In 2011, research led by Virginia Rauh, ScD, Co-Deputy Director of CCCEH, established a connection between prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos and deficits in working memory and IQ at age 7. Earlier this year, a follow-up study showed evidence in MRI scans that even low to moderate levels of exposure during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain. The latest study, led by Megan Horton, PhD, explored the impact of sex differences and the home environment on these health outcomes.

Dr. Horton and colleagues looked at a subset of 335 mother-child pairs enrolled in the ongoing inner-city study of environmental exposures, including measures of prenatal chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood. When the children reached age 3, the researchers measured the home environment using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) criteria, including two main categories: 1) environmental stimulation, defined as the availability of intellectually stimulating materials in the home and the mother’s encouragement of learning; and 2) parental nurturance, defined as attentiveness, displays of physical affection, encouragement of delayed gratification, limit setting, and the ability of the mother to control her negative reactions. The researchers tested IQ at age 7.

While home environment and sex had no moderating effect on IQ deficits related to chlorpyrifos exposure, the researchers uncovered two intriguing findings related to sex differences, albeit of borderline statistical strength: first, that chlorpyrifos exposure had a greater adverse cognitive impact in boys as compared to girls, lowering working memory scores by an average of three points more in boys than girls (96.5 vs. 99.8); and second, that parental nurturing was associated with better working memory, particularly in boys.

“There’s something about boys that makes them a little more susceptible to both bad exposures and good exposures,” says Dr. Horton. “One possible explanation for the greater sensitivity to chlorpyrifos is that the insecticide acts as an endocrine disruptor to suppress sex-specific hormones. In a study of rats, exposure to the chemical reduced testosterone, which plays a critical role in the development of the male brain.”

Going forward, Dr. Horton will look at how sex and the home environment may influence the effects of prenatal exposure to other environmental toxicants, such as those found in air pollution. “I expect this information will be useful in efforts to develop new interventions to protect children from the potentially negative consequences of early exposure to harmful chemicals,” says Dr. Horton.

The insecticide chlorpyrifos was widely used in homes until 2001 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency restricted indoor residential use, permitting continued commercial and agricultural applications. Since that time, a drop in residential levels of chlorpyrifos has been documented by Robin Whyatt, DrPH, Co-Deputy Director of CCCEH. The chemical continues to be present in the environment through its widespread use in agriculture (food and feed crops), wood treatments, and public spaces such as golf courses, some parks, and highway medians. People near these sources can be exposed by inhaling the chemical, which drifts on the wind. Low-level exposure can also occur by eating fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed with chlorpyrifos. Although the chemical is degraded rapidly by water and sunlight outdoors, it has been detected by the Columbia researchers in many urban residences several years after the ban went into effect. Many developing countries continue to use chlorpyrifos in the home setting.

One of the coauthors of the study, Dana Boyd Barr, PhD., spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ 29th annual National Pesticide Forum in Denver, CO last year. See her talk as part of the forum’s Health and Science Panel.

The best way for consumers to reduce the impact that these chemicals have on our health and the environment is to choose organic foods. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Source: Mailman School of Public Health press release

The GE sweet corn is the first consumer product developed by Monsanto that will go straight from the farm to the consumer’s plate, rather than first being processed into animal feed, sugars, oils, fibers and other ingredients found in a wide variety of conventional food. It is engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate. The product is also designed to produce a Bt toxin that will kill insects that feed on the plant. Monsanto’s new sweet corn is being harvested in the Midwest, Northwest, Southeast, and Texas.

“After closely looking at both sides of the debate and collaborating with a number of respected food safety experts, we see no scientifically validated safety reasons to implement restrictions on this product,” Wal-Mart officials told the Tribune.

However, there has been growing concern over the increasing prevalence of insect resistance to Bt crops. Earlier this year, a group of prominent entomologists sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urging caution in the agency’s approach to Bt crops. Additionally, in April researchers at Portland State University has found that GE corn modified to express Bt negatively impacts beneficial soil life. Their results reveal a decreased presence of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake, in the roots of Bt corn when compared to non-Bt corn. Experts have recently warned EPA that “rufuges” of non-GE crops should be increased due to the growing threat of insect resistance to Bt corn.

Furthermore, GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Pollen from GE crops can potentially drift and wreak havoc on both the surrounding ecosystem and for organic and non-GE farms. If organic farmers’ crops become polluted with GE pollen, they may be subject to loss of their organic certification and financial losses. Unfortunately, the burden to protect against genetic drift falls on organic farmers and conventional farmers who do not use GE products.

Labeling GE products is a crucial way to identify products containing GE ingredients in an effort to sway consumer demand. The European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, require labeling for GE foods. Earlier this year, the German corporation BASF announced that it would stop developing genetically engineered products targeting the European market, in part due to low consumer demand. Given that 93% of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, Beyond Pesticides believes that we can have the same impact here as in Europe. Enough signatures have been collected to put on the California ballot Prop 37, “Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute,” to require labelling of food produced with GE ingredients, and the industry is now fighting back with a well-funded campaign campaign. More information on the campaign for PROP 37 can be found at the California Right-to-Know website.

In reversing a 2011 appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court said Minnesota does not recognize trespassing by “particulate matter.” The high court said the earlier appeals court ruling that found otherwise went “beyond our precedent.” The case is that of organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson, who sued the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company in 2009. The Johnsons alleged that the co-op repeatedly sprayed pesticides that drifted onto their fields, preventing them from selling their crops as organic. The Johnsons transitioned their farm to organic in the 1990s to take advantage of the higher prices organic crops and seeds bring. They posted signs noting that the farm was organic, created a buffer between their property and neighboring farms, and asked the co-op to take precautions, according to court records. The ruling states that the Johnsons do not claim there was an invasion by a tangible object, but instead claim the co-op’s actions prevented them from using their land as they wanted. Therefore, the court ruled, “the Johnsons’ claim is one for nuisance, not trespass.” The dissenting opinion stated, “The court’s one-size-fits-all holding that particulate matter can never cause a trespass fails to take into account the differences between these various substances.”

The District Court in Minnesota previously ruled that pesticide drift cannot be trespass, but the Appeals Court disagreed. The Supreme Court, while upholding the dismissal of the trespassing charges, remanded the case to the district court so that the Johnsons’ negligence and nuisance claims can proceed. However, for negligence cases, the burden of proof required makes more difficult to take these cases to trial, thus making it more difficult for organic farmers to be compensated for their losses.

The court also analyzed organic farming regulations and found that organic farmers who experience pesticide drift from a third party, but do not intentionally apply the chemicals themselves, may still be certified as organic if the chemicals are below five percent of levels. 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, no 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 importing to the U.S. that are set by the federal government under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDA) and amendments to the act under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). As it is near impossible to be completely free of chemical contaminants, which can be found in the air and in waterways, 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.

Similar cases of pesticide drift have made their way to the courts in other states. In 2011, a California’s 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose upheld Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo’s right to sue the pesticide applicator, Western Farm Service, and let stand the $1 million damage award a jury previously handed Jacobs Farm The ruling made it clear that in California pesticide users can be held liable for pesticide drift. Last month, the District Court in Delta, Colorado, granted a permanent injunction to prohibit a farmer from fogging for mosquitoes within 150 feet of his neighbor’s property or allowing the pesticides to drift, which in this case is considered a form of trespass.

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. Pesticides can volatilize into the gaseous state and be transported over long distances fairly rapidly through wind and rain. Documented exposure patterns result from drift cause particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups. Adverse health effects such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions. For more information on pesticide drift, read Beyond Pesticides’ report, Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities.

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.

Support organic agriculture for your family’s health, as well as the health of farmworkers and rural families, wildlife and pollinators, and the greater environment. For more information about the pesticides registered for use on foods we eat every day, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide, and the Organic Food program page.

Source: Faribault County Register

Opponents of the proposition raised over one million dollars this year for the “Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme.” Members of this coalition include the ”˜big 6’ chemical companies Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, and BASF, which have spent $375,000 alone through their exclusive lobbying group Council for Biotechnology Information. Overlapping ”˜big 6’ membership, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA), which also includes the corporations Pepsico Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, and Kelloggs, recently stated in a speech at the American Soybean Association that defeating the California initiative is “the single highest-priority of the GMA this year,” according to a story in The Huffington Post. GMA has also spent $375,000 this year lobbying against Prop 37.

“The Big Six chemical & seed companies are working diligently to monopolize the food system at the expense of consumers, farmers and smaller seed companies,” said Philip H. Howard, an associate professor at Michigan State University in an article in Examiner. “Polls consistently show that the public wants much more transparency in food production, yet the chemical/seed industry wants to suppress this information.”

A March survey revealed that 91% of consumers favor labeling for GE foods, with 81% of those ”˜strongly’ in favor of enacting these requirements. Given the current partisan divide in the country, this represents a remarkable consensus from consumers that cuts across party lines.

The California Right to Know campaign gathered 971,126 petition signatures for Prop 37, nearly double the 555,236 signatures required to qualify for inclusion on the ballot. If approved, Californians would join citizens from over 40 countries, including all of Europe, Japan, and China, who have the right to know whether they are eating GE food.

The chorus of Americans demanding that they be allowed to know if their food is genetically modified has been growing louder as more GE crops have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These approvals contradict scientific findings refuting the value agricultural companies’ claim these crops provide. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report in June detailing how Monsanto’s new drought tolerant corn, DroughtGard, does nothing to reduce the crop’s water requirements, and only reduces crop losses modestly during moderate droughts. The UCS report indicated that traditional breeding and improved farming practices do more to increase drought tolerance, and that further improvements in genetic engineering are unlikely to solve the drought problem in coming years. Additionally, in April researchers at Portland State University found that GE corn modified to express the insecticidal soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) negatively impacted beneficial soil life. Their results revealed a decreased presence of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake, in the roots of Bt corn when compared to non-Bt corn. Experts have recently warned the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that “rufuges” of non-GE crops should be increased due to the growing threat of insect resistance to Bt corn.

Monsanto claims that “requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws and consumer confidence.” While there are not many studies investigating the impacts of GE foods on mammals or even humans, the few studies that have looked at the toxicity of GE proteins do not indicate that there are no human health concerns. Studies have observed that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. World renowned geneticist and biophysicist, and co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has cited numerous observations on the adverse impacts of GE foods, including severe inflammation in the lungs in mice, liver and kidney toxicity, damage to the organ system of young rats fed GE potatoes, and severely stunted pups. A 2008 study reported that GE corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. These studies serve to illustrate the possible long term consequences of eating foods containing GE products.

This preliminary research indicates that not only is further investigation into the impacts of GE foods on human health needed, but a precautionary approach should be employed to limit the indiscriminate pervasion of GEs in the human food supply. Hence, claiming outright that GE products pose no health issues undermines consumer confidence. Beyond Pesticides feels that, given the current state of GE science, consumers should have the right to know whether their food contains GE crops.

If you’d like to weigh in on the debate but can’t make your voice heard on the California ballot initiative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is requesting public comment on twelve petitions for new genetically engineered (GE) crops. Currently, American consumers have no assurances that the conventionally produced foods they purchase and consume do not contain GE ingredients. The best way to avoid GE foods in the marketplace is by purchasing foods that are certified under the USDA organic certification program. USDA standards prohibit the use of genetic modification in the production and handling of organic food. 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 crticial issue for organic agricultural producers and the consumers of their products. There are significan costs to organic producers and handlers associated with preventing this contamination and market loss arising from it.”

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

In 2010, EPA negotiated a long phase-out agreement with endosulfan’s manufacturers that allows uses to continue through 2016, even though EPA concluded that endosulfan’s significant risks to agricultural workers and wildlife outweigh its limited benefits to growers and consumers, and that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan. This is an egregious example of how EPA uses phase out and existing stock provisions in negotiating with industry on removing known hazards from the market, placing economic interests over the protection of public health.

In 2010, EPA decided that data presented in response to its 2002 reregistration eligibility decision (RED) demonstrated that risks faced by workers are greater than previously known. EPA also found that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as to birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan. Farmworkers can be exposed to endosulfan through inhalation and contact with the skin.

A 2008 lawsuit filed on behalf of environmental and farmworker groups, including Beyond Pesticides, cited a glaring omission in the EPA’s decision in its failure to consider risks to children: a 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

As of July 31, 2012, over 30 crop uses plus use on ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants have been discontinued. About 12 other crop uses will end over the following four years. Of these 12, the last 4 endosulfan uses will end on July 31, 2016. During the phase-out, after the determination of hazard, EPA requires no special warning to those who use or are exposed to the chemical. To see the list of crop uses and last use dates, see EPA’s Endosulfan Pesticide Registration page.

Endosulfan use that will will continue through July 31, 2013, include: pears; through December 31, 2014, include All Florida uses of: (only Florida uses) apple, blueberry, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, sweet corn, tomato, winter squash; through July 31, 2015, include (nationwide) All Florida uses of: apple, blueberry, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, sweet corn, tomato, winter squash; through July 31, 2016, include livestock ear tag, pineapple, sStrawberry (perennial/biennial), vegetable crops for seed (alfalfa, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, chinese cabbage, collard greens, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga, turnip).

Acute poisoning from endosulfan can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, an increase in the risk of miscarriages and autism. It is also a potent environmental pollutant and is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life, and affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects.

Endosulfan is volatile, persistent, and has a high potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. A large body of scientific literature documents endosulfan’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media. The International Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee recommended that urgent “global action” was needed to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide in 2009. After the conclusion of scientific experts at the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) that endosulfan “is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects, such that global action is warranted,” a broad coalition of environmental groups sent another letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging EPA to finally take action to ban the use of endosulfan.

If consumers need yet another reason to go organic to protect themselves, their families, farmworkers, wildlife, and the environment, continued endosulfan uses through 2016 is it. For more information on organic, see Beyond Pesticides’ organic webpage.

For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News archives for endosulfan.

Scientists have long suspected a link between estrogen-mimicking pollutants and gynecological diseases. According to Environmental Health News, research investigating a link between hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment and gynecological diseases has had mixed results. But a new study, “Persistent Lipophilic Environmental Chemicals and Endometriosis: The ENDO Study,” from researchers at the National Institutes of Health and others, found that two groups of women in the Salt Lake City and San Francisco areas — one group with pelvic pain and the other with no symptoms — were more likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis if they had high blood levels of the estrogen-like pesticide hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) than women with low levels. HCH, a persistent organic pollutant (POP), and a byproduct of the production of the insecticide lindane (head lice treatments), has been banned as a crop pesticide in the United States but it persists in the environment and remains in some food supplies. Endometriosis is a female health disorder that occurs when uterine tissue grows in the ovaries or other parts of the body, often causing pelvic pain and infertility. It affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age.

Similarly, in Italy, women had endometriosis more often if they had higher levels of two chlorinated chemicals that can disrupt hormones —polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or residue of the insecticide DDT, according to a 2009 study, “Endometriosis and Organochlorinated Environmental Pollutants: A Case—Control Study on Italian Women of Reproductive Age,” which looked at exposure to organochlorine persistent pollutants as a risk factor for endometriosis.

Recent research has uncovered links to other gynecological problems. Women in Greece diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) -which causes irregular menstrual periods, infertility, weight gain and excessive hair growth— were more likely to have higher blood levels of the estrogen-mimicking chemical bisphenol A than women without the disease, according to a study published last year.

Another recent study, “Environmentally Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Ovarian Disease,” found that female rats exposed in the womb to high doses of several chemicals, including pesticides and plasticizers, develop cysts resembling human polycystic ovarian syndrome and premature menopause. These changes are passed down through three generations —great-granddaughters of the exposed rats also developed cysts and other ovarian problems, even though they were not directly exposed. In this study, vinclozolin, a fungicide commonly used in the wine industry, reprogrammed genes as the rat fetuses developed according to DNA analysis. Other chemicals in this study that caused multi-generational effects were dioxins, a pesticide mixture including permethrin and DEET, and a plastic mixture including BPA and two widely used phthalates.

Exposure to many hormone-disrupting chemicals starts in the womb, and some scientists suspect the timing may be important in determining reproductive disease risk later in life. But because decades can pass between exposure during fetal development or early childhood and the manifestation of the disease in adult life, it can be difficult to nail down a link.

Some studies have found no connection between women’s exposure to environmental chemicals and gynecological disease. For instance, among several hundred women in Italy highly exposed to dioxins from a 1976 factory explosion, UC Berkeley scientists found no significant increase in endometriosis linked to their contaminant levels. However, emerging data is beginning to paint another picture regarding environmental contaminants and reproductive health. Previous research documented by Beyond Pesticides has shown that women who drink water containing the widely used herbicide atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, even at concentrations far below federal drinking water standards considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The danger of estrogen-like chemicals already has been well-documented with DES, or diethylstilbestrol, a drug that was prescribed to millions of women at risk of miscarriages from 1940 through 1971. Daughters and granddaughters of the pregnant women who took the potent estrogenic drug had an increased risk of endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and rare reproductive cancers. In the case of uterine fibroids, the body’s natural estrogens turn genes on and off in the smooth muscle of the uterus that allow the tumors to grow, according to researchers. Investigations are underway to determine whether estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment affect these same genes.

“We know from animal models that there are critical periods during early development when cells are rapidly dividing and forming the circuitry through which cells will communicate with each other to form various tissues of the body,” said Retha Newbold, PhD, a reproductive biologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. “When chemicals alter this set-up, the changes may not be reversible.”

Pesticides have been linked to a host of diseases and other adverse effects like cancer, Parkinson’s disease and birth defects. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced-Disease Database documents these outcomes.

According to Roger Roberts of the Contra Costa Times, when the City Council first considered the ordinance in June, some were skeptical of the proposal. They felt that changing pest control practices would put an unnecessary burden on the city’s finances. However, after Parks and Landscape Superintendent Chris Chamberlain explained that his department had already begun to implement a least-toxic pest control strategy without increasing the financial cost to the city, dissenters of the proposal agreed to support the plan. “We just point you to it, and you get it done and do it well,” remarked Corky Booze, who was converted by Mr. Chamberlains’ assurances. The Parks and Landscape department oversees pest management practices on over 600 acres of city land on a $4 million budget. Mr. Chamberlain added that, within the past 2 years, the department has decreased their use of carcinogenic pesticides by over 40 percent.

The passage of 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 Richmond, CA, 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. Washington D.C. 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.

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogenicity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds.

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].

“Our agriculture industry is vital to the upstate New York’s economy,” Senator Gillibrand said. “Our farmers need honey bees to pollinate our crops and produce. However, certain pesticides may be unintentionally killing off the honey bee population. By expediting this review, we can help save our honey bee population and grow our agricultural economies.” Honey bees are vital to the health of agricultural industries in New York as one in three bites of food is reliant on honey bee pollination.

In her letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Senator Gillibrand wrote, “Protecting honey bees and other pollinators is vital to American agriculture. In fact, one in three bites of food is reliant on honey bee pollination, and threats to pollinators concern the entire food system and could drive up the cost of food in this country. Highlighting the economic importance of pollinators, a recent study by Cornell University found that insect pollination results in a value of more than $15 billion annually.”

This spring and summer, beekeepers from New York to Ohio and Minnesota are reporting extraordinarily large bee die-offs, due, in part, to exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides. The die-offs are similar to what beekeepers have reported in the past few weeks in Canada (where EPA has admitted there are 120 bee kill reports, a huge number). On average, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that beekeepers have been losing over 30% of their honey bee colonies each year since 2006 —but some are losing many more times that number.

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 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.

TAKE ACTION: 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).

The original petition can be found here. Additionally, the agency has published an electronic docket with the petition, the partial response, and other supporting material available for viewing.

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

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

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

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

Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate). Growing other Roundup Ready crops, such as soy, cotton, and corn, have led to greater use of herbicides. It has also led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the U.S. and other countries where such crops are grown, as well as contamination of conventional and organic crops, that has been costly to U.S. farmers. Due to GE crops, in large part, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever.

Glyphosate is a general use herbicide and has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and birth defects, 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.

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 erase the need for these drastic measures through systemic pest prevention approaches. Organic farming can be at least as productive as conventional, chemical-reliant farming while having none of the toxic side effects that create significant risks to ecosystems and human health. To learn more, see our page on organic food and agriculture.

Currently, there are commercially available glyphosate-tolerant seed varieties for corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, and cotton. In addition to sugar beets, USDA recently approved Roundup-Ready alfalfa. Due to serious questions regarding the integrity of USDA’s environmental evaluations, public interest groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit against the agency to stop its full deregulation of GE alfalfa. In January of this year, a judge in San Francisco found that the alfalfa deregulation was legal. However, organic farmers and public interest groups have vowed to appeal that decision.

The researchers sampled air in 25 households, finding at least five pesticides in 60 percent of the dwellings. Nine other pesticides were identified in less than one-third of the homes. All the women were in the third trimester of pregnancy, when the fetal brain undergoes a growth spurt. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides, especially exposures that adversely affect mental and motor development during infancy and childhood. This new report is in the summer issue of the Texas Public Health Journal sent to members this week.

The study found 92 percent of air samples contained o-phenylphenol, which is used as a fungicide, germicide and household disinfectant, while 80 percent of samples contained chlorpyrifos, used in agriculture and to kill mosquitoes and other insects. Chlorpyrifos has been well-documented as posing risks to babies exposed in the womb to brain abnormalities after birth. Researchers asked the women questions about pesticide use and exposure, proximity to agricultural fields, the frequency of spraying operations, and the detection of pesticide odors drifting from fields. Air samples were measured for multiple pesticides used in agriculture, given the close proximity of the fields to participant homes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week announced new mitigation measures to reduce bystander exposure to chlorpyrifos drift from agricultural fields, including the use of buffer zones for residential areas, schools, hospitals etc.

Propoxur, found in such products as granular baits and pet collars, was detected in 76 percent of samples. A 2011 study published in the journal NeuroToxicology found a positive link between exposure to the pesticide propoxur and poor motor development in infants. At the age of two, children exposed to propoxur in the womb experience poor development of motor skills, according to a test of mental development. Propoxur is a carbamate insecticide that was banned in 2007 for indoor uses to which children would be exposed; however, it is still commonly used in flea and tick pet collars.

The insecticide diazinon is found in 72 percent; and the herbicide trifluralin is found in 60 percent of homes. 12 percent of homes surveyed contain traces of agricultural pesticides. The study verifies the conclusions of a larger 2007 survey that found household pesticide levels are higher than desirable in the homes of 102 pregnant minority women in New York City.

“Increasingly, pesticide exposures are being linked to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),” said co-author Claudia S. Miller, M.D., M.S., professor in environmental and occupational medicine with the Department of Family and Community Medicine. “Planning for pregnancy today should include not only prenatal vitamins and a good diet, but also avoiding potentially hazardous pesticides. Instead, use non-toxic approaches for pest control and IPM.”

Authors of the study recommend managing household pests using integrated pest management (IPM), a low-cost strategy to replace the use of residential pesticides. IPM includes least-toxic techniques other than spraying, including sanitation, proper storage and food and water, caulking of windows and doors; installation of door and window screens; and the use of boric acid and diatomaceous earth. Beyond Pesticides’ Safer Choice brochure provides information on managing household pests with defined IPM principles.

“Once we educate our women of childbearing age about how they can safely and in a healthy manner diminish pests in their homes, they will feel empowered that they can make a difference in their family’s life,” says lead author Beatriz Tapia, M.D., M.P.H., lecturer at the UT Health Science Center ”” Regional Academic Health Center campus in Harlingen.

Organophosphates, like chlorpyrifos, are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission —acetylcholine esterase (AchE)— inactivating the enzyme. High concentrations of organophosphates have been found in the bodies of pregnant women and children.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the EPA has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain on the market. Furthermore, the cancellation of household uses does not restrict the use of remaining stocks, meaning homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase-out, may still use this product.

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.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health, including birth defects, see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Source: University of Texas Health Science Center Public Release

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

In his official comments, Rep. Gara wrote, “I believe Alaskans should have a right to comment on important state issues. Elimination of a public commenting process by a state agency is always cause for concern, and when the public process pertains to human health and safety, the action is particularly disconcerting.”

Not all of the proposed changes are bad. For instance, the proposed pesticide regulation changes will require the state land managers to develop an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan that requires consideration of alternative methods to control pests before pesticides are used. Although IPM can be a helpful tool in the transition from a pesticide-intensive to a non-toxic management system, it still allows for pesticide use. With the elimination of the pesticide permitting program, citizens will lose the right to comment on when these pesticides are used on public lands, as well as the right to know when and where pesticides were used.

According to Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), which is urging residents to take action, proposed pesticide regulations would:
Ӣ Eliminate permit requirements for the spraying of pesticides on state public lands with no safeguards for the protection of sensitive waterways, drinking water sources, fish and wildlife habitat, or public health;
”¢ Block public participation in decisions about pesticide spraying on public lands””with no public hearings, opportunity for written public comments, or way to appeal bad decisions. This would deprive Alaskans of the right to speak out about potential harm to drinking water, fishing streams, subsistence uses, dangers to our children and public health;
Ӣ Promote the application of potentially harmful pesticides and herbicides without consideration of toxicity and effects to health and the environment;
Ӣ Weaken public right-to-know requirements to notify the public about places where the pesticides will be sprayed.

“We are deeply concerned that the governor would weaken our democracy by eliminating public participation in decisions that affect our water quality, fish habitat, and public health,” Pamela Miller, biologist and executive director of ACAT.

TAKE ACTION: If you live in Alaska, please submit a letter (sample text provided) to Rebecca Colvin, Solid Waste and Pesticide Program, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation. Or, you can email her directly at [email protected]. The comments must be received no later than 5 pm on August 2, 2012.

Because the summer season is a busy time for many Alaskans, and Alaskans who work away from home in the summer, Rep. Gara has asked Commissioner Hartig of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to extend the public comment period on the proposed changes to the pesticide regulations another 60 days to October 2, 2012.

Sources: ACAT Pesticide Action Alert, Alaska House Democratic Caucus Press Release

Silver nanoparticles are used just about everywhere, including in cosmetics, socks, food containers, detergents, sprays and a wide range of other products to stop the spread of germs. Researchers have debated the mechanisms by which nanosilver particles exert toxicity to bacteria and other organisms. They have long known that silver ions, which flow from nanoparticles when oxidized, are deadly to bacteria. In the study, “Negligible Particle-Specific Antibacterial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles,” published in NanoLetters, the researchers explain that the nanoparticles are practically benign in the presence of microbes. But when in soluble ionic form, that is, when activated via oxidation, nanosilver becomes toxic to bacteria. The research team decided to test nanoparticle toxicity in an anaerobic environment —with no exposure to oxygen ”” to control the silver ions’ release. They found that the filtered particles are a lot less toxic to microbes than silver ions.

Surprisingly, when the nanosilver was tested against E. coli, the team found that E. coli survival was stimulated by relatively low (sublethal) concentrations of nanosilver, suggesting a hormetic response (U-shaped dose-response curve) that would be counterproductive to antimicrobial applications. Overall, the researchers suggest that nanosilver morphological properties known to affect antimicrobial activity are indirect effectors that primarily influence silver ion release. The researchers hypothesize antibacterial activity could be controlled (and environmental impacts could be mitigated) by modulating silver ion release, possibly through manipulation of oxygen availability, particle size, shape, and/or type of coating.

NanoSilver Docket Open for Comment

EPA has published a Federal Register notice announcing the establishment of a registration review docket for nanosilver and is seeking public comment on a summary document for the registration review of nanosilver. The summary document (1) identifies nanosilver products, (2) outlines data gaps and requirements and (3) contains a preliminary workplan and fact sheet, along with ecological risk assessment problem formulation and human health scoping sections describing scientific analyses expected to be necessary to complete nanosilver review.

A silver nanoparticle consists of many silver atoms or ions clustered together to form a particle 1-300nm in size. Due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them. Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, these same properties —tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity— can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks.

A study conducted in 2008 and confirmed by another study in 2009 shows that washing nano-silver textiles 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. A study found nanosilver to cause malformations and to be lethal to small fish at various stages of development since they are able to cross the egg membranes and move into the fish embryos. A 2010 study by scientists at Oregon State University and in the European Union highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides.

Nanotechnology, the science involving manipulation of materials on an atomic or molecular scale, is an emerging technology with a broad range of potential applications, such as increasing bioavailability of a drug, used in food packaging, and in cosmetics. There are hundreds of products currently on the market that contain nanomaterials of various types and functions, the most popular application being the use of nanosilver as an antibacterial substance in many consumer products. Given this, the federal government at this point is playing a game of ”˜catch-up.’

A recent report finds the current level of knowledge does not allow a fair assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that will result from the use of nanopesticides, and a better understanding of the fate and effect of nanopesticides after their application is required. The suitability of current regulations should also be analyzed so that refinements can be implemented if needed. Research on nanopesticides is therefore a priority for preserving the safety of both the food chain and the environment. Similarly, the findings of a U.S. Government Accountability Office report identified concerns about the quality of environmental, health and safety research on nanotechnology.

Federal regulation of nanoparticles has been lacking. In 2011, EPA announced plans to obtain information on nanoscale materials in pesticide products. According to EPA, the agency will gather information on what nanoscale materials are present in pesticide products to determine whether the registration of a pesticide may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health. However, thus far pending nanotechnology regulations have been placed on hold by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

A coalition of six consumer safety groups filed suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 21, 2011, citing FDA’s chronic failure to regulate nanomaterials used in these products. The lawsuit demands that FDA respond to a May 2006 petition that the coalition filed calling for regulatory actions, including nano-specific product labeling, health and safety testing, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. After years of no federal regulatory oversight, FDA in April 2012 issued two draft guidance documents addressing the use of nanotechnology by the food and cosmetics industries. The documents “encourage” safety assessments for cosmetic products containing nanomaterials, including the need for modification or development of new methods for standardized safety tests. The new guidelines for the first time show the FDA believes nanomaterials deserve greater scrutiny.

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 confusion 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 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 on nanosilver and nanotechnology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Take Action: The federal register docket is now open for public comment for the registration review of nanosilver. During the comment period, anyone may submit comments, relevant data or information for the agency’s consideration. Public comment may be submitted until August 19, 2012 at www.regulations.gov in docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0370.

Source: Rice University News and Media

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

The plaintiffs brought the preemptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 in the Southern District of New York and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto’s most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act preemptively to protect themselves from Monsanto’s abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement. Beyond Pesticides signed on as a plaintiff in the suit in June 2011.

“Monsanto is known for bullying farmers by making baseless accusations of patent infringement,” said attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit legal services organization Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), which represents the plaintiffs in the suit against Monsanto known as Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto. “They’ve sued and harassed other farmers who wanted nothing to do with their genetically modified seed and now that organic and conventional farmers are fighting back, they claim they would never do such a thing without backing up their words with an enforceable promise.”

In an attempt to sidestep the challenge, Monsanto moved to have the case dismissed, saying that the plaintiffs’ concerns are unrealistic. In February 2012, after hearing plaintiff’s arguments, the district court took Monsanto’s side and dismissed the case, ridiculing the farmers in the process. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs are at risk for being contaminated by genetically modified seed and then sued for patent infringement by Monsanto, Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York dismissed the case because she did not find a case worthy of adjudication, saying, “It is clear that these circumstances do not amount to a substantial controversy and that there has been no injury traceable to defendants.”

Plaintiffs feel otherwise. Two of the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations in the case highlighting the prevalence of contamination by genetically modified seed. Both Chuck Noble, an alfalfa farmer from South Dakota, and Fedco Seeds, a seed distributor in Maine, have repeatedly discovered GMO contamination in purportedly conventional seed they sought to purchase. To protect themselves from being contaminated, they have had to adopt expensive and time-consuming genetic testing procedures.

“We have a right to farm the way we choose,” said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA). “Yet Monsanto is unwilling to control their GMO pollution and they refuse to sign a binding covenant not-to-sue our family farmers for patent infringement should their seed contaminate our crops. Monsanto’s publicized ”˜Commitment’ promising that they would not sue farmers was described by Monsanto’s own lawyers as being ”˜vague.’ The law says we deserve protection under the Declaratory Judgment Act. We will continue to pursue our right to farm, and the right of our customers to have access to good clean food and seed.”

Other plaintiffs have simply stopped growing certain types of crops due to the threat of contamination. Bryce Stephens, a certified organic farmer from northwest Kansas, had to give up on trying to grow organic corn and soy once his neighbors started using Monsanto’s genetically modified seed because it could easily spread onto his property and contaminate his organic crops, which would put him at risk of being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto.

A recent court decision in Colorado may be of significance to the issue of genetic drift in ruling that another form of drift constitutes trespassing in affecting the way a neighboring farm conducts its business. Judge Charles Greenacre determined that an application of the insecticide malathion had drifted, and thus trespassed, onto the neighboring organic farm of Rosemary Bilchak and her husband, Gordon MacAlpine. In granting the permanent injunction, Judge Greenacre decided that: “Plaintiffs have an interest, shared by the public in general, in not having their property invaded by third persons or things. Plaintiffs also have a specific interest in not having pesticides invade their property because such invasions will delay or negate their efforts to have their property certified for the production of organic crops.” The same argument could reasonably be made regarding genetic drift.

In the newly filed brief, the plaintiffs point out numerous errors in the district court decision that warrant reversal. Among them are the lower court’s failure to accept certain facts alleged by the plaintiffs that were undisputed by Monsanto, application of too harsh a legal standard on the plaintiffs to show the existence of a controversy, and neglect of public policy that encourages broad jurisdiction be available to those challenging bogus patents like Monsanto’s.

The brief filed by the plaintiffs with the Court of Appeals is available here.

The Appellants in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. (OCIA); Food Democracy Now!; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Mendocino Organic Network (California); Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems (Montana); Global Organic Alliance; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; Weston A. Price Foundation; Center for Food Safety; Beyond Pesticides; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Rhode Island; Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut; Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York; Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (Wisconsin); Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Florida Organic Growers; Peace River Organic Producers Association (Alberta and British Columbia); FEDCO Seeds, Inc. (Maine); Adaptive Seeds, LLC (Oregon); Sow True Seed (North Carolina); Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (Virginia); Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds (Saskatchewan); Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC (Missouri); Comstock, Ferre & Co. LLC (Connecticut); Seedkeepers, LLC (California); Siskiyou Seeds (Oregon); Countryside Organics (Virginia); Cuatro Puertas (New Mexico); Seed We Need (Montana), Wild Garden Seed (Oregon); Alba Ranch (Kansas); Wild Plum Farm (Montana); Gratitude Gardens (Washington); Richard Everett Farm, LLC (Nebraska); Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc. (Wisconsin); Genesis Farm (New Jersey); Chispas Farms, LLC (New Mexico); Midheaven Farms (Minnesota); Koskan Farms (South Dakota); California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm (North Dakota); Taylor Farms, Inc. (Utah); Ron Gargasz Organic Farms (Pennsylvania); Abundant Acres (Missouri); T & D Willey Farms (California); Quinella Ranch (Saskatchewan); Nature’s Way Farm, Ltd. (Alberta); Levke and Peter Eggers Farm (Alberta); Frey Vineyards, Ltd. (California); Bryce Stephens (Kansas); Chuck Noble (South Dakota); LaRhea Pepper (Texas); Paul Romero (New Mexico); Donald Wright Patterson, Jr. (Virginia); Common Good Farm; LLC (Nebraska); American Buffalo Company (Nebraska); Full Moon Farm, Inc. (Vermont); Radiance Dairy (Iowa); Brian L. Wickert (Wisconsin); Bruce Drinkman (Wisconsin); and Murray Bast (Ontario).

Source: PUBPAT press release

The passage of this Act adds to the growing movement across the country calling for increased restrictions on the use of dangerous chemicals in the public sphere. 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. Recently, 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 state-wide 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.

The District’s new legislation authorizes the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) to designate pesticides registered in the District as either ”˜restricted use’ or ”˜minimum risk’ based on certain criteria such as toxicity to human and environmental health. The legislation prohibits the use of pesticides designated as ”˜restricted use’ on public use property, schools, child-occupied facilities, waterway-contingent property, and District property –unless DDOE grants an exemption in the event an emergency pest outbreak poses an imminent threat to public health, or if significant economic damage would result from not using the pesticide. Under the Act, DDOE will restrict the use of pesticides otherwise allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because less toxic means are available. Those seeking an exemption to use a ”˜restricted use’ pesticide are required to make a good-faith effort to find alternatives by clearly demonstrating through a reasonable plan that effective, economical alternatives to the prohibited pesticide are unavailable.

The Act represents a step forward for D.C and the nation by creating a framework for administrators at DDOE to minimize pesticide use. To ensure exemptions are not overused and the spirit and intent of the law is upheld, concerned citizens and residents in the District of Columbia will have to be vigilant.

Opponents of the law may claim that organic management will cost taxpayers more money; however there is much evidence to the contrary. A report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education 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. Futhermore, 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.

Take action: Tell Mayor Vincent Gray to sign the Pesticide Education and Amendment Control Act of 2012.

For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes page. If you would like assistance proposing a pesticide reform policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

More than 2,000 fish have been scooped from the near two-mile stretch of Barclay Brook in Coleman since last Thursday following heavy rainfall, more than triple the amount of fish that washed up on the same shores of the brook last year, although the current discovery is concentrated in a smaller area. It is believed the actual number of dead fish is much higher, as predators and river currents would have quickly taken away the remains of other fish. Barclay Brook is part of the Trout River watershed, the scene of a devastating fish kill last July that mainly wiped out large fish. An investigation is underway to determine the exact cause of the fish kill, given that water temperature and oxygen levels were within acceptable ranges and the fish looked healthy and well-fed. As a result, officials believe that an acute toxic event was responsible for the kill. The provincial government is collecting fish, water and soil samples from the latest kill. They are also inspecting fields and conducting an aerial survey to try to pinpoint a possible source.

Local environmental leaders say legislation that requires a 15-meter buffer zone between waterways and farm fields is not working. They believe pesticides should be eliminated from the province’s agriculture industry altogether, as pesticide runoff has historically been a major cause of fish kills.

“There’s a lot of support in Prince Edward Island for a 100 per cent organic province,” said Provincial Green party Leader Sharon Labchuk. “There’s a very strong sense in Prince Edward Island that the root cause of all this is industrial agriculture and that there are no ways that these kind of effects can be mitigated through ”¦ (a piece) of new legislation.”

In July 2007, investigators suggested that pesticides from farmers’ fields had killed thousands of fish that were found floating in the Dunk and Tryon Rivers in western Prince Edward Island. Two farmers in that area were charged with violating buffer zone regulations. That fish kill prompted the provincial government to draft changes to regulations that she hopes will be introduced in the legislature this fall.

Agricultural runoff into streams and other aquatic habitat is not a rare occurrence. Runoff can impact aquatic life, especially sensitive and endangered species. Sizeable fish kills have resulted from pesticide use, and have often made sensational news headlines, including the 1991 death of over one million fish in Louisiana after aerial spraying of the insecticide azinphos-methyl (Guthion) on sugarcane fields. In 1995, toxic concentrations of endosulfan and methyl parathion along a 16-mile stretch of the Tennessee River in Alabama resulted in 240,000 fish killed. In 2005, an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 black crappie fish died suddenly in Clear Lake in Waseca County, Minnesota. Water samples show the presence of permethrin, the pesticide that had been used two days prior for mosquito control. The pesticide apparently contaminated the lake as runoff from a subsequent rainstorm.

Pesticide regulation in the U.S. under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not go far enough to protect aquatic environments from pesticide contamination, as a result of the prevalence of data gaps in the scientific knowledge of many of the registered pesticides, and a general lack of compliance with pesticide labels. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that current use patterns for certain pesticides are “likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of endangered salmon and steelhead populations on the West Coast protected by the Endangered Species Act. NMFS calls for use restrictions in several draft Biological Opinions that would prohibit aerial applications of the pesticides within 300 feet of salmon waters; mandate a 10-foot vegetated strip or a 20-foot no spray zone between salmon waters and places where these herbicides are applied; and establish mandatory reporting of fish kills near where these chemicals are applied.

NMFS’ findings contradict significant conclusions of EPA’s work and highlight weaknesses in the agency’s current ecological risk assessment process that underestimate risk and fail to meet modern standards of analysis. For example, NMFS cites EPA’s failures to provide any analysis of the pesticides’ breakdown products or of the other ingredients -whether active or inert, which are added to commercial product formulations. Additionally, NMFS states that EPA’s modeling procedures would likely underestimate exposure to the pesticides and the resulting risk and that the EPA-approved pesticide labels lack sufficient information to prevent excessive and unnecessary applications.

In November 2011, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Dow AgroSciences that challenged EPA’s authority to implement new use restrictions based on the NMFS Biological Opinions. Due to the delay resulting from that lawsuit, none of the use restrictions designed to protect threatened and endangered species from the pesticides deemed to pose the greatest risk, including chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion, have been implemented.

The recently implemented National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for pesticide discharges, while it does not prevent pesticides from being discharged into waterways, would help authorities know what is sprayed and when it is sprayed, so that the public may know what chemicals are used in their waterways which can then be monitored for any downstream adverse effects, including fish kills and the contamination of drinking waters. For more information on the pesticide NPDES permit, read, “Clearing up the Confusion Surrounding the New NPDES General Permit.” Currently, pesticide labels typically provide the user with direction to avoid runoff to nearby aquatic streams, however these measures have been proven to be ineffective.

Source: The Chronicle Herald Canada