The bill passed the House on a largely party-line vote of 239-184. 16 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the measure, while 13 Republicans voted against it. The fate of the bill in the U.S. Senate is less certain, as the Democrat-controlled chamber will be much less likely to pass such sweeping changes to environmental safeguards. After passage of the bill in the House, the White House issued a strongly worded statement threatening a veto if the bill made it to President Obama’s desk.

This action falls on the heels of another bill weakening the CWA, H.R. 872, already passed by the House earlier this year and recently voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The so-called Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 would revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways. Several Democratic Senators have voiced strong opposition to the bill, suggesting the possibility of a filibuster. In response, Republican lawmakers have been attempting to amend the bill to an environmental appropriations act that is currently working its way through the Senate. Click here to send a message to your Senators urging them to stand with you in opposition to this dangerous bill.

Enforcement of national standards for clean water is based on a partnership of federal and state agencies. CWA delegates enforcement of federal clean water standards to state agencies by default, once EPA signs off. However, it gives authority to EPA to step in if the agency determines that a state’s actions do not measure up to the standards outlined in the act. H.R. 2018 would strip EPA of that oversight role and would require the agency to evaluate the economic impact of any enforcement actions that it takes. In addition to restricting the ability of EPA to issue new standards on water contaminants, provisions of the bill would prevent EPA from withdrawing approval of a state pollution permitting program or from objecting to any individual state-issued permit which EPA suspects is in violation of water quality standards.

Despite the suggestion of cooperation in the bill’s title, many agree that, if enacted, it would actually decrease the amount of give and take between state and federal agencies as it significantly limits the input that EPA can have in the process. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service stated in a memo that, “It is highly unusual for Congress to advance legislation that would broadly alter the federal-state partnership in order to address dissatisfaction with specific actions by EPA or another agency.”

The bill has been interpreted by some as a response to two recent instances in which EPA stepped in to enforce federal standards. The first was in 2005 and involved regulating agricultural runoff in Florida. In the second more recent instance EPA revoked a previously approved permit for water discharge from a planned coal mine in West Virginia. The speculation is fueled by the fact that the original sponsors of the bill are U.S. Representative John Mica (R) of Florida and U.S. Representative Nick Rahall (D) of West Virginia. Despite EPA’s efforts to ensure that their constituents have access to clean water for drinking and recreation, the two Representatives have sought to limit the agency’s powers in an attempt to rein in a perceived “regulatory nightmare.”

The bill would have implications reaching far beyond the two specific instances at issue. Clean water standards are set for a range of contaminants, including agricultural and pesticide discharge or runoff. As evidenced by the developments around H.R. 872, many believe regulation of pesticides around waterways to be burdensome and unnecessary despite widespread evidence that water contaminated with pesticides poses serious risks to public health and upsets fragile ecosystems, damaging natural resources. Critics of the bill also point to the fact that it makes little sense for states to be the only regulators ensuring clean water since most waterways cross state lines and watersheds cover large geographical areas encompassing many states. David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council points out that the Clean Water Act was adopted for a reason:

“On clean water, history has already shown what happens when states are left to their own resources. They often engage in a ”˜race to the bottom,’ granting concessions to businesses whatever the impact on health and water quality, especially if the consequences will be most felt downstream in other jurisdictions. This was life before the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 and few would see that as ”˜the good old days.’ Optimism is sometimes defined as the triumph of hope over experience. For this Congress, we need a word for the triumph of failure over experience.”

EPA was recently cited by Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for its lax regulations regarding drinking water contaminants. Passage of H.R. 2018 would make it significantly more difficult for EPA to take action by regulating activities that cause these contaminants to enter waterways and end up in public drinking water supplies.

Although the bill’s supporters claim it would create jobs and help the economy, some observers are calling that claim into question. Additionally, an economic analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office found that enacting the bill would result in no significant reduction in federal spending.

As wild areas providing natural habitat to a range of wildlife and beneficial insects are destroyed and converted to conventional crop production, pest populations in the area will be robbed of their natural predators. This leads to pest population booms and to a corresponding increase in pesticides in an attempt to control them. Monocultural crop production —growing a single crop on hundreds and often thousands of acres— presents a uniquely perfect breeding ground for pests as it provides acres upon acres of food and habitat with no natural checks or barriers.

The study lays out the problems in this way: “The link between landscape simplification, pest pressure, and insecticide use is expected on the basis of two lines of logic. First, conversion of diverse natural plant assemblages to monocultures, at both patch and landscape scales, is known to reduce the abundance and diversity of natural enemies of crop pests, which has been associated with reductions in natural pest-control services. Second, increases in the size, density, and connectivity of host crop patches are expected to facilitate movement and establishment of crop pests, leading to higher pest pressure regardless of natural enemy activity.”

To obtain its results, the research team evaluated agricultural activity in 562 counties across seven states in the Midwestern U.S. —Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. The researchers examined data showing rates of insecticide application, the percentage of land area in a county that is crop land compared to natural area, and what crops were grown on the cropland. The team uses the term “landscape simplification” as a way of describing conversion of natural areas with diverse populations of plants and animals to open areas of land where only a one or a small handful of plant species are intensively cultivated.

The findings show that, as land is cleared for crop production, insecticide use goes up. This is not surprising in itself, since insecticides would be unlikely to be used in great amounts in natural areas. However, the team noted that, since farmers are likely to want to minimize insecticide use owing to the financial costs, the fact that they are applying it in such large numbers likely betrays a disproportionately large insect population. This suspicion was verified by collecting data from aphid monitoring networks. As the team puts it, “We also found a positive relationship between aphid abundance and proportion cropland,” meaning the more farmland there was, the more aphids there were, and the more insecticide was being used to control them.

The team also examined the financial costs that farmers incur as a result of the increased pest pressure, in the form of insecticide costs as well as crop losses due to the pests. The results show that increased pest pressure due to landscape simplification cost farmers $48 per hectare, resulting in a total increase in the cost of farming of about $122,000 in the average Midwestern county, or $69 million across the region.

The paper also cites the indirect costs that result from the increased rates of pesticide application. These costs are more often borne by society at large rather than the producer and include “(i) health problems due to direct human exposure [to pesticides] or air and water pollution, (ii) development of insecticide resistance by crop pests, and (iii) mortality of beneficial organisms that perform services across agricultural landscapes.”

Biodiversity —the range of wildlife in an ecosystem and the unique roles fulfilled by each individual species— is an often neglected factor in food production. However, as this study shows, it is actually an integral factor in ensuring efficient and productive agricultural systems. Ignoring the important roles that it plays will lead only to more headaches and higher costs for farmers.

Organic agriculture is the embodiment of a food production system that nurtures biodiversity and encourages diverse cropping systems and integrated management of pests. Organic systems have been proven effective at reducing pests through harnessing the power of ecosystem services such as growing a diversity of crops and maintaining wild areas on the farm to support populations of natural pest predators, pollinators, and other beneficial insects. For more information visit our page on organic food and farming.

Essentially, the proposed Pesticides General Permit grants blanket approval to all pesticide applicators operating near waterways by issuing a single permit which would apply to all such potential applications, and largely removes the opportunity for environmental oversight of specific applications. The findings in this Biological Opinion are particularly relevant in light of current efforts by Congress to strip protections from the Clean Water Act (CWA) by prohibiting discharge permits for pesticides in waterways.

Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies have an obligation to insure, in consultation with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that has been designated for such species.

According to the Biological Opinion: “NMFS reached this conclusion because as the general permit is currently structured, the EPA would not be likely to know where or when most of the discharges it intends to authorize would occur; if these discharges were resulting in exposures to pesticide pollutants in concentrations, durations or frequencies that would cause adverse effects to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat and would not be in a position to take measures to avoid those adverse effects; or whether the permittees were complying with the conditions of the permit designed to protect ESA listed species and designated critical habitat from being exposed.”

In order to insure that the actions authorized by the general permit are not likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species, NMFS outlines a proposed RPA to limit pesticide applications in waterways. This alternative would restrict pesticides in areas known to be home to threatened and endangered species and increases monitoring and reporting of applications.

EPA developed the Pesticide General Permit for point source discharges from the application of pesticides to U.S. waters in response to a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under the Federal Insecticide, Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and CWA, EPA must require such permits as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Prior to this case, EPA had deemed it unnecessary to require permits for pesticide applications near waterways.

The purpose of the NPDES permits is to reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment through requiring polluters to obtain permits. This allows for oversight of the proposed discharge, including evaluation of the potential risks it might present to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Because the discharges are weighed against standards that don’t protect all species, are implemented with limited monitoring, and don’t consider need, even approved permits often present the potential for damage to ecosystems in affected areas. However, NPDES permits do allow for local citizen input through allowing the public to comment on the proposed pesticide application in the context of the CWA goal of “restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation’s waters,” and thus provide the opportunity for increased oversight and accountability in a goal-oriented framework.

FIFRA, unlike the CWA, does not fully regulate or monitor water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in the local context. When a pesticide is registered under FIFRA, the dangers of heightened toxicity due to combinations of chemicals and chemical drift are not fully considered. EPA, in implementing FIFRA, uses controversial and, many studies say, inadequate exposure and essentially assumptions in its risk assessment and does not take least-toxic alternatives into account. CWA, in contrast, uses a health-based standard, setting maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requiring permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams. In deciding the case, the court ruled that pesticides, when entering waterways, constitute pollutants, and as such, are subject to the permitting requirements of the CWA.

EPA has been in the process of developing the permit requirements in accordance with the 2009 court ruling since June 2010. The current proposal has not significantly changed from the 2010 draft version. The Proposed General Permit covers operators who apply pesticides that result in discharges from the following use patterns: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. The permit would not cover 1) non-target spray drift, or 2) discharges of pesticides to waterbodies that are impaired for that pesticide. Agricultural runoff and irrigation return flows are exempt from permitting under CWA and, thus, do not require CWA permits. The permit also does not cover, nor is permit coverage required, for pesticide applications that do not result in a point source discharge to waters of the U.S. such as terrestrial applications for the purpose of controlling pests on agricultural crops, forest floors, or range lands. To learn more about Beyond Pesticides’ concerns regarding the Pesticide General Permit, read our comments to EPA on the 2010 draft.

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

Thus, the NPDES permit is vital to protect U.S. waterways from indiscriminate pesticide contamination. The permit did not pose undue burden to farmers, foresters and ranchers as the permits are only required for a narrow range of uses, and does not affect terrestrial agricultural spraying.

TAKE ACTION:

EPA is seeking public comment on the “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative” as suggested by NMFA. The agency is particularly interested in the appropriateness of the proposed RPA for protecting jeopardized species and their critical habitat, issues that would be associated with implementing the RPA, and on possible alternatives to the RPA that would also avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the likely existence of threatened or endangered species or the destruction of adverse modification of critical habitat.

Center for Biological Diversity has an action alert with a form letter that can be sent, or comments may be submitted through regulations.gov, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257, or by email to [email protected]. Comments must be received by July 25, 2011.

The research team, a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ad Arizona State University, set out to determine whether in utero exposure to chlordane or permethrin is associated with changes in levels of cytokines at birth. A previous study by the team showed that exposure to these two pesticide compounds was ubiquitous among newborns. In the current study, researchers measured serum levels of nine cytokines and recorded birth weight, length, head circumference, and gestational age. They then collected umbilical cord serum from 300 newborns at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, and measured concentrations of cis- and trans-permethrin, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) at the CDC.

Permethrin, belongs to the chemical class of synthetic pyrethroid pesticices 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. Permethrinit is a potential neurdevelopmental toxicant, a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, and exposure can cause immunotoxicity, and reproductive effects.

Furthermore, permethrin is often combined with piperonyl butoxide (PBO), also knwon as a synergist, to increase its toxicity. PBO is a highly toxic substance that causes a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system. A study published earlier this year found that children with high exposure to pyrethroid insecticides and PBO have an increased chance of learning problems.

Chlordane, the other pesticide implicated in this body of research, is an organochlorine chemical classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen and is also associated with adverse neurological and gastrointestinal effects. Studies also report an association between chlordane exposure and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma. Chlordane was registered in the U.S. in 1948 and was used as a pesticide on agricultural crops and gardens until 1978 when its registered uses on food crops and other above ground uses were cancelled. In 1988, chlordane’s termicide use and all other uses were cancelled.

Though chlordane has been cancelled for a while, this bioaccumulative chemical still persists in the environment. Current research measuring pesticide residues in the home found high levels for chlordane and permethrin, suggesting that these compounds are essentially “ubiquitous in our living areas and that popular use, both past and present, has a major influence on their occurrence in homes.” Last year, researchers found detectable levels of common, nonpersistant pesticides in umbilical cord blood. These persistent residues continue to expose people, especially vulnerable children, to the health risks associated with these chemicals.

One of the researchers involved in the recent studies, Dana Boyd Barr, PhD, recently spoke at Beyond Pesticides 29th Annual National Pesticide Forum. A video of her presentation at the forum is available on our youtube channel.

USDA’s authority to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stems from provisions of the Plant Protection Act (relevant regulations can be found at 7 CFR 340) that are designed to ensure that GMOs do not present the potential for new “plant pests.” As the New York Times explains, “Since companies have created most genetically modified crops, like herbicide-resistant corn and soybean, using either genes or tools derived from microbes, USDA has long extended its powers to nearly every biotech plant developed in the country.” However, the GE bluegrass was developed using genetic material from other plants, such as corn and rice, and contains no microbes. Accordingly, APHIS stated that, “The GE bluegrass variety is not within the Agency’s regulatory authority because it does not contain plant pest sequences and no plant pest was used to create the GE Kentucky bluegrass.”

This finding is distinct from previous findings of “deregulated status” for other GE crops, such as GE alfalfa. In those cases, APHIS had used its authority to evaluate any potential plant pest risk posed by the new crop and found that the risk was minimal, meaning that the crop did not need to be regulated (though the agency is currently being challenged in court over the integrity of its evaluation process). For the GE bluegrass, no review was conducted, since APHIS does not believe it has the authority.

Aside from the likely increase in residential herbicide applications as a result of home plantings, allowance of the GE bluegrass presents the potential for increased difficulties for organic farmers and ranchers. Because of the popularity of the grass in yards, pastures, and prairies, its use is expected to be quite widespread. This will make conversion of new land to organic food production more difficult as, according to APHIS’s fact sheet on the decision, “Once established, GE Kentucky bluegrass may prevent transition to organic status unless eradicated from the acreage to be transitioned.” Additional concerns stem partly from the fact that a separate variety of GE grass, which USDA is still considering, escaped from a Scotts test plot in Oregon in 2007. The company was fined $500,000 as a result.

In a letter accompanying the GE bluegrass decision, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack urged the Scotts Company to “work closely with a broad range of stakeholders” to “develop appropriate and effective stewardship measures to minimize commingling and gene flow between GE and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass,” reflecting the Secretary’s continuing belief and insistence on coexistence between GE, non-GE, and organic farmers.

Responding to questions about whether this decision sets a precedent for future unregulated approval of GMOs, USDA indicates that the decision does not represent a shift in policy and that it will make decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, the agency added that, “If a GE organism is not a plant pest, is not made using plant pests, and APHIS has no reason to believe that it is a plant pest, then the GE organism would not fall under APHIS regulatory authority.”

Glyphosate is a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, 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.

Herbicide applications to control weeds on residential lawns and playing fields are dangerous and unnecessary. A healthy lawn will be free of pests and will create a safe area for outdoor recreation. For more information see our fact sheet on why children and pesticides don’t mix as well our guide on how to “Read Your Weeds” to create a healthy lawn. More resources can be found on our Lawns and Landscapes page.

Beyond Pesticides believes that whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of an herbicide-resistant crop, the GE approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. There are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GE crops. Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products that contain GE ingredients, seek to educate on the public health and environmental consequences of this technology and generate support for sound ecologically-based management systems.

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

This will have immediate implications for consumers, according to Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Consumers International’s lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. He stated: “We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring. This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labeled – so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction.”

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is comprised of over 100 agencies that monitor food safety around the world. It was created in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.

According to the Non GMO Project, Codex guidance on the topic of labeling GMO food began in 1991 and was met with a tremendous amount of resistance from the US. In 1995, the Codex executive committee stated that, “The claimed right to know was ill-defined and variable and in this respect could not be used by codex as the primary basis of decision making on appropriate labeling.”

Currently, there are no regulations requiring GM foods to be labeled as such and the best way for consumers to avoid GM foods is to choose organic products. Beyond Pesticides has long pushed for stronger regulations reflecting a precautionary approach toward GM food technologies. Several challenges are currently being litigated against federal regulators regarding lax regulatory review of GM products and their potential for contamination of the natural environment as well as traditionally-bred cultivated species.

Though genetic engineering is often touted by chemical manufacturers as a way to reduce pesticide usage and increase disease resistance, so far it has been shown to increase pesticide usage, while disease resistant varieties are still largely in the experimental stages. Most GM crops currently on the market are genetically modified to be resistant to pests and pesticides through the incorporation of genes into food crops from a natural bacterium insecticide (Bt) or the development of herbicide-resistant crops. Thus, there are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GM food.

Dinotefuran is already approved by EPA for use on other crops, such as grapes, cotton, and some vegetables. The emergency approval relates to the pesticide’s use on orchard crops such as apples, pears, peaches, and nectarines, for which it has not previously been allowed. Growers of those crops will now be able to apply dinotefuran from the ground twice per season. The agency will allow a total of 29,000 orchard acres to be treated, which does not include applications to the previously approved crops.

Under a controversial stipulation known as a Section 18 exemption in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the federal law governing pesticides, EPA can grant temporary approval for the unregistered use of a pesticide if it determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” In this case, the agency apparently felt that the pest was a sufficient enough risk to agriculture in the seven states that it merited the emergency approval. The Section 18 emergency exemption loophole has been used in the past to skirt pesticide regulations meant to ensure health and safety and has resulted in the widespread application of unreviewed, and often unnecessary, hazardous substances.

Neonicotinoids, including dinotefuran, are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which pollinators such as bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides began to take over the seed treatment market. Clothianidin and imidacloprid are two of the most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in honey bee colony collapse disorder.

The brown marmorated stink bug, not to be confused with other kinds of common stink bugs, is a non-native species thought to have been accidentally introduced to North America from Asia in the 1990s. The pests were first identified in Allentown, PA and have since spread rapidly throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Because they are not native to this continent, they have no natural predators or ecological checks on population here, allowing their numbers to skyrocket.

Although they can be found in the home, marmorated stink bugs are primarily a cause for concern among farmers, who have seen the pests decimate crops in recent years. The bugs land on fruit and inject a straw-like device to suck out the juice or simply feed on the skin or flesh of the fruit. As a result of the bugs’ feeding, the fruits end up with holes, scars, or necrotic, rotted spots, leading to farmers being unable to sell the damaged produce. It is estimated that the pest caused $37 million of damage for apple growers in the state of Virginia last year. Previous attempts at controlling the pests through chemical means have proven almost entirely ineffective. It is unclear whether dinotefuran will have a markedly different result or not.

Despite urging from states and farmers in the mid-Atlantic region to approve the pesticide, recent research has increasingly shown that there are alternatives to temporary solutions like chemical controls. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been conducting research on controlling brown marmorated stink bugs by introducing a natural predator from its native Asia. Tiny trissolcus wasps lay their eggs only in eggs of the brown marmorated stink bug. When the wasp eggs hatch, they feed on the stink bug eggs as they grow and will eventually emerge from the shell in place of the stink bug.

Additionally research has shown that, for row crops, floating row covers can be an effective prevention measure against the bugs. There is also ongoing research on the effectiveness of pheromones and bait traps to combat them. Michigan State University has been conducting research on organic management options for brown marmorated stink bugs. Their findings suggest that products such as kaolin clay can effectively prevent the insects from feeding on fruit.

In announcing the Section 18 exemption for dinotefuran, EPA also stated that it had reviewed and approved a new product for stink bug control containing ingredients which have been approved for organic farmers. Specifically, the control measures contain azadirachtin, or neem oil, and pyrethrins, both natural products and thus, allowable for use under USDA National Organic Standards.

No pesticide should ever be necessary for home control of stink bugs. They do not carry disease and do not bite or sting. You will find them indoors most often in cooler times of the year as they seek shelter from cold temperatures. The Secretary of Agriculture for the state of Maryland, Buddy Hance, has strongly cautioned against the use of any chemicals in indoor stink bug control: “Spraying stink bugs with chemicals won’t eliminate them, and the potential damage to human health is far greater than anything stink bugs can do to you.” The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) has also stated, “We do not recommend insecticides for controlling brown marmorated stink bugs because:

ӢMost are ineffective
ӢSome are broad-spectrum and will kill beneficial insects like honeybees and predators that eat pest insects.
ӢUse of broad-spectrum insecticides can lead to secondary pest outbreaks such as spider mites.
”¢They pose human and environmental health risks.”

If you do come across a stink bug in your home, MDA recommends the following measures:

ӢSeal up all external holes and cracks where stink bugs may enter;
ӢClose your window shades at night since stink bugs (and other insects) are attracted to light.
ӢPhysically trap and kill the stinks bugs with insecticidal soap [or simply a cup of soapy water].
ӢOnce the insect is indoors, residents can vacuum them up and place in an outdoor trash receptacle. It should be noted that if many of them are squashed or pulled into a vacuum cleaner, their odor can be quite strong.

The issue began for Nicole Baumann, one of the concerned parents who started the petition, when she heard other parents describe an incident when TruGreen sprayed the herbicide 2,4-D on school grounds while kids were playing soccer and parents were standing outside waiting to pick up their children. School officials say they do not know what happened that day; however Trena Deane, executive director of facilities management for Denver Public Schools (DPS) told Education News Colorado that they have no reason to believe TruGreen was misapplying them, and that the chemicals are typically not toxic unless they are used inappropriately.

“These kids are rolling around in the grass,” Ms. Baumann told Change.org. “Our kids’ immune systems are not really developed yet. They’re susceptible. Why would we knowingly apply this where our kids are playing in the grass when we know there are other options out there that are safe?”

School is a place where children need a healthy body and a clear head in order to learn. Numerous scientific studies find that pesticides typically used in schools are linked to chronic health effects such as cancer, asthma, neurological and immune system diseases, reproductive problems, and developmental and learning disabilities. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in schools has proven to be an effective and economical method of pest management that can prevent pest problems and eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides in school buildings and on school grounds.

2,4-D has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, kidney and liver damage, is neurotoxic and toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2,4-D than those who don’t; dogs whose owners use 2,4-D on their lawns are more likely to develop canine malignant lymphoma than those whose owners do not. Despite the known health and environmental effects of 2,4-D, it is the top selling herbicide for non-agricultural use, such as lawns, in the United States. It is also the fifth most commonly used herbicide in the agricultural sector and total annual usage in the U.S. tops 40 million pounds.

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 when a pesticide is applied according to label directions. Pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system and have been shown to cause or exacerbate asthma symptoms. Studies show that children living in households where pesticides are used suffer elevated rates of leukemia, brain cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. Because most of the symptoms of pesticide exposure, from respiratory distress to difficulty in concentration, are common in school children and may also have other causes, pesticide-related illnesses often go unrecognized and unreported.

Many communities across the country have taken a stand against the use of toxic pesticides on their lawns and landscapes. Last year, the state of New York passed the Child Safe Playing Fields Act (A 7937-C) prohibiting the use of toxic pesticides on school and daycare center playgrounds, turf, athletic and playing fields. Recently, a bill to prohibit the use of most lawn pesticides on public and private playgrounds, recreation fields and daycare centers in New Jersey, The Child Safe Playing Field Act has passed the Senate Budget Committee and is awaiting posting in the Senate. This bill will support the over 30 communities in New Jersey that have made their parks pesticide-free zones and have adopted an IPM program for managing town property by passing a resolution adopting a pesticide reduction policy. Connecticut and Illinois have also moved forward to reduce children’s exposures to lawn pesticides.

“This is not an easy task for an overnight fix,” said Ms. Bauman to EdNews. “But a lot of places have eliminated pesticide use. We’d like to offer our support in making this happen.”

Take Action (Locally-Denver Region): Read and Sign the Petition by the Edison Elementary Green Team to stop the use of pesticides with harmful chemicals at Denver Public Schools.

The cosmetic and personal care product industry is self-regulated. But the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 will, according to U.S. Representative Ed Markey, a lead sponsor on the bill, “close a gaping hole in the federal law that allows potentially toxic chemicals to remain in the cosmetics products consumers use every day. Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin offered the “Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011,” which would require companies to put all of a product’s ingredients on its label. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct random annual tests of products for harmful substances and would force FDA to produce a list of ingredients that are prohibited from being used in cosmetics. It would also mandate that cosmetics companies report any cases of adverse health effects associated with a product.

The key points in the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011:
Ӣ Phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm;
Ӣ Creation of a health-based, risk assessment, safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations;
Ӣ Elimination of labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company websites, including salon products and the constituent ingredients of fragrance;
Ӣ Worker access to information about unsafe chemicals in personal care products;
Ӣ Required data-sharing to avoid duplicate testing and encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing; and
Ӣ Adequate funding to the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors so it has the resources it needs to provide effective oversight of the cosmetics industry.

While Beyond Pesticides generally supports legislation that removes hazardous chemicals from the market like the Safe Cosmetics Act, the organization, in addition, advances public policies that require alternatives assessments that remove synthetic chemicals from the market. Alternatives assessments typically show that many of the chemicals that meet risks assessment standards are allowed in commerce with “acceptable” hazards or uncertainties related to chemical interactions, depsite the availability of less toxic or green technologies.

The cosmetics industry uses approximately 12,500 unique chemicals in cosmetic products. The majority of those chemicals have never been tested for adverse health effects.

“The growing number of reports of serious health problems arising from the use of dangerous chemicals in personal care products show a need to update our laws and protect men, women, and children from harmful exposure,” Rep. Schakowsky said in a statement. “Currently, manufacturers are not required to disclose all their ingredients on labels and the FDA has no power to supervise the use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.”

The bill has been updated since 2010 to make it more manageable for smaller companies to comply with its regulations which is extremely important considering many small businesses are the ones spearheading the push for safer cosmetics in their products. The bill will have its first hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where it’s three lead sponsors, Representative Ed Markey, Representative Jan Schakowsky, and Representative Tammy Baldwin, are committee members.

Having full ingredient disclosure on consumer products have received push back from industry, which claims revealing such information would be a breach of confidential business information. Recent attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose “inert” ingredient on pesticide products have stalled due to industry pressure. Ingredients like triclosan, the controversial antibacterial pesticides found in many consumer products from toothpastes to toys is under scrutiny due to its association with thyroid impacts and other endocrine disrupting effects. Beyond Pesticides and others have petitioned both FDA and EPA to remove this harmful chemical form cosmetics and other consumer products. For more on triclosan in your favorite products, visit the Triclosan Program page. Sign the pledge today to go triclosan-free.

Support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 here.

“Fewer than 5 percent of Parkinson’s cases are attributed to genetics, but more than 95 percent of cases have unknown causes,” said Zezong Gu, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology and anatomical sciences. “This study provides the evidence that oxidative stress, possibly due to sustained exposure to environmental toxins, may serve as a primary cause of Parkinson’s. This helps us begin to unveil why many people, such as farmers exposed to pesticides, have an increased incidence of the disease.”

Scientists previously understood that Parkinson’s is associated with oxidative stress, which is when electronically unstable atoms or molecules damage cells. The MU study yields more specific information about how oxidative stress causes parkin, a protein responsible for regulating other proteins, to malfunction.

Dr. Gu and his Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute colleagues invented a new antibody that allowed them to detect how oxidative stress affected proteins when exposed to a variety of environmental toxins, such as the pesticide rotenone. They then specifically demonstrated how oxidative stress caused parkin proteins to cluster together and malfunction, rather than performing normally by cleaning up damaged proteins.

“This whole process progresses into Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Gu said. “We illustrated the molecular events that lead to the more common form of the disorder in the vast majority of cases with unknown causes. Knowing this, we can find ways to correct, prevent and reduce the incidence of this disease.”

Researchers used mass spectrometry to analyze findings. They measured parkin fragments, pinpointed whether the proteins were modified and where that modification occurred. This enabled them to map the location of parkin oxidation and further compare these events with genetic mutations in patients with Parkinson’s disease reported in the literature. Their findings demonstrated that parkin protein oxidation in certain locations corresponds with the location of mutations. They then sought to determine the outcome of the modification — finding their results to be consistent in multiple disease models, including cell cultures and tissue samples from rodents, monkeys and human postmortem Parkinson’s patients.

The second most common neurodegenerative disease, Parkinson’s disease occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region of the brain are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nerve-signaling molecule that helps control muscle movement. People with Parkinson’s have a variety of symptoms including loss of muscle control, trembling and lack of coordination. They may also experience anxiety, constipation, dementia, depression, urinary difficulties, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify. At least one million Americans have Parkinson’s and about 50,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. With less than one percent of cases caused by genetics, researchers have been looking for the potential risk factors for developing Parkinson’s disease.

For more information on the link between pesticides and common diseases and disorders, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada, is intended to pave the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

Herbicide resistance is the most common genetically modified trait in commercial agriculture. Crops are modified to be able to withstand extremely high doses of glyphosate (Roundup Ready) and gluphosinate (LibertyLink). Current herbicide resistant crops include soy, maize (corn), canola, sugar beet, cotton, with and alfalfa. As of 2005, 87% of U.S. soybean fields were planted with glyphosate resistant varieties.

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

Beyond Pesticides is a plaintiff in a lawsuit that seeks to halt the planting of GE Roundup Ready alfalfa. Just last week attorneys from the Center for Food Safety filed a motion in court to seek partial judgment in the case against Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack regarding his department’s recent deregulation of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. The plaintiffs, including the Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, and several seed and farming organizations, filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the claim in the lawsuit regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The suit claims that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is required by the ESA to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in decisions regarding regulation of GE products in order to determine any potential impact on endangered species or their habitats. Since APHIS did not consult with FWS prior to its decision to deregulate GE alfalfa, the plaintiffs hold that the decision is invalid until an evaluation is conducted by FWS.

Another common type of genetically engineering involves modifying crops to produce a protein of the insecticide Bt. Bt is a naturally occurring soil bacterium. GE crops threaten the long-term efficacy of Bt, which is an approved insecticide in organic farming.

Beyond Pesticides believes that whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide-resistant crop, the GE approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. There are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GE crops. Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products that contain GE ingredients, seek to educate on the public health and environmental consequences of this technology and generate support for sound ecological-based management systems.

Out of eight committee members who voted, the only ones to oppose the bill were Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who was not present at the markup, but issued a recorded vote. Without press or notice, the bill was marked up private business meetings, and is being heralded by the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), which states that “The NPDES permitting system jeopardizes the farm economy without providing any real protection to water quality.”

However, the purpose of the NPDES permits is, as the name suggests, to reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment through requiring polluters to obtain permits. This allows for oversight of the proposed discharge, including evaluation of the potential risks it might present to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Because the discharges are weighed against standards that don’t protect all species, are implemented with limited monitoring, and don’t consider need, even approved permits often present the potential for damage to ecosystems in affected areas. However, NPDES permits do allow for local citizen input through allowing the public to comment on the proposed pesticide application in the context of the CWA goal of “restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation’s waters,” and thus provide the opportunity for increased oversight and accountability in a goal-oriented framework.

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

“This bill threatens public health and wildlife,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, “and sets a terrible precedent of opening tractor-sized loopholes in the Clean Water Act. It’s just baffling that the Committee voted without public debate to exempt the worst poisons from the Clean Water Act at a time when they are causing such damage to our nation’s waterways.”

According to National Wildlife Federation, more than 1,000 waterways in the United States are impaired because of pesticide pollution, and these toxic chemicals are a threat to people and wildlife. Pesticides discharged in our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams can harm or kill fish and amphibians. These toxins also accumulate in the fish that we eat and contaminate our drinking water. By prohibiting the EPA or states from requiring a permit under the NPDES for the discharge of pesticides, this bill will create a dangerous vacuum in protecting wildlife, human health and natural systems.

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

Thus, the NPDES permit is vital to protect U.S. waterways from indiscriminate pesticide contamination. The permit did not pose undue burden to farmers, foresters and ranchers as the permits are only required for a narrow range of uses, and does not affect terrestrial agricultural spraying.

For more background information, please see our previous coverage of this bill in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News entry from March 11, 2011, and read the testimony of Charlie Tebbutt, the lead council of National Cotton Council v. EPA to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Take Action!

Triangle Lake area residents and a group of activists called the Pitchfork Rebellion have been complaining for more than seven years about the possibility that herbicides being aerially sprayed on nearby private forests may be drifting onto their land. The group in the past has asked the state to investigate their concerns, staging rallies and protests, and attending meetings of government agencies, including the pesticide response board and the Oregon Board of Forestry. At an April 2011 meeting of the forestry board, when the group presented proof of chemical exposure, the state agreed to take a closer look. The board regulates logging and related practices on private timberlands in Oregon.

At that meeting, Dana Barr, PhD, a research professor at Emory University’s Environmental and Occupational Health Department, told board members that she had found atrazine and 2,4-D ””powerful herbicides”” in the urine of all 21 residents who submitted samples to her lab. The samples were taken by a doctor, who forwarded them to the research lab. Dr. Barr suggested that the next step should be conducting a follow-up study. Since the April meeting, another 13 area residents have been tested for exposure and all of them showed traces of the same two herbicides. Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber has taken an interest in the issue and has directed health officials who are part of the state’s Pesticide Analytical Response Center to take the lead in the study.

State officials have not yet said how they will do the study, but they expect a yearlong effort to examine the risk of exposure of area residents. According to state records of pesticide use, atrazine and 2,4-D, were among the most common herbicides applied in Oregon 2008, the last year the state funded its reporting program. On the list of the 100 most used pesticides, 2,4-D ranked seventh and atrazine 18th.

There have been periodic disputes for years over the use of toxic herbicide sprays on private forestlands in Oregon, with the Pitchfork Rebellion emerging as perhaps the most persistent critic of the spraying. Private forest landowners have said they need herbicides to ensure quick regrowth of Douglas fir and other tree crops on lands that have been logged.

While herbicide label guidelines urge users to minimize pesticide drift, a seemingly impossible task, there are no state regulations requiring buffers near property boundaries between forested and nonforested lands. The state does have such pesticide buffer zones along fish-bearing streams, however. The Department of Forestry requires private landowners to give the state advance notice when they plan to spray, but the state does not track which chemicals actually are sprayed. Timberland owners keep those records themselves. The state requires them to make the information available upon demand.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and state agency partners finds that agricultural workers and residents in regions where pesticides are routinely sprayed have the highest rate of pesticide poisoning from drift exposure. Pesticide spray drift is typically the result of small spray droplets being carried off-site by air movement. The main weather factors that cause drift are wind, humidity and temperature changes. Aside from poisoning people and animals, drift can injure foliage, shoots, flowers and fruits resulting in reduced yields, economic loss and illegal residues on exposed crops.

Recently, measures by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to monitor where and how much pesticides are sprayed near waterways from forestry, mosquito and aquatic uses (pesticide drift is excluded) have been undermined by Congress and industry special interest groups. In March 2011, HR 872 passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 292-130 which is a bill amending FIFRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides to enter waterways. It would reverse a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and CWA, EPA must require such permits. In the Senate a similar bill was introduced and adopted by the Senate Agriculture Committee on June 21, 2011, S.718 which would eliminate CWA permits, or permits mandated by any other environmental law, that are required for the application of pesticides. This bill would mean that pesticide applicators will be able to discharge pesticides into U.S. waterways without any government oversight.

The dangers associated with the use of 2,4-D and atrazine are very well known. Atrazine is a widespread contaminant in drinking water and is linked to various birth defects, endocrine disruption and cancer, even at concentrations below EPA standards. Although it has been excluded from re-registration in the European Union because it is found above allowable thresholds in groundwater, it is still one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. and around world. One study, published found that the general rate of birth defects in the U.S. population; it found that atrazine upped the risk of nine birth defects in babies born to mothers who conceived between April and July, when surface water levels of the pesticide are highest. Another study also found that atrazine triggers the release of stress hormones, leading researchers to believe that this may explain how the popular weed killer produces some of its harmful reproductive effects.

2,4-D has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, kidney and liver damage, is neurotoxic and toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2,4-D than those who don’t; dogs whose owners use 2,4-D on their lawns are more likely to develop canine malignant lymphoma than those whose owners do not. Despite the known health and environmental effects of 2,4-D, it is the top selling herbicide for non-agricultural use, such as lawns, in the United States. It is also the fifth most commonly used herbicide in the agricultural sector and total annual usage in the U.S. tops 40 million pounds.

Take Action

Tell your Senators to Oppose S. 718 Today!

Please take action today to help defeat legislation in the U.S. Senate that would remove critical legal protections from toxic pesticides sprayed into the environment. Ask your Senators to oppose S. 718, the pesticide industry’s latest move in their assault on our environmental laws. Companion legislation has passed the House and it is expected to move quickly in the Senate.

“Pesticides pose a clear and preventable danger to our health and the environment. It’s time for EPA to ensure pesticides no longer jeopardize human health, wildlife, the water we drink or the air we breathe,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Congress must do its part by stopping legislation sponsored by chemical corporations and their allies to strip important laws that safeguard future generations, farmworkers and wildlife from pesticide harms.”

The groups cite undue pesticide industry influence over EPA’s pesticide decisions under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)””as well as documented pesticide impacts such as endocrine disruption, cancers and reproductive disorders for humans and wildlife””in requesting increased protections from harmful pesticide use. Specifically, the groups urge EPA to use the “rigorous scientific review process and strong legal protections” of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

“The pesticide industry has subverted the intended protections of U.S. pesticide law under FIFRA. That law is broken. If enforced, the ESA offers strong protections for our most endangered wildlife, with human health benefits because it requires a more rigorous scientific review process less susceptible to industry influence,” said Heather Pilatic, PhD, co-director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). “Current independent science indicates that the low-level mixtures of pesticides to which we are all exposed contribute to children’s rising rates of neurodevelopmental disease and certain cancers, and impact the biodiversity that keeps our planet resilient.”

Pesticide use in the United States is regulated primarily under FIFRA, a 1947 labeling law that was last significantly updated 40 years ago and has been subject to major pesticide industry and farm-lobby influence. The ESA is a stronger statute that requires formal consultation with federal wildlife agencies to assess pesticide impacts and develop measures to avoid harm to endangered species. The EPA has completed very few of these consultations. The Clean Water Act (CWA) also regulates pesticide pollution by requiring federal permits for discharges of contaminants that enter waterways, including pesticides. A bill currently under consideration in the Senate, however, would exempt pesticides from the CWA.

In January, the Center for Biological Diversity and PANNA filed the most comprehensive legal action ever brought under the ESA to protect imperiled wildlife from pesticides. The suit seeks to compel the EPA to evaluate the impacts of hundreds of the most dangerous pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 endangered and threatened species. The process would yield common-sense restrictions on some of the most harmful pesticides and safeguard human health (including for farmworkers and their families), drinking water and wildlife.

More than a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S., and EPA has registered more than 18,000 different pesticides for use. Scientific studies show widespread and pervasive pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife habitats throughout the country. Farmers, farmworkers and their families, and rural communities face higher rates of Parkinson’s disease, many cancers, autoimmune disorders, neurodevelopmental problems and a host of other pesticide-linked diseases.

“Our regulatory system allows for the continued poisoning of farmworkers and wildlife, as well as long-term health impacts on consumers and rural families, despite the availability of alternatives,” said Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides executive director. “With organic methods proven viable in the marketplace, it’s time to ban pesticides linked to cancer, learning disabilities, neurological disorders and other devastating diseases.” Learn more about specific diseases linked to pesticide exposure in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Through pesticide drift and runoff, pesticides can travel far from the areas where they are applied and into sensitive wildlife habitats. Some contaminated waterways are regularly subjected to toxic pulses of combinations of pesticides deadly to fish and other life. Pesticides are a particular threat to endangered species, biological diversity and pollinating insects and bats.

For decades EPA has consistently failed to engage in required consultations to properly evaluate whether pesticides it registers are harmful to imperiled species. In 2004, the Center published Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered Species, detailing EPA’s dismal record in protecting endangered species from pesticides. Lawsuits by conservation groups have forced EPA to assess pesticide impacts on some endangered species, primarily in California, and resulted in temporary restrictions on pesticide use in sensitive habitats. In complying with court-ordered evaluations, EPA has concurred that nearly every pesticide at issue is “likely to adversely affect” the at-risk species.

An example of the EPA failure to protect people and the environment is the controversial re-registration of the dangerous herbicide atrazine, a widespread pollutant of groundwater and drinking water that has been banned in the European Union. Atrazine chemically castrates male frogs at extremely low concentrations. Recent research also links atrazine to birth defects and endocrine disruption in humans, as well as significant harm to wildlife.

The vote, which took place on Wednesday, allowed the measure to be amended to the original appropriations bill, which still remains under consideration by the House. The full package must still be approved by a full House vote and sent to the Senate. There has been no indication from Senators on which way the upper chamber will vote on the measure.

Whichever way the issue turns, it will be highly significant for future regulation of GE technologies. If the House’s bill is approved with the Young amendment intact, it would mark the first time that legislators have stepped in to require stronger regulations regarding a GE product. If the bill is not approved and the engineered fish is allowed to enter the marketplace, it would be the first time that a genetically altered animal was approved for human consumption. Even the preliminary approval of the amendment by the Republican-controlled chamber represents a major step by Congress, showing willingness for precaution in the face of new technologies which could have unpredictable environmental and economic consequences.

The trade name for the GE salmon is AquaAdvantage and it was developed by the Massachusetts-based biotechnology firm AquaBounty. The company has invested $50 million over 14 years to develop AquaAdvantage Fish. AquaAdvantage Salmon, unlike conventional salmon, grows year round and reaches market weight in 18 months instead of the 36 months it takes for natural salmon. The shorter life span also means that the AquaAdvantage fish would consume 25% less food over its lifetime, resulting in lower costs to producers. The variety was developed by inserting part of a gene from an Ocean Pout, an eel-like fish, into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon. The blended genetic material is then injected into the fertilized egg of a North Atlantic salmon. According to AquaBounty CEO Ronald Stotish, the engineered salmon is identical to conventional salmon in taste, color and protein. AquaBounty is also developing AquAdvantage trout and tilapia.

Many are concerned about the potential for genetically engineered animals to cross breed with wild animals, resulting in genes escaping into the wild. The use of genetically engineered crops has led to several engineered genes escaping into the wild, creating so-called superweeds. To prevent genes from escaping into wild populations, AquaBounty has said it would create sterile fish and require producers to raise salmon in inland tanks, as opposed to ocean pens where most farmed salmon are raised. However, sterilization can occasionally fail and AquaBounty may sell to producers overseas who are not bound by U.S. regulations.

Many strongly oppose genetic engineering of any foodstuff, over threats genetically modified organisms pose to human health and the environment, but the idea of a genetically engineered animal brings even greater trepidation. The main trade association of U.S. seafood producers, the National Fisheries Institute, has come out in support of genetically engineered fish. Several other aquaculture groups, however, have voiced opposition. Jorgen Christiansen of Oslo based Marine Harvest, the world’s largest farmed salmon producer, opposes the altered salmon over concerns consumers would be reluctant to buy genetically engineered fish. The International Salmon Farmers Association is also in opposition. Many consumer advocates are concerned, because there is currently no regulation that would require the genetically engineered fish to be labeled as such.

Beyond Pesticides has long pushed for stronger regulations reflecting a precautionary approach toward GE technologies. Several challenges are currently being litigated against federal regulators regarding lax regulatory review of GE products and their potential for contamination of the natural environment as well as traditionally-bred cultivated species. Congressman Young’s attempt to ensure that Alaskan fisherman do not suffer economic distress due to competition or contamination from the GE salmon mirrors a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding its recent approval of GE alfalfa charging that the agency did not take the concerns of organic farmers into account and the economic losses that could result if their crops were contaminated.

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

According to Food and Water Watch, offshore aquaculture follows an industrial agriculture model which grows thousands of animals in a confined environment. For fish, however, this confined space is in the ocean, meaning all of the waste products from the operation flow directly into the ocean. This includes excess feed and chemicals that are used, such as antibiotics and pesticides, to treat or prevent disease that occurs when fish are in confinement. Another major concern is the possibility of escaped farmed fish, which can compete with and interbreed with wild fish.

Though the Department of Commerce and NOAA are pushing these new policies as a way to “meet the growing demand for healthy seafood,” factory fish farming, as Food and Water Watch points out, is primarily focused on carnivorous fish including salmon and tuna. These carnivorous fish require a massive amount of protein, which comes from small wild fish, including anchovies, herring, mackeral and sardines in the form of processed fishmeal, fish oil and feed pellets. It can take over six pounds of wild fish feed to add one pound of weight to farmed carnivorous fish. In 2006, over 90% of the commercially caught small wild fish were consumed by the aquaculture industry, which only exacerbates over-fishing.

The domestic aquaculture industry (both freshwater and marine) currently supplies about five percent of the seafood consumed in the U.S. The cultivation of shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and mussels, comprises about two-thirds of U.S. marine aquaculture production. Salmon and shrimp aquaculture contribute about 25 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Current production takes place mainly on land, in ponds, and in states’ coastal waters.

Currently, there are no organic aquaculture standards other than the National Organic Program (NOP) standards for livestock production which must be followed for any animal or product sold with the USDA organic seal. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) however is working on guidelines for organic aquaculture. An Aquatic Animal Task Force was formed in 2000 in order evaluate both aquaculture and wild caught aquatic animal operations to assess the feasability of developing organic production and handling standards.

Organic aquaculture still has many of the same problems as conventional aquaculture. Depending on the outcome of current NOSB work, there may be fewer synthetic inputs, however fish will still be exposed to pollutants that are present in the water, will still create waste and feeding carnivorous species will still be a problem.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any other environmentally responsible options for aquaculture at this point. Even in a closed, land-based system, such as tanks and ponds which seemingly has fewer problems, there are still many similar issues we need to address. We will still need to figure out where feed for the fish will come from, what to do with the waste products, a way to prevent escape, and how to keep fish healthy in a confined system without the use of toxic chemicals.

To create their seventh edition of the Shopper’s Guide, analysts at EWG synthesized data collected from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Most samples are washed and peeled prior to being tested, so the rankings reflect the amounts of the chemicals likely present on the food when is it eaten.

Apples, celery and strawberries top this year’s “Dirty Dozen” list. Making an appearance in the guide for the first time is the herb cilantro, which had never been tested by USDA until now. The data showed 33 unapproved pesticides on 44 percent of the cilantro samples tested, which is the highest percentage of unapproved pesticides recorded since EWG started tracking the data in 1995. Onions, sweet corn and pineapple received the best ratings on the “Clean 15” list.

“It is unfair that consumers are forced to shoulder the burden of ensuring that the food they choose for their families is not contaminated with dangerous levels of pesticides, rather than the government agencies charged with this responsibility. People have a right to healthy food regardless of income,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Exposure to legal levels of pesticides has been linked to ADHD, cancer and other health effects. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should not be approving hazardous pesticides when organic alternatives exist.”

Consumers who choose five servings of fruits and vegetables a day from EWG’s Clean 15 list rather than from the Dirty Dozen can lower the volume of pesticides they consume by 92 percent, according to EWG’s calculations. They will also eat fewer types of pesticides. Picking five servings of fruits and vegetables from the 12 most-contaminated products would result in consuming an average of 14 different pesticides a day. Choosing five servings from the 15 least contaminated fruits and vegetables would result in consuming fewer than two pesticides per day.

While choosing certain fruits and vegetables will limit your personal exposure to pesticides, many of these crops are still grown with pesticides that contaminate the environment and present health hazards. Many “clean” fruits and vegetables are treated with pesticides that are known to poison farmworkers and that are linked to cancer, Parkinson’s and other chronic diseases in rural communities. Children of farmworkers are also at risk. Other fruits and vegetables may not be contaminated with pesticide residues at the point of sale because they have washed off in the fields and contaminated drinking water. Because the USDA/FDA residue data is based on washed and peeled produce, many are considered clean, simply because the contaminated skin is not eaten, as is the case with onions, corn and pineapple. Both onions and sweet corn are commonly treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, the insecticides linked to colony collapse disorder and declining honey bee health.

Conventional onions, the best rated crop on the Clean 15 list, show low pesticide residues on the finished commodity, however there are 63 pesticides with established tolerances for onions: 26, acutely toxic, create a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 60 linked to chronic health problems like cancer, eight contaminate streams or groundwater, and 54 poison wildlife. While not all the pesticides on the list are applied to every onion, there is no way to tell which pesticides are applied to any given piece of conventional produce on your store shelf. Learn more about these hazards and why choosing organic food is the right choice with Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide.

“Pesticides, while designed specifically to kill certain organisms, are also associated with a host of very serious health problems in people, including neurological deficits, ADHD, endocrine system disruption and cancer,” said Andrew Weil, MD, Founder and Director, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and a renowned medical expert on natural health and wellness. “My advice to consumers is to whenever possible avoid exposure to pesticides, including pesticide residues on food.”