Entitled, “Brain anomalies in children exposed prenatally to a common organophosphate pesticide,” the study investigated associations between chlorpyrifos exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 New York City children. It found significant associations of prenatal exposure, at standard use levels, with structural changes in the developing human brain, including enlargement of superior temporal, posterior middle temporal, and enlarged superior frontal gyrus, gyrus rectus, cuneus, and precuneus along the mesial wall of the right hemisphere. These areas of the brain impacted are related to attention, language, reward systems, emotions and control may be affected by the chemical.

Twenty high-exposure children (upper third of chlorpyrifos concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children. The children, ages 6-11 years, considered to have a high exposure to the chemical, have levels that are much lower than doses shown to cause no effect in laboratory animals. The study also shows that high-exposure children did not have expected sex differences in their brains, which may reflect future impacts on their hormones and behavior.

The study is the first to use imaging scans to show that prenatal exposure to the chemical is linked to structural changes in the brain five to 10 years after exposure, said Virginia Rauh, PhD, the lead author. While the chemical’s use was banned in residential areas 12 years ago, many women are exposed to moderate levels in agricultural settings and through food residue. Dr. Rauh believes studies are needed to look at what effect the chemical has on the children as they grow.

“Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is risky for pregnant women and should be avoided,” said Dr. Rauh, a professor of clinical population and family health at Columbia University in New York. “Mother breathes or ingests the chlorpyrifos, which then enters her blood stream. The chemical crosses the placenta and enters the infants’ blood stream.”

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that has been linked to a host of neurodevelopmental problems, especially in children. This is important to study since roughly one in six children in the U.S. has one or more developmental disabilities, ranging from a learning disability to a serious behavioral or emotional disorder. Emerging science demonstrate that the amount of toxic chemicals in the environment that causes developmental and neurological damage and contributes to the rise of physical and mental effects being found in children. Organophosphates, like chlorpyrifos, are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission –acetylcholine esterase (AchE)– inactivating the enzyme. High concentrations of organophosphates have been found in the bodies of pregnant women and children.

Previous studies have shown that exposure to some organophosphate compounds cause hyperactivity and cognitive deficits in animals. A study published in Pediatrics found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Researchers discovered that for children with a 10-fold increase in the concentration of the most common phosphate metabolites measured in their urine, the odds of ADHD increases by more than half compared to those without detectable levels. A recent study found that exposure of pregnant women to organophosphate pesticides may affect both length of pregnancy and birth weight. Women with higher levels of organophosphates were found to have pregnancies that were 3 to 4 days shorter and babies that were about â…“ pound lighter on average than women with lower levels of pesticides.

Chlorpyrifos, like many organophosphates, have had their household uses cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children. However, agricultural uses remain on the market. In 2010 Beyond Pesticides and over 13,000 other organizations sent a letter to the EPA, calling for a ban on chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Chlorpyrifos was phased out for residential use under a 2000 agreement between EPA and Dow Agrosciences but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture. EPA’s decision in 2000 and subsequent action removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses but retains all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf course and public health mosquito spraying. The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but ignored the special risks to farmworkers’ children, as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable.

In order to reduce exposure to these chemicals, Beyond Pesticides recommends that expectant mothers choose organic foods. Families should also stop using pesticides in and around the home and to be vigilant about the cosmetic ingredients they use. For more information on what you can do, see Beyond Pesticides’ materials for new parents with tips on food choices and safer pest management, specifically designed for new moms and dads.

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

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

“This report sends a strong message that doing what’s good for the environment and what’s good for industry economics are not mutually exclusive,” said U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA). “The organic food processing industry is creating jobs, stimulating our economy, and delivering the products that consumers increasingly demand. This report is only the latest testament on why supporting organic is a no-brainer.”

The report shows that for every $1 billion in retail sales of organic products, 21,000 more jobs were created throughout the economy. In addition, the use of organically produced ingredients resulted in the creation of 21 percent more jobs than would have been generated if the food industry had relied solely on conventional farms for its ingredients. The study compared labor and input use on a wide range of conventional and organic farms, and attributed the job-creation differences largely to greater labor intensity on organic farms, smaller farm size, the need for an organic certification industry, and reliance on smaller retail outlets.

Of course, most people choose organic because of its health and environmental benefits. Organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality. In order to understand the importance of eating organic food from the perspective of toxic pesticide contamination, we need to look at the whole picture ””from the farmworkers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture.

Aside from contamination issues, conventional agricultural practices have contributed to climate change through heavy use of fossil fuels ””both directly on the farm and in the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers”” and through degradation of the soil, which releases carbon. The depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) through conventional farming has not only released carbon into the atmosphere, it has also limited the fertility and water holding capacity of soils worldwide. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce petroleum dependency and provide carbon sequestration in the soil.

EPA identified multiple FIFRA labeling violations after analyzing a sample of the product, which it collected on May 26, 2011. FIFRA requires a pesticide labeled as an antimicrobial pesticide to “disinfect, sanitize, reduce or mitigate growth or development of microbiological organisms.” When laboratory analysis established that “ZEP Formula 165” used in accordance with the label instructions was not effective against Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, the false label claim constituted a FIFRA violation. EPA cited the manufacturer for a second violation after determining that the sample it collected contained an amount of the active ingredient Para-tertiary-amyl phenyl that exceeded the upper certified limit that was established for that ingredient in the registration for that specific pesticide formulation.

The SSURO prohibits all further sale of “ZEP Formula 165” under the manufacturer’s control or custody. The manufacturer is also required to notify EPA of the location and amount of product that it distributed during the past year. Furthermore, EPA recommended that the manufacturer take immediate steps to remove the pesticide from market by initiating a voluntary recall of all product shipped within the U.S. in the last year.

Through ATP, EPA is requires testing of antimicrobial products, including hospital disinfectants and tuberculocides, to ensure that they meet health standards and that the claims on the product labels are accurate. However, a 2011 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that ATP was largely inadequate for testing products to ensure safety and efficacy, and also failed to remove products that did not meet program standards. The report noted that although testing began in 1991, more than 40% of antimicrobials (or 277 of 656) on the market have yet to be tested. OIG concluded that, “EPA does not have a strategy for informing hospitals and other likely end-users of failed test results or when enforcement actions are taken” and that, “EPA’s implementation of the ATP has not delivered on its mission.”

A surprisingly high number of products that were eventually tested by ATP failed to meet EPA standards and were found to require regulatory action. Since 2004, an average of one-third of products tested in a year failed. However, according to the OIG report, “EPA does not have a strategy for informing hospitals and other likely end-users of failed test results or when enforcement actions are taken.” It simply relies on posting a notice to the ATP website. This means that ineffective products that can potentially be of risk to public health often remain in use by hospitals and health professionals.

The OIG report is especially of concern because some antimicrobials, such as triclosan, are known to cause dangerous public health and environmental hazards. Triclosan is one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in products ranging from soaps and toothpastes to fabrics and toys. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban) to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial, endocrine disruption, and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Nanomaterials have been formulated in consumer products for years without any regulatory oversight. Hundreds of products have been identified as containing nanomaterials, including toys, sunscreens, food packaging, and clothing. In 2009, developers generated $1 billion from the sale of nanomaterials, and the market for products that rely on these materials is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2015. Now FDA is recommending that industry consult with the agency on the safety of their products before marketing. The two draft guidance documents, “Guidance for Industry: Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, including Emerging Technologies, on the Safety and Regulatory Status of Food Ingredients and Food Contact Substances, Including Food Ingredients that are Color Additives” and “Guidance for Industry: Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products,” state that such consultations can help agency experts address questions related to the safety or other attributes of nanotechnology products, or answer questions about their regulatory status.

FDA advised companies that use nanomaterials in food additives or food packaging to consult with the agency and show that changes in manufacturing are safe before selling their products. Usually, manufacturers of most U.S. food additives and ingredients tell the FDA that their ingredients are “generally recognized as safe” in order to legally sell them. FDA now believes nanotechnology does not automatically fall into this category, meaning companies would have to provide additional safety data before approval. For cosmetics, companies should do additional testing of products that use nanotechnology to enhance their products.

“The consequences (to consumers and to the food industry) of broadly distributing a food substance that is later recognized to present a safety concern have the potential to be significant,” the draft guide says. However, these guidelines are just voluntary and may not go far enough in assessing and regulating nanomaterials in consumer products. Currently, cosmetics are not strongly regulated by FDA and cosmetic companies are not required to submit safety data before selling their products. Conversely, the European Union requires companies to prove a product with nanomaterial is safe before it can be sold to consumers. But according to the agency, it is investing in an FDA-wide nanotechnology regulatory science program to further enhance FDA’s scientific capabilities, including developing necessary data and tools to identify properties of nanomaterials and assess the impact they may have on products.

“Understanding nanotechnology remains a top FDA priority. FDA is strengthening the scientific tools and methods for evaluating food products, cosmetics, drugs and medical devices,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. She continued, “We are taking a prudent scientific approach to assess each product on its own merits and to not make broad, general assumptions about the safety of nanotechnology products.”

Nanotechnology, the science involving manipulation of materials on an atomic or molecular scale, is an emerging technology with a broad range of potential applications, such as increasing bioavailability of a drug, improving food packaging, and in cosmetics. There are hundreds of products currently on the market that contain nanomaterials of various types and functions, the most popular application being the use of nanosilver as an antibacterial substance in many consumer products. Given this, the federal government at this point is playing a game of ”˜catch-up.’ The National Research Council (NRC) released a report earlier this year finding that insufficient understanding remains about the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials.

Nanomaterials Affect Plant Growth and DNA

Studies have found that nanomaterials pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. A recent study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass) have provided the first evidence that engineered nanoparticles are able to accumulate within plants and damage their DNA. The NIST/UMass researchers first exposed radishes and the two ryegrasses to cupric oxide nanoparticles. Twice as many lesions were induced in plants exposed to nanoparticles as were in those exposed to larger particles. Additionally, the cellular uptake of copper from the nanoparticles was significantly greater than the uptake of copper from the larger particles. The DNA damage profiles for the ryegrasses differed from the radish profiles, indicating that nanoparticle-induced DNA damage is dependent on the plant species and on the nanoparticle concentration. The researchers showed that cupric oxide nanoparticles had a significant effect on growth, stunting the development of both roots and shoots in all three plant species tested. “To our knowledge, this is first evidence that there could be a ‘nano-based effect’ for cupric oxide in the environment where size plays a role in the increased generation and accumulation of numerous mutagenic DNA lesions in plants,” say researchers leading this team. The study, “Copper oxide nanoparticle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models,” was published in Environmental Science and Technology.

Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells or tissue) by accumulating in the brain over a long period of time. A study conducted in 2008 and confirmed by another study in 2009 shows that washing nano-silver textiles releases substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. A study found nanosilver to cause malformations and to be lethal to small fish at various stages of development since they are able to cross the egg membranes and move into the fish embryos.

In December 2011, a coalition of six consumer safety groups filed suit against FDA, citing the agency’s chronic failure to regulate nanomaterials used in sunscreens, cosmetics and drugs. The lawsuit demands that FDA respond to a May 2006 petition that the coalition filed in which it calls for regulatory action, including nano-specific product labeling, health and safety testing, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. FDA rejected this petition.

Last year, EPA announced its intentions to obtain information on nanomaterials in pesticide products to determine whether the registration of a pesticide may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health. The agency also proposed a new approach for the agency to consider a nanoscale ingredient as a “new” active or inert ingredient for purposes of scientific evaluation under the pesticide laws. Additionally, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. While there is overwhelming agreement to prohibit nanotechnology in organics generally, there is still confusion over the definition of what exactly should be prohibited and how to prohibit nanotech products in the organic industry. The recommendation deals specifically with engineered nanomaterials and purposefully omits those that are naturally occurring. Further it would block petitions seeking an exemption and keep nanomaterials out of food packaging and contact surfaces.

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

Sources: Reuters, FDA News Release, and NIST Tech Beat

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

Research shows direct links between a school’s poor indoor environment and higher rates of asthma and other respiratory ailments. Other studies show that improving indoor air quality has measurable impacts on student and teacher health and productivity. Children are especially vulnerable to negative effects of toxic pesticide and chemical exposure as they take in more toxins relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems that are less able to detox.

In a statement of support for the efforts of Healthy School’s Network, Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman says, “Children need better protection from toxic chemical exposure while at school. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels. Fortunately, effective and safer pest management strategies that do not rely on harmful pesticides exist. Beyond Pesticides is proud to join as a co-sponsor for the 10th National Healthy Schools Day and continue working to improve our children’s health.”

In commemorating a growing movement on National Healthy Schools Day, Healthy Schools Network is recognizing New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s efforts. Governor Cuomo has set an example with a proclamation that highlights the connection between poor indoor air quality and poor learning and behavior.

“We know that toxic and allergen-ridden indoor air environments are making our children and teachers sick and impairing their ability to succeed in the classroom,” said Claire Barnett, Executive Director of the Healthy Schools Network said. “When you take in the missed work days and the health costs and the moms who are teachers staying home with their kids who are sick, that’s a double and triple whammy on our economy and educational system we can’t afford.”

The proclamation promotes construction guidelines that incorporate environmental health practices and also lower operating costs; it also highlights the state’s green cleaning in schools program. Some additional highlights that Healthy Schools Network points out are:

Federal Initiatives. The federal government is kicking off initiatives to address school environments. U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has established voluntary school siting and indoor environments guidelines and grants for states, and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has initiated a Green Ribbon Schools award to recognize schools that save energy, have healthy facilities, and offer environmental education. President Obama has proposed $25 billion to modernize 35,000 public schools, which would provide much-needed funds to, among other purposes, eliminate environmental hazards in schools.

Other state and local Healthy Schools Day activities are also underway: in Texas and Massachusetts, for example, U.S. EPA regional staff are leading conferences or participating in urban school walk-throughs. In Wisconsin, a state senator will present his resolution to school children who have done art projects on indoor air.

But, more must be done at all levels. The negative impact on women and children is severe, and Healthy Schools Network points to the following research:

* Pediatric asthma hospitalizations often triple in the days after summer vacations, according to a 2011 New York Health Department study. School children also face increased risks of asthma hospitalizations on return to school after winter and spring breaks. Asthma is also a leading cause of work-related illnesses among teachers and custodians.
* 40 percent of nurses who are members of the National Association of School Nurses said they knew children and personnel affected by pollutants in schools.
* A June 2011 Institute of Medicine report stated that polluted indoor environments are already damaging health and learning, and that measures to prevent exposures indoors should be a priority. The report noted, “By one estimate, poor indoor conditions cost the nation’s economy tens of billions of dollars a year in exacerbation of illnesses and allergenic symptoms and in lost productivity.”

In the report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws — 2010 Update, Beyond Pesticides finds that 35 states have taken limited action to step in and provide protective measures to address pesticide use in, around or near their schools. There is some growth, for instance: 21 states recommend or require schools to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which is a 24 percent increase from the original report in 1998. However, these actions respresent a patchwork of laws that are uneven and inadequate as the majority of school children continue to be exposed to toxic pesticides while at school.

Earlier this year, a bill to prohibit the use of most lawn pesticides on public and private playgrounds, recreation fields and daycare centers that was introduced in New Jersey failed to pass the state legislature despite overwhelming support. Legislators and advocates are working to block an effort in the Connecticut General Assembly that would repeal the state’s current ban on toxic pesticide use on school grounds by allowing their use as part of a poorly defined IPM program.

What can you do?

Healthy Schools Network has created a “Healthy Schools Day Proclamation Toolkit” in order to help urge political leaders to act on their convictions and to “be on the record” for resolutions to promote healthy school environments. They also provide a list of ways in which teachers, parents, organizations and community members can help improve the environmental health of their school. See healthyschools.org for more information.

Federal Legislation Needed

Ask your Member of Congress to support the School Environment Protection Act of 2012 (SEPA). Beyond Pesticides believes that federal legislation is needed to ensure a healthy learning environment for all students. In March, U.S. Represenative Rush Holt and colleagues introduced the School Environment Protection Act, which would protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. The legislation also bans the use of synthetic fertilizers. SEPA was first introduced in November 1999 in both the U.S. Senate and House. The bill language is based on state school pest management laws. It also mirrors the structure of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established a national committee to oversee the program as well as established a list of pesticides allowed for use within the program. A form of SEPA has passed the U.S. Senate twice since and, together with other legislation, indicates broad support for a national mandate to stop hazardous pesticide use in schools. To learn more about this legislation and help its passage, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage.

Healthy Schools Day is coordinated by Healthy Schools Network in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Council of Educational Facility Planners – International that celebrates School Building Week annually.

In fact, Dow introduced a new GE corn variety because weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup, the previous chemical of choice for herbicide-tolerant plants. However, solving herbicide resistance with a new, more toxic chemical is like using gasoline to put out a fire. It will cause even more damage to health and the environment, and in a few years, the pesticide industry will be marketing their next “solution” to the growing resistance problem.

Read Beyond Pesticides full comments to USDA for Dow’s petition to approve 2-4,D-resistant GE corn.

Tell USDA to stop this toxic experiment and deny Dow’s petition for 2,4-D tolerant corn. Sign your organization or business onto Beyond Pesticides’ comments or submit comments directly to the USDA docket. The deadline to sign on is Friday, April 27 at noon.

Background:

In a radio interview on WBAI in New York City, Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman said, “The USDA is proposing approving a new GE corn variety that is resistant to a different toxic herbicide, escalating the toxic treadmill in chemical-dependent agriculture. This is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem, and will only give rise to more superweeds, more herbicide pollution in our environment, more herbicide poisoning, while likely leading to the need for even more toxic herbicides a couple of years down the line. This foolish circle has to end.”

While USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide. 2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

This technology, which will increase 2,4-D use, poses a particular hazard for those who live and work in rural areas. Research by EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also show a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

In its petition, Dow states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops. Farm research groups are also concerned with the impact of genetically engineered crops on organic farmers, whose organic crops are already at risk of contamination with Monsanto’s unnatural DNA from pollen drift.

The petition raises specific concerns about the increased 2, 4-D and dicamba usage due to the timing of the herbicide applications. The new blended 2,4-D or dicamba and glyphosate herbicides will be sprayed repeatedly during the growing season after weeds emerge and begin to compete with crops. Spraying herbicides, which are known to volatilize and drift during periods when specialty crops are at their greatest risk of exposure, is likely to increase the incidence of and resultant damage to non-target crops. The coalition stated it expects the newly 2,4-D and dicamba tolerant varieties to be grown in close proximity to crops like soybeans, tomatoes, grapes, green beans, peas, cucumbers, squash, melons, pumpkins, all of which are highly sensitive to exposure to these herbicides.

“My farming operation was decimated by 2,4-D exposure. The government’s consideration of the impact of its actions is a necessary first step in ensuring no other specialty crop producer has to endure the devastation that my farm has experienced,” said Gary Phelps, a tree farmer based in Kentucky. “The dramatic increase in the use of 2,4-D and dicamba, and these herbicides known impacts on off-target crops threaten the survival of the specialty crop production in the Midwest. It’s time USDA, the stewards of American agriculture, stood up and considered the cumulative impacts of all these crops,” said Steve Smith of Red Gold, an Indiana-based food processor and coalition member.

2, 4-D is a highly toxic herbicide which has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and kidney and liver damage. It is also neurotoxic and is toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly elevated rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2, 4-D. Dicamba is a neurotoxic chlorinated benzoic acid herbicide that the EPA classifies as acute toxicity class III, slightly toxic. The material is a recognized eye irritant, moderately persistent in the environment and highly mobile in soil and water as well through the air. Chronic exposure to Dicamba is linked to reproductive and developmental effects.

The Save Our Crops Coalition represents more than 2,000 farmers and groups such as the Organic Valley Cooperative, the Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers Association, and major food processors Seneca and Red Gold. While the coalition does not categorically object to the use of GM materials in agriculture, its petition specifically faults the draft environmental impact statement prepared by USDAs Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for inadequately assessing the cumulative effects of multiple new 2,4-D and dicamba resistant varieties entering the market simultaneously. The petition cites one scientific expert who projects a 1,070% increase in the amount of 2,4-D alone being applied to corn within five years. The coalition submitted its petition to an open docket that APHIS maintains for public comment on the proposed release by Dow AgroScience of a 2,4-D corn variety. The public is welcome to submit comments to this docket.

Farmers do not have to remain stuck on a pesticide treadmill that demands ever greater amounts of synthetic inputs and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of farm profitability and the environment. Organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, and mechanical production practices and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that chemical inputs such as synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics are marketed as solving.

GE crops have also yet to deliver on the early promises made by the biotechnology industry to increase crop yields. A 2009 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary GE food and feed crops grown in the United States. The report concludes that GE herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, is largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

Source: Planet Ark

Student Government (SG) representative and public affairs graduate student Robert Love, who initiated the ban, says that officials in several different campus purchasing departments are open to phasing out antibacterial soap. For financial and environmental reasons, the University phased out the use of the triclosan-containing soap in restrooms across campus in 2008; however, it is still being used in other places on campus. According to a university spokeswoman, a campus-wide phase out would require an official decision.

“What we’re saying is we need an outright ban on campus, and we need to kind of make a bold statement,” said urban studies senior and SG representative John Lawler in a statement to The Daily Texan. “In a lot of places it’s not being banned; it’s not being considered a harmful chemical.””ƒ

Triclosan’s efficacy has been called into as a result of numerous studies, despite the fact that triclosan is marketed as a germ-killing substance. To the contrary, there is evidence that the widespread use of antibacterial compounds promote the emergence of bacterial resistance, which may actually contribute to greater vulnerability to bacteria.

In a comment to The Statesman about the possibility of illness spreading on campus after antibacterial soap is phased out, Mr. Love said, “The science doesn’t support that. The science shows that antibacterial soap is no more effective than regular soap and water … outside of extreme conditions of disease.”

Public Radio International’s Living on Earth recently interviewed Beyond Pesticides research associate Nichelle Harriott about the toxicity of triclosan (download the show). Beyond Pesticides in 2004 began voicing concern about the dangers of triclosan and in 2009 and 2010 submitted petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which call for the removal of triclosan from consumer products. Since then, many major companies are quietly and quickly removing triclosan from their products. After opening the petition for public comment in 2011, over 10,000 individuals told EPA via email and docketed comments to ban triclosan. Additionally, scores of public health and advocacy groups, local state departments of health and the environment, as well as municipal and national wastewater treatment agencies, submitted comments requesting an end to triclosan in consumer products.

Take Action: Encourage your community go triclosan=free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution that establishes a commitment to not procuring or using products containing triclosan. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’Ban Triclosan page.

Sources: The Statesman and The Daily Texan

EPA notes in a newly released April 2012 factsheet, “Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides,” that, “EPA has developed a table of human health benchmarks for approximately 350 pesticides that are currently registered for use on food crops. The benchmarks are for pesticides for which the agency has not previously issued a drinking water health advisory or set an enforceable federal drinking water standard. These benchmarks for pesticides will enable states, water systems and the public to better determine whether the detection of a pesticide in drinking water or source waters for drinking water indicate a potential health risk.”

Previously, water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water were set for only handful pesticides. The new benchmarks are for acute (one-day) and chronic (lifetime) exposures for the most sensitive populations (children, pregnant women) from exposure to pesticides that may be found in surface or ground water sources of drinking water. Concentrations of pesticides in drinking water that have the potential for cancer risk are not currently included in the benchmarks, however, EPA intends to include these concentrations “later.” In an important move to be transparent, the EPA factsheet states, “The human health benchmarks for pesticides table includes mainly active ingredients at this time, and thus inert compounds used in pesticide formulations are not included.”

If a water sample exceeds a benchmark, the state or local water municipality would consider how frequently the benchmark is exceeded and the magnitude of the exceedance in other samples. Read EPA’s factsheet. Exceeding the benchmark consistently means that aquatic life and human health may be at risk from continued exposures. However, despite these new benchmarks, pesticide contamination will continue to plague U.S. waterways since oversight and enforcement are lacking at both federal and state levels. Currently, 56 percent of streams sampled have one or more pesticides in water that exceed at least one aquatic-life benchmark. Similarly, more than 20 percent of private domestic wells sampled nationwide contain at least one contaminant at levels of potential health concern.

Research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) finds that when pesticides are applied on fields, gardens, parks and lawns, a percentage of the chemicals end up running off the treated site. More than 80 percent of urban streams and more than 50 percent of agricultural streams have concentrations of at least one pesticide. Drinking water supplies, including groundwater, have been plagued by pesticide and other chemical contamination. Pesticide compounds analyzed in water by USGS include many of the most heavily used herbicides and insecticides, and one or more pesticides or their degradates are detected in water more than 90 percent of the time during the year in agricultural streams, urban streams, and mixed-land-use streams. Pesticides like atrazine, chlorpyrifos and malathion are routinely detected in waterways. EPA has been criticized by the USGS’ National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) for not setting water quality benchmarks for pesticides. According to NAWQA “standards and guidelines do not completely eliminate risks posed by pesticides in waterways because: (1) values are not established for many pesticides, (2) mixtures and breakdown products are not considered, (3) the effects of seasonal exposure to high concentrations have not been evaluated, and (4) some types of potential effects, such as endocrine disruption and unique responses of sensitive individuals, have not yet been assessed.”

Pesticides in waterways have been attributed to the feminization of male amphibians, and intersex fish- male fish producing eggs in the Potomac. Studies link increased seasonal concentration of pesticides in surface water with the peak in birth defects in infants conceived during the spring and summer months, when pesticide use increases and high concentrations of pesticides are found in surface waters. A 2009 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Poisoning the Well, found that atrazine goes undetected by regular monitoring, and that in the 139 municipal water systems from which EPA collected data on a biweekly basis in 2003 and 2004, atrazine is found 90% of the time. Furthermore, 54 of these water systems had at least one spike above 3 parts per billion, atrazine’s current benchmark. Atrazine in drinking water was recently linked to menstrual irregularities in women.

The publication of the new benchmarks follows the March 22, 2010 announcement by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson of a new drinking water strategy that outlines four principles to expand public health protection. One of the principles is to use the authority of multiple laws to more effectively protect drinking water, by sharing data collected under different statutes. The new benchmarks include those for pyrethroids like bifenthrin, cypermethrin, and permethrin, dichlorvos, imidacloprid, maneb, naled, propiconazole and triclosan.

Attempts to protect U.S. waterways from pesticide contamination have recently been attacked by industry groups and Congress. The bill H.R. 872, “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011,” sought to revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, an attempt to reverse a 2007 federal court order instructing EPA to require permits under the Clean Water Act for pesticide discharges. (See Daily News coverage.) Soon after H.R. 872 was passed, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,” H.R. 2018. This act would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. It would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Thus far there have been a staggering 125 pieces of legislation that will reduce environmental protection including 50 bills targeting EPA, 16 to dismantle the Clean Water Act, 31 against actions that can prevent pollution, and 22 to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives.

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

“This is a watershed ordinance, certainly for the state of Ohio,” said Barry Zucker, executive director of Beyond Pesticides Ohio and long-time advocate for this type of county-wide ordinance. “This is a terrific achievement and a tremendous model for other communities in Ohio and the rest of the nation.”

People in the county have long recognized the dangers posed by pesticides and the availability of viable alternatives. Under the leadership of Beyond Pesticides Ohio, the town of Cleveland Heights became the first municipality in the nation to legislatively prohibit the application of lawn chemicals on city property, including schools and day care centers. The group also worked with the town of Lyndhurst, Ohio and helped pass legislation prohibiting the Cuyahoga County Board of Health from doing any broadcast spraying of pesticides to control mosquitoes, instead relying on education, prevention, and larval control with great success. In 2010, Beyond Pesticides Ohio joined with Beyond Pesticides and the Case Western University School of Medicine’s Swetland Center for Environmental Health to host Greening the Community, the 28th National Pesticide Forum, which focused on green communities and economies.

While the seeds for the ordinance were originally planted at the Greening the Community Forum, Mr. Zucker explains that the momentum really picked up a year later when Beyond Pesticides’ board member and national organic turf expert Chip Osborne returned to Cleveland as a keynote speaker at an April 2011 conference organized by Beyond Pesticides Ohio and the Cleveland Botanical Garden. After attending Mr. Osborne’s talk, “Fabulous Lawns and Landscapes: Transitioning to cost effective, organic landscape management,” County Council members Sunny Simon and Julian Rogers approached Beyond Pesticides Ohio about the county ordinance. Mr. Zucker, his group and allies worked with the Council over the past year leading up to its April 10, 2012 passage.

“I think it’s fantastic, and I think it’s landmark, too,” Mr. Zucker told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “This is the direction turf care is going, for health reasons, for pets, the environment. Lots of times pesticides will leach into the water system and provide a whole host of other problems.”

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogencity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds. Organic land management is practical and economical. Opponents may claim that organic management will put the fields at risk for disease and weed infestation, however, in a Cornell University study of turf, chemically maintained turf is more susceptible to disease. Another report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education and Mr. Osborne for the New York State legislature, concludes that organic approaches can save money. The report compares the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and an organic program over a five-year period and finds that the annual cost of maintaining an organic field can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of chemical-based programs.

For more information on organic-based, pesticide-free lawn and landscape management, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page.

NMFS prepared the draft Opinion in response to EPA’s initial assessment of the risk that current uses of the herbicides oryzalin, pendimethalin and trifluralin pose for the threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead species. NMFS’ findings contradict significant conclusions from EPA’s work and highlight weaknesses in the agency’s current ecological risk assessment process that underestimate risk and fail to meet modern standards of analysis. For example, NMFS cites EPA’s failure to provide any analysis of the pesticides’ breakdown products or of the other ingredients -whether active or inert, which are added to commercial product formulations. Additionally, NMFS states that EPA’s modeling procedures would likely underestimate exposure to the pesticides and the resulting risk and that the EPA-approved pesticide labels lack sufficient information to prevent excessive and unnecessary applications. The draft Opinion concludes that if oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin remain in use as currently authorized, they are “likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead populations.

The draft Opinion represents another step forward in a decade-long struggle to compel EPA to exercise its full statutory authority to protect and conserve biodiversity. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA is required to determine how a pesticide will affect threatened and endangered species when that chemical is registered or has its registration reviewed. Represented by the public interest law group Earthjustice, several stakeholder organizations including the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit in January 2001 to force EPA to fulfill this requirement. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. In 2002, a federal court ruling called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with NMFS regarding adverse impacts on the Northwest runs. (Salmon and steelhead are classified as marine fish; EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service when the protected species lives in freshwater).

“This is a huge step forward for the health of our rivers,” said NCAP Environmental Health Associate Aimee Code. She continued, “These findings are a reminder that chemical pest control comes at a high cost. The true solution is to expand the use of non-chemical solutions.” Glen Spain of PCFFA stated, “These pesticides are poisons and do not belong in salmon streams. The bottom line for us is that poisoning salmon rivers puts our people out of work as well as creates a public health hazard. It is far more cost effective to keep these poisons out of our rivers to begin with than to try to clean up messes afterwards.”

NMFS notified EPA that current use patterns for oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin are likely to jeopardize half of the 26 salmon populations on the West Coast protected by the ESA. All three pesticides belong to the dinitroaniline sulfonamide class of herbicides and are widely used in agricultural, lawn and home garden and right-of-way applications. The use restrictions called for in the draft Opinion would prohibit aerial applications of the pesticides within 300 feet of salmon waters; mandate a 10 foot vegetated strip or a 20-foot no spray zone between salmon waters and places where these herbicides are applied; and establish mandatory reporting of fish kills near where these chemicals are applied.

The new draft Opinion is the fifth prepared by NMFS since the settlement of a second lawsuit in 2007 in which the federal government committed to a four-year time-line for completing reviews of the pesticides remaining from the original suit against EPA. Reviews of the pesticides considered to be most damaging to protected species were completed first and there are eleven compounds still under review now that oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin have been completed. In November 2011, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Dow AgroSciences that challenged EPA’s authority to implement new use restrictions based on the NMFS Biological Opinions. Due to the delay resulting from that lawsuit, none of the use restrictions designed to protect threatened and endangered species from the pesticides deemed to pose the greatest risk, including chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion, have been implemented.

Source: Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides

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

In the study, Lower acetylcholinesterase activity among children living with flower plantation workers (Environ Res. 2012 Apr;114:53-9. Epub 2012 Mar 10), children whose parents work on a flower plantation are more than three times more likely to be in the group of lowest AChE activity. Additionally, the children who live the longest with a flower plantation worker are four times more likely to have lower enzyme activity than children who never live with a plantation worker. The researchers obtained their results by sampling AChE activity levels in 277 children between ages 4 and 9 from the Pedro Moncayo region of Ecuador where plantation flower production is concentrated. Plantation workers are routinely exposed to pesticides during and/or after application to the flowers and often return home without showering or changing clothes. The researchers accounted for age, gender, pesticide use within the household, and other factors that might skew the results.

The health risks of secondary pesticide exposure faced by the families of flower plantation workers are in addition to the documented damage caused by direct contact to such materials. Poisonings from direct exposure to organophosphates and carbamates are linked to 71 percent of the 14,145 pesticide poisonings reported in Ecuador between 2001 and 2007.

Now mostly used in agricultural applications, organophosphate and carbamate compounds remain among the most heavily used pesticides in the United States. Exposure to organophosphate insecticides, such as chlorpyrifos is linked to numerous learning and development disorders, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and autism. Widely-used insecticides in the carbamate family include aldicarb and carbaryl. Both classes of pesticides affect pests and non-target organisms, including humans and other vertebrates, through a similar mode of action. Acetylcholine is an essential neuro-transmitter that relays signals from the brain throughout the nervous system and under normal conditions it is broken down by AChE after each signal is sent. Pesticides that suppress AChE activity inhibit the necessary breakdown of acetylcholine and prevent the healthy feedback needed for the nervous system to function properly. Poisoning from such pesticides may cause sensory and behavioral disturbances, incoordination, headache, dizziness, restlessness, anxiety, depressed motor function, and seizures. Severe intoxication may result in psychosis, seizures, and coma.

Several Latin American countries have in recent years promoted exports of fresh cut flowers to the United States and Ecuador alone supplies 23% of the American market. Consumers who are turning to organic and fair trade options for their food purchases are finding that many similar options exist for buying fresh cut flowers. Sources for organic and fair trade floral products include:
Organic Bouquet
California Organic Flowers
Local Harvest
The Fifty Mile Bouquet

Source: Environmental Health News

2,4-D has been used in the U.S. since the 1940s, and as such is one of the oldest registered herbicides in the country. It made up roughly half of the herbicide known as Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War. According to EPA, 2,4-D is currently found in approximately 600 products registered for agricultural, residential, industrial, and aquatic uses.

The use of 2,4-D is expected to increase significantly in the next few years with the recent announcement that Dow AgroSciences, the main manufacturer of the chemical, is seeking federal approval to sell corn seeds that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide. [Listen to a radio interview on this subject by Beyond Pesticides’ Executive Director Jay Feldman.]

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

Unfortunately, the agency’s ruling states that there is not enough data to conclude that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between exposure to 2,4-D and health effects. EPA reviewers said that though some studies have shown higher risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among farmers, it was too difficult to point to 2,4-D as the cause because of the farmer’s exposure to so many other chemicals. Instead, according to the New York Times, the agency relies heavily on an industry funded study by 2,4-D manufacturers and conducted by Dow. The study found that when 2,4-D was put into food for rats, the rats had no reproductive problems, or problems in their offspring.

Gina Solomon, MD, MPH, the co-author of the NRDC petition to ban 2,4-D, responded to EPA’s decision in a blog post:

“Essentially, the Agency is saying that in the absence of animal studies showing a link to cancer, EPA will continue to ignore the multiple human studies which repeatedly show increased rates of this particular cancer in farmers and agricultural workers exposed to the chemical. Accordingly, the EPA stands by its classification of 2,4-D as “unclassifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” This remains unconvincing to many, and it is alarming that a pesticide that has been on the market for more than 60 years is still “unclassifiable.”

TAKE ACTION: There is a 60-day period for filing objections to this conclusion that begins when it is published in the Federal Register. Documents are available at www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877.

Send comments on the proposed approval of Dow’s 2,4-D tolerant corn until APRIL 27, 2012. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov. You only need to fill out fields that have an asterisk (*) beside it.

Additionally, an online petition by Center for Food Safety can be signed here; The Cornucopia Institute also has a letter opposing Dow’s 2,4-D corn variety, which will be sent to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, which can be signed here.

Sources: NY Times, NRDC Switchboard

Previously, a similar bill was introduced in 2010 (H.R. 5124), which remained in committee. H.R. 4318 states, “The toxicity of atrazine is well documented and has shown to have adverse endocrine effects in amphibians, mammals, and humans. There is evidence that atrazine exposure is associated with low sperm counts and poor motility in exposed adult men, and that prebirth atrazine exposure is associated with small birth weight and abnormal development of the gut wall in infants. In laboratory mammals, exposure is associated with abnormal reproductive system development, impaired prostate gland formation, and abnormal breast tissue development. In aquatic wildlife, exposure is associated with abnormal reproductive system development, impaired reproduction, and impaired immune system function.”

Atrazine is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. A potent toxicant, it is the most prevalent herbicide found in Minnesota’s waters. It is widely applied in the midwestern states and has been found in the drinking water supplies in the Midwest at high levels. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. Atrazine is harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians even when the amount used is less than the government allows. Atrazine is specifically associated with infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may also harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species.

New research shows that women who drink water containing atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, even at concentrations far below federal drinking water standards considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Researchers compared women living in Illinois farm towns where atrazine is used regularly to women living in Vermont where the herbicide is used sparingly, and found that the women in Illinois were almost five times more likely to report irregular menstrual cycles, including more than six weeks between periods. A French study published last year found that prenatal exposure to the herbicide atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction. The authors say that the study “raises particular concerns for countries where atrazine is still in use.” The European Union banned atrazine in 2004 after repeated testing found the herbicide in drinking water supplies, and health officials were unable to find sufficient evidence that the chemical is safe. However, the U.S. continues to support its use.

“No one should ever have to worry if the water they drink is making them sick or affecting fertility,” said Rep. Ellison. “Germany and Italy banned atrazine use in 1991 and Euro zone health officials banned its use in 2003. Yet, almost 10 years later the United States is still using it. We need to remove toxins like atrazine from our waterways.”

“While exposure to atrazine puts all of our communities at increased risk of diseases such as prostate and breast cancer, infant mortality, and birth defects, it is farm workers and their families -most of whom are low-income people and people of color- who are at the greatest risk,” Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota noted. [Officials] estimate that each year as many 20,000 farm workers are poisoned due to exposure to agricultural chemicals such as atrazine. Congressman Ellison’s bill is a significant step toward improving human and environmental health for all Americans.”

In 2011, Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to EPA in response to a petition by the group Save the Frogs urging the agency to ban atrazine. In Beyond Pesticides’ comments, several studies are highlighted that have been published in the scientific literature since EPA began reevaluating atrazine under its registration review process in 2009. This research includes a 2011 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, showing that prenatal exposure to atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction; a study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2010 finds male rats prenatally exposed to low doses of atrazine are more likely to develop prostate inflammation and to go through puberty later than non-exposed animals; and, a 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that male frogs exposed to atrazine can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs. Even at low levels that are considered “safe” by EPA standards, atrazine is known to harm fish, and has been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites -creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

Take Action: Contact your Member of Congress and let them know what you think about H.R.4318. Ask them to support a ban on atrazine in order to safeguard healthy waters and human health.

Source: Press Release Congressman Keith Ellison’s Office

The researchers collected urine from each of the women in Cincinnati twice during their pregnancies for organophosphate metabolites as well as other factors that could influence the fetus’ health, including exposure to second hand smoke, race, and poverty. Women with higher levels of organophosphates were found to have pregnancies that were three to four days shorter and babies that were about â…“ pound lighter on average than women with lower levels of pesticides.

“For an individual child, a decrement of 150-gram reduction in birth weight is of little consequence, but this is just one of many risk factors that a pregnant woman might encounter. If a woman has four or five risk factors, the impact can be substantial,” explains the study’s senior author, SFU health sciences professor Bruce Lanphear, M.D. “The decrement in birth weight that we found for OP pesticide exposure was comparable with the decrement seen for women who smoke cigarettes.”

Organophosphates are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be among the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in several European countries. Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system, as they are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain on the market. Furthermore, the cancellation of household uses does not restrict, the use of remaining stocks, meaning homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase-out, may still use this product. Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion are applied annually for residential uses.

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

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

Furthest along in the effort is Wellfleet, which last month officially adopted the Cape’s first codified organic turf management policy. The policy bans all pesticides and chemical fertilizers on town parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields, while allowing for some exceptions such as rodent bait traps, according to the Cape Cod Times. Wellfleet’s Board of Selectmen, which unanimously adopted the policy on March 13th, were concerned about the possibility of lawn chemicals leading to environmental contamination and presenting serious risks to people and wildlife. Eastham, just to the south of Wellfleet, is working on passing its own bylaw outlining a set of organic turf management practices to restrict pesticides throughout the town.

The town of Barnstable has also begun to explore how it might go about implementing an organic turf management policy on its own lands. The town is in the process of documenting current practices in order to determine how they could be changed to reflect organic principles. “You can’t invite people to your parks and put something down that might be injurious to them,” Barnstable Town Manager Thomas Lynch told the Cape Cod Times.

Other municipalities throughout the region have been practicing or working to adopt organic land management to varying degrees for several years. The town of Orleans has been informally using organic methods, but is currently working toward formalizing these practices in a policy that is expected to come before the town selectmen over the summer. Other nearby towns, including Brewster, Chatham, and Harwich, are similarly working to explore and potentially adopt concrete policies to encourage reduction in pesticides and chemical fertilizers on public lands. Additionally, the town of Falmouth has severely reduced pesticide applications by the Department of Public Works, using them only to control specific diseases. Some of the towns have also been involved in fighting right-of-way herbicide applications by the local power utility NStar. Both Wellfleet and Eastham have been pushing for the company not to spray roadsides within the town borders and have been largely successful.

Officials in several of the towns on the Cape have indicated that they are worried about the potential increases in cost associated with organic turf management and stated this may be an impediment to more widespread adoption of organic policies. However, research by the environmental health group Grassroots Environmental Education, comparing the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and a natural (organic) program over a five-year period, concludes that the annual cost of maintaining a field using natural products and techniques can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of conventional programs using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

For those who are in the region of Cape Cod or eastern Massachusetts, there will be a workshop sponsored by Green CAPE and given by organic turf expert and Beyond Pesticides board member Chip Osborne in Barnstable on April 14 with information on how to manage your lawn without pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

For more information and resources on organic management of green spaces, see our lawns and landscapes page.

Source: Cape Code Times

The study, “New effects of Roundup on amphibians: Predators reduce herbicide mortality; herbicides induce antipredator morphology” is the first to show that a pesticide can induce morphological changes in a vertebrate animal, biological sciences Professor Rick Relyea, PhD, said in a university release. The study was undertaken using simple created wetlands and introducing tadpoles from three species of amphibians —the leopard frog, American toad, and wood frogs. After three weeks, the tadpoles were examined. The impact of Roundup on the shape of tadpole tails was most noticeable in both the wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles.

According to the study, “In wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles, Roundup induced relatively deeper tails in the same direction and of the same magnitude as the adaptive changes induced by dragonfly cues… [T]his is the first study to show that a pesticide can induce morphological changes in a vertebrate. Moreover, the data suggest that the herbicide might be activating the tadpoles’ developmental pathways used for antipredator responses. Collectively, these discoveries suggest that the world’s most widely applied herbicide may have much further-reaching effects on nontarget species than previous considered.”

The presence of predators can cause tadpoles to change shape by altering the tadpoles’ stress hormones, causing them to grow bigger tails to better escape. But similar shape changes seen after exposure to Roundup suggest the weed killer may interfere with the hormones of tadpoles and potentially many other animals. “It was not surprising to see that the smell of predators in the water induced larger tadpole tails,” Dr. Relyea said. “That is a normal, adaptive response.” What shocked us was that the Roundup induced the same changes. Moreover, the combination of predators and Roundup caused the tail changes to be twice as large.”

Since tadpoles alter their body shape to match their environment, having a body shape that does not fit the environment can put the animals at a distinct disadvantage, the researchers said. “This discovery highlights the fact that pesticides, which are important for crop production and human health, can have unintended consequences for species that are not the pesticide’s target,” Dr. Relyea said. “Herbicides are not designed to affect animals, but we are learning that they can have a wide range of surprising effects by altering how hormones work in the bodies of animals.” This is important because amphibians not only serve as a barometer of the ecosystem’s health, but also as an indicator of potential dangers to other species in the food chain, including humans.”

Roundup is a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by Monsanto. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, 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. Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans, and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year.

The inert ingredient POEA, formulated in Roundup products, has also been shown to kill 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. One study found that Roundup alone is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. Another found that Rana pipiens tadpoles chronically exposed to environmentally-relevant concentrations of glyphosate formulations, containing POEA, exhibit decreased snout-vent length at metamorphosis, increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage, and gonadal abnormalities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its registration documents for glyphosate determined that glyphosate, its salts and metabolites are likely to impact adversely the endangered California red-legged frog based on prey and habitat reduction.

A report released last year finds that industry regulators have known for a long time that glyphosate causes birth defects. The report, “RoundUp and Birth Defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” published by Earth Open Source, says that regulators misled the public about the safety of glyphosate for over 20 years. In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the EPA showing new and emerging science, which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risks 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.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials have also observed that the heavy use of Roundup due primarily to its use on Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops, appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of crops that farmers are cultivating. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has detected glyphosate in significant levels in rain and rivers in agricultural areas across the Mississippi River watershed, according to one of their recent reports. The greatest glyphosate use, according to USGS, is in the Mississippi River basin where most applications are for weed control on GE corn, soybeans, and cotton. “Roundup Ready” crops were designed to withstand Roundup herbicide and so, growing Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn has led to greater use of the herbicide. 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. Because of GE crops, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever. USGS has submitted the studies to EPA to be included in data that is being considered as the agency reviews the registration of glyphosate. EPA expects the review to be complete by 2015, at which point it will issue a decision to either continue to allow unrestricted use of glyphosate or institute limitations or a ban on the chemical in light of emerging science.

For more news and information on “Roundup Ready” and other GE crops, see Beyond Pesticides’ genetic engineering page.

Source: United Press International

Neonicitinoids are highly toxic to a range of insects, including honey bees and other pollinators. They are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees forage and drink. They are particularly dangerous because, in addition to being acutely toxic in high doses, they also result in serious sublethal effects when insects are exposed to chronic low doses, as they are through pollen and water droplets laced with the chemical as well as dust that is released into the air when coated seeds are planted. These effects cause significant problems for the health of individual honey bees as well as the overall health of honey bee colonies and they include disruptions in mobility, navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, and overall hive activity.

The French study, “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees,” focuses on the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam, which is metabolized by bees into clothianidin, the pesticide cited in the legal petition. In their study, the researchers used Radio-frequency identification (RFID) to test the hypothesis that a sublethal exposure to a neonicotinoid indirectly increases hive death rate through homing failure in foraging honey bees. When exposed to sublethal doses of thiamethoxam, at levels present in the environment, honey bees were less likely to return to the hive after foraging than control bees that were tracked with RFID, but not intentionally dosed with pesticides. Higher risks are observed when the homing task is more challenging. The survival rate is even lower when exposed bees are placed in foraging areas with which they are less familiar.

The British study, “Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production,” examines the impacts of the pesticide imidacloprid on bumble bee colony health. Researchers exposed colonies of the bumble bees to levels of imidacloprid that are realistic in the natural environment, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to unexposed control colonies. The study is particularly noteworthy because it shows that bumble bees, which are wild pollinators, are suffering similar impacts of pesticide exposure to “managed” honey bees. While several studies have linked pesticides to declining honey bee health, wild pollinators have not been intensively studied as their economically-relevant cousins. That said, wild pollinators still provide essential services both in agriculture and to a wide-range of wild plants that could not survive without insect pollination.

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

Learn more about the science, legal petition and what you can do on Beyond Pesticides’ Protecting Pollinators program page.

“Farmers have the right to protect themselves from being falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto before they are contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed,” said Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit legal services organization based at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law that represents the plaintiffs. “Judge Buchwald erred by denying
plaintiffs that right and they have now initiated the process of having her decision reversed.”

The original complaint in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto was filed on March 29, 2011. In July, Monsanto filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff lawyers at PUBPAT then filed a rebuttal brief on August 11, 2011. Judge Buchwald called for oral argument on the motion to dismiss, which was held in Manhattan on January 31, 2012. The judge’s dismissal ruling was issued February 24th and plaintiffs were given thirty days in which to file their Notice of Appeal.

“Farmers are under threat. Our right to farm the way we choose, and to grow pure organic seed and healthy food on our farms for our families and for our customers is under assault,” said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead Appellant OSGATA. “We are honor-bound to challenge an erroneous ruling which denies family farmers the protection the law says we deserve. We’re not asking for one penny from Monsanto. Ultimately, our fight is for justice and is waged to defend the right of the people to have access to good and safe food.”

The Plaintiff/Appellant group is comprised of individual family farmers, small and family-owned seed companies and agricultural organizations. They are all organic or committed to farming without using genetically engineered seeds, and have no desire to ever farm with Monsanto’s patented GMO technology. However, they are fearful that Monsanto seed will trespass on to their farms and that the resulting contamination of their crops will be viewed by Monsanto as illegal ‘possession’ resulting in patent infringement allegations. Monsanto’s harassment of family farmers is well known in farm country, the biotech seed and chemical giant has one of the most aggressive patent assertion agendas in U.S. history. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 cases out of court for undisclosed amounts and imposing gag orders on farmers. The farmers’ fears were heightened when Monsanto refused to provide a legally binding covenant not to sue, signaling Monsanto’s intention to maintain their option to sue innocent family farmers in the future.

“America’s farmers deserve to be protected under the law from the unwanted genetic contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s flawed genetically engineered seed technology,” said David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of Food Democracy Now!, an Iowa-based national advocacy organization of more than 300,000 members. “These farmers have no desire to use Monsanto’s GMO seeds, yet they are forced into the untenable position of losing their right to farm in the manner in which they choose, face legal intimidation and the loss of economic livelihood, all because America’s legal system has failed to adequately protect them from the real threat of genetic trespass that is inherent as a result of Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds and the natural biological functions of cross pollination from wind, insects or animals.”

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