Researchers looked at the proteins of thousands of healthy and collapsing bee colonies using mass spectrometry-based proteomics (MSP) that revealed two previously unreported RNA viruses in honey bees in North America, one of which is the IIV. Researchers say this virus is similar to a virus that was first reported in India 20 years ago, as well as a virus found in moths. Interestingly, researchers point out that due to its potency IIVs have been considered for potential use as a biopesticide for controlling boll weevils, mosquitoes and other insect pests.

It’s important to point out that while this is an important step in solving the mystery of the bees, there may very well be more than just these two factors at play. Because our survival depends on healthy pollinators, we must take a precautionary approach and continue working towards finding a solution. We still don’t know what role the combination of pesticides play in the grand scheme of healthy pollinators, why CCD is so prevalent right now, or what factors are allowing IIV or N. ceranae to spread and kill the bees.

“We truly don’t know if these two pathogens cause CCD or whether the colonies with CCD are more likely to succumb to these two pathogens,” Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D. of the University of Montana said in a statement to the Associated Press.

In the past four years, scientists have connected many other suspects to colony collapse disorder. Researchers had previously suspected and then dismissed N. ceranae because it was found in both healthy and failing colonies. Earlier this year, a study conducted by Penn State University found that there is widespread pesticide contamination of beehives. This research did not find a direct correlation from pesticides to colony collapse, because like the N. ceranae fungus, these chemicals were also present in healthy hives. What it does imply is that bees and their hives are being exposed to high numbers of toxic chemicals and that the synergistic, aggregate, and cumulative effects from exposure need to be explored for their possible contribution to bee mortality, fitness and even potentially colony collapse. The fact that this new study discovered a combination of two things as a cause for CCD highlights the importance of studying the effects of these materials in combinations.

Pesticides, especially neonictinoids, have been previously implicated as a cause for CCD, and a previous study criticized risk assessments for downplaying their potential role. These pesticides are a class of chemicals that target nerve cells in a similar way as nicotine, acting as neurotoxins to insects. One of the most commonly used neonicotinoid is the insecticide imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer Crop Science and used in agriculture to control aphids, beetles, and other sucking insects. Imidacloprid has been linked to neural effects in honeybees, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior – similar behaviors that are being displayed by bees suffering from CCD. The use of imidacloprid was banned in France after it was suspected to be responsible for the decline of honeybee populations in the late 1990s.

First reported in 2006, CCD is unlike other ailments that have affected honeybees in the past because worker bees simply disappear rapidly, never returning to the hive where the queen still lives with a small cluster of bees amidst pollen and honey stores in the presence of immature bees (brood). It has been reported that losses of honeybee colonies across 21 states in the winter of 2007-8 averaged 35%, with a high degree of variability. Large declines of honeybee colonies were also experienced in select European countries, where average losses were 26%. For more information, read Beyond Pesticides previous news coverage on pollinators.

“Unlike some other applications of nanotechnology, which are further along in development, applications for pesticides are in their infancy,” said Dr. Stacey Harper, PhD, an assistant professor of nanotoxicology at Oregon State University. “There are risks and a lot of uncertainties, however, so we need to understand exactly what’s going on, what a particular nanoparticle might do, and work to eliminate use of any that do pose dangers.

Some of the potential benefits of nanotechnology that scientists discuss in the report are that it may provide better control and delivery of active ingredients, less environmental drift, formulations that will most effectively reach the desired pest, and perhaps better protection for agricultural workers. “If you could use less pesticide and still accomplish the same goal, that’s a concept worth pursuing,” said Dr. Harper.

However, she adds that researchers need to be equally realistic about the dangers. Like many other new technologies, all of the big promises that nanotechnology has made still remain to be seen and there are still big unanswered questions about their potentially harmful effects on our health and the environment. OSU labs have tested more than 200 nanomaterials, and while they report that very few posed concern, some were found to be highly toxic.

There is much reason to be cautious, especially since a recent study found that nanosilver can interrupt important cell signaling within male reproductive sperm cells, causing them to stop growing. Previous studies have shown that the particles, which are between one and 100 nanometers in size and smaller than many viruses, can enter the environment through wastewater, where they can accumulate in biosolids at wastewater treatment plants. These biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are often sold to consumers as fertilizer, despite the fact that they can contain toxic contaminants. Nanosized particles can also be released from impregnated materials via washing or or as a result of sweating, posing unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Some of the concerns that researchers highlight include the potential need for new methodologies from traditional chemical tests in order to fully understand the effects of nano sized particles. They also call for full disclosure from manufacturers on exactly what nanoparticles are involved in their products and what their characteristics are. They also say that special assessments are needed for sensitive populations, such as infants, the elderly or fetal exposure to nanoparticles.

Another issue is to ensure that compounds are tested in the same way humans would be exposed in the real world. Dr. David Stone, PhD, an assistant professor in the OSU Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology explains: “You can’t use oral ingestion of a pesticide by a laboratory rat and assume that will tell you what happens when a human inhales the same substance. Exposure of the respiratory tract to nanoparticles is one of our key concerns, and we have to test compounds that way.”

Researchers also say that future regulations need to acknowledge the additional level of uncertainty that will exist for nano-based pesticides with inadequate data and want tests to be done using the commercial form of the pesticides and a health surveillance program as well as other public educational programs should be developed. They conclude that there needs to be a “coordinated effort between governmental, industry, academic and public entities to effectively deal with a revolutionary class of novel pesticides.”

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

Earlier this year, Canada joined several other countries that have either banned or proposed a ban on nanotechnology in organic recognizing the potential risks that have yet to be addressed. These countries include the United Kingdom’s Soil Association, Biological Farmers of Australia, and Austrian organic certifier Austria Bio Garantie. In the U.S., the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) heard testimony on the development of a definition and policy on nanotechnology in organic standards earlier this year and the US-based Organic Crop Improvement Association has added a clause in their organic standard to regulate the use of nanotechnology.

For more information on nanomaterials, see Beyond Pesticides’ nanosilver page or nanotechnology news alerts.

Commissioner Dalli presented to the Farm Council proposals on GMO cultivation, as well as a new “best practice document” for maize. “Commissioner Dalli is trying to snake his way through crucial GMO policies by attempting to satisfy all conflicting parties with his proposals to the Farm Council this morning. But his approach still fails to solve the main problems,” comments Christopher Stopes, President of the IFOAM EU Group. “Consumers refuse to eat GMOs which is their democratic right.”

The best practice document authored by the European Coexistence Bureau, developed in light of a July 2010 recommendation, reflects the possibility for EU member states to establish coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. Best practices as outlined in the document include isolation distances, buffer zones and the use of dedicated machinery or storage places. However, economic and social damage from the potential impacts of a new GMO on the GMO-free food and feed sector were not fully considered and explored.

“The European Coexistence Bureau did an extensive job with its maize best practice document, but we are disappointed by the fact that our concerns about the legal requirement to avoid all contamination in the harvest and about the real costs of machinery cleaning were not sufficiently considered,” adds Antje Kölling, Policy Coordinator IFOAM EU Group. “If the Commission speaks about coexistence, it must ensure the maintenance of GMO-free food and farming, not give way to commingling up to tolerance thresholds and increasing contamination.”

According to IFOAM, farmers want to meet the demand for GMO-free food, but they are facing increasing obstacles and costs to do so. Farmers need legal certainty, not only voluntary guidelines, to be able to stay in business. IFOAM calls on EU farm ministers to defend the right of farmers to produce GMO-free food and to push for this legal certainty.

“Organic farmers in Spain gave 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,” adds Victor Gonzálvez of Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE) Spain. “EU-wide compulsory measures to prevent contamination as well as full liability of those who place GMO on the market for costs that non-GMO growers and processors face are long overdue.”

Recently, a study by University of Notre Dame ecologist Jennifer Tank, PhD and colleagues found that streams throughout the Midwest are contaminated with GM materials from corn crop byproducts, even six months after harvest. 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. The long-term health effects of consuming GM food are still unknown. GM crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GM crops and unmodified varieties. 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. 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.

In the U.S. GMO crops, whether by the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide-resistant crop, the GM approach to agricultural pest management is short sighted and dangerous. There are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GM crops. Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products that contain GM ingredients, seek to educate on the public health and environmental consequences of this technology and generate support for sound ecological-based management systems.

For more information on GM crops please see Beyond Pesticides page on Genetic Engineering.

Source: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)— EU Regional Group Press Release

The report, State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, is the sixth edition published by the Breast Cancer Fund. “With each new edition of the report, the growing scientific evidence compels us to act to prevent breast cancer,” said Jeanne Rizzo, RN, president of the Breast Cancer Fund. “This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, our message is clear: we must move beyond awareness to prevention.”

The report states that a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is 1 in 8””representing a dramatic increase since the 1930s, when the first reliable cancer incidence data were established. Between 1973 and 1998 alone, breast cancer incidence rates in the United States increased by more than 40 percent. Strikingly, the increasing incidence of breast cancer since the 1930s parallels the proliferation of synthetic chemicals. Today, approximately 85,000 synthetic chemicals are registered for use in the United States, more than 90 percent of which have never been tested for their effects on human health.

The report’s lead author, Janet Gray, PhD, professor at Vassar College, said that widely understood risk factors for breast cancer such as primary genetic mutations, reproductive history and lifestyle factors do not address a considerable portion of the risk for the disease. “A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that exposures to common chemicals and radiation also contribute to the unacceptably high incidence of breast cancer,” Dr. Gray said. “This report focuses on these environmental issues.”

The report dedicates several chapters to pesticides, focusing on various studies linking triazine herbicides (atrazine, simazine), organochlorines (aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, heptachlor) and the phenoxy herbicide 2,4-D, as well as the link between hormones used in meat production to breast cancer. The report reviews both epidemiologic and animal studies and routes of exposure, with an emphasis on exposure to farmworkers and other vulnerable populations. Toxic synthetic pesticides and hormones are prohibited in organic agriculture.

This report comes just months after the President’s Cancer Panel’s report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, finds that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. The report levels a hefty critique of failed regulation, undue industry influence, and inadequate research and funding. It also finds that the government has been locked in a cancer-fighting paradigm that has failed to look at the complexity of cancer causation and, in so doing, has missed the opportunity to create a national campaign for cancer prevention.

In addition to a comprehensive summary of the science and policy recommendations, the report also presents advice on what individuals can do to reduce their risk. Regarding pesticides, the report stops short of recommending an overhaul of federal pesticide law to be precautionary and focus more on alternatives assessment, but does recommend several improvements to our current regulatory system:

”¢ EPA should follow the EU’s lead and ban the use of atrazine in the United States.

Ӣ The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) should be revised so that pesticides cannot enter the market with a conditional registration. Inert ingredients along with active ingredients should be included in toxicity testing. Pesticide registration procedures need to be more stringent, and the EPA should establish and enforce rigorous testing requirements.

Ӣ Strengthened premarket health and safety testing and regulation of pesticides should be included in comprehensive chemical policy reform.

Ӣ The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) needs to be more vigilantly implemented and to move beyond policy that addresses one pesticide or agent at a time, to consider multiple concurrent pesticide exposures.

Ӣ More research is needed on the cumulative exposures of agricultural workers and their families to gain a greater understanding of the role of pesticides in the development of breast cancer and other diseases.

Ӣ Manufacturers should be provided with incentives to adopt safer pesticide practices and develop product alternatives.

“At a time when virtually every American has been touched by breast cancer,” said Ms. Rizzo, “we need individual, corporate and government commitment to eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer. Action now means fewer of our children and grandchildren will face the devastating diagnosis of breast cancer. We simply can’t afford not to act.”

Sen. Nelson recently brought up his concerns at a Senate hearing with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Nebraska Farm Bureau is asking the state’s congressional delegation to work with their colleagues to halt EPA’s “non-stop regulatory assault on the state’s farmers and ranchers and their counterparts nationwide.” In addressing Administrator Jackson, Sen. Nelson said he agreed with a number of Nebraska producers who have told him that agriculture’s perspective is not being considered in EPA’s decision making, saying that, “EPA is overreaching with proposed regulations for carbon emissions, atrazine, dust standards, applying clean water rules on pesticide use and greenhouse gas reporting for livestock operations.”

“Many in the agricultural community are rightly concerned about EPA’s actions because the agency’s rules typically are implemented in a top-down fashion with too little consideration for their impact,” Sen. Nelson said. “These rules often are costly and time-consuming for Nebraska farmers and ranchers. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture works more cooperatively when it implements new rules.”

In letters sent last week to Nebraska’s U.S. senators and representatives, Farm Bureau Board of Directors cited several of what they view as examples of the so-called regulatory assault on agriculture since 2009. Including:

– EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” gives it authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
– Proposed revisions to coarse particulate matter (dust) standards, which may trigger restrictions on everything from gravel roads to farm field activities.
– A re-evaluation of atrazine.
– Action to expand federal authority over individual states’ management of surface water quality.
– Expansion of Clean Water Act permit requirements that leave open the option of regulating common pesticide applications.

New actions at EPA have led to the current re-evaluation of atrazine. Despite industry insistence that the chemical is “safe,” atrazine contaminates surface and drinking waters, is a known endocrine disruptor and is linked to birth defects and cancer. It has also been banned in every other developed country. At the end of the review process, the agency will decide whether to revise its current risk assessment of the pesticide and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect public health. The decision to review atrazine follows recent scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate.

EPA, under court order, proposed new permit requirements for the discharge of pesticides into US waterways in keeping with the Clean Water Act, which the agency has a duty to uphold. However in response to this action, industry groups and members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, drafted a bill, S. 3735 aimed at stripping the Clean Water Act of its directive to protect U.S. waters from pesticide contamination. A letter, authored by Beyond Pesticides and supported by dozens and environmental and public health groups from across the country, urges Congress to support EPA in fulfilling its task, rather than undermining the laws that protect public health and the environment.

Powerful industry groups have stepped up efforts to lobby Congress to admonish and undermine EPA’s recent efforts to exert its authority and stewardship over environmental laws that serve to protect human health and the environment. According to Beyond Pesticides’ newly released Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, many pesticides currently regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are linked to numerous chronic health effects including cancer and reproductive/developmental disorders. While environmental and public health advocates argue that many EPA actions do not go far enough to protect vulnerable populations and wildlife species, many recent decisions are aimed to increase transparency in the regulatory process. Claiming “undue burden” industry groups are determined to derail EPA’s progress.

Take Action: Beyond Pesticides encourages its members to contact their Senators and let them know how they feel about S. 3735.View the legislation and contact your Senators.

Source: The Grand Island Independent Nebraska

“We found that corn crop byproducts were common in agricultural streams and that 86 percent of sites contained corn leaves, cobs, husks and/or stalks in the active stream channel,” Dr. Tank said. “In addition, using a sensitive laboratory test that specifically measures the amount of Cry1Ab protein from Bt corn, we detected Cry1Ab in corn collected from 13 percent of the stream sites. We also detected Cry1Ab dissolved in stream water samples at 23 percent of the sites, even six month after crop harvest.”

Dr. Tank points out that a majority of streams in the Midwestern corn belt are located in close proximity of corn fields. “Our GIS analyses found that 91 percent of the more than 200,000 kilometers of streams and rivers in Indiana, Iowa and Illinois are located within 500 meters of a corn field, suggesting that corn crop byproducts and any associated insecticidal proteins may enter streams across the corn belt states.”

Previous research has overlooked the potential for crop byproducts from transgenic corn to enter and be dispersed by headwater streams. “Our study demonstrates the persistence and dispersal of crop byproducts and associated transgenic material in streams throughout a corn belt landscape even long after crop harvest,” Dr. Tank concludes. The research emphasizes that there is a tight link between streams and adjacent agricultural fields and dispersal of crop byproducts could affect natural ecosystems beyond field boundaries.

GE crops are already known to contaminate conventional non-GE and organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment by increasing resistant insects and weeds, contaminating water and affecting pollinators and other non-target organisms. The long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown. GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GE planted barriers around sites planted with GE crops. However, a 2009 study shows that one out of every four farmers who plants GE corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement.

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 GE approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. There are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GE crops. Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products that contain GE ingredients, seek to educate on the public health and environmental consequences of this technology and generate support for sound ecological-based management systems.

The research team, which presented its findings at a recent British Society meeting at the University of Leeds, compared the yields of pollinator-dependent crops such as pumpkins, squash and cucumbers with pollinator-independent crops, such as cereals. The data shows that while yields of pollinator-independent crops continue to increase, the crops that are dependent on pollinators have leveled off.

Though the researchers would have liked to specifically compare pollinator abundance over the years, this kind of data is not currently available in India. The use of domesticated bees for pollinating crops is not widespread in India and across South Asia, according to Dr. Basu. He attributes the “political noise” in the U.S. and Europe on the pollinator problem to this identifiable domesticated bee colony collapse; however, he says that the results of his team’s research shows that it is clear that India is indeed experiencing a decline as well, albeit in the wild bee population.

According to the BBC news, pollination is estimated to be worth $224 billion globally each year. First reported in 2006, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is unlike other ailments that have affected honey bees in the past because worker bees simply disappear rapidly, never returning to the hive where the queen still lives with a small cluster of bees amidst pollen and honey stores in the presence of immature bees (brood). CCD can be especially devastating since honey bees are essential pollinators of crops that constitute over one third of the U.S. food supply or $15 billion worth of food. It has been reported that losses of honey bee colonies across 21 states in the winter of 2007-8 averaged 35%, with a high degree of variability. Large declines of honey bee colonies were also experienced in select European countries, where average losses were 26%.

Dr. Basu says that the team is currently carrying out additional research comparing conventional agriculture to “ecological” agriculture. He defines ”˜ecological’ as a sort of hybrid of conventional and organic farming, focusing on a system that is integrated, humane and environmentally and economically sustainable. He says that ecological farming provides habitats for natural pollinators and is “the way forward.”

Research is ongoing as to the cause of the CCD phenomenon, but pesticides, especially neonictinoids, such as imidacloprid and thiacloprid, have been implicated. A recent study shows that due to a flaw in standard risk assessments, which consider toxic effects at fixed exposure times, the risks posed by imidacloprid and thiacloprid are likely to be underestimated. Another study found unprecedented levels of pesticide contamination in beehives, with 98 different kinds of pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 parts per million (ppm).

Beyond Pesticides believes that pesticides are likely to be a part of the CCD equation and a precautionary approach must be taken. Solutions to the loss of bees and human productivity are clearly within our reach if we engage our communities and governmental bodies. We know how to live in harmony with the ecosystem through the adoption of sustainable practices that simply do not allow toxic pesticide use. Because our survival depends on healthy pollinators, we must do everything in our power to solve this problem.

The plaintiff, David Walls, in his suit states there are no reliable studies that show Dial Complete lives up to these claims. His complaint states: “Through its extensive and comprehensive nationwide marketing campaign, defendant claims that Dial Complete ‘kills 99.99% of germs’, is the ‘#1 Doctor Recommended’ brand of antibacterial liquid hand wash and ‘kills more germs than any other liquid hand soap’, when in actuality, it does not, a fact which Dial knew and purposely misrepresented and failed to disclose to consumers. To this day, Dial has taken no meaningful steps to clear up consumer misconceptions regarding its product.” Citing a series of false and misleading information via television commercials, advertisements, and the packaging of the product, all of which is intended to mislead unsuspecting consumers about the efficacy of the product, Dial Corp conveyed and continues to convey, according to the suit, deceptive claims about Dial Complete. As a result, the suit claims consumers have paid more for Dial Complete than they otherwise would have.

Triclosan, an antibacterial pesticide found in hundreds of consumer products, from clothing and toys to hand soap and toothpaste, has not been proven to be any more effective at killing germs than regular soap and water. A systematic review of research assessing the risks and potential benefits associated with the use of soaps containing triclosan found that data do not support the effectiveness of triclosan for reducing infectious disease symptoms or bacterial counts on the hands when used at the concentrations commonly found in consumer antibacterial hand soaps. In fact, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs reported in 2000 that, “There is little evidence to support the use of antimicrobials in consumer products such as topical hand lotions and soaps.”

As a result of growing concern over the health and environmental effects of the widespread use of triclosan, Beyond Pesticides in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they ban all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes.

In a recent letter to Rep. Markey (D-Mass), regarding the status of triclosan’s regulation and efficacy, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated it is “not aware of any evidence that antibacterial washes were superior to plain soap and water for reducing transmission of or preventing infection for consumers.” The agency went on to further state 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. [Triclosan is jointly regulated by FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)]

The class action complaint was filed September 23, 2010 in the U.S. District Court of Southern Illinois on behalf of Mr. Walls and other similarly situated consumers in the State of Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (“Consumer Fraud Act”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et.seq., to halt the dissemination of this false and misleading advertising, correct the false and misleading perception has been created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased the Dial Complete.

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. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and is also shown to alter thyroid function. Due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. A recent study shows that triclosan from sewage sludge can be taken up by soybean plants and translocated into the beans themselves, then consumed by people and animals. 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.

The study, “Low Dose of Some Persistent Organic Pollutants Predicts Type 2 Diabetes: A Nested Case—Control Study,” examines participants who were diabetes free in 1987—1988. By 2005—2006, the 90 controls remained free of diabetes, whereas the 90 cases developed diabetes. Using serum collected in 1987—1988, the authors measured 8 organochlorine pesticides, 22 polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs), and 1 polybrominated biphenyl (PBB). They compare POP concentrations from Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) cohort and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2003—2004.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, to be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and to have potential significant impacts on human health and the environment. Many POPs are currently or were in the past used as pesticides. Others are used in industrial processes and in the production of a range of goods such as solvents, polyvinyl chloride, and pharmaceuticals. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

While the POPs pesticides implicated in this study are no longer used in the U.S., the study illustrates how the health impacts of pesticides are often subtle and delayed, and how pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health years after being pulled from the market. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, to capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

To address this issue, Beyond Pesticides has called for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from risk assessment in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where the database shows clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.

Marilyn Dolan, the executive director of the Alliance told California Watch “We really want to emphasize that we are not about discouraging information. ”¦We are about encouraging consumption of all fruits and vegetables — both organic and conventional.”

However, the Alliance has criticized the “Dirty Dozen” project by the organization Environmental Working Group (EWG), contending that there is “no scientific evidence” that a small amount of pesticide residue on food “represents any health risk.” Last July, the Alliance even set up a web site and press webinar claiming that the “Dirty Dozen” list is dangerous to the public health. Food residues are only a small part of the problem with conventional farming, however, and the Alliance completely misses the mark when it comes to pesticide residues and health effects, and fails to address the fact that there is extensive scientific evidence on the dangers of pesticides; perhaps not in the form of residues on food, but definitely from drift, water contamination and other routes of exposure that the conventional agricultural industry supports.

Specifically, the Alliance claims that:

”¢ The list is misleading to consumers because it doesn’t discuss the toxicity of pesticides present in the diet. Because of this, they say that the list does not provide a basis to assess risk.

Though EWG’s list doesn’t talk about the specific toxicity of the pesticide residues on the food, Beyond Pesticides’ new database, Eating with a Conscience, has thoroughly examined this. Beyond Pesticides looked at all of the pesticides that have allowable tolerances in the production of the 49 most commonly consumed fruits and vegetables. From this list, we have analyzed the toxic effects of each pesticide, linking it to farmworker poisonings, water contamination, wildlife poisoning, ability to drift, and other chronic health effects that have been associated with each chemical.

”¢ The U.S. EPA’s current process for evaluating the potential risks of pesticides on food is rigorous and health-protective. The EPA’s testing requirements for pesticides used on food are more extensive than for chemicals used in any other category, and include testing targeted specifically to assess the potential risks to fetuses, infants and children.

Beyond Pesticides holds that the vast majority of all pesticide products registered for use by EPA and state governments has never been fully tested for the full range of exposure scenaries, such as mixtures and syntergistic effects, and endpoints such as endocrine disruption. Indeed, pesticides can be registered even when they have been shown to cause adverse health effects. Due to the numerous pesticide formulations on the market, the lack of disclosure requirements, insufficient data requirements, and inadequate testing, it is impossible to accurately estimate the hazards of pesticide products, much less lifetime exposure or risk. There is no way to predict the effects in children solely based on toxicity testing in adult or even adolescent laboratory animals, which is EPA’s procedure for evaluating adverse effects.

”¢ Given the widespread media attention devoted to the list, it is disconcerting that EWG has not shared its algorithm with the scientific community or the public, nor has the EWG subjected it to an outside peer review ”” something it often demands of the regulatory agencies whose activities it tracks.

The EWG’s Shopper’s Guide clearly describes the methodology for which the “Clean 15” and “Dirty Dozen” were created on its website. EWG itself purports that it is “not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties of the risks of pesticide exposure and gives shoppers’ confidence that when they follow the guide they are buying foods with consistently lower overall levels of pesticide contamination.”

Ӣ The currently available scientific data does not provide a convincing argument to conclude that there is a significant difference between the nutritional quality of organically grown food and food grown with conventional agricultural methods.

The health benefits of organic food need to be approached on a broader level than just individual nutritional quality of each food item. When considering strawberries, the “healthier” choice seems clear given that conventional strawberry production is notoriously dangerous for farmworker health and the environment, and that the California government is currently considering approval of methyl iodide, a chemical so carcinogenic it is actually used in the lab to induce cancer. In addition, a recent study found that organic strawberries have higher antioxidant activity, longer shelf life, and fared better in taste tests. Soils on the organic farms are also found to be healthier with higher organic matter concentration, and greater microbial biodiversity.

“This grant is a slap in the face of California’s rapidly-advancing organic agriculture sector,” said Ken Cook, president and founder of EWG in a press release by the organization. “The state should think twice about using U.S. taxpayers’ money to attempt to give chemical-dependent industrial farming a competitive edge over organics.”

The California block grants were just a piece of more than $55 million the U.S. Department of Agriculture awarded nationwide. California received the biggest chunk of award money at $17.2 million dollars.

As organic agriculture continues to grow and evolve, hopefully efforts like this will not impede the progress that researchers are making finding new evidence of the benefits of choosing organic foods. The benefits of organic agriculture are by no means limited to consumers. On conventional farms, dangerous pesticide use is a hazard to farmworkers, wildlife including endangered animals, as well as the water supply, and people, especially children living in the area. For more information about why organic is the right choice see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

Previous studies have shown that the particles, which are between one and 100 nanometers in size and smaller than many viruses, can enter the environment through wastewater, where they can accumulate in biosolids at wastewater treatment plants. These biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are often sold to consumers as fertilizer, despite the fact that they can contain toxic contaminants, including another antibacterial, triclosan, which was recently found to persist in the environment. Nanosized particles can be released from impregnated materials via washing or or as a result of sweating, posing unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems. There is much reason to be concerned, especially since a recent study found that nanosilver can interrupt important cell signaling within male reproductive sperm cells, causing them to stop growing.

Though scientists were previously aware that many publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities had silver in their sludge, identifying and characterizing these microscopic particles among countless other chemicals was another matter. The Virginia Tech researchers used x-ray transmission electron microscopy, an extremely sensitive technique that can identify both composition and structure. With micrographs of sludge from a Midwest treatment plant, they identified nanoparticles 5 to 20 nm in diameter and determined that the particles had a 2-to-1 silver-to-sulfur ratio. The scientists also obtained a crystal structure to confirm that the particles were Ag2S.

“What we start with is not what ends up in nature,” says Michael Hochella, Ph.D., one of the researchers. He believes this work underscores the complexity in studying the environmental effects of nanoparticles and suggests that the nanomaterials most likely enter the treatment plant in the form of silver nanoparticles and then transform into silver sulfide, because silver readily binds to sulfer and wastewater plants contain high concentrations of sulfide.

But, the environmental impact of nanoparticles is still unclear. Researchers also do not know how much incoming silver turns into silver sulfide. The Virginia Tech teams plans to analyze samples from each stage of the treatment process at the same wastewater plant as their next step.

With an increasing number of scientific studies looking at these antibacterial substances, two basic, yet important, questions arise: Are they safe for human health and the environment? And, are they necessary?

For more information on nanomaterials, see Beyond Pesticides’ nanosilver page.

Take Action: EPA announced a 45-day public comment period for the draft document “Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray” (EPA/600/R-10/081). The document is being issued by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA’s Office of Research and Development. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency policy or determination. The draft document is available via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

The draft is intended to serve as part of a process to help identify and prioritize scientific and technical information that could be used in conducting comprehensive environmental assessments of selected nanomaterials. It does not attempt to draw conclusions regarding potential environmental risks of nanoscale silver; rather, it aims to identify what is known and unknown about nanoscale silver to support future assessment efforts. When finalizing the draft document, EPA intends to consider any public comments that EPA receives in accordance with this notice. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by September 27, 2010

For more information, please see our Watchdogging the Government page.

For this study, entitled “Fate of triclosan in agricultural soils after biosolid applications” and published in Chemosphere, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), chemist Clifford Rice, of the ARS Environmental Management and Byproduct Utilization Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and his partners determined that triclosan levels in Class B biosolids from a Mid-Atlantic wastewater treatment plant averaged around 15.5 milligrams per kilogram. They collected surface soil samples from 26 farms in northern Virginia, mostly from pastures. Some fields had never been amended with biosolids and others had been amended with one to four applications of biosolids within the previous 9 months to 13 years. Most of the biosolid amendments came from the wastewater treatment plant in the study.

Generally, conventional chemical-intensive farmers add “Class B” biosolids, also known as treated wastewater solids, to their fields as a fertilizer. Little information has been obtained about these biosolids and their triclosan levels. However, recent tests on biosolids have detected triclosan in compost distributed free to gardeners and labeled as “organic biosolids compost.” The researchers found farms that had not received biosolid applications had background triclosan levels that peaked at 4.5 nanograms per gram of dried soil. Farms that had received single and multiple biosolid applications also had low triclosan levels, but the concentrations varied from 3.1 to 66.6 nanograms per gram. The results also suggested biological degradation of triclosan in the soils that had been amended with biosolids resulted in the loss of 78 percent of the triclosan after 7 to 9 months, and that up to 96 percent was removed after 16 months. For multiple-applications farms, residual concentrations, found in the soils at times greater than 480 days after applications, averaged two times higher than background level.

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. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and is also shown to alter thyroid function. Due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. A recent study showed that triclosan from sewage sludge can be taken up by soybean plants and translocated into the beans themselves, then consumed by people and animals. The Centers for Disease Control in an updated National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals noted that triclosan levels in people increased by over 41% between just the years 2004 and 2006.

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes. Prompted by this petition, which was then echoed by Rep. Markey’s (D-MA) letters of concern, the FDA responded, “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients,” and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. EPA, however, in its response maintains that the agency does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013.

Eating with a Conscience explains to consumers the effect they are having on health and the environment when they purchase food grown with chemical-intensive methods, even if a large number of residues do not remain on the finished food product. The group points to organic-certified food with the USDA organic seal as “the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight —ensuring consumers that toxic chemicals used to kill insects and unwanted plants (or weeds) in chemical-intensive food production are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health.”

“Organic practices under the Organic Foods Production Act eliminate commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic, pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife,” said Mr. Feldman.

Recent media attention has focused consumers on purchasing foods that are often referred to as “clean,” but grown with toxic chemicals that show up as residues on their food in small amounts or are not detectable. While this approach alerts consumers to hazardous residues on food, those very same “clean” food commodities can be grown with hazardous pesticides that wash off into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife.

For example, while conventional onions grown with toxic chemicals show low pesticide residues on the finished commodity, Eating with a Conscience explains that there are 63 pesticides with established tolerances for onions: 26 are acutely toxic creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 59 are linked to chronic health problems (such as cancer), 8 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 55 are poisonous to wildlife. While not all listed pesticides are applied to every onion, they may be used in the production of all onions, making it impossible at the point of sale to identify which specific chemicals are used.

Under the Organic Foods Production Act, the federal organic law, organic products are required to originate from farms or processors certified by NOP-accredited certifying agents, which may be state-run or private. NOP relies on these agents to ensure that certified organic operations continue to comply with federal organic regulations. Organic operations must maintain an approved farm plan of how it will meet NOP regulations and undergo a successful inspection by the certifier to label its products organic. Certifying agents normally evaluate Organic System Plans, conduct inspections, and audit records to verify compliance with the national organic standards. Once accredited, they must renew their accreditation every five years.

NOP accredited COFA as an organic certifying agent on April 29, 2002. Following COFA’s submission of a 5-year renewal application in 2007, NOP conducted an audit of the facility and its records, which resulted in the finding of 12 noncompliant items. After COFA submitted corrective actions, NOP determined that COFA had not adequately corrected 10 of the noncompliances. On July 31, 2008, the NOP proposed to revoke COFA’s accreditation for three years due to failure to comply with the NOP regulations or to proffer satisfactory corrective actions. COFA appealed the NOP’s decision, which the Agricultural Marketing Service Administrator denied Oct. 8, 2009. Pursuant to federal regulations, COFA requested a formal administrative proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge. In August 2010, COFA withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby upholding the Administrator’s denial of COFA’s appeal and revoking COFA’s accreditation for 3 years.

Points of COFA’s noncompliance with the governing act and the national organic standards included review of a facility in which an employee held a partial interest, inadequate retention of records and procedures, and insufficient inspections of and communication with certified operations.

This is not the first time that NOP has challenged an organic certifying agent’s accreditation under the Obama Administration. In June 2010, NOP reached a settlement agreement with the organic certifying agent Organic Crop Improvement Agency (OCIA), ceasing its operations in China because of inadequate oversight. An August 2007 audit by NOP revealed that OCIA used inspectors on state-run farms who were employed by the Chinese government and therefore had a conflict of interest. In July 2008, NOP proposed revocation of OCIA’s accreditation in China, but OCIA appealed. The settlement agreement with OCIA, once a lead certifier of Chinese organic goods, prohibits it from operating in China for one year, at which point, it could re-apply.

During the Bush Administration, organic advocates criticized USDA’s implementation of the federal organic law. This led to two USDA Inspector General (IG) investigations. While most organic labeled produce and processed agricultural products on store shelves probably complied with federal law during this period, the IG found several serious problems with the implementation of the program between October 2003 and July 2009. Ms. Rayne Pegg, appointed Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Administrator by the Obama Administration in 2009, said USDA agrees in principle with the findings and recommendations of the audit. Citing recent budget increases, which nearly double the NOP staff size from 16 to 31, Ms. Pegg said, “NOP anticipates addressing all of the recommendations made by the Inspector General in FY 2010.” These include improvements to the process for certifying imported agricultural products.

For more information on the changes at the NOP following the IG audit, read the IG report, Oversight of the National Organic Program (01601-03-Hy) and Beyond Pesticides’ analysis. More information on the regulation of organic agriculture is available on Beyond Pesticides organic food program page.

The young girl’s campaign began as a school project that focused on cleaning up her local environment. However, she became increasingly concerned about the amount of lawn chemicals and mosquito sprays that were being used in her community and turned into a full blown effort to reduce toxic pesticide use. As part of this effort, she distributed 200 of Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Free Lawn Door Hangers in her neighborhood and learned everything she could about the dangers of toxic pesticides and how easy it is go “go organic.”

The culmination of her project has been turned into a short video (shot by her talented eleven-year old brother), in which she urges her community to switch to pesticide-free! In the video she quotes scientific studies on health effects associated with pesticides and also interviews a neighbors who have already vowed to keep pesticides out of their yards to demonstrate the how and why pesticide-free is the way to be.

See the video for yourself:
Activist video: Just Say NO to Pesticides

Young people all across the country are standing up for pesticide reform, with new policies being adopted all over the country in response to citizen action and demands for stricter pesticide regulations. In Massachusetts carcinogenic pesticides or products that contain EPA List 1, Inerts of Toxicological Concern can no longer be applied to school grounds, and no pesticides can be applied for purely aesthetic reasons. In Connecticut, pesticides cannot be used on day care center turf, or on school grounds for kindergarten through 8th grade. In Branford, CT all of the town’s playing fields, parks, and public green spaces are managed without the use of pesticides. For a more extensive list of examples see Beyond Pesticides activists tools pages.

What you can do?
Beyond Pesticides has tons of resources to help you make your neighborhood a model community:
Ӣ Distribute door-knob hangers. We have door knob hangers for toxic-free lawns for pest management in apartments and homes that you can download. You can request the first 25 lawn door knob hangers for free, and there is space on each hanger for you to put a business card, sticker or your own information, if you wish to include it.
Ӣ Display a Pesticide Free Zone Sign. Proudly show your community you support pesticide-free lawn care! You can order them at our online store.
Ӣ Pledge your yard, park or other community or business-managed green space as organically managed.
”¢ Start your own local movement. We have several fact sheets available to help you organize in your community: “Calling All Activists,”Preparing a Campaign” and “Getting the Message Across” are some good ones.
”¢ Create your own video. Tell us why or how you have gone pesticide-free, demonstrate your outreach efforts or find any other way to send the pesticide-free message, send it to us and we’ll put it on our website!
”¢ And, most importantly, let us know! Tell us what you’re doing to help stop or reduce pesticides in your community or ask us if are stumped for ideas. We talk to people every day who, like you, want to change things in their communities. Call us at 202-543-5450, send us an email at [email protected], or post a note to our facebook page.

“Do your part to in making our community a healthier and safer place to live and just say ”˜No’ to pesticides!”

According to a press release from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), these funds will be available through two cost-share programs that AMS manages: the Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMA) and the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. Each program provides cost-share rebates to eligible organic producers and/or handlers receiving or renewing organic certification by a USDA accredited certifying agent through funds allocated to their respective state agriculture agencies. The states, in turn, review applications submitted by eligible producers and/or handlers and distribute funds accordingly.

The 2008 Farm Bill, (the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 6523)), authorized $22 million in federal funds towards the National Organic Cost-Share Program to be distributed for five years following the passage of the bill. Coupled with the authorization provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Act in 2001 for the management of the AMA, they enable USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to offer reimbursements, without regard for type or size of the operation, to those who participate in the organic agriculture market.

The annual inspection/certification fee for organic farms was initially estimated to be about $750 per farm by the National Organic Program (NOP) when the program began. However, the fees will vary depending on the certifying agent, and also depend on the size of the farm and costs of inspection. Examples of what a potential fee might be based on the state and farm can be found the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service’s (ATTRA) website.

The costs of certification and inspections are often cited by small farms as one road block to participating in organic certification. This program helps to alleviate some of those costs, giving more farmers the option to become organic. Additionally, small farms (making less than $5,000/year on organic products) are exempt from getting certification. Farmers are encouraged to shop around for a certifying agent that will be the most cost-effective for their operation. For more information on organic certification and regulation, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Program Page.

For organic producers and handlers to receive cost-share rebates, they must submit their applications to the representative agency of the state in which their farm/operation is located. Eligible organic producers and handlers must also comply with the USDA National Organic Program regulations for organic production or handling. They should have received certification or continuation of certification by a USDA accredited certifying agent within the above timeframe.

As organic agriculture continues to grow and evolve, researchers are continuing to find new evidence of the benefits of choosing and growing organic foods, and the benefits of organic agriculture extend to everyone. On conventional farms, dangerous pesticide use is a danger to farmworkers, wildlife including endangered animals, as well as the water supply, and people especially children living in the area. For more information about why organic is the right choice see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide.

Additional information on the cost-share programs, as well as a list of participating states, is available on the National Organic Program home page at www.ams.usda.gov/NOPCostSharing.

Each month several questions will be posed for discussion and the public is welcome to post thoughts and ideas on the topics and provide feedback on any other subject covered in that month’s chapter. According to EPA, the goal is to improve the clarity and usefulness of the Label Review Manual for its users – primarily people who draft, review, or enforce labels in the field. Pesticide manufacturers and their representatives, State pesticide regulators, and pesticide users are expected to be interested in participating in EPA’s new “Enable the Label” online discussion forum. The Label Review Manual is a tool for understanding the pesticide labeling process. It is a collection and plain English explanation of existing pesticide labeling policy, regulations, and statutes.

The inaugural “Enable the Label” discussion will solicit ideas related to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Manual. Discussion threads covering these chapters will be open for comment and discussion for 30 days. Subsequently, EPA will move through the manual by individual chapter or small groups of chapters, each open for comment for 30 days. OPP will review comments received and incorporate useful ones into future revisions of the Label Review Manual. However, the agency refuses to allow the forum to be a place to debate or take comment on existing laws, regulations or general discussions on pesticide policy issues.

For this discussion focusing on the Label Review Manual, EPA is seeking comments or suggestions in the following areas:

Ӣ Text that can be improved;
Ӣ Examples that could be improved or replaced with better ones; and,
Ӣ New scientific or policy developments that have occurred since the chapter was last updated.

EPA hopes that “Enable the Label” will provide informal comment opportunities to everyone interested in improving the Label Review Manual, and encourage creative solutions to complex pesticide label challenges. The Manual’s chapters discuss label claims, ingredient statements, labeling requirements, direction for use, etc.

EPA has been exploring and developing ideas to improve the pesticide labels. Currently, as part of a series of initiatives to improve pesticide labeling, EPA is working with external stakeholders to design a new system for delivering product labeling to pesticide users. The new approach, which could largely replace the paper-based system, will rely on users to contact either an official pesticide labeling website or a toll-free telephone number from which they can obtain the detailed use instructions that previously were attached to the product container. EPA is also inviting organizations to work with the agency to conduct a “User Acceptance Pilot” to research the extent to which pesticide users would accept a system requiring them to obtain labeling via the internet. EPA hopes that web-distributed labeling would only provide instructions for the location and intended use that the pesticide user specifies online.

If such a system was ultimately implemented, EPA expects faster access to new pesticide uses, quicker implementation of public health and environmental protective measures, and lower costs for industry and EPA. However, there are many shortcomings of web-distributed labeling such as lack of internet access to many farmers -especially poorer farmers, limited language options and possible increased lack of compliance. Generally, pesticide labels have a low level of compliance, meaning that consumers and pest control operators do not properly follow label directions, leading to increased exposures to toxic chemicals, injury and even death.

In the past, EPA has maintained that pesticide labels should, on the whole, be free from any symbol or claim that might mislead consumers or give a false sense of a product’s safety. Crackdowns concerning the sale and distribution of unregistered, mislabeled pesticides have occurred in the past, with EPA maintaining that this is a serious violation that can result in harm to public health and the environment. However, EPA enforcement against non-compliance is generally very limited. Limited label information, including the non-disclosure of inert ingredients, also provides consumers with little information with which they can make informed decisions when buying pesticides and choosing less hazardous products.

Take Action: Submit your comments and comment on chapters 1 and 2 of the Label Review Manual at blog.epa.gov/enablethelabel. Focus areas for these chapters include:
Products That Are Not Pesticides. This section focuses on products that are not considered pesticides if they are labeled for use only in or on living man or animals (Chapter 2, Section II C 1). What improvements can you suggest?
Plant Nutrients vs. Plant Growth Regulators.This text attempts to clarify the difference between nutrients and growth regulators (Chapter 2, Section II E). How could this section be improved (e.g. better or additional examples)?
Products That Are Exempt from Registration. This section offers a detailed discussion of products exempt from registration (Chapter 2, Section IV).

The researchers analyzed 104 chemicals in 50 homes, including both chemicals that penetrate indoors from outdoor industrial and transportation sources and those from indoor use of consumer products and building materials. Similar levels of contamination were found inside homes in both communities, but outdoor levels were higher in Richmond. Among the chemicals found were pesticides, phthalates, parabens, PBDE flame retardants, and PCBs.

A total of 38 pesticides are evaluated, including banned organochlorines (e.g., DDT, PCP), and current use products such as carbamates (e.g., propoxur), organophosphates (e.g., chlorpyrifos), and pyrethroids (cypermethrin). Thirteen pesticides were detected outdoors and sixteen pesticides were detected in indoor air.

Unlike industrial and transportation pollutants and agricultural pesticides, which vary greatly by geographic region, the authors note that pollutants from consumer products do not vary widely geographically or demographically. This is significant because it shows the pervasive effects of common consumer products on indoor air quality.

The endocrine system consists of a set of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone and adrenaline), which help guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Hormones are signaling molecules, which travel through the bloodstream and elicit responses in other parts of the body.

Endocrine disruptors function by: (i) Mimicking the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (ii) Blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or (iii) Affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, and childhood and adult cancers.

More than 50 pesticide active ingredients (see the list on page 2) have been identified as endocrine disruptors by the European Union and endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, PhD. Endocrine disruption is the mechanism for several health effect endpoints.

The GE sugar beets, produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto, have been engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Round Up. According to the Agro Industry giant their “Round-Up Ready” Sugar Beet was adopted by North American farmers faster than any other biotech crop to date. Planting glyphosate resistant crops allows growers to apply glyphosate indiscriminately. As a result, herbicide use has jumped dramatically. Despite the prevailing myth that Round-Up is safer than table salt, researchers have shown the herbicide poses many threats to human health, including increased cancer risk, as well as necrosis or death of human embryonic stem cells. Researchers are also finding an increasing number of glyphosate resistant “super weeds.” As resistance to the herbicide grows, farmers may chose to switch to even more toxic chemicals for weed control.

The plaintiffs in this case originally brought suit in 2009 against USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for approving GE sugar beets without first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Most of the sugar beet crop is grown in or near Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Other crops grown in the area that can easily cross breed with the GE beets include table beets and Swiss chard, threatening farmers’ livelihoods, and robbing consumers of the choice to avoid GE crops. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California sided with the plaintiffs and ordered APHIS to prepare an EIS. In August of 2010, Judge White revoked government approval of GE sugar beets, but allowed for beets that had already been planted before Aug 13 to be harvested and sold. In violation of Judge White’s ruling, USDA decided it would issue permits to farmers to plant the beets to produce seed stock as long as they did not flower. It is, however, not possible for the crop to produce seeds without flowering. The plaintiffs have now asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to stop APHIS from issuing these permits.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of genetic engineering in agriculture because of the dangers it poses to human health and the environment. The widescale adoption of GE crops has lead to a marked increase in the use of pesticides, and emerging research has linked genetically modified crops to organ damage. All the while, these crops have failed in their promise to deliver a marked increase in yield. Currently, there are no regulations requiring GE foods to be labeled as such. The best way for consumers to avoid GE foods is to choose organic products. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically engineered organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. For more information on why organic agriculture is the best choice for you, farmworkers, and the environment see our Eating with a Conscience guide.

The new D.E.N.G.U.E. strategy has been devised by the DOH to educate the public on home treatment of mild dengue cases. This is to also help decongest hospitals by giving an assurance that not all dengue cases require hospital confinement but can be managed at home using the strategy. Secretary Ona is educating the public that many dengue cases, if mild, can be managed at home and not all cases require hospitalization.

“We are urging all local government units to mobilize barangay [smallest administrative unit] dengue brigades in their areas,” Secretary Ona explained, adding that a once-a-week community-wide clean up drives against dengue will help a lot in reducing cases.

Dr. Susanna Madarieta, DOH regional director, also stresses that the best prevention is to constantly clean surroundings to destroy breeding grounds of mosquitoes. Measures include removing or regularly draining all water-retaining objects, and containers such as: old tires, coconut husks, and plants of stagnant waters, tin cans, pet dishes, buckets, holes in trees, clogged gutters and down spouts, birdbaths, trash can lids, and shallow fishless ponds. Abandoned lots, houses and establishments should also be included in the search-and-destroy operations because these may have possible mosquito breeding sites.

In areas that cannot be sufficiently drained, less-toxic larvacide, such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is a bacterial strain that, can be sprayed or dunked into larval pools and is ingested by feeding larvae and kills them. Stocking permanent water pools, such as ornamental ponds, with mosquito larvae eating fish is another effective approach.

In addition to offering some of these suggestions, the DOH cautioned local government units against the use of fogging and misting in the fight against dengue. citing that the effect of the pesticides are both limited, and harmful to people and the environment.

“There is still no cure or vaccine for dengue and that is why we must focus on other cost-effective interventions, the most important of which is source reduction — destroy the dengue-carrying mosquitoes,” Secretary Ona emphasized. The number of cases nationwide in the Philippines from January to August 21 is 62,503 is 88.8% higher than last year’s 33,102 for the same period. There were 465 deaths recorded this year as opposed to last year’s 350 deaths.

Secretary Ona reminded the public that dengue, although an all-year round disease, is more common during rainy days when there are more potential breeding grounds for the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. To prevent dengue, the Health Secretary advised the public to destroy all possible mosquito breeding sites like old tires, soft drink bottles and tin cans, and use mosquito nets or protective clothing.

The best way to avoid mosquitoes, especially in the evening when they are most active, is to wear long pants and long sleeves. Burning citronella candles outside also helps repel mosquitoes. Since these two options are not always possible, least toxic mosquito repellents can sometimes be a good alternative. Many common mosquito repellents can contain toxic ingredients, however, so it is important to consider all of the option and read labels carefully before buying or spraying the repellents.

Responsible mosquito management can be an effective method of mosquito control. Beyond Pesticides believes the ideal mosquito management strategy emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. For a complete list of ways to prevent and manage mosquitoes, see Beyond Pesticides factsheet “Backyard Mosquito Management: Practices that do not poison you or the environment.” For even more resources, see our Tools for Change page.

The study, entitled “Resale and Wholesale Market Power in Organic Apples,” examined organic apples grown in Washington State to serve as an example for overall organic agricultural production and sales. Washington State supplies 70% of U.S. apples. The demand for organic agriculture continues to grow due to the benefits to human health and the environment. In addition to the many organic food stores, most large grocery stores across the country carry at least a few varieties of organic produce resulting in high demand for organic products from food retailers.

Growers however have initially been slow to switch to organic agriculture, because of the substantial investment required to adopt a new methods of production, and gain organic certification. In order to be certified organic, foods must be produced without synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or sewage sludge. Genetically modified crops are also not permitted in organic food. A farm must go through a three year transition phase, before it can be certified organic. The high demand and relatively low supply has allowed producers to charge retailers higher prices. Researchers found retailers earn only 7.4% of the profit margin on organic apples, versus 75.3% on conventionally grown apples. The much larger profit margin held by producers is enticing more American producers to switch to organic. As more producers switch to organic and supply increases, the bargaining power of producers will decrease causing their profit margins to decrease as well. Researchers also found prices on organic produce began to fall when Walmart announced it would sell organic food. Lead researcher Timothy Richards, PhD believes, “All of this will soon stop being an obstacle for consumers who want to buy organics.”

One concern researchers noted was the foreign suppliers eager to capitalize on the large demand for organic produce. Many foreign suppliers face few constraints from their own government. The growing number of foreign suppliers is cause for food safety concerns, as well as invasive species risk. According to Dr. Richards, this makes foreign suppliers an important aspect to examine when discussing organic policy especially rules regarding import.

The externalities or non market costs associated with organic versus conventional agriculture were not examined in this report. While consumers may pay a lower price for conventionally produced foods when compared to organic, the real cost of conventional foods are much higher when issues such as pollution, loss of biodiversity, and human illness are considered. Pesticide exposure has been linked to many diseases from cancers to ADHD. Studies suggest organic foods are more nutritious and even better tasting than conventional.

Organic farms are more complex agroecosystems than conventional farms, meaning they have higher biodiversity. Research has shown this biodiversity can help prevent many types of pests, including fungus, insects, and diseases. Organic farms are also a much safer workplace compared to conventional farms. The U.S. Department of Labor considers farm work one of the most dangerous jobs in the US yet farmworkers have little protection under current labor laws.

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.