As with every agricultural production system, seed is of fundamental importance to organic farmers. However, seed issues in organic agriculture remain especially challenging because of the extremely limited resources that have been dedicated to research and commercial distribution of seeds appropriate for certified operations. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification standard s require that farmers select seed varieties adapted to site-specific conditions including resistance to prevalent pests, weeds, and diseases. However, publicly funded plant breeding programs to develop such locally adapted varieties has decreased dramatically over the past several decades and until very recently none of the funding was dedicated to organic systems. Additionally, the concentration of the commercial seed trade in recent years has constrained farmers’ ability to source varieties that have traditionally met their needs.

A second requirement of organic certification is that farmers use organically certified seed unless certain conditions based on commercial availability make doing so impossible. The ambiguity of the commercial availability provision and how farmers must document compliance with the requirement have impeded consistent enforcement of the regulation. As a consequence, some certified farmers continue to use non-organic seed (although no prohibited seed treatments are ever allowed) while organic seed producers have struggled to develop markets. Research such as that now being conducted under the Seed Matters Fellowships will lead to improved seed varieties specifically adapted to organic production systems and thereby enhancing compliance with the current standards and expanding the market for organic products.

“Organic seed systems are the underlying foundation for healthy resilient farming and food systems,” said Matthew Dillon, cultivator of Seed Matters. “Seed is a farmer’s first line of defense against pests and global climate disruption, and has a huge impact on the nutrition and overall quality of the food we eat.” Professors managing the fellowships include Stephen Jones, Ph.D., at Washington State University, whose work with wheat engages farmers, millers and bakers in restoring their local grain economies; Kevin Murphy, Ph.D., also at Washington State University, who is breeding cover crops and heritage grain such as quinoa and spelt; and, William Tracy, Ph.D., at University of Wisconsin-Madison, whose sweet corn breeding is improving the quality of genetics available to organic farmers in cooler northern climates.

The Organic Seed Alliance (OSA), a national non”profit organization committed to the ethical development and stewardship of the genetic that sees developing and protecting organic seed systems as a top priority for organic food and farming. OSA also researches issues related to the performance of organic seeds in the field including genetic contamination attributable to genetically modified organisms. OSA’s authoritative 2011 report State of Organic concluded that “Organic seed that is appropriate for regional agronomic challenges, market needs, regulations and the social and ecological values of organic agriculture is fundamental to the success of organic farmers and the food system they supply.”

In January, the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) announced a $12,200 grant to the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Preservation to support the work of farmers who produce organic seeds. In recent years, organic growers have become increasingly concerned that pollinating bees may contaminate organic plants with pollen from non-organic crops. The project will identify native bee species that are drawn to specific crops. By improving conditions for such pollinators, researchers expect seed production to increase significantly. That would lead to lower costs to farmers purchasing the seed, lower prices for consumers and decrease in genetic contamination.

Beyond Pesticides maintains extensive resources related to the environmental, economic and human health benefits of organic production systems on our organic webpage. For more information on supporting organic production and upholding the integrity of organic certification by improving compliance with standards such as the requirement for farmers to use organic seed, please visit our Keeping Organic Strong webpage and see The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food, published in Beyond Pesticides’ quarterly news magazine Pesticides and You.

Source: Seed Matters Press Release

IPM is a systematic approach to managing pests based on long-term prevention or suppression by a variety of methods that are cost effective and minimize risks to human health and the environment. The goal of urban IPM is to manage pests primarily by prevention and elimination of their access to food, water and harborages, exclusion techniques that seal entryways, as well as changes in human behavior. Low-toxicity insecticides were used only when necessary.

In their article “Advancement of Integrated Pest Management in University Housing,” the JIPM authors find that the IPM program helps to virtually eliminate the use of hydramethylnon, borate, desiccants, organophosphates, fipronil, and pyrethroids, and they conclude that further IPM advancements can be made by increasing resident education, technician training, and the level of pest preventative inspection and maintenance.

The researchers describe their approach in the study:

“The DOHRE [Department of Housing and Residence Education] began using basic IPM practices for UF housing and residence halls in 2003, including routine apartment inspections, sanitation requirements, requests for maintenance to UF Facilities Management, and use of low-risk insecticides and baits. Low-risk products had the signal word “caution” on their EPA labels. To advance the initial UF, DOHRE IPM program, all bait stations for ants and cockroaches were removed from the apartments and prophylactic insecticide treatments were discontinued. In 2008, we instituted the following: a written IPM policy, a dedicated IPM specialist trained at UF, prescribed pest prevention practices, education of residents about insects, a pest monitoring system, accurate pest identification, an electronic pest complaint procedure, a rapid response and collaborative decision-making process, preferential use of nonchemical pest management methods, application of low-risk insecticides if necessary, continuous IPM program evaluation, and comprehensive record keeping.”

By educating residents on the importance to IPM of sanitation and maintenance, most pest problems were able to be dealt with effectively without having to resort to chemical controls. As a result, the authors state that the UF IPM program “effectively maintained minimal pest levels, indicated by a continuous low number of pest complaints, while decreasing the amount of insecticide applied by 92%.”

Beyond Pesticides defines IPM as a program of prevention, monitoring, and control which offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce the use of pesticides, and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to any products that are used. IPM does this by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological and structural strategies to control a multitude of pest problems. Beyond Pesticides recommends the implementation of a defined IPM system to prevent pest problems with non-chemical management strategies and only least-toxic pesticides as a last resort.

IPM is a term that is used loosely with many different definitions and methods of implementation. IPM can mean virtually anything the practitioner wants it to mean. Beware of chemical dependent programs masquerading as IPM.

Those who argue that IPM requires the ability to spray pesticides immediately after identifying a pest problem are not describing IPM. Conventional pest control tends to ignore the causes of pest infestations and instead rely on routine, scheduled pesticide applications. Pesticides are often temporary fixes, ineffective over the long term. Studies such as this one documenting the UF IPM program demonstrate that this approach is not necessary to control pest problems.

Source: Entomological Society of America

Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products containing GE ingredients in an effort to sway consumer demand. The European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, require labeling for GE foods. Recently, the German corporation BASF announced that it would stop developing genetically engineered products targeting the European market, in part due to low consumer demand. Given that a that 93% of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, Beyond Pesticides believes that we can have the same impact here as in Europe.

In addition, the Just Label It campaign recently released a video by Food, Inc. filmmaker Robert Kenner. Stonyfield Farm Chairman Gary Hirshberg, a founder of JLI who was in Food, Inc., approached Mr. Kenner on behalf of the campaign to partner on the video:

“”˜Labels Matter’ captures my conviction that consumers have the right to know what is in their food,” said Kenner, who produced and directed the Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning documentary Food, Inc. “Labels Matter” is a part of Mr. Kenner’s FixFood project, a social media platform to empower Americans to take immediate action to create a more sustainable and democratic food system.

Organizers of the Just Label It (JLI) campaign predict that consumer demand for mandatory GE labeling is only going to get louder as FDA prepares to approve GE salmon and a proposal advances at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate corn engineered to be resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D, a major component in Agent Orange.

In the video, three consumers share why they want to know what is in the food they eat. One is a mother whose child developed an allergic reaction to breakfast. Another is a pregnant woman who knows what she eats affects her developing fetus. The third has recently had a heart attack and wants to monitor what she eats.

“While the pros and cons of GE foods are debated, an entire generation is growing up consuming them,” said Mr. Hirshberg. “Until we have no doubt that GE crops are safe to eat, consumers should have a choice about whether we want to eat them. GE foods must be labeled. Consumers need to know.”

The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is by purchasing foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited. For many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers.

Unfortunately, the current lax regulations on genetically engineered crops in the U.S. presents a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have high risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. No provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GE planted barriers around sites planted with GE crops.

About Just Label It
The JUST LABEL IT: We Have the Right to Know campaign is dedicated to the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, also referred to as genetically modified, or GMOs. The JUST LABEL IT message is simple: consumers have a right to know what is in our food so we can make informed choices about what we eat and feed our families. At the Just Label It website, (www.justlabelit.org/takeaction), people can submit a comment to FDA in support of the petition.

About Robert Kenner
Director Robert Kenner has won an array of awards and garnered rave reviews for his documentary work exposing some of today’s least-talked-about, but most impactful, social and environmental issues. Considered a craftsman of documentaries, Kenner is also a public speaker on environmental, social, health, and political issues. His documentary, Food, Inc. won two Emmys and was nominated for an Academy Award.

Exposure to low doses of organochlorine pesticides has been previously linked to common diseases like type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Vitamin D deficiency has similarly been associated with a rise in chronic diseases, but the two have been studied separately by researchers in different fields. The study, “Associations between Organochlorine Pesticides and Vitamin D Deficiency in the U.S. Population,” compared serum concentrations of organochlorine (OC) pesticides with serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), a vitamin D pre-hormone, which is used to assess vitamin D levels in the body. It concludes that background exposure to some OC pesticides can lead to vitamin D deficiency in humans.

The U.S.-Korean research team studied 1275 adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES), 2003—2004, aged 20 years or older, and checked their blood for several organochlorine pesticides. Cross-sectional associations of serum OC pesticides with serum 25(OH)D were examined. DDT and beta-hexachlorocyclohexane levels in the study volunteers showed significant associations with lower serum concentrations of the vitamin D pre-hormone, 25(OH)D. Stronger associations tended to be observed among subjects with old age, white race, or chronic diseases.

“We have known for many years that DDT causes egg shell thinning,” says David Carpenter, PhD, director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany, New York. “Since egg shell thickness is regulated by vitamin D, this study shows that the same suppression of vitamin D occurs in humans.”

Most organochlorine pesticides were banned in the U.S. decades ago, but are still detectable in people because they resist biodegradation in the environment, are lipophilic and accumulate in fat tissues, and are transported globally in the air. However, organochlorine uses do continue in the U.S., although EPA has proclaimed that they represent unreasonable risks. Under an agreement EPA negotiated in July 2010, most currently approved endosulfan crop uses will end in 2012, including over 30 crop uses plus use on ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. About 12 other crop uses will end over the following four years. Of these 12, the last four endosulfan uses will end on July 31, 2016. See details on EPA’s phase-out agreement. Under a separate agreement signed last year, dicofol, an organochlorine miticide/pesticide, may continue to be used through 2016 for foliar applications on cotton, apples, citrus, strawberries, mint, beans, peppers, tomatoes, pecans, walnuts, stonefruit, cucurbits, and non-residential lawns/ornamentals. According to EPA, “[T]race amounts of DDT (<0.1%) have been measured in dicofol products given its use in the manufacture of dicofol..." Lindane shampoos for lice and lotion for scabies is still permitted by the Food ad Drug Administration as prescription only products. The wood preservative, pentachlorophenol, is still allowed by EPA to be used on treated telephone poles that line streets and backyards across the country. Organochlorines have been linked to a number of adverse effects to human health, including birth defects and diabetes. One study found a correlation between organochlorine metabolites in fatty tissue and an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The most infamous member of this class of pesticides if DDT. 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. in 1972, 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.

Studies like these illustrate how the health impacts of pesticides can be often subtle and delayed, and pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database captures the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, is continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

The technical bulletin contains guidance on using the specialized equipment that enables farmers to move beyond either routine tillage or pesticide applications. The key piece of equipment is a roller-crimper that knocks down the residues from annual crops and crimps them at a standard interval to create a thick vegetative mat into which the next crop is directly planted. The roller-crimper can knock down residues from a cereal crop, such as wheat and oats, or leguminous cover crops including red clover and hairy vetch. Farmers have a wide variety of options for what they plant next, from commodity crops. including corn and soybeans, to high value vegetables. The knocked-down vegetative mat remains more or less intact and in place, thereby reducing decomposition rates and increasing the time the mulch stays on the soil surface and works to suppress weeds. While roller-crimpers are not currently in wide use, the technology is relatively simple and purchasing or custom- building an appropriate model is within the standard equipment budget of most commercial farmers.

In addition to the technical details including equipment choices and cover crop and crop rotation recommendations, the bulletin contains economic and energy budgets that highlight the potential benefits of organic no-till systems. For example, total expenses in an organic no-till organic system are more than 20% lower compared to a tilled organic system due to significantly lower labor, fuel, and equipment costs. Research cited in the bulletin determined that production in a no-till organic system requires close to 30% fewer energy inputs than tilled organic corn production. The biggest energy savings result from the reduced number of field operations that farmers must undertake. In a tilled organic system up to 10 field passes may be required from cover crop termination to harvesting of the main crop (plowing, disking, packing, planting, and several cultivations for weed control), whereas the no-till roller/crimper system can take as few as two passes (rolling and planting and harvesting). Ongoing research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Sustainable Agricultural Systems Lab (SASL) finds that organic grain production reduces greenhouse gas emissions relative to chemical-intensive no-till and chisel-plow production systems.

The no-till cropping systems technical bulletin was partially funded through a grant from the USDA’s Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program. Authorized under the 1985 Farm Bill, SARE operates nationally to advance the whole of American agriculture through innovations that improve profitability, stewardship and quality of life by investing in groundbreaking research and education. The SARE Learning Center contains an extensive collection of print and multimedia resources that provide farmers and consumers with field-proven information on building local, organic and sustainable food production and distribution systems.

For more information on how choosing organic food can protect the environment and human health including that of farmworkers, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience campaign. Our organic program page offers a broader range of information on organic agriculture including updates on Beyond Pesticide’s ongoing work to maintain the integrity of organic certification standards and procedures. Also, see contrasting opinion pieces recently published in the Atlanta Journal Constituion, with the industry position pushing the use of the herbicide atrazine, arguing it’s good for the environment, and Beyond Pesticides’ view that the chemicals are hazardous and unnecessary in organic no-till.

Source: Rodale Institute

According to the NRC report, without a coordinated research plan to help guide efforts to manage and avoid potential risks, the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology is uncertain. The report presents a strategic approach for developing research and a scientific infrastructure needed to address potential health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. Its effective implementation would require sufficient management and budgetary authority to direct research across federal agencies.

Nanoscale engineering manipulates materials at the molecular level to create structures with unique and useful properties -materials that are both very strong and very light, for example. Many of the products containing nanomaterials on the market now are for skin care and cosmetics, but nanomaterials are also increasingly being used in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics. In 2009, developers generated $1 billion from the sale of nanomaterials, and the market for products that rely on these materials is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2015.

Nanotechnology is a powerful new platform technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, those same new properties — tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity — can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Scientists and researchers are becoming increasingly concerned with the potential impacts of these particles on public health and the environment. A 2010 study by scientists from Oregon State University and the European Union highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides.

The NRC committee that wrote the report found that over the last seven years there has been considerable effort internationally to identify research needs for the development and safe use of nanotechnology, including those of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which coordinates U.S. federal investments in nanoscale research and development. However, there has not been sufficient linkage between research and research findings and the creation of strategies to prevent and manage any risks. For instance, little progress has been made on the effects of ingested nanomaterials on human health and other potential health and environmental effects of complex nanomaterials that are expected to enter the market over the next decade. Therefore, there is the need for a research strategy that is independent of any one stakeholder group, has human and environmental health as its primary focus, builds on past efforts, and is flexible in anticipating and adjusting to emerging challenges, the committee said.

Implementation of the committee’s recommended research strategy should also include the integration of domestic and international participants involved in nanotechnology-related research, including the NNI, federal agencies, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and the academic community. The committee said that the current structure of the NNI -which has only coordinating functions across federal agencies and no top-down budgetary or management authority to direct nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research- hinders its accountability for effective implementation. In addition, there is concern that dual and potentially conflicting roles of the NNI, such as developing and promoting nanotechnology while identifying and mitigating risks that arise from its use, impede application and evaluation of health and environmental risk research. To carry out the research strategy effectively, a clear separation of management and budgetary authority and accountability between promoting nanotechnology and assessing potential environmental and safety risks is essential.

In May 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed a legal petition with EPA, demanding the agency use its pesticide regulation authority to stop the sale of 250+ consumer products now using nanosized versions of silver. As a result of this petition, EPA announced plans to obtain information on nanoscale materials in pesticide products.

Additionally, in December 2011, a coalition of six consumer safety groups filed suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (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 the coalition filed calling for regulatory actions, including nano-specific product labeling, health and safety testing, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. The lawsuit cites numerous studies and reports published since 2006 that establish significant data gaps concerning nanomaterials’ potential effects on human health and the environment. Led by ICTA, the coalition calls for FDA to take immediate action to assess the actual risks from nanomaterials and implement appropriate protective measures for consumers. FDA recently released draft guidelines to industries about when the use of nanomaterials might trigger regulatory interest.

In October 2010, the National Organic Standards Board passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program 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.

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

Source: The National Academies

Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. A 2008 study by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher finds that the incidence rate of pesticide poisoning is extremely high among U.S. agricultural workers. An average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 agricultural workers experience acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year, the same order of magnitude as the annual incidence rate of breast cancer in the United States. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, they and their children are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments and Parkinson’s disease.

Southern New Jersey has a large population of migrant farm workers. For the past 20 years, CATA has managed an environmental program that provides information on pesticide protection, the reduction of harmful chemicals in the workplace and general health and safety training. The EPA funding to CATA will help farm workers implement worker protection standards and identify training needs. Under the project funded by the grant, the group will survey workers and train them using the We Work with Pesticides curriculum developed by the Farm Worker Health and Safety Institute and approved by the EPA.

“EPA environmental justice grants provide much needed funds to tackle local pollution problems in low income communities,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “Exposure to pesticides can have serious effects on people’s health. The grant to Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas will train migrant farm workers in southern New Jersey about steps they can take to better protect their health on the job.”

According to EPA, environmental justice means the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race or income, in the environmental decision-making process. Since 1994, the environmental justice small grants program has provided more than $23 million in funding to community-based nonprofit organizations and local governments working to address environmental justice issues in more than 1,200 communities. The grants further EPA’s commitment to expand the conversation on environmentalism and advance environmental justice in communities across the nation.

Though the grant program is an important and necessary tool to help solve the problem with environmental justice issues, much work still needs to be done on EPA’s behalf to effectively protect workers. A 2006 report released by the Inspector General (IG), EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Its Programs, Policies and Activities, found that senior management at EPA has not directed program and regional offices to conduct environmental justice reviews as required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898. The report said, “Until these program and regional offices perform environmental justice reviews, the Agency cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.” In late 2011, several farmworker groups filed a petition with EPA to implement stronger protections for farmworkers, with particular regard to health effects of exposure to toxic pesticides on the job.More information on EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants program and a list of grantees, see: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/ej-smgrants.html.

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why it’s important to eat organic. USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of conventional food, which harms farmworkers and farm families.

For more information on the importance of eating organic food for you, workers and the environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience food guide and organic food program page.

In December 2011, the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) asked EPA to grant the use of the antibiotic, kasugamycin, to control streptomycin-resistant strains of Erwinia amylovora, the causal pathogen of fire blight, maintaining that there are no available chemical alternatives and effective control practices. The agency has requested comments until February 6, 2012 at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA—HQ—OPP—2011—1016. Kasugamycin is not registered for use in the U.S. under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but has import tolerances for residues on food imported. Fire blight has been on the increase in Michigan orchards and other states for the past few springs due to resistance the disease has to current treatments. The request entails no more than three applications of the pesticide, on no more than 10,000 acres between April 1 and May 31, 2012. The maximum amount sprayed will be approximately 30,000 gallons. MDA estimates that total losses to fire blight would be close to 90 million for apple growers in the state. According to the letter, MDA states that “In order to stay competitive in the current marketplace, Michigan growers much continue to plant today’s popular varieties, most of which are highly susceptible to fire blight disease.”

Under a controversial provision in federal pesticide law, known as a Section 18 exemption in FIFRA, EPA can grant temporary approval for an unregistered pesticide or an unregistered use of a registered pesticide if it determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” The Section 18 emergency exemption loophole has been used in the past to skirt pesticide regulations meant to ensure health and safety and has resulted in the widespread application of unreviewed, and often unnecessary hazardous substances. To grant a Section 18 exemption EPA must perform a multi-disciplinary evaluation of the request including an assessment of the validity of the emergency claim and economic loss, as well as human and environmental health assessments. However, these assessments have been criticized for their inadequacies. Section 18 exemptions have been granted every spring since 2009 for kasugamycin on apples in Michigan, challenging the concept that this is an urgent, non-routine situation as ”˜emergency’ is defined under section 18. Reoccurring problems like the fire blight in Michigan should be the wakeup call for farmers and EPA to reevaluate and implement alternative biological and cultural management practices for the long-term prevention of diseases and end the reliance on the “chemical fix” that will exacerbate the problem when pest resistance to the chemical inevitably occurs.

Kasugamycin is a low-use-rate wide-spectrum aminoglycoside antibiotic fungicide produced from Streptomyces kasugaensis that was originally developed for control of rice blast and has been granted a tolerance for its use on imported peppers and tomatoes. According to EPA, kasugamycin exhibits low acute toxicity. In chronic animal studies, reproductive toxicity was observed and included decreased fertility and fecundity in males and females. Testicular effects were also noted. Kasugamycin may also impact the kidneys. Since kasugamycin is currently used only on imported fruiting vegetable commodities, the EPA has not officially conducted an environmental assessment for this chemical. Although kasugamycin is not anticipated to be useful as an antibiotic in human or veterinary medicine, the import of its differential impacts on soil dwelling microorganisms has yet to be assessed.

Over the past few years, a trend toward greater dependence on antibiotics has been observed; however, the use of antibiotics as a “quick fix” is not sustainable since it inevitably leads to resistance. Antibiotic management poses a challenge to apple and other fruit producers. Indeed, researchers have found that some bacteria in apple orchards are resistant to kasugamycin, and kasugamycin-resistant strains could be selected through a process of exposure to increasing doses of the antibiotic. Due to the pervasive problem that fire blight has become, a systematic approach to fire blight prevention should be implemented, including resistant varieties, site selection, careful fertilization, adequate spacing of trees, and proper pruning practices.

There are now additional products available for use against fire blight, including several new biological controls. Effective organic systems can encourage and enhance preventive techniques with cultural and biological controls that include choosing varieties not susceptible to diseases. Apples that have only been introduced and become popular in the last ten years -Gala, Fuji, Granny Smith, McIntosh- are very susceptible to bacterial disease, making them increasingly chemical-intensive. Varieties that are now less well-known —Jonathan, Gold Rush, Empire, Prima, RedFree, Golden Delicious- are more resistant to fire blight, but are not widely available in the market. Beyond Pesticides recommends educating conusumers to create a demand for these varieties by purchasing them when available. This can help shift the market away from chemical dependence and encourage farmers to grow more resistant varieties. For more information on resistant varieties and organic cultivation, read our article “Antibiotics in Fruit Production.”

Researchers at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation collected 75 surface water samples from three agricultural regions of California and analyzed them for contamination with imidacloprid. Samples were collected during California’s relatively dry-weather irrigation seasons in 2010 and 2011. Imidacloprid was detected in 67 samples (89%); concentrations exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chronic invertebrate Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.05 μg/L (micrograms per liter) in 14 samples (19%). Concentrations were also frequently greater than similar toxicity guidelines developed for use in Europe and Canada. A benchmark is a chemical concentration, specific to either water or sediment, above which there is the possibility of harm or risk to the humans or animals in the environment.

Neonicotinoids are a class of chemicals that target nerve cells in a similar way as nicotine, acting as neurotoxins to insects. One of the most commonly used neonicotinoids is the insecticide imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer Crop Science and used in agriculture to control aphids, beetles, and other sucking insects. Imidacloprid has been linked to neural effects in honey bees, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior – similar behaviors that are being displayed by bees suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). In CCD, bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies.

Another study looking at neonicotinoid pesticides published this month -conducted by Christian Krupke, PhD, a Purdue University entomologist who will be speaking at the 30th National Pesticide Forum- shows that EPA underestimates the environmental exposure of neonicotinoid pesticides to honey bees, exposing bees even through dandelions grown in contaminated soil. The researchers found even greater exposure to bees during the planting process when bees are exposed to contaminated dust originating on the pesticide-treated seeds. The neonicotinoid pesticides examined in this study were clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

Rozol (active ingredient chlorophacinone) is an anti-coagulant rodenticide in the chemical class of indandiones. It works by blocking vitamin K-dependent synthesis of the blood clotting substance prothrombin. Animals that ingest anti-coagulant rodenticides suffer from the following list of immediate toxic effects: nosebleeds, bleeding gums, blood in urine and feces; bruises due to ruptured blood vessels; and skin damage.

EPA is encouraging input from state, tribal and local governments, pesticide users, registrants, public interest groups, and other interested parties on the draft RPMs and RPAs to determine whether the measures can be reasonably implemented and whether there are different measures that may provide adequate protection but result in less impact on pesticide users.

The draft Biological Opinion is included as document number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0909 in the docket at Regulations.gov. Comments on the draft RPMs and RPAs must be submitted by February 17, 2012, 30 days after the Biological Opinion was included in the docket, in order for EPA to consider these comments in its final response to the draft Biological Opinion. Comments received by EPA on other aspects of the draft Biological Opinion will be forwarded to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration. No extensions to this comment period will be provided.

Submit your comments to the the regulations.gov website by February 17, 2012.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that state agencies consider alternative options to a regulatory action that meets the definition of a “project.” Projects include an action undertaken by a public agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. A project may not be approved as submitted if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are able to substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. While CDPR’s pesticide regulations have previously been recognized as “projects” as defined in the CEQA, it is unusual for judicial review to raise concerns about the validity of the alternatives assessments.

“Did you consider not approving methyl iodide? I don’t see it,” Judge Roesch asked. “Absent that, I don’t see how you can prevail in the lawsuit.” Representing CDPR, California Deputy Attorney General Cecilia Dennis could not produce such documentation. Ms. Dennis responded that the assessment was implicit in the overall documentation and that CDPR leaves it up to local agricultural districts to weigh the pros and cons of using the chemical before they grant final authorization for its use. Judge Roesch gave the CDPR’s attorneys a week to draft a brief to persuade him that the agency is not required to comply with the CEQA requirement. Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, will then have one week to respond before Judge Roesch issues a final ruling on the legality of the CPDR’s decision.

The current lawsuit also raises significant epidemiological issues related to methyl iodide in addition to the CEQA procedural requirements. In approving the fumigant, CDPR shunned the findings of top scientists ””including the state’s own Scientific Review Committee”” who have consistently said that the chemical is too dangerous to be used in agriculture. Mr. Greg Loarie, attorney with Earthjustice, said, “The public has been shocked, wondering how methyl iodide could be approved under California law. The truth is that CDPR played too fast and loose with their decision. They exceeded their legal authority and have put the public and farmworkers at great risk of harm.”

Methyl iodide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and those in the surrounding communities because of the volume that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site through the air. Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, contaminates groundwater, and is so reliably carcinogenic that it’s used to create cancer cells in laboratories. It is on California’s official list of known carcinogenic chemicals and has been linked to serious risks in reproductive and neurological health. It is approved to be applied to California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling millions of pounds of use. Though methyl iodide will likely be used primarily on strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries, and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.

In 2007, EPA fast-tracked the registration of methyl iodide for use as a soil fumigant, despite serious concerns raised by a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. These scientists sent a letter of concern to EPA explaining, “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people. In addition to the potential for increased cancer incidence, EPA’s own evaluation of the chemical also indicates that methyl iodide causes thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals.” The letter concludes, “It is astonishing that the Office of Pesticide Programs (of EPA) is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

Organic certification standards require crop farmers to establish a preventive pest management strategy based on crop rotation, variety selection, biological controls, and sanitation and fertility practices. Synthetic materials that are allowed in organic crop production must satisfy a rigorous review process to insure their necessity, efficacy and safety to humans and the environment throughout their production and utilization. This review process must be updated every five years for the material to remain in use. A journal article from 2010 shows that organic farms produce more flavorful and nutritious strawberries while leaving the soil healthier and more biologically diverse than conventional strawberry farms. For more information on organic versus conventional agricultural practices, see Beyond Pesticides’ guide, Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience as well as our organic program page. In addition to the personal health risks posed by pesticide residues, Beyond Pesticides urges consumers to consider the impacts on the environment, farmworker and farm families’ health when making food choices.

Source: Center for Investigative Reporting

Registration
Register online. Fees start at $35 ($15 for students) and include all sessions, conference materials, and organic food and drink.

Speakers
Confirmed speaker highlights include:

Gary Hirshberg is chairman and co-founder of Stonyfield Farm, the world’s leading organic yogurt producer, and the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World. Previously, he directed the Rural Education Center, the small organic farming school from which Stonyfield was spawned. Before that, Gary had served as executive director of The New Alchemy Institute, a research and education center dedicated to organic farming, aquaculture and renewable energy. He has also authored books on wind power and organic gardening. Gary is a speaker on sustainability, climate change, the profitability of green and socially responsible business, organic agriculture and sustainable economic development.

David Hackenberg is the beekeeper who first discovered the disappearance of honeybees known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Mr. Hackenberg believes that pesticides contribute to CCD and that honeybees are a barometer of the environment. He is featured in the film Vanishing of the Bees and various media reports, including this 60 Minutes segment. Mr. Hackenberg founded Hackenberg Apiaries in 1962 as a high school vo-ag project. Today, he and his son operate approximately 3,000 hives of bees in 5 states for pollination and honey. David is a past president of the American Beekeeping Federation, and currently serves as co-chair of the National Honey Bee Advisory Board.

John Wargo, PhD. is a professor of risk analysis, environmental policy, and political science at Yale University. He has lectured extensively on the limits and potential of environmental law, with a focus on human health.He has recently written Green Intelligence: Creating Environments that Protect Human Health. The book won the Independent Publishers Award of Gold Medal in the field of “environment, ecology, and nature” for 2010. He compares the history of five serious and global environmental threats to children’s health in the twentieth century: nuclear weapons testing, pesticides, hazardous sites, vehicle particulate emissions, and hormonally active ingredients in plastics.

Christian Krupke, PhD is a professor of entomology at Purdue University. His recent research examines the impacts of neonictinoid pesticides applied on corn to honey bees. The results demonstrate that bees are exposed to neonicotinoids and several other agricultural pesticides in several ways throughout the foraging period, including exposure through dust, soil corn pollen, and through dandelions growing in contaminated soil. Dr. Krupke is also the chairman of a group of university researchers that sent a letter to EPA stating that biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of genetically engineered crops.

Curt Spalding is head of EPA’s New England Region (Region 1 Adminstrator) and has extensive experience in the environmental protection field as an advocate, policy analyst and administrator. For almost 20 years, he served as Executive Director of Save the Bay in Rhode Island. He established the Narragansett BayKeeper and Habitat Restoration programs, which reconnected Save the Bay to ecologically important bay issues. Since joining the EPA leadership team in February 2010, Mr. Spalding has been leading a holistic approach to finding environmental solutions in New England. He’s emphasized efforts in environmental justice and green economy.

Chip Osborne, founder and President of Osborne Organics (Marblehead, MA), has over 10 years experience in creating safe, sustainable and healthy athletic fields and landscapes, and 35 years experience as a professional horticulturist. As a wholesale and retail nurseryman he has first hand experience with the pesticides routinely used in landscape and horticultural industry. Personal experience led him to believe there must be a safer way to grow plants. His personal investigation, study of conventional and organic soil science practices, and hands-on experimentation led him to become one of the country’s leading experts on growing sustainable, natural turf.

See updated speaker list.

Location
Sessions will be held in the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies’ Kroon Hall. It is a truly sustainable building: a showcase of the latest developments in green building technology. Directions and hotel information are available on the Forum website.

In a statement, a BASF representative announced, “Biotechnologies are not accepted enough in many parts of Europe by the majority of consumers, farmers and political leaders. That is why it does not make sense economically to continue to invest in products aimed exclusively at this market.” BASF promotion of its GMO products has been stalled in the last couple years. BASF fought for a decade before obtaining European Union (EU) marketing authorization in 2010 for Amflora, a genetically modified high-starch potato. Shortly afterwards BASF mistakenly planted in an Amflora field in Sweden another of its GMO potatoes, Amadea, which had not received authorization from European officials. According to the company, after this scandal, “European sentiment towards transgenic products declined further.” BASF plans to halt the planting and marketing of Amflora, initially grown on around 300 hectares in three countries, but limited last year to a two hectare field in Germany. Its sales in 2011 were close to zero. Research and development on other transgenic products aimed solely at the European market, including a mildew resistant high-starch potato and a variety of fungus resistant wheat, will also be halted.

Greenpeace hailed the BASF decision as a “a victory for consumers” and a “step towards the development of safe biotechnologies.” Friends of the Earth Europe echoed the same view. “This is another nail in the coffin for genetically modified foods in Europe. No one wants to eat them and few farmers want to grow them,” said Adrian Bebb, a representative for Friends of the Earth.

However, in setting its sights on the North and South American markets, BASF has decided to relocate the seat of its biotechnology activities to Raleigh, North Carolina from two German sites and one in Sweden.

European farmers have long defended their right to grow non-GMO food. The EU has several policies that strongly regulate genetically modified materials from food including one for honey, which 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.

Conversely, the U.S. has in recent times moved to deregulate GMOs. Most recently, USDA approved another GM seed by industry giant Monsanto, a drought-tolerant variety of corn, MON87460, and opened up a 60-day public comment period on corn that has been genetically engineered to resist the herbicide 2,4-D. This follows other decisions to deregulate and allow the cultivation GM alfalfa and sugar beets, despite contamination risks posed to both organic and conventional farmers. Monsanto also announced plans to renew its efforts to develop genetically modified wheat. Just last week a U.S. District Judge issued a ruling, finding that the decision to deregulate GM alfalfa was not unlawful, as was charged by organic and environmental advocates, including Beyond Pesticides.

The U.S. decision to 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. A recent report highlights scientific research and empirical evidence around the globe demonstrating the failure of GMOs to deliver on their advertised promises to increase yields, reduce pesticide usage, and tolerate drought with “climate ready” traits. In March 2011, 60 family farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizations preemptively filed suit against Monsanto in an effort to protect them from patent infringement in the event of drift contamination by Monsanto’s GM seed.

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.

“The benefits to OFRF grant awards are far reaching,” states OFRF Board President Deirdre Birmingham. “After more than 20 years and $3 million investment in organic research, we continue to experience sustainability benefits for both organic and non-organic farming.”

Organic food sales have grown significantly each year since 1997 as more and more consumers make healthier food choices and turn away from the use of chemicals and synthetic fertilizers. It is the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture despite its premium prices. Today OFRF estimates that there are nearly 14,500 certified organic farmers who raise fruits, vegetables, grains and textile crops that improve the soil and the health of consumers and the planet while supplying a $29 billion industry.

That’s not to say that organic food production hasn’t had its setbacks. Growers may initially be hesitant to adapt to organic agricultural methods because of the substantial investment required to adopt new methods of production. A farm must go through a three-year transition phase, producing food without synthetic pesticides, fertilizers or sewage sludge before it can be certified organic. The high demand and relatively low supply allows producers to charge retailers higher prices.

The higher prices also have to do with the fact that organic farmers absorb the costs that chemical-intensive farmers externalize. Chemical-intensive agriculture uses inputs that may save time and money for the farmer, but create other costs that are passed off to society in the form of adverse health effects and depletion of natural resources. See “The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food” from Pesticides and You. Funding projects such as OFRFs grants help to advance scientific information on the benefits of organic agriculture and make it more accessible to everyone. And, as organic agriculture continues to grow and evolve, researchers are continuing to find new evidence of the benefits of choosing and growing organic foods.

This year, with funding from OFRF, researchers from Washington State University will conduct field tests at eight organic farms in western Washington to help match the requirements of a variety of crops with the amount of natural fertilizer needed for maximum productivity. The overall goal of the project is for farmers to reduce the use of fertilizers, saving money and preventing unused nutrients from washing into nearby streams or rivers. The project will be headed by Douglas Collins from the WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, who was awarded a $14,996 grant from the OFRF.

Farmers who produce organic seeds will benefit from a $12,500 grant awarded to the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Preservation. In recent years, organic growers have become increasingly concerned that pollinating bees may contaminate organic plants with pollen from non-organic crops. The project will identify native bee species that are drawn to specific crops. By improving conditions for such pollinators, researchers expect seed production to increase significantly. That would lead to lower costs to farmers purchasing the seed, lower prices for consumers and decrease in genetic contamination.

The OFRF teamed up with the Clif Bar Family Foundation to award two additional grants to researchers in Oregon creating new varieties of sweet corn and broccoli best suited for organic farmers in North Carolina. The $8,410 grant awarded to Jonathan Spero of Lupine Knoll Farm in Williams, Oregon, continues sweet corn research started last year. Jeanine Davis of the North Carolina State University, Mountain Research Station in Mills River, North Carolina, will use the $14,734 grant to develop and test new varieties of broccoli for organic production in the western part of the state.

“Investment in organic agriculture research was important in 1997.” states Maureen Wilmot, Executive Director of OFRF. “It’s even more relevant today, as we experience 20% growth in organic agriculture. The imperative is on us all to invest in vital research that sustains organic supply in our country,” adds Ms. Wilmot.

For more information on the importance of organic, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience page. For more information on organic food and farming, visit our organic program page.

Source: Organic Farming Research Foundation Press Release

FDA said in a letter to the Juice Products Association that an unnamed juice company contacted the agency in late December and said it had detected low levels of carbendazim, a fungicide, in the company’s own orange juice and also its competitors’ juice. Carbendazim is not currently approved for use on citrus in the U.S., but is used in Brazil, which exports orange juice to the U.S. Testing found levels up to 35 parts per billion (ppb) of the fungicide, far below the European Union’s maximum residue level of 200 ppb. The U.S. does not have an established maximum residue level (tolerance level) for carbendazim in oranges.

According to the FDA letter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a preliminary risk assessment based on the recent report of carbendazim in orange juice, and concluded that consumption of orange juice with carbendazim at the low levels that have been reported does not raise safety concerns. However, when carbendazim was evaluated along with its parent chemical -thiophanate-methyl, also a fungicide, by EPA in 2004, both were determined to cause liver and thyroid effects in animal studies and have been classified as probable human carcinogens. Repeated exposure to carbendazim causes spermatogenic effects in rats and hepatic tumours in mice. The liver and thyroid are the primary target organs in several species following subchronic or chronic dietary exposures and the testes are the main known target organ for carbendazim. Carbendazim is also listed as a potential endocrine disruptor in the European Union.

Section 408 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or maintain tolerances or tolerance exemptions for pesticide residues in or on food. According to the law, any food with pesticide residues not covered by a tolerance or tolerance exemption, and any food with residues in excess of the tolerance, may be subject to regulatory action, including seizure, by the U.S. government. Pesticide tolerances and exemptions are enforced by FDA (for most foods), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (for meat, poultry, and some egg products), and the individual states. According to EPA’s 2004 registration documents for thiophosphate-methyl and its degradate carbendazim, there are no registered food uses in the U.S., nor import tolerances for carbendazim. Food with pesticide residues cannot be imported to the U.S. without an established food tolerance (the legal maximum pesticide residue allowed in or on food.)

FDA states it is sampling import shipments of orange juice and will deny entry to shipments that test positive for carbendazim. FDA does not intend to take action to remove from domestic commerce orange juice containing the reported low levels of carbendazim. The discovery comes after the agency said it would also step up testing for arsenic in apple juice. FDA officials said last year that the agency is considering tightening restrictions for the levels of arsenic allowed in the juice after consumer groups pushed the agency to crack down on the contaminant. Studies show that apple juice has generally low levels of arsenic, and the government says it is safe to drink. But consumer advocates say the FDA is allowing too much of the chemical.

Carbendazim is a systemic benzimidazole fungicide that plays a role in plant disease control with the global market worth over $200 million and is an approved fungicide in many countries. According to an FDA notification, it “learned from a juice company that it had detected low levels of carbendazim (in the low parts per billion range) in its and competitors’ currently marketed finished products, and in certain orange juice concentrate that is not on the market.” It is thought that the chemical was in the juice because it had been imported from Brazil, where the chemical is legal and used against black spot.

The use of hazardous chemicals in food production, especially chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. and Europe, is still a common practice in much of the developing world where food is routinely imported into the U.S. By purchasing food commodities with legal tolerances for pesticides no longer used or restricted in the U.S., consumers inadvertently support agricultural production practices in other countries that are associated with the range of adverse effects as noted in the Pesticide Induced-Disease Database, including poor labor practices and environmental degradation. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically in the U.S. and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use.

To avoid potentially dangerous chemical residues in food, whose origins may be domestic or international, choose organic. The most important organic food products to purchase, especially for children, are those that are consumed in great quantity, such as juice. Purchasing organic juice is particularly important to reduce their pesticide exposure. Research has shown that switching children to an organic diet drastically reduces their exposure. For more information, visit our Organic Food page.

Like other neonicotinoid pesticides, clothianidin is a systemic pesticide, which is taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar, and gutation droplets. It is most commonly applied by seed treatment. Most pesticides that are toxic to bees carry a warning that the product cannot be applied while foraging bees are present. As this study shows, systemic pesticides continue to expose and poison bees throughout foraging season. The study authors decided to take a closer look at clothianidin routes of exposure because of its prevalence in honey bee pollen and comb material, combined with its high toxicity to bees and global bee decline.

Using liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry to analyze samples of honey bees, pollen stored in the hive, and several potential exposure routes associated with plantings of neonicotinoid treated corn, the researchers demonstrate several routes of exposure, some not previously accounted for in EPA’s evaluation for approval under federal pesticide regulations.

During the spring planting season, the researchers found extremely high levels of both clothianidin and another neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of seed treated corn. The field soil is also found to be contaminated with these neonicotiods, including unplanted fields. Plants visited by foraging bees, dandelions in particular, growing near these fields were found to contain neonicotinoids in their plant material as well. According to the research team, this indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root system, or both.

During the spring, when neonicotinoid levels are highest, dead bees collected near hive entrances were found to contain clothianidin as well, although whether exposure was oral (consuming pollen) or by contact (soil/planter dust) is unclear. Clothianidin is also detected in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive.

After the spring planting season, bees foraging through the summer continue to be exposed. When the corn begins to flower, the pollen is also contaminated with clothianidin and other pesticides. The authors note that the levels of clothianidin in bee-collected pollen that they sampled are approximately 10-fold higher than reported from experiments conducted in canola grown from clothianidin-treated seed. This is a critical finding, because clothianidin is even more toxic orally, as they would be exposed through pollen, rather than by spray contact. Advocates maintain that all of these findings must be evaluated by EPA as part of its registration process.

Clothianidin is in the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides, which are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees forage and drink. Scientists are concerned about the mix and cumulative effects of the multiple pesticides bees are exposed to in these ways. Neonicotinoids are of particular concern because they have cumulative, sublethal effects on insect pollinators that correspond to CCD symptoms — namely, neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions.

According to James Frazier, Ph.D., professor of entomology at Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, “Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees; and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices. Our own research indicates that systemic pesticides occur in pollen and nectar in much greater quantities than has been previously thought, and that interactions among pesticides occurs often and should be of wide concern.” Dr. Frazier said that the most prudent course of action would be to take the pesticide off the market until EPA has the data necessary to fully evaluate the pesticide’s affect on bees.

Clothianidin has been on the market since 2003. With a soil half-life of up to 19 years in heavy soils, and over a year in the lightest of soils, commercial beekeepers are concerned that even an immediate stop-use of clothianidin won’t save their livelihoods or hives in time.

Dating to the 1940s, 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.

In May 2011, a coalition of environmental and public health groups filed a lawsuit against FDA to require the agency to complete the rulemaking process and enforce strict standards regarding the routine use of antibiotics in livestock feed. Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is a plaintiff in the suit, described the December 22 announcement as a “step backwards” for FDA. “This action by the FDA is a response to our lawsuit,” said Mr. Kar. “The findings in 1977 were included in the notice for opportunity for a hearing, and they think they can get around the lawsuit by withdrawing the notices for opportunities for a hearing. But we will not allow the FDA to ignore public health.” NRDC is also a member of a larger coalition called Keep Antibiotics Working engaged in an ongoing campaign against the misuse of these essential medicinal compounds.

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, 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: Guardian UK article

The Safe Playing Fields Act mirrors similar laws in nearby Connecticut and New York State and is designed to ensure that children have a healthy and safe place for outdoor activities while at school. If enacted, it would prohibit the use of lawn care pesticides on all school playgrounds and on recreational fields of schools that have children in grades K-8, except as an emergency response to an immediate threat to human health, as determined by the municipal or county governing body in consultation with the local health officer or if required by law. The bill also directs the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, to adopt rules and regulations concerning pesticide application, record keeping, and staff and parental notification procedures at child care centers with the goal of mitigating potential health risks to young children.

According to a statement from the committee, the bill also restricts access to an area that has been treated with an emergency pesticide for at least seven hours following application. The only pesticides excluded from the prohibition is a small class of “low impact pesticides.”

To learn more about children and pesticides, visit our program page.

TAKE ACTION:

In NJ: Currently, the bill has 44 co-sponsors in the Assembly and Senate. If you are located in New Jersey, you can go here to find your legislators and ask them to support the bill. You can also contact the offices of Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Steve Sweeney and urge them to ensure that bill is brought up for consideration in the current legislative session.

Nationally: Ask Your Congressional Representative to support the School Environment Protect Act.

Children need better protection from toxic chemical exposure while at school. Numerous scientific studies find that pesticides used in schools are linked to cancer, asthma and other health problems. A 2010 Harvard University study links everyday pesticide exposure to ADHD. While some states have taken limited action to protect children from pesticides in schools, these policies represent a patchwork of laws that are uneven and inadequate. The School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) establishes a minimum national standard to protect kids in their places of learning. Please ask your U.S. Representative to contact Rep. Holt to sign-on as an original SEPA co-sponsor.

It is time that our nation embraces a basic protection to ensure a healthy learning environment. Please see the chart in the Schooling of State Pesticides Laws-2010 report to see if your state requires some form of protection from pesticides in its schools. If your Rep. needs further information, please direct them to Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage with bill text, summary, Mr. Holt’s “Dear Colleague” letter, and other useful information.

Source: NJtoday.net

“In 2012 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,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “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,” he added. [To listen to a radio interview on 2,4-D by Jay Feldman click here.]

While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War. 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 lymphoma. When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D. Now, an emerging body of scientific literature is raising serious concerns about the safety of glyphosate as well.

Research by the 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 showed a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

In its petition, Dow AgroSciences 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.

Citizens can comment on the proposed approval of Dow’s 2,4-D tolerant corn and Monsanto’s stearidonic acid soybeans until February 27, 2012.

An online petition by The Cornucopia Institute opposing Dow’s 2,4-D corn variety, which will be sent to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, can be signed here.

The news of the approval of drought-tolerant corn comes despite nearly 45,000 public comments in opposition to MON87460 and only 23 in favor, according to a Cornucopia press release. In addition, there are a host of problems with the new variety, including lack efficacy and health data. Back in May, USDA found that the crop did not perform well.

According to Reuters, the major U.S. area for adoption of drought-tolerant corn would be the Plains, which produce one-quarter of the U.S. crop, Monsanto estimated, as well as similar dryland regions of Africa, Europe and Latin America. Corn is the most widely grown U.S. crop and farmers grew 91.9 million acres of the feed grain this year, the second-largest area since World War Two.

The Cornucopia Institute reports that in the Environmental Assessment of the “drought tolerant” Monsanto corn USDA concedes that gene flow of corn pollen is likely to occur. It is well-established that corn pollen travels, and pollen from genetically engineered plants will contaminate natural corn plants.

“The irony, of course, is that organic fields and crops are much more drought tolerant, because common sense and field trials show healthy and biologically active organic soil retains moisture much better than tired and depleted soil on conventional monoculture farms, and organic crops are healthier and more robust than conventional crops,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, a researcher at Cornucopia Institute.

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.

Take Action:
Send comments on the proposed approval of Dow’s 2,4-D tolerant corn until February 27, 2012. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103-0001. You only need to fill out fields that have an asterisk (*) beside it.

Additionally, an online petition by The Cornucopia Institute opposing Dow’s 2,4-D corn variety, which will be sent to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, can be signed here.