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.

California’s DPR, which has the most extensive pesticide use reporting system in the United States and oversees one of the most comprehensive pesticide regulatory programs in the world, published its pesticide usage data for the state last week. Along with increases in agricultural pesticide use which reflects a 15 percent jump in acres treated with pesticides, post-harvest treatments went up by 657,000 pounds, structural pest control by 760,000 and landscape maintenance by 374,000 pounds. Reports are mandatory for agricultural and pest control business applications, while most home, industrial and institutional uses are exempt.

Pesticides with the greatest increase include 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D). commonly known as Telone, a fumigant whose use went up by 2.4 million pounds, or 37 percent. It is used on strawberries, almonds, sweet potatoes, carrots, and table and raisin grapes. This fumigant is an alternative to methyl bromide, which is being phased out under an international treaty to protect the ozone layer, even though recent research shows that methyl bromide is continuing to be used in alarming amounts across the state due to a sizeable loophole in the regulations. For more on the methyl bromide phase out, read here.

Other pesticides that show growth in pounds applied are metam-sodium, a fumigant used on carrots, processing tomatoes and potatoes; glyphosate, an herbicide used on orchard floors, rights-of-way and pre-planting for row crops; metam-potassium, a fumigant used to prepare fields for processing tomatoes, sweet potatoes and carrots prior to planting; and kaolin, a clay-based fungicide and insecticide commonly used on organic crops.

The new data also reports:

-Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins increased marginally in pounds applied from 2009 to 2010 (up 123,000 pounds or 0.8 percent) and decreased slightly in acres treated (down 770 acres or 0.1 percent).
-Use of chemicals classified as carcinogens increased from 2009 to 2010 (up 5.1 million pounds or 26 percent and up 566,000 acres or 18 percent). The increase in pounds was mainly due to increases in use of the fumigants 1,3-dichloropropene and metam-sodium.
– Use of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides (organophosphate [OP] and carbamate
pesticides), which include compounds of high regulatory concern, increased. Use increased both in pounds (up 165,000 pounds or 4 percent) and in acres treated (up 509,000 acres or 14 percent). The greatest increase in pounds was the plant growth regulator ethephon, used mostly in cotton while the greatest increases in acres treated were ethephon and the insecticides chlorpyrifos and malathion.
– Use of chemicals categorized as ground water contaminants decreased by pounds (down 62,000 pounds or 5 percent) and increased by acres treated (up 65,000 acres or 8 percent).
– Chemicals categorized as toxic air contaminants increased from 2009 to 2010 both in
pounds (up 4.7 million pounds or 15 percent) and by acres treated (up 129,000 acres or 5 percent).
– The pounds of fumigant chemicals applied increased (up 4.1 million pounds or 12 percent) and the acres treated decreased (down 8,000 acres or 2 percent). Pounds of 5 of the 6 major fumigants (metam-sodium, potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate, 1,3-D, sulfuryl fluoride, and chloropicrin) increased and pounds of one fumigant (methyl bromide) decreased.

Major crops that showed an overall increase in pounds of pesticides applied over the previous year included wine grapes, carrots, cotton, almonds, and table and raisin grapes. The data indicated declines in pounds applied to rice, processing tomatoes, alfalfa, peaches, nectarines and applications to fields before crops are planted to control pests. California farmers, especially those in the San Joaquin Valley planted more cotton, which increased the use of some pesticides. In addition to cotton, crops that showed an increase in pounds of pesticides applied included wine grapes, carrots, almonds, and table and raisin grapes.

Generally, pesticide use fluctuates from year to year due to weather and economic factors, said department spokeswoman Lea Brooks. According to DPR, last year’s increase was mainly due to an abundant rainfall, better water availability for crop irrigation and the pricing of crops. An especially cool, wet winter and spring required more fungicide use to control mildew, Ms. Brooks said. Low summer and fall temperatures resulted in late harvests and led to more insect damage to some crops and additional treatments.

Beyond Pesticides sees it differently. “This increase relfects a failure of conventional, chemical-intensive agricultural systems, including so-called integrated pest management (IPM) systems, to curtail the most hazardous chemicals in U.S. agriculture, despite the availabiltiy of effective and profitable organic systems,” said Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director.

These new statistics are troubling and show that pesticide usage continues to be a serious threat to human and environmental health. Despite the viability of organic agriculture, millions of pounds of highly toxic pesticides continue to be used unnecessarily throughout the state. The top five pesticides being used in the state, sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, metam-sodium, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), and glyphosate along with a host of others that include methyl bromide, pendimethalin and chlorpyrifos, are linked to a myriad of adverse health effects including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption and reproductive effects.

“The numbers released indicate that we’re stuck on the pesticide treadmill,” said Paul Towers, spokesman of Pesticide Action Network. “Instead of providing support and forward thinking policies to help farmers transition from pesticide use, our state is continuing the use of unsafe and outdated chemicals.”

Most alarming was the increase in the use of fumigants, Mr. Towers said, which are prone to drift and some of which are linked to cancer and groundwater contamination. The published data covers only pesticides used in agriculture, termite treatment and professional landscaping. About two-thirds of the pesticides sold in California, including chlorine used for municipal water treatment and home-use pesticide products, are not subject to reporting. Reported pesticide applications are only a portion of the pesticides sold each year. Approximately two-thirds of the pesticides sold, including chlorine used primarily for municipal water treatment and home-use pesticide products, typically are not subject to reporting.

Take Action: Want to do your own part to help reduce the release of dangerous and damaging chemicals in our homes, farms, and environment? Support organic agriculture and institutional IPM programs at schools and hospitals! You can even go organic in your own home, lawn, and garden. There are alternatives to toxic pesticides available for a wide range of pests whether in agriculture, or throughout the urban environment including structural and landscape pest problems. Contact Beyond Pesticides for more information.

While receiving minimal regulatory scrutiny or public attention, nanotechnology is becoming an increasingly prevalent practice for developing the next generation of ingredients in a wide range of consumer products. Generally defined, nanotechnology is the practice of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular level to produce materials between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm) in size. A nanometer is equivalent to one billionth of a meter and a typical human hair measures approximately 50,000 nm in width. The extreme reduction in size that nanomaterials undergo imparts many novel properties including greater strength, mobility and richness of color as well as increased conductivity and elasticity. These characteristics have raised concerns that nanomaterials may become highly reactive and toxic and, once released into the environment, impossible to contain or monitor.

The original 2006 petition directed FDA to address concerns about nanomaterials within two areas under its jurisdiction. First, it requested that FDA issue a formal opinion characterizing the known and potential risks of nanomaterials related to their toxicity and mobility and establish overarching definitions and regulations for handling such materials. Second, the petition requested that FDA reverse its 1999 decision that nano-sized ingredients used in sunscreens, including titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, are not functionally different from the larger-sized particles previously approved as human drugs. Finding otherwise would have required sunscreen formulators seeking to use the nano-sized ingredients to conduct and submit safety and efficacy studies as part of a new human drug approval review. The petition questions how the nano-sized ingredients could be sufficiently novel to receive patents, yet are not functionally different from the ingredients already in use. Citing the lack of required safety and efficacy studies, the petition requests that FDA declare any sunscreen products containing nanomaterials to be an imminent hazard to human health and order manufacturers to cease production.

“Nano means more than tiny; it means materials that have the capacity to be fundamentally different. Yet more and more novel nanomaterials are being infused into new consumer products every day, while FDA sits idly by,” said George Kimbrell, ICTA attorney. “The agency’s unlawful delay unnecessarily places consumers and the environment at risk.”

FDA is not the only federal agency to act precipitously in approving the use of nanomaterials before completing its pre-marketing regulatory review. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conditionally registered a pesticide product containing nanosilver as a new active ingredient. The antimicrobial pesticide product, HeiQ AGS-20, a silver-based product for use as a preservative for textiles to help control odors, is being granted registration despite a long list of outstanding studies that have yet to be submitted and reviewed by EPA. As a testament to EPA’s flawed registration process, the agency will now require additional data on the product after it has entered the marketplace to confirm its assumption that the product will not cause ”˜unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment,’ the general standard for registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

At its October 2010 meeting, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation to prohibit engineered nanomaterials in certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. The NOSB, the expert citizen advisory panel set up by Congress to advise the USDA on organic policy, reviews materials and provides recommendations to the National Organic Program (NOP) on what should be allowed and prohibited in organic agriculture and processing, as materials and methods change over time. Organic advocates, members of the organic industry, and the NOSB expressed concern that engineered nanomaterials could contaminate organic food and fibers.

Source: ICTA Press Release

Over 1,200 students from 22 different states have taken the course, and there are currently about 550 Accredited Organic Land Care Professionals (AOLCPs) bringing this expertise to their jobs as landscapers, groundskeepers, conservationists, planners, garden center employees, and a number of other fields.

Students of the accreditation course come away with a practical understanding of landscape ecology and organic methods. Frank Crandall, owner of Frank Crandall Horticultural Solutions in Rhode Island, described the course as “the best educational course I have ever taken . . . I immediately made a plan to convert my landscape business into a completely organic company over three years.”

Caro Roszell, the NOFA/Mass OLC Coordinator credited “a lot of motivation from professionals to create safer, healthier, and more naturally beautiful landscapes, and their clients are demanding it too. They want to offer an effective, competitive organic program, so they come to us.”

This 5-day, 30-hour course features a faculty of respected scientists and experienced organic land care practitioners. Class topics include: site analysis, design and maintenance; rain gardens and storm water infiltration; soil health; fertilizer and soil amendments; lawn alternatives; wetlands; pest management; wildlife management; disease control; mulches; invasive plants; and, client relations and running a business. Four hands-on case studies are also included in the course and attendees may take an optional exam to become NOFA Accredited Organic Land Care Professionals (AOLCPs). Bill Duesing, Executive Director of Connecticut NOFA and one of NOFA OLC’s founders explains, “Our course instructs students on landscaping that is healthier for people and the environment. Organic land care replaces toxic chemicals that get in our skin, lungs and water with methods that promote biodiversity, create habitat and protect water quality.”

The course is offered three times in 2012:
January 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Worcester State University
Worcester, MA

February 15, 16, 17, 21, 22
The Connecticut Agricultural Station-New Haven Laboratory
New Haven, CT

February 27, 28, 29, March 1, 2
Kettle Pond Visitor Center
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge
Charlestown, RI

The NOFA Organic Land Care Program was founded by a volunteer committee of scientists, activists, and landscapers from the Massachusetts and Connecticut Chapters of the Northeast Organic Farming Association. The Accreditation Course curriculum is based on the committee’s Standards for Organic Land Care: Practices for Design and Maintenance of Ecological Landscapes published in 2001, now recognized and implemented across the U.S. and accepted into the International Family of Standards regulated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

Please visit www.organiclandcare.net for more information on the accreditation course or to search for AOLCPs in your area. For information about the Rhode Island and Connecticut course please e-mail Kristiane Huber at [email protected] or call the CT NOFA office at (203) 888-5146. For information about the Massachusetts Course please contact Caro Roszell at [email protected] or (508) 360-0874.

Beyond Pesticides offers online training as well. ”˜Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers,’ is taught by Beyond Pesticides’ board member Chip Osborne, a professional horticulturist with over 30 years’ experience, and an expert on building and transitioning turf to organic care. For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes page.

The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, Environment and Human Health, Inc., and the Watershed Partnership, Inc., and co-sponsored by local, state and regional public health and environmental organizations. Contact us if your organization is interested in co-sponsoring this event.

Registration fees begin at $25. Online registration coming soon.

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, a healthy and supportive environment for work and study, and a beautiful building that actively connects students, faculty, staff, and visitors with the natural world.

ACTION IS NEEDED to show Senators Reid and McConnell that the public does not want this bill and that pesticides should not be exempted from critical safety and environmental protections. Consideration of this bill would take valuable time out of the Senate’s schedule to debate a bill that would weaken important policies that protect human health and the natural environment.

The letter, dated December 8th, aims to communicate a sense of bipartisan agreement that the issue should move forward. It was drafted by Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) and was signed by 13 other Republicans and 10 other Democrats. However, despite this apparent bipartisan support, many Senators have expressed serious concern regarding the effects that would result from passage of the bill.

Your help is needed. Please call the offices of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell today and tell them that you do not want the application of pesticides to be exempted from common sense health and environmental review and that the Senate should not be spending time to consider weakening protections for public health and safety. Here are the phone numbers for the Senators’ Washington, DC offices:

U.S. Senator Harry Reid — Nevada: (202) 224-3542
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell – Kentucky: (202) 224-2541

When you speak with the Senators’ legislative aides, consider these points in communicating your message:

— Much misinformation is swirling about the Clean Water Act general permit at issue. The permit, which took effect on November 1, 2011 but will not be enforced for 120 days, will have no significant effect on farmers. The permit will in no way affect land applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff will not require permits, even when they contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean Water Act will remain.

— This Clean Water Act general permit simply lays out commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.

Background on HR 872 / S 718

The so-called “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011,” would ensure that Clean Water Act (CWA) permits are not required for the application of pesticides. The bill states, “A permit shall not be required by the Administrator or a State under [the Clean Water Act] for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide.”

FIFRA and CWA are complementary laws. The two statutes have fundamentally different standards and methods in determining whether a pesticide will have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. The CWA statute is more stringent than FIFRA. CWA has a “zero discharge” standard, meaning any amount of discharge, no matter how small, without a permit, constitutes a violation of the CWA. Risk assessment, on the other hand, used under FIFRA, is weaker than a “zero harm” standard. Risk/benefit allows a certain amount of pollution (i.e. risk) in exchange for controversial calculations of benefit and use a threshold of harm that can vary upon EPA discretion. Since the CWA statute is more stringent in its oversight of U.S. waterways, FIFRA should not be allowed to override the CWA.

In March 2011, HR 872 passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 292-130. The bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), seeks to amended FIFRA and CWA to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. It would reverse a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and CWA, EPA must require such permits.

EPA first proposed draft language in June 2010 for a Pesticide General Permit (PGP) in response to the court ruling. Its decision to issue a permit stems from the 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA in which the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require CWA permits. This ruling overturned the Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under the CWA, and instead applied the less protective standards of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). CWA uses a kind of health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly generalized risk assessment that does not consider safer alternatives.

The PGP went into effect in November, when negotiations for a comromise bill in the Senate broke down.

EPA will issue permits in territories, Indian Country Lands, six states, and the District of Columbia where the agency is the NPDES permitting authority. EPA is working closely with the other 44 states as they develop their own permit regulations. The PGP does not authorize coverage for discharges of pesticides or their degradates to waters already impaired by these specific pesticides or degradates or discharges to outstanding national resource waters. These discharges will require coverage under the individual NPDES permits, rather than a general permit. Also outside the scope of this permit are terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff do not require NPDES permits, even when they contain pesticides or pesticide residues, as the CWA specifically exempts these categories of discharges from requiring NPDES permit coverage.

One of the co-authors, evolutionary biologist Warren Booth, Ph.D. from North Caroline State University in Raleigh, told the BBC news that the genetic evidence he and his colleagues had collected show that the bed-bugs infecting households in the U.S. and Canada in the last decade are not domestic bed bugs, but imports.

The team collected samples from across the eastern U.S. and discovered populations of bed-bugs that are genetically very diverse. “If bed-bugs emerged from local refugia, such as poultry farms, you would expect the bed-bugs to be genetically very similar to each other,” explained entomologist and co-author Coby Schal, Ph.D. also from North Carolina State University. “This isn’t what we found.” Dr. Schall explained to the BBC news that this suggests that the bugs originated from elsewhere, and relatively recently because the different populations had not had time to interbreed.

“The obvious answer is the tropics, where they have used treated bed nets [and] high levels of insecticides on clothing and bedding to protect the military,” Dr Booth told BBC News.

Bed bugs have slowly been developing resistance mechanisms and have become resistant to most, if not all, insecticides on the market. On average, insecticides labeled for bed bug control can take over 150 hours to kill a bed bug, compared to seconds or minutes in previous years. An Ohio State study, “Transcriptomics of the Bed Bug,” published January 2011 in the journal PLoS One confirms bed bug resistance to pyrethroid insecticides and highlights the need to adopt non-chemical methods for controlling bed bugs and other insect pests.

Pyrethroids, some of the most common chemicals used in attempts to treat bed bug infestations, are a class of pesticides that are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural insecticide found in certain species of chrysanthemum. They were initially introduced on the market as ”˜safer’ alternatives to the heavily regulated and highly toxic organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon, which were banned for residential use in 2001 and 2004, respectively. Despite the fact that there are plenty of effective pest control methods that are not nearly as toxic, pyrethroids are now some of the most popular household pesticides. They are cause for concern to consumers because of their link to serious chronic health problems. Synthetic pyrethroids are suspected endocrine disruptors, and have been found lingering in the dust at daycare centers.

The bed bug resurgence in the U.S. in recent years has been met by increasingly widespread pesticide resistance, as people have tried to manage them with chemicals. This has led to public anxiety about the pests and drastic attempts to stem their spread through various means, often including the use of highly toxic and harmful chemicals. For example, the State of Ohio, dealing with infestation in several major cities in 2009, petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve the indoor use of the pesticide propoxur. The agency considers propoxur to be a probable carcinogen and, due to concerns posed to children, banned it for in-home use in 2007. About 25 other states supported Ohio’s request for an emergency exemption. In comments to the agency objecting to the petition for propoxur, Beyond Pesticides and other environmental and public health advocates urged the agency to reject the request, citing numerous serious public health threats associated with the chemical, as well as the availability of alternatives. EPA rejected Ohio’s petition in June.

The good news is that these pests can be effectively controlled with non-toxic approaches. An IPM approach, which includes methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat, can control an infestation without the dangerous side effects. This approach, as well as taking steps such as sealing cracks and crevices, reducing clutter and encasing mattresses, can also help to prevent an infestation in the first place.

For more information on bed bugs and least-toxic control methods, see our factsheet, “Got Bed Bugs, Don’t Panic,” on our Bed Bug program page.

Carl Young, interim executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe/Keep Tahoe Blue, told the Associated Press that the plan poses a threat to the lake’s water quality and the public’s health, and he’s concerned visitors and residents could be exposed to pesticides through Tahoe’s fish and drinking water. The League is urging regulators to use non-chemical methods, including bottom barriers that involve the use of large mats to starve the species of sunlight and oxygen. The aquatic plants can be managed through mechanical harvesting.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates economic impacts from introductions of new aquatic invasive species at $417.5 million over 50 years. It cites property values and lost tourism spending as the largest impacts. Asian clams were brought to the U.S. in the 1920’s for food and have become a nuisance in Lake Tahoe. Because of their nutrient-rich waste, they are blamed for contributing to cloudiness in of the lake’s famously clear water. The nonnative plant species, Eurasian watermilfoil and curly leaf pondweed, are considered a problem because they could clog intakes for the region’s water supply system. Despite these concerns, the head of the local water supply association still opposes the use of pesticides.

Greg Reed, Board Chairman of Tahoe Water Suppliers Associations, told the Tahoe Daily Tribune that he is “very concerned” about the impacts aquatic pesticides could have on drinking water at Lake Tahoe. He told the newspaper that he was “appreciated of water board staff’s efforts to diminish any effects of pesticide use on water quality,” but said, “The possibility of contaminated water is a frightening one.” Many water providers draw drinking water directly from the lake and would be unable to filter out any pesticides that reach their intake pipes, Mr. Reed added. The Tahoe Water Suppliers Associations unsuccessfully lobbied the LRWQCB to impose a five-year moratorium on any chemical use on projects at Lake Tahoe, giving more time to study potential adverse impacts.

Pesticides that are likely to be used to control these species include copper sulfate (Asian clams) and glyphosate (Eurasian watermilfoil and curly leaf pondweed). Copper sulfate is an irritant and is linked to adverse reproductive effects and organ damage. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp and its aquatic counterpart Rodeo, is linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, neurotoxicity, adverse reproductive effects, and organ damage. As expected, both copper and glyphosate have been shown in the scientific literature to have adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

“I think honestly this is coming down to human health issues,” Carl Young told the Associated Press. “They can say all they want that [pesticides] won’t harm people, but it’s poison and it can kill things.”

Take Action: Before pesticides can be used in Lake Tahoe, the California State Water Resources Control Board and then the Environmental Protection Agency must weigh in. Beyond Pesticides will update this story when the public comment period opens in California.

Since the mid-1990’s, Mr. Keating’s professional experience has been connected to government service and academia. He served as a county cooperative extension agent in northeastern North Carolina before coming to Washington, DC in 1998 to work for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Writing research papers, reports and technical comments to federal agencies for the Wallace Institute, Mark began to develop an expertise in organic production and certification, pesticide regulation, and the federal agricultural research system.

Mark joined the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program in 1999 as the principal staff person working on organic crop and livestock production standards under the Organic Foods Production Act. He drafted proposed rules and other submissions for the Federal Register and responded to ensuing public comments. Collaborating with National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) members and private sector stakeholders, he helped develop the federal organic standards. Mark was part of the team that received the USDA’s Group Honor Award in 2001 for its work on the organic certification program. He subsequently worked for the USDA’s Marketing Services Branch where he provided assistance to farmers markets and other direct-to-consumer marketing operations.

Between 2006 and 2009, Mark was a lecturer with the University of Kentucky’s College of Agriculture and played a lead role in designing and implementing its undergraduate major in sustainable agriculture. He also served as the state assistant for the USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the University of Kentucky and Kentucky State University during that period. Following his work at the University of Kentucky, he returned to USDA as an Agricultural Marketing Specialist with the National Organic Program. Mark has dedicated his career to raising the public consciousness that the defining challenge of the 21st century will be how, where and by whom our food is produced.

Prior to this work, Mark’s interest in the connections between agriculture, community and environment dates back to 1982 when he began working at a slow food-inspired restaurant. He was impressed by the capacity for food, when fully appreciated, to bring people together and he recognized the connections between proper agricultural practices and environmental stewardship. These themes have remained the central thread of his professional and personal life ever since.

Mark received a B.A. in Studies in the Environment and History from Yale University in 1988 and went back into food service, first as a tofu and soy milk processor and subsequently as an organic farm laborer. With a growing interest in a global perspective on food systems, he began visiting El Salvador in 1990 and was deeply inspired by the campesino cooperative movement and its commitment to economic justice and a democratic society. This work formed the basis of his graduate studies. With a Master’s thesis titled, Defending the Land: Sustainable Agriculture in El Salvador, Mark received an M.S. in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development from the University of Wisconsin in 1995.

Mark and his wife Barbara Lynch, a botanist and herbalist, are the proud parents of their daughter, Celeste.

City Council staff last week requested direction from the Council on whether notification should be required before spraying pesticides, whether minimal restrictions should be imposed on homeowners who spray and whether the city should draft an ordinance that would challenge state preemption laws. Council members are in consensus that the city should move toward mandating pre-notification, and in the meantime continue educational outreach regarding land management practices, which can be more effective than pesticide use. Currently, state law requires pesticide applicators to post notices on properties after they have been sprayed, but not before. While an outright ban would challenge state law, mandating pre-notification would sidestep it. Local governments cannot directly regulate commercial pesticide applicators, but they can regulate homeowners’ pesticide use and require them to provide notice before they spray. The state of Colorado currently has a preemption law, which means local municipalities cannot pass stricter pesticide laws than the state. Currently, 41 states prohibit local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides. However, in January this year Connecticut introduced a bill in the state legislature to overturn its preemption law which currently prohibits local governments from imposing pesticide restrictions on private property and allow municipalities to ban and regulate the use of lawn care pesticides. This bill did not advance in the state Senate.

Aspen City’s draft ordinance provides for notification of pesticide application 48 hours before application along with the posting of clearly visible signs that must remain posted 72 hours after application. The notification is also to include: name and registration of pesticide; location, date and time of application; the statement, “The EPA cannot guarantee that registered pesticides do not pose risks, and unnecessary exposure to pesticides should be avoided”; and a description of potential adverse effects of the pesticide based on the material safety data sheet of the pesticide as well as any additional warning information related to the pesticide, along with the name and telephone number of the pesticide coordinator.

The neighboring city of Boulder enacted a pesticide pre-notification ordinance in 1981. In order to comply with state law, the ordinance makes the homeowner or property manager responsible for pre-notification. Aspen City’s environmental health director, Lee Casin, noted that the city’s parks department is one of the most progressive in the state and does not need to spray because of its turf management practices. The city council agreed that Aspen should be a leader in its approach to pesticides, but that a battle with the state would have to wait.

The issue originally came to City Council in June after Aspenite Chris Wurtele lobbied elected officials to enact an ordinance that would, at a minimum, require City Hall to use organic or “least toxic” pesticides on city property and notify the public prior to their application. Mr. Wurtele was exposed to the pesticide bifenthrin (a synethic pyrethroid) a year ago when he spent about 15 minutes in his driveway after the chemical was applied to his and his neighbor’s trees. Shortly after the exposure, he began suffering from chills, sweats and temple pressure. Mr. Wurtele proposed to the city an ordinance that would mandate that toxic pesticides can only be used as a last resort and the location, notification and time the chemicals are used be regulated.

Pre-notification is important to allow people, especially those chemically sensitive, to avoid unwanted chemical exposures. Numerous incidents resulting from a failure to notify the public of chemical applications have led to serious injuries and even death. Recently, in Ohio 47 students reportedly fell ill after their school’s hired pest control company sprayed herbicides on nearby playing fields without children and parents aware of the spraying. Children are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposures and can become exposed in parks, playing fields and other community areas. Numerous scientific studies find that pesticides typically used in schools are linked to chronic health effects such as cancer, asthma, neurological and immune system diseases, reproductive problems, and developmental and learning disabilities.

Many communities across the country have taken a stand against the use of toxic pesticides on their lawns and landscapes. Most recently, the state of New York passed the Child Safe Playing Fields Act (A 7937-C) that prohibits the use of toxic pesticides on school and daycare center playgrounds, turf, athletic and playing fields. In New Jersey, over 30 communities have made their parks pesticide-free zones and have adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for managing town property by passing a resolution adopting a pesticide reduction policy. Connecticut and Illinois have also moved forward to reduce children’s exposures to lawn pesticides.

Take Action: To see what pesticide laws are enacted in your state see Beyond Pesticides’ state pages. Know of a policy that’s not listed, or do you know of efforts to change policy in your state or community? Send and email to [email protected].

That’s why we’re reaching out to ask you, as we do twice a year, to support our work and make a donation this holiday season.

Please consider a tax-deductible donation to Beyond Pesticides to help support work in these areas:

— Children’s Health. Children are even more vulnerable to pesticides than adults. Studies link exposure to ADHD, lower IQ and more. We fight to protect kids from pesticides at schools, in the community, and on the food they eat.

— Organic Food. Pesticides pose a hazard to your family, as well as farmworkers and the environment. Our work, including the online Eating with a Conscience guide, pushes for an end to chemical-intensive farming.

— Protecting Pollinators. We need pollinators to grow many of the foods we eat. The disappearance of honey bees identifies a serious flaw in our approach to the use of pesticides.

— Lawns and Landscapes. Huge quantities of toxic pesticides are being applied to lawns and parks for purely aesthetic purposes. Our work supports a nationwide transition from unnecessary chemical use to proven organic methods.

— Public Education. We provide support to grassroots activists, policy makers, and others by phone, online and in person. We also publish the quarterly magazine, Pesticides and You, and maintain an information-rich website.

For a donation of $150, we will send you a copy of the award-winning film Vanishing of the Bees. Thank you for your support. Donate here.

The prosecution’s 230-page indictment outlines the global threats to human rights. It begins: The victims and survivors of [pesticide industry] aggression are the poor peasants, small-scale farmers, agricultural workers, rural women, children, and indigenous and agricultural communities around the world. They are at the mercy of the expanding power of the agrochemical [corporations] and are losing their control over their seeds and knowledge, and suffering debilitating physical and chronic effects due to pesticide poisoning, including coping with the destruction of their children’s health. These small food producers are losing their livelihoods, suffering increased hunger and malnutrition, and having their very means of survival threatened. Even children have been victimized and forced to carry the legacy of pesticide poisoning in their bodies, which is then passed onto their descendants.

“Rights to life, health and livelihood are inherent to our humanity,” said Kathryn Gilje, co-director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). “Pesticide corporations have jeopardized these rights because there is no system of accountability that follows actions across national borders or over the decades it takes to prove guilt. Until we hold them accountable, pesticide corporations will continue to avoid responsibility for their human rights violations.”

Below are samples of the more than 25 specific cases included in the indictment.

— People of Kasargod vs. Bayer. In the district of Kasargod (India) the Plantation Corporation of Kerala aerially sprayed endosulfan on cashew nut plantations for over 20 years, beginning in 1976. As a consequence of the aerial endosulfan spraying, people who live, work and play there have suffered significant congenital, reproductive and long- ­”term neurological damage. In Kasargod, 500 deaths from endosulfan poisoning are officially acknowledged; unofficial estimates place the figure at around 4,000. More than 9,000 people are reported to have had health problems resulting from exposure to endosulfan. More than 1,000 still suffer from long- ­”term health problems.

— Family of Silvino Talavera vs. Monsanto. Countless people have suffered severe health effects from direct exposure to the chemical cocktail RoundUp, and some have even died. Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-old, is one such example from Paraguay. Silvino was on his way home from school one day when he was enveloped in a cloud of RoundUp being sprayed by a crop duster. He arrived home barely able to breathe and was rushed to the nearest hospital, where he died five days later.

— Quechua Community vs. Bayer. In violation of FAO’s Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Bayer AG marketed its organophosphate insecticide, methyl parathion, in unmarked plastic bags in a largely illiterate Quechua Indian community in Peru. Because of this, the insecticide was unknowingly mixed with the breakfast served to 50 young children at an educational center. 24 out of the 50 children lost their lives and the rest suffered, among other health problems, from neurological damage.

— Farmers of India vs. Monsanto. In India, Monsanto has monopolized the cottonseed market, resulting in the following: Increased royalties on their seeds, pushing farmers ever deeper into debt; Damaged livestock health as a result of grazing on Bt cotton, often leading to cattle sickness and death; and, Mass farmer suicides in multiple states in India due to inability to make a living.

— U.S. Farmers vs. Monsanto. Through an aggressive strategy of patenting seed and buying up seed companies, Monsanto has taken over the seed market. The corporation has made it nearly impossible for U.S. farmers to buy non-Monsanto commercial seed crops (cotton, soy, corn & canola). Monsanto has dedicated a staff of 75 people and a budget of $10 million solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers whose crops have cross-pollinated with Monsanto crops. Through this strategy, Monsanto has made between 85 and 160 million dollars off of farmers.

The Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT) was founded in Italy in 1979 as a people’s court to raise awareness of massive human rights violations in the absence of another international justice system. The PPT draws its authority from the people while remaining rooted in the rigors of a conventional court format. Citing relevant international human rights laws, precedents and documents such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in its findings, the Tribunal examines and passes judgment on complaints of human rights violations brought by victims and their representative groups.

On December 3, 1984, a pesticide manufacturing plant owned and operated by Union Carbide Corporation (now Dow Chemical) exploded in the middle of the night. Amnesty International estimated that more than 7,000 people died within days of the accident, 15,000 died in later years and 100,000 people have since suffered chronic and debilitating illnesses as a result of the catastrophe and the absence of a site remediation. Union Carbide did not properly clean the site and thousands of tons of toxic chemical waste have been contaminating drinking water. The Indian Council of Medical Research estimated that over a half million people were harmed in some way. Sicknesses including cancer, blindness, immune and neurological disorders and birth defects have affected local residents, many of whom live in surrounding slums. Dow Chemical, the world’s second largest chemical maker, bought Union Carbide in 2001 and therefore assumed its liabilities for the Indian chemical plant disaster in 1984. However, Dow Chemical has refused to clean up the site, provide safe drinking water, compensate the victims, or disclose chemical information to physicians.

According to EPA’s Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, the agency is reviewing insect resistance management assessments submitted by registrants in accordance with the ongoing terms and conditions of their registered PIP products. PIPs are genetically engineered to incorporate pesticidal properties in plant genes in order to ward off insects that prey on the plants. PIPs are registered as a pesticidal product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Many GE plants such as corn, cotton and others include Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium with insecticidal properties whose genes have been incorporated into the plant’s own genetic material. However, recent reports have shown that these PIPs are spawning “superbugs” that have become resistant to this technology. Monsanto, the lead manufacturer of PIPs, has created several Bt genes including one called Cry3Bb1 which has been responsible for resistant populations of western corn rootworm no longer susceptible to Bt.

According to documents in the newly opened docket, (Docket No: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0922) EPA reviewed Monsanto’s resistance monitoring data from 2009 for the western rootworm which was submitted for registrations on Bt corn containing the Cry3Bb1 gene. The agency concludes that based on multiple documented cases of unexpected “severe” corn rootworm damage to Cry3Bb1 fields and other undocumented reports from corn entomologists, “Cry3Bb1 resistance is suspected in at least some portions of four states in which “unexpected damage” reports originated and recommends that the Cry3Bb1 remedial action plan be implemented for “suspected resistance.” Further, EPA states that the registrant’s (Monsanto) current resistance monitoring program is inadequate and likely to miss early resistance events, stating for efforts to be meaningful “a more proactive, effective approach needs to be adopted.”

Roughly one-third of the corn grown in the U.S. carries Monsanto’s Cry3Bb1 gene, which means that, should populations of this rootworm spread, corn farmers across the U.S. will be faced with heavy losses. Researchers from Iowa State University discovered western corn rootworms in four Iowa fields that have evolved and can resist the pesticide built into Bt corn seeds. So far the cases are isolated, but can spread to neighboring regions. Farmers in Illinois, for example, have been seeing severe rootworm damage in fields planted in Monsanto’s Bt corn.

This past year EPA has been in touch with scientists in academia and at USDA-ARS regarding Bt cron resistance issues in the Mid-west, notably Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, and Minnesota. In Nebraska, the 2011 growing season marked the fourth year where moderate to severe rootworm damage in Monsanto’s Cry3Bb1 corn was apparent. Resistance monitoring data for Cry3Bb1 show that field-collected populations are generally less susceptible to the toxin.

In 2009, every field-collected populations of rootworm had higher LC50 (concentration needed to kill 50 percent of the population) than laboratory controls, in some cases by an order of magnitude. Monitoring data collected from 2005 to 2009 appeared to show a large decrease in susceptibility over the time period. One county in Illinois showed a six-fold increase in mean LC50 from 2007 to 2008 (50.2μg/cm2 in 2007 to 300.9μg/cm2 in 2008). Contributing to the growing resistance is the domination of monoculture crops in this region. Records show that affected fields have been growing Monsanto’s Cry3Bb1 corn for many successive years without crop rotation. In fact, according to the data collected, a significant positive correlation was detected between the number of years growers chose to plant Cry3Bb1 and the survival on Cry3Bb1corn of insects from problem fields. Unfortunately, many growers still plant the Bt corn despite the incidences of rootworm damage and fall back on pesticide applications to control the adult corn rootworm.

Resistance to GE crops is not new. “Roundup Ready” crops engineered to survive exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, a glyphosate-based chemical, has also spawned a new generation of Round-up resistance weeds dubbed “superweeds.” These weeds, immune to Roundup, have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the South and Midwest. In addition to resistant weeds, heavy use of Roundup sprayed on “Roundup Ready” crops appear to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of crops that farmers are cultivating according to scientists at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. Growing previous Roundup Ready crops, such as soy, cotton, and corn, have also led to greater use of herbicides, especially when these crops fail to control the pests they are marketed to thwart.

There has long been a concern that EPA’s allowance of PIPs with Bt would lead to the failure of a biological tool used in organic farming systems as an alternative to highly toxic synthetic inputs. Organic farmers have expressed concern since the introduction of PIPs in 2003 that the overuse of Bt, which is inevitable when Bt is genetically engineered into every cell of a plant, will lead to insect resistance and leave many farmers without an important tool of organic agriculture. For more on genetically engineered agriculture read Beyond Pesticides’ article “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market.”

Fortunately, GE 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.

To access the docket, visit: www.regulations.gov and go to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0922.

Source: EPA Pesticide News