(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2012) The National Organic Coalition (NOC) yesterday sharply condemned recommendations contained in the final report of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), a group appointed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address transgenic contamination of organic and non-genetically engineered (GE) crops. Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination. NOC strongly asserts that this proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination, while making the victim of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.

“The AC21 report takes responsibility for GE contamination prevention out of the hands of USDA and the biotech industry where it belongs and puts it squarely on the backs of organic and non-GE farmers,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety and a NOC member. “This ill-conceived solution of penalizing the victim is fundamentally unjust and fails to address the root cause of the problem – transgenic contamination.”

In August 2011, USDA convened AC21 and charged it with identifying compensation mechanisms to address GE contamination. The underlying assumption of USDA’s work plan for the committee was that as long as farmers are adequately compensated, GE contamination is a permissible and acceptable cost of doing business for organic and non-GE farmers. NOC has rejected this assumption, as did several members of the AC21. True to its charge, the committee’s final report failed to make a single recommendation holding the patent holders of genetic engineering technologies responsible and liable for damages caused by its use.

“This is a completely wrong approach to tackling the GE contamination problem,” said, Liana Hoodes, NOC’s executive director. “At the bare minimum, USDA must stop approving additional GE crops, and prevent GE contamination by mandating pollution prevention measures, as well as make transgenic polluters, including GE technology owners, pay for their contamination.”

Contamination from GE crops can cause both economic and social harms to farmers in the form of lost livelihood and reputation, and by compromising long-established partnerships and markets in the U.S. and elsewhere. Contamination can severely curtail or eliminate the rights of farmers to sow the crop of their choice and to practice their preferred method of farming. It can also limit a farmer’s ability to collect and preserve non-GE, identity preserved and organic seeds.

According to NOC, an additional shortcoming of the report is the recommendation that GE and non-GE farmer neighbors develop “co-existence agreements” as a means of moderating relationships in light of inevitable contamination. However, “co-existence” indicates some form of equality or a level playing in the situation. This is not the case. It is clear that organic and non-GE farmers are the clear losers under these conditions, as GE contamination precludes them from growing the crops of their choice. Moreover, the recommendation ignores the real-life issues farmers face, including absentee landowners, unwilling or uninformed neighbors, and the power and money backing biotech growers.

“Floating the pie-in-the-sky idea of farmer coexistence agreements is an obvious diversion from the critical issues non-GE farmers routinely confront with respect to GE contamination,” said Ed Maltby, executive director of Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and NOC member. “We urgently need meaningful regulatory change that institutionalizes mandatory GE contamination prevention practices. USDA needs to stop dragging its heels, get serious and focus on making this happen.”

Beyond Pesticides, a member of NOC, submitted comments in August 2012 expressing concerns about the report’s definition of “coexistence.” Beyond Pesticides wrote that the definition in the draft report fell far short of any true understanding of what it is to coexist and lacked any assurance that the involved parties would receive the necessary protection required in order to effectively coexist. Specifically, it was suggested that the inclusion of a phrase in the definition stipulating that all parties are entitled to assurances against trespass from genetic drift. Coexistence of any kind should include a shared understanding of boundaries and a requirement under the penalty of law to respect those boundaries. Without any guarantee that coexistence will ensure cultivation without trespass, organic and non-GE farmers will be at a significant disadvantage and “coexistence” will result in a severely imbalanced system.

Additionally, Beyond Pesticides notes that if contamination occurs and harm is done, appropriate compensation should always be determined and made available to all affected parties. However, it is more proper to put enforceable measures in place to prevent contamination in the first place, thus minimizing the issue of determining compensation in most cases. Much greater emphasis needs to be placed on the adoption of preventive measures by all parties, in order to minimize circumstances in which contamination could occur.

Earlier this year a U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto in which organic farmers, seed growers, and agricultural organizations argued to prevent farmers from being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto should they become contaminated by drift of the company’s GE seed, a legal strategy Monsanto has been pursuing for years. The plaintiffs are in the process of appealing this decision. Monsanto’s history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers in America has been a source of concern for organic and non-GMO agricultural producers since Monsanto’s first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-”˜90s. Since then, 144 farmers have had lawsuits filed against them by Monsanto for alleged violations of their patented seed technology. Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court, rather than face Monsanto’s belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions. Seed contamination and pollen drift from genetically engineered crops often migrate to neighboring fields. If Monsanto’s seed technology is found on a farmer’s land without a contract, the farmer can be found liable for patent infringement. Under the current interpretation of relevant law, Monsanto bears no legal or financial responsibility for such contamination.

Organic producers are prohibited by the Organic Foods Production Act from using any crop materials that are genetically engineered. Consumers have come to expect and demand that organic foods are GMO-free. Based on these expectations, some retailers specializing in organic products will test shipments of organic material they receive to ensure that they are not deceiving their customers. A rejection of a shipment from a large retail store can be financially devastating to an organic producer and can be crippling to a farmer’s reputation, community standing, and trust from consumers. This can happen despite the farmer’s best efforts and due entirely to forces outside his or her control stemming from the actions of others. GE contamination can cause serious environmental damage in addition to contaminating non-GM crops and organic farms, including the development of resistant weeds and insects, and the unknown impacts on human health.

For more information on Genetic Engineering visit the program page.

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

Source: NOC Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2012) Thanksgiving offers an opportunity for family and friends to eat, drink and be thankful for the bounty of the organic harvest. Unfortunately, there are a host of pesticides, genetically engineered materials, and others in conventional Thanksgiving foods that not only impact human health, but threaten the environment. Read below for some easy tips and suggestions for a healthful Thanksgiving day feast.

Organic, free-range, and local turkeys
The turkey is the symbol of a traditional Thanksgiving meal. However, turkeys are often fed grains treated with pesticides, medicated with antibiotics, and engorged with steroids and hormones. Additionally, turkeys are often fed an inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, which is used to promote growth and for pigmentation. In order to avoid all these, your best bet is to invest in an organic free-range turkey (pictured right), which is free of hormones, steroids or antibiotics. Want to forgo the turkey altogether? Be sure to choose an organic meatless option.

Avoid Genetically Engineered Food: Go Organic
There are additionally, a number of Thanksgiving products that probably contain genetically-engineered (GE) ingredients (although the formulations are often considered proprietary trade secrets). According to GMO Inside, some common GE foods used during Thanksgiving include: Campbell’s Tomato Soup, Wesson Canola Oil, Bruce’s Yams, Hershey Milk Chocolate, Pepperidge Farm Crackers, Kraft Classic Ranch Dressing, Rice-a-Roni chicken flavored rice, Ocean Spray Cranberry Sauce, and Kraft’s Stove Top Stuffing.

Thankfully, the majority of these products can easily be substituted with organic counterparts. Canned yams for instance often contain GE ingredients, but can be replaced by fresh organic yams. Another staple like Pepperidge Farm Crackers can be substituted for organic crackers like Mary’s Gone Crackers or Nature’s Pathway Crackers. Consider substituting GE cranberry sauce with home-made jellies made with organic cranberries and fair trade sugar. Organic jellied cranberries, such as Tree of Life or Grown Right, are fast alternatives. Finally, pre-made stuffing, like Kraft’s Stove Top stuffing, should be replaced with your own home-made stuffing or organic stuffing mix from Arrowhead.

Cleaning with Non-Toxics
An easy way to improve the health of your Thanksgiving guests and the environment is to use non-toxic or least-toxic cleaning materials. Mixing baking soda and water can quickly take out carpet stains, while vinegar can be applied to newspaper and used to clean your windows. If you don’t have time to make these at home, simply shop in the non-toxic aisle of the grocery store can significantly decrease exposure to toxics like triclosan, which is known to disrupt reproduction and development.

Cutting Wastes
Outside of pesticide exposure, a responsible Thanksgiving should include a range of waste-cutting measures. Planning your meals for the number of guests will reduce food waste. Instead of covering your table with plastic or disposable centerpieces, decorate lightly with potted plants. When waste cannot be eliminated, make sure to recycle your plastic bottles and cans and compost if possible.

Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks in a way that eliminates exposure to toxic chemicals in food, supports environmental and public health through least-toxic materials, and reduces consumer wastes.

Beyond Pesticides advocates through its Eating with a Conscience for consumers to choose organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a chemical-intensive food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: Living Green Mag

Photo Source: Really Natural

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2012) At its October 15-18, 2012 Fall meeting in Providence, Rhode Island the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) conducted standards reviews affecting the integrity of organic food and farming and rejected proposals that would have weakened the standards. As it does twice a year, the NOSB (a 15-member board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and intended by Congress to represent all stakeholders in the organic sector, including farmers, certifiers, processors, retailers, consumers, environmentalists, and a scientist) met in public, received public comments, and voted on a range of topics from biodegradable bioplastic mulch, supplemental infant formula ingredients, inert ingredients in allowed pesticides, fertilizers, to allowed synthetic substances. The Board considered subcommittee recommendations that had been proposed by each of the issue subcommittees -including crops, livestock, handling, materials, policy development, and certification, accreditation, and compliance- and subject to a public comment period that preceded the meeting.

There were several highly controversial issues discussed, including the addition of supplemental chemical nutrients to organic infant formula, the use and removal of biodegradable biobased-bioplastic mulch film, and the new review requirement for inert ingredients that are integral to allowed pesticide products. You can find details for the meeting on Beyond Pesticides’ organic action page.

Over the course of the four-day meeting, over 80 members of the public gave testimony on a wide array of issues. NOSB’s decision-making took into consideration these comments in conjunction with about 620 written public comments, before voting on final recommendations. Some of the decisions that drew considerable discussion are highlighted below. To see the full results of each proposal and vote, go to Beyond Pesticides’ Fall 2011 meeting page https://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/action/archives/fall2012-results.php

Inert Ingredients
Beyond Pesticides is supportive of the NOSB’s decision to require a review of so-called “inert ingredients,” those ingredients in pesticide products on the National List that are not claimed to have pesticidal effects, but may be carriers, surfactants, or other ingredients of the formulation. The recommendation includes a tentative list of the proposed groups, new regulatory language, screening guidelines for Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs), and a rough timeline and procedures for review and completion. An Inerts Working Group (IWG) has developed the review process and will continue to improve it as it consults with the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA).

Currently, this list of inert ingredient contains 126 individual substances, including inert ingredients previously petitioned. The IWG is working to categorize the substances in the “other” category into additional or existing groups, and likely 4-6 groups of chemicals will be evaluated every year over a five-year period beginning in 2013. A review of all the inerts currently in use is expected to be completed by October 2017.

Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film
In the motion approving the product, the NOSB changed the name from the material as petitioned, “mulch made from bioplastic” to “biobased mulch film.” Although Beyond Pesticides originally supported the decision to add biodegradable mulch to the National List, further examination indicates the product may not completely degrade (due to variable conditions that affect degradation, including soil microbial activity and amount of water and moisture) before application of the next session’s mulch, which raises concern about its impacts on soil and wildlife. Beyond Pesticides would have preferred explicit requirements for degradation ensure safeguards and compliance with the statute (the Organic Foods Production Act), which requires that plastic mulch is removed at the end of each growing season or after harvest. However, at the very least NOP has agreed to work with the Board in producing guidance to ensure practices that are optimum for degradation. Within the motion, the Board clarified that biobased film derived from genetically engineered (GE) materials or produced with nanomaterials is strictly prohibited.

Organic Infant Formula
Organic regulations stipulate that allowed substances must be considered essential for handling and must be produced without synthetic ingredients (except as provided in sections 205.601 and 205.603, which require a review of cradle-to-grave adverse effects to human health, wildlife, and biodiversity) to the organic production. As such, NOSB deliberated over use of several proposed supplemental nutrients in organic infant formula, including: ascorbic palmitate, a synthetic ingredient; lutein a synthetic ingredient that can be substituted with organic approved lutein; beta carotene, a non-essential ingredient; nucleotides, which are synthetic; and taurine, L-carnitine, and lycopene, which are all considered non-essential.

Only L-methionine was approved for use only in soy-based infant formula, which is made with isolated soy-based protein. Beyond Pesticides agrees with this decision, as L-methionine is deemed essential, or is an FDA-mandated nutrient for infants in soy-based formula. The body cannot synthesize the protein on its own, there are no alternate non-milk sources of the protein, and without this product there would be no organic soy based infant formula, as soy formula alone does not provide adequate levels of L-methionine, a required nutrient. We encourage the Board to promote organic sources of extracted L-methionine. However, Beyond Pesticides would like to see a separate discussion on the essentiality of synthetically produced soy-based formula.

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service oversees the National Organic Program (NOP) and the NOSB. The NOSB includes four producers, two handlers, one retailer, three environmentalists, three consumers, one scientist and one certifying agent. The Board is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic operations. The NOSB also may provide advice on other aspects of the organic program. For more information on the history of organic agriculture and why it is the best choice for your health and the environment, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food Program Page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2012) New research suggests that the drug Stromectal (manufactured by Merck & Co.), which is typically used to treat parasitic worms, may also kill bed bugs. The active ingredient in the drug is ivermectin, which has also been getting publicity recently for its efficacy in killing head lice. Unfortunately, ivermectin, a member of the avermectin family of compounds, appears risky, and even unnecessary given that there are safe non-toxic methods to control and prevent bed bug and head lice infestations.

John Sheele, M.D., an emergency physician at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk who led the bed bug study, tested ivermectin on himself and three colleagues over the course of five different blood meals using three adult and three juvenile bed bugs. They allowed the bed bugs to feed on them before taking the drug and 3, 8, 22 and 54 hours after consuming the same combinations of different insecticides. Within three hours of feeding on blood containing ivermectin, the bed bugs began to die.

David Pariser, M.D., also of Eastern Virginia Medical School, led a different study that looked at the efficacy of using ivermectin applied topically to control head lice. Researchers found that after 14 days, a lotion with .5 percent ivermectin worked on 73.8 of the 141 volunteers, who were mostly children under the age of 12.

“Ivermectin is effective against a broad range of insects -body lice, head lice, scabies,” Dr. Sheele said in an interview with Bloomberg. “What I’d like to be able to do is a real-world experiment where we find people who have bed bugs, treat them with the regimen and see if it gets rid of their infestation.”

However, taking avermectin does come with risks. A number of adverse event reports related to its use, especially among the elderly, where deaths associated with ivermectin prompted a 1997 warning in the medical literature that it not be used at all. Side effects of ivermectin may include dizziness, loss of appetite, nausea vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, constipation, weakness, sleepiness, uncontrollable shaking and chest discomfort, among others.

Ivermectin and other avermectins are nerve poisons. They stimulate the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) system, a chemical “transmitter” produced at nerve endings, which inhibits both nerve to nerve and nerve to muscle communication. The affected insect becomes paralyzed, stops feeding, and dies after a few days.

In addition to human health effects, the problem with introducing more chemicals to combat pests is that it’s only a matter of time before they are rendered ineffective through resistance. Bed bugs have slowly been developing resistance mechanisms and have become resistant to most, if not all, insecticides on the market. On average, insecticides labeled for bed bug control can take over 150 hours to kill a bed bug, compared to seconds or minutes in previous years. An Ohio State study, “Transcriptomics of the Bed Bug,” published January 2011 in the journal PLoS One, confirms bed bug resistance to pyrethroid insecticides and highlights the need to adopt non-chemical methods for controlling bed bugs and other insect pests.

Fortunately, the chemical treatments that are more harmful to humans than bed bugs or lice are also not actually necessary, as these pests can be effectively controlled with non-toxic approaches. An Integrative Pest Management (IPM) approach, which includes methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat can control an infestation without dangerous side effects. This approach, as well as taking steps such as sealing cracks and crevices, reducing clutter and encasing mattresses can also help to prevent an infestation in the first place.

Head lice management involves the basic steps of education, prevention, monitoring, and control. Following these steps should prevent a serious infestation from occurring in your home or school. Simple precautions such as telling children not to share combs, hats, and blankets are a good start in preventing the spread of lice. If you do find lice, there are simple and safe ways to get rid of them. One effective procedure involves combing through oiled hair with a special nit comb (available at most pharmacies) and drowning any lice you find in soapy water. Learn more in our factsheet, Getting Nit Picky About Head Lice.

For more information, on bed bugs, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bed Bug webpage, which includes news updates and a detailed fact sheet discussing bed bugs, the problems with pesticide treatments, and alternative control methods.

Source: Bloomberg

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2012) The National Organic Program (NOP) will now require organic certifiers to conduct periodic residue tests each year on at least 5% of the farms they certify, beginning in 2013. Periodic residue testing is required by the 1990 Organic Food Production Act (OFPA). This recent policy change comes after a 2010 audit of NOP by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Inspector General (IG). Periodic residue testing on organic farms originally was to begin in September of 2010, however, confusion over NOP’s initial testing rules resulted in only a small amount of periodic residue tests being conducted.

The new rules on periodic residue testing mean that the independent agencies that certify organic farms must test up to 5% of the farms they oversee. Certifiers will test for pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and genetically modified organisms. Certifiers can test not only finished organic products, but also soil, water, waste, seeds, plant tissue, and processed product samples. Under OFPA, certifiers are required to test pre-and post-harvest residues even when there is no apparent problem. Although NOP’s revised rule on testing also eliminates the requirement for certifiers to report all test results, results must be kept by certifiers for at least three years, and must be available for public review. The NOP is moving to the new standard of 5% minimum testing because there had been confusion over the standards for what constitutes periodic testing.

This new NOP rule on periodic residue testing results from the IG’s 2010 recommendations after its audit of NOP. The audit was spurred on by organic advocates who criticized USDA’s implementation of the federal organic law during the second Bush administration. After the IG found that NOP was not conducting periodic residue testing, NOP justified this lack of testing by stating that the cost of testing would be too high. The budget of the NOP was then increased in 2010 from $3.9 million to $6.3 million and the staff was nearly doubled from 16 to 31. This larger staff and budget should allow the NOP to carry out the testing requirement in OFPA. Miles McEvoy, deputy administrator of NOP, asserts that organic standards have been strengthened under the Obama administration. The NOP has already moved to implement 12 of the other 14 recommendations made by the IG in the audit.

Beyond Pesticides believes in the strong enforcement of the OFPA, and that moving to conduct periodic residue testing would help assure consumers of the quality and safety of organic products. Organic standards are far more rigorous than the procedures used in chemically intensive agriculture, and as a result lead to greater human and environmental health benefits.

Source: The Grower

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2012) For years, scientists have shown that pesticide exposures are linked to the onset of Parkinson’s disease. Now a new study by researchers at University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) finds that exposure to pesticides and suffering a head injury are associated with a three-fold increase in one’s chances of developing Parkinson’s disease.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, and occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region of the brain are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nerve-signaling molecule that helps control muscle movement. People with Parkinson’s disease have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control, trembling and lack of coordination. Over time, symptoms intensify. At least one million Americans have Parkinson’s and about 50,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

The study, “Traumatic brain injury, paraquat exposure, and their relationship to Parkinson disease,” published in the journal Neurology surveyed more than 1,000 adults ages 35 and older who lived in central California. Some 357 of the participants were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Participants with the disease were nearly twice as likely as those without the disease to report having had a head injury in which they lost consciousness for more than five minutes. Forty-two Parkinson’s patients, or 12 percent of that group, reported receiving a head injury that knocked them unconscious for five or more minutes, as compared to 50 people in the non-Parkinson’s group, or seven percent. The Parkinson’s patients are nearly twice as likely to have had such injuries. Using a geographical tracking system, the researchers also found that those with Parkinson’s disease were also more likely to live within 500 meters of a spot where the herbicide paraquat was used. Parkinson’s patients are 36 percent more likely to be exposed to paraquat, which is toxic to both humans and animals. Nearly half of the study subjects with Parkinson’s had been exposed to paraquat, as opposed to 39 percent of the non-Parkinson’s subjects.

“While each of these two factors is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s on their own, the combination is associated with greater risk than just adding the two factors together,” Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, lead author of the study, said in a public statement. Dr. Ritz says her work suggests that a head injury may trigger a physiological process that increases brain cells’ vulnerability to attacks from toxic pesticides, or vice versa. Constant low-dose exposure to pesticides could place a person at greater risk for Parkinson’s to strike after a head injury.

While there are no definitive causes for Parkinson’s disease, this study is one of many to suggest that environmental influences, like exposure to pesticides, not just genetic variations, may be likely triggers in some cases. Pesticides are long suspected of being tied to Parkinson’s, at least in part, because of the high rate of the disease among farmworkers. Farmworkers have nearly double the risk for the disease if exposed to pesticides, with a dose-effect for the number of years of exposure. Exposure to the pesticides, paraquat and maneb, within 500 meters of an individual’s home, has been shown to increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s by 75 percent, according to a University of California, Berkeley study. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) found suggestive but limited evidence that exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam War is associated with an increased chance of developing ischemic heart disease and Parkinson’s disease in Vietnam veterans. Another publication found that rural residents who drank contaminated well water had an increased (up to 90 percent) risk of developing Parkinson’s. French researchers also found that among men exposed to pesticides such as DDT, carriers of the gene variants are three and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson’s than those with the more common version of the gene. Last year, researchers at the University of Missouri School of Medicine took some of the first steps toward understanding the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s, and unraveling the molecular dysfunction that occurs when proteins are exposed to environmental toxicants.

Previous work has shown a link between the pesticides, rotenone and paraquat, and Parkinson’s disease. One study found that people who used either pesticide developed Parkinson’s disease approximately 2.5 times more often than non-users. Scientists have also been aware for many years that both paraquat and rotenone are neurotoxicants that, when given to animals, reproduce features of Parkinson’s in the brain. Paraquat is known to increase the production of certain proteins in the brain that damages cells that produce dopamine. People with Parkinson’s have a dopamine shortage that causes the motor problems, muscle tremors, and rigidity that characterize Parkinson’s. Rotenone inhibits the function of mitochondria in the brain, which is responsible for regenerating certain brain cells. Both pesticides are largely restricted, due to concerns about links to Parkinson’s. Paraquat is restricted to certified applicators and rotenone is only permitted to kill invasive fish species.

For more information, read Beyond Pesticides’ report “Pesticides Trigger Parkinson’s Disease,” a review of published toxicological and epidemiological studies that link exposure to pesticides, as well as gene-pesticide interactions, to Parkinson’s disease.

The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database captures the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

Source: ABC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2012) There’s a new tool in the fight against aphids. Research published in the journal Horticultural Science discovered that reducing the amount of ultra-violet (UV) light in an environment can shrink the population of an aphid infestation. This study is encouraging as it has the ability to dramatically reduce pesticide applications.

Scientists carried out their study in two “tunnel type” greenhouses over three separate lettuce growing seasons. The crops in one greenhouse were covered with standard mesh netting, while crops in the other greenhouse were covered with netting that filtered radiation in the UV spectrum (the product ‘Bionet’ was used in the study). Researchers then artificially introduced aphid pests into the environment, and tracked their dispersal patterns and overall population weekly through a statistical analysis. Although the aphid population grew exponentially in both environments, it was significantly lower in the greenhouse where the aphids were covered by the UV-absorbing material. This has important implications for greenhouse-grown greens. Using this technique, farmers can reduce the costs associated with pesticide use, concurrently protecting the health of the surrounding environment and consumers purchasing their crops.

The researchers note that UV radiation acts as an important visual cue not only for aphids, but also other insect pests such as whiteflies, moths, and thrips. The study explains, “In fact, UV radiation is important in the visual cues of most insects, modifying their flying and alighting behavior, thus, governing its dispersal activity.” Modifying an insect pest’s dispersal pattern can help to cue farmers in on problem areas and prevent widespread infestations, making it easier to deal with the pests through non-toxic means.

It’s important to note that UV absorbing nets are not a perfect solution, but instead represent an effective strategy within a properly developed Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system. IPM is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control that eliminates or drastically reduces the use of pesticides. This is accomplished by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological, and structural strategies. It also stipulates the use of least-toxic chemical options only as the last resort. UV absorbing covers fit very well into an integrated pest management (IPM) program as they represent a method which minimizes waste material and avoids damage to the surrounding environment.

Aphids are harmful to both indoor and outdoor crops, and can cause substantial losses if not managed. The small pests, typically discovered eating the backside of a plant’s leaves, have the ability to transmit dozens of plant viruses and diseases. However there are a variety of ways to control an aphid infestation without resorting to harmful pesticides.

Mechanical methods of controlling aphids can be quite effective. This includes spraying aphids off of infected plants with a blast of water early in the day, or pruning or pinching heavily infested areas of the plant. However, pruning and pinching may only delay an aphid infestation and biological controls may need to be employed. When attempting to control aphids through biological means, the surrounding environment becomes very important. If predator species do not have an area to breed, natural pest control services are diminished. By introducing habitat for beneficial species, such as ladybugs, lacewings, or parasitic wasps, biological controls begin to put a check on aphid populations. As the beneficial insects feed, their population numbers go up while aphid numbers go down, eventually reaching a satisfactory medium where the remaining population can be dealt with through mechanical techniques. The fungus Beauvaria bassinana is also known to be an effective biological control for aphids, and it is commercially available under the product names Naturalis-O and Botanigard. Another noteworthy prevention technique is to avoid quick-release fertilizers, as aphid populations can explode as a result of high nitrogen levels in plants.

Embracing IPM in this sense means embracing an ecological approach to pest management. Mechanical controls, such as UV absorbing netting are effective tools, but in order to completely handle pest problems, they must be supported by an ecological strategy that increases the resiliency of the surrounding environment. By embracing biological diversity, no species breeds to the point where it becomes a pest problem, as the surrounding environment puts a natural “check” on its growth.

Learn more about controlling pest problems through non-toxic or least-toxic means by viewing our Organic Food program page. Organic systems embrace this approach, and are prohibited from employing any harmful synthetic pesticides. Learn more about controlling aphids indoors by viewing our “How to Manage Houseplant Pests” factsheet.

Source: ScienceDaily, Horticultural Science
Image Source: ScienceDaily

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2012) During the recent elections, North Dakotans voted to accept a controversial amendment to the North Dakota Constitution that protects practices used in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that are harmful to human health and the environment. The North Dakota Farming and Ranching Amendment states, “No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.” This amendment, supported by the North Dakota Farm Bureau, was created in response to pressure from organizations, such as the Humane Society and other organizations, that pushed for laws to ban small crates for chickens and pregnant pigs.

This constitutional amendment, which is vaguely and broadly worded, was designed to protect the use of CAFOs. These industrial operations are often viewed as cruel and can create significant problems for the environment and human health. The unsanitary conditions of CAFOs are produced by packing excessive numbers of animals into an unnatural environment. This process creates the risk of infectious disease outbreaks that would be averted under living conditions appropriate for animal species. To prevent these outbreaks from happening, CAFO operators feed sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics, such as penicillin and tetracycline, to livestock. This practice has become so common that, it accounts for upwards of 80% of those materials’ annual usage in the U.S.

Hundreds of organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (IOM), have recommended that livestock producers be prohibited from using antibiotics for growth promotion if those antibiotics are also used in human medicine. Feeding sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to healthy livestock can lead to accelerated resistance among dangerous infectious organisms that can harm human health. In 2009, the Cook County Hospital in Illinois and the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics estimates that the total health care cost of antibiotic-resistant infections in the U.S. is $16 to $26 billion annually.

Fortunately, the animal uses of antibiotics my soon be banned, as a federal judge recently ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must act promptly to determine whether to ban sub-therapeutic uses of antibiotics in livestock. Judge Theodore Katz ordered FDA to notify drug manufacturers of its intention to revoke approval for uses of penicillin and tetracycline to promote growth in livestock. However, as long as animals are confined to crowded spaces, antibiotics will be needed to stop the spread of large scale diseases.

Another environmental problem that CAFOs create is the animal waste that is produced from these operations. According to a recent report, CAFOs produce 133 million tons of manure per year (on a dry weight basis) representing 13-fold more solid waste than human sanitary waste production. Waste is often disposed of in wastewater lagoons through which the waste can leech into ground water. Water can also be contaminated as waste lagoons overflow or runoff from applications of waste to farm fields. This waste can contain heavy metals, pesticides such as dithiocrabamatees which are applied to spray fields, and the antibiotics which can lead to resistance among dangerous infectious organisms. Ingestion of contaminated water may result in diarrhea or other gastrointestinal tract distress from waterborne pathogens, and dermal contact during swimming may cause skin, eye, or ear infections.

This constitutional amendment is not only problematic because it gives unchecked power to CAFO operators, but also because it takes power away from local communities to control what happens near their homes and schools. According to the North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU), which opposed the amendment, this new regulation would trump local and state laws. It is a form of preemption law which effectively denies local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better public health protection when the community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient to protect local public and environmental health. The NDFU also argues that the amendment doesn’t require that a farmer/rancher use sound agricultural practices or operate without negligence, as the measure guarantees an unlimited right to use any “modern” practice.

Beyond Pesticides strongly believes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification standard creates the safest guidelines for raising livestock. USDA organic certification standards prohibit treating livestock with any amount of antibiotics. The standards also require that producers maintain living conditions that prevent infectious diseases from becoming established and adversely impacting livestock health.

For more information on organics, please visit our organics page and our guide to Eating With a Conscience.

Source: ABC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2012) Proposition 37, the statewide proposition California voted on to label foods produced with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, was narrowly defeated at the polls on Wednesday night by a margin of 6.2 percentage points, however uncounted votes may shift the results. Had it been approved, Californians would have required labels for raw or processed food with GE ingredients and it would have prohibited the labeling and advertising of foods using the misleading term “natural.” Though campaign organizers and most news outlets are announcing defeat, the fight is not over yet. Organizers of the “Yes on 37” campaign have begun to regroup, focusing on 4.2 million Californians that voted yes and building a grassroots movement with 10,000 volunteers. Their campaign’s optimism is highlighted by their campaign statement that was released yesterday online:

Yesterday, we showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop. We always knew we were the underdogs, and the underdogs nearly took the day. Dirty money and dirty tactics may have won this skirmish, but they will not win the war.

If Prop 37 passed, California would have been the first state in the nation to require labeling for raw GE materials and processed foods. While it might not take that seat, it has generated considerable scrutiny over GE food and sparked discussions in other states over their own labeling laws. Washington State’s grassroots organization “Label GMO Food” has taken up the cause for Proposition I-522 “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”. Volunteers have at last begun gathering signatures for the 2013 ballot, with 241,153 valid signatures required by December 31. Likely, the food labeling initiative will gather enough signatures for the November 2013 ballot.

Suffice it to say that supporters of GE labeling are springing up nationwide. The “Just Label It” campaign has continued to grow, with volunteers in Maine and Vermont gathering more than one million signatures to petition FDA for a labeling standard within their states. Rumblings of an initiative in Oregon have started as the GMO Free Oregon group has grown. Signatures are not yet being collected. However, if it did become a proposition this would be the second time in ten years Oregon voters would weigh in on labeling of genetically modified foods, as similar legislation has already been voted down.

Most importantly, the proposition has brought the discussion of GE food into the public spotlight. While half of California has so far voted against Prop 37, the food movement is alive and well. Food writers, such as Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, and Marion Nestle, will ensure that the GE conversation will continue. Mother Jones’ writer Tom Philpott gave a strong assessment of the movement: “Given the formidability and deep pockets of the opposition, I think it’s overblown to treat Prop 37 as a pass-fail test of the food movement’s political viability.”

The amount of money spent by the opposition is proof that this movement is a serious concern for those in industry who want to keep consumers from knowing what’s in their food. Even after being outspent 5:1, $46 million to $9 million, with the “No” folks spending close to $1 million dollars a day in the month leading up to the vote, the poll numbers were razor thin right up until Election Day.

And on Election Day, as a testament to the staying power of this movement, over 4.2 million Californians cast their ballots for the right to know what’s in their food. The next step requires national action, and Beyond Pesticides and the Just Label It campaign are asking supporters to do three things: sign the FDA petition for mandatory food labeling, tell friends and family to do the same, and urge your elected representatives to support GE labeling. Recall, in 2007 on the campaign trail President Obama endorsed the idea that Americans have a right to know what’s in the food they’re buying. So we have had support from the President, but we need to let him know that we’re paying attention, and he needs to act. With pressure from this burgeoning movement of concerned Americans across the county, we can bring much needed transparency to our food system. While California has voted down labeling of GE foods for the moment, consumers who want to avoid GE foods can always buy USDA organic certified products which prohibit their use.

Source: San Francisco Weekly, California Right to Know

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2012) In response to an emergency exemption granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the unregistered use of the herbicide fluridone on cotton in order to control glyphosate-resistant weeds, the agency announced in the Federal Register Monday that it is establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of the chemical on food. Because resistance to herbicides in genetically engineered crops is predictable and expected, Beyond Pesticides has challenged EPA’s use of the emergency exemption provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 18, in this and other similar cases.

According to EPA, of the glyphosate-resistant weeds, Palmer amaranth has become the most severe weed problem in Arkansas cotton production. It can reduce yields of cotton by more than 50 percent if there is a density of at least 10 of these weeds per row. Over 95% of Arkansas cotton and 80% of soybeans is genetically engineered (GE) to be glyphosate tolerant. Because glyphosate is the base herbicide used for weed control in this region, economic loss is expected on nearly 25% of acres grown. Over-reliance on herbicide-tolerant GE crops have caused the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers on the pesticide treadmill to increase herbicide application rates, spray more often, and add new herbicides that work through alternate modes of action into their spray programs.

In August 2011, a series of studies found that at least 21 different species of weeds are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, commonly sold as Roundup and used across thousands of acres of “RoundUp Ready” GE crops. Over-application by farmers on glyphosate to solve all of their weed problems has led to the proliferation of so-called “super weeds,” which have evolved to survive the treatments through repeated exposure. The spread of resistance is what has led farmers to increasingly rely on more toxic alternative mixtures. There has also been an increased push by chemical companies to engineer seed varieties that are tolerant to multiple herbicide treatments, such as dicamba, glyphosate and 2,4-D, or glyphosate and acetochlor. Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience recently petitioned the USDA to deregulate 2,4-D GE corn and soybeans in order for 2,4-D and other herbicides to be used to tackle weeds resistant to glyphosate.

This is the first time EPA has granted an emergency exemption request for the use of fluridone on cotton. The exemptions will expire in 2014 unless evidence is brought to EPA showing the chemical to be unsafe. Through its Section 18, or emergency exemption program, EPA allows the use of pesticides that are not registered for a particular crop, or in some cases not registered for use at all, but making progress toward registration. As a result of this use pattern, EPA sets tolerances for affected crops that are time-limited, usually for the season in which they are allowed. As a result, the database notes that these pesticides have an expiration date that is often renewed. The Section 18 emergency exemption loophole has been used in the past to skirt pesticide regulations meant to ensure health and safety and has resulted in the widespread application of unreviewed, and often unnecessary hazardous substances. In some cases, exemptions have been granted each season, challenging the concept that this is an urgent, non-routine situation as ”˜emergency’ is defined under Section 18. Reoccurring problems like weed resistance to herbicides should be a wake-up call for farmers and EPA to reevaluate and implement alternative biological and cultural management practices for the long-term prevention of diseases and end the reliance on the “chemical fix” that will exacerbate the problem when pest resistance to the chemical inevitably occurs.

Fluridone is an aquatic herbicide used to control large aquatic plants. It is currently registered for residential use on ponds and is used for the control of hydrilla and Eurasian milfoil. The registration review process for fluridone began in 2009. The most recent ecological risk assessment was done in 1991, however no assessment has been completed for endangered species, and ecological data was called in as part of the review process. A human health risk assessment was completed in 2004. EPA estimated aggregate exposure and risk from dietary exposure and exposures from swimming in treated water and the risks were considered “below levels of concern.” Most fluridone products have not been assessed for occupational exposures but EPA believes application exposure is negligible and does not anticipate conducting a post-application assessment. Final registration review is expected in 2015.

Although the mechanism of action of fluridone in plants is understood, the mechanism of action of fluridone in mammals is not well characterized. Fluridone is rapidly absorbed, metabolized, and excreted by mammals. At sufficiently high doses, fluridone is associated primarily with changes in the liver, reduced body weight, and reduced food consumption. Fluridone does not appear to be carcinogenic, based on standard life-time toxicity studies in rats and mice. Similarly, there is little indication that fluridone will cause specific neurotoxic effects or impairment of immune or endocrine function.

Fluridone has two degradates of concern: N-methyl formamide (NMF) and 3-trifluoromethyl benzois acid. Ecological data has been called in for these as part of the registration review. There is some evidence that its major degradate, NMF, causes birth defects. In rats, a significant increase in the incidence of malformations including cephalocele and sternoschisis was observed in fetuses exposed to high doses of NMF. However, due to current limited use, NMF has only been detected in the lab and not following actual fluridone field treatments.

The hope that additional herbicide options like fluridone will stem the tide of herbicide-resistant weeds is like feeding fuel to the fire in hopes it will go out. This process ensures that farmers are stuck on a pesticide treadmill which constantly demands greater amounts of synthetic inputs, including GE seeds, and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of farm profitability and the environment. Sustainable, integrated pest management strategies, including organic practices, and not chemical-intensive solutions, are the appropriate solutions at this time. Organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, and mechanical production practices, and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving.

Take Action: Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. Public comment on this final rule will be accepted until January 7, 2013. Comments may be submitted to the docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0756, at www.regulations.gov.

Source: Federal Register Notice

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2012) Pregnant beluga whales pass to their fetus a portion of the persistent organic pollutants, PCBs and flame retardants, they carry in their bodies, report researchers who measured the chemicals in the animals’ blubber. The study is one of the first to show whales, like people, can transfer and expose their developing offspring to persistent contaminants, whose long-term health effects continue to remain unclear.

A study of Arctic beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) confirms that mothers can pass more than a tenth of their chemical burden of PBDE flame retardants and PCBs to their unborn calves. This study found that the mother whales transferred, on average, 11.4% (7.5”‰mg) and 11.1% (0.1”‰mg) of their polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) blubber burden to their near-term fetuses. Mammals transfer contaminants, usually persistent organic pollutants (POPs), during pregnancy to the developing fetus and during lactation when the baby is nursing. Lactation transfer has been well studied in marine mammals, but very little is known about the transfer of pollutants during pregnancy. POPs are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, to be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and to have potential significant impacts on wildlife and human health.

Previous reports have documented toxic chemicals in the brains of marine mammals and identified several contaminants including organochlorine pesticides like DDT, PCBs and flame retardants in the cerebrospinal fluid and cerebellum gray matter of several species of marine mammals including the short-beaked common dolphins, Atlantic white-sided dolphins and the gray seal. PCBs have been found in alarmingly high concentrations. Researchers also found low levels of PCBs in the cerebrospinal fluid of a gray seal. The antibacterial triclosan has also been detected in the in the blood of bottlenose dolphins.

This new study is unique because it examines blubber from healthy pregnant whales. Previously most research has investigated beached or ill whales. This study is only the second to report mother to fetus transfer of PBDE flame retardants in whales. The study is also important because it focuses specifically on the amount of chemicals transferred to the fetus during pregnancy. Chemical exposure during critical times of gestation is known to cause abnormal growth and development. In some instances, prenatal exposures can impact health in adults many years later. Both classes of chemicals measured in the study are persistent and accumulate in animals at the top of the food chain.

As for humans, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published the first study to look at a broad range of chemicals specifically in pregnant women which analyzed biomonitoring data to characterize both individual and multiple chemical exposures in U.S. pregnant women. Researchers analyzed the data for 163 chemicals and detected about three-quarters of them at varying levels in some or all of the women. They found almost all — 99 to 100 percent — of the pregnant women carry PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, phenols such as triclosan, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate.

Various studies have reported that prenatal exposure to chemical pollutants, like PCBs, PBDEs and pesticides can negatively impact the developing fetus. One study reports that the antibacterial pesticide, triclosan, has a high potency to act as an inhibitor of estrogen sulfotransferase activity raising concerns about its possible effects on the ability of the placenta to supply estrogen to the fetus. Another found significant associations of prenatal pesticide exposure with structural changes in the developing human brain, and also may affect both length of pregnancy and birth weight.

These findings further understanding of potential risks associated with chemical exposures to the developing fetus before birth and nursing begins. In mammals, hormones direct critical physical and mental development during gestation. The fetus is vulnerable to chemicals that can alter hormones — generally called endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Both the PCBs and PBDEs targeted in the study can disrupt hormone functions. PCBs, PBDEs and various pesticides are known to cause a diverse range of health effects, including cancer, immune system problems and thyroid diseases. In addition, early exposure to PCBs has been linked to cardiac diseases in animals. Even though PCBs have been banned and PBDEs restricted they are still routinely detected in the environment, people and wildlife. In the environment, PCBs, PBDEs, and other persistent organic pollutants breakdown very slowly and can travel long distances, accumulating in wildlife, people and remote locations such as the Arctic.

The study illustrates that the health impacts of pesticides are often subtle and delayed, and that pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health years after being pulled from the market. 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 will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2012) In efforts to stamp out the deadly disease Dengue fever, officials in Brazil are in the process of releasing millions of genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes into the environment. However, some in the environmental community are concerned about the possible non-target effects of this experiment, and urge additional research in the lab before releasing the insects into the natural world.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the experiment is taking place in the small town of Itaberaba, in Brazil’s Bahia state. The company overseeing the release, London-based Oxitec, also developed the GE insects. GE mosquitoes are raised in the laboratory, where the eggs of female mosquitoes are injected with a gene that produces sterile male mosquitoes. The modified male mosquitoes are then released into the environment en masse where they crowd out native males and mate with available females. The offspring from these mosquitoes are supposed to die before they hatch.

In the town of Itaberaba, 84% of mosquito larvae now carry the modified gene, and the state government has approved an expansion of the program into five additional neighborhoods. GE mosquitoes have previously been released into uninhabited areas of India and Malaysia, and future plans include a release of the insects in the Florida Keys; though local officials are waiting on a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analysis before moving forward. Farther south, the Los Angeles Times indicates, “Scientists in Brazil are waiting for permission to take the next step: the carpet bombing of an entire city, Jacobina, with the male zombie mosquitoes.”

While much talk has focused on the grand possibility for GE mosquitoes to eliminate all mosquitoes worldwide, some in the environmental community are concerned that Oxitec is rushing into these experiments without seriously considering the possible risks associated with their work. British-based environmental group Genewatch is issuing an alert over the release of modified mosquitoes in Brazil, indicating that there is a possibility of some next-generation mosquitoes mutating further and surviving into breeding age. Genewatch is concerned because GE mosquitoes rely on the antibiotic tetracycline to act as a chemical switch, allowing the GE larvae to develop under lab conditions. The organization cites confidential company documents that show 15% of GE insects surviving to adulthood in the presence of low levels of tetracycline contamination. These results imply that the modification may only provide a temporary reduction in the spread of the disease, with further unknown human and environmental health effects as a result. Dr. Helen Wallace, director of Genewatch, notes in an interview with The Financial Times, “Staff would be better employed using the well-established public health approach of removing mosquito breeding sites [water containers] rather than in placing GM mosquito larvae at intervals across a site. Plans to scale up releases of GM mosquitoes in dengue-endemic Brazil should be halted. Authorities in other places where releases are planned, such as Florida and Panama, should also stop and think again.”

Researchers involved in the experiment respond to these claims by stressing that the potential benefits of their work outweigh the risks. They claim that no mosquitoes have survived so far, and that even if they did, it would be unlikely to cause problems because the altered gene is nontoxic and not spread by saliva. Although, as Genewatch revealed, the gene doesn’t necessarily have to be toxic in order to cause adverse effects. Professor Anthony James from UC Irvine compares the use of GE mosquitoes to the widespread use of pesticides, stating to the Los Angeles Times, “Most of the concerns are about some unintended off-target effects [involving species beyond the Aedes], but we know exactly what the off-target effects of insecticide are.”

While insecticides are surely not the answer to mosquito borne illnesses, given the current evidence on GE mosquitoes, Beyond Pesticides continues to recommend cultural controls as the main method for stopping mosquito borne disease. As a result of the massive West Nile virus outbreak this year, the issue of GE mosquitoes will surely not retreat by next summer. It is therefore of utmost importance that regulators and government officials not only assess hazards, but also consider alternatives when reviewing proposals to introduce gene altered insects into the open environment. In terms of biological controls, New Jersey’s Cape May County provides an excellent example of a low-risk alternative to employing insecticides or introducing GE species. Cape May relies on mosquitoes’ natural predators, tiny copepods that eat the larvae of the mosquito. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, there shouldn’t be a need to choose between GE mosquitoes or toxic chemicals.

For more information on safer mosquito control, see Beyond Pesticides program page on mosquito management.

Source: LA Times

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2012) An ongoing study in the United Kingdom has found that in areas of southern England up to 75% of the rat population is potentially resistant to the common rodenticides warfarin, bromadiolone, and difenacoum. Pesticide resistance was documented in rats as early as the 1950’s. Common rodenticides used in homes already pose a high risk to human and animal health, but as more rodents become resistant to these pesticides individuals face the greater danger of pest control companies using higher doses of more lethal chemicals to deal with “super rats.”

The rodenticides being tested in this study are anticoagulant pesticides that work by blocking vitamin K-dependent synthesis of the blood clotting substance prothrombin. These chemicals cause the animal to bleed to death internally. Not only are these chemicals toxic to mammals, but they are often used in dangerous loose bait and pellet traps.

These traps put children at particular risk for exposure because the products are typically placed on floors, and young children sometimes put bait pellets in their mouths. The American Association of Poison Control Centers annually receives between 12,000 and 15,000 reports of children under the age of six being exposed to these types of products, with Black and Hispanic children living below the poverty line being disproportionately affected. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that these rodenticides “are, by far, the leading cause of [pesticide-related] visits to health care facilities in children under the age of six years and the second leading cause of hospitalization.”

In 2008, EPA proposed to phase out these loose bait and pellet traps. However, Reckitt, the producers of d-Con, has challenged EPA’s proposal and until EPA completes its administrative process the products can be legally sold and used. Growing rat resistance however, means these products are not only dangerous but also ineffective.

An inability to control rodent populations is problematic because they can spread disease, gnaw through electrical cables, and get into food resources. Pesticide resistant rodents can also be harmful to predator species. Animals that hunt these rats, such as domesticated cats, will ingest the built up rodenticides that these rats have eaten and potentially cause secondary poisoning. A recent study published in PLoS One reveals the dangers rodenticides can cause to predators when they feed upon poisoned mice and rats. The study found instances of fisher cats dying as a direct result of eating poisoned rodents. The irony of this is that animal populations that often work to naturally control rodents are being poisoned by these rodents, which in turn makes them less effective at controlling rodent populations.

Resistance to rodenticides in rodents develops the same way as insecticide or herbicide resistance in insects or plants. The resistant strain has always been present in the rat population, and has been noted since the introduction of the poisons in the 1950’s. As these rats reproduced they have had distinct survival advantages where the poison is used because of their resistance. Previously, studying resistance in rats was difficult and this research was halted in the 1990’s. Over the past two decades, the problem has increased, creating an impetus to restart this research. The research is now easier because researchers now know the gene responsible for resistance and merely need to test for its presence–instead of carrying out lengthy feeding experiments.

As this “super rat” population grows and the rodenticides that they are resistant to continue to poison children and non-target animals, there is a greater need to look toward alternatives to these harmful pesticides. This must happen before individuals resort to the use of more toxic pesticides, continuing on the cycle of pesticide dependence. It is because of these types of problems that Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages consumers not to use poisons as a means to control mice and rats. We believe that defined integrated pest management (IPM) practices are vital tools that aid in the advancement of non-toxic methods to control rodents and help facilitate the transition toward pesticide-free (and healthier) methods.

IPM, as defined by Beyond Pesticides, is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control that offers the opportunity to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides, and to minimize exposure to any products that are used. A well-defined IPM plan does this by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological and structural strategies to control a multitude of pest problems. Exclusion practices (sealing up structures), sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and biological control, and pest population monitoring are some IPM methods that can be undertaken to control rodents.

To learn more about rodenticides, go to Beyond Pesticides’ Rodenticides fact sheet. For least toxic control of mice and other pests, visit our alternatives page.

Source: Phys.org

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2012) Despite the onslaught of advertisements saying otherwise, on November 6th California voters will be asked a simple yes or no question: Do you have a right to know if the food you purchase contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients?

Industrial chemical corporations and conventional food manufacturers think your answer to this simple question could dent their profits, possibly damage their image. So they’re attempting to make it as confusing as possible for citizens to understand the issue. The “No on 37” campaign has flooded California’s airwaves with dubious statements and misrepresentations in attempts to scare consumers away from voting in their best interests.

And they’ve made a difference. Back in March, a survey revealed that 91% of consumers nationwide favor the labeling of GE foods, a remarkable consensus that cut across party lines. Up until the past few weeks, before the “No on 37” ads started appearing, there was a 2:1 margin in favor or labeling GE foods. However, recent polls show Prop 37 in a dead heat.

What happened?

In early August, Beyond Pesticides reported on how pesticide manufacturers are “pushing hard” to block the passage of this proposition. At the time, the “No” campaign had contributed $750,000 to defeat Prop 37. Fast-forward to today, where the latest reports show the “No” campaign working with over $40 million, and receiving exponentially more every day that the election nears. To date, the largest “Yes on 37” group has only raised around $5.5 million. This is a substantial difference, and it truly is “”¦a great example of the power of advertising,” according to pollster Chris Condon in an article with the LA Times.

Money can buy speech, but the “No” folks don’t seem to be providing consumers with a more reasoned assessment of the issue. From a brief overview of their claim, one is likely to think that Prop 37 would place onerous regulations on groceries and retailers, hurt farmers, raise the cost of food, and provide arbitrary exemptions to certain foods. Moreover, the “No” folks claim there’s no point to this endeavor anyhow, as GE foods are proven safe. Given this flood of money and disinformation, it’s not difficult to see how the “No” crowd has been effective at drowning out the the “Yes” voices.

Here’s a quick run-down of the fallacious claims, followed by the real story:

“Prop 37 would place onerous regulations on farmers, groceries, and retailers, exposing them to lawsuits”

Under Prop 37’s language the onus and responsibility is on the manufacturer to label GE ingredients. They are the ones legally obligated to place the label on the product. Grocers would only have to label raw agricultural commodities, such as GE corn, which Walmart intends to place on supermarket shelves.

“Prop 37 would raise the cost of food”

An independent cost-estimating assessment from Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey, Ph.D of Emory University’s School of Law reveals that the initiative would not result in any additional expense to California taxpayers; Prop 37 is self-enforced and requires no new bureaucracy. This is the same argument that was made to citizens of the European Union (EU) before they began labeling GE foods in the late 1990’s. Manufacturers change their labels all the time without raising food costs, and the EU did not experience a dramatic rise in food prices as the result of a little more ink on a product’s package.

The fact is that conventional manufacturers are concerned that labeling will change consumers’ minds about their products, or move them towards safer products. This happened in the EU earlier this year, as chemical giant BASF reluctantly chose to pull out of the EU market because, “Biotechnologies are not accepted enough in many parts of Europe by the majority of consumers, farmers and political leaders. That is why it does not make sense economically to continue to invest in products aimed exclusively at this market,” a BASF spokesperson said.

In coordination with this move, the company decided to redouble its efforts here in the U.S. If money is any indication of how important BASF views the American market, the company has contributed around $2 million dollars to the “No” campaign.

“Prop 37 would provide arbitrary exemptions to certain foods”

It does provide for exemptions, but they are not arbitrary because they make sense and are consistent with other laws. While there are strict rules governing what’s listed on the products we buy at the grocery store, there are currently no laws requiring restaurants or bake sales to do the same, and Prop 37 does not wade into this territory. For meat, cheese, milk and eggs, Prop 37 doesn’t require these products to be labeled if they were fed a GE diet, but this aligns with other worldwide GE labeling laws. The Organic Consumer’s Association asks, “Would the NO on 37 campaign have preferred a stricter law than the international standard for GMO labeling?” In terms of alcohol, the labeling of alcoholic beverages is regulated under different laws than food, and because California initiatives can only apply to one subject, Prop 37 does not include alcohol. There should be no argument over whether organic food should be exempt from any labeling, because by definition organic foods are not allowed to contain any GE ingredients.

“Prop 37 is not necessary because GE products have been proven safe”

Beyond Pesticides, as a clearinghouse for scientific studies and information on the hazards associated with the growth of GE products, repudiates this claim. Study after study has shown GE crops and GE products to be dangerous to human and environmental health. Studies have observed that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects, such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. World renowned geneticist and biophysicist, and co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has cited numerous observations on the adverse impacts of GE foods, including severe inflammation in the lungs in mice, liver and kidney toxicity, damage to the organ system of young rats fed GE potatoes, and severely stunted pups. A 2008 study reported that GE corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. The most recent study showing that GE corn causes cancer in rats may be controversial, but it underscores the need for a precautionary approach to this issue.

In terms of effects on the environment, in April researchers at Portland State University found that GE corn modified to express the insecticidal soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) negatively affected beneficial soil life. Their results revealed a decreased presence of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake, in the roots of Bt corn when compared to non-Bt corn. Experts have recently warned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that “rufuges” of non-GE crops should be increased due to the growing threat of insect resistance to Bt corn. Moreover, a study early last month by researcher Charles Benbrook, PhD, shows that GE crops have significantly increased pesticide use and weed resistance, contrary to industry claims that the technology would reduce herbicide applications.

For a further debunking of the claims by Prop 37 opponents, the Organic Consumers Association has a concise article on the subject. If you’d like to take further action before the election, consider volunteering for California Right to Know’s phone bank.

We’d love to take all day dismantling the arguments by the “No” advocates, but time is running out, and the question is simple: Do you have a right to know if the food you purchase contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients?

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2012) Conservation groups and fisherman have filed lawsuits against U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding that pesticide restrictions be implemented around salmon streams. Regulatory buffers surrounding streams and watersheds have not been fully implemented by EPA, though it is required to by law. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which promotes sustainable fisheries, recovery of protected species, and the health of coastal marine habitats, commented that common pesticides should not be sprayed within 500 to 1000 feet of waterways. Its comments focused on the impacts of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion, which jeopardize the health of federally protected salmon species. Despite this and other evidence that supports the need for buffer zones, EPA has withheld action until the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolves the case.

EPA is mandated by law to protect dwindling species like salmon under the Endangered Species Act. Salmon, in particular, are a good indicator of how well we are taking care of both the marine and terrestrial ecosystems, because they live in streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and open ocean. They are also extremely sensitive to changes in water quality and upstream changes to the river flow, turbidity, and temperature. It goes to show that generally, the more pristine, diverse and productive the freshwater ecosystem is, the healthier the salmon stocks. Declines to juvenile salmon populations indicate failing ecosystem health and have dramatic impacts up the food chain as salmon are the primary food source for terrestrial fauna, ranging from eagles, ducks and songbirds to brown bears and grizzlies. Thus, by failing to implement buffer mandates EPA is responsible for endangering salmon and ecosystem health under the Endangered Species Act.

While EPA has requested that chemical companies change their pesticide product labels voluntarily to include buffer requirements, Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim Agan, and Cheminova have refused to take the request seriously. Primarily, they believe that the comments made by NMFS will not hold up in court. EPA can force these chemical companies to change their labels by cancelling existing labeling and issuing new ones, but it would have to prove in federal court that the conclusions made by the NMFS are correct, and officials are reluctant to be involved in a long court battle. Pesticide manufacturers have already requested that the judge throw out the 2008 biological opinion by NMFS on spraying common pesticides near waterways. Credit is due to NMFS for standing by its study and for its concern for endangered species. All things considered, the biological impact cannot be overlooked by the judge. When asked by a 4th Circuit judge about the economic effects of buffers, attorney Mark Haag said, “The determination of jeopardy is based on biology. It’s not based on economic impact.”

Needless to say, label changes are piecemeal efforts that do not address the larger problem that toxic pesticides pose to human health, wildlife, and environmental integrity. Beyond Pesticides calls for the full protection of endangered species through strong legislation that supports least-toxic chemical use. Throughout the years, chemicals have been poisoning our foods and sickening our children. Those chemicals cited by the NMFS are all organophosphates, which is a group of highly toxic insecticides that affect the functioning of the nervous system.

Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic life, and certain species of algae. Poisoning from chlorpyrifos may affect the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system as well as a skin and eye irritant. A study of children exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero found that extensive and unusual patterns of birth defects, including brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, palate, teeth, heart, feet, nipples, and genitalia. The published literature and EPA documents contain reports that identify similarities in defects found in test animals and children exposed to chlorpyrifos. There are also a wide range of adverse environmental effects linked to chlorpyrifos, including toxic to: beneficial insects, freshwater fish, other aquatic organisms, bird, a variety of plants, soil organisms, and domestic animals. It has been shown to bioaccumulate in fish and synergistically react with other chemicals.

Diazinon is a moderately acutely toxic broad-spectrum insecticide. Like chlorpyrifos, diazinon affects the nervous system through the inhibition of AchE, an enzyme needed for proper nervous system function. Diazinon is easily absorbed through the skin, and is synergistic with other chemicals, including pyrethrins and certain chemicals used in pharmaceuticals. Repeated exposure to low doses may cause muscle twitching, anorexia, malaise, depression, irritability, confusion, anxiety, and dizziness. Damage to the pancreas has developed in some people and in laboratory animals exposed to large amounts of diazinon. Diazinon is also considered a mutagen, as long-term exposure may damage the developing fetus or cause birth defects, nerve damage, and/or liver damage.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified malathion as a toxicity class III pesticide, bearing the signal word “Caution.” Despite the fact that malathion is one of the less acutely toxic synthetic pesticides, numerous human poisoning have been reported. It is slightly toxic via the oral route and dermal route. Malathion is rapidly and effectively absorbed by practically all routes, including the gastrointestinal tract, skin, mucous membranes, and lungs. Animal studies indicate it is eliminated through urine and feces, with a reported half-life of approximately 8 hours in rats and approximately 2 days in cows. All organophosphate pesticides act on the body, particularly the nervous system in the same way and their effects are cumulative, which raises questions about multiple exposure to these chemicals through many uses in and around homes and food production.

EPA’s failure to protect endangered species, human health and ecosystem integrity needs to be addressed, if only by implementing buffer zone requirements for toxic pesticides. In the long-term, focus should be guided towards least-toxic pest management methods that are proven effective, cheap, and safe!

Source: Capital Press
Photo source: The Bay Institute

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2012) On Halloween, scarier things then spooky ghouls and goblins may be lurking in places that you don’t expect; places like your child’s candy bag. Over 80% of processed food in the U.S. contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, and most major candy products are no exception. As responsible parents and adults, none of us willingly intend to pass out candy that contains GE ingredients to our children, but as it currently stands we don’t have the right to know whether we are or not. However, nobody wants to be “those neighbors” who give out pennies or pamphlets instead. Luckily, alternatives like candy with all organic ingredients can keep trick-or-treaters happy and give you piece of mind.

Halloween candies can contain a wide variety of GE ingredients. According to Green Halloween the top GE ingredients in candy are sugar (GE sugar beets), high fructose corn syrup (GE corn), corn starch (GE corn), soy lecithin (GE soy), soybean oil (GE soy), modified food starch (GE corn), fructose, dextrose, glucose (GE corn, cottonseed oil (GE cotton), and canola oil (GE canola). GE crops have become ubiquitous in U.S. agriculture with 93% of soy, 93% of cotton, and 86% of corn grown in the U.S., according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Studies reveal that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. A recent study also found that the use of herbicides has increased in GE crop production which has led to mounting numbers of herbicide resistant weeds.

As more and more GE crops enter our food supply, it is becoming harder to find food and treats that do not contain GE ingredients. Reading ingredient labels can also be confusing and time consuming when you are shopping at the grocery store. The easiest way to make sure the candy you buy has no GE ingredients is to purchase USDA organic certified products because by law organic food should not contain GE ingredients. Also, by purchasing organic candy you will reduce trick-or-treaters exposure to pesticides.

Shoppers can also use the Green Halloween and the Non-GE project’s “Guide to a Non-GE Halloween” and Veritey’s list of non-GE candy to help you find GE-free candy. Veritey’s founder Amy Ziff also recently put out this list of GE free treats in a Huffington Post article:

1. Endangered Species individually-wrapped chocolates — in dark chocolate, rainforest mint, chocolate cashew and more. These chocolates are good-tasting (some even have nuts), individually-wrapped, and reasonably priced. The company donates 10 percent of net profits to supporting species, habitat and humanity.

2. Maple candies — the positive thing about these treats is that they’re 100 percent made from organic maple syrup, which has some potential health benefits, and is nutritionally better and less processed than refined sugar. However, it’s also still a very sweet sugar to your system. And these candies are not individually-wrapped, so you’ll have to save them for trick-or-treaters you know well.

3. Yummy Gummy Candies — this is a candy that’s free of common allergens like peanut, gluten and soy and is also free of dyes, corn syrup, GEs and more.

4. Annie’s — gummy snacks or pretzels or cheddar crackers in snack-size packs for something savory. All Annie’s items are non-GE.

5. Trader Joe’s Organic Pops –these are individually-wrapped lollipops that use natural food coloring from vegetable colors, specifically red cabbage, purple carrots, tumeric and annatto, to keep their candies real.

For residents of California buying candy that has no GE ingredients could become much easier if proposition 37, which would require mandatory labeling on GE foods, passes in the upcoming November election. This ballot initiative would give Californians the same right that citizens in over 40 countries around the world, including all of Europe, Japan, and China, have that allows them to know if they are eating GE food. This ballot initiative is facing extreme opposition from corporations such as Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer, and other food industry companies who have raised over $35 million to defeat this initiative, compared to the $4 million raised by the propositions supporters. This flood of corporate money has tightened the race. According to California polls, support for proposition 37 has gone from a 2-1 margin in support for the initiative to a close 44% in favor and 42% opposed.

This tightening of the race is a testament to the problems of corporate money in politics. A March survey revealed that 91% of consumers favor labeling for GE foods, with 81% of those ”˜strongly’ in favor of enacting these requirements. Given the current partisan divide in the country, this represents a remarkable consensus from consumers.

If you’d like more information on choosing foods without pesticides and GE ingredients, visit our guide to Eating With a Conscience.

Source: The Huffington Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2012) Eight miles south of Durango, Colorado in a 65-acre plot of barren land an unusual set of guests has set out to manage weeds, restore soils, and improve land quality. Land owner Kim Craden, who shares the land with Chevron Corp, has contracted Lani Malmberg, board member of Beyond Pesticides, with her herd of 850 goats to help restore their property. This follows the recent ordinance that eschews chemical fertilizers and pesticides in favor of an organically maintained system on public land.

Until recently, the land in question had hosted a holding pond owned by Chevron and used for the oil exploration and production of wastewater. It had been grandfathered into statewide rules governing wastewater management, until a riding arena was built just across the road. When faced with bringing the pond into compliance with state security, signage, and fencing requirements, Chevron decided to close the pond, reclaim the land, and restore the surrounding area. They contracted Ms. Malmberg, who had already worked for city and county governments, the Department of Defense, federal public land agencies, and numerous private ventures. Needless to say, her herd of goats has an impressive track record.

Ms. Malmberg has been in the goat business since 1997. As a graduate student at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, she was fascinated by goats and how they could be used for chemical-free land restoration. When she completed her Masters of Science, she bought a herd, which now ranges on the edge of 1,200 heads of goat. The co-owner of “Ewe4ic Ecological Management” and “Goat Green,” Ms. Malmberg has made a business out of managing unwanted vegetation and erosion, reseeding, restoring soils, and reducing fire threat using her herd of goats.

Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of goats and grazing animals as a least-toxic solution for weed management. Goats are often more efficient at eradicating weeds, and are more environmentally sustainable than using harmful pesticides and chemicals. The process works as follows: Working around five miles of land per day, the goats consume everything from shrubs and weeds to thistles and poisonous plants. Their journey takes them up hills and down gullies that are too steep for mowers or machines. As they eat, the goats ensure that weeds do not go to seed. By snapping off flower heads and eating off all the leaves, weeds cannot photosynthesize sunlight to build a root system. Goats also boost soil health in two important ways: 1. fertilizing soils with their nutrient-rich feces and urine, and 2. tilling hard drought-stricken soils with their hooves. At the end of the contract, the soils are ready to be reseeded for spring. This growing movement has gained attention around the nation.

For more information on natural, non-chemical land management strategies, read “Successfully Controlling Noxious Weeds with Goats: The natural choice that manages weeds and builds soil health” and see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes page.

Source: The Cortez Journal
Photo Source: Ewe4ic Ecological Services

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2012) In stark contrast with last week’s decision in the midwest, a federal court ruled in favor of halting cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) crops in all national wildlife refuges in the Southeastern U.S. on Tuesday. The suit, filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Center for Food Safety (CFS), and Beyond Pesticides, is a part of a series of legal actions taken against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (FWS) for entering into cooperative farming agreements for GE crops on wildlife refuge sites without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and refuge management laws.

This latest ruling bars FWS from entering into cooperative farming agreements for GE crops on the 128 refuges across eight states, including the 25 refuges currently growing GE crops. The requirement of environmental reviews will likely prevent the planting of crops in 2013 and 2014, and may result in a permanent end to the practice, as native successional grasses reclaim fallow refuge tracts.

This ruling is the third in a series of victories against FWS. In March 2009, the same groups won a similar lawsuit against GE plantings on Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. In 2011, the groups forced a legal settlement ending GE planting on refuges throughout the 12-state northeast region. However, in a separate ruling on October 15 this year, the same federal district judge, James Boasberg ruled that the FWS Environmental Assessment for GE planting in the Midwest region was adequate.

“How GE crops can be judged to carry significant environmental impacts in the Southeast and not in the Midwest is difficult to understand and accept,” said Paige Tomaselli, staff attorney with the Center for Food Safety. “However, short of a much-needed nationwide settlement, this is good news in our fight to end the growing of GE crops on our nation’s wildlife refuges.”

Federal District Court in the District of Columbia will hear arguments on November 5 on additional remedies that may be required to mitigate environmental damage on the Southeast refuges from GE crops already planted, including such measures as a ban on pesticide spraying, enlarged buffers, and steps to prevent trans-genetic contamination. FWS had unsuccessfully tried to argue the suit was moot because the planting season was over and the agency foresaw no new illegal plantings.

“While we are happy with the result, we are disappointed that the government needlessly prolonged this litigation,” stated PEER Counsel Kathryn Douglass, noting that the government had tacitly conceded the merits of the suit in its court filing last spring. “The simple point we are making in case after case is that genetically modified crops have no legitimate role on a national wildlife refuge.”

While national wildlife refuges have allowed farming for decades, the practice is losing support among refuge managers, especially since some crops, such as soybeans and corn, are available mainly in GE strains. Refuge policy states that GE crops should not be used except when essential to accomplish a refuge purpose —a test that is extremely difficult to honestly meet. The lawsuits stress that the GE crops actually conflict with the protection of wildlife, the main purpose of the refuges. GE crops also require more frequent and increased applications of toxic herbicides, which has fostered an epidemic of “super weeds” as weeds have mutated. In addition, GE farming has led to uncontrolled spread of the engineered DNA to conventional, organic crops and wild relatives, in effect contaminating the wild from federal wildlife preserves.

For more news and information, see Beyond Pesticides’ genetic engineering page.

Source: PEER Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2012) The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) has weighed in on the organic food debate recognizing that lower pesticide residues in organic foods may be significant for children. The Academy also notes that choosing organic is based on larger environmental issues, as well as human health impacts like pollution and global climate change. This is the first time the AAP has made a statement on organic foods, concluding that the most important thing for children is to eat a wide variety of produce, and that pediatricians should talk to their patients about the potential health and environmental benefits of choosing organic.

There have been conflicting media reports of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) recent report on organic foods, published online in Pediatrics. However, the academy is clear that organic foods do provide health advantages by way of reducing exposure to pesticides, especially for children, even reporting “sound evidence” that organic foods contain more vitamin C and phosphorus. According to the report, “in terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.” It also goes on to note that organic farming can be competitive and yields comparable to those of conventional farming techniques. AAP recommends that “pediatricians should incorporate this evidence when discussing the health and environmental impact of organic foods and organic farming while continuing to encourage all patients and their families to attain optimal nutrition and dietary variety.”

The report is described as a clinical report reviewing the health and environmental issues related to organic food production and consumption. It defines the term “organic,” reviews organic food-labeling standards, describes organic and conventional farming practices, and explores the cost and environmental implications of organic production techniques. It also examines the evidence available on nutritional quality and production contaminants in conventionally produced and organic foods.

“At this point, we simply do not have the scientific evidence to know whether the difference in pesticide levels will impact a person’s health over a lifetime, though we do know that children — especially young children whose brains are developing — are uniquely vulnerable to chemical exposures,” said Joel Forman, MD, FAAP, a member of the AAP Council on Environmental Health and one of the lead authors of the AAP clinical report. “Pediatricians want families to have the information they need to make wise food choices,” said Dr. Forman. “We hope that additional research will improve our understanding of these issues, including large studies that measure environmental exposures and neurodevelopment.”

On Nutritional Content
In its analysis, the AAP notes that research comparing the nutritional value of conventionally grown produce and organic produce is “not definitive,” citing that nutritional content is affected by various factors including geographic locations, soil characteristics and climatic conditions. The report finds that better quality research that accounts for these many variables is needed to make accurate comparisons, and concludes that at this time, there is no convincing evidence of a substantial difference between the nutritional content of organic and conventional foods.

On Milk and Meat
The AAP also notes here that due to variability in cattle breeds and genetics, comparisons of milk composition must be “interpreted with caution.” In reviewing the scientific literature, AAP finds little significant differences in compositions, but organic milk does have slightly more protein than conventional milk, and milk derived from organic and non-organic low input systems yield milk higher in conjugated linoleic acid. AAP also notes that hormone supplementation, which is prohibited in organic, does not adversely impact nutritional composition of conventional milk, but the “biological effects in humans, if any, are unknown.” Furthermore, AAP states that studies are needed to investigate the risks to women who eat hormone-treated animals and the development of breast cancer. The AAP calls for large, well-designed, prospective cohort studies that directly measure environmental exposures, such as estrogen at low levels, to understand the impact of hormonal exposure of children through milk and meat.

On Antibiotics
On the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, AAP notes that the evidence is clear that the use of these agents can promote the development in drug-resistant organisms, which can then spread through the food chain. Organic farming, which prohibits the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics, therefore reduces this threat and, by extension, lowers the risk of human disease caused by drug-resistant organisms.

On Environmental Impacts
Organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, have soils with higher organic quality and water retention. A review of studies found that organic systems can have comparable productivity to conventional fields, while using less pesticides and reducing environmental pollutions.

A recent survey reveals that organic is, in fact, growing. Organic growers in the U.S. sold more than $3.5 billion organically grown agricultural commodities in 2011. Contrary to reporting on the recent Stanford University study that mischaracterized the value of purchasing expensive organic food, the study found that consumers are exposed to elevated levels of pesticides from conventionally grown food. The reporting ignored the study’s reference to pesticide residues on chemically grown food, as well as the broader benefits of organic practices that protect farmers and farmworkers, air and water quality, wildlife and biodiversity. Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure and children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. Studies have found additional health benefits to eating organic. A ten-year University of California study, which compares organic tomatoes with chemically grown produce, finds that they have almost double the quantity of disease-fighting antioxidants called flavonoids. 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. A study by Newcastle University, published in the Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, finds that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk.

In addition, the adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects that change has had and will have on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce fossil fuel use and provide carbon sequestration in the soil through increased soil organic carbon. Higher organic soil carbon levels then increase fertility and the soil’s ability to endure extreme weather years.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its program and through its Eating with a Conscience website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: American Academy of Pediatricians Press Room

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2012) It’s a story we’ve heard for far too long. Research published yesterday in the journal Nature concludes that when bees are exposed to pesticides their colonies have a greater propensity to fail, again raising the urgent need for regulatory action to protect pollinators. This study adds to the body of science that shows toxic pesticide dependency in agriculture is undermining our food supply.

Concerned citizens Take Action! Join us this Thursday, October 25th at Noon outside EPA Headquarters (340 12th St NW (12th and Pennsylvania Ave)) for a rally to tell EPA that it must act to protect pollinators now.

The rally will feature speakers from various nonprofit and environmental organizations, commercial and urban beekeepers, film documentarians and more, including:

Ӣ David Hackenberg, Commercial Beekeeper, PA
Ӣ Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides
Ӣ Peter T. Jenkins, Attorney/Consultant, Center for Food Safety
Ӣ Jim Doan, Commercial Beekeeper, NY
”¢ Maryam Henein, Director “Vanishing of the Bees”
Ӣ Meme Thomas, Baltimore City Beekeeper
”¢ Kevin Hansen, Director of “Nicotine Bees” and Sierra Club Representative

The Nature study, “Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees,” followed 40 bumblebee colonies for four weeks.

While the study only focused on bumblebees, Prof. Douglas Kell of The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council notes, “Bumblebees play an important role in pollination, working earlier in the morning and later into the evening than many bees. Understanding the threats to all insect pollinators is vital if we are to ensure we mitigate the impact of their decline on the production of agricultural and horticultural crops. The results of this study contribute to a wider initiative to help inform strategies for securing the futures of all insect pollinators.”

The research reveals that chronic exposure to two commonly-used pesticides, the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, and the synthetic pyrethriod λ-cyhalothrin (LC), at field level concentrations impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker morality. Neonicotinoids, such as imidacloprid, are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through the pollen, nectar, and gutation droplets from which bees forage and drink. Synthetic pyrethriods such as LC are sprayed directly on crops, including their flowers, where bees can become topically exposed. The authors note, “Foraging bees are thus simultaneously exposed to both chemicals in the field, making them excellent candidates to investigate the potential for combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure.”

The study was designed to mimic real world conditions bees are exposed to in the field. Forty colonies were split into four groups: ten colonies not exposed to any pesticides were used as a control, ten were exposed to only imidacloprid, ten were exposed only to LC, and ten were exposed to a mixture of imidacloprid and LC. The pesticides were administered via a feeder box; however, the bees were not forced to visit the treated material and could forage freely in the fields nearby.

Of the colonies exposed to imidacloprid, there was a decrease in birth rates for worker bees, and a higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest. A decrease in foraging success means that bees will bring back less pollen. Less pollen means less food for bees, which would match up to the lower birth rates of worker bees seen in the study. These results correspond closely to two studies published earlier this year in the journal Science. The first, titled “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees,” revealed that the honeybees exposed to the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam were less likely to return to the hive after foraging. The second, titled “Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production,” shows that bumble bee colonies exposed to imidacloprid suffer an 85% reduction in the production of new queens compared to unexposed colonies.

For colonies exposed solely to LC, and those exposed to both pesticides, there is a much higher rate of dead worker bees, with 43% of the workers living less than 4 days after birth. This means that colonies are putting a significant amount of effort into nursing bees that were not able to contribute to the future growth of the hive. Colonies exposed to both pesticides fare the worst in the study. Authors note, “Indeed, M colonies in our study were consistently negatively affected in all our measures of worker behavior, suffered the highest overall worker losses (worker mortality and forager losses), which were twice as great as for control colonies, and two colonies did in fact fail.”

The authors of the study go on to note that traditional risk assessments only preform tests on one pesticide at a time. This fact is true in the U.S.; EPA does not require registrants to study the possible synergistic effects of pesticide combinations, even though bees in the field are exposed to multiple pesticides through a number of different routes.

Moreover, EPA does not require studies on the chronic toxicity of pesticides for non-target insects such as pollinators. While this study spanned four weeks, with many effects only taking place after several days of exposure, EPA only requires a 96-hour test to be performed. While the agency is supposed to require a field study before a chemical is approved, in terms of neonicotinoids no acceptable field studies on pollinators have been performed to date.

EPA failed to follow its own regulations when it granted a conditional, or temporary, registration to the neonicotinoid clothianidin in 2003 without required data establishing that the pesticide would have no “unreasonable adverse effects” on pollinators. EPA continues to allow the use of clothianidin nine years after acknowledging that it had an insufficient legal basis for initially allowing its use. In July, France banned the use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam in order to protect pollinators, but EPA has effectively told pollinators to buzz off. Several U.S. policymakers, including Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Senators Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have expressed their concern to EPA, but EPA has refused to budge, denying a petition by millions of concerned citizens that would recognize that bees face an “imminent hazard.”

So we’re bringing the fight to EPA’s front door. With one in three bites of food dependent upon pollination, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Join us this Thursday, October 25th at Noon and let EPA know it’s not okay to put our pollinators, our food supply – our future at risk.

If you’re interested in learning more about the research involving the recent global decline of pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection page to learn what the science shows.

Source: PhysOrg

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2012) A lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) practice of permitting genetically engineered (GE) crops on wildlife refuges was dismissed by a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Center for Food Safety (CFS), and Beyond Pesticides, charged that FWS unlawfully entered into cooperative farming agreements and approved planting of GE crops in 54 national wildlife refuges in various states without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in violation of FWS policy.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, ruling that the “agency’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which oversees 150 million acres of refuges, allowed farmers to plant GE corn and soybeans on a limited basis in eight Midwestern states. The plaintiffs — Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Cornucopia Institute — claimed the decision violated environmental law. Farming has long been used on national wildlife refuges for multiple purposes like habitat restoration, which involves destroying invasive species to make room for native plants. However, in recent years, refuge farming has been converted to GE crops because the agency claims GE seed is the only seed farmers can obtain today. These GE crops are mostly engineered for a single purpose: to be resistant to herbicides, mainly Monsanto’s ubiquitous Roundup. Because the crops are tolerant to herbicides, their plantings lead to more frequent applications and increased amounts of toxic herbicides. This overreliance on herbicides used in GE cropping systems has fostered an epidemic of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” in the past decade as weeds have mutated. A study by University of Notre Dame, scientists found that streams throughout the Midwest are contaminated with GE materials from corn crop byproducts, even six months after harvest. While the long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown, GE crops are known to contaminate conventional non-GE and organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment by increasing resistant insects and weeds, contaminating water and affecting pollinators and other non-target organisms.

Earlier this month, a study published by Washington State University’s research professor Charles Benbrook, PhD, reported that the use of herbicides in the production of GE herbicide-tolerant crops -cotton, soybeans and corn- has actually increased, producing resistant weeds, contrary to industry claims that the technology would reduce pesticide applications. This year, Beyond Pesticides wrote to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the introduction of new varieties of GE crops was “severely misguided and lacking forethought.” Plans are in the works to introduce 2,4-D GE corn into the environment thereby creating a new generation of resistant weeds, leaving a legacy of resistant “superweeds” and a retrogression to even more toxic herbicides to control these weeds. 2,4-D, which constituted half of the ingredients in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War, is a chlorophenoxy herbicide. Scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma.
FWS officials in the Midwest were aware that refuges in eastern states had been sued over allowing GE crops on these protected lands, and developed an environmental assessment of the practice. This was the third in a series of lawsuits filed by PEER and CFSchallenging 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 settling the suit, FWS promised to revoke any authorization for further GE agriculture at Bombay Hook and the four other refuges with GE crops: the Rappahannock River Valley Refuge and the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge, Montezuma Refuge in New York and Blackwater Refuge of Maryland, unless and until an appropriate NEPA analysis is completed — a condition that has yet to be met for GE agriculture on a National Wildlife Refuge. The federal government would not agree to end GE agriculture in refuges nationally, which prompted new litigation in other regions where as many as 75 other national wildlife refuges now growing GE crops are vulnerable to similar suits.

The agency originally preferred taking no action, which would have allowed GE crops to continue being grown in refuges for multiple purposes. In the final version of its environmental analysis, FWS instead chose to only allow transgenic crops to be grown for five years per tract, and only for habitat restoration objectives. This lawsuit challenged that the agency’s analysis did not adequately consider the impact of increased herbicide usage on water and endangered species. It also argued the analysis should have more closely looked at possible development of weeds resistant to glyphosate herbicides and cross pollination between transgenic and conventional crops. This suit hoped to enjoin the cultivation of GE crops in the Southeast Region until and unless a new approval decision is made based on a rigorous review of all potential impacts in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by NEPA. Meanwhile, unless practices and FWS policy on the refuges change, the plaintiffs will continue to challenge the cultivation of GE crops on refuges across the country.

Judge Boasberg found that the FWS sufficiently studied these concerns and countered the arguments with scientific studies and mitigation measures. “FWS’s conclusions may not be what plaintiffs wish, but it cannot be gainsaid that they took a hard look at the issues,” the judge said.

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

For more on genetically engineered agriculture read Beyond Pesticides’ article “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market” on our Genetic Engineering program page.

Source: Capital Press
Photo Credit: Food Safety News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2012) School is a place where children need a healthy body and a clear head in order to learn. Despite a successful trend toward nonchemical strategies, pesticides remain prevalent and are widely used today in universities, schools, and daycare facilities. Kelsey Crain, an undergraduate student at University of Delaware, first became aware of the issue when, “I noticed there was this weird rash on my legs which wasn’t there before I was on The Green.” Kayla Iuliano, Crain’s friend and reporter at the student-run University of Delaware Review, probed the University about why there was no notification, and in return was given standard bureaucratic prose: “University Spokesman John Brennan stated in an email message that workers are not required to post signs when areas are sprayed because the chemicals are not harmful when used properly, and personnel are trained in how to apply them,” she wrote in the University of Delaware Review. “He said the sprays are commonly used commercial products and are registered for use with the Environmental Protection Agency. ”˜They are recognized in the industry as safe when applied as directed’.”

The pesticide widely applied to the Green is called “PowerZone,” which is composed of 41.98 percent MCPA 2-ethylhexyl ester, or Mecoprop, according to its product label. This so-called “safe” chemical is considered a “possible” carcinogen, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a division of the Center for Disease Control. Mecoprop labels indicated that grass treated with the chemical should be allowed to set for a period of 48 hours and that immediate exposure to mecoprop can cause symptoms like burning skin and eyes, nausea, dizziness, and headaches.

Unfortunately, neither the university nor the state of Delaware require pesticide applicators to post signs that notify of spraying, which means that even after pesticides have just been sprayed, students may be walking, sitting, and lying in toxic pesticides that should be allowed at least a few hours to properly dry. Students that use the common area are completely unaware of the risks; the university and state have failed to protect them from these toxic pesticides.

Of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 can cause cancer, 13 are linked to birth defects, 21 can affect reproduction and 15 are nervous system toxicants. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical, 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health hazards ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer, and reproductive abnormalities. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (Roundup), have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Many pesticides affect the immune system, which can result in increased problems with allergies, asthma, hypersensitivity to chemicals and a reduced ability to combat infections and cancer. A study found organophosphate pesticides cause genetic damage linked to neurological disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and Parkinson’s disease.

Chemical-intensive pest control tends to ignore the causes of pest infestations and instead relies on scheduled pesticide applications or unnecessary toxic chemical use. Pesticides typically provide a temporary fix and are ineffective over the long-term. In addition, the most common insects are now resistant to many insecticides. Because certain insects and toxic pesticides pose a health risk to children, schools need to implement a comprehensive school IPM program to prevent and manage pest problems. A comprehensive IPM program utilizes pest prevention and management strategies that exclude pests from the school facility through habitat modification, entry way closures, structural repairs, sanitation practices, natural organic management of playing fields and landscapes, other non-chemical, mechanical and biological methods, and the use of the least-toxic pesticides only as a last resort.

In 2002, Beyond Pesticides identified 10,108 school districts, or 59 percent of the school districts in the U.S., in 37 states that have a policy with one or more of the following four criteria: (i) establish an integrated pest management (IPM) program; (ii) provide prior written notification of a pesticide application; (iii) post pesticide use notification signs; and, (iv) prohibit certain toxic pesticide applications. While this report does not evaluate whether all these schools are implementing these policies effectively, it does show the number of schools that have adopted some requirements, either through a state law or local school district policy, toward the protection of children from school pesticide use. Of the approximately 17,000 school districts around the country:
Ӣ 26.6% are required to have an IPM policy;
Ӣ 43.1% are required to provide prior written notification
Ӣ of pesticide use
Ӣ 56.7% are required to post pesticide use notification signs
Ӣ for either indoor or outdoor applications; and,
Ӣ 18.9% have restrictions on certain pesticides.

As of 2010, 21 states address IPM in their laws, but only 15 of these require schools to adopt an IPM program. Of the 21 states, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota, have comprehensive definitions of IPM, and allow only the least-toxic pesticide to be used as a last resort. Four states, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia, approach the issue of defining least-toxic pesticides. Only two states, Massachusetts and Oregon, prohibit certain toxic pesticides from being used in an IPM program. For example, Oregon IPM law only allows a “low impact pesticide” to be used, which is defined as a pesticide that is not an EPA toxicity category I and II pesticide product (bares the words “Warning” or “Danger” on its label), or contains an ingredient listed by EPA as a known, probable or likely carcinogen. (There is an exemption for a public health emergency.) In addition, pesticides may not be used for routine, preventive purposes. Massachusetts and Maine prohibits the use of aerosol/liquid spray pesticides inside school buildings, with an exception for approved public health emergency situations. Their laws also prohibit the use of known, probably or likely carcinogens as well as products that contain EPA List 1, Inerts of Toxicological Concern. Although its law does not prohibit toxic chemical use, Texas defines “green category pesticides” and West Virginia defines “least hazardous pesticides” as products that EPA considers less acutely toxic. These are listed as toxicity category III and IV pesticide products (bares the word “Caution” on its label), excluding the more toxic categories I and II pesticides. Oregon and Texas also require the school districts’ IPM coordinator to approve the use of higher hazard pesticide applications Maine only allows an indoor pesticide spray application for public health pest problems.

Raising the level of protection across the nation to meet the highest possible standard of protection for children is essential. Schools should be environmentally safe places for children to learn. It often takes a pesticide poisoning, repeated illnesses, or a strong advocate to alert a school district to the acute and chronic adverse health effects of pesticides and the viability of safer pest management strategies. IPM strategies are practical, feasible, and cost-effective tools to reducing student and school staff’s exposure to hazardous pesticides.

We applaud recent efforts by State Senator Gene Davis (D-Utah), who has announced plans to sponsor legislation that requires notification when nearby homes are being treated with toxic pesticides. Pre-notification is a critical step in the right direction to allow people to avoid unwanted chemical exposures. Utah’s current pesticide notification system is voluntary. While pesticide applicators are required to alert their customers of the dangers associated with certain pesticides they apply, residents are not required currently to notify their neighbors when they apply pesticides around their home. Property owners should be informed about the possible contamination of their property and of threats to their family and pets from the application of pesticides.

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

Source: University of Delaware Review

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2012) A new study pinpoints agricultural pesticides and fertilizers as the likely culprit for an incurable and deadly kidney disease that has afflicted thousands of Sri Lankans. As many as 400,000 people in the north-central region of Sri Lanka may be affected by the chronic kidney disease (CKD), and as many as 22,000 people may have died over the last two decades as a result.

“The reason for the spread is heavy metals in the water caused by the unregulated use of fertiliser and pesticides,” Dr. Channa Jayasumana, from the Faculty of Medicine at the Rajarata University in Anuradhapura, told Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS).

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Sri Lankan government launched an investigation four years ago, testing the local environment and taking blood, urine and tissue samples. The results, which were released this summer in a one-page press release, pointed to cadmium and arsenic. Though cadmium is found in fertilizers, it is illegal to use arsenic-based pesticides in Sri Lanka. Dr. Jayamasumana is one of the doctors that has been engaging in research activities in the epidemic of CKD, and told Beyond Pesticides that they strongly believe that the main cause for CKD is poor quality agrochemicals.

According to a joint investigation by Public Radio International’s The World and the Center for Public Integrity, in the government’s press release, it states that farmers can protect their kidneys by stopping the “indiscriminate use of fertilizers and certain pesticides.” However, little has been done to spread the message to people who need to hear it. The doctors are frustrated with the WHO and the Sri Lankan government for not releasing these findings to the public and not taking action yet.

Dr. Palitha Bandara, the top health official in the North Central Province, told PRI that it is critical that the public’s exposure to the contaminants be reduced immediately “because day by day (they) will accumulate (in) the skin, blood and other peripheral organs, including kidneys.”

Source: PRI’s The World, Inter Press Service News Agency

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