According to the study entitled “Triclosan persistence through wastewater treatment plants and its potential toxic effects on river biofilms,” when triclosan finds its way into rivers and streams it can inhibit photosynthesis in algae and kill bacteria. The study examined a group of algae known as diatoms. Through photosynthesis, diatoms produce food as well as oxygen needed for other organisms. Diatoms produce an estimated 80 percent of the oxygen in our atmosphere making them essential to life on earth.

When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Aided by the false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria, triclosan has since exploded in the marketplace in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Due to the prevalence of this antibacterial, triclosan can now easily find its way from household products into the ecosystem. When a product such as soap is rinsed down the drain, it ends up at a sewage treatment facility. Such facilities are not designed to eliminate organic compounds such as pharmaceuticals or antibacterials, so these compounds end up in nearby waterbodies. Triclosan concentrations in treated wastewater can range from 0.027 – 2.7 micrograms per liter.

Researchers tested the effects of various triclosan concentrations on naturally-occurring microbial communities gathered from a river in northeast Spain. Bacterial populations were reduced at the lowest tested concentration of 0.5 micrograms per liter. At a concentration of 5 micrograms per liter triclosan was found to be toxic to diatoms, inhibiting photosynthesis.

This study is part of a growing collection of scientific data showing the dangers of triclosan outweigh its benefits. 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.

Dial Corp was recently hit with a class action suit over claims that its antibacterial soap Dial Complete, which contains triclosan, kills 99.99% of germs. The plaintiff, David Walls, stated in his suit that there are no reliable studies that show Dial Complete lives up to these claims.

Studies have found that triclosan contributes to the increasing rates of bacterial resistance. Triclosan persists in the environment and in human bodies, and has endocrine disrupting properties and causes adverse health problems in humans and wildlife species.

A recent study raises concern that triclosan interferes with human fetal growth and development. Researchers found that triclosan interferes with estrogen metabolism in women and can disrupt a vital enzyme during pregnancy. Data indicates that only a small amount of triclosan can be dangerous to an unborn baby.

Based on these numerous human and environmental health concerns, Beyond Pesticides in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring that they ban all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes. FDA recently stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.” FDA announced that it plans to review data concerning triclosan. EPA maintains that the agency does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013. [Triclosan is jointly regulated by FDA and EPA.]

TAKE ACTION: 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. For more information about triclosan and the campaign, visit our Triclosan Program page.

The Child Safe Playing Field Act, which was enacted in May 2010, requires that all schools, preschools, and day care centers both public and private to stop using pesticides on any playgrounds or playing fields. The law allows for emergency application of pesticides for infestations if the County Health Department, the Commissioner of Health, the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation or the school board deems it an emergency. Containerized nonvolatile bait stations are also permitted for insect and rodent control. “The archaic practice of poisoning children’s playgrounds is coming to an end in New York State. We will now raise a generation of healthier, safer children because of this legislation,” said Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, Citizens’ Campaign for the Environment.

The draft guidance addresses five subjects, to provide information on the new requirements and how to comply:
A. Summary of requirements of Chapter 85 and identification of involved State agencies.
B. Information on how to maintain child-safe playing fields and turf without pesticides, to assist in complying with the new pesticide prohibition, including an introduction to alternative approaches to grounds maintenance and pest management and concepts about soil and plant health.
C. Brief description of the types of pesticide products allowed under the new law and ways to identify them.
D. Identification of agencies that schools and day care centers should contact to request an emergency pesticide application determination, as well as the basic framework for situations which will be considered an emergency by the NYS DOH and NYS DEC.
E. List of responsible State agencies and contact information for questions.

Take Action (New York): Comments on the draft guidance are being accepted until November 29, 2010. Comments should be submitted to: Mary A. Roy, NYS DEC – Division of Materials Management, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7257, e-mailed to [email protected] or faxed to (518) 402-9024.

Take Action (Nationally): It is time for a national policy that would protect every child in the United States from pesticide exposure at school. Federal legislation, the School Environment Protection Act of 2009 (SEPA), has been introduced by Rep. Rush Holt and would protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide. The legislation also bans the use of synthetic fertilizers. To learn more about this legislation and help its passage, see Beyond Pesticides’ SEPA webpage.

The study, which was published in the November print issue of the journal Environment International, examines the effect of triclosan on a placental enzyme, called estrogen sulfotransferase. Triclosan is known to inhibit sulfonation of phenolic xenobiotics and is structurally related to other known inhibitors of estrogen sulfotransferase, such as polychlorobiphenylols (PCBs). During pregnancy, the placenta is an important source of estrogen, which is needed for normal fetal development and successful parturition (childbirth), and estrogen sulfotransferase is thought to play an important role in regulation of estrogen availability. Estrogen is a key hormone during pregnancy and controls the way a baby develops many key organs like the brain. Triclosan was found to be a very potent inhibitor of both estradiol and estrone sulfonation. The high potency of triclosan as an inhibitor of estrogen sulfotransferase activity raises concern about its possible effects on the ability of the placenta to supply estrogen to the fetus.

Aside from the role it plays in the fetus, estrogen also affects how much oxygen the baby gets from the mother. Estrogen is also involved in signaling the uterus to contract during labor. But maintaining the right levels of the hormone during pregnancy is a delicate balance. Too much estrogen could send the mother’s body into premature labor. Too little could hinder the flow of oxygen. Both instances could affect how the baby’s brain develops. This is one of the reasons scientists are concerned about the pregnancy-related effects of chemicals such as triclosan.

According to Margaret James, PhD, University of Florida medicinal chemist and lead author of the study, “We suspect that makes this substance dangerous in pregnancy if enough of the triclosan gets through to the placenta to affect the enzyme. We know for sure it is a very potent inhibitor. What we don’t know is the kinds of levels you would have to be exposed to see a negative effect. If this process is interrupted then we wonder if that might affect how the fetus develops. There is a chance it may not produce some of the proteins that it should during development. Therefore there might be a chance at either growth retardation or something worse happening to the fetus.”

“My recommendation would be if someone is pregnant that the best thing would be to avoid plaque reducing toothpastes that has Triclosan in it and also to avoid antibacterial soaps and other products that have Triclosan in it,” Dr. James also added.

Researchers are also concerned that some people cannot get rid of all the triclosan from their bodies once exposed. Research shows that just a small amount of triclosan can be potentially damaging to a developing baby. Triclosan has already been found in breast milk, urine and umbilical cord blood. The Centers for Disease Control in an updated National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals notes that triclosan levels in people increased by over 41% between just the years 2004 and 2006. It is the antimicrobial agent in hundreds of consumer products currently on the market including hand sanitizers, toys, clothing and kitchen utensils. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and is also shown to alter thyroid function. Triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways; about 96 percent of triclosan from consumer products is disposed of in residential drains. This leads to large loads of the chemical in water entering wastewater treatment plants, which are incompletely removed during the wastewater treatment process. When treated wastewater is released to the environment, sunlight converts some of the triclosan (and related compounds) into various forms of dioxins.

Based on these numerous human and environmental health concerns, Beyond Pesticides in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring that they ban all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes. FDA recently stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.” FDA announced that it plans to review data concerning triclosan. EPA maintains that the agency does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013. [Triclosan is jointly regulated by FDA and EPA.]

TAKE ACTION: 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. For more information about triclosan and the campaign, visit our Triclosan program page.

“These groups relentlessly pushed for molding the standard to validate industrial agriculture and high tech genetic manipulation,” says Jeff Moyer, Farm Director at the Rodale Institute and active member of the committee. “The model they propose confuses short-term profits for sustainability.”

Responding to the resignation, a Leonardo Academy spokesperson said it, “recognizes their perspective but disagrees with their assessment.” The Academy believes their ANSI-approved standard development process provides the balance across interest categories needed for developing a Sustainable Agriculture Standard that will be widely implemented and successful in the marketplace. They state that the balance is accomplished through these four ANSI-approved interest categories of producers, users, environmentalists and general interest. Other members of the group are listed here.

According to Mr. Moyer, “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are probably the biggest bone of contention. But, again, it is dishonest to claim these as the only ”˜modern’ techniques out there. Ecologically-minded farmers and researchers have developed things like hormone disruption, cover cropping and no-till rollers that are widely accepted and integrated on all kinds of farms. It is just biology instead of chemistry. And internationally organic agriculture has already been identified as the key to sustainability.”

As the Sustainable Agriculture Standard setting process was just beginning in 2008, Beyond Pesticides and the National Organic Coalition sent a letter to the Leonardo Academy voicing concerns over the proposed label being developed with Big Ag at the table. The later stated, “The National Organic Coalition is deeply concerned about the adverse impact that a sustainable agriculture label will have on the urgent need to increase our nation’s organic acreage and production practices. The advancement of organic systems, as an alternative to toxic agrichemical practices, is the most effective way to (i) eliminate hazardous and synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use, (ii) protect those who work in agriculture, (iii) curtail threats to the environment and wildlife, and (iv) reduce the pressures on global climate change. The growth of the organic sector is critically needed for environmental, health and labor protection. To the extent that a standard and label are created for the term sustainable, it most certainly compromises key standards that are critical to our national and global health.”

While organic food production reduces hazards from pesticides on the farm, Beyond Pesticides recognizes that a truly sustainable food system should incorporate other principles, especially farmworker justice. Farmworkers have long fought for better working conditions, wages and labor practices. Currently, the Domestic Fair Trade Association, a collaboration of organizations representing farmers, farmworkers, food system workers, retailers, manufacturers, processors, and non-governmental organizations, is in the final stage of developing a process to evaluate marketplace social justice claims for domestically produced products. Internationally, the non-profit group Equal Exchange certifies products as Fair Trade.

The overuse of pesticides in industrialized agriculture has created numerous problems for people and the environment. Pesticide use has been linked to many diseases including numerous types of cancer, Parkinson’s, and learning disabilities. In addition pesticides are also dangerous to wildlife. Pesticides often kill non-target organisms that may be beneficial to farmers, such as predatory insects.

Organic agriculture is an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting to produce healthy soil, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber.

Just as in the United States, demand for local and organic food is growing in China, and organic agriculture in China faces a unique set of challenges. For centuries, farming in China was viewed as work for impoverished peasants. Despite the fact that under Chairman Mao Zedong, farming was elevated to a noble profession, today it is once again considered one of the worst jobs in the country. When Shen Hui and her husband Chen Shuaijun decided to start farming, they were ridiculed by their neighbors and were furious to hear of their son’s plan to quit his job in the Shanghai banking sector to return to farming. Once they started the farm, things didn’t get much easier. Mr. Chen insisted on farming without any chemical pesticides or fertilizer, and many people scoffed at their methods. The work is incredibly physically demanding for the couple, and making things more difficult, since the farm has not turned a profit, the two still maintain their office jobs.

Several organic farmers in China also find it a challenge to deal with rampant pollution. While organic farmers do not rely on synthetic chemical fertilizers or pesticides, their soil or water supply may be laced with all kinds of pollutants. A government report found pollution makes 43 percent of state monitored rivers are unsuitable for human contact.

Marketing organic crops is another difficulty in China. Regulation of organic certification is weak at best and farmers say some agencies will certify anything for a price. As a result many organic growers don’t bother to certify their products, and instead just call them natural. The regulatory aspect of this is a huge issue, particularly in light of recent scandals with the food supply that have left many around the globe concerned about the safety of their food. In 2008, over 1200 babies became sick from milk powder formulated with the cheap industrial compound melamine. Other scandals involved vegetables infected with dangerous bacteria, fish poisoned by pollution, and cooking oil tainted with sewage.

Despite the difficulties of organic, farmers have plenty of reasons to be persistent. For organic grower Shen Hui the biggest draw of farming was the food safety: she wanted to know where her food came from, and what went into it. Organic food is also a luxury trend. China’s new super-rich consume organic food, because it has become a status symbol. Shen Hui and Chen Shuaijun also state that the simple joys of escaping city life and eating the produce they grow outweigh the challenges.

In this study, onions, carrots, and potatoes were cultivated in two-year field trials in three different geographical locations, comprising one conventional and two organic agricultural systems. The contents of two kinds of polyphenols, flavonoids and phenolic acids in plants were analyzed by pressurized liquid extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography−ultraviolet quantification. Polyphenols have one or more phenol units in their chemical structure and are a group of secondary plant metabolites. According to researchers, though secondary plant metabolites are nonessential to humans, some of them have been proposed to have positive health effects including a decreased risk of heart diseases, dementia, and cancer. The content of polyphenols in plants is affected by factors such as cultivar, pathogen infection and pest attack, time of harvest, and storage and processing procedures. The content of nutrients and secondary plant metabolites in food products is also affected by, for example, growth conditions, use of fertilizers, climate, and plant nutrient availability.

Despite the fact that this study only looks at polyphenol content, some news outlets have been quick to use this as evidence that there is absolutely no difference between organic and conventional. This is not true, in fact; Dr. Pia Knuthsen and colleagues point out in the study that there are still many reasons to pay a premium for organic food products. They state that the most important reasons for the popularity of organic food products include improved animal welfare, environmental protection, better taste, and possible health benefits. The health benefits of organic food need to be approached on a broader level than just individual nutritional quality of each food item.

The researchers state that the potential health benefits of organic food consumption are still controversial and not considered scientifically well documented, however they fail to cite a recent study that found that organically produced strawberries had higher antioxidant activity, longer shelf life, and fared better in taste tests than conventional berries. Soils on the organic farms are also found to be healthier with higher organic matter concentration, and greater microbial biodiversity.

The Monterey Coastkeeper, a program of The Otter Project, a nonprofit organization, filed suit against the county last week in Monterey County Superior Court. It is the first lawsuit to take action against a county agency in an attempt to enforce state water standards. Monterey Coastkeeper identifies the agency as a water distributor that provides water to farmers by channeling it from the reservoirs to the northern end of the river and into groundwater resources tapped for agricultural irrigation. The irrigation water, contaminated with pesticides, nitrates and sediments, runs off into the agency-operated Reclamation Ditch and Boronda Drain, and ultimately into the Salinas River, sloughs and the ocean. Without the agency’s efforts, the suit alleges, the farmers would be unable to irrigate their fields at current levels over the long term. An agricultural waiver protects owners and operators of irrigated cropland from prosecution for releasing toxic water. The suit states that this waiver does not apply to the county agency.

“The agency is facilitating taking clean water, turning it into dirty water and then releasing it, untreated,” said Deborah Sivas of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford, lead lawyer for the plaintiff. “We think they need to be held accountable to the state water quality standards. Obviously, we’re not going to stop fertilizer and pesticide use, but I think there are ways we can be more conservative about it.”

The suit, citing reports by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, says Salinas Valley has the highest percentage of tested surface water sites with toxic levels of pyrethroid pesticides and the highest application rate of these pesticides. In areas of the Salinas Valley, half of the sampled wells had nitrate concentrations above drinking water standards, according to regional water board reports. “Much of this contamination is from agricultural runoff,” said David Clegern, public information officer for the State Water Resources Control Board.

Pyrethroids, among the most widely-used home pesticides, are winding up in California rivers at levels toxic to some stream-dwellers, endangering the food supply of fish and other aquatic animals. A University of California, Berkeley, and Southern Illinois University study documents toxic levels of pyrethroids in the water column as well as in the sediments at the bottom of streams. The pyrethroid levels are around 10-20 parts per trillion, high enough to kill test organisms used to assess water safety. Another study found that runoff from rainfall and watering lawns and gardens ends up in municipal storm drains and washes fertilizers, pesticides and other contaminants into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. In this study, organophosphates and pyrethroid pesticides were found in all water samples taken over a two year period on a weekly, bi-weekly and monthly basis. In addition, a study published in 2008 found pyrethroid contamination in 100 percent of urban streams sampled.

Recent U.S. Geological Survey data have found that California and other U.S. waterways 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.

“We don’t want any money, we just want the pollution to stop,” said Steve Shimek, Monterey Coastkeeper’s program manager and former executive director of The Otter Project. Mr. Shimek said the water could be treated, perhaps with an artificially created wetland; farmers could manage fertilizers and pesticides more carefully; or, the agency could stop discharging.

Read Beyond Pesticides’ “Threatened Waters” for more information on drinking water and contaminants found in drinking water. The Pesticide Induced Disease Database provides more information on the link between chemical exposure and diseases.

Source: Monterey Herald

According to lead researcher Cedric Briens, PhD from the University of Western Ontario, concerns about the health risks of tobacco have reduced demand and hurt tobacco farmers in some parts of the world. Scientists are looking for new uses for tobacco. One potential use is as a natural pesticide, due to tobacco’s content of toxic nicotine. For centuries, gardeners have used home-made mixtures of tobacco and water as a natural pesticide to kill insect pests. A “green” pesticide industry based on tobacco could provide additional income for farmers, and as well as a new eco-friendly pest-control agent, the scientists say.

They describe a way to convert tobacco leaves into pesticides with pyrolysis, a process that involves heating tobacco leaves to about 900 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum to produce an unrefined substance called bio-oil. The scientists tested tobacco bio-oil against a wide variety of insect pests, including 11 different fungi, four bacteria, and the Colorado potato beetle, a major agricultural pest that is increasingly resistant to current insecticides. The oil killed all of the beetles and blocked the growth of two types of bacteria and one fungus. Even after removal of the nicotine, the oil remained a very effective pesticide. The ability of the oil to block some but not all of the microorganisms suggests that tobacco bio-oil may have additional value as a more selective pesticide than those currently in use, according to the study’s authors.

Some environmentalists criticize the widespread production of a nicotine-based pesticide as short sighted for not examining the full cradle-to-grave impacts of tobacco production. According to the World Health Organization, environmental degradation results from the tobacco plant leaching nutrients from the soil, as well as pollution from pesticides and fertilizers. The World Wildlife Fund says that tobacco leaches phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium from the soil at a rate higher than any other major crop and frequent applications of pesticides are required to protect the plant from insects and disease. Some management guides call for as many as 16 applications of pesticides during the three-month growing period before the plants even leave the greenhouse.

Additionally, farmworkers in tobacco fields face risks from green tobacco sickness (GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning caused by the dermal absorption of nicotine from the surface of wet tobacco plants. Tobacco harvesters, whose clothing becomes saturated from tobacco wet with rain or morning dew, are at high risk of developing GTS. Symptoms of GTS include nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and severe weakness. These symptoms may be accompanied by fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate. Abdominal cramping, chills, increased sweating, salivation and difficulty breathing are also common. A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study indicates that a startling number of tobacco workers are becoming afflicted with this illness, which may require hospital care.

Tests confirm the source of the contamination is a former Union Carbide site where the now-banned pesticide 2,4,5-T, a component of Agent Orange, was produced. For more than two decades, waste from the chemical plant thar was used for landfill leached into Homebush Bay. Union Carbide, the infamous pesticide manufacturer responsible for the world’s largest industrial disaster in Bhopal India, was purchased by Dow Chemical. When Union Carbide left Australia, it was not required to perform a comprehensive cleanup of its site. In the 1980s, tests showed waste from the site was the main source of contamination of fish in the bay.

Dioxin exposure has been linked to a myriad of health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and skin conditions.

In the 1990s, the New South Wales government bought the site with the intent of remediating it, but the efforts did not begin until 2004. The cleanup is scheduled to finish next year; however data obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald show dioxin contaminating an area ranging 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) up and downstream from the cleanup site. The area is too large to remediate so officials intend to wait until sediments cover the contaminated layer, and dioxin can no longer be absorbed by the fish and other aquatic life. When asked how long the ban on fishing may be in place NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water director of specialized regulation, Craig Lamberton, said, “We think it will be decades.”

Although water quality has improved a lot over the past few years, dioxin levels near the remediation area were as high as 610 picograms per gram of sediment. In a relatively clean estuary, levels would be 2.3 picograms per gram. Even ten kilometers from the remediation site reading are as high as 350 picograms per gram of sediment.

Since 2005, authorities have been warning people not to eat fish caught west of the Sydney Harbor Bridge, and to eat no more than 150 grams (5.3 oz) of fish per month if it was caught east of the bridge. Unfortunately, many recreational fishers are not heeding the government’s warnings. A Department of Industry survey found fishers caught and kept 25.3 metric tons (28 tons) of fish between 2007 and 2008.

The report, The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition, examines over 5,000 consumer products in 34 stores in the U.S. and Canada and finds 12,061 “green” claims. Researchers documented product details, claim details, any supporting information on labels or store shelves, and any explanatory details or offers of additional information or support. Those claims were tested against best practice and guidelines provided by the FTC, the Competition Bureau of Canada, and the ISO 14021 standard for environmental labeling.

Unfortunately, some supposedly green labels mean very little. For example, the “Earth Friendly Farm Friendly” label found on some dairy products actually encourages the use of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics to increase production. Sarah Lee has been accused of green washing for creating a line called Earth Grains bread. Despite a major marketing campaign to push the products as environmentally friendly, the grains for the breads are produced with only a slight decrease in the amount of synthetic fertilizer used.

“’Greenwashing’ is an issue that touches many industries, and education and awareness play a key role in helping to prevent it,” said Stephen Wenc, President, UL Environment. “We’re hopeful that the trends and tips identified in this study will help our business partners confidently and appropriately share their environmental achievements with their consumers.”

Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic label is the best bet. The USDA Organic Label info is intended to show consumers that the product adheres to uniform standard which meet the requirements of the National Organic Program Final Rule.

When choosing a product that is better for the environment, it is important that consumers are informed. It is due to consumer demand that the National Organic Standards Program was created. Consumers should read labels and do their homework to avoid being taken in by a company’s green washing. For more information on reading through “Green” consumer claims, read Beyond Pesticides’ “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims are Truthful.”

Take Action: FTC is currently taking public comments on their “Green Guides,” which only guidelines and not enforceable as law. The FTC can, however, take action if it deems a company’s marketing to be deceptive or misleading. This is the first time in twelve years that the FTC will revise its green marketing guidelines. The “Green Guides were originally issued in 1992 with the purpose of helping companies ensure the claims they make are true and substantiated. View the proposed “Green Guides” and Submit your comments to the FTC by December 10, 2010.

This story showcases the importance of a comprehensive school and community pesticide and pest management policy in response to the mass hysteria that bedbugs are causing and as a general public health protection measure. The bedbug outbreak prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue warnings against improper treatments and misuses of pesticides. Despite the fact that bed bugs do not transmit diseases and are not generally considered to be a threat to health, the recent resurgence of these pests have caused many people to take desperate measures to eradicate them by using dangerous outdoor pesticides and fly-by-night exterminators. To solve the bed bug problem nationwide, it is going to take a comprehensive public health campaign -public-service announcements, travel tips and perhaps even government-sponsored integrated pest management programs for public housing and other high density areas. Recently, Los Angeles and San Francisco hosted workshops on bed bugs, and Beyond Pesticides released an updated fact sheet on how to deal with bed bugs without toxic pesticides.

It is important to focus on non-toxic pest control in schools because children are especially vulnerable to the health hazards associated with pesticide exposure due to their small size, greater intake of air and food relative to body weight, and developing organ systems. Several pesticides, including pyrethroids, organophosphates and carbamates are known to cause or exacerbate asthma. In fact, of the 48 most commonly used pesticides in schools, 22 are probable or possible carcinogens, 26 have been shown to cause reproductive effects, 31 damage the nervous system, 31 injure the liver or kidney, 41 are sensitizers or irritants, and 16 can cause birth defects. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels.

Beyond Pesticides recommends the implementation of a defined IPM system to prevent pest problems with non-chemical management strategies and only least-toxic pesticides as a last resort. IPM relies on a combination of methods that address sanitation, structural repair, mechanical measures, biological controls and other non-chemical methods inside buildings and additional approaches for turf and ornamental plant management that build healthy soil and natural resistance to pests. The report by the National School Pesticide Reform Coalition and Beyond Pesticides entitled, “Safer Schools: Achieving a Healthy Learning Environment Through Integrated Pest Management” elaborates on the IPM system, and how it can be implemented successfully.

Additionally, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) H.R. 4159 (see bill summary and bill text) is intended to provide protection for all children nationwide, beyond what is included in Indiana’s proposal. SEPA ensures a healthy learning environment for children through the management of school buildings and school grounds without toxic pesticides through the implementation of an IPM, among other least-toxic approaches. Help educate on SEPA:
”¢ Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S Representative to educate them on SEPA (see sample letter) (See www.senate.gov and www.house.gov for their contact information (Email Beyond Pesticides and we’ll also send follow-up information).
”¢ Sign your organization up as a supporter of SEPA by emailing Beyond Pesticides your name and organization’s contact information (See a list of current SEPA supporters).
”¢ Pass this information to your mayor, city council, local PTA and civic association and request that they endorse SEPA. (Email Beyond Pesticides, and we’ll also send follow-up information. Please be sure to include all the necessary contact information).

The draft ”˜Drinking Water Protection Zone,’ which would restrict hazardous materials entering sources of drinking including nitrogen and phosphate-based fertilizers, paint, oils and fuels, wood preservatives, solvents among others. Utilities and public-water operators asked the county in 2008 to strengthen drinking-water protections by restricting development and other activity that could contaminate the water supply, upset riverbanks or affect the filtering functions of wooded streamside areas. In a report to the board, county staff said the drinking-water rules “are being proposed to reduce the possible health and safety risks associated with ”¦contamination of sources public drinking water.” Reducing fertilizers can have the added benefit of reducing the levels of pesticides that runoff into lakes and streams as well, as many pesticide products are formulated with both fertilizers and herbicides.

The recommendations call for a 200-foot buffer around streams, rivers and lakes that provide public drinking water. That’s up from the current 50-foot setback for residential, commercial and industrial land and a 100-foot setback for farm and forest land. Current lawn care and landscaping could be maintained, but new removal or destruction of additional areas of vegetation through means such as thinning, cutting or applying herbicides would be barred. A number of public and municipal water utilities draw their supplies from local rivers, especially the McKenzie and the Willamette. The rules would protect those rivers, as well as tributaries that feed into them, so the amount of affected property is significant.

Recent U.S. Geological Survey data have found that U.S. waterways 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. Nitrates are the most common inorganic contaminant derived from man-made sources, such as from fertilizer applications and septic-tanks. Studies show that the occurrence of selected contaminants varies across the country, often following distinct geographic patterns related to geology, geochemical conditions, and land use. These contaminants have been linked to hormone disruption, birth defects, developmental/reproductive effects and even cancer. The Pesticide Induced Disease Database provides more information on the link between chemical exposure and diseases. Also read Beyond Pesticides’ “Threatened Waters” for more information on drinking water and contaminants found in drinking water.

Lane County Planning Commissioner and the Lane County Board of Commissioners convened a public hearing to determine if proposed changes to the County’s floodplain regulations should be approved, modified or denied. The Board discussed whether or not to adopt a new set of zoning regulations intended to protect sources of public drinking water.

Opponents to the proposal claim that they will be unable to remove vegetation, to garden in those riverfront areas, or to rebuild close to the river. They say property values could drop due to river views overgrown with brush and trees, and limitations on development of homes, septic tanks and grading. Some of these concerns can be addressed through organic and other green management practices which are currently being employed by homeowners and communities around the country, including organic turf management and gardening, as well as using goats to clear brush and restore land. Many clean water advocates say limiting waterfront development by property owners is often necessary to protect everyone’s right to clean water.

Source: The Register-Guard and Lane County Oregon News Release

The Cornucopia Institute developed the report, Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production from Authentic Organic Agriculture, following nearly two years of research into organic egg production. The report also contains a scorecard rating various egg brands on how their eggs are produced in accordance with federal organic standards and consumer expectations.

“After visiting over 15% of the certified egg farms in the United States, and surveying all name-brand and private-label industry marketers, it’s obvious that a high percentage of the eggs on the market should be labeled ”˜produced with organic feed’ rather than bearing the USDA-certified organic logo,” said Mark A. Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute’s co-director and senior farm policy analyst.

According to the United Egg Producers (UEP), the industry lobby group, 80 percent of all organic eggs are produced by just a handful of its largest members. Most of these operations own hundreds of thousands, or even millions of birds, and have diversified into “specialty eggs,” which include organic.

Cornucopia’s report focuses not on the size of some of these mammoth agribusinesses but rather on their organic livestock management practices. It says that most of these giant henhouses, some holding 85,000 birds or more, provide no legitimate access to the outdoors, as required in the federal organic regulations.

Scrambled Eggs comes at a critical juncture for the organic poultry industry. The NOSB has been debating a set of proposed new regulations for poultry and other livestock that would establish housing-density standards and a clearer understanding of what the requirement for outdoor access truly means. The industry’s largest operators, along with their lobbyists, have been loudly voicing their opposition to requirements for outdoor space.

“Many of these operators are gaming the system by providing minute enclosed porches, with roofs and concrete or wood flooring, and calling these structures ”˜the outdoors,’” stated Charlotte Vallaeys, a farm policy analyst with Cornucopia and lead author of the report. “Many of the porches represent just 3 to 5 percent of the square footage of the main building housing the birds. That means 95 percent or more of the birds have absolutely no access whatsoever.”

After visiting scores of egg producers in nine states, the authors of the Cornucopia report also conclude that the vast majority of family-scale producers are complying with the organic regulations and meeting consumer expectations. “This is the good news in this report,” explained Mr. Kastel. “Now the USDA needs to step up and protect ethical organic farmers from unfair and illegal competition.”

The best producers with permanent housing profiled in Scrambled Eggs have plenty of pasture available surrounding their chicken houses, multiple popholes (doors) of adequate size and maintain the birds by rotating them into separate paddocks, allowing a rest period for the pasture to recover. Laying hens on pasture-based farms tend to be under less stress””based on their greater opportunity to exercise and ability to engage in instinctive foraging behaviors that cuts down on aggression toward their flock mates”” and frequently live closer to three years instead of the one year that is common on industrial-scale farms.

Organic customers are also becoming increasingly aware of a growing body of scientific literature confirming the nutritional superiority of eggs when the birds have an opportunity to eat fresh forage, seeds, worms and insects.

“Our job, and the basis of this research and report, is protecting the livelihoods of family-scale organic farmers who are being placed at a distinct competitive disadvantage by corporations that are more than willing to ignore the rules and cut corners in pursuit of profit,” added Mr. Kastel.

One of these producers is Ivan Martin of Natural Acres in Millersburg, Pennsylvania, whose pastured poultry operation went out of business last year. “Consumers saw my eggs next to other so-called organic eggs bearing the exact same USDA Organic label, and probably thought they were equivalent in terms of outdoor access and nutrition. We could not compete with those [factory farm] eggs,” said Mr. Martin, who hopes to re-launch his organic poultry business.

“Whether it’s laying hens for eggs, hogs for meat, or cows for dairy, organic customers expect livestock to be treated with respect and in compliance with the standards,” said Mr. Kastel. “The good news in this report is that the vast majority of organic farmers meet these high expectations. Now the USDA needs to step up to protect them from unfair competition. Congress gave the USDA the authority to protect these farmers from unscrupulous competitors. It needs to wield that power!”

Public Participation: Making organic better

While organic agriculture is far better than chemical-intensive conventional agriculture for people and the environment, there is always room for improvement. When there is a problem with the organic regulations, there is a process for the public to weigh in on what is allowable in organic production. For information on making general comments to the NOSB on issues such as chicken stocking rates, see Getting Involved on the USDA National Organic Program website.

While many salmon farmers are pleased, the decision by Canada’s federal agency has many local fishermen concerned about the effects the pesticide will have on fish and shellfish populations. “Basically we are shocked in a nutshell,” said Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association project manager Melanie Sonnenberg, adding, “Dsappointed doesn’t cover it.”

The use of deltamethrin will be restricted to tarped cages or well boats, boats with large holds. Treatment would involve placing fish in the boats, bathing them in Alphamax and releasing them back into cages along with the treated water. The industry is ready to start using the treatment in the Bay of Fundy. Fish farmers have been challenged in controlling sea lice outbreaks this summer, particularly in the upper Passamaquoddy Bay area. They have been using other chemicals to control the outbreaks, including hydrogen peroxide, Salmosan (azamethiphos), SLICE (emamectin benzoate) and Calicide (teflubenzuron). Glenn Brown, owner of the Grand Manan Company Admiral Fish Farms Ltd. explained, “What we’d really like is a suite of tools we could use in a strategic way.” Unfortuantly pesticides that kill sea lice also kill lobster explained Ms. Sonnenberg.

Deltamethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid. Synthetic pyrethroids are synthesized deriviatives of naturally occurring pyrethrins produced by the chrysanthemum flower. They are designed to be more toxic and take longer to break down than natural pyrethrins. These types of pesticides are extremely toxic to aquatic organisms including fish. Lobster, shrimp, mayfly nymphs and zooplankton are the most susceptible non-target aquatic organisms.

Synthetic pyrethroids are also dangerous to human health. While not easily absorbed through the skin pyrethroids are absorbed through the gut and pulmonary membrane and can act as neurotoxins. Acute exposure can result in asthma like symptoms and irritation of the skin. Emerging evidence shows many pyrethroids are endocrine disruptors, interfering with sexual development and the immune system.

Environment Canada is currently investigating the illegal use of another synthetic pyrethroid cypermethrin. Cypermethrin is not permitted for use in Canada but is used to control sea lice in salmon farms in Maine. Cypermethrin has been linked to lobster deaths in waters around New England and Canada.

According to Matthew Abbot, coordinator of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick’s Fundy Baykeeper Project, putting anything into the water that kills sea creatures is a violation of Canada’s Fisheries Act. He suggests controlling sea lice simply by limiting the number of salmon in cages

The 2006 final rule lifted a ban on human testing put in place by Congress. It allows experiments in which people are intentionally dosed with pesticides to assess the chemicals’ toxicity and allows 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.

The coalition that challenged the regulation argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the rule ignores scientific criteria proposed by the National Academy of Sciences, did not prohibit testing on pregnant women and children, and even violated the most basic elements of the Nuremberg Code, including fully informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, a set of standards governing medical experiments on humans, was put in place after World War II following criminal medical experiments performed by Nazi doctors.

According to Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., the proposed rule is expected to closely follow the text that was included in the court settlement. It is unknown whether comments submitted on the proposed rule will lead to any significant revisions. EPA states in its Federal Register notice that the draft proposed amendments would “clarify the applicability of the rules to human testing for pesticides submitted to EPA under any statute, would disallow consent by a legally authorized representative of participants in pesticide studies who cannot consent for themselves, and would identify specific considerations to be addressed in EPA science and ethics reviews of proposed and completed human research for pesticides, based on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and on the Nuremberg Code.”

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling in 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.”

This draft proposed rule is required to be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the Federal Register under section 24(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The draft will not be available to the public until after EPA has signed it. The Secretary has 30 days to submit comments in writing which will be included on the public proposed rule along with any responses by EPA. Under this agreement, a proposed rule must be issued for public comment by January 2011.

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.

Pat Leavy, president of the American Organic Hop Grower Association and his colleagues petitioned the NOSB to vote on a mandate that would “mandate organic hops in organic beer in about three years.” They believe it is likely to pass. The NOSB Handling Committee responded to the petition on October 8, 2010 and recommends transitioning hops for inclusion on the National List of Allowed Substances, which identifies synthetic substances that may be used, and the nonsynthetic substances that cannot be used, in organic production and handling operations.

Organic hops have been exempted from certified organic beer because they were too difficult to get enough of in the organic form. When the NOSB, which operates within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), deems an organic ingredient too hard to get, it can waive it for producers and still allow them to display the USDA’s certified organic label. The non-organic ingredients have to be less than 5 percent of the product’s total weight, excluding water (the other main ingredient -barley – has to be organic because it’s the bulk of the product’s weight.)

In 2007, several organic beer makers petitioned USDA, arguing there weren’t enough organic hops available to meet the growing demand for organic beer. The NOSB agreed that organic hops were not “commercially available” and, because hops comprise less than 5% of the product, qualified for the organic label. Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides and a member of the NOSB said, “It is critical that the board carefully evaluates and adjusts it commerical availaibiltiy findings on an ongoing basis to ensure that there is incentive for more producers to develop organic product ingredients.”

The NOSB is recommending that hops remain listed until 2013 to give brewers two seasons to secure contracts for organic hops. According to NOSB’s document, “This time interval formally recognizes the growth of organic hops’ availability and yet allows brewers two growing seasons to secure their organic hops through forward contracting, making adjustments to future product formulations and specifications, and preparing their customers and consumers for the product changes anticipated, if any.”

Organic beer manufacturers have their concerns that organic hops growers won’t be able to produce enough of the product to meet current production needs. Mr. Leavy believes that in the three years before organic hops would be required, the industry would have the time to expand, in part because many Northwest hop growers have extra acreage already qualified for organic crops or on its way toward qualifying.

Organic beer remains a sliver of the $7 billion U.S. craft beer market. But the economic stakes are significant for organic growers and brewers. From 2003 to 2009, U.S. organic beer sales grew more than fourfold, from $9 million to $41 million, the Organic Trade Association says. Organic production of hops in the Yakima Valley, Washington state, which accounts for more than 30 percent of the world’s hops production, has grown from nearly none three years ago to its current 100 acres, but organic growers say they need a better market to survive.

The petition will be considered by the full National Organic Standards Board when it meets next week. The board’s standard setting authority will be open to public comment before it goes to the National Organic Program, which verifies that NOSB decisions meet statutory standards.

There is a force behind efforts to require the use of organic hops. Some brewers, even Anheuser-Bush, have submitted letters in the petition in support of the move. Consumer Reports and the Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit public interest organization based in Finland, Minn., have also gotten behind the effort. Encouraging organic brewers to use organically produced hops would spawn great incentive for farmers to grow them and create a market at the same time.

For more information on the importance of eating organic food for you, workers and the environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience food guide and organic food program page.

Take Action: You too can be a part of efforts to strengthen the integrity of the Organic Program. The process is open to public involvement and comments. Any person can petition to amend the National List and the NOP regulations. For more information on how to get involved and to attend meetings or submit comments, visit NOP’s website.

Keep abreast of NOSB meeting information, including agendas and transcripts. Read public comments and NOSB recommendations.

Fish farmers have been challenged in controlling sea lice outbreaks this summer, particularly in the upper Passamaquoddy Bay area. They have been using other chemicals to control the outbreaks, including hydrogen peroxide, Salmosan (azamethiphos), SLICE (emamectin benzoate) and Calicide (teflubenzuron). New Brunswick aquaculture organizations have maintained that fish farmers do not use cypermethrin, which is not permitted for use there. The New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association referred to the cocktail of pesticides used on salmon farms as “medicine” and referred to salmon farming techniques as “natural.” However, shoddy farming practices, such as growing too many fish per site and having too many sites in the same area, can lead to the sea lice infestations. The salmon farming industry relies on chemicals to then control the problems that result from their practices.

Although cypermethrin’s use in the marine environment is prohibited in Canada, the pesticide is permitted under certain restrictions for use at salmon farms in Maine, under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) program. Cypermethrin, an insecticide in the synthetic pyrethroid family, is known to be highly acutely toxic to aquatic life, including fish and crustaceans such as lobsters. It is also classified as a possible human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Throughout the winter and spring Environment Canada and provincial and federal partners monitored salmon sites for illegal usage of pesticides, according to Robert Robichaud, operations manager for the district of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island for Environment Canada’s environmental enforcement branch. During May, July, August and September, the department conducted routine and sporadic inspections at sites to verify compliance. Lab results from samples taken in May and July showed that farms owned by Northern Harvest Sea Farms and Ocean Legacy, which are headquartered in Letang, had detectable levels of cypermethrin in fish samples. Those results triggered the opening of two more investigations on September 8 and the issuing on September 22 of the nspector’s directions to those two companies, ordering them to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to prevent the release of substances that are harmful to fish into fish-bearing waters.

Along with the two new investigations, Environment Canada is continuing to conduct two investigations into the lobster deaths last fall, with one investigation into the cause of dead lobsters found near Seal Cove, Grand Manan (opened on December 22), and another concerning the lobster deaths near Fairhaven, Deer Island (opened on February 10). So far, Environment Canada is only indicating that the lobsters were exposed to cypermethrin and is not commenting on the cause of the deaths.

Environment Canada will not release the location of the companies’ farm sites or the number of farms that had detectable levels of cypermethrin in fish samples. However, according to the provincial Department of Agriculture and Aquaculture’s listing of marine aquaculture sites, Ocean Legacy has a site located near Back Bay that is off the western side of Frye Island and just north of Douglas Island. Northern Harvest has three salmon farms at Harbour de Loutre, Campobello; a single farm site off the western side of Deer Island, just north of Davidson’s Head near Hersonville; a farm in upper Passamaquoddy Bay, just north of McCann Head, St. Andrews; two farms just east of Frye Island in Bliss Harbour; and a farm in Letang Harbour.

For more information on issues related to pesticides and water pollution, see Beyond Pesticides Threatened Waters program page and the Daily News Blog.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, soy, and other crops have been engineered to resist the broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Monsanto holds the patent for its Roundup Ready seeds, meaning farmers must sign a contract with the company in order to purchase seeds, and are not allowed to save seeds to plant the following season. As seen in the recent documentary Food Inc., Monsanto has been ruthless in collecting royalties from growers.

Despite Monsanto’s safety claims, glyphosate is actually very dangerous to human health and the environment. Glyphosate has been linked to cancers including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Acute exposure can lead to swelling of the eyes, face and joints; burning or itching, blisters rapid heart rate, chest pains and other symptoms. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has found glyphosate to be the most common cause of pesticide-induced illness or injury. Glyphosate is also dangerous to wildlife, especially beneficial insects and earthworms.

Monsanto’s cut throat business practices had garnered the company a large share of the market for genetically engineered (GE) seeds. In the 2009 fiscal year, Monsanto’s revenue from seeds and seed genes was $7.3 billion; nearly double that of second place DuPont. Over the previous five years sales for Monsanto had increased 18% annually.

This year, however, Monsanto’s stock has fallen about 42%. According to Stock market commentator Jim Cramer, “This may be the worst stock of 2010.” The company’s newest product developed with Dow Chemical, SmartStax corn, which contains eight inserted genes and is resistant to two different broad spectrum herbicides, has not been shown to yield more than the company’s less expensive varieties. Monsanto’s newest soybean variety Roundup Ready 2 Yield also showed disappointing sales. This. in addition to increased competition from DuPont, has forced the company to cut prices on both products.

The largest threat to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready products may not be economic but environmental. The overuse of the broad spectrum herbicide has lead to widespread resistance among weeds. As environmentalists and human health advocates have fought to stop the use of the known carcinogen, neurotoxin, and irritant, the indiscriminant use of glyphosate is quickly making the herbicide, and in turn any crops engineered to resist it, obsolete. After being on the market for less than 20 years, glyphosate resistance genes will most likely soon be useless. However, unlike most obsolete technology that is thrown on the scrap heap, glyphosate-resistant genes have been introduced into the ecosystem, and cannot be removed. There is no way to know what long-term effects these genes will have on our environment.

Genetic engineering is a short-sighted and possibly dangerous method of pest control. Studies show that genetically engineered crops have significantly increased the amount of chemical pesticides used in US agriculture. However they have not delivered any notable increase in yield.

The recent economic troubles for Monsanto could indicate that the future of food production does not lie with a few Biotech giants promoting genetically engineered monocultures, but with biodiverse organic farms.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine insecticide that was first registered for use in the U.S. in the 1950s. It is an endocrine disruptor and exposure in male children may delay sexual maturity and interfere with sex hormone synthesis. Endosulfan also decreases semen quality, sperm count, spermatogonial cells, and sperm morphology, and contributes to other defects in male sex hormones. It is volatile, persistent, and has a high potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Two-headed bass, for example, were found in the Noosa River resulting from surrounding pesticide drift from neighboring farms in Queensland, Australia. The pesticides, endosulfan and carbendazim, were implicated in the contamination of the river, which has yielded thousands of chronically deformed fish.

In December 2009, the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) recommended that urgent “global action” was needed to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide. Scientific experts at the POPRC concluded that endosulfan is likely to cause significant adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of the chemical’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media.

In June, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would take action to end all uses of the insecticide endosulfan, deciding that new data presented to the agency in response to its 2002 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), which shows that risks faced by workers are greater than previously known. In completing revised assessments, EPA concluded that endosulfan’s significant risks to wildlife and agricultural workers outweigh its limited benefits to growers and consumers. EPA also found that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as to birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey which have ingested endosulfan.

EPA’s decision followed a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of environmental and farmworker groups, including Beyond Pesticides, on July 24, 2008. The suit cited a glaring omission in the EPA’s decision in its failure to consider risks to children: a 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

Also on October 13, the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), led by renowned scientist Theo Colborn, PhD, announced the addition of chlorpyrifos to its online database, Critical Windows of Development, spotlighting research that links prenatal, low dose chlorpyrifos exposure to altered health outcomes in the brain and other organs.

“Human studies have now linked prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos with mental and developmental delays emphasizing even more the urgency to remove the product from the market,” said Dr. Colborn, President of TEDX and a signatory on the letter. “Chlorpyrifos illustrates the urgent need to be cautious, prevent further exposure and protect our children from the time they are conceived onward.”

Beyond Pesticides calls EPA’s 2000 chlorpyrifos settlement with Dow a classic failure of the risk assessment process under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) —a failure that is repeated over and over again in agency chemical regulation decisions. Advocates have pointed to chlorpyrifos as the poster child for why risk assessment does not work to protect the public, workers and the environment, even with safer practices and products available in the marketplace. EPA’s decision in 2000 and subsequent action removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses and retains all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf course and public health mosquito spraying. The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but ignored the special risks to farmworker children’s exposure as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. The decision at the time was hailed as a victory for the public because it eliminated high hazard exposures and showed that EPA could remove uses of a widely used chemical. Except, it did not do the job. The risk assessment process does not force a consideration of those who suffer disproportionate risk or groups of people (such as those with neurological diseases in this case who are disproportionately affected).

Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic insecticide whose use was found to exceed acceptable rates of illness, especially to children. By focusing on risk reduction strategies to come up with “acceptable,” but unnecessary, rates of illness across the population, EPA virtually ignored the chemical’s widespread use in agriculture, resulting in exposure to farmworkers, farm families and others living near agricultural areas. It is also a frequent water contaminant and a long range contaminant, exposing communities and contaminating pristine areas far from where it was applied. Short term effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos include chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Prenatal and early childhood exposure has been linked to low birth weights, developmental delays, ADHD and other health effects.

David Carpenter, M.D., Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany (State University of New York) said, “It is unacceptable that farmworker children, and children in the general population continue to be exposed to these neurotoxins.”

“As more families cope with the suffering and costs of learning and developmental disabilities and attention problems, EPA must prevent further exposures to neurotoxic pesticides,” said Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. “EPA needs to protect people, especially children and pregnant women, from any chemical that threatens brain development. In addition to banning neurotoxic pesticides, we must reform the Toxic Substance Control Act to require EPA to address the many neurotoxic chemicals in our everyday products.”

“The last time EPA reviewed these pesticides, its own scientists complained that the Agency was not assuring adequate protection of the nation’s children, and that it was unduly influenced by those it regulates,” said William Hirzy, Ph.D., a professor at American University in Washington D.C. and a former EPA chemist. While at EPA, Dr. Hirzy was involved in a letter raising these concerns sent to management by six unions representing 9000 EPA scientists and other staff, as the Agency was finalizing its Cumulative Risk Assessment for organophosphates in 2006. “Five years later, with even more sobering studies in hand, will EPA finally act to protect children?,” Dr. Hirzy asked.

Chlorpyrifos is used widely on corn, orchard, and vegetable row crops all over the country. While it is known to contaminate dozens of fruits and vegetables with detectable residues, Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database reveals that chlorpyrifos is also registered for use on more than half of the 15 “cleanest” fruits and vegetables, or those with the lowest pesticide residues (asparagus, cabbage, corn, grapefruit, kiwi fruit, onion, peas and sweet potatoes). So while there may be little residue remaining by the time it reaches your store shelf, these crops may be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife, while not all showing up at detectable levels on our food. An estimated 8 to 10 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are applied to U.S. crops each year (see a U.S. Geological Survey map showing where chlorpyrifos is used.)

“The warning signs have been obvious for decades, yet EPA has allowed generation after generation to suffer exposures and consequences,” said Carol Dansereau, Executive Director of the Farm Worker Pesticide Project, a Washington State farmworker organization that initiated the letter to EPA. “EPA is promising to better protect children and other vulnerable people, but that promise is meaningless as long as it keeps reregistering chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates, ” she said. FWPP and others are asking the public to contact EPA and join in demanding a ban, and precaution-based policies.

“Unfortunately chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates do not stay where sprayed. They evaporate and move with wind and fog. That’s how they contaminated our fields,” said Larry Jacobs of Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, an organic grower in California. “There are better ways to manage insect pests than depending on organophosphates like chlorpyrifos. We signed onto the letter to EPA to protect our health and to protect our farm.”

EPA is in the process of considering re-registration for chlorpyrifos, one of the most widely used pesticides in agriculture in the US and worldwide.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices. The chlorpyrifos story, in addition to untold damage it has caused families across the U.S., is testimony to the need to adopt alternatives assessments that force chemicals off the market that can be replaced by safer or green practices. Despite agency efforts to use failed risk assessment decision making to claim that the food supply is safe and the environment protected, an informed public is driving the growth of organic production in the marketplace, choosing health and environmental protection over risk assessment. It is a process that can be supported through purchasing decisions everyday in the grocery store and advocacy that effects a conversion of land and building management in parks, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, indoor and outdoor spaces to nontoxic and least-toxic methods. Whether it is agriculture, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, or community insect management, turn to Beyond Pesticides for the latest on science, policy, safe management practices, and activism.

For more information, contact:

Market research has shown that consumers often misunderstand the intentions of some green claims. Some labels make claims that are too broad and difficult to quantify. The revised guidelines advise producers not to make such broad claims on labels such as “environmentally friendly,” because according to an FTC consumer perception study, consumers often assume the product has far reaching environmental benefits. “What companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. The proposed guidelines are also intended to clarify claims such as: biodegradable, renewable materials, or renewable energy.

FTC is currently taking public comments until December 10, 2010. The “Green Guides” are only guidelines and not enforceable as law. The FTC can, however, take action if it deems a company’s marketing to be deceptive or misleading. This is the first time in twelve years that the FTC will revise its green marketing guidelines. The “Green Guides were originally issued in 1992 with the purpose of helping companies ensure the claims they make are true and substantiated. The “Green Guides” were revised in 1996 and again in 1998.

Unfortunately some supposedly green labels mean very little. For example, the “Earth Friendly Farm Friendly” label found on some dairy products actually encourages the use of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics to increase production. Sarah Lee has been accused of green washing for creating a line called Earth Grains bread. Despite a major marketing campaign to push the products as environmentally friendly, the grains for the breads are produced with only a slight decrease in the amount of synthetic fertilizer used.

With so many different claims about environmentally friendly products it’s easy for a consumer to feel confused and even intimidated. Fortunately, there are a few simple steps a consumer can take to learn more about these claims. It is important to read product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and find out the ingredients being used. The ingredients speak for themselves. If you are unsure about one or more ingredients, or do not understand the label, you may wish to research them either on the internet, at the local library or by contacting a group knowledgeable about that type of product, such as Beyond Pesticides.

When shopping for food, USDA Certified Organic labels are the best bet. The USDA Organic Label is intended to show consumers that the product adheres to uniform standard which meet the requirements of the National Organic Program Final Rule. When choosing a product that is better for the environment, it is important that consumers are informed. It is due to consumer demand that the National Organic Standards Program was created. Consumers should read labels and do their homework to avoid being taken in by a company’s green washing. For more information on reading through “Green” consumer claims, read Beyond Pesticides’ “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims are Truthful” from Pesticides and You.

Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting to produce healthy soil, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. For more information on organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Program.