Read Mr. Tukey’s interview below with Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman, discussing the accomplishments of the last 30 years:

Paul Tukey: This coming Thursday, Oct. 27, a remarkable achievement will be marked in Washington, D.C., when Beyond Pesticides celebrates its 30th anniversary. Beginning at 6:30 p.m. at Busboys & Poets, leaders of the environmental movement will come together with the general public for a benefit reception with live music and organic food and drinks. Later in the evening guests will be invited for to a screening of the award-winning film Vanishing of the Bees, hosted by beekeeper David Hackenberg, who first discovered pesticides’ connection to colony collapse disorder (CCD).

It will be great to meet David in person after all these years of chatting with him by phone after our first eye-popping article together nearly five years ago. The real star of the evening, however, will be the visionary who founded Beyond Pesticides three decades ago. Though quick to defer credit to others, Jay Feldman has steadfastly kept the pesticide conversation alive through six presidents, several EPA directors and literally hundreds of millions of dollars in opposition funding from folks like Scotts Miracle Gro and Monsanto ”” who just as steadfastly try to convince the American public that pesticides are safe when used as directed.

It’s the simple fact that pesticides are not safe ”” and he has seen those impacts first hand ”” that has kept Feldman focused and energized for so long. As someone who has been in the trenches for barely half that time, I continue to be awed by Jay’s commitment year after year.

To mark his 30th anniversary as one of the defacto leaders of the anti-pesticide movement in North America, we asked Jay to reflect on his time, his accomplishments and his frustrations:

SafeLawns: What was the inspiration for starting BP?

Jay Feldman: Beyond Pesticides, which began in 1981 as the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, originally started as an umbrella organization to bring together environmental, farmworker, and farmer organizations into a united voice for pesticide reform. At the time, I worked on health care issues for an advocacy organization in D.C., Rural America, which sought to improve life for those living in small towns and rural areas. As a part of my work with Rural America, I traveled parts of the country seeking to document the pesticide problem, and organize public forums for farmworkers and farmers to share their poisoning and contamination problems with state and federal regulators. At that point, with the election of Jimmy Carter, there was an interest in developing a farmworker protection standard and program, but in order to do that we needed to create a record that supported action. At that time, workers were “protected” by one page in the Code of Federal Regulations, which offered little to no protection. EPA’s office of pesticide programs initially supported the program to speak with farmworkers and small farmers and assigned a special assistant to the director to travel with me and hear directly from those adversely affected by pesticides. In addition, our forums were attended by political appointees in EPA and the Department of Labor, as well as state departments of agriculture, which are responsible for pesticide enforcement. The backlash was to be expected. Congressional offices descended on the White House claiming that we were out to destroy American agriculture and urged that the program be defunded. We had planned, and EPA had agreed, to culminate the series of forums, which were held in central Florida, the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, and the Salinas Valley in California, with the establishment of a National Pesticide Information Center. As we moved across the country, the size of the forums grew, small farmers and farmworkers stood together to explain the poisoning and contamination experiences ””the headaches, dizziness, nausea, miscarriages, cancer, rashes, lack of worker protection equipment, limited reentry standards, contaminated drinking water, children exposed in the fields while their parents worked all day, lack of enforcement, no training on pesticide handling, and notification, and more. The stories created for me personally a deep bond with those who were willing to share them, allowed me into their homes in labor camps, and trusted that there was a genuine concern for their health and welfare. We told EPA we did not want to engage in a fact finding mission and ask workers to put themselves on the line (many were threatened by their employers when they agreed to submit affidavits and speak at our forums), if EPA was not prepared to commit to a followup effort to address the problems we expected to identify. With the political pressure against the project mounting, EPA decided to hold additional meetings with pro-pesticide forces prior to our public forums to try to tamp down the increasing criticism coming from those who felt that any restriction on pesticides would be the undoing of a productive agricultural system. As the pressure grew, a decision was made by EPA to discontinue the project, just as we were getting ready to launch the Center. Having traveled the country on pesticide issues and met with workers, farmers, and community people, it seemed important to me and others to continue the effort ”” so we transformed NCAMP into a grassroots-driven organization with a board of directors with diverse interests, expertise in law, medicine, organizing, and agriculture.

SL: What has given you the stamina to stay at this for 30 years?

JF: The experience of meeting victims of a failed system that condoned (and still condones to a large degree) poisoning led to my own deep personal commitment to working on pesticide reform. Additionally, joining with others through grassroots action, and (despite continuing problems) seeing important changes that have resulted in the growth of organic systems (as an alternative to toxic chemical dependency) are the factors that contribute to my continued work.

SL: You’ve had some high-profile media showdowns with with pro-pesticide lobby groups like RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) and others through the years. Can you reflect on those?

JF: Over the span of several decades, we have certainly come up against the pro-pesticide lobby, which obviously exists to support the economic interests of its members. Of course, those economic interests, especially when it comes to toxic chemical proliferation, do not often conform to basic principles of public health and environmental protection. Our differences with the pesticide lobby are somewhat predictable, with arguments over science, unknown and untested effects, fraudulent data supporting pesticide registrations, regulatory loopholes that allow unnecessary use and overuse, and legislative efforts that represent the monied chemical company interests not the public interest. It doesn’t take long to realize that groups like RISE and trade associations representing hazardous pesticide companies derive their influence and power from their wealth and not from their facts. Despite decades of commissions, General Accounting Office reports, National Academy of Sciences reports, congressional hearings, and independent peer-reviewed science journal articles, the industry has nurtured its political support to fight off the kind of systemic regulatory change that would effectively question the need for their products ”” given the availability of non-toxic practices and products.

SL: Is the public “getting” the pesticide message more than it used to?

JF: The dramatic change that is occurring in the growth of the organic sector, both in food production and lawn and landscape care, is directly attributable to changes In the market brought on by the public. So, people are getting it, despite the best efforts of the chemical industry to proclaim the safety of and need for their products. There has always been a core of people and organizations that have advanced the information and taken action to show the viability of practices and products that challenge the essentiality of toxic materials. In the last decade, however, many of those practices and products have grown exponentially and become competitive on a commercial scale. While that is a positive, it also means that the consumers supporting this growth have to remain vigilant in ensuring that the underlying standards supporting the alternative or organic approaches are true to the public health and environmental values that spawned this sector.

SL: Is it fair to say there’s more work to be done?

JF: One of the best measures of our success is the growth of organic food production. Since the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, the organic food sector has grown to a nearly $30 billion industry. As a measure, that shows impressive growth, and one of the only profitable sectors of the farm economy. Still, there is a lot of room for growth as we work to see organic become the mainstream or conventional form of agriculture in the U.S. and worldwide. Of course, with the advent of genetic engineering (GE) and herbicide-tolerant seeds and Bt incorporated plants, we are forced to fight a technology that threatens to invade non-GE crops, increase herbicide resistance and use, elevate resistance to biological controls, eliminate habitat for pollinators, and contribute to climate change ”” all without any productivity benefit. If we can grow organic, which forbids GE as a method, the use of GE seeds will fade. Similarly, the organic turf and landscape movement is growing as people demand these services and products. In our work, we are seeing institutions from schools to hospitals embrace defined integrated pest management systems that eliminate hazardous pesticides and practice prevention strategies that implement structural exclusion practices by eliminating insect and rodent habitat, entryways, and, food sources. As towns and cities develop sustainability plans and green teams, our work must focus on the details of embracing a precautionary approach which eliminates pesticide use, while carefully defining acceptable practices and materials.

SL: What are the major remaining frustrations?

JF: Obviously, I’d like to see change advance more quickly. Risk assessment practices, including exclusively risk assessment-based reform strategies, that drive the regulatory decision making process undermine public health and environmental protection because they do not answer all the necessary adverse effects questions (e.g. synergistic effects) and they accept a high degree of uncertainty. So, at a regulatory level, without a strong mandate to conduct alternatives assessment, we move from one toxic chemical family to the next, all the while allowing unnecessary toxic chemical use.

SL: Can the U.S. ever get to where Canada is on the issue of pesticide regulation?

JF: I think that we will. It is just a matter of time as people and communities adopt organic practices and then realize that continued chemical use is resulting in chemical trespass, contamination of local waterways, impacts on the health of vulnerable populations, such as children and those who are health compromised. Pesticide preemption laws in 41 states, of course, create a tough hurdle, but in the end will not stop the public groundswell for green communities that is growing.

SL: Funding obviously plays a part and the pesticide proponents are playing with a stacked hand. How does BP and its allies compete?

JF: Money can’t buy you love. Building a grassroots network, sharing information, and collaborating and sharing resources all contribute to a support network that at the end of the day helps to drive individuals’ decision to adopt green practices and work with their communities, schools, and workplaces to do the same.

SL: What have been the major successes at BP?

JF: Beyond Pesticides works at many levels in an effort to effect change. We work with individuals, community-based organizations, institutions, local, state, and federal government to effect changes in practices and policies. While it is difficult to measure, we can trace this work to the adoption of hundreds of policies and tens of thousands of households that have tapped into our information. While the information that we have developed on our website does not ensure an outcome, we know that the resources we have established through a number of databases, such as our Gateway for Pesticide Hazards and Alternatives, Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, and Eating with a Conscience, have contributed to greater public understanding. We have taken on a number of chemicals over the years through litigation to exemplify the failure of the regulatory system to protect health and the environment, chemicals like the termite insecticide chlordane, the fumigant ethylene dibromide (EDB), and arsenic-based wood preservatives in addition to dozens of pesticides which we have helped to rally public support against. We have worked with dozens of pest management companies to effect a transition in the services that they offer and developed Safety Source for Pest Management, a directory with nearly 300 listings in over 40 states to drive consumer demand toward safer management practices. Ultimately, we seek to institutionalize practices and eliminate pesticide dependency and therefore view our participation in the creation, adoption, and implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act as a success story for the organization and the nation. My appointment to the National Organic Standards Board offers a new level of opportunity to help insure the integrity and future growth of organic. The law creates a public certification and oversight system for the production and processing of organic food. More importantly, I believe that it serves as a model for future environmental laws, which, if they are to ensure our survival, define acceptable management systems that do not rely on inputs, protect biodiversity through a life cycle analysis of any input or substance used, and only allows materials that meet tough health and environmental standards and have proven essentiality.

SL: After 30 years, how many more years do you have left in your tank as the head of the pesticide movement in the U.S.?

JF: One of the great things about the grassroots movement on pesticide reform is that it doesn’t have a head. I believe that Beyond Pesticides plays an important leadership role, and we are part of a network of activists, parents, scientists, health practitioners, farmers, farmworkers, teachers, lawyers, policy makers, producers, retailers, and regulators that support change. I look forward to contributing as a part of this incredible family as long as I am able.

California’s list of impaired waters, finalized last week, shows significant increases compared with the 2006 list. According to the report, “Of the total 3 million acres of lakes, bays, estuaries and wetlands in the state, 1.6 million acres are not meeting water quality goals and of these 1.4 million acres still needs total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to be set. Of the total 215,000 miles of rivers, streams and shoreline, 30,000 miles are not meeting water quality goals and of these 20,000 miles still need TMDLs. While more than 50% of the lakes, bays, estuaries and wetlands acres have been assessed, less than 20% of the coastline, rivers and stream miles have been assessed.”

Overall, waters with toxic pollution increased 170%, with the number of waterways contaminated by pesticides increasing by 36%. The number of waters inhabited by fish unsafe to eat is 24% higher, with mercury being the highest violator. The new information on fish prompted the state to issue advisories warning the public of the risks of consuming fish from certain lakes. Many of the pollutants causing impairment are no longer manufactured, such as DDT, and are slowly decreasing in concentration over time. Other issues include areas where bacteria levels are unsafe for swimmers, which climbed to a 90% increase and trash increased by 76%.

Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a list of impaired water bodies must be assembled by states and other authorized entities every two years. Waters that are not meeting requirements even with pollution controls and other water quality standards must be identified and prioritized for additional monitoring and development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waters on the 303(d) List. More than 1,000 waterways are deemed “impaired” by pollution of one kind or another. “To me it was fairly shocking,” EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld said of the new figures. “That really does speak to the enormity of the problem in front of us.” However, federal officials maintain that much of this increase is due to more thorough monitoring required under the State’s Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, which requires the agricultural community to limit pollutants in their discharges and conduct monitoring. California used 22,000 data sets to compile the new tally, seven times the number reviewed for the previous listing.

California’s new water data exemplifies the need for continued vigilance against chemical contamination of our nation’s waters. Specifically, the data shows that water pollution has been going underreported and underestimated for decades, with this new data more closely reflecting the state’s pollution problem. The Clean Water Act is the nation’s statue that oversees protections for surface waters from various types of pollution. Unfortunately, a recent series of Congressional and industry attacks on the CWA threaten to undermine the limited protections in place for waterways.

So far a staggering 125 pieces of legislation have been introduced by the House of Representatives to undermine environmental laws. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 or H.R. 872 already passed by the House earlier this year and was voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, would revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways. Soon after H.R. 872 was passed, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018. This bill would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. It would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. In addition, over 70 amendments to significantly curtail environmental regulation in the 2012 Department of the Interior and the EPA spending bill (H.R. 2584) were added to an appropriations bill. Most recently, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) tried to attach an amendment to a China currency bill in the Senate which sought to strip protections against pesticide contamination from CWA. The amendment was not taken up.

Industry sponsors of these bills say that the clean water requirements are “duplicative regulations” which would “unnecessarily burden” farmers and small businesses. They have spoken out against EPA and its efforts to regulate chemical pollution. However, the potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental cleanup efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that could result in the removal of this permitting process has not been considered. The reality is that this permitting process forces the pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water.

Thousands of waterways in the U.S. are impaired because of pesticide pollution and these toxic chemicals are a threat to people and wildlife. Pesticides discharged in our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams can harm or kill fish and amphibians. These toxicants also accumulate in the fish that we eat and contaminate our drinking water. By prohibiting EPA or states from regulating the discharge of pesticides into waterways through CWA, a dangerous vacuum is allowed to exist in the protection of wildlife, human health and natural systems.

Take Action!
Take action now to protect our waterways from pesticide contamination.

Source: LA Times

APHIS originally deregulated RR sugar beets in 2005. A coalition of environmental groups and organic seed companies, led by the Center for Food Safety, challenged the USDA approval in 2008. It argued that GE sugar beets would contaminate organic and non-GE farmers of related crops, such as table beets and chard, as well as increase pesticide impacts on the environment and worsen the current Roundup-resistant “superweeds” epidemic in U.S. agriculture. In September 2009, Judge Jeffrey S. White in the federal district court in San Francisco agreed, and ordered USDA to prepare an EIS assessing these and other impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In August 2010, after a year of vigorous litigation over the proper remedy for USDA’s unlawful approval, the court again agreed with plaintiffs, threw out the USDA’s approval, and halted planting.

Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry, led by Monsanto, demanded the court allow planting to continue unabated. The district court refused to do so and instead set aside USDA’s approval of the crop based on the agency’s failure to comply with environmental laws. That precedential ruling was also preserved by the appeals court order. During this case’s appeal, USDA approved 2011-2012 planting of GE sugar beets under the terms of a novel permitting and “partial deregulation” scheme while it conducted the court-ordered analysis. That decision is the subject of separate litigation that is ongoing in the District of Columbia.

Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate). Growing previous Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn have 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. Due to GE crops, in large part, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever.

Glyphosate is a known carcinogen, neurotoxin, irritant, and has been found to kill human embryonic cells, and can cause kidney and liver damage. Glyphosate is also harmful to the environment, particularly aquatic life and water quality and has been linked to intersex frogs, and is lethal to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment.

As researchers scramble to find new ways of chemically coping with increased weed resistance, 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, chemical-reliant farming while having none of the toxic side effects that create significant risks to ecosystems and human health. To learn more, see our page on organic food and agriculture.

Currently, there are commercially available glyphosate tolerant seed varieties for corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, and cotton. In addition to sugar beets, USDA recently approved Roundup-Ready alfalfa. Due to serious questions regarding the integrity of USDA’s environmental evaluations, public interest groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have filed suit against the agency to stop its full deregulation of GE alfalfa.

Take Action: APHIS is seeking public comment on the draft EIS and will consider all public comments submitted during the comment period before finalizing the EIS or making any decisions regarding the regulatory status of RR sugar beets. The comment period will be open for 60 days (until December 13, 2011). To obtain feedback and take comments from members of the general public, APHIS is scheduling three public meetings. These meetings will take place in Fargo, N.D., on Nov. 15; Corvallis, Ore., on Nov. 17; and APHIS will also hold a public meeting in the Riverdale, Md., on Nov. 22. Exact locations will be published in the Federal Register and posted on the APHIS website.

For four years, the Park Board of Highland Park, IL has managed its playing fields without the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. Back in August, however, the Park Board decided to allow its groundskeepers to apply herbicides in order to control dandelions, clover, and other unwanted plants at three local parks. Over 70 residents sent emails to the Park Board and administration, and an online petition has collected 683 signatures opposed to the city park commissioners’ decision to spray the chemical pesticides.

In response to public concern, Bruce Branham, PhD, a Professor of the Department of Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois wrote a statement to the park officials in favor of spraying, citing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide registration process as establishing the safety of the pesticides being proposed for use by the Park Board. Beyond Pesticides responded with a letterChicago Sun Times. “Pesticides are poisons by definition; they are designed to effect vital biological processes that in most cases are not unique to the intended target pests.”

Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable to pesticides because of their rapid development and behavior patterns. Many scientific studies indicate that pesticides threaten the public’s health by increasing the risk of cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, and reproductive problems. More information can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

Park officials want to apply one application of the herbicide Confront. Clopyralid is one of the active ingredients in this product, and is a carboxylic acid herbicide classified by EPA in acute toxicity class III as slightly toxic. Laboratory studies have shown that clopyralid is a severe eye irritant and dermal irritation has also been noted which can lead to skin sensitization for prolonged skin exposures. Some developmental and reproductive effects have been observed in laboratory animals. The livers and kidneys of rats as well as the livers of dogs were affected by changes in weight and decreased red blood cell counts. Another study found that weights of rabbit fetuses decreased at both low and high doses of clopyralid. Skeletal abnormalities were also observed in these fetuses at all doses.

It is a persistent herbicide that breaks down extremely slowly. The herbicide, which does not break down during the composting process, has been found in compost made from recycled grass, straw, and manure. In 2002, the state of Washington banned the use of clopyralid on lawns and turf in order to keep the chemical from contaminating compost supplies. That same year, California found that 65% of the composts samples tested positive for clopyralid, which led to the cancellation of residential uses for clopyralid in the state.

This is particularly of concern given that two of the parks that the city is requesting to treat are located along streams that feed the Chicago watershed, according to Ms. Stone in a statement to the Sun Times. Ms. Stone has worked for 10 years with the ally group Safer Pest Control Project in Chicago and has been highly active in leading the effort against pesticides in her community.

The other active ingredient in the herbicide Confront is triclopyr. There are documented effects on reproduction, fetal development, and organ function, as well as irritation when exposed to high doses of this chemical. Subchronic and chronic feeding studies in dogs and rodents found damage to both the kidney and liver. Data has also shown birth defects and adverse effects on reproduction associated with chronic exposure. Pregnant rodents exposed to the chemical had lower litter numbers and a higher incidence of birth abnormalities in offspring than did those which were not exposed. Triclopyr is generally considered to be non-carcinogenic, but several laboratory tests have shown an increase in the incidents of breast cancer and genetic damage in rat embryos. Triclopyr is also toxic to a range of wildlife, and its persistence can vary greatly depending on the application site, but some studies have shown it to persist longer than a year under certain conditions.

There are many effective alternatives to these two chemicals to control weeds, however. The Sun Times even states that “restaurant-grade vinegar also has been sprayed and determined to be a better alternative to pesticides in some cases.”

Beyond Pesticides has a tremendous amount of resources available on least- and non-toxic lawn care practices, including our training videos, factsheets and regional contacts. For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes page. Read also our factsheets: “Read Your “Weeds” — A Simple Guide To Creating A Healthy Lawn” and “Least-Toxic Control of Weeds.”

Cardiovascular diseases, including heart attacks and strokes, are the most common cause of death in industrialized countries, and the most important underlying cause of these diseases is atherosclerosis. Unbalanced blood fats, diabetes, smoking, and high blood pressure are traditionally recognized risk factors for atherosclerosis.

Previous studies have also reported possible links between cardiovascular disease and high levels of persistent (long-lived and hard-to-degrade) organic environmental toxicants, such as dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. These compounds are fat-soluble and can therefore accumulate in vessel walls. However, no earlier studies have investigated possible links between exposure to these compounds and atherosclerosis.

Of the POPs that were screened for, five were pesticides or pesticide degradates: hexachlorobenzene, three chlordane-related compounds, and DDE, a close relative and degradate of DDT. As previous research has demonstrated, although some of these chemicals have long since been banned in the United States, their persistence remains so high that they are still routinely detected in human tissue. Other highly persistent toxic compounds remain on the market today, including many pesticide chemicals.

Persistent organic pollutants are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they persist in the environment, are capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and have potential significant impacts on human health and the environment. Many POPs are currently or were in the past used as pesticides. Others are used in industrial processes and in the production of a range of goods such as solvents, polyvinyl chloride, and pharmaceuticals. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.

The current study measured the circulating levels of the above group of compounds in about 1,000 Swedes living in Uppsala. Atherosclerosis in the carotid artery was also measured using ultrasound. The findings show a clear connection between increasing levels of environmental toxicants and atherosclerosis, even after taking into consideration the traditional risk factors. There was also a link to tangible signs of fat accumulation in vessel walls.

“These findings indicate that long-lived organic environmental toxicants may be involved in the occurrence of atherosclerosis and thereby lead to future death from cardiovascular diseases,” says Lars Lind, PhD., professor at the Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University.

“In Sweden, and in many countries in the world, many of these substances are forbidden today, but since they are so long-lived they’re still out there in our environment. We ingest these environmental toxicants with the food we eat, and since they are stored in our bodies, the levels grow higher the older we get,” says Monica Lind, PhD., Associate Professor in Environmental Medicine at Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

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.

Source: Uppsala University press release, TIME Healthland

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

The new report, Cereal Crimes: How “Natural” Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label””A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle, explores in-depth this growing trend of marketing conventional foods as “natural” to lure health-conscious and eco-conscious consumers and their shopping dollars. As Beyond Pesticides has pointed out in previous Daily News entries and our fact sheet, “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims Are Truthful,” the report also acknowledges that there are no restrictions for foods labeled “natural.” Unlike the organic label, no government agency, certification group, or other independent entity defines the term “natural” on processed food packages or ensures that the claim has merit.

Analysis by Cornucopia of wholesale and retail cereal and granola prices reveals that “natural” products often are priced similarly or higher than equivalent organic product. This suggests that some companies are profiting from consumer confusion, in an attempt to cash in on the growing demand for organic food. Though the prices may be similar, however, there is a vast difference between organic and “natural” products from grain produced with the use of toxic pesticides. In some cases, companies charge high prices for “natural” products that even contain genetically engineered crops developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto.

The report also details how prominent agribusinesses are increasingly using various strategies to create the illusion of equivalence between the “natural” and organic labels to mislead consumers.

“Some companies that started out organic, and built brand loyalty as organic brands, have switched to non-organic ingredients and “natural” labeling,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.

According to Cornucopia, one such brand, Peace Cereal ® is an example of “bait-and-switch.” In 2008, the Peace Cereal ® brand switched from organic to cheaper conventional ingredients, without lowering its prices, according to the report. Today, the cereal is sold in natural food stores and mainstream grocers at prices above many of their certified organic competitors that are using more expensive organic ingredients.

Unfortunately, this marketing scheme is nothing new. A report published last October found that 95% of consumer products in a study that claimed to be eco-friendly were guilty of greenwashing. Many supposedly green labels that include vague language such as “all-natural,” mean very little and contain no proof of environmental claims. Worse yet is that some companies place fake labels or seals on their packaging designed to imply that a products has a third party endorsement. For example, the “Earth Friendly Farm Friendly” label found on some dairy products actually encourages the use of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics to increase production. Sarah Lee has been accused of greenwashing for inviting consumers to “plot to save the earth” by purchasing their Earth Grains bread with their new Eco-Grain wheat. It turns out, however, that despite the major marketing campaign to push the products as environmentally friendly, the grains for the breads are produced with only a slight decrease in the amount of synthetic fertilizer used.

In contrast, products that display the USDA’s “certified organic” label are produced under a strict set of verified standards prohibiting the use of petrochemical-based fertilizers, sewage sludge, synthetic toxic pesticides, genetically modified crops, and other many common conventional agricultural and manufacturing inputs. Key to the organic label is a transparent and public process, overseen by stakeholds serving on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), that facilitiates public involvement in defining organic practices and allowable inputs. The only sure-fire way consumers can avoid the use of toxic pesticides is to buy organic and look for the USDA certification.

Unlike chemical-intensive agriculture and genetically engineered food, researchers continue to discover the environmental and health benefits of eating and growing organic food. There are numerous health benefits to eating organic, besides a reduction in pesticide exposure. According to research from the University of California, a ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce finds that they have almost double the quantity of disease-fighting antioxidants called flavonoids. A study out of the University of Texas finds organically grown fruits and vegetables have higher levels of antioxidants as well as vitamins and minerals than their conventionally grown counterparts. A comprehensive review of 97 published studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and conventional foods shows that organic plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, grains) contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients studied, including significantly greater concentrations of the health-promoting polyphenols and antioxidants.

For more information about why organic is the right choice see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

Take Action: Join the fight to have genetically engineered foods labeled. This Saturday, October 16th is World Food Day. The Organic Consumers Association’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign is celebrating with more than 100 World Food Day events nationwide, making it the biggest single day of action for strict label laws for genetically engineered food in U.S. history. To find an event near you or for more information, click here.

The study, “Investigation of Antibiotic and Antibacterial Susceptibility and Resistance In Staphylococcus From The Skin Of Users and Nonusers Of Antibacterial Wash Products In Home Environments,” found that there was no statistically significant difference in antibiotic resistance in the bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, exposed to triclosan and triclocarban soaps compared with those not exposed. The study collected swab samples from the forearms of participants that used triclosan, triclocarban, and a control group that used neither. The study’s conclusions are not surprising since this industry has been a vocal and active promoter of the antibacterial products they manufacture and represent. Beyond Pesticides has previously responded to the American Cleaning Institute’s (formerly the Soap and Detergent Association) assertions that antibacterial soaps are ”˜safe,’ even though most studies call for caution with using these substances. There are also several limitations to this study, including the exclusion of pets owners (other than fish), those using antibiotics and topical skin medications, and health care, day care and animal care workers — i.e. persons most exposed to various bacterial populations.

Triclosan and its cousin triclocarban have come under fire for their link to many serious human and environmental health threats, including endocrine disruption and a link to adverse fetal development, water contamination and an ever increasing body burden expressed in breast milk, urine and even umbilical cord blood. While announcing plans to review the chemical, the Food and Drug Administration stated that, “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.”

The verdict on triclosan’s and triclocarban’s potential to promote antibacterial and antibiotic cross-resistance is still out, however it is well-recognized that the main cause of antibiotic resistance remains the use and misuse of antibacterial and antibiotic substances. In the specific instance of triclosan, studies have provided preliminary evidence that it promotes bacterial resistance. Bacterial resistance may occur through mutation of gene constitutions or the uptake of new genetic elements through gene transfer. Such resistance may cause multiple threats, since widespread use of the triclosan may not only result in bacteria that are resistant to triclosan but may also create resistance to other, including unrelated, antimicrobials and antibiotics (cross-resistance). The main concern regarding triclosan’s ability to promote cross-resistance to the antibacterial/antibiotic agents is that, according to Schweizer (2001), triclosan resistance mechanisms include target mutations, increased target expression, active efflux from the cell, and enzymatic inactivation/degradation. These are the same types of mechanisms involved in antibiotic resistance and some of them account for the observed cross-resistance with antibiotics in laboratory isolates. While some have argued that the high concentration of triclosan found in articles like soap is sufficient to kill even resistant bacterial strains, research has shown this is not necessarily true. A 2006 study published in Microbial Drug Resistance documents that “at sublethal concentrations, triclosan inhibits a specific bacterial target, and several mechanisms of resistance to triclosan have been demonstrated.”

Another study from the Journal of Medical Microbiology finds that in bacterial strains that lack the multiple antibiotic resistance (Mar) phenotype, triclosan selects those that, in addition to triclosan resistance, have also acquired antibiotic resistance. This study also finds that triclosan concentration is very important for the selection of mutants with reduced antibiotic susceptibility. Low concentrations of triclosan lead to the survival of cells with mechanisms of triclosan resistance, suggesting that future generation of the bacteria is also resistant. Studies find that another bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa, is intrinsically resistant to high levels of triclosan and can survive in the presence of triclosan concentrations in excess of 1000 μg/mL. Others have found that triclosan exposure of Escherichia coli (E. coli) selects for tolerant clones and reduces triclosan’s effect on E. coli., but that this phenomenon was not widespread and limited to E. coli.

There is no doubt that studies looking at triclosan-induced resistance have been conflicting. Suller and Russell in a 2000 study with Staphylococcus aureus saw that while some but not all strains were resistant to several antibiotics and showed low-level triclosan resistance, the mutant strains were not more resistant than the parent strains. Aiello et al., in a 2006 study suggests that longer durations (> 1 year) might provide a suitable environment for emergence of antimicrobial drug—resistant species in the community setting. However, the European Scientific Committee of Consumer Safety (SCCS) concluded in its 2010 opinion on triclosan and antibacterial resistance that while it is difficult “to quantify the risk of development of antimicrobial resistance induced by triclosan applications including its use in cosmetics…there are environmental concentrations in a number of geographically distinct areas high enough to suggest that triggering of bacterial resistance could also occur in the environment.” The SCCS recommended “the prudent use of triclosan, for example, in applications where a health benefit can be demonstrated.”

Resistance to antibacterial and antibiotic agents becomes critically important for vulnerable subpopulations, including persons with impaired immune systems, infants and young children, and persons needing the benefit of antibiotics. A recent study identified a fatal outbreak of P. aeruginosa in a hospital as coming from the contamination of triclosan soap dispensers, which acted as a continuous source of the bacterium. Further, a systematic review of research assessing the risks and potential benefits associated with the use of soaps containing triclosan finds that data do not show the effectiveness of triclosan for reducing infectious disease symptoms or bacterial counts on the hands when used at the concentrations commonly found in antibacterial products.

There are many valid concerns regarding triclosan resistance that industry would like to ignore. While the science tries to adequately quantify the phenomena, there are many other important reasons to stay away from triclosan-containing products and maintain a precautionary approach. The scientific literature has extensively linked the uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. As an endocrine disruptor, triclosan has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development, and also shown to alter thyroid function. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also has found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 42% since 2004. Beyond Pesticides in 2004 began voicing concern about the dangers of triclosan and in 2009 and 2010 submitted petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the removal of triclosan from consumer products. Since then, many major companies are quietly and quickly removing triclosan from their products. Colgate-Palmolive, makers of SoftSoap, and GlaxoSmithKline, makers of Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpastes, have reformulated these products to exclude triclosan, according to media reports. Others, including Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, The Body Shop, and Staples, have started phasing it out of products.

Take Action: Don’t be fooled by industry sponsored data. Avoid triclosan-containing products such as soap, toothpaste, toys and other plastics. Join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Avoid products containing triclosan, and encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality and workplace to adopt the model resolution that commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

Source: The Sacramento Bee

Click here to send an email to your Senators urging them to stand with you in opposing the Roberts amendment, Amendment 720, and ensuring our waterways are kept safe from pesticide contamination.

Attaching the bill as an amendment to an entirely unrelated bill represents an attempt to slip the language in unnoticed and get it through without a fight. The language in the amendment, which has already passed through the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 872, and was voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry as the stand alone bill S. 718 in June, but had since stalled in the Senate, would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to make permits unnecessary when applying pesticides to waterways for the control of aquatic pests. Following a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit specifically finding that such permits were required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Congressional Republicans have sought to undermine the court’s decision by amending the CWA itself to weaken NPDES requirements. The bill would allow pesticide applicators to discharge pesticides into U.S. waterways without any government oversight. While the main target of the bill is CWA, it could also prevent the regulation of pesticides under the Clean Air Act, which has been used to regulate ozone-depleting pesticides.

The Roberts amendment, cosponsored by U.S. Senator Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska), was offered as amendment 720 to the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011, S. 1619. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has indicated that he expects S. 1619 to pass easily with bipartisan support. This makes rejection of amendment 720 critically important.

Urge your Senators to vote no on this amendment by using this form to send them an email. You are encouraged to modify the sample letter for greater impact. You can also call you Senators’ offices directly. If you know your Senators names, contact the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. You can find your Senators here.

Background

EPA has been in the process of developing permit requirements in accordance with the 2009 ruling by the Sixth Circuit since June 2010. The proposed pesticide general permit (PGP) 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. Unfortunately, agricultural runoff and irrigation return flows, responsible for contaminating much of our waterways, are exempt from permitting under CWA and, thus, do not require NPDES permits. Republicans and conventional farm lobby groups have sought to get the amendment’s language signed into law before the PGP would take effect.

The National Corn Growers Association has supported the language contained in the amendment, saying, “The NPDES permitting system jeopardizes the farm economy without providing any real protection to water quality.” However, the purpose of the NPDES permits is, as the name suggests, to reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment through requiring polluters to obtain permits. This allows for oversight of the proposed discharge, including evaluation of the potential risks it might present to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Because the discharges are weighed against standards that don’t protect all species, are implemented with limited monitoring, and don’t consider need, even approved permits often present the potential for damage to ecosystems in affected areas. However, NPDES permits do allow for local citizen input through allowing the public to comment on the proposed pesticide application in the context of the CWA goal of “restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation’s waters,” and thus provide the opportunity for increased oversight and accountability.

Supporters of the amendment say that the clean water requirements are “duplicative regulations” which would “unnecessarily burden” farmers and small businesses. However, the potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that could result in the removal of this permitting process has not been considered. The reality is that this permitting process forces the pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water. And, given the vast knowledge that we have on organic, integrated pest management (IPM) and non-chemical solutions, this bill will be a disastrous step backwards.

For decades our nation’s waterways have been polluted with hazardous pesticides and their degradates impacting aquatic populations of animals and plants, and decrease surface and drinking water quality. Results from the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment Program studies show that pesticides are widespread in streams and ground water sampled within agricultural and urban areas of the nation. Many of these pesticides accumulate in fish and other organisms, making their way up the food chain, to eventually be consumed by the American public. Recent studies find that government agencies may be underestimating children’s dietary exposure to pesticides and that they are a prime cause of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Stronger regulatory action is needed to ensure that our waters, food and health are adequately protected from all industrial and agricultural pollution.

The NPDES permits are vital to protecting U.S. waterways from indiscriminate pesticide contamination. The proposed permit would not pose undue burden to farmers, foresters and ranchers as the permits are only required for a narrow range of uses, and do not even affect terrestrial agricultural spraying.

Take action now to protect our waterways from pesticide contamination.

Late summer declines in the sound’s lobster population have been alarmingly common throughout much of the last decade, devastating fishers and the local economy that depends on them. A number of factors have been blamed, but the lobstering community has increasingly been pointing to mosquito pesticides for several reasons. Methoprene has a tendency to sink to the bottom of the ocean water, where lobsters live and feed. Additionally, lobsters are a distant cousin of mosquitoes, and the methoprene acts on them in much the same way that it does the insects. Finally, the western part of the sound was the hardest hit. Not only is this the area that is closest to New York, but it is also one of the areas more protected from ocean currents that would normally help to wash the chemical out into the open sea.

In 2003, it was determined by researchers at the University of Connecticut that methoprene was deadly to lobsters at concentrations of only 33 parts per billion. The research was seized upon by the lobstering community as part of its quest to seek legal recourse against chemical companies whose pesticides they blamed for widespread lobster deaths in 1999.

The fishing community has been pushing state lawmakers in Connecticut to open a dialogue around the issue with their counterparts in New York. One state Representative, Terry Backer (D-Stratford), has taken up the fight, arranging meetings on the issue and gathering affected parties. Backer also directs a local non-profit organization that works on issues of water quality in the sound.

The WNv control plan adopted by one county on Long Island, Suffolk County, was highly controversial when first passed, partly over its planned use of methoprene. Despite major objections from other county agencies, environmentalists, and members of Suffolk’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the County Legislature passed the plan in 2007. The CEQ advises lawmakers on the environmental impact of proposed county projects and while their recommendations are non-binding, the legislature has generally followed the group’s advice. Approval of the plan caused several members of the CEQ to resign in protest.

The effect of mosquito pesticides on marine life, especially lobsters, has repeatedly come under scrutiny over the years, in Connecticut as well as in other northeastern waters, such as the Bay of Fundy. Some of the other mosquito killing chemicals suspected of causing damage to aquatic life include cypermethrin and malathion. Both are already known to be toxic to many aquatic species, including crustaceans.

Communities and agencies in New York have taken a stand against unnecessary pesticide spraying in the past, in areas such as pesticide free state parks and safe school playing fields. Some would argue that the states’ outdated mosquito management scheme is inconsistent with these past actions, and that it is time to bring it in line, not only with other policies in the state regarding pesticide use, but also with the wealth of knowledge and evidence concerning the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment, as well as nearby local economies.

Other municipalities around the country have consistently proven that dangerous pesticides are not necessary to effectively control mosquitoes and prevent outbreaks of West Nile virus. Prevention strategies, such as removing standing water and using least-toxic larvicides only as a last resort, have been adopted in such densely populated areas as Shaker Heights, OH and the District of Columbia. To learn more about safe and effective mosquito management strategies, visit Beyond Pesticides page on Mosquitoes and Insect Borne Diseases.

Source: Connecticut Post

The UN delegation included IFOAM representatives, Joseph Wilhelm, founder of Rapunzel organic products and the force behind “Gene-Free America;” and his employees.” Maria-Luisa Chavez welcomed the delegation and accepted the declaration on behalf of the UN. She will pass it on to the president of the General Assembly, the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations.

Mr. Wilhelm believes that consumers have the right to know whether the food they buy is genetically altered. “Twenty percent of all manufactured foods in the U.S. contains genetically modified ingredients (GMO),” he said. “We hope the Right2Know march will raise consumer awareness and influence U.S. legislators to require that labels indicate whether the product contains GMOs.”

The UN declaration was signed by: Katherine DiMatteo, IFOAM president; Joseph William, IFOAM member; and, Bernward Geier, NGO coordinator. It outlines the critical issues facing consumers in the U.S. and Europe. “Biased agriculture policies, research and development agendas, and private sector strategies favor short-term individual profits,” the declaration states. “This (behavior) is to the detriment of the long-term sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of all and is responsible for hunger, poverty, climate change, and the destruction of habitats and biodiversity.”

According to IFOAM, unless radical changes to curtail GMOs are adopted worldwide and the subsidy for agri-industry and monocultures is greatly reduced, the future of organic farming and healthy, natural foods will be threatened. IFOAM and its 750 member organizations in more than 110 countries are dedicated to uniting and leading organic farmers and businesses worldwide to work toward a safe and natural food supply.

In July, a barrier to national laws requiring labeling of GMOs was overcome when the Codex Alimentarius Commission voted to allow countries to adopt such laws. This means that the laws cannot be challenged by the World Trade Organization, making it much more likely that countries would seek to adopt labeling laws.

GMOs and the increased pesticide use that accompanies them have been the source of serious environmental contamination and public health concerns. Beyond Pesticides is currently involved in a number of lawsuits involving Roundup Ready and other GE crops. The first lawsuit is filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and seeks to end cultivation of GE crops on twenty-five national wildlife refuges across the U.S. Southeast. The suit is the latest step in a campaign to banish GE crops from all refuges. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 12, 2011 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Center for Food Safety (CFS), and Beyond Pesticides, the federal 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 filed by CFS and PEER challenging FWS’s practice of permitting GE crops on wildlife refuges. In 2009 and 2010, the 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.

In another case involving GE crops, attorneys for CFS, Earthjustice, Beyond Pesticides, and others filed a lawsuit against USDA in March 2011, arguing that the agency’s unrestricted approval of GE “Roundup Ready” alfalfa violates the Endangered Species Act. USDA announced plans to fully deregulate GE alfalfa in January, despite contamination risks it poses to both organic and conventional farmers.

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

To learn more about alternatives to industrial agriculture and GMOs, visit our organic food and farming page.

Source: IFOAM Press Release

Logitech”˜s keyboard incorporates a pesticide- AgION silver -and then alleges protection from bacteria and other microbes. According to EPA, the company marketed the keyboard as protecting the user from bacteria and microbes. However, to promote the health benefits in this way, before products can be sold their product efficacy must be established in compliance with EPA guidelines under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Evidence found online and during an investigation in 2008 led the EPA to issue a complaint against Logitech. Subsequently, Logitech stopped making the claims on the products, removed claims from their website, and revised their product packaging.

Other companies in recent times have been fined by EPA for making false antibacterial public health claims, for example, the lawsuit involving the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides by The North Face which also featured an AgION silver treated footbed, which the company claimed to have antimicrobial properties and was featured in over 70 styles of their shoes. In 2004, EPA took action against the manufacturers of Microban for making health-related claims that are not supported by its EPA pesticide registration. The company had claimed that its microban-treated plastic protected people, particularly children, from the transmission of bacterial disease. In that case, EPA issued a fine, citing the language of FIFRA §12(a)(1)(B), which states, that each sale or distribution is a violation.

Public health claims are those that state protection for the user from bacteria or other microbial organisms that can lead to health impact. In order to place such a claim on the product label, the company must submit efficacy data to the EPA to review the antibacterial agent. However, most of these ‘antibacterial’ products go unreviewed since they do not make public health claims and only claim to protect the product. This means that hundreds of products with “antibacterial/antimicrobial protection,” such as toys, yoga mats, clothing, kitchen utensils, countertops and others, have not been reviewed by EPA. Consumers may believe that purchasing a product with an ”˜antibacterial’ label may protect them from germs and bacteria when, in fact, there is no additional health benefit.

AgION silver is used in many “antibacterial products” and, while these products do not purport to use nanosized silver materials, the claims that are made for these products are suspiciously similar to those made by manufacturers for other nano-based antimicrobial products. These claims include: inhibiting the growth of disease-causing bacteria; preventing bacterial and fungal growth; and the continuous release of antimicrobial agents. Due of the lack of regulation, nanotechnology products are not always easy to recognize in the marketplace and even the best lists do not include everything. Consumer products that include nanobased technologies however, continue to grow. EPA announced plans to obtain information on nanoscale materials in pesticide products, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released draft guidelines to industries about when the use of nanomaterials might trigger regulatory interest. This decision was in response to a 2008 legal petition submitted by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, demanding EPA use its authority to stop the sale of 250+ consumer products using nanosilver. EPA agreed that the petition “raises serious issues that potentially affect private and public sector stakeholders.” The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) also passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible.

Concerns over nanosilver and other nanomaterials were first raised by national wastewater utilities in early 2006. A 2008 study shows that washing nanosilver socks releases substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. Unfortunately, much remains unknown about these particles’ human health and environmental effects.

For more on nanosilver, visit the nanosilver page.

Take Action: Read the Label! Avoid products labeled “antibacterial product protection” as they may contain triclosan, nanoparticles or other dangerous antibacterial agents.

Source: EPA News Release

Activists around the globe have mixed reactions to Bayer’s announcement, which comes over 15 years after Bayer first promised to phase-out its WHO Class I products. Philipp Mimkes of the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers based in Germany said, “This is an important success for environmental organizations from all over the world who have fought against these deadly pesticides for decades. But we must not forget that Bayer broke their original promise to withdraw all class I products by the year 2000. Many lives could have been saved. It is embarrassing that the company only stopped sales because the profit margins of these chemical time bombs have fallen so much.”

Acutely toxic pesticides with a WHO Class I rating are extremely toxic and present an immediate hazard to farmworkers and others in the vicinity of pesticide applications. The WHO estimates the number of people who are poisoned by pesticides at three to 25 million per year. At least 40,000 people are killed accidentally by pesticides and the estimated number of unreported cases is much higher. The Coalition Against Bayer Dangers believes that Bayer products contribute enormously to the millions of poisonings each year.

The WHO hazard class is based only on acute poisoning hazard and does not include factors such as cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, birth or developmental defects, or environmental and wildlife hazards. Pesticides such as Bayer’s popular imidicloprid and clothianidin-based products —which have been linked to bee colony collapse disorder (CCD), reproductive effects, and other environmental hazards”” would not be affected by the company’s recent decision.

Clothianidin and imidicloprid are members of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides, which are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides began to take over the seed treatment market. Clothianidin is Bayer’s successor product to imidacloprid, which recently went off patent. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in CCD. Together, the two products accounted for over a billion dollars in sales for Bayer Crop Science in 2009. Imidacloprid is the company’s best-selling product and among the most widely used insecticides in the U.S.

In a September 15, 2011 press release, Bayer CropScience CEO Sandra Peterson said, “With this commitment we fulfill our promise to end the production and marketing of these formulations. Our WHO Class I replacement initiative is fully in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture and global food security.”

While it is difficult to take sustainable agriculture claims seriously from the primary producer of imidacloprid, organic and sustainable agriculture advocates are happy to see these outdated, toxic pesticides removed from the market. “We welcome this long overdue move from Bayer. We have ample evidence from the ground to prove that we don’t need hazardous pesticides in our farming. [Organic farming] is fast-spreading in different parts of India and data shows that the incomes of farmers improve when they eliminate pesticides from their agriculture,” adds Kavitha Kuruganti, National Convener of Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), a nationwide network of more than 400 organizations in India.

In its 1995 Annual Report, Bayer Cropscience first promised to “replace products with the Classification I of the World Health Organization with products of lower toxicity” within five years. However, the company failed to keep its promise. Bayer still sells products that contain active ingredients in WHO Class 1a (extremely hazardous) and 1b (highly hazardous), including thiodicarb, fenamiphos, aldicarb and ethoprophos. Bayer has a world market share in pesticides of 20%.

For more information on the hazards posed by pesticides to bees, see Beyond Pesticides Pollinator Protection program page.

Dozens of socks, shoe inserts, sports clothing and towels now marketed as ”˜antibacterial’ or ”˜odor controlling’ use nanoparticles of silver to kill the bacteria that cause odor. Since nanosilver can be manufactured as spheres, particles, rods, cubes, wires, film and coatings, it can be embedded into a range of substrates, such as metals, ceramics, polymers, glass and textiles leading to its widespread commercialization. To see a listing of products that contain nanosilver see here. In interviews for this report, entitled, “Nano-silver: Policy Failures Put Public Health at Risk,” published by Friends of the Earth, medical experts warn that using such a powerful antimicrobial in these everyday products is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Microbiologists from various parts of the world told Friends of the Earth that overuse of nanosilver in consumer products could breed bacterial resistance, undermining its use in hospitals.

According to this report, the overuse of nanosilver can promote resistance. The experts believe that widespread use of nanosilver could promote further resistance to antibiotics and other drugs. Kristen Kulinowski, PhD, a Faculty Fellow in the Department of Chemistry at Rice University and Director for External Affairs for the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN), and currently serving as the Director of the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON), states: “I think the value to society of the use of nano-silver in a clinical setting is greater than the value to society of its use in a consumer product where there’s no potential health benefit.” The scientists interviewed agree that regulators need to halt the excessive and unnecessary use of powerful antibacterials in everyday products. This is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of antimicrobials and antibiotics for clinical use and to counteract the allergy epidemic.

While the science often has conflicting reports on whether bacteria can develop resistance to silver, it is important to know that nanosilver, because of its size (1-300 nanometers), has the ability to cross many biological barriers at the cellular level, including the blood-brain barrier in animals. This ability to access biological cells in such a way increases the biological and chemical reactivity of nanosilver and can also give rise to novel mechanisms for bacterial resistance.

In addition to bacterial resistance, concern was expressed in the report about the increase in allergic diseases and asthma, as explained by the “Hygiene Hypothesis.” This hypothesis attributes the rise in allergies to the increase in clean, sterile living environments and subsequent decrease in exposure to infectious agents. Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, PhD, also interviewed for the report, agrees that childhood interactions with bacteria are essential to develop strong immune systems in children.

The report also highlights the case of triclosan and possible resistance and cross-resistance issues surrounding its widespread use as an antibacterial agent. Similarly, triclosan has also been linked via the hygiene hypothesis to increased allergies. A 2011 study found that people age 18 and under with higher levels of triclosan in their urine were significantly more likely to report diagnosis of allergies and hay fever. Triclosan, also used in a wide range of consumer products from toothpaste to socks, has been linked to endocrine disruption, adverse fetal development, as well as potential bacterial resistance and cross-resistance to antibiotics. Both nanosilver and triclosan also pose serious environmental fate issues including the destruction native algal populations, accumulation in fish and persistent water contamination. For more on triclosan and Beyond Pesticides’ grassroots campaign to ban triclosan, visit the triclosan program page. Pledge to go triclosan-free today!

Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to obtain information on nanoscale materials in pesticide products, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released draft guidelines to industries about when the use of nanomaterials might trigger regulatory interest. Earlier this year, the California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) asked in-state nanotechnology companies and researchers to share how they are keeping tabs on several nano-sized metals, as evidence continues to emerge that these substances may have long-term implications for the environment. Last year, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to prohibit engineered nanomaterials, 1-300 nanometers, from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. In 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed a legal petition with EPA, demanding the agency use its pesticide regulation authority to stop the sale of 250+ consumer products now using nanosilver. EPA agreed that the petition “raises serious issues that potentially affect private and public sector stakeholders.” For more on nanosilver, visit the nanosilver page.

In recognition of our 30th anniversary and the important work that needs to be done to protect health and the environment –through the restriction of pesticides and the adoption of organic practices and policies– please plan to join us for this event and consider a donation between $30 and $3000. Donate and RSVP.

Beyond Pesticides was founded in 1981 as the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides to effect change through local action, assisting individuals and community-based organizations to eliminate unnecessary toxic pesticide use, while promoting safer alternatives. The founders felt that without the existence of such an organized, national network, local, state and national pesticide policy would become, under chemical industry pressure, increasingly unresponsive to public health and environmental concerns.

About the Film
The crisis of colony collapse disorder (CCD) in the honeybee population is an increasingly widespread phenomenon of bees disappearing or abandoning their hives. Imagine half a million adults skipping town and leaving their children behind. Picture an opened suitcase filled with bundles of cash at a bus stop and yet no robber wants to snatch it. CCD displays these very symptoms. Not only do the bees abandon their hive, but the queen and the brood as well. Even the predators that usually raid the hive for honey stay far away. At first, this occurrence sounds like an urban legend or an exaggerated tale. It’s not. The situation is both dire and all too real. Bees are disappearing all over the planet and no one knows why.

Vanishing of the Bees takes a piercing investigative look at the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of honeybees and empowers the audience to fight back. The film follows two commercial beekeepers as they strive to keep their bees healthy and fulfill pollination contracts across the U.S. The film explores the struggles they face as the two friends plead their case on Capitol Hill and travel across the Pacific Ocean in the quest to protect their honeybees.

For more information on protecting honey bees and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides Pollinator program page.