The study, entitled “Menstrual cycle characteristics and reproductive hormone levels in women exposed to atrazine in drinking water,” was published in the journal Environmental Research earlier this month, and is based on municipal tap water tested between July and September of 2005. In the study, participants maintained menstrual cycle diaries, answered a questionnaire, and provided daily urine samples for analyses of luteinizing hormone and estradiol and progesterone metabolites. To measure exposure, analysts looked at the state of residence, concentrations of atrazine and chlorotriazine in tap water, municipal water and urine, and estimated dose from water consumption.

According to researchers, the average concentration of atrazine in Illinois water was 0.7 parts per billion (ppb) — which is well below EPA’s standard of 3ppb. What’s more alarming is that co-author Lori Cragin, Ph.D. says that drought conditions at the time of sampling for this study in 2005 would have slowed the runoff from farm fields.

Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to EPA earlier this month in response to a petition by the group Save the Frogs urging the agency to ban atrazine. In Beyond Pesticides’ comments, several studies are highlighed that have been published in the scientific literature since EPA began reevaluating atrazine under its registration review process in 2009. This research includes a 2011 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, showing that prenatal exposure to atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction; a study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2010 finds male rats prenatally exposed to low doses of atrazine are more likely to develop prostate inflammation and to go through puberty later than non-exposed animals; and, a 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that male frogs exposed to atrazine can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

Even at low levels that are considered “safe” by EPA standards, atrazine is known to harm fish, and has been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites -creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine are applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant.

Source: Environmental Health News

Dr. Wier’s legal challenge focused on wetlands that provide critical habitat for many species of frogs and amphibians. The original request for a special review of glyphosate-pesticides, especially those containing the “inert” ingredient polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), and a subsequent 2009 legal challenge was brought because of her concern about possible aerial spraying of Monsanto’s pesticide in the forests near her community in Smithers. In her suit, Dr. Weir stated that the evidence “challenges the scientific validity of the previous evaluations” that led to the registration of the glyphosate herbicides containing POEA. Judge Michael Kelen of the Federal Court of Canada in his decision wrote, “[Dr. Wier] is entitled to a proper analysis as to whether the pesticide in issue presents an environmental risk to amphibians inhabiting ephemeral wetlands [those that are sometimes dry] which are subject to the aerial spraying of the pesticide in silviculture.”

“Health Canada knew that there were risks with these pesticides, and yet failed to act to protect amphibian species, many of which are endangered,” said Dr. Wier. “The judge affirmed that Health Canada should take a precautionary approach —and re-examine their approval of pesticides where scientists don’t agree on the risks.”

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk and neurotoxicity, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. The inert ingredient, POEA, has been shown to kill human embryonic cells. It is also of particular concern due to its toxicity to aquatic species as well as instances of serious human health effects from acute exposure. One study found that Roundup alone is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. Another found that Rana pipiens tadpoles chronically exposed to environmentally-relevant concentrations of glyphosate formulations, containing POEA, exhibits decreased snout-vent length at metamorphosis, increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage, and gonadal abnormalities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its registration documents for glyphosate determined that glyphosate, its salts and metabolites are likely to impact adversely the endangered California red-legged frog based on prey and habitat reduction.

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

Recently, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official speaking at an agricultural conference said that the heavy use of Roundup, an herbicide manufactured by Monsanto and used heavily on Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops, appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of crops that farmers are cultivating. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has detected glyphosate in significant levels in rain and rivers in agricultural areas across the Mississippi River watershed, according to one of their recent reports. The greatest glyphosate use, according to USGS, is in the Mississippi River basin where most applications are for weed control on GE corn, soybeans, and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007.

Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide and so, growing Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn has led to greater use of herbicides. It has also led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the U.S. and other countries where such crops are grown, as well as contamination of conventional and organic crops, which has been costly to U.S. farmers. Because of GE crops, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever. USGS has submitted the studies to EPA to be included in data that is being considered as EPA reviews the registration of glyphosate. The agency expects the review to be complete by 2015, at which point it will issue a decision to either continue to allow unrestricted use of glyphosate or institute limitations or a ban on the chemical in light of emerging science.

Beyond Pesticides is currently involved in multiple lawsuits involving Roundup Ready and other GE crops. One lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and seeks to end cultivation of GE crops on 25 national wildlife refuges across the U.S. Southeast. The suit charges that FWS unlawfully entered into cooperative farming agreements and approved planting of GE crops in eight states without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in violation of FWS policy. This is the third in a series of lawsuits challenging FWS’s practice of permitting GE crops on wildlife refuges. In 2009 and 2010, groups successfully challenged approval of GE plantings on two wildlife refuges in Delaware —Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge and Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, which forced FWS to end GE planting in the entire 12-state Northeastern region.

As researchers scramble to find new ways of chemically coping with weed control and increased weed resistance brought about by Roundup and other chemicals, they overlook the glaring fact that there already exist alternative systems such as organic farming, which erases the need for these drastic measures through its systemic pest prevention approaches. Organic farming can be at least as productive as conventional chemically-reliant farming, while having none of the toxic side effects that create significant risks to ecosystems and human health. To learn more, see Beyond Pesticides’ page on organic food and agriculture.

Source: Pacific Free Press

“Most American workers enjoy workplace protections created by the federal Office of Safety and Health Administration, but not farmworkers,” said Eve Gartner, lead attorney for Earthjustice, the public interest law firm representing the groups. “They get second class treatment which exposes them to high levels of very dangerous pesticides which is not only unhealthy but also fundamentally unfair.”

According to Earth Justice, the health and safety of industrial workers falls under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Farmworkers must rely on EPA’s Worker Protection Standard of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which is far more lenient than the OSHA rules that protect industrial workers encountering potentially dangerous chemicals.

“All we are asking is that the EPA protect farmworkers with standards that are as protective as industrial workers enjoy under OSHA,” said Virginia Ruiz, attorney for co-counsel Farmworker Justice. “Revisions to WPS are long overdue. EPA has not substantively updated it since 1992.”

Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. A 2008 study by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher finds that the incidence rate of pesticide poisoning is extremely high among U.S. agricultural workers. An average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 agricultural workers experience acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year, the same order of magnitude as the annual incidence rate of breast cancer in the United States. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, they and their children are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments and Parkinson’s disease. Despite the overwhelming evidence, EPA has not effectively updated worker protections for almost 20 years.

EPA has said that it expects to publish proposed revisions to the WPS early next year. The groups’ recommendations for those revisions focus on three key protections for the workers who handle and apply pesticides:
Ӣ Medical monitoring of workers using pesticides that inhibit enzymes necessary to the functioning of the nervous system;
”¢ Use of “closed systems” for mixing and loading pesticides, which prevent splashing and blowing of pesticides onto workers;
Ӣ Use of enclosed cabs in tractors from which pesticides are being sprayed using an airblaster.

In addition, the petition requests a range of basic measures that would afford stronger protections for agricultural fieldworkers.

The groups argue that EPA is required to incorporate these protections into its revisions both under FIFRA, the federal statute regulating pesticides, and under the agency’s stated obligation to achieve environmental justice by addressing the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs and policies on minority populations and low-income populations.

The petition, which was prepared by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice, is submitted on behalf of United Farm Workers, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), Farm Worker Pesticide Project (FWPP), California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN), Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) and The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc.

“We must speak up for the very people who help to put food on our tables,” said Ms. Gartner. “Their work is integral to our daily lives and further delay in providing these basic protections is just unacceptable.”

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

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

Source: Earth Justice Press Release

PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS(Senate directory) with the following message:

“We urge you to oppose Senator Roberts’ amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Previously introduced as S. 718, the amendment would prevent the EPA from protecting our waterways from pesticide discharges. This bill will strip EPA’s ability to protect our waters from pollution by amending the Clean Water Act (CWA) and federal pesticide law to exempt applications of pesticides to waterways from CWA standards. There is already widespread contamination of our waterways by toxic pesticides, and we cannot rely solely on our weak pesticide law to protect those waters. This amendment is bad for public health and bad for our rivers, lakes and streams.

“EPA has already drafted its permit for these pesticides applications, which offers modest protections. This amendment is a last ditch effort to avoid any protections of our waterways from dangerous pesticides. We urge you to oppose this amendment and any Senate version of S.718 or related HR 872.”

Background on HR 872 / S 718

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

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

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

The January 2009 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in National Cotton Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, requires pesticide applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be in addition to the less protective label requirements under FIFRA. EPA drafted proposed rules in 2010 outlining the applicability of the permits for pesticide usage. Since then, industry has lobbied hard to get Congress to prevent this measure from going into effect this year.

Senator Roberts and the other cosponsors of the bill claim that NPDES permits are burdensome on farmers, even though the permits are only required for a narrow range of uses, and does not affect terrestrial agricultural spraying. NPDES permits will monitor the discharge of pesticides into waterways by local and state authorities, including evaluation of the potential risks discharges might present to aquatic and semi-aquatic species and help safeguard against contaminated fish and drinking water.

Meanwhile, stating that “the provisions of this permit are designed to improve protection of public health and our nation’s water quality,” EPA has posted a pre-publication version of its draft final pesticide general permit. The pre-publication version of the draft final pesticide general permit has concluded interagency review by the Office of Management and Budget. Since EPA is currently engaged in consultation with federal resource agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this version of the draft final permit does not contain any additional or revised conditions that may result from ongoing ESA consultation.

According to the agency, this draft final permit is not considered a “final agency action.” Even though legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives that would remove the need for the permit, EPA states that it is still providing a preview of the draft final permit to assist states in developing their own permits and for the regulated community to become familiar with the permit’s requirements before it becomes effective.

The draft has not significantly changed from the proposed permit in 2010. The draft version of the final permit covers operators who apply pesticides that result in discharges from the following use patterns: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. The permit would not cover 1) non-target spray drift, or 2) discharges of pesticides to waterbodies that are impaired for that pesticide. Agricultural runoff and irrigation return flows are exempt from permitting under the Clean Water Act and, thus, do not require CWA permits. The permit also does not cover, nor is permit coverage required, for pesticide applications that do not result in a point source discharge to waters of the U.S. such as terrestrial applications for the purpose of controlling pests on agricultural crops, forest floors, or range lands.

EPA issued the final pyrethins/pyrethroid cumulative risk assessment in the Federal Register and is requesting comment until January 9, 2011, including information that may be used to further refine the assessment. Pyrethroids are a widely used class of insecticides used for mosquito control and various insects in residential and agricultural settings. However pyrethroids are highly neurotoxic and have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, suppression of the immune system, and various reproductive effects. This class of chemicals includes permethrin, bifenthrin, resmethrin, cyfluthrin and scores of others. Read Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet “Syntethic Pyrethroids.” Once the agency completes and approves the pyrethroid chemical assessment, it is likely that new uses of these pesticides will be added. The agency claims that more pyrethroid registrations may help combat recent pervasive pest problems, such as stink bugs and bed bugs, even though this class of chemicals is already known to be ineffective against these pests due to growing resistance issues compounded with continued pesticide use. However, serious issues such as the carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting potential of several pyrethroids were not mentioned in the risk assessment even though a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that low-dose, short-term exposure to esfenvalerate, a synthetic pyrethroid pesticide, delays the onset of puberty in at doses two times lower than EPA’s stated no observable effect level.

Most troubling is the agency’s decision to reduce the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) protective safety factor from 10X (an additional margin of safety of 10 times) to 1X for children and adults over six years, and to 3X for children under six years of age. The FQPA safety factor is intended to protect vulnerable infants and children to account for their special susceptibility to pesticides taking into account the potential for pre- and post-natal toxicity. Given that children are especially sensitive to the effects of synthetic pyrethroids like permethrin, this reduction in the special safety factor is egregious. Studies have found that certain pyrethoids like permethrin are almost five times more toxic to the young compared to adults. Additionally, studies have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development. In this new cumulative risk assessment, the agency even states, “Based on pharmacokinetic data, there is evidence that indicates an increase in sensitivity to pyrethroids of the young compared to adults,” which is attributed to the difference in the ability of the adults and juveniles to metabolize pyrethroids. EPA’s modeling data also predict a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid concentrations in juvenile brains compared to adults. Similarly, researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a published study conclude that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides. Despite all this, EPA chooses to forgo this evidence and green light more uses of pyrethroid chemicals which will inevitably impact more vulnerable children.

With the phase-out of most residential uses of the common organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, home use of pyrethroids has increased. Pesticide products containing synthetic pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators and community mosquito management bureaus as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers.” While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chyrsanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic, take longer to break down, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency, and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide.

As a consequence of their widespread use, many pests such as bed bugs are now becoming resistant to pyrethroids. A recent study shows that modern bed bugs have developed the ability to defend themselves against pyrethroid pesticides, with a required dosage of as much as 1,000 times the amount that should normally be lethal, due in part to the widespread use of such treatment methods. Due to the ability of these organisms to develop resistance to chemical agents, exposing these bugs to more pesticides would lead to higher rates of resistance among insect populations, a point that EPA does not acknowledge.

EPA is mandated to complete cumulative risk assessments for chemicals that have the same mechanism of toxicity. In 2009, EPA conceded that pyrethroid chemicals did in fact have a common mechanism of toxicity. In this risk assessment, not all pyrethroids were evaluated and various routes of exposures, such as dermal and inhalation exposures, were not adequately examined, with the agency stating that these exposures “generally do not significantly contribute to the overall risk picture,” even though numerous pyrethroid formulations of ”˜apply to skin’ mosquito repellent and indoor bug sprays are widely available. In an EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory study, several synthetic pyrethroids and their degradates were found in indoor dust collected from homes and childcare centers in North Carolina and Ohio, meaning that children inhale contaminated dust particles daily while these exposures go unevaluated. Given that asthma is the most common long-term childhood illness today, persistent residues of pyrethroids in house dust and air need to be taken very seriously.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin and cypermethrin as possible human carcinogens, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. EPA also lists permethrin as a suspected endocrine disruptor. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks. Material Safety Data Sheets, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for pyrethroid products often warn, “Persons with history of asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory tract disorders may experience symptoms at low exposures.” Although synthetic pyrethroids are often seen as safe alternatives to organophosphate insecticides, they are persistent and are making their way into human bodies at alarming rates. CDC ”˜s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that widely used pyrethroids are found in greater than 50% of the subjects tested.

In addition to human health effects which this cumulative risk assessment addresses, pyrethroids are also persistent in the environment and adversely impact non-target organisms. A 2008 survey found pyrethroid contamination in 100 percent of urban streams sampled in California. Researchers also find pyrethroid residues in California streams, although at relatively low concentrations (10-20 parts per trillion) in river and creek sediments that are toxic to bottom dwelling fish. Other studies find pyrethroids present in effluent from sewage treatment plants at concentrations just high enough to be toxic to sensitive aquatic organisms.

At the same time, there are clear established methods for managing homes and schools that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to this chemical class, an increase in synthetic pyrethroid use is hazardous and unnecessary.

The researchers from the Danish Cancer Society’s Institute of Cancer Epidemiology conducted a case-cohort study using a prospective Danish cohort of 57,053 persons enrolled between 1993 and 1997. Within the cohort they identified 256 persons diagnosed with NHL in the population-based nationwide Danish Cancer Registry and randomly selected 256 sub-cohort persons. The research team measured concentrations of eight pesticides and ten polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs) in fat tissue collected upon enrollment.

The results indicate a higher risk of NHL in association with higher fat tissue levels of DDT, cis-nonachlor and oxychlordane, but shows no association with PCBs. Because the tissue samples were taken up to 15 years prior to the cancer diagnosis, the research suggests that exposure to these organochlorines increases the risk of NHL later in life and strengthens the theory that there is an environmental factor in contracting the disease.

While most organochlorine pesticides are banned or restricted, they still continue to cause problems decades after their widespread use has ended. This study reinforces the need for a more precautionary approach to regulating pesticides and industrial chemicals. Once released into the environment, many chemicals can affect health for generations, either through persistence in the environment or long-term changes to the genetic code of humans and other animals.

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is cancer of the lymphoid tissue, which includes the lymph nodes, spleen, and other organs of the immune system. According to the American Cancer Society, a person has a 1 in 50 chance of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Most of the time, this cancer affects adults. However, children can get some forms of lymphoma. High-risk groups include those who have received an organ transplant or who have a weakened immune system. This type of cancer is slightly more common in men than in women.

Organochlorine pesticides have previously been linked to a number of adverse effects on human health, including birth defects and diabetes. This study illustrates how the health impacts of pesticides can be often subtle and delayed, and pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, is continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

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

Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid used for insect control in a number of agricultural and structural pest management settings. EPA has identified cypermethrin as a possible human carcinogen and classifies formulated pesticides containing it as slightly or moderately toxic. According to Susan Shaw, Ph.D., director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute in Blue Hill, Maine, cypermethrin and similar pesticides are extremely toxic to lobsters and other marine species, especially crustaceans. “It’s a very toxic substance and just does not belong in the marine environment,” Dr. Shaw said. “The oceans are under siege from so many problems. This is just unacceptable.” Despite these concerns, EPA allows aquatic applications of cypermethrin to control sea lice, parasitic crustaceans that attach themselves to the skin of juvenile salmon causing lesions resulting in disease and mortality for the fish. In 2010, Cooke used the brand-name pesticide Excis, which contains cypermethrin, at 59 of the 76 salmon production pens that it operates in Maine.

While aquaculture has the potential to lessen pressure on severely stressed wild fish populations, poorly designed and managed systems repeat the mistakes commonly seen in industrial-style livestock production. Crowding an excessive number of fish into an unnatural habitat creates a breeding ground for pests and diseases which producers treat with prophylactic doses of medications, including antibiotics. Sea lice, for example, were known to afflict wild runs of Atlantic salmon, but did not become an economically significant pest until the introduction of large-scale net pen production systems. Routine treatment with pesticides such as cypermethrin and antibiotics to minimize the symptoms of an unhealthy environment results in accelerated pest resistance and prompts producers to employ increasingly toxic compounds.

Residues from these medications along with fish excrement and excess feed are released into open water with often severe environmental consequences, especially for benthic organisms, which live in, on, or near the bottom of aquatic environments, such as lobsters. Many commercial aquaculture operations, including salmon production systems, utilize large amounts of wild captured fish that are processed for use as feed. Numerous traditional cultures developed aquaculture systems utilizing natural inputs and ecological cycles to raise high quality food with minimal adverse environmental impact. The USDA National Organic Standards Board is currently considering materials/substances to be allowed in certified organic aquaculture systems, after the Board adopted standards for these systems in 2007-8 (NOSB recommendations can be read here, here and here).

A statement released by Cooke Aquaculture CEO Glenn Cooke on November 3 cites legal constraints in declining to respond to the specific charges in the indictment. Mr. Cooke stated, “I can tell you that the substance they are talking about is something that is used regularly for agricultural purposes and on golf courses. Salmon farmers in many other countries are authorized to use it. We continue to encourage our governments to approve the treatment and management tools that our fish health and farming teams need to protect the health of our fish.”

Total cypermethrin use in the United States is approximately 1.0 million pounds of active ingredient (a.i.) per year. Approximately 140,000 pounds a.i. are used in agricultural crops, mainly on cotton (110,000 pounds), with minor uses on pecans, peanuts, broccoli and sweet corn. The great majority of cypermethrin use occurs in non-agricultural settings, including commercial, industrial, and residential sites. Indoor pest control -mainly for control of ants, cockroaches, and fleas- accounts for about 110,000 pounds a.i., while outdoor structural, perimeter, and turf uses for control of subterranean termites and other insect pests accounts for nearly 750,000 pounds.

However, despite the widespread use of these chemicals, the deleterious and often fatal effects of pesticides on non-target organisms are a chronic problem associated with releasing these toxic products into the environment. Aquatic environments are a common destination for pesticides that either run-off from terrestrial applications or are applied directly to water and the amount of pesticides found in American waterways is increasing. There is mounting evidence that pesticides used to control mosquito-borne West Nile virus are contributing to the decline of marine organisms, including lobsters.

Legal proceedings will commence in the New Brunswick provincial court in St. Stephen on December 13.

Source: Bangor Daily News

Like the U.S. where consumers are exposed through food and drinking water to a variety of chemical mixtures of pesticide food residues, EU citizens also continue to be exposed to mixtures of pesticides on a daily basis. According to the report , compliance with the legal maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in food rose to 97.4 percent of the analyzed samples in 2009, up by about one percentage point from 2008, EFSA said.

However, like their counterparts in the U.S., the regulatory entities EFSA and European Commission still do not protect people against the effects of mixtures. Health standards for pesticide residues do not take these effects into account. Remarkably, EFSA is delaying the implementation of the 2005 residue directive rules that oblige regulators to take mixture effects into account. People, especially children and the unborn, will be put at unknown but potentially high risks by this delay of over six years.

Exceedances of the food standards in the national residue monitoring programs seem to have gone down from 3.5% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009, but a comparison is not possible given the massive changes of food standards in 2009. Unfortunately, thousands of food standards have been relaxed by EFSA to the highest level among all the European Member states. While EFSA now recognizes that this approach was not justified and food standards are made stricter again, the massive relaxation remains. On the positive side in the 2009 monitoring report, the percentage of food items on the European market without measurable residues rose slightly to 57.5%, up from around 53% in 2008 and 2007.

Pesticide residues, most as chemical mixtures that have not been evaluated for potential cumulative and synergistic effects, continue to contaminate food and drinking water in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of a pesticide’s registration, allows a certain concentration of a pesticide on food, known as the food tolerance level. Pesticide residues in food are regulated by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), but the tolerance levels assigned for certain pesticides, though determined “allowable,” still pose potential health risks. Studies show that a combination of multiple chemical residues can produce heightened toxicity. Children are particularly susceptible to the effects of pesticide exposure because they have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify toxic chemicals. Read more at “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.” Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically in the U.S. and internationally. See Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience. The only way to avoid toxic pesticide residues is to switch to organic foods.

As organic agriculture continues to grow and evolve, researchers are continuing to find new evidence of the benefits of choosing and growing organic foods, and the benefits of organic agriculture extend to everyone. Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. A study published in 2008 finds that 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. Another study finds that converting the nation’s eight million acres of produce farms to organic would reduce pesticide dietary risks significantly. On conventional farms, dangerous pesticide use is a danger to farmworkers, wildlife including endangered animals, as well as the water supply, and people especially children living in the area.
For more on organic food, visit the Organic program page.

Take Action: The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) will meet in November to decide on a range of issues regarding the future of organic food and farming in the United States. Public participation is vital to the development of organic standards, as farmers and consumers relay their ideas to the board for consideration. Take action now.

Source: Pan-Europe Press Release

According to its Federal Register notice, EPA received a petition from the non-profit organization Save the Frogs that includes over 10,000 signatures and select statements from the public, as well as two brief summaries of published literature, one by Jason Rohr, PhD (University of South Florida), and one by Tyrone Hayes, PhD (University of California, Berkeley), that is co-authored by 39 other scientists. In conjunction with the petition, EPA received nearly 50,000 emails from supporters of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council requesting that EPA “immediately take steps to phase out atrazine use in the United States,” stating that atrazine poses an unreasonable risk to the environment. The emails express concern for impacts on amphibians and other aquatic species as well as concern for potential risks to human health.

In its comments to EPA, Beyond Pesticides renews its call for the agency to ban atrazine and cites new research which adds to the body of evidence showing that this herbicide should never have been allowed on the market. Read an excerpt below:

Atrazine is a widely used herbicide whose use over the decades has led to widespread environmental contamination that threatens wildlife as well as public health. About 73-78 million pounds of atrazine are used in the U.S. annually, primarily on corn. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has routinely found atrazine in rivers and other water bodies at constant levels near or above EPA’s levels of concern. USGS researchers have also found atrazine to adversely affect aquatic organisms.

In the past, Beyond Pesticides has commented to the agency that atrazine use in the U.S. should be halted. Beyond Pesticides still believes that atrazine poses unreasonable risks to humans and the environment and that risk mitigation measures proposed by EPA and the registrants fail to protect atrazine users and the general public. We hope the agency will take a look again at [studies cited in the comments] and reconsider the current registration on atrazine.

Beyond Pesticides comments highlight studies published in the scientific literature since EPA began reevaluating atrazine under its registration review process in 2009. This research includes a 2011 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, showing that prenatal exposure to atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction; a study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2010 finds male rats prenatally exposed to low doses of atrazine are more likely to develop prostate inflammation and to go through puberty later than non-exposed animals; and, a 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that male frogs exposed to atrazine can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

Because it has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, atrazine washes into surface water and leaches into groundwater, and often finds its way into municipal drinking water. It is the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams, and wells. Atrazine poses unreasonable risks to humans and wildlife at concentrations detected in the environment. Current and anticipated risk mitigation measures, including current best management practices, proposed by EPA and registrants, fail to protect. The agency must move quickly to conclude its review of atrazine and find an “unreasonable adverse effect” finding and cancel its registration.

The European Union banned atrazine in 2004 after repeated testing found the herbicide in drinking water supplies, and health officials were unable to find sufficient evidence that the chemical is safe. In much of Europe the burden of proof falls on the pesticide manufacturer to prove it is safe, unlike in the U.S. where EPA has assumed the burden of proving a pesticide does not meet acceptable risk standards before removing it through regulatory action.

The St. Louis Pots-Dispatch reported on progress that multinational chemical corporations Dow AgroSciences, BASF, and Monsanto are making to bring multi-herbicide resistant varieties to market. Under separate arrangements with each company, Monsanto adds glyphosate resistance to seeds that are simultaneously engineered to resist other herbicides. In October, Dow AgroSciences obtained a global patent on its Enlist Duo technology, which packages an herbicide containing 2, 4-D and glyphosate with seeds engineered to tolerate both materials. Commercial release of an Enlist Duo corn variety is anticipated for 2013 with similarly engineered soybeans projected to become available in 2015.

2, 4-D is a highly toxic chemical which has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and kidney and liver damage. It is also neurotoxic and is toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly elevated rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2, 4-D.

Monsanto has been partnering with BASF on dicamba and glyphosate tolerant crop varieties since 2009 with a focus on soybeans, cotton, and corn. Commercial release of engineered seeds for these crops is projected for the mid-point of this decade. Dicamba is a neurotoxic chlorinated benzoic acid herbicide that the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as acute toxicity class III, slightly toxic. The material is a recognized eye irritant, moderately persistent in the environment and highly mobile in both soil and water. Chronic exposure is linked to reproductive and developmental effects.

Concern about an impending spike in 2, 4-D and dicamba usage is exacerbated by the timing of the applications for the new herbicides that combine these materials with glyphosate. These new blended herbicides will be sprayed repeatedly during the growing season after weeds emerge and begin to compete with crops. Both 2, 4-D and dicamba are highly susceptible to drift and dicamba is known to volatilize (evaporate) and travel upwards of two miles from the point of application. The spraying of more 2, 4-D and dicamba during periods when specialty crops and home gardens are at their greatest risk of exposure is likely to increase the incidence of pesticide contamination and resultant damages.

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

“This is significant for all of us who support what the organic foods are about, and for consumers who carefully read food labels to find out what’s in their food and how it’s produced,” said Christine Bushway, Executive Director and CEO for OTA. “The Sixth Circuit opinion made it clear that states cannot unduly restrict organic labels or consumers’ right to know how their food is produced, and the State of Ohio’s actions today make it clear that the fight to keep labels accurate by OTA, its members, farmers, and consumers was worth it.”

In 2008, the State of Ohio issued an emergency regulation that restricted the free speech rights of organic and conventional farmers and marketers of milk within the State of Ohio. The regulation illegally restricted the right of farmers and marketers to state that some dairy products are produced without the use of synthetic and artificial ingredients.

OTA and its members, including Horizon Organic ®, Organic Valley ®, and Stonyfield Farm ®, appealed a lower court decision that upheld the rule in question to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2010, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court decision, agreeing that consumers have a right to know how their dairy products are produced. Critical to the decision was the Court’s reliance on an amicus brief filed by the Center for Food Safety and other organizations that argued that milk produced with synthetic hormones is different than milk produced without it (as all organic milk is).

“Ohio’s abandonment of this misguided rule is a victory for consumers, farmers and manufacturers alike,” said Ms. Bushway, She added, “The organic label is a federally regulated program that provides consumers with the knowledge that their food is produced without the use of antibiotics, pesticides or added growth hormones. Consumers have the right to make informed choices about the foods they eat, and farmers and manufacturers can continue to communicate truthfully with consumers.”

There are many reasons to choose and grow organic foods. Researchers continue to find new evidence of the benefits of organic, including a study that found that organically produced strawberries had higher antioxidant activity, longer shelf life, and fared better in taste tests than conventional berries. Soils on the organic farms are also found to be healthier with higher organic matter, and greater microbial biodiversity. Last spring, two studies performed independently of each other confirm that organically produced food is safer and can actually save money in the long term. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically engineered organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. For more information about why organic is the right choice see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

Conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture depends on toxic chemicals that poison the soil, as well as the air, water, and consumers of the crops. Organic farmers can use natural pesticides, after exhausting other strategies including crop rotation, cultural practices, beneficial species, etc. However, synthetic chemicals can only be used in organic farming and processing if they are approved by the USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a process that includes a detailed checklist of possible health and environmental impacts and considers the need for the chemical.

The organic regulatory process provides numerous opportunities for the public to weigh in on what is allowable in organic production. USDA maintains a National List, set by the NOSB, of the synthetic substances that may be used and the non-synthetic substances that may not be used in organic production and handling. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and NOP regulations provide for the sunsetting of listed substances every five years and relies on public comment in evaluating their continuing uses. The public may also file a petition to amend the National List. In both cases, sunset and petition, the NOSB is authorized by OFPA to determine a substance’s status.

TAKE ACTION: Want to make your voice heard? Public participation is vital to the development of organic standards, as farmers and consumers relay their ideas to the board for consideration. The NOSB will meet at the end of this month to decide on a range of issues affecting the future of organic food and farming in the United States. The board will vote to allow or prohibit substances and practices in certified organic food and farming after considering input from any interested members of the public, such as farmers, consumers, food processors, or professionals. Submit your comments to the NOSB regarding nutrient additives, or any other topic that will be debated, by November 13, 2011 in order to have them considered before the meeting. Be sure to specify which issue you are commenting on.

For more information on how you can be involved with the organic regulatory process, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Integrity program page.

Source: OTA Press release

The restrictions, recommended by NMFS’s Biological Opinion in 2008, ban the ground spraying of the three commonly used organophosphate agricultural insecticides within 500 feet of any salmon-bearing waterway, and aerial spraying within 1,000 feet. NMFS has issued four Biological Opinions, the latest on June 2011, which call for several limitations on aerial spraying and ground application of the pesticides near salmon waters, as well as buffer zones around salmon waters and ditches that drain to salmon habitat, among others. EPA was court ordered to consult with NMFS to identify measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides as a result of a 2002 and 2007 lawsuit. Pesticide manufacturers have been willfully ignoring and challenging NMFS’s findings. Dow AgroSciences alleged that NMFS used bad data and modeling and that the proposed buffers are far too large. Earthjustice, representing Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and Defenders of Wildlife, intervened in the case to defend important safeguards for west coast salmon and the fisheries jobs they support.

According to NCAP, the court’s ruling, issued by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, turns back industry’s efforts to undermine no-spray buffer zones and other measures required to protect imperiled salmon from exposure to the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. These pesticides are known to contaminate waterways throughout California and the Pacific Northwest.

“The Court’s decision is a victory for everyone’s health,” said Aimee Code with the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides. “It foiled the pesticide industry’s attempt to evade the laws that protect both people and wildlife.”

The case stems from a lawsuit originally filed by conservation and fishing groups represented by Earthjustice in 2001. In response to that litigation, the fishery experts at NMFS evaluated these pesticides and determined that no-spray buffer zones next to streams and vegetated strips to catch pesticide-laden runoff from fields are needed to protect salmon. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was tasked with implementation of the pesticide restrictions. However, to date, EPA has still not taken any actions to implement any of these measures. In a May 14, 2010 letter to NMFS, EPA explained how the agency planned to achieve protection goals through the methods outlined by NMFS in the Biological Opinions or by alternative methods that EPA’s scientific analyses determined will achieve the same purpose. At the same time, in an act of defiance, Dow AgroSciences and Cheminova, manufacturers of the pesticides in question, stated in correspondence to the EPA dated May 7, 2010, that they were “baffled by the agency’s position,” saying that their products do not threaten endangered species. Citing their “solid scientific evidence,” that they claim is “far more complete than is reflected in the NMFS Biological Opinion,” they are not prepared to make the registration revisions [to their products] described in the EPA’s April 29, 2010 and November 2009 requests.

Also in 2010, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington as the fourth lawsuit brought against the EPA to restrict the pesticides diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran and methomyl in streams of endangered salmon and steelhead. The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that EPA’s failure to implement the organophosphate (OP) and carbamate biological opinions issued by the NMFS violates the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and a judgment declaring that EPA is taking listed salmonids in violation of the ESA. The lawsuit sought an order vacating and enjoining EPA’s authorization of the uses of diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl that do not comply with the recommended mitigation measures until such time as EPA has put in place permanent measures that ensure against likely jeopardy to listed salmon and steelhead or adverse modification of their critical habitat, and an order compelling EPA to put in place such permanent measures within one year.

In a similar issue, a NMFS draft Biological Opinion found that the issuance of the proposed pesticides general permit by EPA is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species and cause the destruction or modification of critical habitat of the species without the implementation of a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA). NMFS stated that pesticide discharges were resulting in exposures to pesticide pollutants in concentrations, durations or frequencies that would cause adverse effects to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat. The controversial pesticide general permit went into effect October 31, 2011 after months long battle in Congress to have the water protections revoked.

The pesticides that have been reviewed so far are some of the most dangerous chemicals used today. Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl are neurotoxic and pose serious risks to both humans and wildlife. While many of these pesticides have been phased out for residential use, they continue to expose wildlife and farmworkers through their use in agriculture. Studies have shown that mixtures of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides cause more harm to endangered salmon than individual pesticide exposure and are commonly detected in freshwater habitats that support these threatened and endangered species.

Source: NCAP

Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable to pesticides because of their rapid development and behavior patterns. Adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even if a pesticide is applied according to label directions. Pesticide exposure can have long-term adverse effects, including damage to a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system and increased asthma symptoms. Studies show that children living in households where pesticides are used suffer elevated rates of leukemia, brain cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

The herbicide applicator provided information indicating that he had applied the formulated herbicide LESCO Eliminate LO Broadleaf Herbicide, which contains dicamba as one of three active ingredients. Dicamba is a neurotoxic chlorinated benzoic acid herbicide that the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as acute toxicity class III, slightly toxic. The material is a recognized eye irritant, moderately persistent in the environment and highly mobile in both soil and water. Chronic exposure is linked to reproductive and developmental effects. While there were no reported illnesses or adverse reactions to this incident, city officials acknowledged the need for a more coherent management strategy. Mayor Dianne Didio stated, “The borough is looking at ways to improve our communication and explore alternative methods…”

New Jersey is one of several states that are actively considering requirements that prohibit unnecessary pesticide applications by schools and day care facilities. A measure entitled the Safe Playing Fields Act has been introduced in both houses of the state legislature and passed by the Senate Budget Committee on June 15. The bill would prohibit the use of lawn care pesticides on playgrounds and recreational fields, except as an emergency response to an immediate threat to human health, as determined by the municipal or county governing body in consultation with the local health officer or if required by law. The bill would also direct the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, to adopt rules and regulations concerning pesticide application, record keeping, and staff and parental notification procedures at child care centers with the goal of mitigating potential health risks to young children.

Exposure to toxic pesticides and other chemicals while children are at school is an unacceptable and completely unnecessary risk. This incident should not have happened and supports the need for a national policy to protect every child in the United States. Most recently introduced in the last Congress, federal legislation sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), would protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. The legislation also bans the use of synthetic fertilizers. SEPA was first introduced in November 1999 in both the U.S. Senate and House; and has been reintroduced every Congressional session since. The bill language is based on state school pest management laws. It also is similar in structure to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established a national committee to oversee the program as well as established a list of pesticides allowed for use within the program. A version of SEPA has passed the U.S. Senate twice since and, together with other legislation, indicates broad support for a national mandate to stop hazardous pesticide use in schools. To learn more about this legislation, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage.

Source: NorthJersey.com

Beeologics was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in both Florida and Israel. The company’s antiviral agent, called Remembee, is designed to fight a virus that is commonly thought to be a contributing factor to CCD. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Monsanto spokesperson Kelly Powers said that, “I don’t need to tell you how important bees are to farmers who rely on pollination, and Remembee has great promise, pending approvals.” The product is currently being reviewed for potential commercial sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Efforts to counteract CCD are commendable, as a range of factors, including viruses as well as colony invaders such as the Varroa mite, are thought to contribute to CCD. However, doubt remains as to whether Monsanto recognizes the significant role that agricultural chemicals, especially pesticides, have on bee colonies.

CCD has devastated bees and beekeepers around the country in recent years, a phenomenon that that many scientists have tied to the use of the systemic neonicotinoid insecticides widely used in agriculture and gardens. Over the past five years, since the discovery of CCD, annual winter colony losses have hovered near the 30% mark. A report released jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) shows that losses of honey bee populations over the 2010/2011 winter remained abnormally high. According to the survey, 30% of managed honey bee colonies across the country were lost over last winter. The United Nations (UN) also revealed in a report that the collapse of honey bee colonies is now a global phenomenon.

Some European and U.S. scientists postulate that losses of biodiversity and food resources, due to climate change, have intensified the problem. Others believe that a rise in single-crop farming and modification of landscapes, as well as pathogens causing diseases like foulbrood and varroasis are responsible for the problem. While CCD appears to have multiple interacting causes, a range of evidence points to sub-lethal pesticide exposures and pathogens as important contributing factors.

Neonicotinoids, the particularly suspect class of insecticides, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides, have been found in honey bee hives and the use of chemicals in agriculture has been found to damage bees by weakening their immune systems. Laboratory studies show that some insecticides and fungicides can act together to be 1,000 times more toxic to bees. They can also affect the sense of direction, memory and brain metabolism, and herbicides and pesticides may reduce the availability of plants bees need for food and for the larval stages of some pollinators.

In December 2010, after the discovery of a leaked memo from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) citing flawed and missing scientific data regarding the registration of the neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin, Beyond Pesticides, along with beekeepers and other environmentalists, called on EPA to remove clothianidin from the market. EPA responded by defending clothianidin and the agency’s pesticide review process, saying that they “are not aware of any data that reasonably demonstrates that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to chronic exposure to this pesticide.” However, the emerging science finds that pesticides like clothianidin and others mentioned above do in fact harm bees. See Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on the connection between clothianidin and CCD.

For more information, on honeybees and pesticides visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators and Pesticides page.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch