(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2013) On December 31, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to clarify its labeling requirement for disclosure of all active and inert ingredients in “minimum risk pesticide products,” exempt from registration under Section 25 (b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The rule (77 FR 250) reorganizes the list of eligible active and inert ingredients by adding identifiers that will clarify for the public, and more importantly for federal and state inspectors, which ingredients are permitted in minimum risk pesticide products. The modification would require labels to use common chemical names in the list of ingredients as well as the contact information for the manufacturer.

The lack of clarity on minimum risk pesticide product labels in the past has made it difficult for enforcement officials who must use their own judgment on the applicability of vague descriptors such as cedar leaf oil and cedar wood oil, which are exempt under the current listing of “Cedar Oil” under CFR Section 152.25. While EPA has attempted to improve labeling clarity of minimum risk pesticide products by updating its website, stakeholders have found the measure insufficient.

Regulatory Background
Currently, EPA is empowered under FIFRA 25 (b)(2) to exempt pesticide products that pose a “minimum risk” to humans and the environment, codified  in 40 CFR Section 152.25 (g), which was issued in March 1996 (later re-designated as 40 CFR Section 152.25 (f)). Thus, manufacturers of minimum risk pesticide products are not required to register their products with the EPA, pay registration fees, or report to the EPA on their production. In order to receive minimum risk designation, pesticides must meet the following  specific criteria:
1. Only specified and approved active and inert ingredients may be used;
2. Those active ingredients must be listed on the label whether their name and weight in the formula;
3. Those inert ingredients must be listed on the label with their name (no weight required);
4. The product may not claim to control or mitigate microorganisms that threaten human health OR claim to control insects or rodents with specific diseases;
5. Finally, the product label  may not display false or misleading information as listed in 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5)(i) through (viii), including information on the effectiveness, composition, and value.

The importance of the restrictions to ingredients used in minimum risk pesticide products cannot be understated. Enforcement officers use those ingredients listed under 40 CFR Section 152.25 (f) as a guideline for exemption of minimum risk pesticide products. These inert ingredients are described as “substances for which there is no information to indicate that there is a basis for concern.” While no new active ingredients have been added since the bill was adopted in 1996, several new inert ingredients have been added on to what was historically known as List 4(A) (which has been retained on an interim basis for FIFRA Section 25(b) as well as the National Organic Program). This in turn has obfuscated exactly what inert ingredients are actually eligible for exemption as ingredients  in minimum risk pesticide products. Until now EPA has simply responded by updating its website.

The proposal, however, would further specify active ingredients, indicate the common chemical name on the label, name the chemical as determined by the Chemical Abstract Services (CAS), provide specifications if needed.  The CAS registry number provides a universal means of identifying chemical substances, providing an easier way to identify designated minimum risk pesticide products. Additionally, EPA is proposing to include information from the United States Pharmacopeia, which sets standards for chemical formulas. The proposal would also codify the existing list of inert ingredients in the CFR reference section.

Inert Ingredients in Context
The 25(b) pesticide product category limits the allowability of inert ingredients to those that are thought to be not hazardous. However, in general, despite their name, “inert” ingredients are neither chemically, biologically or toxicologically inert. In general, inert ingredients are minimally tested, however, many are known to state, federal and international agencies to be hazardous to human health. A 2009 study finds that an inert ingredient in the popular herbicide RoundUp, polyethoxylated tallowamine or POEA, is more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself — a finding the researchers call “astonishing.” POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to help them penetrate plants’ surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.

Limited review of inert ingredients in pesticide products has highlighted a primary flaw with the regulatory process for all ingredients in pesticides. Rather than adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to chemicals with unknown toxicity or uncertainties,  EPA appears to allow chemicals to remain innocent until proven guilty, and relies on a flawed risk assessment process that does not adequately address exposure and hazard. Once proven guilty, these pesticides, both active ingredients and inerts, have already left a toxic trail on the environment and people’s well-being.

Inerts in Organic Agriculture
In October 2012, the National Organic Standards Board made a landmark decision to require a review of so-called “inert ingredients.” The recommendation contains new regulatory language, a series of steps to use in preparing for inerts review, screening guidelines that the Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs) will address, a tentative list of the proposed groups, and a rough timeline for review and completion. An Inerts Working Group (IWG) consisting of representatives of the NOSB, NOP, and EPA in consultation with the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and Washington State Dept. of Agriculture (WSDA) developed the process and will continue to fine-tune it. The review of inert ingredients will be performed by the Crops Subcommittee.

The recommendation created a four-year time frame to evaluate inert ingredients currently in use in organic agriculture that are not exempt from pesticide registration under FIFRA section 25(b). This includes former EPA List 4(B) and List 3 inerts in pheromones that were identified through information supplied by the Material Review Organizations OMRI and WSDA. It also will include inert ingredients that have been  previously petitioned, and a call for other (inert) ingredients to be identified by manufacturers. This list so far is 126 individual substances. The IWG is working to categorize the substances in the “other” category into additional or existing groups. The full group listing, including the list of chemicals, will be presented at the Spring 2013 NOSB meeting. It is expected that 4-6 groups of chemicals will be evaluated every year during the four year period beginning in 2013. Although this proposal will require a large amount of work, rulemaking is expected to be completed by October 2017.

Take Action
Beyond Pesticides supports the continued effort to clarify the use of inert ingredients in all pesticides, including but not restricted to minimum risk pesticide products exempt under FIFRA. EPA is currently seeking comment on several issues, including: the format of the ingredient lists; the information in the new format of the ingredient lists; the proposed reference to a website that contains a table formatted to include more information on exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance; EPA’s methodology for estimating the costs associated with the proposed label changes; the proposed time frame of two years from the effective date of the final rule for compliance; how the changes will impact state and local agencies; effective methods and venues for communicating these proposed changes to affected entities; and products that would need to be reformulated as a result of the proposed changes.
Submit your comments by going to www.regulation.gov referencing docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0305 FRL-9339-1, no later than April 1, 2013.

Source: Environmental Expert

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2012) On December 21, just as everyone was gearing up for the holidays, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its release of a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact on the genetically engineered (GE) AquaBounty AquaAdvantage salmon. The FDA action is widely viewed as confirmation that the Obama Administration is prepared to approve shortly the first GE animal intended for human consumption in the face of widespread opposition from the public.

“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama Administration continues to push approval of this dangerous and unnecessary product,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. “The GE salmon has no socially redeeming value; it’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment. FDA’s decision is premature and misguided.”

AquaBounty claims that the company’s process for raising GE fish is safer than traditional aquaculture, yet documents released by the Canadian government show that a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia, the deadly fish flu which has been devastating fish stocks around the world, contaminated their Canadian production site. This information was not included in the FDA’s review and hidden from the public. Many additional long standing concerns regarding impacts to wild species and the environment raised during a Senate hearing last year remain unanswered in the latest FDA review documents.

In order to create the transgenic fish, Aquabounty genetically engineered an Atlantic salmon by inserting a Chinook salmon growth-hormone gene, as well as a gene sequence from an ocean pout. The company claims this engineering causes the GE salmon to undergo an increase in growth rate that allows the fish to reach market size in half the normal time. Consumer groups Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch and Consumers Union submitted a formal petition to the agency in February 2012 to classify and evaluate the GE salmon as a food additive.

The FDA decision ignores calls from more than 40 members of the U.S. Congress who have repeatedly urged FDA to conduct more rigorous review of environmental and health safety, and halt any approval process until concerns over risks, transparency and oversight have been fully satisfied. The public filed nearly 400,000 comments demanding FDA reject this application. Additionally, more than 300 environmental, consumer, health and animal welfare organizations, salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants filed joint statements with FDA opposing approval.

“We need a robust regulatory system that puts environmental, human health, economic and animal welfare risks first,” said Mr. Kimbrell. “Putting a GE animal on the path to consumer use without proper safeguards and with no mandatory labeling requirement proves that the system FDA has in place gives us none of that.”

Take Action: FDA is accepting public comment on the draft EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact concerning Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon until February 25, 2013 under docket ID number FDA-2011-N-0899 at regulations.gov. Documents related to FDA’s announcement can be found on the agency’s website.

Source: Center for Food Safety Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2013) As the medical community weighs in, the new year begins with a push in New Jersey to adopt the Safe Playing Fields Act (S1143 / A2412), straightforward common sense legislation to remove children from harm’s way by stopping hazardous lawn pesticide use on school grounds. The bill’s sponsors, state Senators Shirley Turner (D-Mercer) and Robert Gordon (D-Bergen) —who moved Senate Bill 1143    through the New Jersey Senate Environment and Energy Committee with unanimous support in December, are seeking a full Senate vote this month. The bill prohibits lawn pesticides on playing fields of child care centers and schools, kindergarten through eighth grade.

On December 14, 2012, the New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wrote  a letter  to legislators in support of the legislation, citing the recent policy position and technical report that AAP released last year. In its letter, the AAP chapter said:

“The NJ Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) represents 1650 pediatricians. The national Academy is a professional membership organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-specialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults. AAP recently issued a policy statement and technical report, Pesticide Exposure in Children (see attached); the past decade has seen an expansion of the evidence showing adverse effects after chronic pesticide exposure in children. The strongest links between pesticides and health effects to children involve pediatric cancer and adverse neuro-development. However, low birth weight, preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, cognitive deficits and asthma at times are pesticide-induced.”

The New Jersey  Safe Playing Fields Act  passed the same committee in 2011. Organizers in the public health and environmental community will emphasize medical support for eliminating children’s exposure to pesticides, while industry continues to cite EPA standards as adequately protective of children. The New Jersey Green Industry Council, which represents the lawn care and chemical industry, has stated that, “Nobody is arguing that these aren’t toxic substances, but what we don’t agree on is that there is, in fact, a lot of testing and training with these products.” This stands in contradiction to the findings of the AAP, which concluded in a December 2012 article in its magazine Pediatrics, that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.”   This is not the first time that the medical community has warned public officials and the general public that the hazards of legal and common pesticide use under EPA standards is not adequately protective of the public’s health. In 1997, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) said, “Particular uncertainty exists regarding the long-term health effects of low dose pesticide exposure”¦Considering [the] data gaps, it is prudent ”¦ to limit pesticide exposures ”¦ and to use the least-toxic chemical pes ­ticide or non-chemical alternative.” See Medical Community takes a Stand on Pesticides in the Fall 2012 issue of Pesticides and You.

The New York Safe Playing Fields Act was signed into law in May 2010, preceded  by Connecticut’s school playing field pesticide ban (P.A. 09-56).

For information on starting the new year off right with an organizing  campaign in your community to stop hazardous and unnecessary pesticide use and adopt organic practices, please contact Beyond Pesticides’ information program at [email protected] or see our Tools for Change webpage.

Source: NJSpotlight

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

Beyond Pesticides wishes our members and friends a happy, healthy, and organic New Year! Our Daily News is taking a holiday break and will return on Thursday, January 3, 2013 with renewed energy and vision to continue charging ahead.

We look forward to working with you to make 2013 a fruitful, pesticide-free year for you, your family, your community and those most vulnerable. We are thankful for all our members and supporters who enable Beyond Pesticides to be a strong voice that works to protect our air, land, water, and food at home, in the workplace, and in local communities from policies that allow practices resulting in unnecessary and unsustainable poisoning and contamination.

We hope you will consider a charitable donation to Beyond Pesticides. Whether you become a member, give the gift of membership, donate, or buy a gift from our online shop, your contribution can do a world of good. These unique gifts help protect human health and the environment from toxic pesticides, and will be enjoyed by your friends and loved ones throughout the New Year.

As you reflect upon the passing year and contemplate your wishes for the next, we ask you to consider Beyond Pesticides vision for the future:

1. A ban on the pesticide clothianidin implicated in honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Our pollinators are in trouble and urgent action is needed to stop the precipitous decline of honey bee colonies. Working with our partners at the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, and Sierra Club, we filed an emergency legal petition this year to immediately stop the use of the pesticide clothianidin. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied our petition, but in response we issued a 60 day notice letter to the agency, announcing our intent to sue. We thank all those involved and ask for your continued support in 2013 to remove this dangerous chemical from our environment. For more information on CCD, including links to scientific studies and additional Daily News stories, see our “Pollinator Protection” program page.

2. Advancing organic standards so that the organic brand continues to be a safe place for consumers to go for food grown without harmful synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, GMOs, antibiotics, sewage sludge or irradiation.

We made so much progress this year upholding organic integrity. From organic beer to infant formula and inert ingredients, Beyond Pesticides works to provide consumers with the tools they need to become involved in process of approving new inputs for organic production and processing. Currently, USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) has delayed compliance with organic laws. Please take action and urge NOP to complete its rule making process by December 26th, 2012. For more information on organic standards, view our “Keeping Organic Strong” webpage, where you’ll find an overview of the issues and results from the most recent National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting.

3. A sensible public health approach to mosquito management and West Nile virus that eschews community-wide spraying in favor of a monitoring, cultural controls, and least-toxic alternatives.

2012 was likely the second worst year ever for West Nile virus in the United States. Across the nation, as communities were sprayed with pesticides concerned citizens fought back for a safer, more rational approach to mosquito management. We encourage concerned citizens to get a head start on this year’s mosquito season. Please, attend community meetings, speak with your neighbors, and get active about stopping these unnecessary pesticide applications. For more information, start with our recent Pesticides and You article “Back to the Future: Communities are doused with pesticides in response to West Nile Virus outbreak” and view our “Mosquito Management” webpage.

4. The spread of community ordinances that embrace organic land management practices that protect human health and ecological diversity.

All every level across the country citizens are urging their elected representatives to implement least-toxic practices that reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides. In addition to the ordinance in Durango, CO, Beyond Pesticides has worked with localities throughout the U.S. in an effort to promote organic land care systems. In 2012 Richmond, CA approved a pesticide reform ordinance targeting the use of toxic chemical pesticides within city boundaries. Washington D.C. also recently passed legislation which restricts the use of pesticides on District property, near waterways, and in schools and day care centers. Ohio’s Cuyoga County successfully banned a majority of toxic pesticide uses on county property, prioritizing the use of natural, organic, horticultural and maintenance practices with an Organic Pest Management (OPM) program. For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides “Lawns and Landscapes” webpage, and seek out our “Tools for Change.”

5. A halt to the planting of GE crops on federal lands and the adoption of a national labeling law for GE food.

This year surely had its ups and downs for the burgeoning food movement. While the USDA continues to fast-track new GE crops, more and more studies are showing the negative impact of these crops and the cultural practices surrounding their use. Meanwhile, a federal judge has ruled GE crops are acceptable on Midwest wildlife refuges, but not on those in the Southeast.
As the legal and scientific debates continue on, a growing number of consumers are working for policy changes which would require mandatory labeling of GE food. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides “Genetic Engineering” page.

6. Working to ban pesticide products that are known hazards to human and environmental health.

This year saw a number of successes in efforts to ban toxic chemicals from our households and environment. In August, Johnson and Johnson announced its intent to phase out the harmful antibacterial triclosan from its products. In September, after 2,000 emails generated from Beyond Pesticides’ supporters, the EPA announced its final intent to phase out the use of the organophosphate insecticide azinphos-methyl (AZM), which has been proven harmful to farm-workers and the environment. We currently need your help now to get dangerous rodenticides off of the market. Please take action and tell EPA to go through with their intent to cancel dangerous rodent poisons.

7. The passage of federal legislation to protect children from the dangers of pesticides in school.

With the recent policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urging doctors and regulators to help prevent childhood exposure to toxic chemicals, the time is now for federal legislation to protect children. Beyond Pesticides is a long-time supporter of the School Environment Protection Act, which would provide a national standard to protect children from toxic exposure in the classroom. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides “Children and Schools” webpage.

Thanks so much for a great year! We look forward to seeing you all at Beyond Pesticides’ 31st National Pesticide Forum, April 5-6 2013, at the University of Albuquerque in New Mexico.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2012) A preliminary version of Pest Prevention by Design, authored by Chris A. Geiger, Ph.D. and Caroline Cox of the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), was recently released by the San Francisco Department of the Environment (DOE). These guidelines, which will formally be released in mid-January of 2013, were created to help architects, engineers and builders to design and construct buildings that minimize the use toxic chemicals for pest control. This is accomplished by laying out comprehensive guidelines for building designs that prevent pest problems from taking hold. According to the authors of this report, “To our knowledge, no other comprehensive guidelines on pest preventive design tactics exists.” The San Francisco DOE is now exploring ways to pilot test the guidelines in various housing developments in San Francisco, and is hoping that these guidelines will be incorporated into various green building checklists, such as Leadership in Energy and Environment Design certification (LEED).

These guidelines work to address the issue that pest preventive tactics are rarely included in a comprehensive way at the design stage of buildings. The authors point out that architecture, construction, facility management, and pest control companies are part of insular industries that have in the past rarely worked together to minimize future pest problems. The San Francisco DOE had the idea for these guidelines in 2005 when the department realized that it had stopped making progress in reducing the amount of pesticides used on properties managed by the city. The department concluded that part of its pest problem was the result of structural flaws that allowed pests to find their way inside. The city concluded that the fundamental design of these buildings was partially to blame.

To write these guidelines, the San Francisco DOE organized an advisory committee in the spring of 2011 made up of members from a variety of different disciplines. The committee had pest control professionals, architects, engineers, pest management academics, green building experts, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) experts/consultants, and government employees working together on this subject. For a year, the committee held monthly meetings, and the discussion from these gatherings was incorporated into the draft guidelines. CEH was contracted to coordinate the project, and the guidelines were reviewed by the International Code Council.

With a focus on prevention, the guidelines set out several general principles and provide additional detailed sections on improved pest preventive designs for different parts of building structures (i.e., roofs, windows, and doors). The first of the general principles emphasizes the importance of understanding local pest pressures. The guidelines’ authors argue that, “Architects, builders and engineers need not be entomologists or pest experts, but a rough familiarity with local structural pest species is essential in order to make the best design choices.” Different climate conditions intrinsically attract different types of pests. For example, pests are most troublesome in warm humid climates that speed up an insect’s life cycle. The physical space in which a building is constructed will also make a difference. To illustrate: constructing a building in an urban center, where subways provide a vast network of tunnels in which rodents travel, requires a different design approach than a building in a rural area. Additionally, the guidelines suggest that buildings be constructed so that they may be easily inspected. For instance, the guidelines indicate that built-in access to critical areas greatly assists pest management professionals in the early detection of wood-boring pests, potentially saving building owners thousands of dollars in wood replacement. The guidelines also account for tradeoffs, such as aesthetic or energy issues, that should be considered when designing a building that is more pest resistant.

Beyond Pesticides is a strong advocate for defined structural IPM practices and is working to champion the use of these methods particularly in schools and hospitals, where vulnerable populations are at elevated risk from pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides’ Healthy Schools Project aims to minimize and eliminate the risks posed by pesticides through the adoption of IPM policies and programs at the local, state, and federal level, thereby fostering a healthier learning environment. Central to this effort are activities aimed at public education on pesticide hazards and the efficacy of alternatives, and the continued development of model communities that serve as examples.

Beyond Pesticides also believes that hospitals have a special obligation to demonstrate leadership in instituting effective and safer pest management in order to advance the medical profession’s basic tenet of “first, do no harm.” Beyond Pesticides, along with the Maryland Pesticide Network (MPN), has worked with several health care facilities in Maryland to transition towards IPM practices.

If you would like to be notified of the formal release of Pest Prevention by Design and receive a copy of these guidelines, sign up here.

For more information on structural IPM, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ “What is Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?” page. If you would like to know if there are Pest Management Service providers that use IPM and least-toxic practices, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Safety Source database..

Source: San Francisco Department of the Environment

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2012) The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued its overview report, Bee Health: The Role of Pesticides, in response to a congressional request for more information on the connection between declines in bee populations, colony collapse disorder (CCD) and pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids. The 23-page report, dated December 11, 2012, summarizes the range of scientific studies and regulatory activities without offering a critique of what bee health advocates have identified as serious deficiencies in the regulatory review process and compliance with the pesticide registration law. The review gives equal standing to independent and industry science.

The CRS report identifies a range of issues regarding:

1. Changes to managed and wild bee populations (indicating limited information);

2. Factors that are documented to impact bee health, including pesticides, pests and diseases, diet and nutrition, genetics, habitat loss, and beekeeper issues, highlighting that there are multiple exposure pathways that may work synergistically;

3. Scientific research on the role of pesticides; and,

4. Current research and regulatory activity regarding neonicotinoids, a neurotoxic insecticide impacting bees.

The report reviews the ‘state of play’ on the issue of bee declines and finds that there are reported to be many factors that contribute to the decline in bee populations, noting that “pesticides are only one of the many influences on bee health.” It notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revisiting its risk assessment review process to reflect advances in science on bee exposure to pesticides.

The report’s summary of the role of pesticides, and neonicotinoid pesticides in particular, notes that, “[T]he focus of this report on bee exposure to pesticides is not intended to imply that pesticides are as important or more important in influencing health and wellness of bee colonies as compared with other identified factors.” The report cites the statutory framework for pesticide regulation, specifically EPA’s process of protecting against “unreasonable” adverse effects to health and the environment in registering an active pesticide ingredient, stating, “EPA specifically takes into account unintended harm to bees” by requiring information on the acute toxicity of a pesticides on exposed bees. The report’s authors identify bee exposures to the pesticides applied by beekeepers in managing diseases in their hives and accidental exposure, at the same time that it cites secondary impacts on bee health associated with the legally labeled pesticide uses.

Meanwhile, the report acknowledges the change in bee health and the sudden and mysterious disappearance of bees, described as CCD, that occurred shortly after the introduction of systemic neonicotinoid pesticides on the market worldwide. Many researchers have focused on this key factor -the introduction of a powerful systemic pesticide found in pollen, nectar, and gutation drops- that has changed among the constellation of possible contributors, as well as the failure of the regulatory review to obtain a required field study from the neonicotinoid pesticide manufacturer Bayer CropScience. In recognizing the sharp decline that occurred in the bee population, the CRS report states:

“In the United States, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in 2006 in their honey bee colonies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that overwinter colony losses from 2006 to 2011 averaged more than 32% annually.” The CRS report relies, in part on previous work of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), saying, “A 2007 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Status of Pollinators in North America describes many of the factors affecting bee health and population effects.” The NAS report, more than five years old now, was written prior to the huge body of recent research that provides further insight into the role of pesticides on honeybee, bumblebee, and pollinator health.

CRS continues by providing a compiled a list factors that were identified as contributors to bee declines:

Ӣ parasites, pathogens, and diseases (for a detailed listing, see text box);
Ӣ bee genetics including lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees, and
increased susceptibility and lowered disease resistance, and also miticide resistance by the mites;
Ӣ diet and nutrition including poor nutrition due to apiary overcrowding, pollination of crops with low nutritional value, and pollen or nectar scarcity associated with invasive plants;
Ӣ bee management issues including transportation stress from migratory beekeeping, overcrowding, feeding practices, chemicals used by beekeepers to control mites (antibiotics and miticides), confinement and temperature fluctuations, susceptibility to disease, potential for cumulative exposure to diseases and parasites, use of bees for honey production versus pollination, chemical residue or contamination in the wax, and reliability of the queen source;
Ӣ habitat loss, and other environmental or biological stressors including loss of foraging area, interspecific competition between native and non-native bees, pathogen spillover effects, and climate change;
Ӣ pesticides including acute or cumulative exposure to new types and combinations of agricultural pesticides through a variety of media including dust, water droplets, pollen, and nectar;
Ӣ other agricultural practices including the use of genetically incorporated pesticides in seeds or treated seeds, such as with bioengineered crops; and,
Ӣ potential cumulative and interactive effects of each of these factors.

On neonicotinoids, CRS cites both the independent and industry science, giving equal weight to vastly different and often contradictory findings on the role of pesticides in bee declines. While CRS mentions imidacloprid’s role in bee-kills in Germany and clothianidin’s role in France, the report does not discuss the French moratorium on neonicotinoids or other regulatory actions that underline the true importance of neonicotinoids as an important contributor to CCD. The report cites industry studies that dismiss the importance of pesticide residues found in plants and bees. The CRS notes, however, that, “Krupke et al. [Christian Krupke, Ph.D., associate professor of entomology at Purdue University] found levels of neonicotinoids in bee-collected corn pollen that were similar to levels of imidacloprid determined by other scientists to have sublethal effects potentially affecting colony health.”

The CRS report also acknowledges research findings that have focused on the potential of neonicotinoids to “affect complex behaviors in insects, including flight, navigation, olfactory memory, recruitment, foraging, and coordination.” It finds, “One study has reported sublethal effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bee foraging behavior that may impair the navigational and foraging abilities of honey bees.” The report goes on: “Other studies have found impaired brood development and increased rates of Nosema infection in honey bees exposed to sublethal pesticide levels. Imidacloprid ingestion by stingless bee larvae at rates above 0.0056 µg/bee decreased survival rates, negatively affected development of a specific region of the bee brain called the mushroom body, and impaired walking behavior of newly emerged adult worker bees.”

CRS identifies multiple pathways for exposure, including foraging during the planting season, bee kills from contaminated dust clouds, and hive exposure through pollen deposits, highlighting those studies that focus on crops that include corn, canola, sunflowers, squash and pumpkin flowers.

CRS references a Bayer CropScience report, which contradicts the independent findings it cites earlier that determined neonicotinoid pesticides affects honey bee foraging behavior, saying that “scientists at Bayer CropScience argue that the dose of thiamethoxam delivered to bees in this case was not ”˜field-relevant.’” The second time it references Bayer CropScience, CRS indicates that its scientists have “criticized one of the studies linking neonicotinoid exposure with Nosema infection because it was conducted in the laboratory and not under field conditions.”

The points here are based on an unpublished memo developed by Bayer CropScience, a company that profits from neonicotinoid sales, entitled “Overview of recent publications on neonicotinoids and pollinators.” Unfortunately, the CRS report neglects to include two pertinent rebuttals filed with EPA. Dr. Krupke and James Frazier, Ph.D, professor of entomology at Pennsylvania State University, stood behind the strength of their published studies connecting neociotinoids to bee declines. Indeed, Dr. Krupke responded to Bayer’s report, saying:

“The spurious claim that the concentrations of neonicotinoids we reported in stored pollen (2.9-10.7 ppb clothianidin and 6.2-20.4 ppb thiamethoxam, found co-occurring) were ”˜not high enough to represent a significant risk for honey bees’ is not supported by data. Sublethal effects of these compounds remain an active area of research and what constitutes a ‘significant risk’ is far from well defined.”

Similarly, Dr. Frazier pointedly indicated that Bayer’s report is flawed, saying, “Unlike a normal literature review, where the pros and cons of a given paper are presented along with all pertinent literature that bear on alternate interpretations or provide conflicting results, the authors here provide only material used to refute the chosen study.” CRS neglected to incorporate in its report this response to Bayer as well.

In sum, in attempting to strike a neutral tone, the report ends up downplaying the role of pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, on bee health. However, if the reader follows the references and teases out the vested industry interests from independent science, the report identifies important information that supports the need for urgent action, and at the same time it identifies the need for more research. The report finds: “[P]esticides are known to have some adverse local impacts to honey bees and some native bees”¦ Widespread use of herbicides reduces habitat available to bees; many pesticides are known to be acutely toxic to bees, given sufficient levels of exposure; and some reports of local bee kill incidents have been well documented.” Accordingly, at the very least, the report supports the continued work of government regulators in focusing on pesticides, pathogens and parasites, and a combination of stressors in diminishing honey bee and colony health. At the same time, it identifies the crisis in honey bee declines and the need to take precautionary action in the face of dramatic independent scientific findings of neonicotinoid pesticides on the bees’ survival. Again, this is yet another call for the public to pressure public officials to act.

Indeed, where the report deserved more substantial discussion was in its pesticide statute summary, which failed to address the critiques launched by public interests groups that the EPA has failed to act in the face of science-based research. On March 21, 2012 an emergency petition was filed with the EPA by public interest groups and beekeepers, asking the agency to suspend all registrations for pesticides containing the neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin. The petition, which was supported by over one million citizen petition signatures worldwide, targeted the pesticide for its harmful impacts on honey bees. The legal petition establishes that EPA failed to follow its own regulations when it granted a conditional, or temporary, registration to clothianidin in 2003 without a required field study establishing that the pesticide would have no “unreasonable adverse effects” on pollinators. The granting of the conditional registration was contingent upon the subsequent submission of an acceptable field study, but this requirement has not been met. EPA continues to allow the use of clothianidin nine years after acknowledging that it had an insufficient legal basis for initially allowing its use. Additionally, the product labels on pesticides containing clothianidin are viewed by the groups challenging EPA as inadequate to prevent excessive damage to non-target organisms, which is a second violation of the requirements for using a pesticide and further warrants removing all such mislabeled or misbranded pesticides from use.

For more information on bee and pollinator health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection Program page.

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

Source: Congressional Research Service

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2012) Certain pesticide manufacturers are gearing up to try to block EPA’s attempts to cancel certain rodent poisons that are known to be hazardous to children and wildlife, including endangered species. After more than a decade of research and review, and an unacceptably high number of poisoning incidents, EPA has acknowledged that certain active ingredients are too dangerous to remain on the market, and is now requiring all remaining over-the-counter rodent control products to be in secured, tamper-resistant bait stations to reduce the incidents of accidental exposure to children. Granular and powdered products will be banned. But certain chemical companies are refusing to comply with EPA’s order and have indicated that they will challenge the agency’s decision.

Every year, more than 10,000 children are exposed to rodent poison products, and the majority of calls to poison control centers concern children under the age of three. Despite the availability of alternatives, industry is leading a campaign against EPA’s decision, trying to scare communities into believing that they will be overrun with rodents and infested with disease if their products are not used. Meanwhile, less toxic rodent control products and those secured in bait stations are available, effective, and more protective of children, pets and wildlife.

Background
In 2007, EPA proposed a requirement that all over-the-counter rodenticides sold for residential use only be available in tamper-resistant bait stations to reduce the incidents of accidental exposure to children. In 2008, EPA issued its risk mitigation decision to reduce the risks that mouse and rodent poison products pose to children, pets, and non-target wildlife, requiring manufacturers that distributed rodenticides to meet the risk management goals. Those rodenticide manufacturers that failed (refused) to adopt the standards by June 2011 face EPA action to remove and cancel their products.

Here is what you can do”¦

1. Send a letter of support to EPA and ask your member of Congress to stand by EPA’s decision to adopt measures that protect children and wildlife from dangerous rodent poisons.

2. Do not purchase products slated for cancellation: see here for the list.

3. Tell your friends and family that corporate interests must not be allowed to prevail over the health of our children and the environment.

For more information, read Beyond Pesticides recent article in Pesticides and You.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2012) Pets are frequently exposed to toxic chemicals used for lawn care, bug sprays, flea and tick products, and rodenticides. Recently, a dog ingested a zinc phosphide based pellet rodenticide, and threw up these toxic chemicals, creating a toxic gas that caused respiratory stress for four of the veterinary staff where the dog was being treated. The incident happened in Vail Valley Animal Hospital in Edwards, Colorado on December 7, and led to one emergency room veterinarian and three technicians being sent to the hospital. Sadly the dog did not survive after releasing this toxic gas. This is not the first incident of phosphine gas exposure at a veterinary clinic as a total of four have been reported from 2006 to 2011 in Michigan, Iowa, and Washington.

When zinc phosphide is ingested and comes in contact with water it forms a poisonous gas. In a statement, the local fire protection district explained, “When the dog vomited, this released the [phosphine] gas as the pesticide had mixed with the contents in the dog’s stomach.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), inhalation of high concentrations of phosphine gas can be deadly and can cause “damage to the pulmonary, nervous, hepatic, renal and cardiovascular systems.” The Vail Valley staff suffered from respiratory distress, including tightening of the chest, burning of the throat, and difficulty breathing.

Zinc phosphide, which can be found in products such a as Mole Tox (Bondie) and Dexol Gopher Killer (Value Garden Supplies), is commonly used in rodenticide products. Compared to other rodenticides, it takes a minute amount of zinc phosphide to poison pets. For example, it takes 160 ounces of chlrophaclnone, another rodenticide, to kill a 10 pound dog where as it only takes 0.16 ounces of zinc phosphide to kill a dog of the same size. Pets can not only be exposed to zinc phosphide through contact with poison bait stations, but also by eating rodents that have been contaminated with these poisons. Pets often eat rodents that died from eating poison from bait stations, and these rodents pass on the toxicant to pets.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working to phase out some of the most dangerous rodenticide products. In 2007, EPA proposed a requirement that all over-the counter rodenticides sold for residential use should be available only in tamper-resistant bait stations to reduce incidents of accidental exposure. In 2008, EPA issued its risk mitigation decision requiring manufacturers to adhere to four primary requirements. These requirements included a ban on the sale of pellet formulations, which was the formulation involved in the Colorado dog poisoning. Since 2008, three manufacturers still market products that are not in compliance with EPA standards: Reckkit Benckiser LLC, Spectrum Group Division of United Industries Corporation, and Liphatech Inc. Despite strong industry pressure, EPA has made it known that it intends to release a final cancellation order for these products by 2013, which would restrict household use of these products.

Rodenticides are not the only pesticide that can poison our pets. This past August in Utah a golden retriever named “Rusty” died after inhaling the toxic herbicide TruPower3 prior to the chemical being applied to a neighbor’s lawn. The dog’s owner, Ms. Pammi, provided Beyond Pesticides with this statement from Rusty’s vet:

“The herbicide Trupower, which contains a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop-p,and dicamba and a class of phenoxy chemicals, has the potential to cause mild to severe signs in dogs depending [on] amount and concentration of the compound ingested.”

For more information on the effects of pesticides on pets, please read Beyond Pesticide’s “Pesticides and Pets” fact sheet.

To avoid these tragic pet poisoning incidents, Beyond Pesticides advocates for using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies for rodent pest control. IPM is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control that offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce the use of pesticides and minimize the toxicity of and exposure to any products that are used. For more information on least-toxic control of rodents, please read Beyond Pesticide’s “Least Toxic Control of Mice” fact sheet. By using these least toxic strategies you will not only protect your pets from possible contamination but also wildlife that often will feed on rodents that have ingested rodenticide poison.

For more information on least-toxic alternatives to pest problems, please visit Beyond Pesticides alternatives page.

Source: DMV 360

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2012) Decision making advice by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) and insecticide regulator, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), were harshly criticized on Wednesday by Members of Parliament (UK), as they discussed the problems associated with neonicotinoids, a group of neurotoxic insecticides linked to serious declines in bee and pollinator populations. The meeting was attended by Members of Parliament, members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, Lord de Mauley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Department for Environment, the Food and Rural Affairs and officials, bringing neonicotinoids and their impact on bees to the attention of the international community as well as at home.

The discussion focused on the evidence used to make a decision on the allowance of neonicotinoids and plans for the future. ACP members indicated that evidence for future draft plans would be based on new studies developed in 2012 on the effects of neonicotinoids at the colony level, as well as the impact of neonicotinoids exposure in field tests, rather than in the lab. Research will likely fill the extant data gaps, the most important of which were identified by officials of Defra, the environmental regulatory agency in the UK. These include: 1. the need to standardize assessments of chronic impacts to bees in the lab, as short term acute impacts are assessed; 2. the focus on honey bees needs to be broadened, considering 66% of crop pollination in the UK is performed by different species like solitary bees and bumblebees; and 3. there is a need for more information on sublethal effects, particularly in the field. While the “Big 3”””clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxin””have been subjected to significant lethality and sub-lethality field tests, others need to be assessed.

The use of neonicotinoids has been strictly limited in France since the 1990s, when neonicotinoids, particularly imidacloprid, were implicated in a mass die-off of the bee population. In July thiamethoxam was banned. In the midst of dramatically declining bee populations, the German Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVD) also suspended the registration of clothianidin for seed corn use in 2008. Italy has also banned the use of neonicotinoid seed treatment outright, based on studies linking bee loss to seed treatment. Since other countries within the EU have discussed and implemented a moratorium on neonicotinoids seed treatments, the being asked is why has the UK failed to follow suspend the use of neonicotinoids? Indeed, MP Caroline Spelman put the officials to the test: “Was there any discussion on moratorium on the pesticides in ACP [considering the political decisions of France to do so]?” In essence, the MP was told by one ACP official that the decision to continue use of neonicotinoids was based on the fact that treated seeds were “already in the system.” So, although both the French and the English had examined the same weight of evidence, the French set a moratorium on neonicotinoids use while the UK continued to allow their use simply because the seeds were already in the pipeline to be planted.

The ACP was then cross-examined over its complicit acceptance of the current regulatory regime that bases its stance in part on soil accumulation studies, which have been contradicted of late by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): two UK studies conducted over a six year period in the 1990s concluded that imidacloprid concentrations in soil samples had reached plateau saturations levels. However, upon further assessment, EFSA concluded that in fact no plateau had been reached. The data gaps for soil accumulation should have stalled any finalized risk assessment, instead the neonicotinoids continues to be used. To further confound the issue, some of the research conducted has been severely flawed. In one study researchers took only one sample prior to planting season, when chemical concentrations were likely to be at their lowest, rather than sampling throughout the year. Harsh criticism by Members of Parliament was punctuated by one comment that this was: “a gross failure of the system”¦that you have told us is acceptable.” Joan Walley, MP and chair of the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that, “The European system has failed to get a regulatory system fit for purpose”¦ [indeed] evidence seen by the committee raises serious questions about the integrity, transparency and effectiveness of EU pesticides regulation. Data available in the regulators’ own assessment report shows it could be 10 times more persistent in soils than the European safety limit.”

Imidacloprid, one of six neonicotinoids currently available, is manufactured by Bayer, which has testified that the half-life is 16 to 200 days. Research by EFSA has concluded, however, that the half-life of neonicotinoids in UK soils is several times greater than that estimate, at 1,333 and 1,268 days for winter barley experiments. This soil build up is dangerous particularly with repeated use. Professor Dave Goulson an ecologist at the University of Stirling, indicated that neonicotinoids may “accumulate[e] to concentrations very likely to cause mass mortality in most soil-dwelling animal life.”

The meeting continued in the same vein with the environment minister, Lord de Mauley, regarding the progress of plans to address the shortcomings of the regulatory system. Officials indicated that they are in the process of forming a National Action Plan which will address three priority areas: the protection of water, the encouragement of best practices for resistance issues, and develop a “more intelligent Integrated Pest Management system” that relies less on pesticides. However, when questioned on the impacts of imidacloprid and the failures of the regulatory system, Lord de Mauley responded: “The advice to government has been and remains that there are no unacceptable effects. If new work gives rise to a change in advice, we will take it,” adding that, “At the moment, I am satisfied that [European regulatory system] is working properly.”

Despite obvious failures of current regulations, Parliament is taking note of the growing body of scientific evidence linking widespread use of neonicotinoids on declines to bee and pollinator populations, and the opposition to their use is gaining momentum. Indeed, the meeting ended with rebuffs to Defra’s attempts to suggest delaying the publication of the National Action Plan. MP Walley and others on the Environmental Audit Committee are clearly is eager to get some regulations off the ground for neonicotinoids.

Learn more at Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection webpage. The full proceedings may still be viewed here.

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

Source: The Guardian
Photo Source: Hazel M. Walker

(Beyond Pesticides – December 13, 2012) The 31st National Pesticide Forum, Sustainable Families, Farms and Food: Resilient communities through organic practices, will be held April 5-6, 2013 (Friday afternoon and all day Saturday) at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, La Montanita Coop, and the Universtiy of New Mexico Sustainability Studies Program, and co-sponsored by local, state and regional public health and environmental organizations, including the New Mexico Department of Agriculture’s Organic Program, Amigos Bravos, Our Endangered Aquifer Working Group, Farm to Table, Holistic Management International. Contact us if your organization is interested in joining as a co-sponsor.

Registration fees begin at $35. Online registration coming soon.

The conference will focus on building resilience in our food system and bringing ecosystems back to balance, incorporating regional issues such as water and food sovereignty in the Southwest. The National Forum provides an opportunity for grassroots advocates, scientists, and policy makers to interact and strategize on solutions that are protective of health and the environment.

Featured speakers

Joel Forman, MD, is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community and Preventive Medicine at Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York City. Dr. Forman is currently a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Environmental Health and a member of the CDC Lead in Pregnancy Workgroup. Dr. Forman is also one of the lead authors of the recent AAP report, Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages published in the journal Pediatrics.

Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of Center for Food Safety, is a public interest attorney, activist and author. He has been involved in public interest legal activity in numerous areas of technology, human health and the environment. He established the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) in 1994 and the Center for Food Safety(CFS) in 1997, and has written several books and given numerous public lectures on a variety of issues. He has lectured at dozens of universities throughout the country and has testified before congressional and regulatory hearings.

Watch videos from the 30th National Pesticide Forum. We would like to thank everyone who was able to be a part of Healthy Communities: Green solutions for safe environments, the 30th National Pesticide Forum, at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies in New Haven, CT. We believe the opportunity to get together and share information and strategy is vital to public health and environmental protection, and we are glad that so many people were part of this important gathering.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2012) A recent bill introduced in Congress aims to radically alter notions of conflict of interest and would severely hamper the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board (EPA SAB) to reach independent and objective scientific conclusions that can form the basis of policy and chemical risk assessments. This is according to several scientists and environmental organizations that say the bill would weaken longstanding conflict-of-interest considerations for industry scientists, while imposing unprecedented and unnecessary limitations on EPA-funded scientists.

H.R. 6564: EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2012, a bill “to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes,” introduced by U.S. Representative Ralph Hall (R-Texas), would reform EPA’s Science Advisory Board, or SAB, and its subpanels. According to Rep. Hall, H.R. 6564 will increase transparency and reduce conflicts of interests among SAB members. However, independent scientists believe it is an underhanded attack to weaken, if not dismantle, EPA’s scientific process. In two letters, one from eight of the largest national environmental groups and another from 13 public health scientists, Congressional science committee members were urged to rethink pushing forward with the legislation. One letter states, “This proposed legislation would only serve to reverse progress in bringing the best scientific advice and analysis to EPA. The consequence would be to deprive EPA of needed scientific advice on the most complex and pressing environmental health problems of our day.” The letter written by environmental groups notes that industry representatives already dominate proceedings because of their greater numbers and resources.

Congress established the SAB in 1978 and its mission is to provide influential feedback on scientific and technical issues to EPA, such as EPA’s drinking water standards, chemical assessments, human health, ecological and economic impacts. Republicans and industry have long criticized SAB for excluding private-sector experience in favor of university scientists who often receive funding from EPA to conduct their research. They argue that can create a conflict of interest, and Rep. Hall’s legislation would prohibit any scientist who has received any such funds from sitting on the board. But scientists, led by George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services Dean Lynn Goldman, M.D., former EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, took particular aim at that provision.

“The underlying idea that scientists who obtain funding from EPA for any project have conflicts about all EPA matters is baseless and reflects a misunderstanding of who we are as scientists and our role in society,” the group of scientists wrote. Further, they added, the bill “seems to aim to open the door for more involvement on EPA advisory committees by scientists from industry who actually do have potential conflicts of interest.”

Specifically, the measure would reverse longstanding conflict-of-interest policy and practice followed by every authoritative scientific body in the world, including the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the World Health Organization (WHO), by allowing unrestrained access of industry representatives with direct conflicts of interest to serve on the SAB and its panels, as long as their conflicts are disclosed. Further, according to a blog post by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a signatory to the letter, “The bill limits participation by scientists receiving funding from EPA while they serve on the Board to no more than 10% of the total committee. This targets academic/university scientists, typically considered the most independent among experts, because their research is not funded by industries with a stake in the outcome of the research.”

EPA typically reviews scientific research from both university-based research projects that it may help fund, as well as industry data. However, H.R. 6564 would limit university-based scientists from serving on the SAB, predisposing SAB decisions to the positions of more industry-affiliated experts. In other words, the bill presumes that university scientists receiving EPA grants present a conflict of interest, but industry scientists, whose employers have a financial stake in the Board’s decisions, do not. Most of the data EPA reviews are already generated by industry, guided by regulatory standards.

Additionally, the concerned groups also point out that a provision in the bill would add so much to SAB’s work, it would almost grind EPA to a halt. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a lobby for the chemical manufacturing industry, advanced H.R. 6564, which also contains a provision to require that all EPA risk and hazard assessments are subject to SAB review, leading to “endless delays.” This would undoubtedly add years to the already overly long drawn-out process to complete an EPA risk assessment, potentially delaying any possible redress of public health risks and environmental contamination mitigation.

H.R. 6564 would encourage industry conflicts in the review of scientific materials while impeding the agency’s ability to draw on independent experts. It would also pile new and burdensome requirements on the SAB, severely hampering its work and effectiveness. The result would be to further stall and undermine public health, safety and environmental measures conducted by EPA.

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

Source: E&E News

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2012) The USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is proposing to delay compliance with National Organic Standard Board (NOSB) recommendations to disallow non-essential synthetic vitamins, minerals, and accessory nutrients in products certified as organic. An interim rule proposed by NOP will enable the continued illegal use of these ingredients in organic foods, which was allowed by a previous administration without the normally required NOSB ruling. This move represents a complete reversal by the NOP after the program had signaled its intent to comply with the law in rulemaking proposed earlier this year. The Organic Foods Production Act established the NOSB and vested the board with the responsibility to determine those synthetics that are allowed in certified organic under clear health and environmental standards with an assessment of substance essentiality.

Beyond Pesticides urges that concerned citizens provide a public comment to USDA about this issue. (See below for sample letter.)

Background
In 2007 under the Bush Administration, NOP issued an overly broad interpretation of a NOSB recommendation that allowed synthetic nutrients deemed essential by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be added to organic food. However, in 2010 USDA acknowledged that this policy was invalid. Addressing the spring 2011 NOSB meeting (p. 13), USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan apologized for the agency’s mistake and remarked, “The program has the responsibility to provide a clear and transparent list of substances that are allowed in organic production and handling.” The NOSB was informed that any synthetic nutrients in use because of this faulty interpretation, but not yet reviewed by the Board, would be taken off the National List on October 21, 2012. And on January 12 of this year, NOP’s draft guidance amended language in the regulations to require NOSB review before adding any synthetic nutrients to the National List.

When issuing the draft guidance, NOP included a two-year timeline before any final rule would be enforced, stating, “This timeline is intended to allow time for the NOSB’s review of petitions for substances not within the scope of the current listing or amended listing and provides the NOP with an opportunity to initiate rulemaking if the NOSB recommends that such substances be added to the National List. In addition, the NOP believes this timeline would provide sufficient time for the organic trade to adjust product formulations based on the Board recommendation and rulemaking or to consider relabeling products.” In other words, NOP has proposed providing a generous timeframe for producers to either reformulate or wait for a recommendation by the NOSB to allow their particular nutrient. Instead of being removed on October 21, 2012, synthetic nutrients that the NOSB did not approve would still be allowed to be labeled organic for another two years.

However, in a stark reversal of previous statements, NOP’s recent interim rule “renews, without change, the exemption (use) for nutrient vitamins and minerals on the National List. This interim rule would allow the continued use of nutrients, vitamins and minerals in organic products until the agency completes its January, 12, 2012 rulemaking.” NOP states that the reason for this delay is that the agency “continues to review the public comments of the proposed rule and assess the extent of impacts on the industry that could result from correcting the cross reference to FDA regulations.” In total, only nine comments were submitted to Regulations.gov on the January 2012 rulemaking. This interim rule grants NOP, and therefore manufacturers, an indeterminate, unspecified amount of time to comply with the law. Beyond Pesticides objects to this unreasonable delay. The NOP may not legally allow synthetic substances to be used in organic production unless the NOSB recommends their listing on the National List. There is a long history of going from NOSB recommendations to implementation in 12-18 months, and adding an additional indeterminate time period to this timeframe without adequate justification is arbitrary and capricious.

Take Action!
We urge citizens concerned about organic integrity to speak out and provide a public comment to USDA.
Please note that only the fields with an asterisk are required for entry, for “Organization Name” feel free to put “Private Citizen.”

Here’s a sample comment you can place on the docket, but we encourage concerned consumers to personalize this message:

Dear USDA,

I urge you to move forward with rulemaking on synthetic nutrients in organic foods.
Each and every synthetic nutrient in organic food should go through the required legal petition process and be subject to review and oversight by the NOSB. As a consumer of organic food I rely on this process to protect both my own health, and the health of the environment.

I find the USDA’s delay to be unreasonable. It is unacceptable to propose an indeterminate time period for implementing a legal requirement without adequately justifying the reason. Since the interim rule went into effect on October 21, 2012, please subtract any time that lapses between then and the issuance of the final rule from the two year implementation date you’ve granted manufacturers.

Thank you,
-[Your name]

For additional information on the National Organic Program or the National Organic Standards Board, and for the latest decisions by the NOSB, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2012) Long-term low-level exposure to organophosphate pesticides produces lasting damage to neurological and cognitive functions, according to researchers at University College London (UCL). This research pulls data from 14 studies over the past 20 years, including more than 1,600 participants, in order to provide a quantitative analysis of the current literature on these dangerous chemicals. Lead author of the study, Sarah Mackenzie Ross, Ph.D., notes, “This is the first time anyone has analyzed the literature concerning the neurotoxicity of organophosphate pesticides, using the statistical technique of meta-analysis.”

UCL’s systematic review, published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, comes to an unsettling conclusion about the hazards of constant low-level occupational exposure to organophosphates. The study notes, “The majority of well designed studies found a significant association between low-level exposure to [organophosphates] and impaired neurobehavioral function which is consistent, small to moderate in magnitude and concerned primarily with cognitive functions such as psychomotor speed, executive function, visuospatial ability, working and visual memory.” In other words, low-level exposure had significant detrimental effect on working memory and information processing.

The researchers are hopeful that the results of their analysis will be used to inform governments performing reviews on the neurotoxicity of low level exposure to organophosphates. Co-author of the study, Professor Christopher McManus, M.D., Ph.D., explains, “This is considered to be the method of choice in situations where research findings may be used to inform public policy.” Although the study was directed at apprising the UK government, Beyond Pesticides would like to see this research affect registration reviews performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Organophosphates, derived from World War II nerve agents, are a common class of chemicals used as pesticides. Several are already banned or highly restricted in several European countries and in the U.S., where most are still widely used. In addition to being potent neurotoxins, organophosphates pesticides are extremely harmful to the nervous system, as they are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission. Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, EPA has allowed the continued registration of many of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain on the market. Furthermore, the cancellation of household uses does not restrict the use of remaining stocks, meaning homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase-out, may still use this product. Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion are applied annually for residential uses. After a protracted battle with farm worker and environmental groups, EPA acted to phase out all uses of the dangerous organophoshate azinphos-methyl (AZM), however the agency has allowed growers to use their remaining stocks through September 30, 2013.

Through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) Beyond Pesticides keeps track of the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the cognitive harms pesticides can cause, see our PIDD page on Learning/Developmental Disorders.

Source: Alpha Galileo Foundation [News Release]

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2012) The Danish Consumer Council and the Danish Ecological Council, in cooperation with the Technical University of Denmark, have launched the first ever nanotechnology database, with an inventory on 1,200 products that contain or are claimed to be a “nano” products. The database provides a description of each nanotechnology, rates the exposure risks to professional end-users, consumers and the environment, and indicates possible hazards that nanotechnology poses to both human health and the environment —using a color code, where the exposure or potential effect are rated as high (red), medium (yellow), low (green), or unknown (grey).

These nano-sized materials are engineered at one millionth of a millimeter. Or, to put it another way, the size relationship between a baseball and a nanoparticle is similar to the size of a baseball and the entire globe. While nanotechnology is increasingly used every-day in consumer products, including toothpaste, cosmetics, sunscreens, fabric, dietary supplements, pesticides, and even crops, it is still a relatively new field where few of the potential hazards to human health or the environment are known.

Nanoparticles often display novel characteristics like increased strength or conductivity, however they are also more toxic than their normal-sized counterparts. Because they are so small, nanoparticles are extremely mobile. Once there is exposure, nanoparticles can enter the lungs, pass through cell membranes such as the blood-brain barrier and possibly penetrate the skin.

Once inside the body, they seem to have unlimited access to all tissues and organs, including the brain, which may cause cell damage that we don’t yet understand. Carbon nanotubes, designed to improve the conductivity, are often used in consumer crops. When consumed, these nanotubes could facilitate transfer of other materials within the body that are supposed to be contained by membranes. Other studies of ultrafine air pollution have shown that inhalation of nano-sized particles increases the risk of asthma attacks and of death from heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory disease.

Nanotechnologies have also been employed in food production, processing and packaging. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has followed the growth of nanotechnology in the food industry. According to its 2008 report, entitled “Assuring the Safety of Nanomaterials in Food Packaging: The regulatory process and key issues,” nanoparticles raise safety questions different from those raised by the conventional scale version of the same material.

Many food packaging materials have been incorporating nanoparticles, especially silver nanoparticles, to prolong the shelf life and control microbial agents in packaged food. Researchers are developing “smart packaging” that would be able to indicate if the packaged food becomes contaminated, as well as respond to changes in environmental conditions and self-repair holes and tears. Other nanoparticles have been known to be included in food to enhance flavor, and improve emulsification and nutrient availability. Nanosized herbicides, fertilizers, and other agrichemicals are also being developed to enhance the the growth of crops.

Currently, the chemical testing methodologies for nanotechnology are outdated, the manufacturers do not fully disclose the nanoparticles that are involved in their product, and there is a lack of governmental oversight and regulation. As there are no requirements for labeling either in the European Union (E.U.) or the U.S., consumers are largely in the dark. This database will serve as a first step in informing consumers about nanotechnology products so that they can make informed choices. Though database has limited applicability for products in the U.S., aside from those that are sold both within Denmark and at home, it provides an impetus to continue researching the impacts of nanotechnogy to human and environmental health.

Currently, USDA organic certified products are the last refuge for consumers wanting to nanomaterials. The National Organic Standards Board imposed general ban over nanotechnology in Fall 2010. Because nanotechnology is such a new field, nanomaterials were not specifically addressed by the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990. Overall, little is being done to review, regulate, or safety test nanotechnology that is currently being used in agriculture and food processing, ingredients and packaging.

For more information on nanomaterials, see Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Source: Nanowerk
Image Source: Introduction to Nanotechnology

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2012) A study published in the December issue of Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology finds that exposure to dichlorophenols may be associated food allergies. Dichlorophenols are used as an intermediary in the manufacturing of some of the most commonly used pesticides, such as 2,4-D, and are also used to chlorinate drinking water. This study may help explain in part why food allergies are on the rise in the U.S. and already affect 15 million Americans.

Lead researcher Dr. Elina Jerschow and her associates analyzed the urine of 10,348 Americans who were participants in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2005-2006. Of the over 10,000 surveyed, 2,548 had detectable amounts of dichlorophenols in their urine, and 2,211 of those participants were included in the study. Out of these 2,211 people, 1,427 were found to have some form of either food or environmental allergy. Participants with higher levels of dichlorophenols are more likely to have allergies then those with low levels present in their urine.

Researchers in this study argue that by consuming high levels of dichlorophenols individuals are altering the composition of bacteria in their stomachs. By over consuming dichlorophenols individuals are exposed to too few healthy bacteria, which makes them more sensitive to food allergies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 4-6 percent of children have a food allergy. The agency also notes that food allergies in children rose 18 percent between 1997 and 2007. “Previous studies have shown that both food allergies and environmental pollution are increasing in the United States,” said Dr. Jerschow. “The results of our study suggest these two trends might be linked, and that increased use of pesticides and other chemicals is associated with a higher prevalence of food allergies.”

Dichlorophenol chemicals are used to manufacture pesticides and may appear in the environment as these pesticides break down. 2,4-Dichlorophenol is a breakdown product of 2,4-D, which has been found to be a cancer promoter and an endocrine disruptor. 2,4-Dichlorophenol is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) priority pollutant pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The controversial antibacterial triclosan also breaks down into 2,4-Dichlorophenol when it interacts with sunlight when in water. The chemical 2,5-Dichlorophenol has also been linked to childhood obesity.

Even though dichloprophenols have been discovered in drinking water, opting for bottled water may not reduce the risk for developing allergies. According to Dr. Jerschow, “Other dichlorophenol sources, such as pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables, may play a greater role in causing food allergy.” The only way to avoid pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables is to purchase all USDA certified organic produce.

According to a recent American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) report, “In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.” This report was followed by a landmark policy statement and an accompanying technical report on the effects of pesticide exposure in children, which notes that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. Children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet.

Beyond Pesticides advocates through our Eating with a Conscience program choosing organic fruits and vegetables because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), 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.

For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Food program page.

Source: CBS

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2012) This year, December 8th marks the beginning of Hanukkah, the Jewish holiday known as the “Festival of Lights.” Hanukkah is a time for lighting the menorah, spinning the dreidel, eating good food, and spending time with loved ones””not a time for toxic chemicals to be making their way into your family’s holiday food.

Latkes, or potato pancakes, served with apple sauce are the traditional food eaten on Hanukkah. But both potatoes and apples are foods that are typically high in pesticides. According to Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, potatoes that are grown with toxic chemicals show low pesticide residues on the finished commodity, however, there are 78 pesticides with established tolerance for potatoes, 30 are acutely toxic creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 69 are linked to chronic health problems (such as cancer), 17 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 70 are poisonous to wildlife. Potatoes have been found to contain residues of the pesticides thiabendazole, endosulfan, and aldicarb ””all 3 of which are hazardous, especially to children.

Similarly, there are 109 pesticides with established tolerance for apples, 38 are acutely toxic, creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 91 are linked to chronic health problems (such as cancer), 14 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 91 are poisonous to wildlife. Apples may have residues of chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate so dangerous to children that it was banned in homes, as well as 2,4-D, an herbicide with wide-ranging reproductive and neurotoxic effects.

While not all the pesticides listed in the Eating with a Conscience database are applied to all potatoes or apples, there is no way to tell which pesticides are applied to any given piece of conventional produce on your store shelf. You may consider talking to the farmers at your local farmers’ market about the pesticides they use, but eating organic is the only way to know for sure.
A recent American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) report, “In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.” This was followed by a landmark policy statement and an accompanying technical report on the effects of pesticide exposure in children, which notes that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure and children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its program and through its Eating with a Conscience website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. 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 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. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

This Hanukkah, protect your family, and go organic.

CHESTER’S KNUCKLE-SAVING ORGANIC LATKES
Cut into chunks unpeeled, scrubbed organic potatoes””three cups’ worth. For 3 cups’ worth of spuds, use:
1 organic egg
2 small organic onions
2-3 tablespoons organic flour
1 tablespoon soft organic butter
1/2 teaspoon salt & 1/8 teaspoon organic black pepper
In the food processor blend ¾ of potatoes with all ingredients. Add remaining potatoes using shredder blade.
Pour onto hot, well-greased griddle; turn when edges are brown and middles bubble slightly.
Serve with organic applesauce.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2012) For consumers, the holiday season is full of complicated choices, including the conundrum of how to find the perfect Christmas tree. The most important part of selecting a tree is not its size and shape, but rather finding one that will pose the least risk to the health of your family and the environment. Thus, the safest holiday choice for you and yours is purchasing an organic tree as opposed to one that is artificial or grown using harsh chemical methods. However, because the organic tree industry is still a sapling in its own right, follow these helpful tips to make sure you not only purchase the organic tree of your dreams but also dispose of it in a responsible way as you usher in the New Year.

The Case for Going Organic

Christmas trees are a big business in the United States. In 2011, Americans purchased over 30 million trees. However, organic Christmas trees, which follow the same U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards as agricultural crops, make up less than 1% of all Christmas trees farmed. Thankfully though, much like other non-edible organic products, such as cotton, growing public awareness of the need for a greener tree is on the rise and more organic trees are being produced to meet this demand.

Organic trees are a dramatic improvement from conventionally grown and artificial trees in several ways. The pesticides that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers for use on conventionally grown Christmas trees are linked to numerous adverse health effects, including cancer, hormonal disruption, neurotoxicity, organ damage, reproductive/birth defects, asthma, and more. Additionally, artificial trees can be equally bad for the environment and children’s health as their conventional counterparts. Most artificial Christmas trees are made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic. Lead can be used to stabilize certain PVC products, and some labels on artificial Christmas trees caution individuals to avoid inhaling or eating any bits of lead dust that may fall from the branches.

Where to Find Christmas Trees

If you’d prefer to go pesticide free this holiday, purchase your organic tree as soon as possible – because of limited supplies they tend sell out quickly. As of 2008, there are only 63 organic Christmas tree farms in the U.S. but, as organic agriculture has grown over the last five years, it is safe to assume that this number may now be greater.

Here are some online resources to help you find some organic trees in your area:
Ӣ Green Promise. This website has an organic Christmas tree sources list with operations in 22 states. It also has eco-friendly gift guide to help you put green gifts under the tree.
”¢ Local Harvest. Along with Christmas trees, this site can also be used to find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area. The Christmas trees can be found under the wreath section.
Ӣ If you do not live close to any of the many farms on the above websites, other farms such as Silvertip Tree Farms in North Fork California will let you purchase trees on-line and ship them anywhere in the country.

If the cost of shipping a tree to your home is prohibitive, or you are unable to locate an organic tree farm using the resources above, the next best option is to try your local Christmas tree farm or a farmers’ market. If you purchase trees from tree lots or from large chain stores, it can be hard to determine where your tree is coming from. It is also easier to find “Charlie Brown” or “wild” trees at a tree farm than at big box stores or tree lots. These trees have a different physical appearance than pruned trees, but this more traditional aesthetic is appealing to some consumers. Going to a local tree farm or farmers’ market does not guarantee you will be purchasing a tree that is grown organically or without synthetic pesticides, however these settings give you the opportunity to speak with the farmer about their growing methods. Often, you can find trees that haven’t been overly pruned and grown without many chemical inputs. However, be aware that without organic certification, unless you know the farmer, any claims of sustainability hold very little weight since it has not been verified by a third party.

Cutting Down and Bringing a Tree Home

This can be a fun family activity and a nice way to spend a little more time outdoors. It may also be more economical, as tree farms may charge you less if you cut the tree yourself.

However, cutting your own tree does require some advanced planning:
Ӣ Before cutting down a tree be sure it will fit in the place you plan on putting it in your house. It is important to measure the space where you will set up your tree before cutting or purchasing any tree.
Ӣ Make sure when you cut the tree that you cut as close to the ground as possible, and that the cut is even along its base.
Ӣ Bring friends or family to help you carry the tree and to possibly tie the tree to the top of your car. These tasks, if done alone and in the dark, have the potential to make you lose your holiday cheer.
Ӣ Be prepared by bringing rope and a hand saw in case the tree farm does not provide you with one. Remember, most tree farms do not allow customers to bring chainsaws or more industrial equipment to remove trees.

Caring for Your Tree

Once you have brought the organic tree of your dreams back to your home it is important to give it proper care and attention so it remains fresh throughout the holiday season:
Ӣ Make a fresh cut to remove about a 1/2-inch thick disk of wood from the base of the trunk before putting the tree in the stand. Do not cut the trunk at an angle, or into a V-shape, which makes it far more difficult to hold the tree in the stand and also reduces the amount of water available to the tree.
Ӣ Use a stand that fits your tree. Avoid whittling the sides of the trunk down to fit a stand. The outer layers of wood are the most efficient in taking up water and should not be removed. Also make sure this stand can hold enough water. Stands should provide 1 quart of water per inch of stem diameter.
”¢ When it’s time to decorate, string lights that produce low heat, which will reduce drying of the tree. For additional tree maintenance tips, the National Christmas Tree Association has helpful information on different tree species.

Buy a Living Tree!

The best option, and probably the most adventurous, is to buy a tree that still has its roots and can be planted again after the holidays.

To take this project on there are several things to take into account:
Ӣ Consider the adaptability of the species to your environment. A good option for people in a temperate climate is the Scotch pine as this tree has an excellent survival rate, and is easy to replant.
Ӣ Living trees can be very heavy and bulky. A six foot tall balled and burlapped tree can weigh as much as 250 pounds.
Ӣ Avoid having to dig a hole while the ground is frozen. Dig the hole you plan on planting the tree in as soon as you purchase the tree. After you dig the hole fill it with mulch to keep it from freezing over.

Adding a Christmas tree to your yard could become a fun tradition for your family, and if you purchase a small tree you could re-dig and re-plant the tree for several years!

Disposing of Your Tree

If planting a tree seems too daunting or is just not feasible, there are ways to dispose of your tree in an eco-friendly way. First and foremost, it is important to make sure your tree avoids a landfill after the festivities. According to Sierra Club, an estimated 10 million Christmas trees unnecessarily end up there each year.

Here are some tips on how to recycle your tree:
Ӣ Goats love to recycle Christmas trees! They will strip the whole tree by eating all of the needles leaving just the trunk, which can be turned into firewood.
Ӣ Turn your old Christmas tree into a bird feeder by placing the tree in your garden or backyard and place fresh orange slices or strung popcorn on it. This will attract the birds who can sit in the branches for shelter.
Ӣ Mulch your tree by removing its branches and putting it through a wood chipper. These chips can be used as mulch in your garden or as part of your compost. If you plan on using this mulch in your garden be sure it is from an organic tree because conventionally grown trees can retain pesticides in its wood.
Ӣ Create habits for fish by sinking your tree into a nearby pond with deep water. Trees make an excellent refuge and feeding area for fish.
Ӣ Most communities have a curbside-pick up option for tree recycling. Check with your city to see if they offer this service, and if they do, make sure to remove all ornaments and decorations before you put your tree out!
Ӣ If curbside pickup is not available in your community, many local nonprofit organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, will offer to pick up your tree and recycle it for a small donation.

Holidays can be complicated, but one decision that you can feel confident about is your Christmas tree purchase. By purchasing an organic Christmas tree, you are making the responsible choice for the health of your loved ones and the environment. Also, by recycling your tree responsibly after the holiday season, you will make sure that your tree can be a gift that keeps on giving to your garden, birds, fish, or goats.

For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides webpage on Pesticide-Free Holidays.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2012) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has denied a 2010 petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN) to ban the insecticide lindane, which is harmful to human health and ineffective in controlling lice and scabies. Pressure had been mounting on FDA to halt the pharmaceutical use of lindane as, in addition to this petition, Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, asked FDA to stop the pharmaceutical use of lindane this past summer. Because of FDA’s decision, lindane is still an active ingredient in pharmaceutical insecticide products such as lice shampoos and lotions. Lindane was formerly used in agricultural insecticides until it was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use on crops in 2006. FDA regulates pharmaceuticals that contain insecticides and pesticides, such as triclosan, that are in cosmetics.

Over 160 countries including the United States have signed on to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in 2001 which aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic polluntants. Lindane along with nine other chemcials was added to this list on May 9th 2009 with these countries thereby agreeing to end their use allowane of lindane by 2014, but the treaty still allows for pharmaceutical use until the existing stocks are depleted. Before this treaty, 50 countries and the state of California had already banned the use of this toxic chemical.

The dangers of lindane are well documented. Lindane is an organochlorine class pesticide, similar in structure to DDT, and a known neurotoxicant and endocrine disruptor. In addition to being a carcinogen, perhaps the most startling health effect associated with the use of lindane is seizures in young children and adults at doses of 1.6 and 45 grams, respectively. Children are clearly more sensitive to the use of this product. That should come as no surprise after a recent report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” Children are often the ones treated with these chemicals since they are more susceptible to lice then adults. Lindane has been classified by EPA as a class B2/C possible human carcinogen, based on liver and lung tumors in mice. The chemical has been linked to reproductive problems in mice, such as adverse fetal development and body weight. It is also slightly estrogenic to female rodents, and causes the testes of male rats to become atrophied.

The use of lindane can also be harmful to the environment. Lindane is moderately toxic to bird species and pollinators, and is highly persistent in most soils. The chemical moves quickly through soils and water, posing a significant risk of groundwater contamination. A recent study by Elizabeth H. Humphreys and several colleges published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that California’s successful ban on lindane led to cleaner drinking water. According to this study, since the ban on lindane was enacted, levels in waste-water treatment facilities have decreased to almost undetectable levels.

In addition to the human and environmental health risks that lindane presents, it is also ineffective at controlling lice and scabies. Over time, lice and scabies have become resistant to lindane. Results of a recent study from the Miami School of Medicine reveal that even amongst five other harmful chemical head lice shampoo treatments, the lindane-based shampoo was the least effective product. Another Belgium study declared that lindane-based products are “not sufficiently effective to justify their use.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the use of non- and least-toxic methods to control for head lice, as these methods have been proven to be both safer and more effective. One of the safest methods to combat lice is to coat one’s hair with oil and carefully pick through the hair with a nit comb. Remember to place the lice in hot soapy water after they have been removed from the hair. Another method is to use hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, ultimately killing them. A recent study from the University of Utah found this method outperformed insecticidal shampoos at killing adult lice and their eggs.

For more information on controlling head lice without toxic chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides’ alternatives webpage and our fact sheets on Head Lice and Scabies and Getting Nit Picky about Head Lice.

Source: PAN press release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2012) A health care institution is weighing in to warn people about potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) food. On the heels of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ warning on pesticides, the nation’s largest nonprofit health care plan, Kaiser Permanente, has published in its print newsletter, Partners in Health, tips on limiting exposure to genetically engineered food. In the Fall 2012, Kaiser Permanente has published an article, “What you need to know about GMO: Limit exposure to genetically engineered organisms with these tips.”

This discussion in the health care sector is part of a growing involvement by health care practitioners in environmental health concerns related to pesticides and genetic engineering of the food supply. While Canadian medical groups have warned the public about the dangers of pesticides and supported phase-outs, institutions representing the medical community in the U.S. have been more reserved. In 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) in Canada strongly recommended that people reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever possible, after releasing a comprehensive review of research on the effects of pesticides on human health. OCFP’s Systematic Review of Pesticide Human Health Effects shows consistent pesticide links to serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases, among others. The study also shows that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides.

In an interview with the Salem Weekly, an official with Kaiser indicated that the article does not represent Kaiser policy, but presents information that the plan thinks is important for its members to have. The official said, “Kaiser Permanente believes the ongoing research and debate on bioengineered foods, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is important. We also recognize there are important conversations about related initiatives and propositions. While we believe these are important scientific and political debates, we do not have policy positions on these subjects.”

In the piece that was written by a Kaiser nutritionist, readers are told, “Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health, independent researchers have found that several varieties of GMO corn caused organ damage in rats. Other studies have found GMOs may lead to an inability in animals to reproduce.” The article suggests that eating USDA certified organic food can help limit exposure to GMOs.

Because of the widespread and growing allowance of genetically engineered crops contamination through genetic drift has become an increasing problem for non-GE and organic crops.

This summer before the release of AC21’s (Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture) report, Enhancing Coexistence: A Report of the AC21 to the Secretary of Agriculture, to the Secretary of Agriculture in November, Beyond Pesticides said, “Specifically, we suggest the inclusion of a phrase in the definition [of the coexistence of GE and non-GE agriculture] stipulating that all parties are entitled to assurances against trespass from genetic drift. Coexistence of any kind should include a shared understanding of boundaries and a requirement under the penalty of law to respect those boundaries. Without any guarantee that coexistence will ensure cultivation without trespass, organic and non-GE farmers will be at a significant disadvantage and “coexistence” will result in a severely imbalanced system. Where trespass occurs, operations that are trespassing should be prevented from doing so.” Because of the certainty of GE contamination of organic crops, the National Organic Coalition commented on the AC21 report, “At the bare minimum, USDA must stop approving additional GE crops, and prevent GE contamination by mandating pollution prevention measures, as well as make transgenic polluters, including GE technology owners, pay for their contamination.”

California’s Prop 37 was defeated at the polls in November. Had it been approved, California would have required labels for raw or processed food with GE ingredients and the state would have prohibited the labeling and advertising of foods using the misleading term “natural.”

Adding to the 4.2 million Californians who cast their ballots for the right to know what’s in their food, Beyond Pesticides, as a part of the Just Label It campaign, is asking supporters to do three things: sign the FDA petition for mandatory food labeling, tell friends and family to do the same, and urge your elected representatives to support GE labeling. Beyond Pesticides is a party to a petition seeking product disclosure of GE ingredients, which was written by attorneys at the Center for Food Safety and filed in October 2011 with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Source: WillametteLive.com

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2012) Preliminary research from Penn State finds that a natural fungus, Beauveria bassiana, may be used to control bedbugs. The study, entitled “A preliminary evaluation of the potential of Beauveria bassiana for bed bug control,” finds that all of the bedbugs exposed to the biopesticide became infected and died within five days. The research found no differences in insect’s susceptibility to the fungus due to feeding status, sex, strain, or life stage. Most importantly, the infected bedbugs carried the biopesticide back to their hiding places, infecting those that did not go out in search of blood.

“We exposed half of a population of bedbugs to a spray residue for one hour and then allowed them to go into a harborage with unexposed individuals,” said Nina Jenkins, senior research associate in entomology. “The fungal spores were transferred from the exposed bug to their unexposed companions, and we observed almost a hundred percent infection. So they don’t even need to be directly exposed, and that’s something chemicals cannot do.”

This result is important because bedbugs live in hard-to-reach places. “Bedbugs tend to be cryptic, and they’ll hide in the tiniest crevices,” said Ms. Jenkins. “They don’t just live in your bed. They hide behind light switches and power sockets and in between the cracks of the baseboard and underneath your carpet.”

Ms. Jenkins, working with Alexis Barbarin, Ph.D., a former Penn State postgraduate student now at the University of Pennsylvania, Edwin Rajotte, Ph.D., professor of entomology, and Matthew Thomas, Ph.D., professor of entomology, looked at how B. bassiana acts through contact with its insect host. The researchers used an airbrush sprayer to apply spore formulations to paper and cotton jersey, a common bed sheet material. Then control surfaces, again paper and cotton jersey, were sprayed with blank oil only. The surfaces were allowed to dry at room temperature overnight. Three groups of 10 bedbugs were then exposed to one of the two surfaces for one hour. Afterward, they were placed on clean filter paper in a petri dish and monitored. The research is published in the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology.

“They are natural diseases that exist in the environment,” Ms. Jenkins said. “They are relatively easy to produce in a lab and stable, so you can use them much like chemical pesticides.”

Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of non-toxic and least-toxic pesticide alternatives; however, while biopesticides are traditionally classified as a least-toxic method for pest management, products that are designed to kill living organisms should always be treated with caution. In order to successfully deal with any pest infestation, one must embrace an organic, or integrative pest management (IPM) approach which is a program of prevention, monitoring and control, using least-toxic pesticide products, including biological controls, only as a last resort. Methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat can control an infestation without dangerous or unwanted 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.

This is not the first time a fungus has proven to be an effective natural pesticide. The fungus B. bassiana is also known to be an effective biological control for many other household pests, including termites, aphids, and chinch bugs. The naturally occurring fungus Metarhizium anisopliae has shown promise in reducing blacklegged, or “deer” ticks, and is effective at controlling a wide range of crop pests. In 2009, an Australian government study has shown that lice on sheep may be controlled by fungal biopesticides. Researchers at Utah State University are studying a fungus that kills Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex) by depositing spores inside them that multiply and eventually break through their exoskeletons.

For more information on how to prevent and manage bedbugs, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bedbugs program page.

Source: Penn State Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 28, 2012) Earlier this year the maker of the fumigant methyl iodide indicated it would stop producing the toxic chemical. Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the registrant, Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to formally terminate all agricultural use of methyl iodide in the U.S. by the end of 2012 and ultimately remove all methyl iodide products from the U.S. market.

EPA is opening a 30-day comment period for Arysta’s request for voluntary cancellation of all of the company’s methyl iodide product registrations, as stipulated in the agreement. Methyl iodide, or iodomethane, has been registered since 2007 for use as a pre-plant soil fumigant to control pests in soil where fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and turf are to be grown. In March 2012, Arysta, the sole registrant, announced its plans to immediately suspend all sales of its methyl iodide MIDAS ® products in the U.S.

Under the recently signed agreement and the voluntary cancellation request, all of Arysta’s existing methyl iodide end-use product registrations will be cancelled and use of existing stocks in the U.S. will be prohibited effective December 31, 2012. Further distribution and sale of methyl iodide end-use products will be prohibited, and users and distributors are expected to return the products to Arysta (the company will take back existing stocks) or for proper disposal or export. As of January 1, 2013, Arysta may no longer produce methyl iodide for use in the U.S. The technical product registration will be cancelled effective December 1, 2015. After that date, all sale and distribution of the technical product to formulators will also be prohibited, however stocks are permitted to be exported until supplies are exhausted. Arysta will send methyl iodide product purchasers and retailers a letter describing these provisions.

All of this is announced in EPA’s November 21, 2012 Federal Register notice (77 FR 69840). EPA anticipates finalizing the cancellation order by the end of 2012, after which the agency plans to respond to a March 2010 petition from Earthjustice and other organizations requesting that the agency suspend and cancel all methyl iodide registrations. Earthjustice, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), Pesticide Watch, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Farmworker Association of Florida, and others petitioned EPA to exercise its authority under Section 6 of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to suspend and cancel all registrations for the pesticide methyl iodide, citing that the chemical poses “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

At the same time, several environmental groups sued the State of California in an attempt to reverse the state’s approval of the chemical. Environmental advocacy groups and other opponents of methyl iodide use in the state have released documents detailing dissension in the ranks of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) over the risk assessment of methyl iodide and its subsequent approval. The court case revealed documents showing CDPR manipulated data and that department scientists were worried risk managers minimized health dangers and did not take strong enough steps to mitigate the threats. One of the released documents, a memo from one disapproving CDPR scientist, chastised the agency for its cut-and-paste approach to calculations determining how big buffer zones should be to protect public health. A California Superior Court Judge raised concerns about whether CDPR complied with its legal obligation to consider alternative options before approving the use. The voluntary cancellation appears to end the need to pursue legal action for U.S. uses.

Methyl iodide was developed as an alternative to the fumigant methyl bromide, a notorious ozone-depletor. Methyl bromide has been nominally banned in industrialized countries by international treaty. While methyl iodide’s impact on the ozone layer is unquestionably far less than that of methyl bromide, its toxicity is now known to be significantly greater than assumed by EPA at the time of registration, as is its potential to contaminate sources of drinking water. In 2007, EPA approved a time-limited, one-year conditional registration of methyl iodide 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, 2008, EPA issued a new registration notice converting the time-limited conditional registration to a time-unlimited conditional registration, leaving as conditions only the requirements that the registrant provide a product training/stewardship program and that it follow the data and label submission requirements of other soil fumigants.

Methyl iodide is applied to much of California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling millions of pounds of use. Though methyl iodide was to be used primarily on strawberries, it was also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.

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. The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and those in the surrounding communities because of the volume applied to fields and its tendency to drift off-site through the air. As a result, use of the fumigant carries severe restrictions on use near schools and residential areas.

Luckily, there are less toxic ways to grow strawberries and other crops that have relied on fumigant pesticides like methyl iodide. Organic agriculture for instance does not allow fumigants or hazardous pesticides when growing crops, and there is a thriving organic strawberry industry in California and around the country. However, organic certifiers have allowed strawberry plant stock, or starts, to be grown with methyl bromide, even though a commercially viable method had been developed without its use. This issue is now be considered by the National Organic Program, as it develops guidance on non-organic planting stock in organic production. See Draft Guidance on Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop Production. Beyond Pesticides has submitted extensive comments on this issue and called for an end to the practice of using methyl bromide in organic strawberry planting stock, pointing to a 2005 National Organic Standards Board recommendation on commercial availability and other issues.

Other alternatives to methyl bromide include selecting more resilient varieties and improved cultivars of strawberries, as well as incorporating traditional cultural practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, and physical methods such as soil solarization and anaerobic disinfestation.

The methyl iodide Memorandum of Agreement and the EPA’s Federal Register notice announcing the voluntary cancellation request is available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252 at www.regulations.gov and on EPA’s methyl iodide page.

Source: EPA News Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2012) On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a landmark policy statement, Pesticide Exposure in Children, and an accompanying technical report on the effects of pesticide exposure in children. In the documents, released in the December 2012 issue of Pediatrics magazine and online on November 26, AAP makes note of the current shortfalls in medical training, public health tracking, and regulatory action on pesticides. Acknowledging the risks to children from both acute and chronic effects, AAP’s report provides recommendations to both pediatricians and government health agencies. AAP’s policy statement comes on the heels of an October 2012 report citing the benefits of eating organic food in order to reduce pesticide exposure. Lead authors on the documents for the AAP’s Council on Environmental Health are James R. Roberts, MD, MPH, Medical University of South Carolina, and Catherine J. Karr, MD, PhD, University of Washington.

AAP’s statement notes that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” The report discusses how kids are exposed to pesticides every day in air, food, dust, and soil. Children also frequently come into contact with pesticide residue on pets and after lawn, garden, or household pesticide applications. The authors explain how diet is likely the main pathway for pesticide exposure in children, citing a 2006 intervention study, which found that switching children to an all-organic diet had an immediate and substantial decrease in the concentration of pesticides in their bodies.

Labeling
Pesticide labels are cited as a specific area of concern in the report. The authors note that current labels do not include the pesticides’ class, a listing of “inert” ingredients in the product, or information on chronic toxicity. AAP recommends pediatricians understand the usefulness and limitations of pesticide information on product labels. The policy statement advises government to require manufacturers to disclosure inert ingredients either on the product’s label or on the company’s web site. AAP also recommends the creation of a “risks to children” section on pesticide labels, which should inform potential applicators whether active or inert ingredients in the product pose chronic or developmental health concerns for children. Beyond Pesticides has long called for the disclosure of inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. A 2009 study showing that the “inert” ingredient in Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells provides additional evidence of this need.

Acute Toxicity
In terms of acute pesticide toxicity, AAP is instructing pediatricians to become more familiar with the various signs and symptoms of exposure. The report states, “Pediatric care providers have a poor track record for recognition of acute pesticide poisoning. This reflects their self-reported lack of medical education and self-efficacy on the topic.” However, AAP also notes that formal data systems that track pesticide exposure incidents are inadequate, and those that track usage trends are outdated (the last national survey on home pesticide use was in 1993). AAP recommends government “make pesticide—related suspected poisoning universally reportable and support a systematic central repository of such incidents to optimize national surveillance.”

Chronic Effects
AAP’s policy statement explains that the past decade has seen an expansion of the evidence showing adverse effects after chronic pesticide exposure. The authors note that the strongest links between pesticides and health effects to children concern pediatric cancer and adverse neurodevelopment. However, low birth weight, preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, cognitive deficits (ADHD, Lower IQ) and asthma are also cited as being pesticide-induced. AAP recommends pediatricians become familiar with the “subclinical” effects of chronic exposures.

General Recommendations
AAP’s policy statement provides a number of general recommendations to pediatricians and government apart from those mentioned above. The authors advise government to set a goal of reducing overall exposure by promoting methods and practices which minimize pesticide contact. AAP explains that government can accomplish this by supporting least toxic pesticide alternatives through integrated pest management (IPM). The statement recommends government provide economic incentives to growers who adopt IPM, and support research to expand IPM in both agriculture and non-agricultural pest control.

The report also recommends government agencies adopt community education and outreach, letting people know when pesticide spraying will occur in public areas. Strengthening procedures and enforcement standards for removing hazardous products is also cited as an area where government should focus its efforts. AAP strongly recommends government require a human biomarker (such as a urinary or blood measure of pesticide concentrations) that could be used to identify exposure or early health implications with new or reregistered products.

The policy statement also encourages government to provide increased education and support to health care providers. This includes providing systems such as Poison Control Centers for timely advice on exposures, and developing diagnostic tests to assist providers with diagnosing pesticide poisoning.

For pediatricians, AAP recommends that providers speak with the parents of their patients about the risks associated with pesticide use, and endorse the use of least-toxic products and IPM methods when possible. The Academy also asks pediatricians to work with schools and government agencies to advocate for IPM principles and a community’s right to know when pesticide sprayings occur. “Pediatricians can play a role in promotion of development of model programs and practices in the communities and schools of their patients,” the AAP policy statement says.

This policy statement is a sobering wake-up call for government agencies and elected officials that our children are not being adequately protected from exposure to toxic compounds. Beyond Pesticides would like to see the AAP recommendations swiftly enacted by government, as well as a broader adoption of organic practices, in order to safeguard the health of future generations.

If you’d like to work with Beyond Pesticides to change the pesticide laws in your community, contact [email protected] or call 202-543-5450. For more information on how pesticides affect kids’ health, refer to our Children and Schools program page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2012) The U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment process does not account for cumulative dietary exposure to the multitude of pesticides on conventional foods. The agency typically analyzes the exposure risk associated with each pesticide on an individual basis, except for those determined to have a common mechanism of toxicity. In light of these gaps in America’s regulatory process, researchers at UC Davis and UCLA in Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment conducted an analysis of the toxics children and adults are exposed to through a normal diet. Rainbow Vogt, Ph.D., lead author of the study published in the journal Environmental Health, explains, “We focused on children because early exposure can have long-term effects on disease outcomes.”

Researchers preformed their risk assessment by estimating exposure to food contaminants based on self-reported food frequency data for eleven toxic compounds- acrylamide, arsenic, lead, mercury, chlorpyrifos, permethrin, endosulfan, dieldrin, chlordane, DDE, and dioxin. Data was drawn from the 2007 Study of the Use of Products and Exposure-Related Behavior, which examines behaviors that influence exposure to toxicants in the home environment. Normal consumption patterns were then measured against established benchmarks for cancer risks and other non-cancer health risks.

Results of the study are of particular concern for parents with young children. Every child in the study exceeded the cancer benchmarks for arsenic, dieldrin, DDE and dioxin. Moreover, children exceeded the non-cancer and cancer benchmarks by a greater margin than adults for all compounds. In fact, preschool-age children (years 2-4) were significantly more likely to have higher dietary intakes relative to their body weight for acrylamide, lead, chlordane, dieldrin, DDE, and dioxins compared to older children (years 5-7). As co-author of the study, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Ph.D. notes, “We need to be especially careful about children, because they tend to be more vulnerable to many of these chemicals and their effects on the developing brain.”

The study authors note that data on cumulative exposure to individual pesticides does not provide a holistic view of the chemicals children are exposed to throughout their young lives. The study explains, “Since exposures may operate synergistically, additively, or even antagonistically, a more comprehensive approach to establishing safe contaminant levels in food would consider the hundreds of chemicals humans are exposed to on a daily basis through a number of different routes and from different sources.”

Of particular note for environmental regulators is the significant presence of DDE, a breakdown product of the legacy chemical DDT. Co-author of the study Deborah Bennett, Ph.D. notes, “Given the significant exposure to legacy pollutants, society should be concerned about the persistence of compounds we are currently introducing into the environment. If we later discover a chemical has significant health risks, it will be decades before it’s completely removed from the ecosystem.”

Beyond Pesticides has long called for an alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from the current approach of risk assessment by rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, when studies show (see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide—Induced Diseases Database) clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment”based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical”intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.

The study does review alternative strategies to reduce risk. Researchers put forward the idea of eating a varied diet and consuming many different types of foods because, for instance, certain chemicals may be found in lettuce and broccoli, while others in peaches in apples. The goal in this approach would be to minimize excessive exposure to a certain chemical. However, as the authors noted early in the study, attempting to minimize risk by eating a varied diet could lead to unknown consequences. Different chemicals can operate synergistically, possibly increasing the potency of other chemicals. For a look at the numerous chemicals found on conventional produce, refer to Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience Webpage.

The only sure way to avoid exposure to multiple pesticides and chemicals is to choose organic food, and the authors note this as a plausible strategy to avoid chemical exposure. 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 food that is not labeled organic -pesticides that contaminate our food, water, and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife. For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: ScienceDaily, Environmental Health

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