According to the report, the German government has known since 1998 and the EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel has known since 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations. As recently as last year, however, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the Commission that there was no evidence of glyphosate causing birth defects. Meanwhile, these actions by industry and regualtors that have kept the public in the dark, the authors point out, has seriously endangered public health.

Considering that Monsanto, as well as other producers of genetically engineered (GE) seeds are now pushing for glyphosate-tolerant crop approval in Europe, this is particularly disconcerting. If the Commission grants the approval as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had done for GE alfalfa and sugar beets in the U.S, there will likely a stark increase in the use of glyphosate and have devastating consequences. Contrary to industry claims that the proliferation of herbicide tolerant GE crops would result in lower pesticide use rates, the data shows 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.

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

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

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

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

For more information regarding genetic engineering of agricultural crops and the recent controversy surrounding USDA’s approval of several new varieties, including GE alfalfa and GE sugar beets, see our genetic engineering program page and other Daily News blog entries.

ARS entomologist Jeffrey Pettis, PhD, who helped to conduct the survey and has been the agency’s lead researcher on CCD heading up the USDA Bee Research Laboratory, said, “The lack of increase in losses is marginally encouraging in the sense that the problem does not appear to be getting worse for honey bees and beekeepers. But continued losses of this size put tremendous pressure on the economic sustainability of commercial beekeeping.”

Dr. Pettis, quoted by Discovery News, says that, “We averaged 10 percent winter losses before parasitic mites, around 20 percent winter loss when two parasitic mites (Varroa and tracheal mites) arrived in the 1980’s, and now with CCD we are over 30 percent losses in the fall and winter.”

This latest survey, conducted by past AIA presidents Dennis vanEngelsdorp and Jerry Hayes along with Pettis, PhD, had a total of 5,572 respondents, collectively managing an estimated 15% of the country’s 2.68 million honeybee colonies. 31% of the respondents noted colony losses with the bodies of the dead bees missing from the hives — a key indicator of CCD. Beekeepers who noted an absence of dead bees also had significantly higher rates of colony loss, at 61%. Average colony loss for an individual beekeeper’s operation was 38.4 percent.

Average loss by operation represents the percentage of loss in each operation added together and divided by the number of beekeeping operations that responded to the survey. This number is affected more by small beekeeping operations, which may only have 10 or fewer colonies, so a loss of just five colonies in a 10-colony operation would represent a 50 percent loss. Total losses were calculated as all colonies reported lost in the survey divided by the total number of bee colonies reported in the survey. This number is affected more by larger operations, which might have 10,000 or more colonies, so a loss of five colonies in a 10,000-colony operation would equal only a 0.05 percent loss.

The preliminary survey analysis notes that, “This survey only reports on losses that occur during the winter and does not capture the colony losses that occur throughout the summer as queens or entire colonies fail and need to be replaced. Preliminary data from other survey efforts suggest that these ”˜summer losses’ can also be significant. Beekeepers can replace colonies lost in the summer and winter by splitting the populations of surviving colonies to establish a new hive. This process is expensive, so replacing 30% of the nation’s colonies annually is not considered sustainable over the long-term.”

Colony Collapse Disorder is the name given to the mysterious decline of honeybee populations around the world beginning around 2006. Each winter, one-third of the U.S. honeybee population has died off or disappeared (more than twice what is normal). While CCD appears to have multiple interacting causes including pathogens, a range of evidence points to sub-lethal pesticide exposures as important contributing factors. Neonicotinoids are a particularly suspect class of insecticides, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides found in honeybee hives. Key symptoms of CCD include: 1) inexplicable disappearance of the hive’s worker bees; 2) presence of the queen bee and absence of invaders; 3) presence of food stores and a capped brood.

Clothianidin and imidicloprid are members of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides, which are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which 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 is Bayer’s successor product to imidacloprid, which recently went off patent. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in CCD. Together, the two products accounted for over a billion dollars in sales for Bayer Crop Science in 2009. Imidacloprid is the company’s best-selling product and among the most widely used insecticides in the U.S. Starting in about 2004, seed companies in the U.S. began to market seeds treated with a 5-X rate of neonicotinoids (1.25mg/seed, compared with the traditional 0.25 mg/seed).

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

Beekeepers reported that, on average, they felt losses of 13% would be economically acceptable. Sixty-one percent of responding beekeepers reported having losses greater than this, reflecting the devastating economic impact of these significant losses on the commercial beekeeping industry. These losses, however, are not only significant for beekeepers and their business, but for all of us. Pollinators serve vitally important roles in agricultural ecosystems, enabling a wide range of crops to grow and provide us with food. If crops are not pollinated, they do not produce fruit and food production declines.

For more information on these issues, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators and Pesticides page, and see this fact sheet on the connection between clothianidin and CCD.

Nanoagriculture is the use of nanotechnology to boost the productivity of plants, primarily for food or fuel. The researchers, led by Jorge Gardea-Torresdey, PhD, set out to better understand whether certain plants take up and accumulate nanoparticles, and if so whether this interaction poses problems for the plants–and the animals that eat those plants. The particles also could end up in the environment, settling in the soil, especially as fertilizers, growth enhancers and other nanoagricultural products hit the market. Some plants can take-up and accumulate nanoparticles.

The scientists compiled and analyzed over 100 scientific studies into the effects of nanoparticles on edible plants (including cucumbers, rye, barley, and zucchini), and found that the uptake and buildup of nanoparticles vary widely depending on plant type as well as nanoparticle size and chemical composition, but warned that it is still unclear if these accumulations could be toxic to humans. The researchers state that very few references describe the biotransformation of nanomaterials in food crops, and the possible transmission of the nanomaterials to the next generation of plants exposed to nanomaterials is unknown. The possible biomagnification of nanomaterials up the food chain is also unknown. At the end of their analysis, the researchers are left reporting that they simply couldn’t find many answers.

Last year, 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. The board adopted the following definition:

Engineered nanomaterials: substances deliberately designed, engineered and produced by human activity to be in the nanoscale range (approx 1-300 nm) because of very specific properties or compositions (eg. shape, surface properties, or chemistry) that result only in that nanoscale. Incidental particles in the nanoscale range created during traditional food processing such as homogenization, milling, churning, and freezing, and naturally occurring particles in the nanoscale range are not intended to be included in this definition. All nanomaterials (without exception) containing capping reagents or other synthetic components are intended to be included in this definition.

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

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

Nanosilver, used as an antibacterial agent in many products, is much more toxic than regular silver and can cause damage in new ways. Concerns over nanosilver were first raised by national wastewater utilities in early 2006. A 2008 study shows that washing nanosilver socks releases substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. Copper nanoparticles could be released from the treated wood during sawing or machining, cleaning, through normal wear and tear, or from product decomposition, and then become available for potential inhalation or ingestion. Reports stated in early 2009 that over five billion board feet of wood have been treated with its “micronized” copper products, so the potential for consumer exposure to nanoscale copper particles could be quite large.

Using data from NIOSH’s Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) – Pesticides Program and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the study identifies 2,945 cases of pesticide poisoning associated with agricultural pesticide drift in 11 states. While the study focuses on top agriculture producing states, it provides only a snapshot of the poisoning of farmworkers and other rural residents nationally and around the world. Advocates also point out that pesticide poisoning is often underreported by farmworkers. According to the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation, only one percent of California pesticide illness or injury is reported.

Of the cases attributed to pesticide drift examined in this study, 47% had exposures at work and 14% were children (<15 years). Most experienced “low severity” illness. The overall incidence (in million person-years) is 114.3 for agricultural workers, 0.79 for other workers, 1.56 for non-occupational cases, and 42.2 for residents in five agriculture-intensive counties in California. Soil applications with fumigants are responsible for the largest proportion (45%) of cases. Aerial applications account for 24% of cases. Study findings show that the risk of illness resulting from drift exposure is largely borne by agricultural workers, and the incidence (114.3/million worker-years) was 145 times greater than that for all other workers. While this study focuses only on acute poisoning due to pesticide drift, an increasing number of studies are linking low level agricultural pesticide exposure to chronic health impacts. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database features dozens of studies linking common diseases, from asthma and autism to Parkinson’s disease and cancer, to pesticide drift and other agricultural exposures.

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.

Insect-eating bats play an important economic role in agriculture and timber production. A study published earlier this year in the journal Science found that the value of bats’ pest-control services to agricultural operations in the United States ranges from $3.7 billion to $53 billion per year.

“White-nose syndrome is a wildlife crisis of unprecedented proportions,” said Mollie Matteson, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, which spearheaded the letter. “Left unchecked, the loss of bats is likely to have cascading effects on both the human and natural worlds for generations to come.”

Since 2006, the newly emergent white-nose syndrome has spread across the Northeast and now is infecting and killing bats from Nova Scotia to the Midwest and South. So far, it has been found in 17 states and four Canadian provinces. States and provinces reporting either the disease itself or the presence of the disease-causing fungus are: Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec.

“Bats are friends to farmers ”” particularly organic farmers,” says Ms. Matteson. “They eat thousands of tons of insects each year, and without them growers will need to use more pesticides or risk more crop losses. American agriculture can’t afford to lose these valuable bats.”

Earlier this spring, Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) proposed an appropriation of $10.8 million in 2012 for white-nose syndrome research, coordination and management. This figure is what the Department of the Interior reports spending since 2007 on responding to the bat disease. Bat scientists and agency biologists widely agree that lack of funding has seriously hampered a swift, effective response to the disease.

Many scientists believe that white-nose syndrome is caused by a cold-loving fungus that thrives on hibernating bats. Six species, so far, have proven susceptible. Biologists fear that all two dozen or so of the hibernating bat species in North America may eventually be devastated by white-nose syndrome. Already, at least three bat species are virtually extinct in the Northeast, where the disease has been present the longest. The disease has many of the hallmarks of a novel pathogen. Researchers think it was likely introduced recently to the United States, possibly on the boots or gear of a cave visitor who inadvertently brought the fungus from Europe. Bats in Europe have been found with the fungus but do not appear to become ill.

Because one would expect bats’ immune systems would have evolved a way to deal with fungus and other pathogens entering the body during hibernation, others believe that the disease may be linked to toxic chemicals or another environmental factor, either alone or in combination with the fungus.

“Adequate funding for research is desperately needed to give scientists the best shot at finding a cure,” says Ms. Matteson. “Meanwhile, federal and state wildlife agencies need funding help also, so they aren’t shifting scarce monies away from other important wildlife issues just to barely keep up with this fast-moving epidemic.”

Other groups that signed on include Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Center for Food Safety, Local Harvest, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, Northeast Organic Farming Association””Connecticut, Northeast Organic Farming Association””Vermont, Organic Consumers Association, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, and TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange).

To learn more about bats and white-nose syndrome go to http://www.saveourbats.org.

The 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report shows that, in the states surveyed, 57 million pounds of glyphosate were applied last year on corn fields. Ten years prior, in 2000, this number was only 4.4 million pounds, and in 2005, it was still less than half of current numbers at 23 million pounds. Intense corn growing regions have experienced an even greater increase in glyphosate applications. Glyphosate use in the state of Nebraska increased by more than five times in just seven years, going from 1.25 million pounds applied in 2003 to more than seven million pounds last year.

GE proponents have often said that, even if farmers are increasingly reaching for glyphosate, this simply means that they are using less of more toxic weed killers like atrazine. However, the data tell a different story. In 2000, 54 million pounds of atrazine were applied across surveyed states. With glyphosate use increasing by more than five times between 2000 and 2005, atrazine use should have significantly declined over this period. However, the total pounds applied actually increased by more than three million, to 57.4 million total pounds applied across surveyed states in 2005. By 2010, atrazine use had just barely declined, with 51 million pounds still being applied, only slightly less than the 57 million pounds of glyphosate applied. Such widespread use of atrazine is a concern due to the chemical’s links with serious human health effects, including birth defects and disruption of the endocrine and reproductive systems. Additionally, it is a major threat to wildlife as it can harm the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic species.

The rise in glyphosate applications has almost certainly come as a result of farmers increasingly planting GE crops such as corn and soybeans, which are engineered to be resistant to the chemical. In this way, farmers can apply the chemical on a vast scale across their fields while not having to be careful that they don’t hit their crops. The most common commercial line of these GE seeds is Monsanto’s line of Roundup Ready crops, named for the company’s glyphosate formulation Roundup, though there are also several other commercially available products, such as Bayer CropScience’s GlyTol technology.

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

Coupled with the dramatic rise in glyphosate applications has been the spread of wild plant species that are resistant to the herbicide. Over-application and over-reliance by farmers on glyphosate to solve all of their weed problems has led to the proliferation of so-called “superweeds” which have evolved to survive the treatments through repeated exposure. The most common species which have evolved these traits include pigweed (palmer amaranth), mare’s tail, and ryegrass. The spread of resistance is what has led farmers to increasingly rely on more toxic alternative mixtures including weed killers like atrazine. There has also been an increased push by chemical companies to engineer seed varieties that are resistant to multiple herbicide treatments, such as glyphosate and 2,4-D, or glyphosate and acetochlor.

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

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

“Our clients don’t want a fight with Monsanto, they just want to be protected from the threat they will be contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed and then be accused of patent infringement,” said PUBPAT Executive Director Daniel B. Ravicher. “We asked Monsanto to give our clients reassurance they wouldn’t do such a thing, and in response they chose instead to reiterate the same implicit threat to organic agriculture made in the past.”

Soon after the March filing of the lawsuit, Monsanto issued a statement saying it would not assert its patents against farmers who suffer “trace” amounts of transgenic contamination. In response, and in the hope that the matter could be resolved out of court, PUBPAT attorneys wrote Monsanto’s attorneys asking the company to make its promise legally binding. Monsanto responded to PUBPAT’s request by hiring former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of WilmerHale, who rejected PUBPAT’s request and instead confirmed Monsanto may indeed make claims of patent infringement against organic farmers who become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. Copies of both letters are available as exhibits at the end of the amended complaint.

“Monsanto’s letter was an empty, indefensible, and self-evident evasion showing they are only interested in spinning propaganda without taking serious steps to resolve the problem created for organic and non-transgenic agriculture,” said one of the co-plaintiffs in the suit, Don Patterson of Virginia. “With the Monsanto letter signed by Mr. Waxman, the company rolled out their biggest legal cannon, but they fired off only fluffy wadding and smoke,” as he views it. “The letter shows Monsanto wanting to protect their freedom to threaten farmers with patent infringement suits,” he states; “Both the threats and the lawsuits are clearly important to their marketing strategy and business model.”

“Despite their empty propaganda to the contrary, they plainly do not want to give up these tactics,” Mr. Patterson asserts. “Monsanto has collected multiple millions of dollars in settlements often from family farmers without the resources to defend themselves,” he reports; “Too many have had to settle because they could not afford to fight.”

“The serious issues being engaged in this case require a constructive and socially-acceptable response from the defendant in the public interest,” adds Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of OSGATA, the lead plaintiff in the suit. “In the absence of that, we reassert the essential importance of the arguments stated in March and reinforced now by the additional evidence of the Monsanto intransigence. Monsanto’s utter failure to act reasonably to address our concerns has only reaffirmed the need for our lawsuit.”

“We don’t think we are asking too much to want assurance that if Monsanto’s transgenic genes contaminate our crops we will not be sued by Monsanto,” adds Iowa organic dairy farmer Francis Thicke, owner of plaintiff Radiance Dairy; “It is bad enough that we face the threat of contamination of our organic and non-transgenic crops. The least Monsanto can do is give us assurance that they won’t sue us for their own genetic trespass.”

The amended complaint elaborates a fear tangibly vexing many family farmers: “Monsanto continued in the statement to perversely characterize this suit as an ‘attack,’ when Plaintiffs seek no money from and no injunction against them. All Plaintiffs seek is peace of mind if they are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed, the company could never sue them for patent infringement. This is not an attack by the Plaintiffs and to characterize it that way only further evidences Monsanto’s aggressive and threatening attitude with respect to its patents. Thus, the statement made by Monsanto in response to this suit has only served to heighten Plaintiff’s fear that Monsanto will seek to enforce its patents against them should they ever be contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed.”

“It is outrageous that our entire farm, family business, and livelihood could be at risk because of Monsanto’s backward and oppressive response and enforcement towards farmers in regards to transgenic pollen drift, unasked for and unwanted-and the subsequent results in fields and farms,” says Ruth Chantry of Common Good Farm in Nebraska; “Any transgenic pollen drift that would ever come onto our farm is of great detriment to us, and as such, it is an invasion upon and a contamination of our crops, the multi-species habitat we are assisting and creating here-and to the integrity of how we are farming organically and biodynamically.”

The request for court protection through a declaratory judgment is a primary objective of the case. The suit also argues the invalidity of Monsanto’s transgenic Roundup Ready patents under both statute and case law precedent requiring patented products to demonstrate clear social utility and not be dangerous to health. Four basic contentions, ranging from the patent invalidity, through the establishment of proper requirements for a finding of patent infringement to patent unenforceability and Monsanto’s lack of entitlement to collect damages were asserted in the original complaint filed March 29, 2011. Court relief is being sought to protect organic farmers and other growers of non-transgenic crops from liability should unwanted transgenic contamination occur in their fields. The response to the PubPat letter of April 18 was received on April 28 from the Monsanto attorneys. When no binding legal covenant was provided, Ravicher states, the filing of the amended complaint was required to make the defendant’s position fully clear. “The reply from Monsanto is insufficient and unsatisfactory to protect the interests of my clients,” said Mr. Ravicher.

“If organic farmers, seed growers, and companies have no assurance that technology they have never asked for, never signed a licensing agreement to use, have no desire to be a part of, and in fact, go to great lengths to avoid, can still trespass on their farms and subject them to a lawsuit by the patent holder who seemingly escapes all liability for that trespass, then it is not only morally wrong, ethically unjust, but also legally perverse,” states Marty Mesh, Executive Director of Florida Organic Growers.

The biotech impact on the quality, safety, and nutritional integrity of food will be brought up for public and courtroom scrutiny, so that the truth can be determined between their arguments and ours, states Mr. Ravicher; “If Monsanto is proud of what they do, they should be happy for the opportunity to present the evidence in support of their ideal.” To help stimulate and promote objective debate between the differing agricultural philosophies, the new group of plaintiffs has joined the case as part of today’s filing. Included among these are groups long committed to food safety and environmental responsibility in the public interest. Some of the new plaintiffs have been prominent in other legal actions and advocacy against Monsanto’s efforts to aggressively and monopolistically assert its chemically and transgenically-dependent agricultural system.

In addition to supplementing the complaint with Monsanto’s most recent clarifying statement confirming its threat to the plaintiffs and GMO-free agriculture, the new group of 23 organizations, seed companies, farms and individual farmers includes 14 organizations: 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, Manitoba Organic Alliance, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (Wisconsin), Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Florida Organic Growers, Peace River Organic Producers Association (Alberta and British Columbia) and Union Paysanne (Quebec); two seed companies: Seed We Need (Montana), Wild Garden Seed (Oregon); and seven farms or individual farmers: 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).

These plaintiffs join the 60 plaintiffs from the original filing of the lawsuit in March including 22 organizations: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. (OCIA); OCIA Research and Education, Inc.; 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; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network (California); Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems (Montana); Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders, Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; twelve seed companies: 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); Interlake Forage Seeds, Ltd. (Manitoba); and, twenty-six farms and farmers: 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); Kirschenmann Family Farms, Inc. (North Dakota); Midheaven Farms (Minnesota); Koskan Farms (South Dakota); California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm (North Dakota); Taylor Farms, Inc. (Utah); Jardin del Alma (New Mexico); 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); and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr. (Virginia).

Beyond Pesticides is currently involved with another lawsuit concerning GE crops led by attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Earthjustice, and farm and environmental groups. The lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), argues that the agency’s recent unrestricted approval of GE alfalfa is unlawful.

More information about PUBPAT’s suit against Monsanto’s seed patents can be found at PUBPAT’s page on Monsanto Seed Patents.

Quebec began banning pesticides in 2003 and prohibits the use and sale of 20 ingredients in lawn pesticides that had been used in the province. It also restricts pesticide use outside daycares and schools. Environmentalists suspect Dow brought the suit to dissuade other provinces from following Quebec’s lead and banning the cosmetic use of pesticides like 2,4-D. Dow dropped the claim without compensation or changes to Quebec’s ban in the settlement which was reached May 25, 2011. The company had been seeking $2 million. Federal International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the agreement “confirms the right of governments to regulate the use of pesticides. This right will not be compromised by Canada’s participation in North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or any other trade agreement.”

Dow based its claim in part on a Health Canada ruling in 2008 that 2,4-D can be used safely when label directions are followed. It said the Quebec ban violated Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and launched a challenge against the federal government. Section 11 allows investors of one NAFTA country to sue the government of another NAFTA country for actions they think are hurting them or their investments. For its part, Quebec agreed to a statement that “products containing 2,4-D do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, provided that the instructions on their label are followed.”

According to Didier Bicchi, the Quebec Ministry of the Environment’s director of agriculture and pesticides, 2,4-D will continue to be prohibited in Quebec because the government has found the product to be “non-essential” as a weed killer in the province. “The Pesticide Management Code remains as is. The ingredient 2,4-D continues to be prohibited in the province. The situation for the company’s product hasn’t changed. The only difference is that it will no longer be labelled as a dangerous product,” Mr. Bicchi said in an interview.

There is a large body of scientific literature that outlines numerous risks of 2,4-D. It 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.

During the past decade, over 150 municipalities and several Canadian provinces ””Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick”” have banned the use of “cosmetic” lawn care pesticides because of health and environmental concerns. The bans have had the support of the Canadian medical community, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians. Similar legislation banning lawn pesticides is being considered in British Columbia and Manitoba.

The adoption of pesticide-free and pesticide reduction policies have been gaining momentum across the U.S. Examples include: New York State Parks; Chicago City Parks; 29 communities and townships in New Jersey; at least 17 cities in the Northwest, covering more than 50 parks; and, numerous communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as new policies and programs are continually being implemented by local and state government entities as well as schools and homeowner associations.

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management, considering that of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants.

In a study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, entitled, “Parkinson’s disease risk from ambient exposure to pesticides,” a team of researchers led by UCLA neurologist Beate Ritz, PhD found that exposures to the trio of pesticides are actually higher in workplaces located near sprayed fields than they were in residences. And the combination of exposure to all three pesticides, which act in different ways to harm brain cells involved in Parkinson’s disease, appears to be cumulative, the team led by Dr. Ritz concludes.

The study found that the combined exposure to pesticides ziram, maneb and paraquat near any workplace increased the risk of Parkinson’s disease threefold, while combined exposure to ziram and paraquat alone was associated with an 80% increase in risk. The researchers estimate exposures to the three chemicals that 703 study participants would have had between 1974 and 1999 while living and working in California’s agriculturally rich Central Valley. Of those, 362 participants already had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and the remainder had no sign of the disease. Among participants who had worked for long periods near fields in which all three chemicals were used on crops, rates of Parkinson’s disease are three times higher than among subjects whose exposure is less intensive.

In animal studies conducted as part of the research on agricultural chemicals and Parkinson’s disease, the researchers found that ziram was powerfully destructive to neurons that use the transmitter chemical dopamine to send messages. These brain cells are the ones that die off in regions of the brain that govern motor function, causing the tremors, unsteady gait and difficulty initiating movement that are the hallmarks of Parkinson’s.

“Our estimates of risk for ambient exposure in the workplaces were actually greater than for exposure at residences,” said Dr. Beate Ritz, senior author and a professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health. “And, of course, people who both live and work near these fields experience the greatest PD risk. These workplace results give us independent confirmation of our earlier work that focused only on residences, and of the damage these chemicals are doing,” adds Dr. Ritz.

In addition, Dr. Ritz notes that this is the first study finding strong evidence in humans that associates the three chemicals in combination with a greater risk of Parkinson’s than exposure to the individual chemicals alone. Because these pesticides affect different mechanisms leading to cell death, they may act together to increase the risk of developing the disorder: Those exposed to all three experienced the greatest increase in risk.

In the past year, several studies have been published that link Parkinson’s disease to a combination of environmental risk factors such as pesticide exposure and genetic susceptibility. For example, residential exposure to an agricultural application of the fungicide maneb and the herbicide paraquat significantly increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, according to a University of California, Berkeley study. A University of Texas study found a strong correlation between Parkinson’s disease patients and the use of the pesticide rotenone. In addition, Duke University and University of Miami researchers studying related individuals who share environmental and genetic backgrounds found a significant association between Parkinson’s disease and use of herbicides and insecticides, such as organochlorines and organophosphates. Farmworkers have nearly double the risk for the disease if exposed to pesticides, with a dose-effect for the number of years of exposure.

For more information read Beyond Pesticides’ report “Pesticides Trigger Parkinson’s Disease,” a review of published toxicological and epidemiological studies that link exposure to pesticides, as well as gene-pesticide interactions, to Parkinson’s disease. For additional epidemiologic studies that link pesticide exposure to adverse public health effects, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Source: LA Times

Michigan residents: Please call Senator Stabenow, thank her for delaying the legislation and ask her to oppose S. 718. Please call both your district office and Washington, DC.

Upper Peninsula Office: (906) 228-8756
Northern Michigan Office: (231) 929-1031
Flint/Saginaw Bay Office: (810) 720-4172
Southeast Michigan Office: (313) 961-4330
Mid-Michigan Office: (517) 203-1760
Western Michigan Office: (616) 975-0052
Washington, DC Office: (202) 224-4822

All other U.S. residents: Please call your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose S. 718. If you know your Senators names, contact the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. You can find your Senators here. You may also automatically email your Senators using Beyond Pesticides’ Action Alert. You are encouraged to modify the sample letter for greater impact.

S. 718 – the so-called “Bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides,” would eliminate CWA permits, or permits mandated by any other environmental law, that are required for the application of pesticides. The bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by stating, “Notwithstanding any other law, no permit shall be required for the use of a pesticide that is registered or otherwise authorized for use under this Act.” This bill would mean that pesticide applicators will be able to discharge pesticides into U.S. waterways without any government oversight. While the main aim of the law is the CWA, it could also prevent the regulation of pesticides under the Clean Air Act, which has been used to regulate ozone-depleting pesticides.

Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, introduced the bill in April. So far, it has only attracted Republican co-sponsors.

FIFRA and CWA are complementary laws. The two statutes have fundamentally different standards and methods in determining whether a pesticide will have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. The CWA statute is more stringent than FIFRA. CWA has a “zero discharge” standard, meaning any amount of discharge, no matter how small, without a permit, constitutes a violation of the CWA. FIFRA’s risk/benefit standard allows a certain amount of pollution in exchange for controversial calculations of benefit and use a threshold of harm that can vary upon EPA discretion. Since the CWA statute is more stringent in its oversight of U.S. waterways, FIFRA should not be allowed to override the CWA.

In March, HR 872 passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 292-130. The bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), seeks to amended FIFRA and CWA to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. It would reverse a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and CWA, EPA must require such permits.

“Today’s order cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food,” said Center for Food Safety (CFS) attorney George Kimbrell. “Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination.”

CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club, represented by CFS and Earthjustice, challenged the USDA approval in 2008. They 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 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 halting planting.

Monsanto and other biotech industry intervenors appealed on procedural grounds and, if granted, threatened to undo the earlier rulings. the appeals court order dismisses that appeal and affirmed the lower court’s rulings.

“Dismissal of the appeal confirms that the district court rightly concluded that in this case, as in every other case that has challenged USDA’s oversight of genetically engineered crops, the agency has flouted the law, favoring the interests of Monsanto over those of American people,” said Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff. “With every court decision the need for fundamental reform in this area becomes ever more obvious.”

Remarkably, the EIS is only the second USDA has undertaken for any GE crop in over 15 years of approving such crops for human consumption. Both analyses were court-ordered. USDA said it expects to finish the GE sugar beets EIS and have a new decision on commercialization in 2012.

Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry 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. That decision is the subject of separate litigation that is ongoing in the District of Columbia.

Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate). Growing previous 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, which has been costly to U.S. farmers.

In March, 2011, attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Beyond Pesticides, Earthjustice, and farm and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against USDA, arguing that the agency’s unrestricted approval of GE “Roundup Ready” alfalfa is unlawful. In January, 2011, USDA announced plans to fully deregulate GE alfalfa seed, despite contamination risks it poses to both organic and conventional farmers.

Glyphosate is a neurotoxin, irritant, and can cause liver, kidney and reproductive damage. It is also linked to non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. In recent news, glyphosate has been identified as a common chemical found in acute agricultural worker poisonings, and linked to intersex frogs.

Genetic engineering is often touted by chemical manufacturers as a way to reduce pesticide usage and increase disease resistance. In reality, it has actually been shown to increase pesticide usage, while disease resistant varieties are still largely in the experimental stages. Most GE 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 GE crops. For instance, in a recent study by University of Notre Dame, scientists found that streams throughout the Midwest are contaminated with GE materials from corn crop byproducts, even six months after harvest. The long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown. GE crops are also known to contaminate conventional non-GE and organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment by increasing resistant insects and weeds, contaminating water and affecting pollinators and other non-target organisms.

Methyl iodide is a highly potent carcinogen which was recently approved for use in California as a replacement for the ozone depleting chemical methyl bromide. The phase out of methyl bromide was mandated by the Clean Air Act and international treaty. Like methyl bromide before it, the use of methyl iodide has been expected to be most common on strawberry fields, though it has been approved for other crops such as the chile peppers, where it will be used to sterilize the soil to eliminate potential pathogens –but also will completely eradicate beneficial soil life such as microbes and earthworms.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) approval of methyl iodide last year came over significant opposition from public health and environmental groups, as well as DPR’s own top scientists. DPR had asked its Scientific Review Committee (SRC) to examine the chemical and make recommendations regarding its potential use. When the team described its grave concerns over the possibility of public exposure to this chemical and strongly cautioned against its use, DPR ignored their input and proceeded to give methyl iodide its approval.

John Foines, PhD, the lead scientist and chair of the SRC, is quoted as saying, “I honestly think that this chemical will cause disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee.”

Theodore Slotkin, Ph.D., another panel member and professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University, wrote, “It is my personal opinion that this decision will result in serious harm to California citizens, and most especially to children.”Foines has also noted that the strategies DPR has proposed for mitigating the risks “are not going to be adequate, because this is without question one of the most toxic chemicals on earth.”

In January of this year, a lawsuit was filed by a coalition of farmworkers and environmental health organizations challenging DPR’s approval of methyl iodide on the grounds that it violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act that protects groundwater against pesticide pollution. In addition, the suit contends that DPR violated the law requiring involvement of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in the development of farmworker safety regulations and made an unlawful finding of emergency with its request for Restricted Materials status for methyl iodide.

Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, contaminates groundwater and is so reliably carcinogenic that it is used to create cancer cells in laboratories. It is also on California’s official list of known carcinogenic chemicals and has been linked to serious risks in reproductive and neurological health.

The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and those in the surrounding communities because of the volume that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site through the air. It is approved to be applied to California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling millions of pounds of use. Though methyl iodide will likely be used primarily on strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.

The only other previous permit application for methyl iodide use in California had been rejected last month by officials in Ventura County due to the presence of a playground less than half a mile away from the proposed application site.

Despite the claims that it would not be possible to grow strawberries without methyl iodide, organic growers across the state do so successfully every year. In a February 8, 2010 hearing before the California Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, two panels of California growers and researchers discussed a number of safe and effective alternatives to methyl iodide. These methods include solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation, crop rotation, biological controls, selective breeding, soil steaming, hydroponics, and steam treatment for containerized plants. “I’ve been growing strawberries without using pesticides in California for 25 years,” said Jim Cochran, owner of Swanton Berry Farm in Davenport, California. “It’s certainly possible to grow commercially-viable and ecologically sound strawberry crops without using methyl iodide or any other chemical pesticides.”

For roughly two decades, USDA has tested various fruits and vegetables for pesticide residues, usually making its findings available to the public in January. More than four months into 2011 results for USDA’s 2010 tests have yet to be released.

Several of the nation’s top physicians and scientists wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, urging them to no longer delay the release of the most recent test results. The letter also calls on the officials to bolster the government’s research into the adverse health effects of pesticides, particularly on children. According to the letter, “Children are uniquely sensitive to harmful effects from pesticides. Yet they eat substantial quantities of certain fresh fruits and vegetables — apples, berries, peaches, for example — proven to contain multiple pesticide residues. We urge you to expand testing programs and share ample information with the public about pesticides in all produce, especially those that show up in children’s diets.”

USDA intends to release it “shortly,” according to Michael T. Jarvis, director of public affairs for the Agricultural Marketing Service within USDA. Many believe the agriculture industry has a role in the USDA’s delay of its annual report. Trade groups representing conventional produce growers urged USDA Secretary Vilsack in April to prevent “mischaracterization” of the agency’s pesticide residue data. This was one of a series of efforts by the industry to limit public access to this information. Industry has met privately with USDA officials to urge the agency to amend this year’s report to include “some context” that would “reassure” consumers about the safety of fruits and vegetables grown with pesticides. Industry has been vocal about its opposition to the use of USDA’s data which reports the amount of pesticide residue it detects from samples of fresh fruits and vegetables around the country. The data has been used by advocacy groups like Beyond Pesticides in Eating with a Conscience, and Environmental Working Group (EWG)’s ”˜Dirty Dozen,’ to educate consumers about chemical residues present on the food they eat, all from USDA’s available data.

When asked if USDA will change the report in response to concerns from the produce industry, Mr. Jarvis said, “Our role is to gather the test results on produce sold in the United States and share that information with EPA…The data and the results have not been changed.”

Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc, an epidemiologist and pediatrician at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, said federal regulation of pesticides in food needs to be tightened and the public is rightly concerned about possible health impacts from exposure through food. Dr. Landrigan noted a trio of peer-reviewed studies published last month that found children exposed in the womb to high levels of organophosphate pesticides had lower average intelligence than other children by the time they reached age seven. If exposure to pesticides is harming children, it does not matter if the levels are below the legal limit set by the government, said Dr. Landrigan, whose research in the 1990s compelled the federal government to significantly tighten pesticide standards.

Currently, pesticide labels are only required to be in English. This policy has a disproportionate impact on farmworkers, particularly pesticide applicators, who primarily speak Spanish, with little or no ability to speak or read English. As a consequence, they cannot read the pesticide labels and do not understand the pesticide use directions, the personal protective equipment (PPE) required or the instructions to avoid contamination of water bodies. The current provision, which directs Spanish-speaking workers themselves to get the label translated, is grossly inadequate. In a recent study in Washington State, farmworkers who could not read English exhibited higher rates of pesticide exposure than workers who could read English. Without the benefit of a foreign language label, these farmworkers are ill-equipped to protect themselves, others, or the environment.

The petition focuses on requiring bilingual labeling for agricultural pesticides to increase protection for Spanish-speaking pesticide applicators and farmworkers. However, the agency is requesting comment on whether to require bilingual labeling in English and Spanish for all types of pesticide products. At present, EPA allows pesticide manufacturers to add labeling in other languages, in addition to providing pesticide product labels in English. For agricultural products subject to the Worker Protection Standard, EPA requires that certain parts of the pesticide label include words or phrases in Spanish. In response to the petition, EPA is considering whether to require bilingual labeling in English and Spanish for all pesticides or for only certain types of pesticides, certain pesticide use sites, certain pesticide active ingredients, pesticides in certain toxicity categories, or certain parts of pesticide labels. The agency is requesting comment from interested parties and the public on these options.

Beyond Pesticides encourages consumers to support a pesticide-free workplace for farmworkers by supporting organic agriculture (see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience website). USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife. Because farmworkers continue to be exposed to toxic pesticides in conventional chemical-intensive farming operations and face other hardships as well, Beyond Pesticides also encourages the public to respond to this petition and support farmworker organizations.

Bilingual pesticide labeling talking points

Requiring pesticide manufacturers to label their products in English and Spanish will reduce incidents of pesticide poisoning.

— Pesticide labels communicate information critical to the prevention of adverse effects to human health and the environment. This includes warnings and precautionary statements, first aid information, personal protective equipment, and directions for safe use.

— The agricultural workforce is overwhelmingly foreign born, and the majority speak Spanish. According to the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS), 81% of farmworkers reported Spanish as their native language, and 53% of the farmworkers said they cannot speak, read, or write English. In a recent study of pesticide handlers in Washington State, only 29% reported being able to read in English but nearly all of the participants were able to read in Spanish to at least some degree. These workers therefore do not understand the pesticide use directions, the personal protective equipment (PPE) required, emergency decontamination instructions, or the instructions to avoid environmental contamination.

— Growers and pesticide applicators in Puerto Rico, where Spanish is the official language, are now using pesticide products that have labels entirely in English. The only exception is for Restricted Use Pesticides, which must have Spanish labels to be sold in Puerto Rico.

— Pesticide handlers who do not read English are more likely to be exposed than handlers who read English. Researchers found that pesticide handlers who were not able to read English had greater exposure rates than handlers who could read English at least to some degree.

— Studies have shown that Latino farmworkers are disproportionately exposed to pesticides. Between 1998 and 2005, state and federal tracking systems identified 3,281 cases of acute occupational pesticide poisonings among farmworkers. Of these cases, 727 (22%) included information on the worker’s race or ethnicity. Of these 727 cases, 502 (69%) were Hispanic.

— Current regulations place a heavy burden on both workers and employers to provide their own translation. The following statement appears buried in the labels of the two most toxic categories of pesticides: “Si Usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a Usted en detalle. [If you do not understand the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.]” 40 CFR 156.206(e)

— Farmworkers and their family members are disproportionately exposed to pesticides and suffer adverse health effects.

Costs to pesticide manufacturers would be small compared to the benefits to workers, their families, rural communities and the environment.

— Translation, printing, packaging, and other costs of complying with bilingual labeling requirements will not add significantly to manufacturing costs or prices to customers.

— Manufacturers of pesticides routinely translate their labels into Spanish as well as many other languages in order to sell them worldwide. Restricted use pesticides (RUPs) sold in Puerto Rico already have Spanish-language labels.

The Federal Register notice and petition are available in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0014 at Regulations.gov.

FWS announced April 26, 2011 that the agency is preparing a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the islands located off the coast of San Francisco, California. The aim of the project is to “protect and restore the ecosystem.” The agency is accepting public comments, suggestions and other input on or before May 27, 2011.

“These are man-made problems,” Maggie Sergio, director of advocacy for the nonprofit organization WildCare, told the San Francisco Gate. “Is the aerial dumping of tons of poison over a pristine wilderness area really the answer? We don’t think so.”

WildCare, a Marin County animal rehabilitation center that has been around for 50 years, has been working to stop the spray. The organization sent around a petition and has so far collected over 1,500 signatures.

Brodificoum is highly toxic to birds and mammals. Brodifacoum was the culprit in most of the 48,000 rodenticide poisonings of children under six in 2004 and has contributed to the deaths of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes and golden eagles. Secondary exposure to brodifacoum at the National Zoo, caused the poisoning of small body birds such as finches, thrushes, and warblers were affected. One study concluded that the use of brodificoum for rodent control poses severe risk to sea bird colonies.

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

TAKE ACTION
Sign WildCare’s petition to stop the dumping of rodenticices on the Farrallon Islands.

or;

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services that the aerial broadcast of the rodenticide Brodifacoum poses too high of a risk to the Island’s ecosystem, including non-target avian speices and crustaceans. Comments will be accepted until May 27, 2011. Send comments either via email to [email protected] with the heading, “South Farrallon Islands NEPA Scoping Comments,” or send a hard copy to:

South Farrallon Islands NEPA Scoping Comments
â„… Gerry McChsney, Farrallon NWR Manager
9500 Thornton Ave
Newark, CA 94560.

In April of this year, the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida released a report entitled “Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health.” The aim of the report was to evaluate the burden to society, in terms of health risks as well as financial cost, caused by specific disease-causing microbes found in food. Among the report’s findings, the greatest cost burden is placed on society due to contamination of food with salmonella. Compiling data from the costs of doctor’s visits, hospitalization, prescriptions, lost wages, and estimated economic value of a premature death, the researchers found that total salmonella contamination resulted in a financial burden to society of $3.3 billion.

The study measured risks to human health and impacts on people’s lives using a method called “quality adjusted life years” (QALY), which is a standard public health tool used to assess such seemingly unquantifiable concepts as pain, suffering, and disability. The cumulative total of salmonella’s QALYs, including from produce and other foods, was also higher than any other microbial pathogen. It resulted in over 1 million illnesses, 19,336 hospitalizations, and 378 deaths in 2009. For salmonella specifically in poultry, the cost was $712 million, resulting in 221,000 illnesses, 4,000 hospitalizations, and 81 deaths.

In November, the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety released a study that documents the comparative rates of salmonella contamination in both feces and feed at organic and conventional broiler poultry farms in North Carolina. There were three organic and four conventional farms included in the study, all owned by the same company. The researchers found that, in examining fecal samples, 38.8% of those from conventional farms contained salmonella, compared with only 5.6% from organic farms. For feed, the results were similar: 27.5% of feed on the conventional farms had salmonella, while only 5% of organic feed was contaminated.

The study also examined the prevalence of salmonella that are resistant to antibiotic treatment and compared the results of organic versus conventional. Alarmingly, the results show that resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin is 36.2% at conventional farms, compared to 25% at organic. Perhaps even more significant, multidrug resistance to six different antibiotic treatments (ampicillin, streptomycin, amoxicillin, cephalothin, ceftiofor, and cefoxitin) is at 39.7% on the conventional farms, whereas none of the organic birds show resistance to this combined treatment.

Antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance is a serious public health issue, since it can lead to infections that are difficult or impossible to treat. When they are used in small doses, such as in livestock feed or antimicrobial hand soaps containing triclosan, the drugs kill a small amount of the microbial population, but the ones that survive evolve immunity to the treatment and pass this on to future generations. These resistant populations can then grow and eventually come in contact with humans, putting the general public at risk of untreatable infection.

It is clear from the results of these studies that there is significant public health benefit, in terms of both quality of life as well as financial burden, in raising livestock in an organic system rather than a conventional system. Both society and the individual benefit from reduced rates of illness and reduced pressure on the health care system.

To learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticide’s organic program page.