It is important to note, as Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health, Inc., states, “This bill will not mandate towns to do anything -they would just have the option to treat the lawns in their towns in stricter ways than the state- if they so chose.”

Connecticut state law prohibits the application of pesticides on kindergarten through 8th grade school grounds, thanks to a bill that was sponsored by Sen. Meyer in 2007. In 2009, another bill was subsequently passed to expand on the first by banning pesticides on day care center grounds as well. In response to the 2007 mandate, the town of Greenwich, CT went a step further by banning pesticides on all town-owned athletic fields. Though Connecticut’s state pesticide law is instrumental in improving protection from pesticides, with the preemption law that is currently in place, it can only extend as far as government-owned property and cannot restrict the use of toxic chemicals by landowners.

The issue of federal preemption of local ordinances made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1991 that federal law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides (Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Ralph Mortier). However, the ability of states to take away local authority was left in place. The pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed model state legislation that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances regarding the use or sale of pesticides. The Coalition lobbyists descended upon states across the country seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the coalition’s wording. Nine states did not pass the measure. Congress has toyed with the idea of restricting local jurisdictions’ authority in FIFRA since the 1980s, but industry lobbyists have always been beaten back.

For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet on state preemption laws.

TAKE ACTION:
Locally: If you live in Connecticut, please contact your Mayor and ask them to support bill S.B. 244. Mayors and First Selectman will need to provide either written testimony or show up to voice their opinion and those testifying will need to bring 50 copies of their written testimony with them. There is no maximum length for testimony; however there will only be 3 minutes allotted to speak.

This decision follows the agency’s completion of the court-mandated environmental impact statement (EIS) for GE alfalfa. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack called for “coexistence” among GE, organic and conventional non-GE farmers, despite the clear recognition in the EIS that GE contamination of organic and conventionally grown crops presents a huge problem. The EIS also fails to take into account the documented increase in herbicide-resistant “super weeds” that is requiring the use of highly toxic herbicide cocktails for weed control on conventional farms. Likewise, USDA has not shown that contamination-free coexistence with deregulated GE alfalfa is likely or possible.

“We’re disappointed with USDA’s decision and we will be back in court representing the interest of farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety (CFS). “USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.” The National Organic Coalition (NOC), of which Beyond Pesticides is a member, issued a statement criticizing the decision.

Alfalfa is the nation’s 4th largest crop, planted on over 21 million acres. Forage and hay are primary feed crops for dairy cows and beef cattle as well as pork, lamb, and sheep. It’s not just for livestock -some vegetable farmers use the hay as mulch and alfalfa meal as a beneficial soil amendment. Alfalfa sprouts constitute an important sector of the salad market and alfalfa also plays a major role in honey production.

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.

In a related announcement earlier this month, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service said that it has agreed to stop planting genetically engineered (GE) crops on all its refuges in a dozen Northeastern states, according to a settlement agreement in a lawsuit brought by conservation and food safety groups. Because the federal government would not agree to end illegal GE agriculture in refuges nationally, new litigation is being prepared in other regions where as many as 75 other national wildlife refuges now growing GE crops are vulnerable to similar suits.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Delaware, filed by the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic on behalf of Delaware Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and CFS, charged that the Fish & Wildlife Service had illegally entered into Cooperative Farming Agreements with private parties, allowing hundreds of acres on its Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware to be plowed over without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In settling the suit, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service promised to revoke any authorization for further GE agriculture at Bombay Hook and the four other refuges with GE crops: the Rappahannock River Valley Refuge and the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge, Montezuma Refuge in New York and Blackwater Refuge of Maryland, unless and until an appropriate NEPA analysis is completed — a condition that has yet to be met for GE agriculture on a National Wildlife Refuge.

“For Delawareans, this is a victory for the protection of vital public resources in our state,” said Mark Martell, President of the Delaware Audubon Society. “Our aim was to end illegal and destructive agriculture on the Delaware refuges but we are delighted to have this victory extended to other refuges along the Great Eastern Flyway.”

In March 2009, the same groups won a similar lawsuit against GE plantings on Delaware’s Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. In August 2009, several environmental groups led by CFS and PEER wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to alert him to the implications of the Prime Hook ruling, asking him to “issue a moratorium on all GE crop cultivation in National Wildlife Refuges.” But Secretary Salazar never responded to the letter and his agency, which oversees the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, was unwilling to extend the Bombay Hook settlement beyond the Northeast region.

“Planting genetically engineered crops on wildlife refuges is resource management malpractice,” stated PEER Senior Counsel and Beyond Pesticides board member Paula Dinerstein, noting that Fish and Wildlife Service policy explicitly forbids “genetically modified agricultural crops in refuge management unless [they] determine their use is essential to accomplishing refuge purpose(s).” “GE crops serve no legitimate refuge purpose, thus refuge officials must resort to outright fictions to claim these crops benefit wildlife.”

National wildlife refuges have allowed farming for decades, but in recent years refuge farming has been converted to GE crops because that is only seed farmers can obtain. Today, the vast majority of crops grown on refuges are genetically engineered. Scientists warn that GE crops can lead to increased pesticide use on refuges and can harm birds, aquatic animals, and other wildlife.

For more information on this issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ page on genetic engineering and see our related Daily News entries.

Take Action – Call or email President Obama and USDA and tell them NOT to deregulate GE alfalfa

Please send your own comments (see suggested language below) and notify your networks, listserves, faith organizations, etc. and post on your website, urging other people/organizations to comment.

Suggested Language (add in your own):

“I am ___________, a farmer/citizen in (your state). Please do not to allow the commercial release of GE alfalfa. Before any release can happen, there must be independent scientific evaluation of public health, environmental, and economic consequences of that release, ongoing government oversight and protection, and a plan for compensation of those harmed by accidental contamination.”

Sincerely,
Your Name
Organization, Concerned Citizen, etc.

President Obama
Comment line: (202) 456-1111
Fax: (202) 456-2461
Email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

USDA
Email: [email protected]
or call (301) 851-2300 and record your comments

Sources: Center for Food Safety Press Release, CFS/PEER Press Release

EPA’s proposal is posted on the agency’s website and will soon be published in the Federal Register under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0785. Following this, the proposal will be open to a 60-day public comment period per a June 17, 2010 settlement agreement reached between EPA and a coalition of public health groups, farm worker advocates and environmental organizations.

In 2006, the coalition, led by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a lawsuit against EPA, claiming that the agency’s 2006 rule violated a law Congress passed in 2005 requiring strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. Attorneys with NRDC, Earthjustice, and Farmworker Justice served as legal counsel for the coalition.

Specifically, the 2006 rule followed a temporary ban on human testing put in place by Congress. It also allowed experiments in which people were intentionally dosed with pesticides to assess the chemicals’ toxicity and allowed EPA to use such experiment to set allowable exposure standards. In such experiments, people have been paid to eat or drink pesticides, to enter pesticide vapor “chambers,” and to have pesticides sprayed into their eyes or rubbed onto their skin. The pesticide industry has used such experiments to argue for weaker regulation of harmful chemicals.

“With this new proposal, EPA has cut the incentive for pesticide manufacturers to conduct unethical, and often unscientific, human experiments.” said NRDC Senior Attorney Michael Wall. “While it does not ban human testing outright, it sets the bar high enough that studies on people should not be an attractive option as evidence submitted to EPA. We don’t want to see anyone getting paid to dose themselves with toxic pesticides, but if EPA is going to continue to consider studies that use humans when it regulates pesticides, the research needs to adhere to these stricter rules,” Mr. Wall said.

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances. EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional Report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”

Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here.

Late last month, the DTSC put out a request for information about nano-sized silver, zero valent iron, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, cerium oxide and quantum dots. Specifically, the agency wants to know what tools companies and researchers are using to analyze these materials””a key question for regulators across the country in the effort to understand the impact of the substances””over a broad range of areas, including air, water, soil, sewage sludge and urine.

Nanotechnology, which capitalizes on unique properties of super-small particles, is already in use in manufacturing items like bike frames, skin creams and cancer treatments. As these tiny materials hit the market, there are huge gaps in what scientists know about their properties. Jeffrey Wong, DTSC’s chief scientist, said in an interview that his agency’s call for information ””its second such request, after a similar move involving carbon nanotubes two years ago”” is aimed at informing consumers. California, with its concentration of high-tech companies, is a hotbed for nanotechnology, Mr. Wong said, and the DTSC wants to push as much information into the public sphere as possible.

The basic question the agency is asking, Mr. Wong said, is, “What do you know about your materials?” Several of the metals, such as nanosilver and titanium dioxide, are of interest because they’re being used in consumer products. Nanosilver, for example, is used as an antibacterial agent in athletic clothing, while titanium dioxide is in some sunscreens.

Some studies have shown that these materials are turning up in end-stage sewage sludge, raising questions about long-term problems. Other materials on the list are even closer to the water supply, for example: zero valent iron is being used as an ingredient in efforts to clean up polluted groundwater. “The wastewater agencies have no clue” how to measure the amount of these metals, or what to do to get them out if they do pose a hazard, Mr. Wong said.

Prompted by a petition submitted in 2008 calling for the regulation of nanomaterials and to stop the sale of 250+ consumer products now using nanosized versions of silver, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that an active or inert ingredient would be considered “new” if it is a nanoscale material. The new policy would apply even when a non-nanoscale form of that same active or inert is already in a product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA is in the process of preparing a Federal Register notice on nanomaterials and pesticide products. The notice will announce a new interpretation of FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) regulations, that the presence of a nanoscale material is reportable under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) for environmental effects. This controversial interpretation would apply to already registered products, as well as products pending registration. However, this new policy has not been finalized or put into effect, while under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Many attribut the holdup to industry backlash. Pesticide manufacturers routinely fail to inform EPA when their products contain nanoscale particles. Consumers are left in the dark about their potential exposure as these products are currently being marketed under ambiguous labels.

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 new 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.

While silver is known to be toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, recent scientific studies have shown that nanosilver is much more toxic and can cause damage in new ways. Exposures are occurring during use and disposal. 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. Another 2008 study finds that releases of nanosilver can destroy benign bacteria used in wastewater treatment.

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.

In 2007, a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, released the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, calling for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products. Beyond Pesticides has since advocated for a precautionary course of action in order to prevent unnecessary risks to the public, workers and the environment. For more information on nano pesticides visit the antimicrobial webpage.

Source: New Haven Independent
OMB Watch

This is the first study to show that neonicotinoids impact the survival of bees at levels below the level of detection, meaning that field studies would not have considered the role of the pesticide, because they would not have detected it. USDA researcher Jeffrey Pettis, PhD and Penn State University researcher Dennis Van Engelsdorp, PhD explained their research in the 2010 documentary, The Strange Disappearance of the Honeybees (transcript courtesy of Grist.org):

[Pettis] I’ve done a recent study actually in collaboration with Dennis van Engelsdorp and some other researchers, where we exposed whole colonies to very low levels of neo-nicotinoids in this case, and then ”˜challenged’ bees from those colonies, with Nosema — a pathogen — a gut pathogen. And we saw an increase, even if we fed the pesticide at very low levels— an increase in Nosema levels — in direct response to the low level feeding of neonicotinoids— as compared with the ones which were fed normal protein.

[Van Engelsdorp] You measure that effect (Nosema infection) at levels that you could not detect the pesticides — and so that brings up the question: if it’s having an effect at that low dosage —we would not have discovered it in our study because it was below the limit of detection. The only reason we knew the bees HAD exposure (to nicotinoid pesticides) is because we exposed them; otherwise we would never have known they had been exposed (to neonicotinoids).

[Pettis] The take-home message is that interactions may be the key. Bee Health is very complex and that these interactions are often overlooked and are hard to tease apart. So in this case we were manipulating ONE pesticide (Imidacloprid) and one pathogen (Nosema Ceranae) and we clearly see the interaction.

Dr. Pettis told The Independent his research had now been put forward for publication. “[It] was completed almost two years ago but it has been too long in getting out,” he said. “I have submitted my manuscript to a new journal but cannot give a publication date or share more of this with you at this time.”

Since the publication of The Independent story and leak of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memo in December showing the agency used flawed science to approve another bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticide, clothianidin, lawmakers in the UK have begun calling for a full ban of all neonicotinoids. Member of Parliament Martin Caton, a former agricultural scientist, told The Independent that the evidence was growing that neonicotinoids are a problem, and that the testing required in Britain and European Union was not rigorous enough. “I think they should be suspended on the precautionary principle while we improve it,” Mr. Caton said. The House of Commons is expected to debate the issue this week, although a full ban is unlikely.

Beekeepers and environmentalists called on EPA December 8, to remove a pesticide linked to CCD, citing the leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific support study.

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).

Colony Collapse Disorder is the name given to the mysterious decline of honeybee populations around the world beginning around 2006. Each winter since, 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.

The impact of pesticides on honeybees and other pollinators will be a featured topic at Beyond Pesticides 29th National Pesticide Forum, Sustainable Community: Practical solutions for health and the environment, April 8-9 in Denver, CO. Researchers and beekeepers, including Tom Theobald who first exposed the EPA memo, will be speaking at the event. Watch a video of Mr. Theobald discussing the leaked memo below.

“For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides can have on some of America’s rarest species,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center. “This lawsuit is intended to force the EPA to follow the law and ensure that harmful chemicals are not sprayed in endangered species habitats.”

According to EPA, the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies, in consultation with FWS and/or the NOAA Fisheries Service, “to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.” Despite extensive scientific evidence of widespread pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife habitats across the country, however, EPA has registered over 18,000 different pesticides for use and over a billion pounds of pesticides are used each year in the U.S.

“The EPA authorizes pesticide uses that result in millions of pounds of toxins, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, entering our waterways each year, polluting our soil and poisoning our drinking water,” said Mr. Miller. “Common-sense restrictions on pesticide use that protect endangered species can also safeguard human health.”

The Center cites the re-registration of the herbicide atrazine as one example of EPA’s failure to protect people and the environment. Atrazine is a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs. Atrazine is linked to cancer, birth defects and endocrine disruption in humans, as well as significant harm to wildlife.

The lawsuit seeks protection for 214 endangered and threatened species throughout the United States, including the Florida panther, California condor, piping plover, black-footed ferret, arroyo toad, Indiana bat, bonytail chub and Alabama sturgeon.

The Center for Biological Diversity previously notified EPA back in February 2010 of its intent to sue the agency when it approved 394 pesticides known to be harmful to humans and wildlife, without consulting with wildlife regulatory agencies as to the pesticides’ effects on endangered species. The Center has filed previous suites to protect endangered species from pesticides, including the California red legged frog, and the polar bear.

The researchers found that the bugs developed the ability to produce certain enzymes, which can break down toxic chemicals, at higher levels of than previous generations. These enzymes allow the chemicals to be easily excreted by the insects without being harmed. When comparing modern bugs to a colony that has existed in isolation for several decades — without any exposure to pesticides — the team found strong evidence of resistance. Bugs from the isolated colony were readily killed when exposed to even small amounts of pyrethroids. However, the modern bugs, which have been exposed to pesticide treatments for decades, required a dosage of as much as 1,000 times the amount that should normally be lethal.

Pest resistance is essentially “nothing more than sped-up evolution,” according to toxicologist John Clark, Ph.D., who was quoted in the Wall Street Journal. When chemicals are applied as a pest control, there are often at least a small number of organisms that survive the treatment due to stronger immune systems or some other genetic abnormality. Since these bugs are the only ones left to procreate, their offspring will also inherit these genes, and the process will continue, until the entire population has evolved to resist the effects of a certain chemical. This process is sped up even further when pesticides are applied over and over in large quantities, as pyrethroids have been in attempts to eradicate bed bugs.

Bed bugs have had a resurgence in the U.S. in recent years, which is believed to be caused in part by increasingly widespread pesticide resistance. This has led to public anxiety about the pests and drastic attempts to stem their spread through various means, often including the use of highly toxic and harmful chemicals. For example, the State of Ohio, dealing with infestation in several major cities in 2009, petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve the indoor use of the pesticide propoxur. The agency considers propoxur to be a probable carcinogen and, due to concerns posed to children, banned it for in-home use in 2007. About 25 other states supported Ohio’s request for an emergency exemption. In comments to the agency objecting to the petition for propoxur, Beyond Pesticides and other environmental and public health advocates urged the agency to reject the request, citing numerous serious public health threats associated with the chemical, as well as the availability of alternatives. EPA rejected Ohio’s petition in June.

Pyrethroids, some of the most common chemicals used in attempts to treat bed bug infestations, are a class of pesticides that are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural insecticide found in certain species of chrysanthemum. They were initially introduced on the market as ”˜safer’ alternatives to the heavily regulated and highly toxic organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon, which were banned for residential use in 2001 and 2004, respectively. Despite the fact that there are plenty of effective pest control methods that are not nearly as toxic, pyrethroids are now some of the most popular household pesticides. They are cause for concern to consumers because of their link to serious chronic health problems. Synthetic pyrethroids are suspected endocrine disruptors, and have been found lingering in the dust at daycare centers.

Not only are chemical treatments often more harmful than bed bugs, they are also not actually necessary, as these pests can be effectively controlled with non-toxic approaches. An Integrative Pest Management (IPM) approach, which includes methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat can control an infestation without dangerous side effects. This approach, as well as taking steps such as sealing cracks and crevices, reducing clutter and encasing mattresses can also help to prevent an infestation in the first place. Beyond Pesticides has put together a bed bug web page which includes a detailed fact sheet discussing bed bugs, the problems with pesticide treatments, and alternative control methods.

In less than two weeks, on February 1-2, 2011, EPA will be holding its Second National Bedbug Summit in Washington, DC. The aim of the summit is to gain input from scientists, medical professionals, pest control operators, and the general public as to how best to confront the growing bed bug problem. More information on the summit, which is free to attend, is available on EPA’s website.

Additionally, alternative solutions to problems associated with the use of pesticides, including insect resistance will be among many topics covered at Beyond Pesticides’ 29th annual National Pesticide Forum to be held in Denver, CO in April, 2011. Sustainable Community: Practical solutions for health and the environment is hosted by Beyond Pesticides, the Colorado School of Public Health — Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Mountain and Plains Education and Research Center, and the Denver Beekeeping Association. The conference will focus on the links between pesticides, health and the environment and will include sessions on the latest pesticide science and links to specific diseases, impacts on pollinators, organic food and farming, pesticide-free land care and much more. Read about the keynote speakers and find other information, including how to register, at www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

USDA released its 2,400 page EIS as required by a 2007 Federal District Court decision and upheld by both 2009 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and June 2010 U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The litigation was led by the Center for Food Safety, and joined by Beyond Pesticides, and other groups, including conventional and organic seed companies and producers. Three alternatives are considered during the preparation of the final EIS: 1) to maintain the RR alfalfa’s status as a regulated article; 2) to deregulate RR alfalfa; or 3) to deregulate RR alfalfa with geographic restrictions and isolation distances for the production of RR alfalfa.

A broad coalition of groups has called for USDA to deny approval of GE alfalfa. More than 300 public interest organizations, farmers, dairies, retailers and organic food producers from the U.S. and Canada delivered a critical letter to USDA. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), joined by 49 other Representatives and five other Senators, also sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack asking USDA to retain the regulated status of GE alfalfa. Despite the public outcry, USDA has indicated that it favors some form of deregulation.

Industry representatives indicated at a meeting with Secretary Vilsack on December 20, 2010 attended by Beyond Pesticides, that they want USDA to approve the GE alfalfa in time for spring planting. Its authorization ignores on-the-ground realities that are likely to lead to widespread GE cross-pollination and contamination of organic and non-GE crops, corruption of seed supplies, and protracted economic injury to farmers and markets.

Alfalfa is the nation’s 4th largest crop, planted on over 21 million acres. Forage and hay are primary feed crops for dairy cows and beef cattle as well as pork, lamb, and sheep. It’s not just for livestock – some vegetable farmers use the hay as mulch and alfalfa meal as a beneficial soil amendment. Alfalfa sprouts constitute an important sector of the salad market and alfalfa also plays a major role in honey production.

Organic standards do not allow the use of GE crops, including for animal feed. The purity of organic milk from alfalfa-fed dairy cows is a major concern. Milk is a primary entry product and mainstay for many U.S. consumers in the organic market and GE contamination would cause severe economic injury to farmers, devastating the viability and integrity of the organic label. There are also test-verified GE-free domestic and world markets in Asia and Europe that would stop buying from US farmers whose crops are contaminated by GE alfalfa.

Despite three District Court rulings and a landmark Supreme Court decision that makes planting GE alfalfa illegal and requires USDA to formulate a valid management plan, the agency is going full steam ahead, putting the deregulation or partial deregulation, of GE alfalfa on a fast track. While conceding for the first time that GE contamination of organic and GE-free crops and markets is a major problem in the U.S., USDA’s court-ordered EIS relies on faulty data and fails to take into account the scientifically-validated promiscuous nature of GE gene flow in crops. It also overlooks the widespread corruption of conventional seed varieties by GE strains (such as occurred with StarLink corn and LibertyLink rice) along with documented severe economic injury to farmers and markets. And, there is no mention at all of possible health consequences from eating GM crops.

USDA has not shown that contamination-free coexistence with deregulated GE alfalfa is likely or possible. USDA’s EIS fails to take into account the documented increase in Roundup-resistant “super weeds” that is requiring the use of highly toxic herbicide cocktails for weed control on conventional farms. Monsanto is in a rush to spread GE alfalfa while the patent protections on its exclusive manufacture of Roundup expire in 2014. And, GE alfalfa is the all-important test case – waiting in the wings is an immediate decision on how to handle a lawsuit prohibiting GE sugar beets as well as a list of other GE crops coming along in the biotech pipeline.

Take Action – Call or email President Obama and USDA and tell them NOT to deregulate GE alfalfa

Please send your own comments (see suggested language below) and notify your networks, listserves, faith organizations, etc. and post on your website, urging other people/organizations to comment.

Suggested Language (add in your own):

“I am ___________, a farmer/citizen in (your state). Please do not to allow the commercial release of GE alfalfa. Before any release can happen, there must be independent scientific evaluation of public health, environmental, and economic consequences of that release, ongoing government oversight and protection, and a plan for compensation of those harmed by accidental contamination.”

Sincerely,
Your Name
Organization, Concerned Citizen, etc.

President Obama
Comment line: (202) 456-1111
Fax: (202) 456-2461
Email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

USDA
Email: [email protected]
or call (301) 851-2300 and record your comments

While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has published previous reports on chemical levels in the general population, this is the first study to look at a broad range of chemicals specifically in pregnant women. Entitled, “Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the US: NHANES 2003-2004,” the study analyzed biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) to characterize both individual and multiple chemical exposures in U.S. pregnant women. Researchers analyzed the data for 163 chemicals and detected about three-quarters of them at varying levels in some or all of the women. They found almost all — 99 to 100 percent — of the pregnant women carry polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, phenols such as triclosan, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate.

Generally, levels in pregnant women are similar or lower than levels in nonpregnant women with the exception of triclosan, PBDEs — compounds used as flame retardants and DDE, a breakdown product of the long-banned DDT pesticide — which was found in every woman and at some of the highest levels measured for any of the chemicals. Triclosan also has some of the highest median levels (17ug/l) detected in pregnant women whose concentrations has high variability across the sampled population (the 95th percentile is 35 times greater than the median triclosan concentration).

The authors recommend that future work focus on understanding sources of exposure and the health impacts from exposures to multiple chemicals. The health risks for mother and child associated with exposure to this many chemicals at detectable —and sometimes high— levels is not known. Low-level exposures to some of these chemicals during the prenatal period —a time of rapid growth— can lead to a host of long-term health effects, including birth defects, reproductive problems, and cancer. Although the chemicals found are similar to those identified previously in nonpregnant women, pregnant women are more vulnerable than the general population. Many of the pollutants measured in the study can pass through the placenta from the mother to the developing fetus. Many, like triclosan, have been measured in cord blood, fetal blood and amniotic fluid. A recent study raised pregnancy concerns surrounding fetal exposure to triclosan in the womb. The study finds that triclosan interferes with estrogen metabolism in women and can disrupt a vital enzyme during pregnancy. Triclosan, found in hundreds of antibacterial consumer products, is also linked to thyroid interference and, according to the CDC in the updated National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, triclosan levels in people increased by approximately 50% between the years 2004 and 2006.

Triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and sewage sludge, which often gets recycled to agricultural and residential lands. In the environment, sunlight converts triclosan (and related compounds) into various forms of dioxins. It has also been detected in fish, earthworms and crops.

Recently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published for public comment the petition to ban triclosan submitted by Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 80 other groups. The petition cites the mounting scientific evidence detailing triclosan’s threat to human health and the environment. The public has until February 7th, 2011 to tell EPA to ban this dangerous chemical. Submitting comments takes no more than a few minutes. Electronic comments can be submitted to EPA at www.regulations.gov using docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548. Or you can go submit comments directly here. You can also send an automated email to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson by clicking here. More information on triclosan, the petition and how to comment can be found here. Also visit our Triclosan Webpage.

Take Action: After you have submitted your comments asking the EPA to remove triclosan from consumer products, join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Avoid products containing triclosan, and encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2009 estimates that approximately 162 million pounds of reported pesticides were applied statewide, a decrease of nearly 8 million pounds or 5 percent from 2008. Pesticide use in production agriculture fell by 5.1 million pounds and in most other categories as well, including post-harvest treatments, structural pest control and landscape maintenance. Reports are mandatory for agricultural and pest control business application, however most home, industrial and institutional uses are exempt.

(AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

California also leads with the most certified organic cropland, with over 430,000 acres, largely used for fruit and vegetable production according to updated data posted by USDA and an averaged 15 percent certified organic cropland acreage annual growth between 2002 and 2008.

DPR Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam emphasized that pesticide use varies from year to year depending on a number of factors, including weather, pest problems, economics and types of crops planted. Increases and decreases in pesticide use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years do not necessarily indicate a general trend. A wet winter, for example, may result in more pesticide use to control excessive weeds.

“The winter and spring of 2009 was relatively dry, which probably resulted in less weed and disease pressure,” Ms. Warmerdam said. “Fumigants showed the greatest drop in pounds and acres treated, which also may be due to increased environmental and regulatory concerns.” In 2008, DPR expanded its restrictions on agricultural fumigant applications in areas of the state that don’t meet federal air quality standards. The intent was to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from pesticides. VOCs combine with nitrogen oxides in sunlight to form ozone, a major air pollutant.

Overall, fumigant use fell in 2009 by 5.4 million pounds, or 14 percent and 6,000 acres treated, or 2 percent. Use of five of the six major fumigants declined: 1,3-dichloropropene(1,3-D), potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate, metam-sodium and methyl bromide.

Even though highly-toxic fumigant sulfuryl fluoride rose in 2009, use is expected to decline. This is due to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s recent response to the June 2006 petition submitted by Beyond Pesticides, Fluoride Action Network, and Environmental Working group, EPA has announced that it proposes to eliminate the use of sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture and food related products. However, despite granting the petition’s assertion that total public exposure to fluoride is too high, EPA has denied the petition’s request for an immediate stay of all registered uses of sulfuryl fluoride.

In 2009, as in previous years, sulfur was the most highly used pesticide in both pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 27 percent of all reported pesticide use. It increased by 1.6 million pounds, or 4 percent, and 65,000 acres, or 1.5 percent. Sulfur is a natural fungicide by both conventional and organic farmers mostly to control powdery mildew on grapes and processing tomatoes.

Major crops that showed an overall increase in pounds of pesticides applied over the previous year included processing tomatoes, wine grapes, pomegranates and pistachios. Major crops that showed an overall decline in pounds applied included carrots, table and raisin grapes, cotton, oranges and almonds. While pounds of pesticides used on almonds and oranges dropped, acres of these crops treated increased, augmenting pesticide exposure to farm workers. Unfortunately, farm worker pesticide poisoning is not uncommon, with several incidents related to these crops above.

The top five counties in order of most pesticide pounds applied in 2009 were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, San Joaquin and Monterey. All are major producers of agricultural products.

Other details from DPR’s 2009 pesticide report that compares 2008 to 2009:
Ӣ Use of chemicals classified as toxic air contaminants, most of which are older compounds of high regulatory concern because of their toxicity, declined by 6.7 million pounds and 235,000 acres treated, or 18 percent and 8 percent, respectively. These chemicals are used in a variety of crops.
Ӣ Use of chemicals classified as reproductive toxins declined by 998,000 pounds and 146,000 acres treated, or 6 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
Ӣ Use of chemicals classified as probable or known carcinogens declined by 4.5 million pounds and280, 000 acres treated, or 19 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
Ӣ Use of chemicals classified as ground water contaminants declined in use by 182,000 pounds and 114,000 acres treated, or 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively.
Ӣ Use of oil pesticides declined by 1.7 million pounds and 126,000 acres, or 6 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Most oils serve as an alternative to highly toxic pesticides and used by organic farmers.
Ӣ Use of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides continued to decline in use as they have for nearly every year since 1995. The two main classes of these pesticides are organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. From 2008 to 2009, use decreased by 881,000 pounds, or 17 percent, and 918,000 acres, or 21 percent.

Although any decline in toxic pesticide use is noteworthy, it should be noted that despite the viability of organic agriculture, millions of pounds of highly toxic pesticides continue to be used unnecessarily throughout the state. Besides the pesticide highlighted above, pesticides like glyphosate, methyl bromide, pendimethalin, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat-dichloride are some of the top 25 pesticides used in the state. These pesticides are linked to a myriad of adverse health effects including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption and reproductive effects.

Since these pesticides are used in conventional agriculture, our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat. That’s why food labeled organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farm workers and farm families, and stewardship of the earth. See our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide for further information.

DPR has the most extensive pesticide use reporting system in the United States. For more information on California’s 2008 pesticide use statistics, see California DPR’s website.

Take Action: Contact your state pesticide-regulatory agency and ask them to produce a report like California’s for your state. Contact the elected officials of your state and ask that this information be collected and readily available to the public.

Speaker Highlights

Maria Rodale – CEO of Rodale Inc., publisher of Organic Gardening and Prevention magazines, and the largest independent book publisher in the United States, Ms. Rodale is the author of three books. Her most recent work, Organic Manifesto, provides an indispensable and highly readable look at why chemical-free farming unquestionably holds the key to better health for our families-and the planet. Maria also sits on the board of directors of the Rodale Institute. For over sixty-years, the Rodale Institute has been researching the best practices of organic agriculture and sharing their findings with farmers and scientists throughout the world, advocating for policies that support farmers and educating consumers about how going organic is the healthiest options for people and the planet.

Benjamin Ross, PhD – Author of The Polluters: The Making of Our Chemically Altered Environment, Mr. Ross is president of the Washington consulting firm, Disposal Safety, Inc. The Polluters reveals the crucial decisions that allowed environmental issues to be trumped by political agendas. It spotlights the leaders of the chemical industry and describes how they applied their economic and political power to prevent the creation of an effective system of environmental regulation. Dr. Ross is both environmental scientist and commentator on current affairs, and has served on committees of the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board.

Registration

Recession Rate: $35 (grassroots activists and Colorado residents), Student/Senior Rate: $35, Standard Rate: $75 (includes membership for non-members), Business rate: $175. Avoid the $25 late fee by registering before March 8th. Registration includes: keynote speakers and panel discussions; interactive, discussion-based workshops; tour and hands-on demonstrations; networking opportunities; organic food and drink (breakfast, lunch and two receptions); Forum packets, printed materials and more. Register online or call 202-543-5450 to register by phone.

Forum Sponsors

“This is an important success after a quarter-century campaign! The company now has to ensure that all workers are offered adequate new jobs,” says Philipp Mmikes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers (CBG). CBG, based in Germany, introduced several countermotions to Bayer ´s Annual Stockholders ´ Meetings, demanding that MIC stockpiles at a production plant in Institute WV are dismantled and the frequent spills of hazardous substances stopped.

According to a Bayer press release, the company will be shutting down its Woodbine, Georgia formulation facility and will be closing manufacturing facilities dedicated to carbamate pesticides in Institute. The production operations, which include the manufacture of MIC, will be phased out over the next 18 months and shut down in mid-2012. Though the company denies any connection, the U.S. Chemical Safety board is scheduled to release its final report on the 2008 explosion at the Institute plant next week.

Maya Nye, a spokewoman for the group People Concerned About MIC, told the Charleston Gazette that she was concerned Bayer’s announcement would be depicted as a case of environmental and public safety protections costing jobs. Ms. Nye said, “Instead of taking the opportunity to lead the industry in developing safer technologies, [Bayer] has chosen to take a backseat to its competitors while taking the people of this valley as economic hostages.”

In August 2009, the company announced plans to reduce the storage of MIC in Institute by 80%, a year after two workers were killed when the chemical exploded at the plant. Even with the reduction however, 50,000 pounds of the chemical would still be allowed on site. This is similar to the amount of the chemical that was present in the 1984 Union Carbide-owned plant explosion in Bhopal, India.

Bayer plans to stop producing carbaryl by June 2011. In May of last year, EPA announced that it would impose limits on carbaryl and several other pesticides to protect salmon. However, several groups sued EPA back in December for failing to restrict the pesticides from entering the salmon habitat, and for violating the Endangered Species Act.

EPA announced in August an agreement with Bayer on aldicarb in which it said it would voluntarily cancel the pesticide. This followed the completion of an EPA revised risk assessment indicating that the pesticide did not meet the agency’s food safety standards. In October EPA announced, “To address the most significant risks, Bayer has agreed to first end aldicarb use on citrus and potatoes, and will adopt risk mitigation measures for other uses to protect groundwater resources. The company will voluntarily phase out production of aldicarb by December 31, 2014. All remaining aldicarb uses will end no later than August 2018.”

This new announcement by Bayer suggests that company’s timetable for ending aldicarb product sales will be shortened from the initial EPA deadline of 2016. Without the production of MIC and with the closure of part of the Institute site by mid 2012, Bayer plans to stop selling products containing aldicarb by the end of 2014.

The decision is significant, agriculture and law experts say, because it strengthens the case for organic farmers or anyone else harmed by pesticides to seek legal recourse – even if the pesticide is legally applied. The county’s deputy agricultural commissioner, Lisa LeCoump, said the court decision against Western Farm Services changes the ground rules, making it clear that a sprayer can now be held liable even if no law is broken. While California state law restricts pesticides from being sprayed on neighboring properties, the law doesn’t deal specifically with pesticides that disperse into the air after application and end up someplace else. Attorneys for Western Farm Service argued that since the company had not run afoul of state law, Jacobs Farm did not have the right to sue.

The Court of Appeals, in its ruling, dismissed that argument. The panel contended that the jury could hold the pesticide company liable for tainting the organic crops at Jacobs Farm. The decision stated that applying pesticides that are likely to drift to other people’s property because of climate conditions can be grounds for damages, even if the user has a permit. County permits set only minimum safety standards and do not excuse pesticide users from their duty to act with caution and avoid applications that pose “a reasonable possibility of damage” to others’ crops.

In 2008, a Santa Cruz jury issued the initial verdict against the company awarding $1 million in compensation to Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo after its herbs were contaminated by pesticides. The jury found that organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos, diazinon and dimethoate, had been sprayed on nearby farms’ Brussels sprouts, vaporized and blew onto the organic farm, making the herbs unmarketable and in violation of organic standards. The crops had to be destroyed. The court ruled that pesticide applications by Western Farm Service resulted in trespass of the pesticides onto Jacobs Farm and were legally determined to be a nuisance depriving Jacobs Farm of the right to use and enjoy the land, caused by negligence on the part of Western Farm Services.

An attorney for Western Farm Services said the decision would “impose a serious burden and concern to the industry.” The attorney maintained that a seller or sprayer of pesticide should not be held responsible for what happens days or weeks after chemicals are safely applied.

Under the organic regulations, only approved pesticides may qualify for inclusion (if they meet the organic standards), and the inert ingredients must also be on the National Organic Standards approved list of inerts. Organic standards under the Organic Foods Production Act have strict standards that limit the use of synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms, and irradiation is prohibited in organic production.

Organophosphates (OPs) like chlorpyrifos have been found to remain in the air at very high concentrations 24 hours after application. Residues remain on plant surfaces for approximately 10 to 14 days. Data indicate that OPs can accumulate in certain crops and persist in the environment. OPs were the first group of chemicals to go through tolerance reassessment under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act because they are known to pose risks of acute and chronic toxicity to humans as well as wildlife. They are also considered to be the most likely pesticide to cause an acute poisoning.

For more information on organic agriculture and how to get involved, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic program page.

According to EPA officials, the decision appears to be the first time the agency has granted substantive formal objections to a pesticide tolerance rule based on public health advocates’ evidence that a particular chemical’s use violates the safety standard for aggregate exposures under federal law.

Despite granting the petition’s assertion that total public exposure to fluoride is too high, EPA has denied the petition’s request for an immediate stay of all registered uses of sulfuryl fluoride. Citing “environmental and economic consequences” of an immediate withdrawal, the agency has opted instead for a long-term, three year phase out of several of the chemical’s uses, saying that “the risks from continued sulfuryl fluoride use in the short term is [sic] insignificant.” This seemingly goes against the agency’s stated belief that “aggregate fluoride exposure for infants and children under the age of 7 years old, where drinking water contains high levels of natural fluoride, exceeds the level that can cause severe dental fluorosis.”

Prior to this announcement, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and EPA’s Office of Water announced action on fluoride on January 7 in the form of tightening standards for fluoride levels in drinking water, proposing to reduce its recommended maximum level of fluoride in tap water from 1.2 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), a 42 percent decrease. This means that, because the previous standards were higher, communities across the country that receive fluoridated water have been subjected to unsafe levels of fluoride for decades. Additionally, health advocates at Fluoride Action Network have criticized the new rules, saying that they do not go far enough. However, according to the American Dental Association, newborn babies and infants up to one year of age should not be consuming any fluoridated water. This is particularly significant since the EPA has cited concern about heightened risks to infants as a chief motivator for eliminating sulfuryl fluoride.

Sulfuryl fluoride is a dangerous chemical which has been linked to cancer as well as neurological, developmental, and reproductive damages. Sulfuryl fluoride is acutely moderately toxic by oral exposure (Toxicity Category II) and slightly toxic for acute inhalation (Toxicity Categories III and IV) and dermal vapor toxicity (Toxicity Category IV). Residents and workers are at risk for neurotoxic effects from acute exposure. Subchronic studies on rats have indicated effects on the nervous system, lungs, and brain. Developmental and reproductive effects have also been noted in relevant studies on rats. According to the National Research Council, fluorides might also increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and boys exposed to fluoride in drinking water are five times more likely to develop osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.

In addition to its health effects, the chemical has been shown to be a highly potent greenhouse gas. Research has shown that it can be as much as 4,000 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, the leading atmospheric contributor to climate change. It currently exists in the atmosphere at much smaller concentrations than CO2, which is why its use must be curtailed before it becomes even more of a concern.

EPA first registered the agricultural use of sulfuryl fluoride in 2004 as an insecticide and established tolerances for a wide range of crops including cereal grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, cocoa beans, and coffee beans. In 2009, despite the urging of health and environmental advocates, Dow AgroSciences was granted permission to sell sulfuryl fluoride for use in sterilizing agricultural fields as well as for fumigation of food storage, handling, and processing facilities.

If EPA makes the proposal final, many uses of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride would stop within 90 days. A three-year phase-out period would be extended for other uses, including dried nuts and fruits and usage by direct handling facilities like flour mills.

The actions by EPA and HHS represent a growing consensus that the American public is being exposed to excessive fluoride. They amount to admissions that for decades, public health agencies have erroneously reassured the public that fluoride is safe. As a result, generations of children have been exposed to amounts of fluoride that could damage teeth and bones and that emerging science indicates could harm thyroid function and increase risks for bone cancer.

Numerous developments last year, including the petition to ban triclosan submitted by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch along with over 80 environmental and public health groups, citing triclosan’s violation of numerous federal statues, as well as the increasing scientific data on triclosan’s hormone disrupting effects and long-term environmental contamination, have placed triclosan under media and congressional scrutiny. Companies are now quietly moving to remove triclosan from their products ahead of potential regulatory action and increasing consumer and retailer rejection.

Colgate-Palmolive is reformulating its popular soap products to exclude triclosan. The orange-colored ”˜Ultra-Palmolive Antibacterial,’ the antibacterial dish-cleaning liquid will no longer contatin triclosan as its active ingredient and will no longer make the claim of being a “hand soap,” but will strictly be marketed as a dish soap, placing its label claims under the jurisdiction of EPA and not FDA, which has done little to regulate this toxic chemical. Colgate-Palmolive is also removing triclosan from its hand soaps. It formerly marketed Softsoap brand antibacterial hand soap containing triclosan, with a label claiming elimination of 99 percent of germs. It is now rolling out a new line of Softsoap hand soaps, which state that they “wash away bacteria.” Antibacterial soaps have been shown to be no more effective at removing bacteria than regular soap and water. However, Colgate-Palmolive is retaining use of triclosan in its Total brand toothpaste, a line that the company claims fights gingivitis.

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

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

The scientific literature has extensively linked the uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites contaminate waterways and are present in fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.

TAKE ACTION: On December 8, 201,0 EPA published Beyond Pesticides’ petition calling for the ban of triclosan in consumer products for public comment. Comments are being accepted until February 7, 2011. Please submit your comments urging the agency to ban this controversial chemical at the Federal docket at www.regulation.gov using docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548. Or you can go submit comments directly here. Sample comments can be found here. Email us at [email protected] for action alerts and updates on triclosan.

(Please note that the Regulations.gov site is currently experiencing problems with the Google Chrome and Safari browsers, so if possible please use Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox to submit comments. If you are having any additional trouble submitting comments online, please contact the Regulations.gov Help Desk at 1-877-378-5457.) Comments must be submitted by February 7, 2010.

This 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.

Through ATP, antimicrobial products including hospital disinfectants and tuberculocides are meant to be tested to ensure that they meet health standards and that the claims on the product labels are accurate. However, OIG has found that “EPA’s implementation of the ATP has not delivered on its mission.” The report highlights the fact that, since 1991, more than 40% of antimicrobials (or 277 of 656) on the market have yet to be tested. Additionally, beginning in December 2008, the process for testing a product relied on manufacturers voluntarily submitting samples to be tested. This method limits the EPA’s ability to enforce regulations, since it could not ensure the scientific purity and integrity of the samples.

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 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.

Owing to these findings, the OIG report states that, “Rather than providing increased assurance that antimicrobial products are efficacious, [this case] raises concerns regarding the integrity of EPA’s product registration process.” The effectiveness of EPA in regulating pesticides has previously been brought into question in cases such as, among others, the recent linkage of the registered pesticide clothianidin to adverse impacts on honeybee health. According to the report, “As currently executed, the ATP does not ensure that hospital disinfectants and tuberculocides in the marketplace meet efficacy standards,” meaning that there is no way for the public to be confident that the products they are using hold up to manufacturer claims.

Antimicrobials are of particular concern due to the potentially dangerous effects they can have on human and environmental health. One of the most serious problems associated with their use is antibacterial resistance. There is substantial evidence that widespread use of antibacterial compounds promote the emergence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers. This makes antibacterial resistance a national health concern, due to the fact that it can make infections difficult or impossible to treat. In addition to bacterial resistance, another common concern stems from the potential of antimicrobials such as triclosan to lead to the formation of dioxin, either when they are synthesized or when they are incinerated. Dioxin is a highly toxic chemical which has been linked to cancer, weakened immune systems and reproductive problems.

While the OIG has concluded that the efficacy of many antimicrobials under the purview of ATP cannot be assured, there is, fortunately, one treatment proven to be effective at preventing household illness and infection that can be found in virtually every home and workplace across the country: soap and water. This simple treatment renders dangerous chemicals such as triclosan completely unnecessary. An article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” (2007), concludes that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps. This follows a recommendation by the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee on October 20, 2005 in a statement that antibacterial soaps and washes are no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections.

TAKE ACTION: We need your help before February 7, 2011! Your voice is critical in generating public comments on a petition, published in the Federal Register, calling on the EPA to remove triclosan from the market. We only have four more weeks to let EPA know that triclosan must be banned to protect the public, workers and the environment.

Submit electronic comments to the EPA at www.regulations.gov using docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548. Or you can go submit comments directly here. Please note that the Regulations.gov site is currently experiencing problems with the Google Chrome and Safari browsers, so if possible please use Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox to submit comments. If you are having any additional troubles submitting comments online, please contact the Regulations.gov Help Desk at 1-877-378-5457. Comments must be submitted by February 7, 2010.

For more information, including suggested sample comments see our Daily News story from January 4, 2011. Please send your own comments and notify your networks, listserves, faith organizations, etc. and post on your website, urging other people/organizations to comment. Click here for the document you can use to publicize the public comment period on the Ban Triclosan petition.

The lawsuit was filed late last week by Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers of America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Worksafe, Communities and Children Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning and farmworkers Jose Hidalgo Ramon and Zeferino Estrada.

The suit challenges the state Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) December 20 approval of methyl iodide for use in California 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.

“The public has been shocked, wondering how methyl iodide could be approved under California law. The truth is that DPR played too fast and loose with their decision,” said Greg Loarie, Attorney with Earthjustice. “They exceeded their legal authority and have put the public and farmworkers at great risk of harm.”

In deciding to approve methyl iodide, DPR shunned the findings of top scientists””including the state’s own Scientific Review Committee””who have consistently said that the chemical is too dangerous to be used in agriculture. Upon hearing the decision, Dr. John Froines, chair of the Committee, told press, “I honestly think that this chemical will cause disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee.” Theodore Slotkin, 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.”

Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, contaminates groundwater and is so reliably carcinogenic that it’s used to create cancer cells in laboratories. It is 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.

“It’s farmworkers like me who become sick,” said plaintiff Jose Hidalgo. “As a strawberry picker, I have worked near many pesticide applications. First we smell the pesticides. Then our eyes burn, our noses run and our throats hurt. I’m against using methyl iodide because it’s already too dangerous in the fields, we don’t need new, even more dangerous, toxins.”

In 2007, EPA fast-tracked the registration of methyl iodide (a Proposition 65 carcinogen) for use as a soil fumigant despite serious concerns raised by a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. These scientists sent a letter of concern to EPA explaining, “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people. In addition to the potential for increased cancer incidence, EPA’s own evaluation of the chemical also indicates that methyl iodide causes thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals.” The letter concludes, “It is astonishing that the Office of Pesticide Programs (of EPA) is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

Since then, the more protective registration processes in New York State and Washington State both rejected methyl iodide, and in August 2010, California Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the US EPA to review the pesticide’s registration nationally. The agency has said that it will open a public comment period on the pesticide’s approval due to the “complexity of the issues raised and the public interest in methyl iodide.”

“A lot of consumers think of organic produce in terms of how it affects their diet and their health,” said Michael Marsh, directing attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance Inc,to The Californian. “But the best reason to look for alternatives isn’t really to protect people further down the line; it is to protect the health of the workers and the people who live nearby.”

Organic agriculture does not allow the use toxic chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. Furthermore, a study released late last year showed that organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious strawberries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse than conventional strawberry farms. Support organic farming and protect farmers, farmworkers, and their families and neighbors from toxic chemicals.

For more information on organic versus conventional agricultural practices, see Beyond Pesticides’ new guide, Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience, urging consumers to consider impacts on the environment, farmworker and farm families’ health —in addition to personal health impacts posed by pesticide residues— when making food choices.

Source: PANNA Press Release
The Californian

We have five more weeks —until February 7, 2011— to let EPA know that triclosan must be banned to protect the public, workers and the environment. Click here for the document you can use to publicize the public comment period on Ban Triclosan petition or email info@beyondpesticides for the word version.

EPA published in the Federal Register a petition, filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, to ban the hazardous antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan for non-medical use. The chemical is found in products from clothing to soaps. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) announces a public comment period until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes from pesticides, clean water, safe drinking water, to endangered species.

SUGGESTED ACTION AND SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENT:
Please send your own comments (see suggested language below) and notify your networks, listserves, faith organizations, etc. and post on your website, urging other people/organizations to comment. Thanks!

Suggested Language (unique comments are extremely helpful). Submit electronic comments to the EPA at www.regulations.gov using docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548. Or you can go submit comments directly here. Please note that the Regulations.gov site is currently experiencing problems with the Google Chrome and Safari browsers, so if possible please use Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox to submit comments. If you are having any additional troubles submitting comments online, please contact the Regulations.gov Help Desk at 1-877-378-5457. Comments must be submitted by February 7, 2010.

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460-0001

Re: Petition for a Ban on Triclosan. Docket Number: EPAHQOPP20100548

I am writing to support the concerns raised in the petition regarding the prevalence of the toxic pesticide triclosan in consumer products. Research has shown that triclosan poses a threat to human health, contaminates water and persists in the environment. EPA has a responsibility under the law to protect the health of the public and the environment and must move to do so now. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds triclosan concentrations are increasing in the human population, triclosan is too dangerous a chemical to be allowed in consumer products as it is causing involuntary exposure directly and through environmental contamination. Triclosan has been linked to:

– endocrine disruption as it interferes with the thyroid hormone, estrogen and androgen hormones and as a result can impact fetal development
– bacterial resistance and possible cross-resistance to antibiotics
– contaminated biosolids that are used for compost and agricultural fertilizer
– toxic and more persistent breakdown products including dioxins and other endocrine disruptors
– accumulation in plants, crustaceans and is toxic to amphibians, algal communities and certain fish species

Since triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water at reducing bacteria, there is absolutely no need for triclosan to be incorporated into consumer products, given the hazards to people and the environment. I sincerely hope your agency takes the threats posed by triclosan seriously and moves quickly to rid this chemical from consumer products.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Organization, Concerned Citizen, etc.

Background:
The petition, filed on January 14, 2010, identifies pervasive and widespread use of triclosan and a failure of EPA to: (i) address the impacts posed by triclosans degradation products on human health and the environment, (ii) conduct separate assessment for triclosan residues in contaminated drinking water and food, and (iii) evaluate concerns related to antibacterial resistance and endocrine disruption. The petition cites violations of numerous environmental statutes, including laws on pesticide registration, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. It also documents that triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water in removing germs and therefore creates an unnecessary hazardous exposure for people and the environment. Regulated by both EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, triclosan is commonly found in clothing, toys, kitchen utensils and cutting boards, hair brushes, computer keyboards, countertops, plastics, facial tissues, hand soaps, cosmetics, toothpastes, deodorants, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, antiseptics, and medical devices. The petition to EPA seeks expedited action to ban household triclosan, challenging serious deficiencies in EPAs September 2008 re-registration of triclosan and its failure to comply with safety laws.

Research indicates that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds in its 2009 report, National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, and 2010 update that triclosan is in the bodies of 75% of the U.S. population and its levels are increasing. A critical health concern is triclosans association with bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications and cleansers, a special problem for vulnerable populations such as infants, patients, and the elderly. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which potentially increases cancer risk. Recent studies show triclosans adverse effects on fetal growth and development. Further, the pesticide accumulates in biosolids, is taken up by food crops, and breaks down to different forms of dioxin, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals. “Were calling on the public to urge EPA to consider the full extent of triclosan’s impact on people’s health and the environment and ban its non-medical uses,” said Jay Feldman executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

According to the FAO (which previously advocated for organic agriculture), the goals of the program, which is ongoing, are “building local farming capacity, improving food security and livelihoods, and raising awareness of negative externalities and positive alternatives.” These are accomplished through training farmers in what the FAO calls integrated production and pest management (IPPM) methods so that they can reduce toxic inputs and pollution while enhancing soil fertility and retaining more of their income. The particular methods of IPPM include reducing pesticide usage, soil building through incorporation of compost and manure and the planting of cover crops, careful monitoring of pests using biological controls only when needed, and the introduction of beneficial insects, such as pollinators. For more information on integrated pest management in the home and community, visit our IPM page.

The farmers were trained using a technique developed by the FAO called Farmer Field Schools, which consists of groups of about 25 farmers who are educated throughout the growing season in IPPM practices and decide as a group how best to farm their test plot. Each group divides their test plot in half, with one half being farmed with IPPM methods and the other according to commonly accepted practices in the community. From 2002 to 2009, there were over 80,000 farmers trained through these schools, with that number expected to be more than 100,000 at the start of the new year.

One of the outcomes of the program was a significant reduction in pesticide usage, as in the case of 80 surveyed vegetable farmers, whose use of commercial synthetic pesticides went from 3.5 liters per hectare to about a quarter of a liter per hectare after going through the training — a reduction of 92%, representing savings to the farmers of about $60(US) per hectare in pesticide expenses. The percentage of farmers in this survey who used toxic pesticides went from 97% to 12% after incorporating IPPM methods into their farming operations. This reduction in chemical usage through ecological practices was a priority of the program so that farmers would not “run the risk [of] being vulnerable to commercial pressures to use pesticides.”

In addition to pesticide reduction, the introduction of soil management schemes sought to reduce pollution from runoff of fertilizers and prevent the erosion of topsoil. This was accomplished through the incorporation of compost and manure into agricultural fields as natural fertilizers. Compost use by rice, cotton, and vegetable farmers in Benin increased by 260% through the training offered by the Farmer Field Schools. This represents great potential for preventing pollutants from fertilizer runoff from entering waterways and drinking water supplies.

The practices implemented by farmers who participated in the program resulted not only in a reduction of environmental degradation, but also a significant increase in farmer incomes. This occurred due to the increased yields that farmers experienced coupled with the increased net value of their products, due to minimized needs for expensive chemical inputs. In the case of the 80 surveyed vegetable farmers, the net value of their crops after having gone through the program increased by over $1000(US) per hectare. Additionally, figures from rice farmers in Senegal show that their yields increased by more than a ton per hectare using the more sustainable methods.

Previous research has shown that organic agriculture can be at least as equally productive as conventional, chemical-reliant systems. A collaborative study from 2005 involving the Rodale Institute, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service, and the University of Maryland, which evaluated organic versus conventional cropping systems over a 22 year period, showed equal yields for corn and soybeans, with the organic yields increasing after several years. Additionally, the study found that the organic production system requires 30% less energy. Perhaps more notably, a 2007 study from the University of Michigan reveals that in the developing world the use of organic production methods can dramatically increase the amount of food produced, doubling and sometimes tripling yields. Research such as this, coupled with further data from Rodale as well as the UN, effectively lay to rest the claim that organic agriculture cannot produce enough food to serve the world’s ever-growing population.

Beyond Pesticides is a strong supporter of sustainable agriculture through organic production systems. Food produced organically does not harm the natural environment and reduces the potential for harmful health effects that result from the use of toxic chemicals. Programs such as the FAO’s IPPM project demonstrate that sustainable food production systems, such as organic, truly are viable alternatives to industrial, chemically intensive agriculture and that toxic, expensive, and ecologically damaging pesticides are not necessary to grow bountiful food. These systems provide the path to a future where we can grow food while continuing to protect our natural resources and our collective health. To see our work in support of organics and to learn what you can do to help, visit our organic program page.

In an effort to strengthen the protection of the sole source aquifer that supplies Long Island’s drinking water, and area lakes, ponds and bays, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has announced the creation of a consortium of public and private stakeholders to develop a Long Island Pesticide Use Management Plan. The committee, which first met November 30, 2010, will create the Plan that focuses on mitigating the impact of pesticides on groundwater.

The plan, according to the Department’s Regional Director Peter A. Scully, is being prepared in response to the past discovery of more than 100 pesticides and pesticide breakdown products in Long Island’s groundwater. The overall goal of the plan, Mr. Scully said, is to prevent adverse effects to human health and the environment by protecting Long Island’s groundwater and surface water resources from pesticide contamination, while continuing to meet the needs of agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional pest management.

“The importance of this effort is underscored by the broad representation of many diverse interests, all of whom agree that reducing the introduction of toxic materials into Long Island’s environment is of paramount importance,” said Mr. Scully. “Never before in history has such a capable and balanced group joined together to work cooperatively with the goals of strengthening the protection of our drinking water supply, and our surface waters.”

While Suffolk County Water Authority and other public water suppliers treat groundwater to remove contaminants, private wells that draw water from groundwater reserves ordinarily do not, which can pose a health risk. High levels of pesticides in drinking water can cause birth defects, damage to the nervous system and, in some cases, cancer. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Disease Database for more information on pesticides and pesticide induced diseases. A key component of the plan involves examining preventive measures and steps that can be taken to minimize the potential for pesticides to impact groundwater resources. Potential measures could involve taking actions before pesticides are detected in groundwater or measures that can be taken after a pesticide is detected in groundwater resources.

The DEC-led committee, made up of government officials, pesticide applicators, agriculture representatives and environmentalists, is expected to release a final plan next year. The plan will shape the DEC’s policies for reducing pesticide-related threats to Long Island’s drinking water.

Every year, homeowners, farmers, groundskeepers and exterminators apply millions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of gallons of pesticides to control pests. Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, and 23 have the potential to leach. 2,4-D, found in weed and feed and other lawn products, is the herbicide most frequently detected in streams and shallow ground water from urban lawns. The committee will develop policies to encourage Long Islanders to manage pests with some of the least-toxic pesticides as well as environmentally-friendly methods that do not contain pesticides at all.

Previous U.S. Geological Survey data have found that U.S. waterways and groundwater are contaminated with toxic substances including fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other industrial chemicals. Chemicals, even those detected at low-levels, are increasingly being linked to serious health and developmental effects, well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standards and levels of concern. According to a Beyond Pesticides report, Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination, over 50% of the U.S. population draws its drinking water supply from groundwater. Once groundwater has been contaminated, it takes many years or even decades to recover.

For more information on the effects of water contamination, read “Reproductive Effects Peak with Pesticide Exposure,” a talk given by Paul Winchester, M.D., at Beyond Pesticides April 2010 National Pesticide Forum at Case Western Reserve Medical School and published in our latest issue of Pesticides and You. For more information on drinking water and contaminants found in drinking water, read Beyond Pesticides’ “Threatened Waters,” and see the Pesticide Induced Disease Database for links between chemical exposure and diseases.

There are a number of provisions in these directives that encourage member states to address pesticide usage, requiring such measures as implementing strict guidelines surrounding the sale and inspection of pesticides and application equipment, requiring governments to inform the public about the risks associated with pesticides, limiting or completely eliminating aerial spraying of pesticides, ensuring drinking water supplies and aquatic ecosystems are protected from runoff, and requiring or supporting the establishment of integrated pest management (IPM) systems.

In nearly every instance, except where it was clearly prohibited by the EU directives, the UK government chose to rely solely on existing laws and procedures, ignoring the input it had sought from medical, consumer, and public advocacy groups, which largely declared that existing regulations are far too weak. One of the most contentious elements contained in the pesticide products regulation concerned an optional provision that would require the notification of local residents when pesticides are being applied. Tom Levitt of The Ecologist wrote of this that “DEFRA’s own consultation on the issue admitted that the public believed the current voluntary approach was not working and that public signs indicating spraying had taken place should be compulsory.” However, the agency has deemed notification of the public unnecessary, adding that it encourages farmers and sprayers to “develop good relationships with their neighbors” and only notify them if they choose.

Another key element of the regulation, which brought widespread input from the public, was the minimization or prohibition of the use of pesticides on areas used by vulnerable groups, such as (according to the regulation) “pregnant and nursing women, the unborn, infants and children, the elderly and workers and residents subject to high pesticide exposure over the long term.” This would include areas such as schools, playgrounds, public parks, and sports arenas in addition to the properties of residents who live adjacent to fields that are sprayed. Ignoring strong evidence of the toxic nature of pesticides as well as testimony from the public, DEFRA has stated only that they “do not consider that it is necessary to prohibit the use of pesticides in public spaces or conservation areas or to impose new statutory controls on pesticide use in these areas. We believe that the UK can meet its obligations under the Directive through existing statutory and voluntary control measures and by developing additional voluntary guidance.”

UK pesticide activist Georgina Downs, speaking to The Ecologist, said, “the prohibition of the use of pesticides in the locality of homes, schools, children’s playgrounds, hospitals and public areas is absolutely crucial for public health protection, especially that of vulnerable groups.” She also called it “outrageous” that DEFRA fails to see the need to eliminate pesticides from public areas.

For more information, see DEFRA’s consultation page and the summary of responses, including the government’s decisions on how it will move forward concerning each stipulation of the directives.

In the United States, Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for the minimization and elimination of pesticides everywhere, including from public spaces such as schools and parks. Their toxic nature makes them dangerous to human and environmental health, and successful IPM models have shown that they are unnecessary. Strong regulatory action is needed in order to ensure that these chemicals stay out of our lives. However, regulatory agencies all too often continue allowing dangerous pesticides to be used and need to be pressured to maintain their integrity and to continue to act for the public good. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Watchdogging the Government page to learn about how we are keeping the regulatory process strong and view our How-To Factsheets to see how to support organic and IPM practices and eliminate pesticides from your home and community.