Previous attempts to distinguish nanoparticles from silver ions have proven unfruitful, as they have been unable to fully separate the two. However, a new method developed by researchers in China aims to use an older technique called cloud point extraction and apply it to the nanosilver in order to separate the ions from the particles. This will enable researchers to identify whether consumer products, as well as environmental samples such as wastewater, containing nanosilver actually contain nanoparticles or if they contain silver ions. The method will need to be refined further in order to adequately examine the very small nanosilver concentrations that are most often found in the environment, such as in wastewater or surface water, but scientists are hopeful that the new method will enable them to more accurately study the components of nanosilver and identify the trigger that makes it toxic.

Nanosilver, used as an antibacterial agent in many products, is much more toxic than regular silver and can cause damage in new ways. Concerns over nanosilver were first raised by national wastewater utilities in early 2006. A 2008 study shows that washing nanosilver socks releases substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms.

Nanosized particles are super small particles with unique properties that are now incorporated in food production as well as into many consumer products including paper wrapping, clothing and cosmetics, are currently not regulated and have not yet been assessed for hazards that have the potential to impact public health and the environment. They are increasingly being used as pesticides as, due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them. As these tiny materials hit the market, there are huge gaps in what scientists know about their properties. Earlier this year, the California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) asked in-state nanotechnology companies and researchers to share how they are keeping tabs on several nano-sized metals, as evidence continues to emerge that these substances may have long-term implications for the environment. Some studies have shown that some of these nanomaterials are turning up in end-stage sewage sludge, raising questions about long-term environmental problems. Other nanomaterials can be making their way to the water supplies.

Nanotechnology is a powerful new platform technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, those same new properties —tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity— can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Scientists and researchers are becoming increasingly concerned with the potential impacts of these particles on public health and the environment. A study by scientists from Oregon State University (OSU) and the European Union (EU) highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides.

“There’s a concern with these GE crops that we eat with minimal processing [like sweet corn]…we’re exposed to a lot more of whatever is in it versus a processed corn product,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at Center for Food Safety in an interview with Fast Company. A study earlier this year found that pregnant women and their fetuses were contaminated with pesticides associated with GE food. Last year, researchers in France found that GE crops had numerous adverse health effects in lab rats.

This drastic increase in herbicide use has significant consequences for the future of agriculture, too. Just last week, we reported on the new studies documenting that at least 21 different species of weeds are found to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate.

Contrary to common claims from chemical manufacturers and proponents of GE technology that the proliferation of herbicide tolerant genetically (GE) crops would result in lower pesticide use rates, the data show that overall use of pesticides has remained relatively steady, while glyphosate use has skyrocketed to more than double the amount used just five years ago. The recently released 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports that the use of glyphosate has dramatically increased over the last several years, while the use of other even more toxic chemicals, such as atrazine, has not declined.

Glyphosate is a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk and neurotoxicity, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. One of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells. It is also of particular concern due to its toxicity to aquatic species as well as instances of serious human health effects from acute exposure.

Perhaps most concerning is that once the product hits the shelf, consumers will have little, if any, choice in whether they purchase or eat Monsanto’s sweet corn. There are no current regulations for labeling genetically engineered food. And, according to the LA Times, the company will not be using the Monsanto brand to advertise their new line of corn:

“We think it is a good product. It’s up to us to make sure we help tell people about the benefits,” vice president of Monsanto’s global vegetable business, Consuelo Madere, told the paper. “Given how sweet corn is normally sold -— by the ear, in larger bins in produce sections of the market —- it’s not really something that can be easily branded.”

The one sure-fire way you can avoid the GE sweet corn is to buy organic or know where your food comes from. Genetically modified crops are not permitted in organic food. Unlike chemically intensive agriculture and genetically engineered food, researchers continue to discover the environmental and health benefits of eating and growing organic food. For more information about why organic is the right choice see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

Over-application and over-reliance 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 most common species which have evolved these traits include pigweed (palmer amaranth), mare’s tail, and ryegrass. The spread of resistance is what has led farmers to increasingly rely on more toxic alternative mixtures, including weed killers like atrazine. There has also been an increased push by chemical companies to engineer seed varieties that are resistant to multiple herbicide treatments, such as dicamba, glyphosate and 2,4-D, or glyphosate and acetochlor.

Contrary to common claims from chemical manufacturers and proponents of GE technology that the proliferation of herbicide tolerant GE crops would result in lower pesticide use rates, the data show that overall use of pesticides has remained relatively steady, while glyphosate use has skyrocketed to more than double the amount used just five years ago. The 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report shows that 57 million pounds of glyphosate were applied last year on corn fields in surveyed states. In the same states, ten years prior, in 2000, this number was only 4.4 million pounds, and in 2005, it was still less than half of current numbers at 23 million pounds.

The rise in glyphosate applications has almost certainly come as a result of farmers increasingly planting GE crops such as corn and soybeans, which are engineered to be resistant to the chemical. In this way, farmers can apply the chemical on a vast scale across their fields while not having to be careful that they don’t hit their crops.

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

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

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

The report, “Natural and Organic Foods and Beverages in the U.S., 3rd Edition,” examines sales and growth potential, identifying key issues and trends that will affect the marketplace through 2015, and analyses consumer attitudes and behaviors toward natural/organic foods and beverages. Organic sales also had a great performance in 2008 with U.S. sales reaching $24.6 billion by the end of 2008, growing an impressive 17.1 percent over 2007 sales. Organic food sales accounted for approximately 3.5 percent of all food product sales in 2008. A recent poll by Thomson Reuters and National Public Radio (NPR) shows that a majority of Americans prefer to buy organic food when given the choice. This poll also demonstrates the potential for growth in the organic food sector if organically produced foods were to become more easily accessible to consumers. According to the poll, the most common roadblock for consumers who wish to buy organic food but are unable to is cost, with 54% stating that their preference for non-organic food stems from the fact that organic food is too expensive. This trend may soon change as researchers predict that with growing demand, prices will drop.

The demand for organic agriculture continues to grow due to the benefits to human health and the environment. In addition to the many organic food stores, most large grocery stores across the country carry a growing number of organic produce resulting in high demand for organic products from food retailers. As such, organic agriculture is the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture, despite premium prices. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting to produce healthy soil, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber. Genetically modified crops are also not permitted in organic food. For more information on organic agriculture, visit the organic food program page.

Growers, however, have initially been slow to switch to organic agriculture because of the substantial investment required to adopt a new methods of production, and gain organic certification. In order to be certified organic, foods must be produced without synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or sewage sludge. A farm must go through a three year transition phase, before it can be certified organic. The high demand and relatively low supply has allowed producers to charge retailers higher prices.

The costs of certification and inspections are often cited by small farms as one roadblock to participating in organic certification. However, a new program helps to alleviate some of those costs, giving more farmers the option to become organic. In September 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it will make available $6.37 million in federal funds for organic certification cost-share reimbursements for the fiscal year 2010. Recipients must receive initial certification or continuation of certification from a USDA-accredited certifying agent and may be reimbursed for up to 75 percent of their organic certification costs, not to exceed $750 per year.

Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. A study published in 2008 finds that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. Another study finds that converting the nation’s eight million acres of produce farms to organic would reduce pesticide dietary risks significantly.

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

As organic agriculture continues to grow and evolve, researchers are continuing to find new evidence of the benefits of choosing and growing organic foods, and the benefits of organic agriculture extend to everyone. On conventional farms, dangerous pesticide use is a danger to farmworkers, wildlife including endangered animals, as well as the water supply, and people especially children https://www.beyondpesticides.org/schools/index.htm living in the area. For more information about why organic is the right choice see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

“This is not the first time high levels of arsenic have been found in apple juice,” said Judy Braiman, executive director of the Empire State Consumer Project. “It is past time for the FDA to set a limit on a toxic substance like arsenic with long term health effects in the juice that kids drink.”

Two-thirds of apple juice that Americans consume ””more than 400 million gallons annually”” comes from China. The Empire State Consumer Project and Food & Water Watch sent a letter to FDA calling on the agency to take long overdue action on contamination of apple juice with heavy metals such as arsenic. Currently, there is no legal limit for arsenic in juice. To protect your family from contaminated apple juice, Beyond Pesticides recommends organic apple products.

Arsenic has been linked to a number of health effects. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen. Several studies have shown that arsenic can increase the risk of lung, skin, bladder, liver, kidney, and prostate cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and EPA have determined that arsenic is a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from human data. High levels of arsenic in the body can also cause vomiting, diarrhea, blood vessel change, or death and can damage many tissues including nerves, stomach and intestines. In 2008, Johns Hopkins University researchers discovered that arsenic may increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, arsenic-based pesticides were common in U.S. agriculture. Their use declined some following World War II and the introduction of organochlorines and DDT. Many of the arsenic-based pesticides identified as the most hazardous by EPA, those containing inorganic arsenic, were phased out by the 1980s (with the exception of wood preservatives). After completing its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the organic arsenical pesticides MSMA, DSMA, CAMA and cacodylic acid in 2006, EPA began phasing out these pesticides as well. However, after push back from the chemical industry and conventional, chemical-intensive growers, EPA extended the use of MSMA on golf courses, sod farms, and highway rights-of-way until December 31, 2012, with use of existing stocks permitted through 2013.

The inorganic arsenical wood preservative chromated copper arsenate (CCA) is still in use. Although, as of January 2004, most residential uses of this arsenic-based wood preservative can no longer be manufactured for decks and patios, picnic tables, playground equipment, walkways/boardwalks, landscaping timbers, or fencing- already existing residential CCA-treated wood and structures may continue to be used. Industrial uses, such as utility poles, continue to be manufactured and put workers and the public at risk. The major source of contamination in surface waters and groundwater is wastewater from wood preserving facilities. Individuals living or working near wood preserving facilities are exceptionally susceptible to being exposed to surface water or groundwater, increasing their exposure and risk. These preservatives are also known to leach from previously treated wood. Children are also at risk if they put their unwashed hands in their mouths after touching soil or wood that is contaminated with these preservatives. As a result, public and environmental health continues to be compromised.

Japanese beetles, a threat to turf grass as well as ornamental plants such as roses and cut flowers, have been detected in the Fair Oaks area, state officials said, but the ”˜infestation’ appears to be localized. To keep the ”˜infestation’ from spreading countywide, Juli Jensen, Acting Agricultural Commissioner, is urging residents in the area not to move plants or plant parts. The initial treatments will be directed at adult beetles and begins August 2 with applications of carbaryl on fruit-bearing trees, and cyfluthrin on non-fruit-bearing trees and landscape plants. Two weeks later, a second treatment will be applied and augmented by a granular imidacloprid to target grubs. The applications, to occur on approximately 100 properties, will be carried out by the department staff and subcontractors following all pesticide use laws and regulations, with advance and post-treatment notices to residents. However, the state is not seeking permission from homeowners to spray in and around their property. Unfortunately, organic farmers and gardeners and those chemically sensitive individuals will not be provided a less toxic option. According to CDFA, pesticide use enforcement staff will randomly monitor applications, and will provide environmental monitoring during the treatment.

Pesticides are Highly Toxic
Carbaryl, also known by its trade name Sevin, is one of the most widely-used insecticides in the U.S., and is controversial because of its neurotoxic, cancer and teratogentic properties. Carbaryl poses risks of concern from uses in and around the home, to occupational handlers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide in agricultural sites, and to workers who may be exposed upon re-entering treated areas. Carbaryl is a member of the n-methylcarbamate class of pesticides and can cause cholinesterase inhibition in humans, meaning that it can over stimulate the nervous system causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and at high exposures, respiratory paralysis, and death. Carbaryl is classified as a likely human carcinogen based on vascular tumors in mice.

Cyfluthrin a synthetic pyrethroid and imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid, are both neurotoxic and both toxic to bees. Imidacloprid belongs to a class of chemicals suspected as a main cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) where millions of hives across the country are being deserted due to significant bee deaths. Studies show that imidacloprid, like other chemicals in its class, produces sublethal effects in honeybees which include disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior. Decreased foraging activity, along with olfactory learning performance and decreased hive activity have also been observed. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), shows that losses of honey bee populations over the 2010/2011 winter remained abnormally high, reflecting continuing damages attributed to CCD.

To hear scientists and professional beekeepers discuss the impact of pesticides on honeybees and other pollinators, see the video of the Pesticides and Pollinators Panel from Beyond Pesticides 29th annual National Pesticide Forum. Visit the Pollinator Protection webpage for more information of honeybees and pesticides.

Exposures to cyfluthrin (through inhalation) cause symptoms at very low doses; concentrations of as little as 150 parts per billion are enough to cause lethargy and a failure to gain weight. Cyfluthrin also appears to affect reproduction. Rabbits exposed to cyfluthrin during pregnancy miscarried more frequently than unexposed rabbits. Synthetic pyrethroids as a class appear to disrupt androgen (male sex hormone) function. Consistent with this, cyfluthrin interferes with receptors that are part of this hormone system. Along with bees, cyfluthrin is also highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

Alternative Management
Japanese beetles and their larvae can be controlled without toxic pesticides:

1. Lawn Care: Adult beetles prefer to lay their eggs in short grass. Cutting your grass tall – minimum of 2 inches high – may discourage egg laying, and reduce future grub populations. Eggs require moist soil conditions in order to hatch and prevent the larvae from drying out. Therefore, deep periodic soaking of the turf is more beneficial than frequent light watering.

2. Encourage Natural Parasites and Predators: Certain species of wasps, such as Tiphia spp. and Scoliids prey specifically on white grubs. Some birds can consume large number of insects in your yard, including adult beetles and grubs. Attract birds to your property by providing bird feeders, houses and baths.

3. Adult Beetle Management: Handpicking beetles, using mechanical traps and planting plants that repel beetles can effectively minimize adult beetle populations.

For more information, read the Beyond Pesticides Factsheet, “Grounding out Grubs.”

Take Action: If you live in the Sacramento area call or write the California Department of Food and Agriculture and/or your local media outlet to voice your opposition to the spraying of 3 toxic pesticides on residential property.

Contact:
Juli Jensen
Acting Agriculture Commissioner (Sacramento)
4137 Branch Center Road
Sacramento, 95827-3897
Tel: (916) 875-6603; Fax (916) 875-6150
Email: [email protected]

Sources: Sacramento Bee, California Department of Food and Agriculture

Photo Courtesy California Dept. of Food and Agriculture

Among restrictions is one that would restrict EPA’s ability to act in several key areas, including pesticide suspensions and cancellations related to endangered species protections, pesticide product brand names, and Clean Water Act (CWA) permits for pesticide use on or near water. It includes language that would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the CWA to exempt FIFRA-compliant pesticides from requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the CWA. The appropriations includes bill language that is essentially the same as that contained in stand-alone legislation (H.R. 872) approved by the House and reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) have placed a hold on H.R. 872 in the Senate. Just last week, the House passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018, that would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law, and also prevents EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Take Action: Tell your Senator to oppose HR 872.

As of July 27, 77 amendments and anti-environmental riders have been filed, and House leaders have said they are expecting about 200 total amendments to be filed throughout the bill’s floor debate. Before the bill came to the House floor Tuesday morning, it already had 38 anti-environmental policy riders unrelated to spending that attack clean air, clean water, endangered species, and iconic places. One measure -to forbid the Fish and Wildlife Service to list any new plants or animals as endangered- was so extreme that 37 Republicans broke ranks and voted to strip it from the bill. Many believe the legislation is essentially a targeted attack on some of President Obama’s signature items: tackling climate change, regulating fossil-fuel pollution, and protecting public lands and waters.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), the ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said that while the bill has been put on the back burner while lawmakers and the media focus on the debt ceiling issue, “it is boiling over” with threats to the environment.

Although inserting policy changes into appropriations bills is a common strategy when government is divided as it is now, no one can remember such an aggressive use of the tactic against natural resources. Environmental groups worry that more than a few of these so-called riders could stick when both sides negotiate and leverage budget concessions in the fall.

The Interior and Environment spending bill would provide EPA with $7.1 billion for fiscal 2012, about $1.5 billion below this year’s spending levels and $1.8 billion less than President Obama requested. Interior would receive $9.9 billion, which is $720 million below the agency’s current budget and $1.2 billion below the president’s request. It would slice spending on climate-change programs, slash money for the federal government to acquire new public lands, and effectively gut the nation’s land and water conservation fund, with a cut of more than 90 percent. The legislation is also laden with dozens of policy riders that would do everything from block EPA from regulating power plants’ greenhouse-gas emissions to allow uranium mining around the Grand Canyon.

Among the original 38 riders in the bill are provisions to:

-Ban EPA from all work to reduce the climate change pollution of power plants, refineries, and other major polluters for one full year, and allow major new sources of carbon pollution to be built without any controls.

-Mandate that California’s National Forests allow off-road vehicles in places where they cause harm and raise significant safety concerns.

-Leave millions of acres of wilderness-quality lands open to drilling, mining, and off-road vehicles.

-Prohibit EPA from ensuring that hardrock mining companies —not American taxpayers— are responsible for footing the bills of costly environmental cleanups at their mine sites.

For more on the riders, visit Earthjustice.

Take Action:

U.S. House of Representatives: Call or email your Representative today and demand a stop to attacks of environmental protections and programs. Find your Representative here.

U.S. Senate: Tell your Senator to oppose HR 872.

According to the Inspector General (IG), these failures led to only a fraction of the chemical assessments for the pilot being completed. IG found that VCCEP’s pilot was critically flawed and that the design of the program “did not allow for the desired outcomes to be produced.” It had a flawed chemical selection process and lacked an effective communication strategy.

VCCEP is no longer operational and EPA has no plans to revive, replace, or terminate the program. The program was set up as part of the Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative in 1998 to ensure that there are adequate publicly available data to assess the special impact that industrial chemicals may have on children. EPA is not meeting the goals outlined in this initiative given the failure of this program, along with a lack of any alternative program to fill the void. The report highlights that there is no readily understandable source of chemical exposure information that the general public can access to determine potential risks to children. According to the IG report:

“Children face significant and unique threats from environmental hazards and industrial chemicals. Children encounter their environments differently than adults. Physically, their neurological, immunological, respiratory, digestive, and other physical systems are still developing and can be more easily harmed by exposure to environmental factors. Children eat more, drink more, and breathe more than adults in proportion to their body weight. Children’s exposures to environmental pollutants are often different from those of adults because they engage in different activities, such as playing on floors and in soil and mouthing of their hands, toys, and other objects that can bring them into greater contact with environmental pollutants.”

The IG report recommends that EPA design and implement a process to assess the safety of chemicals to children that (1) identifies the chemicals with highest potential risk to children, (2) applies the Toxic Substances Control Act regulatory authorities as appropriate for data collection, (3) interprets results and disseminates information to the public, and (4) includes outcome measures that assure valid and timely results.

Many environmental groups and scientists, however, believe that we need to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Legislation was introduced back in April to update and modernize TSCA, which will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

Previous government reports document a systemic failure by EPA to adequately regulate chemicals due to a lack of data. According to the agency, since TSCA was passed in 1976, EPA has restricted or banned five and required testing for 200 existing chemicals. Currently there are approximately 84,000 chemicals on the market.

Beyond Pesticides has long called for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from risk assessment in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives.

Increasing rates of chronic diseases linked to toxic chemical exposure, including cancer, asthma, and infertility have created an urgency to enact policies to get harmful chemicals off the market. To learn more about how pesticides are linked to serious health concerns, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases database.

The survey asked five questions of respondents: (1) Given a choice, would you prefer to eat organic or non-organic foods? (2) What are your reasons for preferring organic food? (3) What are your reasons for preferring non-organic food? (4) Given a choice, where would you most prefer to get your produce? (5) In a restaurant, would your ordering decision be influenced by the availability of organic options?

Among reasons for buying organic food, avoidance of toxins and support for local farmers roughly tied for most common reasons at 34% and 36% respectively. Second was concern for the environment at 17%, with better taste coming in last at 13%. Interestingly, the percentage of people who identified concern for the environment as their reason for buying organic food increased with age of the respondent. For those under 35 years old, only 12% identified this as a reason, while 23% of those over 65 did so. The trend was reversed, though not as dramatically, for concern about toxic exposure through food. 36% of those under 35 identified this as a reason for buying organic, while only 31% of those over the age of 65 did so. Support for local farmers was highest among those under 35 at 40%.

The poll results also demonstrate the potential for growth in the organic food sector if organically produced foods were to become more easily accessible to consumers. According to the poll, the most common roadblock for consumers who wish to buy organic food but are unable to is cost, with 54% stating that their preference for non-organic food stems from the fact that organic food is too expensive. The second most common reason for not buying organic food was simply that it is not always easy to find. 21% of respondents stated that they do not buy organic food because non-organic food is more readily available. With farmers markets being the most preferable venue for respondents to buy their produce when given the choice — 43%, compared with supermarkets (32%), co-ops (5%), or home gardens (20%) — these numbers suggest that there is ample consumer demand to support increasing the number of farmers markets, achieving greater access to organic food for consumers.

“It stands to reason that, by expanding the network of farmer’s markets, we could see a further groundswell around the support for organic foods,” said Raymond Fabius, M.D., chief medical officer at the healthcare business of Thomson Reuters. He also pointed out that “[t]here appears to be a generational difference in preference for organic foods. The strong, positive sentiment among young people indicates they are more concerned with exposure to toxins and place a higher premium on supporting local markets.”

“This month’s poll gives us some insight into what is going through consumers’ minds when they’re making the choice of what they will feed themselves and their families,” said Scott Hensley, NPR health correspondent and blogger. “We find it especially intriguing that a very small percentage of respondents are choosing organic foods based on taste. This makes organic vs. conventional a really unique case where food decisions are being made consciously by consumers.”

To learn more about the benefits of organic food and farming, visit our organic web page.

Under the federal organic standards authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), produce may not be labeled organic if it is contaminated with pesticide residues, as a result of off-site use, o greater than five percent of the allowable pesticide tolerance levels. Pesticide tolerances are the pesticide residue limits used in the U.S. or by countries imporing to the U.S., which are set by the federal government under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Because we live in a polluted world where pesticide residues are present, often at low levels, nearly everywhere. A very small amount of pesticide contamination can be considered unavoidable and permitted in organic agriculture, based on an inspection and efforts on the farm to reduce contamination.

According to court documents, Oluf and Debra converted their conventional family farm to a certified-organic farm during the mid-1990s. Oluf Johnson posted signs at the farm’s perimeter indicating that it was chemical-free, maintained a buffer zone between his organic fields and his chemical-using neighbors’ farms. He also notified commercial pesticide sprayer Paynseville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company of the transition. He specifically asked the cooperative to take precautions to avoid pesticide drift onto his fields when treating adjacent fields. Despite the Johnsons’ requests, in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, the cooperative sprayed pesticides that drifted and contaminated the Johnson’s organic crop, forcing them to sell at a lower, non-organic price.

The District Court in Minnesota ruled that pesticide drift cannot be trespass, but the Appeals Court disagreed. While no Minnesota courts have previously ruled that drift can be trespass, courts in other states have ruled in favor of organic farmers. The appeals court sent the organic farmers’ lawsuit back to a lower court for further action.

Pesticide drift is not only a problem for organic growers. Pesticide drift has recently been suspected in the tree deaths throughout the East Coast and Mid-West. A 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) finds that pesticide drift from conventional farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents in recent years.

Similar to the threat of pesticide drift faced by organic farmers, is the threat of genetic drift -typically pollen from a field of a genetically engineered (GE) crop being carried by wind or pollinators like honey bees, which are known to travel six miles or further. While organic food is not currently tested for GE drift contamination the way it is spot checked for pesticides, consumers paying a premium for organic food demand purity. Therefore the growing threat of genetic contamination is a serious issue facing organic farmers as well.

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

PAHs are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances like tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are usually found as a mixture containing two or more of these compounds, such as soot. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) says exposure to PAHs usually occurs by breathing air contaminated by wild fires or coal tar, or by eating foods that have been grilled.

According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), neural tube defects are birth defects of the brain and spinal cord. The two most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly. In spina bifida, the fetal spinal column doesn’t close completely during the first month of pregnancy. There is usually nerve damage that causes at least some paralysis of the legs. In anencephaly, much of the brain does not develop. Babies with anencephaly are either stillborn or die shortly after birth. They are one of the most common birth defects, occurring in approximately one in 1,000 live births in the U.S.

While insufficient levels of folic acid, a type of B vitamin, before and during pregnancy are solidly linked to neural tube defects, environmental pollutants have also been suspected. Previous studies have linked PAHs to this type of birth defect, but only relying on questionnaires or blood tests alone. By examining the placenta, the researchers were able to see what was actually reaching the fetus.

The researchers told Reuters that they recruited pregnant women in four rural counties in northern Shanxi province where neural tube defects occur in 14 out of every 1,000 babies, far higher than the national average. Women whose placentas had higher than average levels of the PAH chemicals from burning coal were 4.5 times more likely to have babies with defects, while those with higher than average levels of pesticides were around 3 times more likely to have babies with defects.

The bills would create a more updated scientific evaluation process than any that currently exists in the federal government for reviewing potential endocrine disruptors and would have a strong regulatory mandate to ban or restrict chemicals that are found to present serious health risks. The specific process outlined directs the National Toxicology Program at NIEHS to evaluate each chemical according to (i) the amount of evidence that it is an endocrine disruptor, (ii) the “level of concern” that it may disrupt hormones, and (iii) the pathways of exposure by which it may affect both humans and animals. Every two years the Program would then submit a list of chemicals to Congress and federal agencies detailing the chemicals it has reviewed and what it found regarding the three evaluation criteria. There would then be a regulatory trigger for federal agencies to reduce human exposure for chemicals found to present a “minimal level of concern,” or a ban on chemicals found to be of “highest level of concern.” The bills also contain provisions allowing citizens or local governments to petition NIEHS to evaluate a particular chemical or reverse a finding on a previous chemical regarding whether or not it is an endocrine disruptor.

Common household products including detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides contain chemical ingredients that enter the body, disrupt hormones and cause adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems. Known as endocrine disruptors, these chemicals, which interact with the endocrine system, wreak havoc in humans and wildlife. The endocrine system consists of a set of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone and adrenaline), which help guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Hormones are signaling molecules, which travel through the bloodstream and elicit responses in other parts of the body.

The chemicals function by: (i) Mimicking the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (ii) Blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or (iii) Affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to a range of health problems, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, and childhood and adult cancers. Learn more by visiting our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. Many everyday chemicals that people are exposed to can be endocrine disruptors. Pesticides such as triclosan, atrazine, permethrin and many others have been associated with effects on the body’s hormone system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a list of chemicals that will be screened for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system, along with a draft of the policies and procedures that the agency has proposed to follow for testing. The agency is mandated to test chemicals for their potential to affect the hormone system. However, the agency has yet to finalize its procedures or officially test a chemical for endocrine disruption since tasked to do so in 1996 by an act of Congress. The tests to be used by EPA were first recommended in 1998. Since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated. Current research is based on different assumptions than the toxicological assumptions that first drove the EPA test designs. However, EPA has not updated its protocol. The system created by these two bills would present the opportunity for a comprehensive federal evaluation process so that EPA would not have to rely on its own outdated system.

Earlier this year, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc. (TEDX) released a comprehensive list of potential endocrine disruptors. It is the most complete such list to date and currently approximately 800 distinct chemicals. Each one has one or more verified citations to published, accessible, primary scientific research demonstrating effects on the endocrine system.

S 1361 and HR 2521 have been referred to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Contact your Senators and Representative and urge them to support these bills and the commitments to public health that they represent.

As temperatures have warmed, the amount and variety of pests in regions that do not traditionally have problems are increasing. Researchers at the University of Washington have found that insect species that adapt to warmer climates also will increase their maximum rates of population growth, meaning that global warming will likely lead to increased insect populations. In New England, entomologists have noted an increase in the number of insects, including ticks carrying lyme disease and mosquitos with West Nile Virus and encephalitis. Scientists believe that climate change will increase disease transmission by shifting insects’ geographic range, increasing reproductive and biting rates of the insects, and by shortening the pathogen incubation period.

The whitebark pine is being attacked by the mountain pine beetle. Though the beetles are native to the region where whitebark pine grows, according to National Park Service, higher average winter temperatures in the Rocky Mountains over the last ten years have allowed the pests to proliferate. Hard winters with cold temperatures can kill beetle eggs and larvae wintering under a tree’s outer bark.

Roughly two-thirds of all the whitebark pine trees have been wiped out in the hardest-hit areas, Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced earlier this week that an endangered or threatened species listing was “warranted but precluded.” There is not enough funding or staff time to allow it to be listed as threatened or endangered. According to National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who filed a petition to have the tree listed, FWS’s decision means that the tree’s status will be revisited in 12 months to determine if resources are available to begin generating a species recovery plan which would outline goals and tactics for protecting and recovering whitebark pine. FWS has given the species the highest possible priority, unfortunately given the current economic and political climate, funding for managing essential environmental protections have been mired.

What else can we expect in the coming future because of climate change? In addition to increases in insects and insect-borne diseases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research shows that weeds also flourish from increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Researchers have found “noxious” weeds to be more adaptable to changing conditions than crops, predicting further growth of their productivity and range in urban and rural areas. Other research by the same team shows that common pollen allergens – including the troublesome ragweed pollen – may be getting worse as a result of global climate change as well.

Despite the increase of pests that climate change may bring, using more pesticides is not the answer and will only lead to increased problems with climate change, along with risking our health and the health of our ecosystems. Studies show that conventional landscaping practices actually cause greenhouse gas emissions at a rate up to four times greater than the lawn’s ability to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

Sulfuryl fluoride, a pesticide that is in the process of a phase-out, has been shown to be a highly potent greenhouse gas. Research has shown that it can be as much as 4,000 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, the leading atmospheric contributor to climate change. It currently exists in the atmosphere at much smaller concentrations than CO2, which is why its use must be curtailed before it becomes even more of a concern.

One way to reduce the impact of chemical-intensive agriculture on climate change is to grow an organic garden. Research suggests that organic techniques can reduce the output of carbon dioxide by 37-50%, reduce costs for the farmer, and increase our planet’s ability to positively absorb and utilize greenhouse gases. The Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST – comparing organic and conventional) shows that organic techniques actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change and restore soil fertility.

For more information on pesticides and climate change, see our Organic Program page and related daily news entires.

The Bath and Body Works antibacterial line, which includes products with names like “Tangelo Orange Twist” and “Sugar Lemon Fizz,” is marketed to teenagers using the slogan “spread love, not germs.” Although not listed on their website, this antibacterial line and others sold by the company contain triclosan as their main germ fighting ingredient. Beyond Pesticides in 2004 began voicing concern about the dangers of triclosan and in 2009 and 2010, submitted petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the removal of triclosan from consumer products. Since then many major companies are quietly and quickly removing triclosan from their products. Colgate-Palmolive, makers of SoftSoap, and GlaxoSmithKline, makers of Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpastes, have reformulated these products to exclude triclosan. Others, including Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, The Body Shop, and Staples, have started phasing it out of products.

“Given triclosan’s widespread environmental contamination and public health risk, companies must be held accountable for the safety of the substances they put into their products, especially when safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Take Action! Tell Bath & Body Works CEO: “Stop using toxic triclosan in your products.”

Triclosan is not only an endocrine disruptor found at increasing concentrations in human urine and breast milk, but also contaminates waterways and possibly even the water we drink. To add insult to injury, triclosan is not even effective against harmful bacteria, including those found in hospitals.

Triclosan’s efficacy has been called into question numerous times, even though triclosan is marketed as a germ-killing substance. A systematic review of research assessing the risks and potential benefits associated with the use of soaps containing triclosan finds that data do not show the effectiveness of triclosan for reducing infectious disease symptoms or bacterial counts on the hands when used at the concentrations commonly found in antibacterial products. There is also evidence that the widespread use of antibacterial compounds, such as triclosan and triclosan-containing products, promote the emergence of bacterial resistant to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers. The American Medical Association has stated, “No data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them”¦it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.”

The scientific literature has extensively linked the uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. As an endocrine disruptor, triclosan has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development, and also shown to alter thyroid function. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also has found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 42% since 2004.

Over 10,000 individuals told EPA this spring, via email and docketed comments supporting Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch’s petition, to ban the dangerous antibacterial triclosan. Additionally, scores of public health and advocacy groups, local state departments of health and the environment, as well as municipal and national wastewater treatment agencies submitted comments requesting an end to triclosan in consumer products. EPA published the petition for public comment in December 2010 and closed the comment period on April 8, 2011.

Tell your family and friends to beware of products that contain triclosan.

Take Action Today: Tell Bath & Body Works CEO: “Stop using toxic triclosan in your products.”

Prior to this field study, many experts believed that volatilization was not a contributing factor to water contamination because atrazine and metolachlor had a low vapor pressure. However, the monitoring of both herbicide volatilization and surface runoff at the field-scale over multiple years had never been done. So the team set up a 10-year study in an experimental field in Beltsville that is equipped with remote sensing gear and other instrumentation for monitoring local meteorology, air contaminates, soil properties, plant characteristics, and groundwater quality. This allowed the team to carry out its studies on a well-characterized site where only the meteorology””and the soil water content””would vary.

Drs. Prueger and Gish observe that when air temperatures increases, soil moisture levels have a tremendous impact on how readily atrazine and metolachlor volatilize into the air, a key factor that had not been included in previous models of pesticide volatilization. When soils are dry and air temperatures increase, there is no increase in herbicide volatilization, but herbicide volatilization increases significantly when temperatures rise and soils are wet. Most of the volatilization from wet soils occurs within the first 3 days after the herbicide is applied.

The largest annual runoff loss for metolachlor never exceeds 2.5%, whereas atrazine runoff never exceeds 3% of that applied. On the other hand, herbicide cumulative volatilization losses after 5 days range from about 5 to 63% of that applied for metolachlor and about 2 to 12% of that applied for atrazine. Additionally, daytime herbicide volatilization losses are significantly greater than nighttime vapor movement.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. The herbicide does not cling to soil particles, but washes into surface water or leaches into groundwater, and then finds its way into municipal drinking water. It has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, birth defects, and cancer. As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine is applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant. Atrazine is a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

Metolachlor is used for grass and broadleaf weed control in corn, soybean, peanuts, sorghum, and cotton, as well as on lawns, golf courses and ornamental plants. It is classified as a possible human carcinogen. Evidence of the bioaccumulation of metolachlor in edible species of fish as well as its adverse effect on the growth and development raise concerns on its effects on human health. Metolachlor is a suspected endocrine disruptor and linked to organ damage.