In the ruling, which, in part, addressed the viability of GM pollen, delivered September 6, 2011, the Court observes, first, that the pollen in question may be classified as a GMO only if it is an ”˜organism’ that is a ”˜biological entity capable’ either of ”˜replication’ or of ”˜transferring genetic material.’ If the pollen in question has lost all specific and individual ability to reproduce, it should be determined whether that pollen is otherwise capable of ”˜transferring genetic material.’ taking due account of the scientific data available and considering all forms of scientifically-established transfer of genetic material. The court concludes, “Honey and food supplements containing pollen derived from a GMO are foodstuffs produced from GMOs which cannot be marketed without prior authorization.” Further, “authorization for foodstuffs containing ingredients produced from GMOs applies irrespective of whether the pollen is introduced intentionally or adventitiously into the honey.”

Events leading up to this new ruling began in Germany in 2005 after a dispute arose between Karl Heinz Bablok, an amateur beekeeper, and a neighboring farm cultivating a number of plots of GM maize. Mr. Bablok brought legal proceedings against the farm before the German courts, in which four other amateur beekeepers joined. GM maize DNA and other GM proteins were detected in the maize pollen harvested by Mr. Bablok in beehives situated 500 meters from the plots of land under GM cultivation. Very small amounts of GM maize DNA were also detected in a number of samples of Mr Bablok’s honey. The German court requested the European Court of Justice to clarify issues surrounding GM pollen and the presence of GM material in honey. Read press release for ruling here.

Beyond Pesticides believes that whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide-resistant crop, the GM approach to pest management is short-sighted and dangerous. There are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GM crops. GM contamination to non-GM and organic crops is a serious concern that has been played down by industry and regulatory officials. Several lawsuits in the past decade however have demonstrated that contamination is a real life phenomenon. GM crops present a unique risk to organic growers especially. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross-pollination between GM crops and unmodified varieties. For organic farmers, the costs to remain GM-free can be burdensome. Most organic farmers in Spain have given up growing maize because of the high contamination risks and the fact that contamination with GMO maize has already happened. Many farmers face enormous costs as they have to import GMO-free and organic maize from abroad to feed their animals according to the organic rules and market demand. GM crops are already known to contaminate conventional non-GM 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. Recently, a study by University of Notre Dame researchers found that streams throughout the American Midwest are contaminated with GM materials from corn crop byproducts, even six months after harvest. The long-term health effects of consuming GM food are still unknown.

Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GM planted barriers around sites planted with GM crops to help mitigate contamination risks. Read “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market” for more on GM regulation. However, a 2009 study shows that one out of every four farmers who plants GM corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is responsible for developing USDA standards that govern the production of organic honey and honey-related products. Because the biology and behavior of honey bees is so markedly different from other types of organic livestock, and because they fly and forage a wide area, specific standards are required to ensure consistency among organic certifiers and to ensure that organic honey meets consumers’ expectations. Among other practices, the NOSB proposed standard requires that organic bee keepers establish a 1.8 mile (3km) radius organically managed “forage zone.” For property within the zone that is not managed by the beekeeper, an affidavit stating that prohibited pesticides have not been used for three years is required. GMOs are not permitted under organic standards.

Pollinators like honey bees face unique hazards from pesticides and GM crops that they pollinate. Contaminated pollen is taken back to the hive where the entire colony can be exposed to various quantities of pesticide residues and GM material, where irrevocable damage is done to hives. The recent losses of thousands of hives across the country and in Europe, termed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), demonstrate the importance of a precautionary approach when it comes to pesticides and GMOs. Protecting pollinators is just one of the many reasons to eat organic food. Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database shows that nearly all conventional crops may be treated with pesticides known to kill bees and other wildlife. View this information by crop at www.EatingWithAConscience.org.

Take Action: Avoid GM contaminated honey by buying your honey from an organic honey producer.

Earlier this year, several environmental groups sued the State of California for approving the agricultural use of methyl iodide. Methyl iodide is known to cause miscarriages, thyroid dysfunction, and cancer, and is applied to crops like strawberries and peppers. It was approved by California state pesticide regulators in December as an alternative to methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting chemical being phased out under international treaty. Environmental advocacy groups and other opponents of methyl iodide use in the state have released documents detailing dissension in the ranks of DPR over the risk assessment of methyl iodide and its subsequent approval. Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, sued DPR in an attempt to reverse the state’s approval of the chemical. The ongoing court case helped reveal documents showing DPR manipulated data and that department scientists were worried risk managers minimized health dangers and didn’t take strong enough steps to mitigate the threats. One of the released documents, a memo from one disapproving DPR scientist, chastised the agency for its cut-and-paste approach to calculations determining how big buffer zones should be to protect public health.

The primary state toxicologist’s memo called management’s approach a “mix and match,” and wrote that he was “puzzled by some of the numbers cited in the draft regulation on methyl iodide for inhalation exposure. They appear to have been extracted from different methyl iodide risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable.” The memo went on the state, “It is not scientifically credible to select a value or assumption from one (risk assessment calculation) and combine it with a value or assumption from another.”

DPR management’s mixing and matching was used to show that fields sprayed with methyl iodide would require smaller buffer zones. The highest level of protection scientists investigated would have required buffer zones of several hundred feet to several miles around affected fields. DPR acknowledged in the new documents that this level of protection “was recommended by scientists” but still chose to reduce the buffer zones, saying that such requirements would be “excessive” and cause hardship on methyl iodide manufacturer, Arysta, “due to its economic viability.” Two lead DPR scientists who warned of methyl iodide’s risks have since left.

In addition to reducing buffer zones, California’s DPR chose to outright ignore warnings from its own scientists regarding methyl iodide’s effects on pregnant women, children, and infants. The risk assessment report notes several times that the department had not tested methyl iodide for neurological damage to fetuses. DPR scientists recommended that “an additional ‘safety factor’ of 10 is needed to take the post-natal neurotoxic effects into consideration..” In the end, DPR scientists recommended that California set its limit for methyl iodide at 2 parts-per-million in order to reduce chances of miscarriage. However, EPA and Arysta chose to allow 10 parts-per-million, much more than the recommended level.

Environmental and health activists, including Beyond Pesticides, have long questioned California’s rationale for approving methyl iodide over the warnings of DPR’s own scientists. Although industry influence was suspected in the decision, there was no proof until these documents came to light, showing that DPR managers changed recommended exposure levels to suit the preferences of methyl iodide’s manufacturer, Arysta LifeScience.

Just last week, EPA entered into an agreement with DPR to resolve a civil rights complaint from 1999 which alleged that the department’s renewal of methyl bromide in 1999 discriminated against Latino school children whose schools are located near agriculture fields. The complaint alleged that CDPR’s annual renewal of the registration of methyl bromide in 1999 discriminated against Latino school children based on the health impacts of this pesticide. As a result of the settlement, DPR has agreed to install additional monitors for methyl bromide near those schools and conduct outreach to the Latino community around pesticide use and safety. Methyl iodide will pose just as great a risk to children, farmers and residents alike.

Anti-methyl iodide activists, who recently flash-mobbed California Gov. Jerry Brown’s Facebook and Twitter accounts in addition to staging protests at the state Capitol, hope the EPA-DPR settlement on methyl bromide will push Gov. Brown to reconsider methyl iodide’s approval. While there are no signs that will happen, with revelations like this, the Earthjustice case against methyl iodide’s rushed approval appear to grow ever stronger. Due to the dangers of methyl iodide, both Washington state and New York have refused to allow its use, even though the EPA has approved it.

Like other synthetic pesticides not exempted on the “National List of Allowed Synthetic Substances,” methyl iodide is prohibited in organic production under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). However, some “organic” strawberry growers are buying strawberry starts, which have been previously grown in soil treated with methyl iodide prior to being planted at the organic strawberry farm. Beyond Pesticides believes that a new guidance document under consideration by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) will correct this problem.

Under OFPA, organic growers must plant seedlings that are certified organic unless they are not “commercially available.” Otherwise, they may plant annual seedlings that are not certified organic, but are grown without substances that are prohibited in organic production. In the case of perennials, they must be grown for a full year before they may be sold as organic. Strawberries are technically perennials, but are planted each season and treated as annuals by most growers. Regardless of whether strawberries grown as annuals are treated as annual planting stock or perennial stock, they must be held subject to commercial availability standards, and produced without prohibited substances. Advocates must apply pressure to create incentives to ensure the commercial availability of organic inputs and ensure the integrity of the organic label. Read Beyond Pesticides’ comments to NOP on its Draft Guidance on Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop Production and learn more about organic integrity on our organic food program page.

Source: High County News
Mother Jones

The French study, “Exposure to Sublethal Doses of Fipronil and Thiacloprid Highly Increases Mortality of Honeybees Previously Infected by Nosema ceranae,” brought together researchers from the Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnment and the Laboratoire de Toxicologie Environnment who utilized their respective skills in parasitology and toxicology to assess the effect of pathogen/toxin interactions on bee health. In the laboratory, the researchers chronically exposed newly emerged honey bees, some healthy and others infected with Nosema ceranae, to low doses of insecticides: fipronil and thiacloprid. They found that the infected bees died when they were chronically exposed to insecticides, even at sublethal doses, unlike the healthy bees. This combined effect on honeybee mortality was observed with daily exposure to extremely low doses (over 100 times less than the LD50 or dose needed to kill 50% of the sample population, for each insecticide).

This study shows that interaction between Nosema disease and insecticides represents a significant additional risk for bee populations, and could possibly explain certain cases of excess mortality. This work also finds that insecticide doses considered to be non-lethal have a lethal toxic potential for organisms that are infested with parasites and therefore vulnerable.

Honey bees across the U.S. have been disappearing in what scientists dub Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD. CCD has devastated bees and beekeepers around the country in recent years, a phenomenon that that many scientists have tied to the use of the systemic neonicotinoid insecticides widely used in agriculture and gardens. According to the survey, 30% of managed honey bee colonies across the country were lost over the winter. Over the past five years, since the discovery of CCD, annual winter colony losses have hovered near the 30% mark. A report released jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) shows that losses of honey bee populations over the 2010/2011 winter remained abnormally high. The United Nations (UN) also revealed in a report that the collapse of honey bee colonies is now a global phenomenon.

Some European and U.S. scientists postulate that losses of biodiversity and food resources, due to climate change, have intensified the problem. Others believe that a rise in single-crop farming and modification of landscapes, as well as pathogens causing diseases like foulbrood and varroasis are responsible for the problem. While CCD appears to have multiple interacting, a range of evidence points to sub-lethal pesticide exposures and pathogens as important contributing factors. Neonicotinoids , the particularly suspect class of insecticides, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides, are found in honey bee hives. The use of chemicals in agriculture has been found to damage bees by weakening their immune systems. Laboratory studies show that some insecticides and fungicides can act together to be 1,000 times more toxic to bees. They can also affect the sense of direction, memory and brain metabolism, and herbicides and pesticides may reduce the availability of plants bees need for food and for the larval stages of some pollinators.

In December 2010, after the discovery of a leaked memo from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) citing flawed and missing scientific data regarding the registration of the neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin, Beyond Pesticides, along with beekeepers and other environmentalists, called on EPA to remove clothianidin from the market. EPA responded by defending clothianidin and the agency’s pesticide review process, saying that they “are not aware of any data that reasonably demonstrates that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to chronic exposure to this pesticide.” However, the emerging science finds that pesticides like clothianidin and others mentioned above do in fact harm bees. See Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on the connection between clothianidin and CCD. For more information, on honeybees and pesticides visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators and Pesticides page.

Please join Beyond Pesticides in celebrating our 30th Anniversary at a reception with live music and screening of “Vanishing of the Bees” on Thursday, October 27, 2011 in Washington, DC. RSVP today.

Source: Environmental Protection Online

Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007.

The two studies conducted by USGS examine glyphosate content in air and water samples in the states of Iowa and Mississippi across two growing seasons. The results show that glyphosate is detected 60-100% of the time in both air and rain samples. The consistent occurrence of glyphosate in streams and air indicates its transport from its point of use into the broader environment. The frequency of detection in air samples is roughly similar to the levels observed for other common herbicides in the region, but its concentration in rainfall is found to be at higher levels than for any other previously monitored pesticide.

Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year. The degradation product of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which has a longer environmental lifetime, is also frequently detected in streams and rain.

USGS researchers did not examine the implications or monitor the effects of the detected contamination, saying that more research is needed to assess any potential damages to public health or the environment. However, such widespread contamination is cause for significant concern, as glyphosate has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. Additionally, one of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells. The chemical is also of particular concern due to its toxicity to aquatic species as well as instances of serious human health effects from acute exposure.

“Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment,” says Paul Capel, Ph.D., USGS chemist and an author on both of the studies. “This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season. This is crucial information for understanding where management efforts for this chemical would best be focused.”

Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate). Growing previous Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn has led to greater use of herbicides. It has also led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the U.S. and other countries where such crops are grown, as well as contamination of conventional and organic crops, which has been costly to U.S. farmers. Because of GE crops, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever.

These new studies come on the heels of other recent research showing that glyphosate harms soil and reduces farmland fertility. According to a researcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, glyphosate impacts the root structure of plants, and 15 years of research indicates that the chemical could be causing fungal root disease.

USGS has submitted the studies to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be included in data that is being considered as EPA reviews the registration of glyphosate. The agency expects the review to be complete by 2015, at which point it will issue a decision to either continue to allow unrestricted use of glyphosate or to put limitations or a ban on the chemical in light of emerging science.

Beyond Pesticides is currently involved in multiple lawsuits involving Roundup Ready and other GE crops. The first lawsuit is filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and seeks to end cultivation of GE crops on twenty-five national wildlife refuges across the U.S. Southeast. The suit is the latest step in a campaign to banish GE crops from all refuges. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 12, 2011 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Center for Food Safety (CFS), and Beyond Pesticides, the federal suit charges that FWS unlawfully entered into cooperative farming agreements and approved planting of GE crops in eight states without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in violation of FWS policy. This is the third in a series of lawsuits filed by CFS and PEER challenging FWS’s practice of permitting GE crops on wildlife refuges. In 2009 and 2010, the groups successfully challenged approval of GE plantings on two wildlife refuges in Delaware — Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge and Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge — which forced FWS to end GE planting in the entire 12-state Northeastern region.

In another case involving GE crops, attorneys for CFS, Earthjustice, Beyond Pesticides, and others filed a lawsuit against USDA in March 2011, arguing that the agency’s unrestricted approval of GE “Roundup Ready” alfalfa violates the Endangered Species Act. USDA announced plans to fully deregulate GE alfalfa in January, despite contamination risks it poses to both organic and conventional farmers.

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

At the time the seeds were being distributed in 2010, Mr. Jean-Baptiste said Monsanto’s donation is an effort to shift farmer dependence to more expensive hybrid varieties from traditional seeds and will harm the island-nation’s agriculture. He called the donation a new earthquake. Haitian farmers and small growers traditionally save seed from season to season or buy the seed they desire from traditional seed markets, and, as he points out, have been doing this for 200 years.

Monsanto says that it donated “more than $4 million worth of conventional corn and vegetable seeds to be made over the next 12 months [through 2010] in support of reconstruction efforts.” According to Monsanto, the donated seeds include corn, cabbage, carrot, eggplant, melon, onion, tomato, spinach and watermelon. The hybrid corn seeds are treated with the fungicide Maxim XL, which is comprised of fludioxonil and mefenoxam. Other vegetable seeds were treated with thiram, a neurological, reproductive and thyroid toxicant, mutagen and skin sensitizer. The USAID WINNER program was responsible for distributing the seeds through farmer association stores where they were then sold to farmers at a significantly reduced price. Mr. Jean-Baptiste said that the Ministry of Agriculture has been unwilling to share any information with him on specifics of the seed.

In the interview, Mr. Jean-Baptiste voiced concern that the efforts of Monsanto and USAID were undermining traditional, organic peasant agriculture, while advancing a form of industrial agriculture that relies on seeds that require synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. He identified farmers who had used the Monsanto seeds without the synthetic fertilizer that was provided. The yields and quality of the corn were diminished, according to the farmers interviewed.

Mr. Jean-Baptiste expresses a strong belief that peasant organic agriculture is the only form of agriculture that can feed Haiti and the world and fight global climate change. He points to university studies in Europe and the U.S. and the position of the United Nations as additional support for his position.

MPP was founded in 1973 and is Haiti’s largest grassroots organization dedicated to work toward social justice and improving the quality of life in the country. Among the organization’s goals are to improve the environment and soil so that Haiti can regain its food sovereignty and contribute to an efficient management of natural resources such as water, forests, and seeds. For more information or to donate to help the farmers of Haiti, go to mpphaiti.org.

Fields planted in Monsanto’s Bt corn in some areas of the Midwest are showing damage from the corn rootworm””the very species targeted by Monsanto’s engineered trait. Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann, PhD has discovered that western corn rootworms in four Iowa fields have evolved and can resist the pesticide built into Monsanto’s genetically altered corn seeds. The scientist said the cases were isolated, but he did not know how widespread the problem could become. Farmers in Illinois are also seeing severe rootworm damage in fields planted in Monsanto’s Bt corn. In 2010, Monsanto acknowledged that in industrial-agriculture regions of India, where Monsanto’s Bt cotton is a dominant crop, the cotton-attacking bollworm had developed resistance.

“These are isolated cases, and it isn’t clear how widespread the problem will become,” said Dr. Gassmann in an interview. “But it is an early warning that management practices need to change.”

Monsanto became the first company to sell rootworm-resistant biotech corn to farmers in 2003. The seed contains a gene from the common soil microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, from which crop biotechnology has been used to mine several genes for making insecticidal proteins. One of the genes Monsanto developed makes a crystalline protein called Cry3Bb1. It rips apart the gut of the rootworm but its risk to mammals, birds, and most beneficial insects are uncertain. A study published in the May 2011 edition of the journal Reproductive Toxicology found that pregnant women and their fetuses were contaminated with pesticides and metabolites of the herbicide gluphosinate and the Cry1Ab protein of the insecticide based on Bt. Roughly one-third of the corn grown in the U.S. carries Monsanto’s Cry3Bb1 gene.

According to Dr. Gassmann, the Iowa fields in which he found rootworms resistant to the Cry3Bb1 toxin had been producing Monsanto’s Bt-expressing corn continuously for at least three years. Dr. Gassmann collected rootworm beetles from four Iowa cornfields with plant damage in 2009. Their larvae were then fed corn containing Monsanto’s Cry3Bb1 toxin. They had a survival rate three times that of control larvae that ate the same corn.

Resistance to genetically modified crops is not new. Genetically modified crop known as “Roundup ready” engineered to survive exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, a glyphosate-based chemical, has spawned a new generation of Round-up resistance weeds dubbed “superweeds.” These weeds, immune to Roundup, have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the South and Midwest. In addition to resistant weeds, heavy use of Roundup sprayed on “Roundup Ready” crops appear to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of crops that farmers are cultivating according to scientists at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. Growing previous Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn have also led to greater use of herbicides.

Threat to Organic and Sustainable Agriculture
Until insecticide-producing corn plants arrived, Midwest farmers typically tried to keep pests like the corn borer and the rootworm in check by changing what they grew in a field each year, often rotating between corn and soybeans. That way, the offspring of corn-loving insects would starve the next year. Proponents of genetically engineered crops claim they will reduce pesticide use and increase drought resistance, among other things, but studies have emerged since their widespread adoption in the 1990s that show otherwise. Insect resistance, weed resistance, and cross contamination of other crops have been documented. These impacts threaten the sustainability of agriculture. There has long been a concern that EPA’s allowance of plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) with Bt would lead to the failure of a biological tool used in organic farming systems as an alternative to highly toxic synthetic inputs. Organic farmers have expressed concern since the introduction of PIPs in 2003 that the overuse of Bt, which is inevitable when Bt is genetically engineered into every cell of a plant, will lead to insect resistance and leave many farmers without an important tool of organic agriculture. For more on genetically modified agriculture read Beyond Pesticides’ article “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market.“

Unfortunately, these new findings add fuel to the race among crop biotechnology rivals to locate the next generation of genes that can protect plants from insects. Scientists at Monsanto and Syngenta AG of Basel, Switzerland are already researching how to use a medical breakthrough called RNA interference to, among other things, make crops deadly for insects to eat. These insect-proof and herbicide-resistant crops have been sold as a silver bullet approach to pest management, increasing grower reliance on the technology and violating a basic tenet of pest prevention and management, which stresses the need for the nurturing of a diverse biological system instead of using single product-oriented approaches year after year that allow pests the opportunity to adapt and develop resistance.

The one sure-fire way you can avoid the genetically modified food is to buy organic or know where your food comes from. Genetically modified crops are not permitted in organic food production. Researchers are continuing to discover the environmental and health benefits of eating and growing organic food. For more information about why organic is the right choice see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

The researchers from the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine recruited 173 men between the ages of 60 to 74 from 670 identified by the California Cancer Registry as being diagnosed with prostate cancer between August 2005 and July 2006 in California’s Central Valley. The authors used calendars and questionnaires to determine where they lived and worked between 1974 and 1999, and compared this to historical data of the corresponding area’s agricultural pesticide use from state pesticide use reports and land use records.

In comparison with unexposed persons, increased risks of prostate cancer were observed among persons exposed to compounds which may have prostate-specific biologic effects [methyl bromide (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 2.59) and a group of organochlorines (odds ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 2.63)], but not among those exposed to other compounds that were included as controls (simazine, maneb, and paraquat dichloride).

According to the National Institutes of Health, prostate cancer is the third most common cause of death from cancer in men of all ages and is the most common cause of death from cancer in men over age 75. Prostate cancer is rarely found in men younger than 40. The prostate is a small, walnut-sized structure that makes up part of a man’s reproductive system. It wraps around the urethra, the tube that carries urine out of the body. Men who are at higher risk include those who: are African-Americans, who are also likely to develop cancer at every age; are older than 60; have a father or brother with prostate cancer; have been exposed to Agent Orange; abuse alcohol; are farmers; eat a diet high in fat, especially animal fat; work in tire plant; are painters; and, have been exposed to cadmium.

This is not the first study to link pesticide exposure to prostate cancer. In 2008, University of California Davis Cancer Center research showed that Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange have greatly increased risks of prostate cancer and even greater risks of getting the most aggressive form of the disease as compared to those who were not exposed. Based on medical evaluations conducted between 1998 and 2006, the study identified twice as many men exposed to Agent Orange with prostate cancer. In addition, Agent Orange-exposed men were diagnosed two-and-a-half years younger and were nearly four times more likely to present with metastatic disease.

The complaint was filed in 1999 under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which prohibits intentional discrimination and discriminatory effects on the basis of race, color, and national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. The complaint alleged that CDPR’s annual renewal of the registration of methyl bromide in 1999 discriminated against Latino school children based on the health impacts of this pesticide. The Office of Civil Rights’ extensive analysis of pesticide use in California from 1995 to 2001, raised concerns that there was an unintentional adverse and disparate impact on Latino children resulting from the use of methyl bromide during that period. This concern was based on the high percentage of Latino children in schools near fields where methyl bromide was applied for the period from 1995-2001.

These measures fall short, however, of actually providing relief to the children and their parents who were affected by the use of methyl bromide. According to the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, who filed the initial complaint on behalf of parents and children in the region, it provides no substantive relief or remedy to the people who were affected. Brent Newell, the groups lawyer told the Huffington Post: “Those school children have since graduated from high school and the EPA gave them no remedy.” The group also points out that EPA could have referred the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution, and failed to inform the families about the findings.

Methyl Bromide, a soil fumigant, is currently being phased out as mandated by the Clean Air Act and international treaty because it depletes the earth’s ozone layer. Rather than using the opportunity to support sustainable, organic practices, and much to the dismay and outcry of scientists, environmental and farmworker groups, California regulators approved the highly potent, carcinogenic fumigant methyl iodide last December. In January, a lawsuit was filed by a coalition of farmworkers and environmental health organizations challenging DPR’s approval of methyl iodide on the grounds that it violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act that protects groundwater against pesticide pollution. In addition, the suit contends that DPR violated the law requiring involvement of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in the development of farmworker safety regulations and made an unlawful finding of emergency with its request for Restricted Materials status for methyl iodide.

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is 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 farmworkers and farm families.

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.

Unfortunately, though proposals of the prevention committee focus on prevention and include landscape modification in addition to management of deer and other wildlife, they also recommend the use of pesticides including repellants such as DEET and synthetic pyrethroid compounds such as permethrin, bifenthrin and cyhalothrin.

Conventional pesticides have been ineffective and create risks for people and the environment. For a pesticide to work, it must come in contact with or be consumed by the pest. Although they use vegetation as a launching pad for finding new hosts, ticks do not eat vegetation and are likely to spend most of their lives in sheltered areas, like mouse burrows, where pesticides will not come in contact with them. Thus, applications of poisons to vegetation is not very effective and results in harmful effects on nontarget organisms, including humans.

Furthermore, these pesticides are toxic. For years scientists have raised concerns about the use of DEET and seizures among children, even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that there is not enough information to implicate DEET with these incidents. DEET is quickly absorbed through the skin and has caused adverse effects including severe skin reactions such as large blisters and burning sensations. Use of DEET by pregnant woman has been linked to birth defects, and laboratory studies have found that DEET can cause neurological damage, including brain damage in children.

DEET’s synergistic effect with other insecticides is also a major health concern. DEET, when used in combination with permethrin -a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, likely facilitates enhanced dermal absorption of permethrin and induces symptoms such as headache, loss of memory, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, and ataxia, which causes an inability to coordinate muscular movements.

Rather than reaching for the DEET or toxic pesticides such as permethrin to repel and kill ticks, there are some non-toxic techniques that are effective in significantly reducing the population of ticks in a given area. It is important to understand the life cycle of the ticks and their relationship to other animals.

Contact with ticks occurs when we venture into the grassy or wooded areas where they live. They can also be brought into homes on pets that roam outside – especially if pets wander in areas that provide a good mouse habitat. Common mice habitats include woods, bushes, leaf piles, burrows and other areas that provide cover to protect them from their predators. In areas that are potential tick habitats, you should wear light-colored clothing that covers the body (especially your legs) because it makes it easier to spot ticks so they can be removed before they bite.

You should use only unscented deodorant, soap and shampoo. An exception is Packers Tar Soap, which has a natural pine scent and seems to keep ticks from biting once they have been picked up. Similarly, you can try using least-toxic herbal repellants such as oil of lemon eucalyptus and essential oils. The scented oil of lemon eucalyptus masks both carbon dioxide and lactic acid exhalations that alerts the tick to your presence, essentially hiding humans from detection. After you have walked through high grass in a tick infested area, check the entire body for ticks and shower to wash off any ticks that have not yet become embedded.

If you do find an embedded tick, remove it carefully. Protect your hands with gloves or a tissue. Use blunt, curved tweezers, not your bare fingers, and exert pressure on the head of the tick and gently pulling the tick straight out very slowly. Do not twist and do not crush the tick. The body fluids can cause infection if exposed to even unbroken skin. Do not kill the tick while still embedded. Coating with petroleum jelly will block its breathing apparatus and force it to withdraw, usually within 30 minutes. Kill the tick in soapy water or alcohol, clean the wound with antiseptic, and monitor carefully for any signs of infection.

Lyme disease is caused by the bacteria Borrelia Burgdorferi. It is spread by a number of different ticks, but the deer tick is the most common vector. The white footed mouse usually carries the bacteria. Ticks often reside in the den of the mouse, feed on the mouse’s blood in the early stages of their life and pick up the bacteria. During later feeding on humans, they can pass on the bacteria.

Symptoms of Lyme disease can vary from person to person, but in most cases a bump that looks like a bulls-eye that develops along with a possible rash at the site of the bite or elsewhere on the body. The bump will be red on light skin and look like a bruise on dark skin, and will usually occur within 30 days of a bite. In that time, the person may also develop flu-like symptoms: fatigue, chills, headache, muscle and joint aches, and a low fever. In about 25% of cases no rash or bump will develop at all. Anyone bitten by a tick in an area with a high rate of Lyme disease should contact their doctor.

For more information on non-toxic tick control, see our Fact Sheet.

Help create a healthier and safer school environment by checking the following items off your Back to School Checklist.

1. Get Triclosan Out of Schools and Supplies.

The antibacterial chemical triclosan is linked to skin irritation, hormone disruption, antibiotic resistance, and more. Avoid products labeled Microban or “with antibacterial protection” as they may contain triclosan (product list). Ask your school to order triclosan-free soap and school supplies. See Back to School flyer.

Take Action: Bath & Body Works has marketed an entire line of triclosan-containing body care products to teenagers. Tell Bath & Body Works’ CEO: “Stop using toxic triclosan in your products.”

2. Improve Your School’s IPM Program.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure because of their small size and developing organ systems. A strong integrated pest management (IPM) program is one of the best ways to minimize or eliminate children’s exposure to pesticides. See how your state’s School IPM rates.

Take Action: Improve your local school’s pest management policy, both indoors and on school grounds and playing fields. For details, see our School Organizing guide.

3. Be Wary of Bed Bugs.

Pesticides used for bed bugs are linked to cancer, hormone disruption, asthma, neurotoxicity, and more. Plus, they are generally ineffective due to resistance. Fortunately, bed bugs do not transmit disease and can be controlled without toxic pesticides.

Take Action: Bed bug infestation is not limited to bedrooms and hotels, so be sure to check backpacks, clothing and school supplies (like binders, books) for bed bugs regularly. For detailed information on prevention and control, download our Bed Bug factsheet.

4. Look Out for Lice.

Head lice are common, but don’t go reaching for toxic lice shampoos! Products containing lindane and permethrin have been linked to cancer, neurological damage and more.

Take Action: Successful treatment relies on an integrated approach that includes monitoring, prevention, physical removal and heat. Learn more in our Head Lice factsheet.

5. Eat (and Grow) Organic Food.

Organic food is healthier for kids as it reduces pesticide exposure, and better for farmworkers and the environment. School gardens teach children where food comes from and establishes healthy relationships with food and the natural world.

Take Action: Ask your school to adopt an organic lunch program, starting with organic produce, milk or juice. Try growing food in an organic school garden. For more information, see, “School Lunches Go Organic” and “The Organic School Garden” (or “Grow Your Own Organic Food” for technical advice).

The sugarcane industry claims that the research is based on old data and that there have been significant changes in practices, including cutting back on the use of pesticides. Though the Australian government acknowledges these changes, those improvements have been undermined by Cyclone Yasi. The heavy flooding from Yasi, which ripped through the region earlier this year, likely flushed pollutants out into the reef.

According to the industry, the suspension of the use of diuron would drive up the costs for sugarcane growers because there is no viable alternative to the herbicide. Environmentalists, including Nick Heath, national manager of freshwaters at World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia, are disappointed with the decision to extend the use of diuron and point out that sugarcane growers have had eight years to find an alternative.

“It is likely Diuron is poisoning the health of seagrass and coral, further contributing to the current heavy die-off of hundreds of turtles and dugong,” Mr Heath told The Australian. “We call on the federal government to move swiftly to ban this chemical.”

Seventy-five percent of the pesticide pollution on the reef is caused by diuron, says WWF. It has been found up to 60km (or approximately 38 miles) inside the reef and at levels that are toxic to the coral. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies diuron is a known/likely human carcinogen. It is also frequently detected in streams and is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms.

Source: The Australian, BBC News

The letters were forwarded to EPA and FWS at a time when Congress is doing all it can to strip the Clean Water Act of its power to protect U.S. waterways. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 or H.R. 872, already passed by the House earlier this year and recently voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, would revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways. Click here to send a message to your Senators urging them to stand with you in opposition to this dangerous bill. Soon after H.R. 872 was passed, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018. The act would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. The bill would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Republican lawmakers are loading up an appropriations bill with over 70 amendments (riders) to significantly curtail environmental regulation in the 2012 Department of the Interior and the EPA spending bill (H.R. 2584), in one of the most extreme attacks on the environment and public health in modern history.

A copy of the letter to the EPA can be found HERE. A copy of the letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service can be found HERE.

EPA has been in the process of developing the permit requirements in accordance with the 2009 court ruling since June 2010. The PGP covers operators who apply pesticides that result in discharges from the following use patterns: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. The permit would not cover 1) non-target spray drift, or 2) discharges of pesticides to waterbodies that are impaired for that pesticide. Unfortunately, agricultural runoff and irrigation return flows, responsible for contaminating much of our waterways, are exempt from permitting under CWA and, thus, do not require CWA permits.

Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the EPA is required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service whenever its actions could cause harm to an endangered species. Fulfilling this ESA obligation, the EPA entered into a consultation with NMFS to determine if the Pesticide General Permit would harm endangered species. The NMFS found that the permit as written would threaten the existence of 33 endangered species, including Atlantic and Pacific salmon. According to the Biological Opinion:

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

The agency recommended three basic measures that would mediate the impact of the permit. These measures include annual reporting from applicators that discharge pesticides into U.S. waters, monitoring for pesticides in habitats of endangered species, and identification of the pesticides covered by the PGP that would cause the most severe adverse impacts to endangered species. EPA has received these recommendations and is currently in the process of finalizing the permit that should be published this fall. Reps. Markey and Napolitano’s letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urged adoption of measures that would better protect endangered or threatened species from being killed by pesticides sprayed directly into our rivers, streams or lakes.

Reps. Markey and Napolitano also sent a letter to FWS Director Dan Ashe urging his agency to weigh in on the impacts the Pesticide General Permit may have on endangered freshwater species of fish. Despite receiving notice from the EPA requesting a consultation over a year ago, the FWS has yet to complete a consultation and is therefore not complying with its obligation under the ESA. Without FWS input, the EPA will be unable to modify the Pesticide General Permit even though freshwater endangered species may be harmed.

The non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock production accounts for nearly 80% of all antibiotics used in the United States. Typically, low levels of antibiotics are administered to animals through feed and water to prevent disease and promote growth. This is generally done to compensate for overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions, as is common in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and to fatten livestock to get them to market sooner. Antibiotic use is prohibited in the production of all animal products labeled organic.

“We initially thought we would see some differences in on-farm levels of antibiotic-resistant enterococci when poultry farms transitioned to organic practices. But we were surprised to see that the differences were so significant across several different classes of antibiotics even in the very first flock of birds that was produced after the transition to organic standards,” explained Amy Sapkota, PhD, an assistant professor with the Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health. “It is very encouraging.”

Dr. Sapkota and her team investigated the impact of removing antibiotics from U.S. poultry farms by studying 10 conventional and 10 newly organic large-scale poultry houses in the mid-Atlantic region. They tested for the presence of enterococci bacteria in poultry litter, feed, and water, and tested its resistance to 17 common antimicrobials.

“We chose to study enterococci because these microorganisms are found in all poultry, including poultry on both organic and conventional farms. The enterococci also cause infections in human patients staying in hospitals. In addition, many of the antibiotics given in feed to farm animals are used to fight Gram-positive bacteria such as the enterococci. These features, along with their reputation of easily exchanging resistance genes with other bacteria, make enterococci a good model for studying the impact of changes in antibiotic use on farms,” Dr. Sapkota said.

While all farms tested positive for the presence of enterococci in poultry litter, feed, and water as expected, the newly organic farms were characterized by a significantly lower prevalence of antibiotic-resistant enterococci. For example, 67 percent of Enterococcus faecalis recovered from conventional poultry farms were resistant to erythromycin, while 18 percent of Enterococcus faecalis from newly organic poultry farms were resistant to this antibiotic.

Dramatic changes were also observed in the levels of multi-drug resistant bacteria (organisms resistant to three or more antimicrobial classes) on the newly organic farms. Multi-drug resistant bacteria are of particular public health concern because they can be resistant to all available antibiotics, and are, therefore, very difficult to treat if contracted by an animal or human. Forty-two percent of Enterococcus faecalis from conventional farms were multi-drug resistant, compared to only 10 percent from newly organic farms, and 84 percent of Enterococcus faecium from conventional farms were multi-drug resistant compared to 17 percent of those from newly organic farms [see figure].

“While we know that the dynamics of antibiotic resistance differ by bacterium and antibiotic, these findings show that, at least in the case of enterococci, we begin to reverse resistance on farms even among the first group of animals that are grown without antibiotics, said Dr. Sapkota. “Now we need to look forward and see what happens over five years, 10 years in time.” Sapkota said she expects that reductions in drug-resistant bacteria on U.S. farms that “go organic” are likely to be more dramatic over time as reservoirs of resistant bacteria in the farm environment diminish.

Last November, the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety released a similarstudy that documents the comparative rates of salmonella contamination in both feces and feed at organic and conventional broiler poultry farms in North Carolina. There were three organic and four conventional farms included in the study, all owned by the same company. The researchers found that, in examining fecal samples, 38.8% of those from conventional farms contained salmonella, compared with only 5.6% from organic farms. For feed, the results were similar: 27.5% of feed on the conventional farms had salmonella, while only 5% of organic feed was contaminated. The study also examined the prevalence of salmonella that are resistant to antibiotic treatment and compared the results of organic versus conventional. The results show that resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin is 36.2% at conventional farms, compared to 25% at organic. Perhaps even more significant, multi-drug resistance to six different antibiotic treatments (ampicillin, streptomycin, amoxicillin, cephalothin, ceftiofor, and cefoxitin) is at 39.7% on the conventional farms, whereas none of the organic birds show resistance to this combined treatment.

In May 2011, a coalition of environmental and public health groups filed a lawsuit against the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require the agency to enforce strict standards regarding the routine use of antibiotics in livestock feed. The suit, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, calls on FDA to implement regulations based on its own findings that the routine use of low doses of antibiotics in animal feed presents increased risk for the development of resistant bacteria.

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

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