher levels of organophosphates were found to have pregnancies that were three to four days shorter and babies that were about â…“ pound lighter on average than women with lower levels of pesticides.

“For an individual child, a decrement of 150-gram reduction in birth weight is of little consequence, but this is just one of many risk factors that a pregnant woman might encounter. If a woman has four or five risk factors, the impact can be substantial,” explains the study’s senior author, SFU health sciences professor Bruce Lanphear, M.D. “The decrement in birth weight that we found for OP pesticide exposure was comparable with the decrement seen for women who smoke cigarettes.”

Organophosphates are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be among the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in several European countries. Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system, as they are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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. Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion are applied annually for residential uses.

In order to reduce exposure to these chemicals, Dr. Lanphear recommends that expectant mothers choose organic foods. He also recommends that families stop using pesticides in and around the home and to 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.

Furthest along in the effort is Wellfleet, which last month officially adopted the Cape’s first codified organic turf management policy. The policy bans all pesticides and chemical fertilizers on town parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields, while allowing for some exceptions such as rodent bait traps, according to the Cape Cod Times. Wellfleet’s Board of Selectmen, which unanimously adopted the policy on March 13th, were concerned about the possibility of lawn chemicals leading to environmental contamination and presenting serious risks to people and wildlife. Eastham, just to the south of Wellfleet, is working on passing its own bylaw outlining a set of organic turf management practices to restrict pesticides throughout the town.

The town of Barnstable has also begun to explore how it might go about implementing an organic turf management policy on its own lands. The town is in the process of documenting current practices in order to determine how they could be changed to reflect organic principles. “You can’t invite people to your parks and put something down that might be injurious to them,” Barnstable Town Manager Thomas Lynch told the Cape Cod Times.

Other municipalities throughout the region have been practicing or working to adopt organic land management to varying degrees for several years. The town of Orleans has been informally using organic methods, but is currently working toward formalizing these practices in a policy that is expected to come before the town selectmen over the summer. Other nearby towns, including Brewster, Chatham, and Harwich, are similarly working to explore and potentially adopt concrete policies to encourage reduction in pesticides and chemical fertilizers on public lands. Additionally, the town of Falmouth has severely reduced pesticide applications by the Department of Public Works, using them only to control specific diseases. Some of the towns have also been involved in fighting right-of-way herbicide applications by the local power utility NStar. Both Wellfleet and Eastham have been pushing for the company not to spray roadsides within the town borders and have been largely successful.

Officials in several of the towns on the Cape have indicated that they are worried about the potential increases in cost associated with organic turf management and stated this may be an impediment to more widespread adoption of organic policies. However, research by the environmental health group Grassroots Environmental Education, comparing the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and a natural (organic) program over a five-year period, concludes that the annual cost of maintaining a field using natural products and techniques can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of conventional programs using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

For those who are in the region of Cape Cod or eastern Massachusetts, there will be a workshop sponsored by Green CAPE and given by organic turf expert and Beyond Pesticides board member Chip Osborne in Barnstable on April 14 with information on how to manage your lawn without pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

For more information and resources on organic management of green spaces, see our lawns and landscapes page.

Source: Cape Code Times

The study, “New effects of Roundup on amphibians: Predators reduce herbicide mortality; herbicides induce antipredator morphology” is the first to show that a pesticide can induce morphological changes in a vertebrate animal, biological sciences Professor Rick Relyea, PhD, said in a university release. The study was undertaken using simple created wetlands and introducing tadpoles from three species of amphibians —the leopard frog, American toad, and wood frogs. After three weeks, the tadpoles were examined. The impact of Roundup on the shape of tadpole tails was most noticeable in both the wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles.

According to the study, “In wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles, Roundup induced relatively deeper tails in the same direction and of the same magnitude as the adaptive changes induced by dragonfly cues… [T]his is the first study to show that a pesticide can induce morphological changes in a vertebrate. Moreover, the data suggest that the herbicide might be activating the tadpoles’ developmental pathways used for antipredator responses. Collectively, these discoveries suggest that the world’s most widely applied herbicide may have much further-reaching effects on nontarget species than previous considered.”

The presence of predators can cause tadpoles to change shape by altering the tadpoles’ stress hormones, causing them to grow bigger tails to better escape. But similar shape changes seen after exposure to Roundup suggest the weed killer may interfere with the hormones of tadpoles and potentially many other animals. “It was not surprising to see that the smell of predators in the water induced larger tadpole tails,” Dr. Relyea said. “That is a normal, adaptive response.” What shocked us was that the Roundup induced the same changes. Moreover, the combination of predators and Roundup caused the tail changes to be twice as large.”

Since tadpoles alter their body shape to match their environment, having a body shape that does not fit the environment can put the animals at a distinct disadvantage, the researchers said. “This discovery highlights the fact that pesticides, which are important for crop production and human health, can have unintended consequences for species that are not the pesticide’s target,” Dr. Relyea said. “Herbicides are not designed to affect animals, but we are learning that they can have a wide range of surprising effects by altering how hormones work in the bodies of animals.” This is important because amphibians not only serve as a barometer of the ecosystem’s health, but also as an indicator of potential dangers to other species in the food chain, including humans.”

Roundup is a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by Monsanto. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk and neurotoxicity, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans, and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year.

The inert ingredient POEA, formulated in Roundup products, has also been shown to kill 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. One study found that Roundup alone is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. Another found that Rana pipiens tadpoles chronically exposed to environmentally-relevant concentrations of glyphosate formulations, containing POEA, exhibit decreased snout-vent length at metamorphosis, increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage, and gonadal abnormalities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its registration documents for glyphosate determined that glyphosate, its salts and metabolites are likely to impact adversely the endangered California red-legged frog based on prey and habitat reduction.

A report released last year finds that industry regulators have known for a long time that glyphosate causes birth defects. The report, “RoundUp and Birth Defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” published by Earth Open Source, says that regulators misled the public about the safety of glyphosate for over 20 years. In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the EPA showing new and emerging science, which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risks to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration. Some of the most widespread uses of glyphosate that have been attracting public attention include its use in invasive weed management and home gardening. The increase of glyphosate use in these areas is directly tied to the larger problem of poor land management, including over grazing, over development, soil compaction, and other stressors.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials have also observed that the heavy use of Roundup due primarily to its use on Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops, appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of crops that farmers are cultivating. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has detected glyphosate in significant levels in rain and rivers in agricultural areas across the Mississippi River watershed, according to one of their recent reports. The greatest glyphosate use, according to USGS, is in the Mississippi River basin where most applications are for weed control on GE corn, soybeans, and cotton. “Roundup Ready” crops were designed to withstand Roundup herbicide and so, growing Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn has led to greater use of the herbicide. 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, which has been costly to U.S. farmers. Because of GE crops, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever. USGS has submitted the studies to EPA to be included in data that is being considered as the agency reviews the registration of glyphosate. EPA expects the review to be complete by 2015, at which point it will issue a decision to either continue to allow unrestricted use of glyphosate or institute limitations or a ban on the chemical in light of emerging science.

For more news and information on “Roundup Ready” and other GE crops, see Beyond Pesticides’ genetic engineering page.

Source: United Press International

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. 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 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.

The French study, “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees,” focuses on the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam, which is metabolized by bees into clothianidin, the pesticide cited in the legal petition. In their study, the researchers used Radio-frequency identification (RFID) to test the hypothesis that a sublethal exposure to a neonicotinoid indirectly increases hive death rate through homing failure in foraging honey bees. When exposed to sublethal doses of thiamethoxam, at levels present in the environment, honey bees were less likely to return to the hive after foraging than control bees that were tracked with RFID, but not intentionally dosed with pesticides. Higher risks are observed when the homing task is more challenging. The survival rate is even lower when exposed bees are placed in foraging areas with which they are less familiar.

The British study, “Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production,” examines the impacts of the pesticide imidacloprid on bumble bee colony health. Researchers exposed colonies of the bumble bees to levels of imidacloprid that are realistic in the natural environment, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to unexposed control colonies. The study is particularly noteworthy because it shows that bumble bees, which are wild pollinators, are suffering similar impacts of pesticide exposure to “managed” honey bees. While several studies have linked pesticides to declining honey bee health, wild pollinators have not been intensively studied as their economically-relevant cousins. That said, wild pollinators still provide essential services both in agriculture and to a wide-range of wild plants that could not survive without insect pollination.

On March 21, 2012, commercial beekeepers and environmental organizations filed an emergency legal petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend use of clothianidin, urging the agency to adopt safeguards. The legal petition is supported by over one million citizen petition signatures, targets the pesticide for its harmful impacts on honey bees. The legal petition points to the fact that EPA failed to follow its own regulations. EPA 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 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.

Learn more about the science, legal petition and what you can do on Beyond Pesticides’ Protecting Pollinators program page.

“Farmers have the right to protect themselves from being falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto before they are contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed,” said Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit legal services organization based at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law that represents the plaintiffs. “Judge Buchwald erred by denying
plaintiffs that right and they have now initiated the process of having her decision reversed.”

The original complaint in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto was filed on March 29, 2011. In July, Monsanto filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff lawyers at PUBPAT then filed a rebuttal brief on August 11, 2011. Judge Buchwald called for oral argument on the motion to dismiss, which was held in Manhattan on January 31, 2012. The judge’s dismissal ruling was issued February 24th and plaintiffs were given thirty days in which to file their Notice of Appeal.

“Farmers are under threat. Our right to farm the way we choose, and to grow pure organic seed and healthy food on our farms for our families and for our customers is under assault,” said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead Appellant OSGATA. “We are honor-bound to challenge an erroneous ruling which denies family farmers the protection the law says we deserve. We’re not asking for one penny from Monsanto. Ultimately, our fight is for justice and is waged to defend the right of the people to have access to good and safe food.”

The Plaintiff/Appellant group is comprised of individual family farmers, small and family-owned seed companies and agricultural organizations. They are all organic or committed to farming without using genetically engineered seeds, and have no desire to ever farm with Monsanto’s patented GMO technology. However, they are fearful that Monsanto seed will trespass on to their farms and that the resulting contamination of their crops will be viewed by Monsanto as illegal ‘possession’ resulting in patent infringement allegations. Monsanto’s harassment of family farmers is well known in farm country, the biotech seed and chemical giant has one of the most aggressive patent assertion agendas in U.S. history. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 cases out of court for undisclosed amounts and imposing gag orders on farmers. The farmers’ fears were heightened when Monsanto refused to provide a legally binding covenant not to sue, signaling Monsanto’s intention to maintain their option to sue innocent family farmers in the future.

“America’s farmers deserve to be protected under the law from the unwanted genetic contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s flawed genetically engineered seed technology,” said David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of Food Democracy Now!, an Iowa-based national advocacy organization of more than 300,000 members. “These farmers have no desire to use Monsanto’s GMO seeds, yet they are forced into the untenable position of losing their right to farm in the manner in which they choose, face legal intimidation and the loss of economic livelihood, all because America’s legal system has failed to adequately protect them from the real threat of genetic trespass that is inherent as a result of Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds and the natural biological functions of cross pollination from wind, insects or animals.”

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).

Gary Hirshberg, chairman of JLI Campaign partner Stonyfield, stated that, “In recent years, Americans have shown a real interest in knowing more about our food and now there is a clear mandate for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. This petition asks the FDA to stand up for the rights of average Americans, and not just a handful of powerful chemical companies. It’s time for the FDA to give Americans the same rights held by citizens in forty nations, including all of our major trade partners, to know whether our foods have been genetically modified. The FDA needs to restore confidence in our food and our right to know about the food we eat and feed our families.”

FDA can take up to six months to review the merits of the petition, which was drafted by attorneys from the Center for Food Safety, and deliver a public response. Beyond Pesticides is working with partners on several initiatives beyond the labeling petition to reverse the accelerating introduction of GE products into agriculture and the food supply. Beyond Pesticides is among the plaintiffs appealing a federal judge’s January 2012 ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to deregulate (allow for planting) GE alfalfa was not unlawful. Beyond Pesticides is also among the plaintiffs appealing a separate federal court ruling to dismiss a lawsuit to shield farmers from being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto should they become contaminated by drift of the company’s genetically engineered seed.

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 serious 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 FDA acts to implement the labeling requirements contained in the JLI Campaign petition, American consumers will have no assurance that the conventionally produced foods they purchase and consume do not contain GE ingredients.

Source: Just Label It Campaign press release

Bees and other pollinators are still dying off at catastrophic rates —commercial beekeepers lost an average of 36% of their hives last year, according to USDA. Honey bees pollinate one in every three bites of our food and, as indicator species, they serve as sentinels whom we ignore at our peril.

As the public debate over causes of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) —a syndrome in which bees seemingly abandon their hives— carries on in the media, more and more new science has shown that neonicotinoid pesticides are indeed a critical piece of the puzzle. Neonicotinoids like clothianidin may not be the sole cause of CCD, but they are making our bees sick, and at least one of them is on the market illegally. While we may not know the exact cause of CCD, EPA knows enough to act, and has the authority and responsibility to suspend clothianidin —yet for over a year the agency has failed to do so.

Take Action: We will continue to pressure EPA to take action on clothianidin, but in the meantime, join our petition urging Congress to step up!

Additionally, Beyond Pesticides’ 30th National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Communities: Green solutions for safe environments will feature the lawyer who drafted the legal petition to EPA, beekeepers, and unirversity researcher of groundbreaking research. Peter Jenkins, Center for Food Safety lawyer; David Hackenberg, beekeeper to first discover Colony Collapse Disorder; Christian Krupke, PhD, Purdue entomologist, who discovered EPA was severely underestimating honey bee exposure to pesticides; Robert Deschak, core member of the New York City Beekeepers Association who keeps hives on NYC rooftops; Ted and Becky Jones, owners of Jones’ Apiaries, and president and treasurer of the Connecticut Beekeepers’ Association, who will be bringing a demonstration hive to the conference. The conference will be held at Yale University on March 30-31, 2012. For more information, including registration, see www.beyondpesticides.org/forum

Petition to Congress

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, Leader Pelosi and Leader McConnell:

EPA’s failure to act on a meaningful timeline is what has compelled us to ask you to exercise your oversight authority as members of Congress. As citizens, we feel that we have exhausted all other measures. We have written letters, made phone calls and submitted petitions. We are keeping bees and planting pesticide-free havens to provide safe forage. We will continue to do our part, but we need your support to make the system work.

In last week’s ruling, Judge Theodore Katz ordered FDA to notify drug manufacturers of its intention to revoke approval for uses of penicillin and tetracycline to promote growth in livestock. FDA must schedule hearings to let drug manufacturers make their case, and if the drug manufacturers cannot prove that the use of these antibiotics in livestock feed is safe, the agency must withdraw approval. The judge’s decision makes it clear that the voluntary approach FDA proposed last year when terminating the rulemaking process does not satisfy the agency’s legal obligations. “In the intervening years (since 1977 — ed.), the scientific evidence of the risks to human health from the widespread use ofantibiotics in livestock has grown, and there is no evidence the FDA has changed its position that such uses are not shown to be safe,” Judge Katz wrote in his order.

The legal victory resulted from a lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen, and Union of Concerned Scientists. “The rise of superbugs that we see now was predicted by F.D.A. in the ’70s,” said Jen Sorenson, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Thanks to the court’s order, drug manufacturers will finally have to do what FDA should have made them do 35 years ago: prove that their drugs are safe for human health, or take them off the market.”

Dating to the 1950s, feeding sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics such as penicillin and tetracycline to livestock has become so common that it accounts for upwards of 80% of those materials’ annual usage in the United States. The practice is chronic in the industrial-style production systems referred to as confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, in which the vast majority of the country’s swine, poultry and cattle are raised. The unsanitary conditions produced by packing excessive numbers of animals into an unnatural environment create the risk of infectious disease outbreaks that would be averted under living conditions appropriate to each species. CAFO operators capitalize on the accelerated weight gain and improved feed conversion efficiencies associated with animals fed sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics.

The American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and hundreds of other organizations have recommended that livestock producers be prohibited from using antibiotics for growth promotion if those antibiotics are also used in human medicine. Denmark, the world’s largest pork exporter, banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in broiler chickens and adult swine in 1998, and in young swine in 1999. Danish government and industry data collected since then show a sustained decrease both in overall antibiotic use and in the amount of antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in livestock and meat products, while livestock production has increased. Denmark and other countries which have eliminated using sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics for accelerated growth rates and prophylactic disease control do not prevent veterinarians from treating livestock with those materials when medically appropriate.

Feeding sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to healthy livestock is not the only reckless practice leading to accelerated resistance among dangerous infectious organisms. Beyond Pesticides and a national coalition of partners are leading a grassroots campaign to ban the use of the antimicrobial compound triclosan in consumer products. Widely used in antimicrobial soaps and personal care products and even clothing, triclosan has been detected in human milk samples and in urine at high concentrations that correlate with its use pattern in these products. Recent studies have found that triclosan interferes with the body’s thyroid hormone metabolism and may be a potential endocrine disruptor. Children exposed to antibacterial compounds at an early age also have an increased chance of developing allergies, asthma and eczema.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification standards prohibit treating livestock with any amount of antibiotics. The standards also require that producers maintain living conditions that prevent infectious diseases from becoming established and adversely impacting livestock health. Currently, organic farmers growing apples and pears are allowed to use the antibiotics streptomycin and tetracycline to control a fruit tree disease called fire blight. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the principle advisory body responsible for advising USDA on its organic certification program, has been increasingly reluctant to extend these allowances due to concerns about accelerated resistance in pathogenic organisms and the availability of effective cultural practices and biological treatments for managing fire blight. The NOSB has recommended extending the use of tetracycline and streptomycin to manage fire blight in pear and apple trees through October 2014 pending commercialization of alternative production options.

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council blog

“EPA has an obligation to protect pollinators from the threat of pesticides,” said Jeff Anderson of California Minnesota Honey Farms, a co-petitioner. “The Agency has failed to adequately regulate pesticides harmful to pollinators despite scientific and on-the-ground evidence presented by academics and beekeepers.”

Over two dozen beekeepers and beekeeper organizations from across the country, from California and Minnesota to Kansas and New York, filed the legal petition with the EPA today. Many of these family-owned beekeeping operations are migratory, with beekeepers traveling the country from state-to-state, during different months of the year to providing pollination services and harvesting honey and wax. And they are concerned about the continued impacts on bees and their beekeeping operations, which are already in jeopardy.

“The future of beekeeping faces numerous threats, including from clothianidin, and we need to take steps to protect pollinators and the livelihood of beekeepers,” said Steve Ellis of Old Mill Honey Co and a co-petitioner.

Nine years ago, scientists within the EPA required a field study examining the potential harms of clothianidin to non-target insects – specifically honey bees – because they had reason to believe the pesticide may harm pollinators. In the years since EPA first required this study, a substantial body of scientific evidence has confirmed that the use of clothianidin, a persistent chemical, presents substantial risks to honey bees and other insects that are in or near recently sown fields.

“Independent research links pollinator declines, especially honey bees, to a wide range of problems with industrial agriculture, especially pesticides,” said John Kepner, program director at Beyond Pesticides and a co-petitioner.

The legal petition points to the fact that EPA failed to follow its own regulations. EPA 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 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 allowing its use to begin with. 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.

“EPA ignored its own requirements and failed to study the impacts of clothianidin on honey bees,” said Peter Jenkins, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety and co-petitioner. “The body of evidence against the chemical continues to grow, yet the agency has refused to take action.”

Over 1.25 million people, including many hobbyist beekeepers, submitted comments in partnership with the organizations Avaaz, Change.org, Credo, Pesticide Action Network, Beyond Pesticides and Neals Yard Remedies/Care2.com, calling on EPA to take action on clothianidin.

“EPA should move swiftly to close the loophole and revoke the conditional registration of clothianidin,” said Heather Pilatic, co-director of Pesticide Action Network and a co-petitioner. “Bees and beekeepers can’t afford to wait another nine years for inaction.”

Petitioners point to the agency’s demonstrated delay in analyzing potentially harmful products and then taking them off the market. EPA is concurrently conducting a review of clothianidin’s registration, which it projects completing in 2018.

Beekeepers estimate the real value of their operations at $50 billion, based on retail value of food and crop grown from seed that relies upon bee pollination. Bees in particular are responsible for pollinating many high-value crops, including pumpkins, cherries, cranberries, almonds, apples, watermelons, and blueberries. So any decline in bee populations, health and productivity can have especially large impacts on agriculture, the food system and rural economies. Honey bees are the most economically important pollinators in the world, according to a recent United Nations report on the global decline of pollinator populations.

Beekeepers have survived the economic recession only to find their operations are still threatened. Recent, catastrophic declines in honey bee populations, termed “Colony Collapse Disorder,” have been linked to a wide variety of factors, including parasites, habitat loss and pesticides like clothianidin.

Neonicotinoids, a class of systemic pesticides, is taken up a plant and expressed through the plants through which bees then forage and pollinate. Recent research in the journal PLoS ONE underscores the threat of these pesticides through a previously undocumented exposure route — planter exhaust — the talc and air mix expelled into the environment as automated planters place neonicotinoid-treated seeds into the ground during spring planting.

As a result of the petition, EPA may choose to suspend the use of clothianidin, or open a public comment process to evaluate the concerns voiced by beekeepers and environmental organizations.

The text of the legal petition is available here.

Take Action:
Solutions to the loss of bees and human productivity are within our reach if we engage our communities and governmental bodies. Make your yard pesticide-free, bee-friendly habitat. Sign the pledge and map your Pesticide Free Zone.

The former plant and the adjacent canal, called the Lauritzen Channel, an inlet of the greater San Francisco bay, is one of the most polluted places in the nation. DDT levels have not decreased in the channel even after numerous dredging and other mitigation measures. In fact concentrations have increased. By 2011, DDT concentrations exceeded 1994 levels and some fish have DDT levels in their tissues hundreds of times higher than their counterparts in the rest of the San Francisco Bay. EPA said earlier this month it is launching a three-year plan to help unravel the mystery of why cleanup attempts are failing, and will work with the city to increase awareness among anglers who rely on bay fish to supplement their diets. The area is used by recreational and subsistence fishermen, despite multi-lingual signs posted by the state warning against eating fish or shellfish from the canal because of DDT pollution. The Action Plan includes collecting additional data to be used to formulate a long-term cleanup solution as well as implementing a short-term immediate cleanup action to determine the source of DDT re-contaminating the Lauritzen Channel, and to evaluate sediment movement in and out of the Channel. EPA will also continue to collect sediment, mussel, and fish samples to evaluate the trend of DDT in the environment.

DDT, an organochlorine pesticide banned by the U.S. in 1972, was dumped into a shipping channel near the city of Richmond by the pesticide processing company United Heckathorn starting in the late 1940s and ending in 1966. DDT can cause liver damage and seizures, and EPA considers it a possible carcinogen. A long line of recent studies associated with the negative health effects of DDT include breast cancer and autism. Despite the fact that DDT was banned in the U.S. 40 years ago, concentrations of this toxic chemical’s major metabolite, DDE, have remained alarmingly high in many ecosystems, including surface waters, the arctic, and even U.S. national parks. Organochlorines like DDT have also been linked to a number of adverse effects to human health, including birth defects and diabetes. Exposure to DDT can occur by eating contaminated fish, which is why subsistence fishing communities like those in Richmond are considered at risk. The California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued fish advisories that recommend no consumption of fish from the Lauritzen Channel and recommends limited consumption of fish from San Francisco Bay.

California water quality officials first discovered DDT pollution in San Francisco Bay in 1960. At the time, DDT was still used to control mosquitoes for malaria abatement, and in agriculture. During this time, studies found DDT was killing bald eagles and other bird species along the California coast, and that the pesticide bioaccumulated in the tissues of animals throughout the food chain. Records show that California designated the canal as a Superfund site in 1982, and state tests of mussels at the time found the highest levels of DDT ever recorded in the state. EPA Superfund records show its first cleanup attempt was in 1990, when layers of pesticide residue up to three-feet thick were removed. EPA in 1998 dredged three tons of DDT-laced sludge from the bottom of the canal and contaminated soil from adjacent land. The agency also placed a cement cap over the soil to help prevent runoff into the canal.

EPA will conduct community involvement activities so the residents are better informed and involved in the cleanup effort. It also plans to brief the City Council periodically at its televised meetings, and established interest groups that keep a pulse on the environmental activities in the city.

If you live in the San Francisco Bay area and would like more information or would like to participate, contact Jacqueline A. Lane Community Involvement Coordinator, (SFD-6-3)(415) 972-3236, [email protected].

Source: Mercury News

The entomologists’ comments were cited recently in published research documenting the first field-evolved resistance of the western corn rootworm to certain Bt strains. They draw a connection between this research and field reports of greater than expected rootworm damage (an indication of emerging resistance) first observed in 2009. Detections of greater than expected damage grew into substantial problem areas in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota over the past two years. The entomologists concluded that these reports, combined with supplemental laboratory studies, indicate that western corn rootworm resistance to the Bt toxin Cry3Bb1is solidly established in the field and likely spreading. Cry3Bb1 was the first Bt toxin inserted into corn and is now partnered with a second toxin, Cry34/35Ab1, in the widely planted SmartStax © seed technology used by Monsanto and licensed to other seed producers.

The entomologists expressed concern that rapid emergence of resistance to the Cry3Bb1 toxin will quickly compromise the effectiveness of all other toxins with which it is partnered in so-called “pyramid” seeds. Planting more of a failing toxin and/or more of an effective toxin over a larger area increases the risk of resistance. They specifically question recent EPA decisions to significantly reduce the size of the non-Bt corn refuges that growers raising Bt corn are required to maintain. These refuges, which are mandated as part of registering each variety of Bt corn as a pesticide, are designed to ensure that breeding occurs between non-resistant rootworms from the untreated corn and any resistant individuals that emerge from the areas planted in Bt varieties. Such breeding is intended to dilute the frequency of genes that impart resistance and inhibit their transference to the next generation of rootworms.

The entomologists conclude that the reduced size requirements for refuges could significantly accelerate the emergence of rootworms resistant to the multiple toxin strains expressed in Bt corn. They state that further research would be necessary to support EPA’s decision to drop the refuge size requirements, typically set at 20% when Bt corn varieties were first planted, to as low as 5% for more recent registrations. Their comments also question EPA’s approval of the “refuge in a bag” procedure that allows farmers to inter-seed Bt and non-Bt varieties rather than establish discrete areas for each. The principal benefit of the refuge in a bag procedure is convenience, since farmers can mix seed once and plant continuously. Recent compliance data that seed companies are required to collect indicates that upwards of 40% of farmers are not complying with the refuge requirements currently in place.

The entomologists advise EPA to redirect its approach to resistance management in Bt corn by requiring farmers to adopt more proven IPM strategies. They noted that alternating the mode of action was a fundamental principle of IPM, yet EPA currently allows farmers to plant seed varieties expressing the same toxin or toxins in the same field year after year, even in areas of known significant rootworm pressure. The entomologists also express concern that too few varieties of non-Bt corn are commercially available because the seed companies were including the toxins in all their high yielding (and higher priced) varieties. They conclude that, in the absence of acceptable non-Bt alternatives, farmers find themselves compelled to plant Bt varieties, even in regions where that trait offers little to no commercial value.

The western corn rootworm is a potentially devastating pest that does its greatest damage during its larval stage by feeding upon the plant’s roots. Severe feeding inhibits the plant’s ability to absorb moisture and nutrients and opens a pathway for attack from soil-borne pathogens. Before monoculture production became standard practice for many farms, the western rootworm could be effectively managed by crop rotations, including pasture, hay, and legume crop components because the insect starves in fields not planted in corn.

Christian Krupke, Ph.D. of Purdue University and an expert on the adverse environmental impacts of GE crops, signed on to the letter. Dr. Krupke, who recently published groundbreaking research on the exposure of honey bees and other pollinators to neonicotinoid pesticides applied to corn seed, will be speaking at Healthy Communities, Beyond Pesticides’ 30th National Pesticide Forum, March 30-31 at Yale University.

For more information on current issues involving genetically engineered agriculture, read Beyond Pesticides’ article and George Kimbrell’s talk from our 29th National Pesticides Forum.

Source: NPR’s The Salt

Dozens of substances that can mimic or block estrogen, testosterone and other hormones are found in the environment, the food supply and consumer products, including plastics, pesticides and cosmetics. One of the biggest, longest-lasting controversies about these chemicals is whether the tiny doses that most people are exposed to are harmful.

In the new report, researchers led by Tufts University’s Laura Vandenberg, PhD, concluded after examining hundreds of studies that health effects “are remarkably common” when people or animals are exposed to low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds. As examples, evidence is provided for several controversial chemicals, including BPA, found in polycarbonate plastic, canned foods and paper receipts, and atrazine, used in large volumes, mainly on corn.

The scientists conclude that scientific evidence “clearly indicates that low doses cannot be ignored.” They cite evidence of a wide range of health effects in people —from fetuses to aging adults— including links to infertility, cardiovascular disease, obesity, cancer, and other disorders. “Whether low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds influence human disorders is no longer conjecture, as epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures are associated with human diseases and disabilities,” the report says.

In addition, the scientists took on the issue of whether a decades-old strategy for testing most chemicals —exposing lab rodents to high doses then extrapolating down for real-life human exposures— is adequate to protect people. The authors conclude that it is not and urged reforms. Some hormone-like chemicals have health effects at low doses that do not occur at high doses. “Current testing paradigms are missing important, sensitive endpoints” for human health, the report says. “The effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.”

Linda Birnbaum, PhD., director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the new report is valuable “because it pulls a tremendous amount of information together” about endocrine-disrupting compounds. Her agency is the main one that studies health effects of contaminants in the environment. Dr. Birnbaum said she agrees with their main finding: All chemicals that can disrupt hormones should be tested in ultra-low doses relevant to real human exposures, she said.

However, the scientists who wrote the report said that low-dose science “has been disregarded or considered insignificant by many.” They seemed to aim much of their findings at the National Toxicology Program and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA in 2008 discounted low-dose studies when it concluded that BPA in consumer products was safe. Two years later, the agency shifted its opinion, stating that they now will more closely examine studies showing low-dose effects. The National Toxicology Program in 2008 found that BPA poses “some risks” to human health but rejected other risks because studies were inconsistent.

Several of the report’s authors have been criticized by some other scientists and industry representatives because they have become outspoken advocates for testing, regulating, and replacing endocrine-disrupting compounds. The scientists, however, say they feel compelled to speak out because regulatory agencies are slow to act and they are concerned about the health of people, especially infants and children, and wildlife.

Endocrinologists have long known that infinitesimal amounts of estrogen, testosterone, thyroid hormones and other natural hormones can have big health effects, particularly on fetuses. It comes as no surprise to them that manmade substances with hormonal properties might have big effects, too. “There truly are no safe doses for chemicals that act like hormones, because the endocrine system is designed to act at very low levels,” Dr. Vandenberg, a postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University’s Levin Lab Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, told Environmental Health News.

But many toxicologists subscribe to “the dose makes the poison” conventional wisdom. In other words, it takes a certain size dose of something to be toxic. They also are accustomed to seeing an effect from chemicals called “monotonic,” which means the responses of an animal or person go up or down with the dose.

The scientists in the new review said neither of those applies to hormone-like chemicals. “Accepting these phenomena should lead to paradigm shifts in toxicological studies, and will likely also have lasting effects on regulatory science,” they wrote. In the report, the scientists are concerned that government has determined “safe” levels for “a significant number of endocrine-disrupting compounds” that have never been tested at low levels. The authors urged “greatly expanded and generalized safety testing.” “We suggest setting the lowest dose in the experiment below the range of human exposures, if such a dose is known,” they wrote.

For more information on the effects of pesticides on human health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

Source: Environmental Health News

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