Researchers outfitted 224 expectant mothers with air monitors during their third trimester of pregnancy and measured the levels of PBO and permethrin in the air around them. Then, once the children were 5 and 6, the same two chemicals were measured from air samples collected inside their home. Results showed that children exposed to PBO in the womb were at increased odds of reporting cough unrelated to cold or flu. Researchers found no correlation between prenatal or childhood exposure to permethrin, however they pointed out that this may be because PBO is easier to measure in air samples than permethrin. Coauthor of the study, “Prenatal exposure to pesticide ingredient piperonyl butoxide and childhood cough in an urban cohort,” Dr. Rachel Miller, indicates “these exposures may be a factor in a very common problem for children ””cough.”

PBO is a highly toxic substance that can cause a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system, is one of the most commonly used synergists in pesticide products. Synergists are chemicals added to pesticide formulations to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients. PBO is frequently used, especially in aerosol products and mosquito sprays, to increase the potency of pyrethrin and synthetic pyrethroids, as well as other types of insecticides. Products generally contain between five to ten times as much PBO as the pesticide product’s active ingredient.

Permethrin belongs to the chemical class of synthetic pyrethroid pesticides, which are chemically formulated versions of the natural-based pesticide pyrethrum, made from extracts from plants in the chrysanthemum family. Due in part to the prevalent myth that it is “natural,” synthetic pyrethroids are a widely used class of insecticides. Unfortunately, they have not been widely evaluated for developmental toxicity, despite the fact that they are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore more potent to insects and pose elevated risks to humans. Permethrin is a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, and exposure can cause immunotoxicity, and reproductive effects.

Beyond Pesticides has long documented the increased risk pesticides pose to young children and pregnant mothers. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides. This current research follows a 2011 study that links high levels of prenatal exposure to pyrethriod pesticides containing PBO with a threefold increase in developmental disabilities compared to children with lower exposure levels. Philip Landrigan, M.D., pediatrics professor at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine indicates that those levels are similar to the intelligence loss caused by lead. A study in June found the chemical naphthalene, an active ingredient in mothballs and a common air pollutant, is linked to chromosomal aberrations in children that put them at increased risk of cancer as adults.

Given such compelling research on the risks associated with childhood exposure to pesticides, it is concerning how prevalent and persistent pesticides are in our living environment, and particularly in our homes. In 2008, researchers at Columbia’s CCCEH found PBO in 75% of homes occupied by pregnant women in inner-city New York. A 2009 study from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the pesticide permethrin in 89% of the 500 homes randomly selected for sampling. Another study conducted by the School of Medicine at The University of Texas San Antonio earlier this year found at least five pesticides in the air of 60% of 29 homes occupied by pregnant Hispanic women. Just earlier this week, results from 11 Oregon schools whose drinking water was tested for pesticides revealed a myriad of different chemicals in various combinations at each school.

In order to reduce exposure to these chemicals, expectant mothers should choose organic foods. Families should also stop using pesticides in and around the home and advocate banning cosmetic pesticides in their communities. For more information on what you can do, see our materials for new parents with tips on food choices and safer pest management, specifically designed for new moms and dads.

Source (including photo credit): Columbia Mailman School of Public Health Press Release

Scotts admitted to using Storcide II and Actellic 5E to prevent insects from damaging the bird food in storage, even though it knew both chemicals were toxic to birds, fish, and other wildlife. In 2008, Scotts Miracle-Gro ceased sales of the tainted birdseed but not before 70 million units of the pesticide-tainted food was sold. The sentence imposed in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, includes a $4 million criminal fine, the Justice Department said. Separately, the company agreed to pay more than $6 million in civil penalties to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and contribute $500,000 to organizations to protect bird habitats and restore and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of pesticides into waterways —valued at $2 million. EPA has identified more than 100 products produced or sold by Scotts Miracle-Gro that violated the federal pesticide laws over the past five years.

Storcide II contains chlorpyrifos-methyl and deltamethrin, while Actellic 5E contains pirimiphos-methyl. Chlorpyrifos-methyl, an organophosphate insecticide, was voluntary cancelled in 2000, and like its cousin chlorpyrifos, is a neurotoxin toxic to humans and wildlife. Pirimiphos-methyl is also an organophosphate and is noted as being highly toxic to birds and fish.

Scotts sold the illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees specifically warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides. The company also submitted false documents to the EPA and to state agencies in an attempt to deceive them, prosecutors said. At the time the criminal violations were discovered, EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered numerous civil violations spanning five years. Scotts’ FIFRA civil violations include the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, EPA issued more than 40 Stop ”˜Sale, Use or Removal’ Orders to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products. The company is guilty of illegally selling unregistered pesticides and marketing pesticides bearing labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by EPA. The falsified documents submitted to EPA and states were attributed to a federal product manager at Scotts.

Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon’s Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio to support the protection of bird populations and habitats through conservation, research, and education.

Scotts Products Involved in the Settlement:
o Banrot Broad Spectrum Fungicide 40% Wettable Powder (EPA Reg. No. 58185-10),
o Basics Solutions Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 71995-6-239),
o Brush-B-Gon Poison Ivy & Poison Oak Killer (EPA Reg. No. 239-2587),
o Contrast 70 WSP (EPA Reg. Nos. 432-1223-58185 and 45639-208-58185),
o Duosan WSB Wettable Powder Turf and Ornamental Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 58185-31),
o ORTHO Bug-B-Gon MAX Lawn & Garden Insect Killer Ready-To-Spray (EPA Reg. No. 1021-1778-239),
o ORTHO Bug B Gon MAX Lawn & Garden Insect Killer Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 1021-1645-239)
o ORTHO Bug-B-Gon Multi-Purpose Insect Killer Ready-To-Use Granules (aka Ortho Bug B Gon Lawn & Soil Insect Killer with Grub Control; EPA Reg. No. 28293-233-239),
o ORTHO Home Defense Max (aka Ortho Home Defense Indoor and Outdoor Insect Killer; EPA Reg. No. 239-2663),
o ORTHO Malathion 50 Insect Spray (EPA Reg. No. 239-739),
o ORTHO Orthonex Insect & Disease Control Formula III Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 239-2594),
o ORTHO ProSelect Roach, Ant & Spider Killer EPA Reg. No. 239-2679),
o ORTHO Weed B Gon Weed Killer for Lawns Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 2217-570-239), and
o Total Kill Lawn Weed Killer (aka Weed-Be-Gon Spot Weed Killer and Basic Solutions Lawn Weed Killer; EPA Reg. No. 239- 2691).

This is not the first time Scotts has been guilty of distributing unregistered pesticide products. EPA Region 5 issued a ”˜stop sale, use or removal’ order against Scotts Miracle-Gro in 2008 for illegal, unregistered, and misbranded weed and fertilizer products. The products were identified by the invalid EPA registration number listed on the package, marketed under names including “Garden Weed Preventer + Plant Food” and “Miracle Gro Shake ”˜n’ Feed All Purpose Plant Food Plus Weed Preventer.”

Pesticide violations are not uncommon, and when discovered, are met with fines. However, the damage to the public, wildlife, and the environment is already done. In 2009, a corporate tomato grower, Ag-Mart Produce Inc., faced an unprecedented penalty of more than $931,000 for misusing pesticides and jeopardizing the health and safety of workers in its New Jersey farm fields and packing houses. The company raked up hundreds of violations that included denying state environmental inspectors access to facilities, losing track of a highly toxic insecticide, failing to properly ventilate areas during pesticide use, failing to post important pesticide-safety information for workers, careless recordkeeping and using forbidden mixtures of pesticides. Ag-Mart has repeatedly been the defendant in pesticide violation cases, including the 2008 settlement for illegal pesticide exposures linked to severe birth defects to a farmworker family’s son.

In 2007 EPA announced that it was seeking damages from the Clorox Company for violating pesticide regulations. Fines were levied for multiple violations that involved mislabeled pesticides intended for export. A fine of $177,300 was issued based on 38 alleged violations involving unregistered and mislabeled disinfectant bleach, originally intended for export to Asia.

EPA’s labeling and reporting requirements under FIFRA establish risk standards for health and the environmental effects by restricting the handling, application, and disposal of pesticides, and by seeking to prevent false, misleading, or unverifiable product claims. The law also prohibits marketing of misbranded, improperly labeled, or adulterated pesticides.

Source: Reuters

EPA News Release

Some of the pesticides that were found in the Dixie school water include atrazine, bromacil, diuron, imidacloprid, metolachlor, norflurazon, and simazine. In the nine other schools that were found to have pesticides in their drinking water, seven different pesticides were found in the water at Applegate Elementary in Eugene, and multiple pesticides were also found in the drinking water of Ontario’s Pioneer and Cairo elementary.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 directs EPA to set pesticide residue standards ten times stricter than those considered acceptable for adults, however, this standard has often been ignored.

In addition to the harmful effects that these chemicals have on children, the combination of these chemicals can be more detrimental then each chemical individually. Teresa Huntsinger, who works on clean water issues for the Oregon Environmental Council, is concerned about the schools that have multiple pesticides in their water. “When drinking water levels are set, they’re assuming there’s one pollutant at a time and there’s very little science to understand what can happen when you have multiple chemicals together. There may be synergistic effects in the way these chemicals interact with each other,” Ms. Huntsinger said in a statement to Oregon public broadcasting.

Synergistic effects between multiple pesticides and chemicals are one of the largest gaps in the government’s ability to protect the public from adverse health effects. Mixing pesticides is a clear concern because they may have a stronger effect when combined. A 1999 study found that mixtures of three common groundwater contaminants ””two pesticides and a fertilizer (aldicarb, atrazine, and nitrate)”” at concentrations allowable in groundwater by EPA are capable of altering immune, endocrine, and nervous system functions in mice.

Atrazine, the chemical most found in this groundwater study, is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. Atrazine has been shown to be harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians even when the amount used is less than the government allows. Atrazine is also associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species, and there have been other reported cases of it leeching into drinking water both nationally and in Oregon. Additionally, frogs exhibit hermaphrodism when exposed to below below-legal allowable levels of the herbicide atrazine in waterways. The effects of atrazine are so detrimental that some members of Congress are looking to ban its use.

In addition to atrazine, diuron, metolachlor, norflurazon, and simazine, were found in the Fairplay ground water supply. Simizine has been known to be harmful to bees and aquatic species. Simazine also has a history as of leeching into water and has been detected in other groundwater studies.

In Ewing Elementary school drinking water, researchers discovered the presence of 2,4-D. 2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Research by EPA suggests that babies born in counties with high rates of chlorophenoxy herbicide applications to farm fields are significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also show a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

Children and pesticides don’t mix. Educate your Member of Congress about the School Environment Protection Act of 2012 (SEPA). Beyond Pesticides believes that this federal legislation will ensure a healthy learning environment for all students. In March, U.S. Representative Rush Holt and colleagues introduced the SEPA, which will protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. The legislation also bans the use of synthetic fertilizers. SEPA was first introduced in November 1999 in both the U.S. Senate and House. The bill language is based on state school pest management laws. It also mirrors the structure of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established a national committee to oversee the program as well as an established a list of synthetic substances allowed for use within the program. A form of SEPA has passed the U.S. Senate twice since and, together with other legislation, indicates broad support for a national mandate to stop hazardous pesticide use in schools.

To learn more about this legislation, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage or visit Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools program page.

Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting

“EPA has failed to uphold the clear standards of the Endangered Species Act,” said Peter Jenkins, attorney at the Center for Food Safety. “By continuing to ignore the growing number of reports and studies demonstrating the risks of neonicotinoids to honey bees and a large number of already threatened and endangered species, the EPA is exposing these already compromised populations to potentially irreversible harm.”

The Notice of Intent to Sue follows a legal petition previously filed by several environmental organizations and more than two dozen beekeepers requesting that EPA immediately suspend use of the chemical clothianidin that poses fatal harm to pollinators. While refusing to issue an immediate suspension, the EPA agreed to open a public comment docket to review additional points raised in the legal petition.

“EPA’s failure to follow the law potentially poses a direct, long-term threat to the sustainability of fragile ecosystems,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Given the known hazards of clothianidin and all neonicotinoid pesticides, EPA’s lack of respect for known scientific evidence and existing regulations endangers environments essential to our well-being.”

In the nine years since the EPA conditionally registered clothianidin for use on corn and canola, the agency has admitted to both the hazards of the insecticide and the need for compliance with ESA.

The EPA fact sheet on clothianidin reads as follows: “Clothianidin is expected to present acute and/or chronic toxicity risk to endangered/threatened birds and mammals via possible ingestion of treated corn and canola seeds. Endangered/threatened non-target insects may be impacted via residue laden pollen and nectar. The potential use sites cover the entire U.S. because corn is grown in almost all U.S. states.”

The agency has also made the same admission regarding thiamethoxam.

Despite EPA’s recognition of the acute and chronic toxicity risks to endangered and threatened birds, mammals and insects from these chemicals nearly a decade ago, the agency has continued to ignore concerns surrounding the effects on these critical species. Over the past 12 years, EPA has approved a total of 86 products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and it permits the use of these insecticides on more than 30 crops, as well as ornamental, turfgrass and structural applications.
“The disconnect at EPA between the serious risks these toxic chemicals pose to pollinators and the approval of the products that contain them is inexcusable,” said Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club’s Genetic Engineering Action Team chairwoman. “One-third of our food supply relies on the presence of pollinators. EPA should be protecting, not imperiling them.”

The 60-Day Notice cites several violations of the ESA, all of which address EPA actions that have enabled clothianidin and thiamethoxam to be applied over a vast amount of U.S. farmland and in, or near, a wide range of critical habitats and ecosystems. If the ESA violations are not resolved within 60 days, the letter signers may then sue EPA.

TAKE ACTION: We only have until September 25th to tell EPA to suspend clothianidin. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0334-0015 at www.regulations.gov, or by clicking on this link. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments (please note that only the fields with asterisks are required).

For more information on how pesticides affect pollinators and what you can do to help, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Program page.

To view the press release for this announcement, see here.

Researchers looked at 240 studies from around the world comparing nutritional value and levels of contaminants. Specifically, 17 studies focused on human populations consuming organic and conventional diets (six of which were randomized clinical trials). The rest of the studies examined nutrient and contaminant levels, comparing either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) grown organically and conventionally. It’s important to point out that there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food. The duration of the studies involving human subjects that were cited ranged from two days to two years.

Though the survey of studies on health benefits found that existing science does not show higher nutrient levels in organic produce, it does find conclusive evidence that organic produce is associated with lower levels of pesticide exposure and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the studies, detectable pesticide residues were found on 38% of conventional and 7% of organic produce. It also found that organic chicken and pork reduces exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Driving pesticide risks downward is important because recent science has established strong links between exposure to pesticides at critical stages of prenatal development and throughout childhood, and heightened risk of pre-term, underweight babies, developmental abnormalities impacting the brain and nervous system, as well as diabetes and cancer. Research shows that organic farming eliminates a significant source of toxic chemical contamination in the environment from groundwater pollution and runoff to drift. Organic farming also protects the farmworkers and their families from chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. For more information on the many chronic health effects associated with exposure to pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

As for what the findings mean for consumers, the researchers say that their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. “If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional,” noted Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the paper. She listed taste preferences and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons people choose organic products.

Beyond Pesticides advocates through its Eating with a Conscience website 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 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.

In order to understand the importance of eating organic food from the perspective of toxic pesticide contamination, we need to look at the whole picture. Organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture. Aside from contamination issues, conventional agricultural practices have contributed to climate change through heavy use of fossil fuels ””both directly on the farm and in the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers”” and through degradation of the soil, which releases carbon. The depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) through conventional farming has not only released carbon into the atmosphere, it has also limited the fertility and water holding capacity of soils worldwide. 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 climate change has had and will have on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce petroleum dependency and provide carbon sequestration in the soil. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: Stanford School of Medicine

In a ruling released last week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly referred to “the experimental nature of the LBAM Program,” observing, “There is no evidence that the Department has been able to identify with any certainty the effectiveness of particular strategies in containing, controlling, suppressing or eradicating LBAM.” The Judge also ruled that, without additional evaluation under California environmental laws, CDFA’s approval of the environmental document would “foreclose the Department from reinstating the aerial releases to the LBAM Plan.”

The court rejected a broader claim by a coalition of health and environmental organizations, which challenged CDFA’s failure to disclose or accurately describe all the harms caused by applying hazardous pesticides throughout the state. Concerns about health and environmental impacts of the program were elevated after hundreds of people reported illnesses in the wake of 2007 “emergency” spraying to eradicate the moth. CDFA justified its wide-reaching pesticide plan based on its unsubstantiated claims that the apple moth, which scientists say has been in California for decades, has to be controlled because it will harm crops and native plants and cause financial losses for the agriculture industry, even though the environmental impact report (EIR) reveals that the moth has done no damage. The apple moth program allows the state to apply pesticides anywhere in the state, at any time, and with no notice to affected communities.

“I’m disappointed and troubled that the court’s narrow interpretation of environmental protection laws could leave millions of Californians in the dark about risks associated with the application of pesticides potentially anywhere in the state,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “I’m convinced that the state agency pushing this controversial pesticide program has a legal and moral duty to explore cleaner, safer alternatives.”

“CDFA’s plans to apply pesticides in communities throughout California to control a moth that has little to no impact on agriculture are misguided at best,” said Erin Tobin, an attorney with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, which represents the groups in court. “Unfortunately, the burden is now on the public to protect themselves from chemicals that CDFA has not shown are necessary or even effective.”

CDFA’s apple moth treatments began when CDFA aerially sprayed communities in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in 2007 with CheckMate LBAM-F, an untested pesticide containing a pheromone with other unevaluated ingredients to purportedly eradicate the non-native moth. Even though evidence shows it has been in the state for a decade or more, the agency claims the moth’s presence is an “emergency” and sprayed without performing legally required health and environmental assessments. After the spraying, hundreds of people reported illnesses. In late 2007, CDFA revealed plans to expand the spraying to the Bay Area. Following an unprecedented public outcry, and rulings by both the Santa Cruz and Monterey superior courts requiring CDFA to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Department halted its spraying activities and prepared the EIR. The Santa Cruz County Court ruled the state did not prove that the invasive light brown apple moth poses an immediate threat to life or property. As a result, an emergency exception to spray was found to be unjustified. In 2010, after the EIR was published, several environmental and civic organizations challenged the pesticide program and EIR in court.

The coalition that filed suit includes Our Children’s Earth Foundation, Mothers of Marin Against the Spray (MOMAS), Stop the Spray East Bay, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Stop the Spray San Francisco, Pesticide Watch, Pesticide Action Network North America, the Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for East Shore Parks, the cities of Berkeley, Albany, and Richmond, and the City and County of San Francisco. The coalition is considering an appeal of the court’s decision.

The light brown apple moth, which federal officials say threatens more than 2,000 varieties of California plants and crops, was first spotted in the state in March 2007 and has infested ten counties stretching from north of San Francisco to Santa Barbara. Officials planned to use the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, which works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Uncertainties about the health effects of the so-called inert or undisclosed ingredients, included in many pesticide formulations, are a serious concern. The 2007 aerial spraying for LBAM resulted in 463 illness reports after spraying began. Another concern is the population of endangered and threatened moths and butterflies that could be affected by the aerial applications.

Source: Earthjustice

The proposal describes EPA’s plan to reach out to potentially affected pesticide users to discuss the technical and economic feasibility of draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) intended to avoid jeopardy to threatened and/or endangered species. It also describes the process by which public comments received on RPAs will be summarized and organized by EPA and provided to the Services, which will prepare a document to be included in the administrative record of the consultation explaining how comments were considered, and if appropriate, how the final biological opinion was modified to address the comments. The Services will provide the document to EPA, and both the Services and EPA will make the document available to the public upon request. These process changes are intended to provide clarity and transparency to the ESA Section 7 consultation process for pesticides.

Historically, EPA has run into problems when reaching out to pesticide users for advice on limiting pesticide use, since their practices of pesticide dependency have tended to bias the agency’s understanding of the viability of organic and non-toxic cultural practices that do not rely on toxic pesticides. As a result, EPA decisions (under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its amendments) typically do not take into account whether a pesticide’s use is necessary, given the availability of alternative practices and green products. One law that does require an essentiality review when evaluating the use of any synthetic materials, assuming they meet health, envronmental and biodiversity standards of review, is the Organic Foods Production Act.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires all federal agencies to consult with NMFS and FWS prior to any federal action if there is any potential impact on a protected species. Therefore, under ESA, EPA is required to determine how a pesticide will affect threatened and endangered species when that chemical is registered or has its registration reviewed; the agency must consult with FWS and NMFS for any necessary additional information and analysis. To implement these procedures, EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) utilizes risk assessment tools to evaluate any concerns about effects to listed endangered species. FIFRA’s standard to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment,” while broad enough to evaluate and reduce impacts on biodiversity, instead has been used to establish standards of use that result in levels of harm deemed acceptable.

EPA’s risk assessment process does not function to protect the most vulnerable in biological systems, but institutes restrictions intended to mitigate risks. The mandated consultations with FWS and NMFS could present the opportunity to evaluate alternative practices that would avoid harm to endangered species, but unfortunately has been largely limited to the risk management framework that has so long dominated EPA’s approach to regulating pesticides.

Prior to 2004, EPA believed the extensive environmental risk assessments required in the registration process also would include impacts on endangered species. However, represented by the public interest law group Earthjustice, several stakeholder organizations including the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit in January 2001 to force EPA to fulfill this requirement. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. The judge, in a lawsuit initiated in 2002, called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with NMFS regarding adverse impacts on the Northwest runs.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandates EPA to review all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA began that process in 2006 and has included ESA consultations in its reviews. However, EPA, NMFS, and FWS have not worked effectively in the consultation process. One reason for this problem is the difference in legal authorities — EPA registers pesticides under FIFRA, which is a risk-based process and must consider cost/benefit analyses in its decisions. NMFS and FWS, acting under ESA, is more precautionary in its approach and has no cost/benefit directive.

Take Action: Comments on the proposal are being accepted through Oct. 16, 2012. Go to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0442 at www.regulations.gov. Click here to go directly to the submit comments page. The proposal can be found on the docket page as well, or by clicking here.

Source: Western Farm Press

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

The new rules that are scheduled for approval early next year will affect about 3,000 farms in Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Kern counties, covering more than 1.6 million acres of farmland. More than 400 farmers and agriculture industry leaders packed an informational meeting held by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board last week to air their concerns over a plan to protect the region’s groundwater from contamination. The seven-member board heard a day-long presentation by staff members on a draft of the rules to monitor groundwater and control discharges of contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides.

For farmers, that could involve drilling monitoring wells, testing water, hiring consultants and completing paperwork. Staff for the Central Valley Regional Quality Control Board last month based cost estimates on the experience of other farming areas where the rules have already passed, and came up with the $100 million figure. Many farmers objected to the potential cost of water monitoring. Although the state initially estimated the cost at $120 per acre, that figure has since been revised to $21 an acre, more than 80% off the estimated cost.

Water board officials said one of the biggest causes of water contamination in the region is nitrates, a chemical that comes from fertilizers, septic tanks, animal waste and decaying plants. The chemical can cause a potentially fatal infant blood disease, called blue baby syndrome, and has been connected to several cancers. A National Institutes of Health study links increased risk of thyroid cancer with high nitrate levels in public water supplies. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and University of California at Davis have concluded that irrigated agriculture is a major source of nitrate pollution in groundwater. “And there is a significant issue with nitrates in Tulare County,” said Clay Rodgers, assistant executive officer for the board. “The area has some of the worst problems with nitrates.”

Pamela Creedon, executive officer of the regional Water Quality Control Board, told the audience that one of the goals of the water-monitoring program is to determine what farmers are doing on their farms to reduce water use and groundwater contamination. She also agreed that part of the nitrate contamination is the result of years of farming practices, not necessarily current ones. “But if it is polluted, we have to respond,” Ms. Creedon said. “Water-quality laws are there to protect everyone, agriculture included.” California has embarked on a campaign over the past decade to regulate water discharges from farms. The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Monitoring Program already has rules focused on protecting streams. Dairy farms have also been regulated. Now the state has begun to regulate discharges to underground water, a move applauded by water activists. But activists say state authorities need to lay out penalties clearly for polluters. The draft rules only spell out fixes for pollution problems, said lawyer Laurel Firestone of the Community Water Center in Visalia. “The draft doesn’t have a trigger for penalties,” she said.

California’s governments, communities, and agricultural industry have struggled over nitrate contamination for decades. According to the 2012 report by University of California, Davis researchers, Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water, nitrate runoff from agricultural regions is one of the state’s most widespread groundwater contaminants. Nearly 10 percent of the 2.6 million people living in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley might be drinking nitrate-contaminated water, the report found. If nothing is done to stem the problem, the report warned, those at risk for health and financial problems may number nearly 80 percent by 2050.

The report is the most comprehensive assessment so far of nitrate contamination in California’s agricultural areas. The study area includes four of the nation’s five counties with the largest agricultural production. It represents about 40% of California’s irrigated cropland (including 80 different crops) and over half of California’s dairy herd. Many communities in the area are among the poorest in California and have limited economic means or technical capacity to maintain safe drinking water, given threats from nitrate and other contaminants. Nitrate-contaminated water is well-documented in many of California’s farming communities. Rural residents are at greater risk because they depend on private wells, which are often shallower and not monitored to the same degree as public water sources. Current contamination likely came from nitrates introduced into the soil decades ago. That means even if nitrates were dramatically reduced today, groundwater would still suffer for decades to come.

The agricultural industry, however, has maintained that it is not solely responsible because nitrates come from many sources. According to the UC Davis report, 96 percent of nitrate contamination comes from agriculture, while only 4 percent can be traced to water treatment plants, septic systems, food processing, landscaping, and other sources. In order to reduce this pollution, the report recommends managing nitrogen fertilizer and manure to increase crop nitrogen use efficiency, managing crop plants to capture more nitrogen and decrease deep percolation, as well as improving the storage and handling of fertilizers and manure to decrease off-target discharge.

Similarly, a 2011 report found increased levels of chemical pollution, including pesticides, in California water bodies. According to the report, which gathered monitoring data for 2008-2010, more than half of the state’s water bodies do not meet existing water quality goals and many still need federal pollution control standards. While federal officials maintain that the increases are due to improved monitoring and not new pollution, the data presents a more accurate representation of real world contamination. Unfortunately, this also means that water pollution has been going under reported and underestimated for decades, with this new data more closely reflecting the state’s pollution problem.

Take Action: Want to do your own part to help reduce the release of dangerous and damaging chemicals in our homes, farms, and environment? Support organic agriculture and institutional IPM programs at schools and hospitals! You can even go organic in your own home, lawn, and garden. There are alternatives to toxic pesticides available for a wide range of pests whether in agriculture, or throughout the urban environment including structural and landscape pest problems.

Source: The Fresno Bee

Researchers from the University of Nebraska found that half of the waterhemp samples they collected from a Nebraska field, after having been treated regularly for 10 years with 2,4-D,were no longer susceptible to applications of the herbicide. The experiments performed are described by Reuters:

“After 10 years of treatment with 2,4-D, waterhemp was no longer effectively controlled in a Nebraska native-grass seed production field, the report said. The highest doses of 2,4-D that were used in an on-site field study were insufficient to control 50 percent of the waterhemp population. Researchers gathered waterhemp seeds from this field and performed greenhouse testing against a susceptible waterhemp variety. Twenty-eight days after treatment with the herbicide, visual observation and dry weight values showed a 10-fold resistance in the affected sample.”

These findings illustrate the failure of GE crops to effectively manage weeds over the long term. Engineering resistance to an herbicide, even multiple herbicides, will only lead to an increase in pesticide applications, and the resulting natural evolutionary process of weed populations growing resistant to the treatment. When the first herbicide resistant crops were introduced, engineered to resist glyphosate in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup products, they were touted as being a safer alternative to more toxic chemicals such as 2,4-D. However, intensive spraying of glyphosate has led to a serious rise in resistant weed populations, making farmers and agro-chemical corporations look to other, older chemicals, such as 2,4-D, to solve the problem. It was only a matter of time before weeds started to evolve resistance to these chemicals as well.

2,4-D has been used in the U.S. since the 1940s, and as such is one of the oldest registered herbicides in the country. It made up roughly half of the herbicide known as Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War. According to EPA, 2,4-D is currently found in approximately 600 products registered for agricultural, residential, industrial, and aquatic uses. 2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Research by EPA suggests that babies born in counties with high rates of chlorophenoxy herbicides application to farm fields are significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits, and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also show a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

Farmers do not have to remain stuck on a pesticide treadmill that demands ever greater amounts of synthetic inputs, including GE seeds, and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of farm profitability and the environment. 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.

Source: Reuters

In his letter to the EPA, Rep. Markey asks the agency to respond to questions, including:

ӢHas the EPA investigated the impacts of the class of pesticides on honey bees and other pollinators?
ӢWhat steps has EPA taken, and what more can the agency do, to limit or restrict the use of these pesticides and reduce the impact on bee populations?
ӢWhat steps is the EPA taking to ensure there is sufficient scientific evidence to make informed decisions about the impacts of neonicotinoids on bees and other pollinators?

Bee pollination contributes an estimated $15 billion to the agricultural economy. Yet, recent research has found that certain members of a group of related pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, may be jeopardizing bee populations and with them important food crops and jobs.

Neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in addition to clothianidin, are highly toxic to a range of insects, including honey bees and other pollinators. They are particularly dangerous because, in addition to being acutely toxic in high doses, they also result in serious sublethal effects when insects are exposed to chronic low doses, as they are through pollen and water droplets laced with the chemical as well as dust that is released into the air when treated seeds that have been coated with the chemicals are planted. Previous research has shown that these effects cause significant problems for the health of individual honey bees as well as the overall health of honey bee colonies, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, and overall hive activity.

“The proverb ”˜No bees, no honey, no work, no money’ may become all too true if we don’t investigate the impact of pesticides on our valuable honeybee population,” said Rep. Markey. “Bees are vital to our nation’s economy and food security. I urge the EPA to look more closely at the impacts of these commonly used pesticides on the bee population, and I look forward to the agency’s response.” In his letter to the EPA, Rep. Markey notes that several other European countries, such as France, as well as the Canadian government, have already taken steps to restrict or re-examine the use of these harmful pesticides in an effort to protect bee populations.

Rep Markey’s letter comes on the heels of another recent letter drafted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and signed by Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that similarly calls on EPA to expedite its scheduled review of neonicotinoid pesticides in light of the recent concerns over the chemicals effects on pollinators. EPA is not expected to complete its review until 2018, and any implementation plans could take years beyond that to complete. Given that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has decreased the U.S. bee population by 30 percent since 2006, the Senators urge a quicker timeframe, asking that it be completed by the end of next year.

The emergency legal petition to EPA was filed on March 21, 2012 and asked the agency to suspend all registrations for pesticides containing clothianidin. The petition, which is supported by over one million citizen petition signatures worldwide, targets the pesticide for its harmful impacts on honey bees. The legal petition establishes that EPA failed to follow its own regulations when it granted a conditional, or temporary, registration to clothianidin in 2003 without a required field study establishing that the pesticide would have no “unreasonable adverse effects” on pollinators. The granting of the conditional registration was contingent upon the subsequent submission of an acceptable field study, but this requirement has not been met. EPA continues to allow the use of clothianidin nine years after acknowledging that it had an insufficient legal basis for initially allowing its use. Additionally, the product labels on pesticides containing clothianidin are inadequate to prevent excessive damage to non-target organisms, which is a second violation of the requirements for using a pesticide and further warrants removing all such mislabeled pesticides from use.

Despite the growing body of scientific evidence linking pesticide chemicals to serious pollinator health issues, EPA last month denied an initial request by the petitioners that the agency immediately suspend the use of clothianidin due to the “imminent hazard” faced by bees, beekeepers, and the agricultural economy. EPA has announced that it is seeking public comment on the rest of the petition’s requests and will accept comments until September 25, 2012.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators page for more information on how pollinators are affected by pesticides and what you can do to help.

Source: Office of Rep. Ed Markey

Zinc oxide nanoparticles enter agricultural fields through the application of biosolid (sewage sludge) fertilizers, which are composed of dried microbes previously used to process wastewater in treatment plants. Researchers discovered that soybean plants grown in soil containing zinc oxide particles bioaccumulate zinc, taking up the metal and distributing it throughout edible plant tissue. This caused a decrease in the food quality of the soybeans, and researchers indicate that it is uncertain whether the zinc that accumulates in the plant’s tissues is safe for human consumption in the form of ions and salts. “Juxtaposed against widespread land application of wastewater treatment biosolids to food crops, these findings forewarn of agriculturally associated human and environmental risks from the accelerating use of MNMs [manufactured nanomaterial],” the study notes.

Cerium oxide nanoparticles can contaminate agricultural fields through exhaust fumes from farm equipment, a likely scenario given that most all conventional soybean crops are produced with the help of industrial machinery. Soybean plants exposed to cerium oxide show a notable reduction in plant growth and yield. Though the cerium oxide particles did not bioaccumulate in plant tissues, they did have a considerable effect on the ability of soybeans to fix nitrogen, an important ecological function specific to leguminous crops. The nanomaterial concentrated at the root nodules of the plant, blocking its ability to form a relationship with the symbiotic bacteria that convert nitrogen in the air to plant-available ammonium fertilizer. The impacts of nanoparticles could lead conventional farmers to apply increasing amounts of synthetic fertilizers to make up for the loss of this natural function.

The results of this study underline the urgent need for oversight and regulation of emerging nanotechnology. While the U.S Environmental Protection Agency is required to limit industrial metal discharge into public wastewater treatment plants, there are currently no regulations curtailing the release of metal nanoparticles. Researchers explain, “MNMs — while measurable in the wastewater treatment plant systems — are neither monitored nor regulated, have a high affinity for activated sludge bacteria, and thus concentrate in biosolids.” According to the scientists, “There could be hotspots, places where you have accumulation, including near manufacturing sites where the materials are being made, or if there are spills. We have very limited information about the quantity or state of these synthetic nanomaterials in the environment right now. We know they’re being used in consumer goods, and we know they’re going down the drain.”

Nanotechnology is a relatively new 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. Many of the products containing nanomaterials on the market now are for skin care and cosmetics, but nanomaterials are also increasingly being used in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics. In 2009, developers generated $1 billion from the sale of nanomaterials, and the market for products that rely on these materials is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2015.

At its fall 2010 meeting, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. While there is overwhelming agreement to prohibit nanotechnology in organics generally, there is still debate over the definition of what exactly should be prohibited and how to prohibit nanotech products in the organic industry. The recommendation deals specifically with engineered synthetic nanomaterials and purposefully omits those that are naturally occurring. Further it would block petitions seeking an exemption, and keep nanomaterials out of food packaging and contact surfaces.

For more information on nanotechnology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Source: ScienceDaily and BBC

Image Source: BBC

The lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) from opening to GE canola planting previously protected zones was filed last week in the Oregon Court of Appeals. ODA removed a 2009 rule that banned the planting of all canola on more than 3 million acres in Oregon’s Willamette Valley to protect specialty vegetable seed producers who feared contamination by the plant, which cross-pollinates easily. ODA said it would require GE canola and specialty seed producers to report where and what they intend to grow on 1.7 million acres in the restricted zone, all without a public comment period or hearing. GE canola harvest was earmarked for biofuel production. Read Previous Daily News. ODA Director Katy Coba stated in the Department’s press release earlier this month, “Since canola has been deregulated by USDA, ODA does not differentiate between conventional and [GE] canola or treat them differently.” However, 93% of U.S planted canola crops are genetically modified, and planting GE canola would present a large threat to the integrity of Oregon’s internationally recognized organic seed industry.

The Court found sufficient cause to order an immediate halt to planting, subject to further judicial review. This litigation joins a long list of efforts to limit the footprint of many genetically altered crops, which opponents fear are threatening conventional, and organic farm production, as well as increasing weed and pest resistance. Molalla, OR-based Friends of Family Farmers filed the suit with the Center for Food Safety, a national sustainable agriculture organization. Joining them are Oregon specialty seed producers Universal Seed, Wild West Seeds, and Wild Garden Seed.

According to the Center for Food Safety, ODA’s improper sanctioning of the planting of canola in the Willamette Valley poses a number of risks to Oregon’s farmers, citizens, and the agricultural economy, including potential irreparable destruction of the state’s small farms and thriving organic agriculture industry through GE cross-contamination, and the dissemination of resistant weeds, pests, and diseases.

Willamette Valley farmers who grow related plants for seeds to sell to production growers and gardeners fear canola will cross-pollinate with other crops, such as cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and turnips, and that could contaminate their seeds they sell. Seed producers said they also fear that because most canola is a genetically modified organism, organic seed producers might be shut out of markets that prohibit GE contamination of any kind. “A number of our domestic and international seed purchasers have already made statements that they will no longer purchase Oregon seeds if more canola comes to the Willamette Valley,” said Nick Tichinin, president of Universal Seed Co.

Organic standards do not permit the production of GE crops, and organic seed farmers would be imperiled by ODA’s decision to lift restrictions on GE plantings. The National Organic Standards Board, in a unanimous vote this spring, sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack saying, “We see the potential of contamination by genetically engineered crops as a critical issue for organic agricultural producers and the consumers of their products. There are significant costs to organic producers and handlers associated with preventing this contamination and market loss arising from it.”

Thousands of people have signed on to petition the move, and critics say they fear contamination of specialty crops with biotech canola that has been genetically altered to withstand Roundup herbicide will contaminate the area. They worry about the creation of resistant weed species and the proliferation of disease and pests. An Oregon State University report indicates that a 1.2 mile distance between canola crops and seed fields is needed to minimize cross-pollination. While the pinning maps should make it easier to maintain that distance, they cannot account for other variables. The report explains, “The two greatest threats are canola seed blown from vehicles onto road shoulders and volunteers in fields previously planted to canola. Detecting and eliminating volunteers from a 2-kilometer [1.2 mile] radius around a seed field would be onerous and perhaps impossible.”

Genetic contamination of organic crops by pollen that originates from GE crops and drifts onto neighboring fields has been incontrovertibly confirmed by scientific research. Such contamination has proven extremely costly to farmers raising organic and non-genetically engineered crops whose loads are rejected by buyers when trace levels of contamination are detected. Farmers in these circumstances lose any potential price premium for the extra effort and expense taken to preserve their crop’s integrity and they typically have no recourse but to dump the load on generic markets. Under the current interpretation of relevant law, genetic seed producers bear no legal or financial responsibility for such contamination.

Similar to the threat of pesticide drift faced by organic farmers, is the threat of genetic drift -typically pollen from a field of a 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. This July, Beyond Pesticides joined with farmers and environmental groups across the country to appeal a February court ruling dismissing Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. The plaintiffs in this case are suing preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crop ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

Help us protect organic integrity! Visit the Organic page and become a part of the efforts to protect the organic integrity.

Sources: Reuters, Center for Food Safety

An ordinance mandating the implementation of an organic land management program for all city parks, open space, trails, lawns, playgrounds, sports fields, rights-of-way and other real property owned or leased by the City; using organic fertilizers and eliminating the use of synthetic fertilizers on City property; promoting tolerance of a diversity of plants growing symbiotically with the grasses; employing non-synthetic chemical means for removal of weeds and pests; allowing the use of minimum risk pesticides after non-synthetic chemical means have been reasonably exhausted; resorting to higher risk pesticides only in the event of a public health emergency; designating an organic land management coordinator; and providing for the recovery of costs and attorney’s fees by citizens who are wholly or partially successful in bringing a civil action to enforce any provision of the ordinance.

There are currently two parks that are maintained without chemicals in the City of Durango, Brookside Park and Pioneer Park. According to a narrative report prepared by Organically Managed Parks Durango, the use of both of these parks has increased in popularity since the parks have become chemical-free, particularly among families with small children. The City of Durango’s Parks Master Plan, states that Brookside Park is in “excellent condition,” and the turf in both of the chemical-free Parks is a highly functional, beautiful green lawn and beckons to children of all ages for a pleasing roll about in the completely chemical-free grass.

The call for this ordinance adds to the growing movement across the country calling for increased restrictions on the use of dangerous chemicals in the public sphere. In addition to Durango, CO, Beyond Pesticides has worked with localities throughout the U.S. in an effort to promote organic land care systems and restrict the hazardous use of chemicals. Most recently, Richmond, CA approved a pesticide reform ordinance targeting the use of toxic chemical pesticides within city boundaries. Washington D.C. also recently passed legislation which restricts the use of pesticides on District property, near waterways, and in schools and day care centers. Ohio’s Cuyoga County successfully banned a majority of toxic pesticide uses on county property, prioritizing the use of natural, organic, horticultural and maintenance practices with an Organic Pest Management (OPM) program. The City of Greenbelt, Maryland also has a law that completely eliminates the use of cosmetic pesticides through a phase out period, and includes a requirement that all city contractors follow OPM and organic land care management. The village of New Paltz, New York has a “Healthy Turf and Landscape Policy,” which emphasizes the precautionary principle, and only allows the use of pesticides if a pest problem poses a threat to public health. While stopping short of an all-out ban, Connecticut currently has a statewide prohibition on the use of toxic pesticides on school grounds. The state of New York also acted to protect children by passing the “Child Safe Playing Field Act” in 2010, which requires that all schools, preschools, and day care centers stop using pesticides on any playgrounds or playing field. Additionally, several communities in Cape Cod, Massachusetts are currently in the process of moving towards organic land care as a norm in their public spaces.

Organic land management is practical and economical. Opponents may claim that organic management will cost more money, or put the fields at risk for disease and weed infestation; however, in a Cornell University study of turf, chemically maintained turf is more susceptible to disease. Another report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education and Beyond Pesticides’ Board Member Chip Osborne for the New York State legislature concludes that organic approaches can save money. The report compares the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and an organic program over a five-year period and finds that the annual cost of maintaining an organic field can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of chemical-based programs. The Parks and Recreation Department in Branford, Connecticut has a successful organic land care program resulting in more attractive playing fields at a decreased cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, Harvard University saved two million gallons of water a year by managing the grounds organically, as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent. Previously, it cost Harvard $35,000 a year to get rid of “landscape waste” from its campus grounds. Now that cost is gone because the school keeps all grass clippings, leaves and branches for composting and making compost teas. This in turn saves the university an additional $10,000 from having to purchase fertilizers elsewhere.

For more information on organic-based, pesticide-free lawn and landscape management, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page. Beyond Pesticides encourages concerned citizens to stand up and make their voices heard in their community. If you’d like to join Richmond, California and help ban pesticide use in your community’s public spaces, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or at [email protected].

Source: The Durango Telegraph

The widespread spraying of toxic pesticides (typically chemicals known as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, or other nervous system poisons) does not provide a long-term sustainable solution to mosquito control. “It has been shown that spraying pesticides that target adult mosquitoes is the least effective strategy, as well as the most risky response, since the pesticides used are linked to numerous adverse health effects, including respiratory inflammation, headaches, nausea, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other serious chronic diseases,” said Nichelle Harriott, staff scientist at Beyond Pesticides.

According to experts, the threat of WNv is best managed through an integrated program that does not expose vulnerable populations to pesticides, including children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with compromised immune or nervous systems. The most effective program to protect the public from WNv focuses on removing breeding areas, stopping mosquitoes at the larval stage, and mass public education on prevention and precaution.

Beyond Pesticides advises communities to adopt a preventive, health-based mosquito management plan and has several resource publications on the issue, including the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy: For Decision Makers and Communities.

What people can do:

”¢ Clean up — ensure waterways are clear of debris; eliminate pooled or stagnant waters from debris, containers, drains, and pools.
”¢ Natural Predators — Use indigenous fish populations, like bluegills or minnows, to eat mosquito larvae in shallow waters and ornamental pools. Copepod crustaceans can also be used to eat mosquito larvae in ditches, pools and other areas of stagnant water.
”¢ Least-toxic Pesticide Options — Use Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bt), a biological larvicide that prevents mosquitoes from developing into breeding, biting adults, in standing waters that cannot be drained.
”¢ Behavior Modification — wear long sleeves and long pants/skirts, and use least-toxic mosquito repellent when outdoors. Avoid being outside at dusk when mosquitoes are most active.
”¢ Take Action — Let your local council members, mayor, or state delegates know that safer, more sustainable options exist. Download our Sample Letter (opens in Word) to send to public health officials in your area.

For more information on effective non-toxic community mosquito management, please see Beyond Pesticides’ West Nile Virus and Mosquito Management page.

Along with other chemicals such as formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, the company cites consumer concern over the safety of triclosan as among its reasons for the alteration in its products. While the company downplayed any need for concern over the safety of triclosan, it also hinted that it was uncomfortable with growing body of science linking triclosan to a number of health concerns. The phase out is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2015.

On a website the company developed specifically regarding the chemical phase out, it stated, in part,

“In recent years, some questions have been raised about the potential environmental impact of triclosan. And some have questioned whether its use may promote the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. While current science has not demonstrated evidence for these concerns, the issues will be studied further and are likely to be discussed for some time”¦ Despite triclosan having a long and extensive history of safe use, we want you to have peace of mind. So we have set a goal to phase out triclosan in our beauty and baby care products. We have made significant progress in developing alternatives that will allow us to replace triclosan.”

Although Johnson and Johnson publicly denies the evidence that triclosan can pose serious risks for human health, research is increasingly revealing its many causes for concern. Recently, researchers from the University of California at Davis and the University of Colorado found that the chemical impairs muscle function in fish and mice and stated the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure.” Beyond Pesticides has provided more extensive documentation of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites contaminate waterways and are present in fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.

Johnson and Johnson did not provide a list of which of its products contain triclosan, but some of the company’s personal care brands include Aveeno, Neutrogeena, RoC, Clean & Clear, and Lubriderm. A partial list of consumer products known to contain triclosan can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterials page. Triclosan is present in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products, appearing in some of these products in a formulation known as Microban. Be sure to always read the ingredient list on the label of any personal care product or product that is labeled as “antimicrobial” that you use or consider buying.

Last Year, Colgate-Palmolive announced that it would be reformulating its products to remove triclosan from its product line, including dish and hand soaps. Similarly, major retailers like Staples, the world’s largest office products company, are also beginning to identify “bad actor” chemicals whose future use in the products they carry will be reconsidered. In 2010, Staples announced a new sustainability strategy for products and packaging, characterizing it as a “Race to the Top” challenge for its key suppliers. The strategy’s initial priority includes collaboratively developed scorecards for both products and packaging. Staples hopes to begin conservations with its suppliers about the possibility of removing these “bad actors” from products and to replace them with alternatives. Among these “bad actor” chemicals is triclosan, along with the pesticides permethrin, and propoxur.

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 80 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and the EPA in 2009 and 2010 requiring that they end the use of all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate numerous federal statutes. Echoing these petitions, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also submitted letters of concern to both EPA and FDA. In FDA’s response, the agency acknowledged that soaps containing triclosan offer no additional benefit over regular soap and water. FDA stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients” and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. FDA also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects. Additionally, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) and two colleagues asked FDA to ban triclosan in 2010 due to the hazards that the chemical poses, including antibiotic resistance and potential health problems leading to higher health care costs.

In March, Canadian officials announced that they are set to declare triclosan toxic to the environment, an action which triggers a process to find ways to curtail a chemical’s use, including a possible ban in a range of personal-care products.

Join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Avoid products containing triclosan, and encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

Source: CBS News

Previous efforts to reforest and fence off contaminated areas have been carried out to prevent local animals and residents from being exposed to soil contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), the potent dioxin contaminant of Agent Orange. TCDD is the most dangerous form of dioxin and the levels found in soil samples from Central Vietnam are more than 200 times the “acceptable” level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Efforts to educate the residents about the dangers of dioxin are difficult since most cannot read and many speak local tribal dialects and not Vietnamese.

Dioxin, which is very persistent in the environment, accumulates in animal fat, resulting in many grazing livestock contaminated with high levels of dioxins. Poor sanitation and a local diet that relies on fish caught in contaminated waters and fowl that peck on tainted soil keep dioxin exposure a constant threat to the locals. Many families living in nearby villages surrounding contaminated areas have health problems, such as limb deformities, blood disorders, and deafness that have been blamed on dioxin exposure. Elevated levels of TCDD have also been found in breast milk and blood of the local residents.

The U.S. sprayed about 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, halting only after scientists commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a report expressing concerns that dioxin showed “a significant potential to increase birth defects.” According to the New York Times, by the time the spraying stopped, Agent Orange and other herbicides had destroyed 2 million hectares, or 5.5 million acres, of forest and cropland, an area roughly the size of New Jersey. Three locations in Vietnam retain particularly high levels of the chemical in their soil. The U.S. will target one of these sites, a 19-hectare area near Da Nang Airport, to test the economic and technological feasibility of a soil treatment process, even though the U.S. is not admitting liability. Used in the U.S. to treat highly contaminated “superfund” military sites, the soil treatment process involves removing soil from the site and heating it to 355 °C to destroy dioxin. The U.S. is investing $43 million in the project, and it is expected to take about four years. Other potential clean-up options include putting all the soil in a toxic waste dump (the cheapest method) or, incinerate soil it at high temperatures (the most effective). Other proposals include pouring concrete all over the contaminated sites, or simply walling them off to humans and animals.

“This morning we celebrate a milestone in our bilateral relationship,” David B. Shear, the American ambassador to Vietnam, said at a ceremony attended by senior officers of the Vietnamese military. “We’re cleaning up this mess.”

“It’s a big step,” said Ngo Quang Xuan, a former Vietnamese ambassador to the United Nations. “But in the eyes of those who suffered the consequences, it’s not enough.”

Nguyen Van Rinh, a retired lieutenant general who is now the chairman of the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, has vivid memories of hearing American aircraft above the jungles of southern Vietnam and seeing Agent Orange raining down in sheets on him and his troops. Plants and animals exposed to the defoliant were dead within days. Many of his troops later suffered illnesses that he suspects were linked to the repeated exposure to Agent Orange, used in concentrations 20 to 55 times that of normal agricultural use. A class-action case against chemical companies filed in the U.S. on behalf of millions of Vietnamese was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that supplying the defoliant did not amount to a war crime and that the Vietnamese plaintiffs had not established a clear causal effect between exposure to Agent Orange and their health problems. However, a study investigating the long-term immune effects of dioxin found that exposure to dioxin during development or while nursing diminishes the young’s capacity to fight infection later in life. Another found that exposure to dioxin in the womb can affect female reproduction for generations, reducing fertility and increasing the chance for premature delivery.

“I would like to have one message sent to the American people,” Mr. Rinh said. “The plight of Agent Orange victims continues. I think the relationship would rise up to new heights if the American government took responsibility and helped their victims and address the consequences.”

The effects of Agent Orange are not only felt in Vietnam. Studies have found that U.S. war veterans exposed to Agent Orange have developed chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkins lymphoma and diabetes. Many children of exposed veterans have been affected by their parents’ exposure to the chemical and show a wide range of symptoms. Dioxin has been found in milk, cheese, beef, pork, fish, chicken, and other animals, as well as soil and sewage sludge in the U.S. High levels of dioxin still exist in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and floodplains in Michigan, after being dumped there decades ago by Dow Chemical Co. Clean-up and restoration for these systems are still being debated. Even though dioxin levels in the environment have dropped considerably in recent years from their peak in the late 1970’s, it is important to be vigilant in the foods consumed in order to avoid an exposure hazard, since dioxins are persistent and bioaccumulative.

Earlier this year, EPA released a revised dioxin exposure assessment for acute human health risks, despite objections from the chemical industry. In the report, EPA identified several adverse health endpoints associated with dioxin exposure including, decreased sperm concentrations and motility (semen quality) and increased thyroid-stimulating hormone levels in offspring, but generally found that the typical American has low risk exposures to dioxins, even though independent panels have called on the U.S. to reduce dioxin exposures.

Today, most dioxin exposure in the U.S. is attributable to emissions from waste incinerators, copper smelters, and makers of paper pulp, but dioxins are still manufactured and released as contaminants of pentachlorophenol and phenoxy herbicides like 2,4-D. Regulations have curtailed dioxin emissions by 90% since the 1980s, but the pollutants persist in the environment, so they continue to contaminate livestock forage and meat and dairy products. The structure of dioxins closely resembles that of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polychlorinated dibenzo furans (PCDFs), which also have similar toxicological and environmental effects.

Source: New York Times

Under a 2000 state Act Protecting Children and Families from Harmful Pesticides, schools and child care centers are required to submit plans detailing the pest problem that exists at their facilities, the pesticides that they plan to apply, and who will apply the pesticides — even if they are not planning to use pesticides at the current time. The law also requires them to notify parents and employees at least two days before any pesticides are applied at these facilities. Pesticide use is prohibited when children present. Outdoor, pesticides that are known, likely or probable carcinogens, contain a “List I” inert ingredient or for aesthetic reason alone are also prohibited from use.

Although the law was passed 12 years ago, inspectors have yet to visit every school in the state. It is not known how many schools are still to be checked, but according to Mr. Diemand, pesticide inspectors have not yet looked into Northhampton schools. Back in 2007, state auditors found that many of the schools throughout the state of Massachusetts were not in compliance with the state law. A corrective action plan to address the problem was supposed to take effect in September 2008 to ensure that children in childcare settings are properly protected against pesticides. However, the plan did not address the need for compliance by public and private schools.

The active ingredient in Lesco is glyphosate, 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.

In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) showing new and emerging science which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risk to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration.

Some of the most widespread uses of glyphosate that have been attracting public attention include its use in invasive weed management and home gardening. The increase of glyphosate use in these areas is directly tied to the larger problem of poor land management, including over grazing, over development, soil compaction and other stressors. Glyphosate has replaced ecologically sound and sustainable cultural practices such as green-mulching and preventive maintenance such as aeration and dethatching.

According to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Northampton is the only school district in Hampshire County that has pesticides listed on all of its IPM plans. Most other school districts have adopted no-pesticide policies, but there are a few schools in the county that do allow the use of toxic pesticides in an emergency, including for wasp nests or poison ivy. Those school districts include: Berkshire Trail Elementary School in Cummington, Belchertown High School, Hopkins Academy in Hadley and South Hadley High School.

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

Exposure to toxic pesticides and other chemicals while children are at school is an unacceptable and completely unnecessary risk. This incident should not have happened and supports the need for a national policy to protect every child in the United States. Most recently introduced in the last Congress, federal legislation sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), would protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. To learn more about this legislation, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage.

Source: Daily Hampshire Gazette

ODA Director Katy Coba states in the department’s press release, “Since canola has been deregulated by USDA, ODA does not differentiate between conventional and GM canola or treat them differently.” Given that 93% of U.S planted canola crops are genetically modified, this move represents a large threat to the integrity of Oregon’s internationally recognized organic seed industry. The new rules are temporary for 180 days, but ODA plans to propose and implement permanent rules before the temporary ones expire. The department will begin accepting public input once the permanent rules are proposed, but by then the canola will already be in the ground.

ODA’s decision is a dramatic shift from its previous policy on canola planting in the valley. The previous regulation, ORS 603-052-0880(2) stated, “Production of rapeseed for oil or seed is incompatible with production of crops of the same or related species grown for seed or vegetables.” An Oregon State University report, “Outcrossing Potential for Brassica Species and Implications for Vegetable Crucifer Seed Crops of Growing Oilseed Brassicas in the Willamette Valley,” endorses this point. The study confirms that canola has the ability to hybridize with radish, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, collards, and kale crops.

Moreover, the report states, “Genetically modified canola presents the greatest risk to vegetable crucifer seed crops. Although it is very unlikely that transgenes would persist once transferred to the seed crop, the presence of the gene would make the seed crop unsuitable for markets that have strict tolerances on GMO contamination.”

Many organic seed crops are grown in the fertile alluvial plains of the Willamette Valley. Since organic standards do not permit the production of genetically modified crops, organic seed farmers may be imperiled by ODAs decision. Frank Morton of Wild Garden Seed, an organic seed production company located in Philomath, OR said in an article in the Eugene Weekly, “If we are to continue to exist, we have to resist the introduction of canola in the valley.”

ODA argues that their authority does not extend to protecting agriculture from market-based threats or concerns. The new rules would “refine” the boundaries of restricted planting areas and require an electronic pinning system for planted canola crops. ODA’s Director Coba states, “Producers are encouraged to communicate with each other and work together to provide the necessary isolation to protect specialty seed crops while allowing canola production.” To this assessment Frank Morton of Wild Garden Seed responds, “That’s like sort of like asking someone for permission to have a camel sleep in your bed,” he says. “It’s not collaboration if you have a gun held to your head.”

Oregon State University’s report indicates that a 1.2 mile distance between canola crops and seed fields is needed to minimize cross-pollination. While the pinning maps should make it easier to maintain that distance, they cannot account for other variables. The report explains, “The two greatest threats are canola seed blown from vehicles onto road shoulders and volunteers in fields previously planted to canola. Detecting and eliminating volunteers from a 2-kilometer [1.2 mile] radius around a seed field would be onerous and perhaps impossible.” This is very disconcerting news for the seed capital of the U.S.

Beyond Pesticides has long-documented the negative effects of genetic cross- contamination. In July of this year, we joined with farmers and environmental groups across the country to appeal a February court ruling dismissing Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. The plaintiffs in this case are suing preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crop ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

Genetic contamination of organic crops by pollen that originates from genetically engineered crops and drifts onto neighboring fields has been incontrovertibly confirmed by scientific research. Such contamination has proven extremely costly to farmers raising organic and non-genetically engineered crops whose loads are rejected by buyers when trace levels of contamination are detected. Farmers in these circumstances lose any potential price premium for the extra effort and expense taken to preserve their crop’s integrity and they typically have no recourse but to dump the load on generic markets. Under the current interpretation of relevant law, genetic seed producers bear no legal or financial responsibility for such contamination.

In an effort to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to act on this issue, in its spring 2012 meeting, the National Organic Standards Board, with a unanimous vote, sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack saying, “We see the potential of contamination by genetically engineered crops as a critical issue for organic agricultural producers and the consumers of their products. There are significant costs to organic producers and handlers associated with preventing this contamination and market loss arising from it.”

Help Beyond Pesticides send the message to Director Coba that this is unacceptable: Take Action now!

Also, USDA is still accepting public comment on twelve petitions for new genetically engineered (GE) crops until September 11, 2012.

Help us protect organic integrity!

Source: ODA Press Release

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