This opinion concludes that EPA’s registration of pesticides containing bensulide, dimethoate, ethoprop, methidathion, naled, phorate, and phosmet are each likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more of the 28 endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids and are each likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for one or more of the 28 threatened and endangered salmonids. NMFS reached this conclusion because predicted concentrations of these seven pesticides in salmonid habitats, particularly in floodplain habitats, are likely to cause adverse effects to at least one listed Pacific salmonids including significant reductions in growth or survival. EPA’s registration of bensulide, dimethoate, ethoprop, methidathion, naled, phorate, and phosmet is also likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for 25 affected species because of adverse effects from at least one active ingredient on salmonid prey and water quality in freshwater rearing, spawning, and foraging areas. EPA will follow-up by developing a plan explaining how the agency will implement NMFS’ opinions.

The report, released August 31, 2010, is the third biological opinion issued as a result of a court settlement with fishermen and conservationists, filed by the non-profit law firm Earthjustice. The biological opinion prescribes measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of salmon waters in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The previous opinion, issued in April 2009, found that the pesticides, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl, harm salmon and steelhead. In response to the NMFS recommendation and EPA’s protective measures, Dow AgroSciences and Cheminova, manufacturers of carbaryl, carbofuran and methomyl products, stated that they were “baffled by the agency’s position,” saying that their products do not threaten endangered species. Citing their “solid scientific evidence” that they claim is “far more complete than is reflected in the NMFS Biological Opinion,” they are not prepared to make the registration revisions [to their products].

In 2002, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, obtained a federal court order declaring that EPA had violated ESA by failing to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. As a result of that lawsuit, EPA began consultations, but NMFS never issued Biological Opinions or identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. In 2007, the salmon advocates filed a second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with NMFS that establishes a schedule for issuing the required Biological Opinions. In all, over thirty pesticides will undergo review by the National Marine Fisheries Service over the next three years.

Under the terms of settlement, EPA must implement measures within a year-long timeframe to prevent further exposure of the pesticides to the water that cultivate these species. The measures recommended by NMFS include: a ban on application of the three pesticides in windy conditions and buffer zones near water resources and require that land applications must be at least 50-600 feet from the water resource and aerial spraying requires a 600-1,000 foot buffer zone. EPA plans to achieve protection goals through the methods outlined by NMFS in the Biological Opinion and by alternative methods that EPA’s scientific analyses determined will achieve the same purpose. For example, EPA will require pesticide drift buffers adjacent to salmon and steelhead habitat but will impose different width buffers, some wider and others narrower than those recommended by NMFS, depending on factors that affect how far the pesticide might drift from the application site.

California strawberries make up 25% of total production worldwide and 87% of U.S. production. Conventional strawberry production is notoriously dangerous for farm worker health and the environment. After phasing out the ozone depleting fumigant methyl bromide, the California government is currently considering approval of methyl iodide a chemical so carcinogenic it is actually used in the lab to induce cancer. According to the Environmental Working Group’s ranking of pesticide residue contamination on common types of fresh produce, strawberries are the third most contaminated food.

To compare conventional and organic strawberry production researchers selected 13 pairs of conventional and organic strawberry fields in Watsonville, CA, the state’s dominant strawberry growing region. Organically managed soils have significantly higher organic matter content. High organic matter content enhances soil structure and fertility, and increases water infiltration and storage. Organically managed soils also have more microbial life.

Researchers found organic strawberries not only have greater nutritional value in some aspects, but also taste better than conventional strawberries. While concentrations of potassium and phosphorus are higher in the conventionally produced strawberries, organically produced strawberries have higher levels of antioxidants, Vitamin C, and phenolics. Organic strawberries also have a longer shelf life and greater resistance to post harvest fungal rot. Consumer sensory panels show a preference for the taste of organic strawberries. Three varieties of organic and conventional strawberries are compared for the study. While conventional strawberries are larger, organic berries are found to have preferable flavor and appearance.

Researchers tested the effects of different sizes, concentrations and coatings of silver nanoparticles on cell growth of mouse sperm cells. They compared silver nanoparticles coated with either hydrocarbons — at 15 nm, 25 nm and 80 nm diameters — or sugars — at 10 nm, 25 – 30 nm and 80 nm diameter. Exposure to the smaller sized particles led to increased stem cell death. The sugar coatings on the smaller-sized silver nanoparticles increased the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), one of the signals for induced cell death.

One important pathway known for sperm stem cell growth is the growth factor glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). Though the amount of GDNF was not changed, the signals sent to the cell were damaged after silver nanoparticle exposure. The researchers found that a small protein, Fyn kinase, is not fully functional. This protein requires a modification in order to function, and that modification is reduced when cells are exposed to silver nanoparticles.

Additionally, researches believe that exposure during development may affect forming sperm cells and lead to birth defects related to the male reproductive system. Scientists believe this is because the small silver particles can cross the mother’s placenta and directly affect the baby.

Silver nanoparticles are now widely impregnated into a wide variety of consumer products to kill off bacteria, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, little is known about the impact of nanoparticles on human health and the environment, and mounting evidence suggests that these materials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. Nanosized particles can be released from impregnated materials via washing or sweating where they may pose numerable unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Though the use of silver nanoparticles typically falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA) definition of a pesticide as substances intended to kill pests such as microorganisms, EPA does not currently regulate it as such. In 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and others including Beyond Pesticides filed a legal petition https://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=340 challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide. The 100-page petition addresses the serious human health concerns raised by these unique substances, as well as their potential to be highly destructive to natural environments, and calls on the EPA to fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, and require labeling of all products.

Take Action:
On August 13th, EPA announced its proposal to conditionally register a pesticide product containing nanosilver as a new active ingredient for a period of 4 years. Comments are due on September 11, 2010. EPA is proposing the antimicrobial pesticide product, HeiQ AGS-20, is a silver-based product that is proposed for use as a preservative for textiles. Under its new policy concerning public involvement in registration decisions, EPA is providing a 30-day opportunity for public comments on the proposed registration. As a condition of registration, EPA is proposing to require additional product chemistry, toxicology, exposure, and environmental data. The Agency will evaluate these data as they are submitted during the period of the conditional registration.

EPA also 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 and Nanosilver pages.

Senators Lincoln and Chambliss argue that because pesticides are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) additional regulation is unnecessary and the legislation will reduce the burden on farmers, foresters and ranchers. In their August 30th letter, the groups say, “CWA complements and does not duplicate the pesticide registration reviews conducted by EPA under FIFRA, which sets a general national standard that does not take into account conditions and specific vulnerabilities evaluated through the NPDES process. Given extensive, documented water contamination by pesticides nationwide, it is critical that we allow the NPDES review process to move ahead. S. 3735 will prevent this from happening.”

For decades our nation’s waterways have been polluted with hazardous pesticides which impact aquatic populations of animals and plants, and decrease surface and drinking water quality. Results from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment Program studies show that pesticides are widespread in streams and ground water sampled within agricultural and urban areas of the nation. Many of these pesticides accumulate in fish and other organisms, making their way up the food chain, to eventually be consumed by the American public. Recent studies find that government agencies may be underestimating children’s dietary exposure to pesticides and that they are a prime cause of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD. Stronger regulatory action is needed to ensure that our waters, food and health are adequately protected from all industrial and agricultural pollution.

Thus, the NPDES permit is vital to protecting waterways from indiscriminate pesticide contamination. The permit would not pose undue burden to farmers, foresters and ranchers as the permits are only required for a narrow range of uses, for example, mosquito spraying which is seasonal in most parts of the U.S.

The introduction of S. 3735 follows EPA’s June 2010 posting of a draft NPDES General Permit for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The development of the permit stems from a 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, in which the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require permitting under CWA. This ruling overturned the previous Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under CWA, and instead applied the less stringent standards of FIFRA.

In July 2010, Beyond Pesticides and others sent comments to EPA requesting improvements to the proposed PGP and CWA regulations. These suggestions include: making general improvements to address specific limitations of the proposed permit (size of annual treatment areas, monitoring requirements, opportunities for public input); encouraging EPA to consider organic alternatives when reviewing permits; and, requiring EPA to set water quality standards for all pesticides that may contaminate water.

Bed bugs can be effectively controlled without the use of dangerous chemical pesticides. Heat treating infected spaces or items such as furniture and laundering linens in hot water will kill bed bugs. Habitat modification, such as sealing cracks, and removing clutter, can prevent an infestation from occurring.

Some steps you can take to treat for bed bugs include:
”¢ Eliminate clutter —clutter provides places for bed bugs to hide! Getting rid of as much clutter as possible will help you locate and get rid of infestations.
Ӣ Caulk and Seal Crevices to prevent bed bugs from entering your home.
”¢ Encase mattresses and box springs —make sure the encasement has been tested for bed bugs and will not rip and does not contain synthetic pesticides impregnated in the material. If left on, it will eventually kill all bed bugs inside, and will make finding bed bugs on the surface much easier.
”¢ Laundering Fabrics and Clothing — run clothing through 30 minutes or a full cycle at the hottest setting the fabric will allow. Dry clean only clothes can simply be put into the dryer. If the fabric is too delicate for the hottest temperature, place it on a lower heat setting and let it run for the full cycle. Be sure to use a different bag for infested clothing and clean clothing, or, better yet, wash the bag with the clothing! Seal non-essential clothing in a plastic bag for the duration of treatment.
”¢ Vacuuming —this will only remove visible bed bugs, but is important to get rid of dead bed bugs and their frass. Use a stiff brush to dislodge eggs in cracks and crevices and use a vacuum attachment that does not have bristles to get into the corners. Be sure to discard the bag immediately after vacuuming, or vacuum up a desiccating dust or some corn starch to prevent bed bugs from spreading.
”¢ Steam Treatment —if applied properly, steam treatment will kill all stages of bedbugs. Move the nozzle over the bed bugs at a rate of 20 seconds per linear foot, and wrap a piece of fabric over the upholstery nozzle to reduce water pressure to make sure bed bugs don’t blow away. Many pest control companies have this as an option but due to the amount of time it takes, don’t provide it, so make sure you ask if this is available and request that it’s used.
”¢ Heat Treatment —companies can use fans and a heat source to heat an area (either a whole room or a smaller container) to 120 degrees F. Ambient heat can provide complete control of bed bugs if all areas of infestation reach 120 degrees F.

The bedbug problem has worsened and spread to more states across the U.S. This prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a warning this month against the indoor use of chemicals meant for the outside. The agency also warned of an increase in pest control companies and others making “unrealistic promises of effectiveness or low cost.” EPA also cautions against the use of a product or pest control operators that treat homes with products that are not named to control bed bugs on the product label. In a joint statement on bed bug control, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and EPA highlight emerging public health issues associated with bed bugs in communities throughout the U.S. The statement provides background information on the recent rise in bed bug problems, discusses the public health implications of bed bug infestations, and stresses the importance of controlling them with an integrated approach. It also explains the role of government agencies at the local, state, tribal, and federal levels in better understanding the recent resurgence of bed bugs and developing better ways to control them.

Bedbugs, infesting U.S. households on a scale unseen in more than a half-century, have become largely resistant to commonly used pesticides like pyrethroids. As a result, some homeowners and exterminators are turning to more hazardous chemicals that can harm the central nervous system, irritate the skin and eyes or even cause cancer.

Ohio authorities, struggling against widespread infestations in Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton and other cities, petitioned EPA last fall to approve the indoor use of the pesticide propoxur, which the agency considers a probable carcinogen and banned for in-home use in 2007, due to concerns posed to children. About 25 other states are supporting Ohio’s request for an emergency exemption. In comments to the agency objecting the petition for propoxur, Beyond Pesticides and other environmental and public health advocates urged the agency to reject the request, citing the serious public health threat associated with the chemical, as well as the availability of alternatives. EPA rejected Ohio’s petition in June.

In the meantime, authorities around the country have blamed house fires on people misusing all sorts of highly flammable garden and lawn chemicals to fight bedbugs. Experts also warn that some hardware products such as bug bombs and other pesticide products claim to be lethal, but merely cause the bugs to scatter out of sight and hide in cracks in walls and floors. Despite these warnings, many have resorted to dangerous practices in an effort to rid bedbugs. A pest control company in Newark, N.J., was accused in July of applying chemicals not approved for indoor use throughout 70 homes and apartments units, even spraying mattresses and children’s toys. In Cincinnati, an unlicensed applicator saturated an apartment complex in June with an agricultural pesticide typically used on golf courses. Seven tenants got sick and were treated at the hospital. The property was quarantined, and all tenants were forced to move. Authorities are pursuing criminal charges.

Though propoxur is still used in pet collars, it is banned for use in homes because of the risk of nausea, dizziness and blurred vision in children. Steven Bradbury, director of the EPA’s pesticide program, said the problem is that children crawl on the floor and put their fingers in their mouths.
Critics in the pest control industry say that the federal government is overreacting in its precautions aimed to protect children from hazardous pesticides. Many in industry say other in-home pesticides aren’t as lethal as propoxur, requiring several treatments that can push extermination costs to $500 or $1,500, depending on the size of a home. Marion Ehrich, PhD, a toxicologist at the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, said the EPA is showing appropriate caution. She said other scientists who have studied the bedbug problem are not eager to see propoxur released in homes.

“Propoxur is not a silver bullet, and given time, bedbugs would likely become resistant to it, too,” said Lyn Garling, an entomologist at Penn State University.

Experts say it is going to take a comprehensive public health campaign ”” public-service announcements, travel tips and perhaps even taxpayer-funded extermination programs for public housing ”” to reduce the bedbug problem. People can get bedbugs by visiting infested homes or hotels, where the vermin hide in mattresses, pillows and curtains. The bugs are stealth hitchhikers that climb onto bags, clothing and luggage.

For more information on treating bedbugs, read our factsheet, “Bed Bugs: Back with a Vengeance Detection, Prevention and Least Toxic Control of Bed Bugs.”

The research, “Effects of prenatal exposure to a low dose atrazine metabolite mixture on pubertal timing and prostate development of male Long-Evans rats,” which is available online and will be featured on the cover of Reproductive Toxicology (Vol. 30, # 4), found that the incidence of prostate inflammation went from 48 percent in the control group to 81 percent in the male offspring who were exposed to a mixture of atrazine and its breakdown products prenatally. The severity of the inflammation increased with the strength of the doses. Puberty was also delayed in the animals who received atrazine.

The doses of atrazine mixture given to the rats during the last five days of their pregnancy are close to the regulated levels in drinking water sources. The current maximum contamination level of atrazine allowed in drinking water is 3 parts per billion. The doses given to the animals were 0.09, 0.87 or 8.73 milligrams per kilogram body weight.

The research was led by Suzanne Fenton, PhD, and Jason Stanko, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health. “We didn’t expect to see these kinds of effects at such low levels,” Dr. Fenton said. She adds that this is the second paper to show low dose effects of atrazine metabolite mixtures. Dr. Fenton was the senior author on a 2007 paper that demonstrated low doses of the atrazine mix delayed mammary development in female siblings from the same litters used in this current study.

“It was noteworthy that the prostate inflammation decreased over time suggesting the effects may not be permanent,” said David Malarkey, DVM, PHD, an NIEHS pathologist and co-author on the paper.

Dr. Fenton points out that these findings may extend beyond atrazine alone, and may be relevant to other herbicides found in the same chlorotriazine family, including propazine and simazine. All three of the herbicides create the same set of breakdown products. The researchers say more research is needed to understand the mechanism of action of the chlorotriazines and their metabolites on mammary and prostate tissue. “These tissues seem to be particularly sensitive to the effects of atrazine and its breakdown products,” Dr. Fenton added. “The effects may be due to the stage of fetal development at the time the animals were exposed.”

In October 2009, EPA announced that it was launching a new evaluation of atrazine to determine its effects on humans. At the end of this 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 announcement followed recent scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. Dr. Fenton will be presenting her research findings in September 2010 to EPA, as part of its reassessment of atrazine.

“We hope that this information will be useful to the EPA as it completes its risk assessment of atrazine,” said Linda Birnbaum, PhD, director of the NIEHS and National Toxicology Program.

According to the study, the major players in the system ””several ant species, a handful of coffee pests, and the predators, parasites and diseases that affect the pests”” not only interact directly, but some species also exert subtle, indirect effects on others, effects that might have gone unnoticed if the system had not been studied in detail.

A key species in the complex web is the tree-nesting Azteca ant (Azteca instabilis). The ants are not particular about the kind of tree they live in, but for some reason their nests are found in only about 3 percent of shade trees on the farm, and ant-inhabited trees are not randomly distributed, they’re found in clumps. The researchers believe the clumpiness results, at least in part, from the ants’ vulnerability to a parasitic fly. Ant colonies expand by sending off queens and broods to nearby trees, but when all the trees in an area have ant nests, the flies can more easily find ants to parasitize. So high-density clusters are preferentially attacked and eventually disappear, either because the ants all die or because the ants move to other trees.

The ants have a cozier relationship with the green coffee scale, a flat, featureless insect that is a serious coffee pest in some regions, but not on the farm where the study was done. Azteca protects the scale from predators and parasites in return for honeydew, a sweet, sticky liquid the scale secretes. One of those predators is the lady beetle (Azya orbigera), whose adult and larval forms both feed on scale. When an adult beetle tries to attack a scale insect, the ants chase it away. But beetle larvae, which are covered with waxy gunk that gums up the ants’ mouthparts, are able to polish off plenty of scale. The ants even aid the murderous larvae, albeit inadvertently. In the course of shooing off parasitic wasps that attack scale, the ants also scare away bugs that parasitize beetle larvae.

Photo by John Vandermeer, PhD

The beetles also seem to influence the ants’ distribution patterns by preying on the scale, on which the ants depend for honeydew. The researchers explored the relationship using theoretical modeling and found that if ants take over the whole plantation, the beetle goes extinct because adult beetles can’t get enough to eat. If the ants disappear from the farm, the beetles go extinct because the larvae starve. But if ants are confined to clusters, due to the influences of both beetles and parasitic flies, the beetles thrive and keep the scale insects under control.

“The interesting thing is that the beetles could not exist except for the highly patterned ant population, but it could be those very same beetles causing the pattern formation in the first place,” said researcher John Vandermeer, PhD. “The beetle creates the conditions for its own survival.”

The white halo fungus, a disease of scale insects, also enters in. The disease occurs here and there throughout the farm but runs rampant only where large populations of scale are found, which is only where the ants are protecting the scale. By suppressing the scale, on which the ants depend for honeydew, the fungus indirectly affects the ants’ survival. But that’s not all. The fungus also attacks coffee rust, a notorious pest that virtually wiped out coffee production in Sri Lanka, Java and Sumatra in the mid-19th century and has since infiltrated Central and South America but has not caused serious problems in those areas. White halo fungus only works its magic against coffee rust, however, in the process of conducting major assaults on scale, and those assaults happen only where there’s lots of scale””in other words, where the scale is under ants’ protection.

In addition to Azteca, other ant species protect scale, and some of these ants are predators of the coffee berry borer and leaf miner, which are also coffee pests. The researchers are still working out the details of the relationships among the various ants and the other species with which they interact.

As the research team continues to discover more species that are part of the web and more complex direct and indirect interactions among all the members, it’s increasingly clear that the view of nature working in harmony closely matches the scientific facts.

“There are many farmers in the tropics who have been on their land for a long time””sometimes many generations””and have seen these things happening and intuitively understand the connections,” said Dr. Vandermeer. “The stories they tell about the balance of nature sound almost romantic and religious sometimes, but if you just change the words, they start sounding like what we’re describing.”

Though this study is being done within the confines of a 300-hectare (740 acre) farm in southern Mexico, the researchers believe their approach and findings are more broadly applicable.

“Our view is that interaction webs of this sort will prove common in agro-ecosystems in general,” said Ivette Perfecto, PhD, another researcher on the study. “Although widely appreciated in natural systems, such webs haven’t been seen in agro-ecosystems because the people studying them haven’t looked at them in this way. They’re looking for magic-bullet solutions; they want to find the thing that causes the problem and then fix it. Our approach is to understand systems that are working well, where there are no problems. By doing that, we can define systems that are more resilient and resistant to pest outbreaks.”

The paper, published in the August issue of the scientific journal Chemosphere was authored by Marta Venier of Indiana University. Ms. Venier and her colleagues collected blood samples by climbing trees to access the nests, carrying the nestlings carefully to the ground, and drawing a small blood sample before returning them to their nests.

The statistically significant relationship between the total PBDE concentrations and total PCB concentrations suggest that these young eagles are ingesting pesticides and flame retardants through their food. Even low levels of these chemicals could be advsersely affecting the eagle population because as co-author of the study, Ronald Hites of Indiana University says, “Eagles are very vulnerable to chlorinated compounds.”

Chlorinated materials are very persistent and cycle through the soil, air and water for decades. DDT is the most notorious organochlorine pesticide, however several organochlorines are still registered for use, including lindane (as a pharmaceutical), endosulfan, methoxychlor, dicofol and pentachlorophenol.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences tells Discovery News that this study helps illustrate why “we shouldn’t be making chemicals that don’t go away for a long time” because “there is very little information on their toxicity [which is] a problem with our regulatory system.”

The California researchers are studying the impact of environmental exposures on the health of women and children who live in the Salinas Valley, an agricultural region with heavy pesticide use. They tested the urine of pregnant women for pesticide residue, and then tested the behavior of their children at ages 3 ½ and 5. The 5-year-olds who had been exposed to organophosphate pesticides while in the womb have more problems with attention and behavior than did children who were not exposed. Results are published online in the study entitled, “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Attention in Young Mexican-American Children,” in the journal, Environmental Health and Perspectives.

Previous studies have shown that exposure to some organophosphate compounds cause hyperactivity and cognitive deficits in animals. One study published in Pediatrics earlier this year found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Researchers discovered that for children with a 10-fold increase in the concentration of the most common phosphate metabolites measured in their urine, the odds of ADHD increases by more than half compared to those without detectable levels.

Roughly one in six children in the U.S. has one or more developmental disabilities, ranging from a learning disability to a serious behavioral or emotional disorder. Emerging science demonstrate that the amount of toxic chemicals in the environment that cause developmental and neurological damage are contributing to the rise of physical and mental effects being found in children. Organophosphates like chlorpyrifos, malathion and dichlorvos are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission -acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. High concentrations of organophosphates have been found in the bodies of pregnant women and children.

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 383 entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends. To view the database, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/health.

For more information on children’s exposure to pesticides, including information on how you can protect your family from pesticides and the latest studies and news on this topic, see Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools program page and the Organic program page.

Grassroots organizations in California predict that the Healthy Schools Act of 2010 (SB 1157), a bill that would require least-toxic integrated pest management (IPM) in all California schools, could be voted on by the full State Assembly within the coming days. Environmental and public health groups are encouraging California residents to contact their members of the State Assembly, asking them to pass SB 1157 with mandatory least-toxic IPM and a mechanism for strong enforcement. In other news relating to California schools and public health, a coalition of state environmental justice organizations sent a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) expressing concern over the building of an elementary school that will serve primarily low-income students on top of a contaminated site. There is also concern that, because California’s school siting policy is considered the strongest in the country, the decision sets a bad precedent for similar projects in other states.

California Healthy Schools Act of 2010

SB 1157 would require all California schools to use least-toxic IPM and increases the state fees paid by those who sell pesticides to cover the cost of the program implementation. The legislation states that all schoolsites (excluding family daycare homes) “shall adopt an integrated pest management program [consistent with California code] as established, administered and enforced by the state Department of Pesticide Regulation” by January 1, 2014. The California Constitution requires that the state reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. The increase in fees to cover the initial implementation would begin January 1, 2012.

California code defines IPM as “a pest management strategy that focuses on long-term prevention or suppression of pest problems through a combination of techniques such as monitoring for pest presence and establishing treatment threshold levels, using nonchemical practices to make the habitat less conducive to pest development, improving sanitation, and employing mechanical and physical controls. Pesticides that pose the least possible hazard and are effective in a manner that minimizes risks to people, property and the environment, are used only after careful monitoring indicates that they are needed according to pre-established guidelines and treatment thresholds.”

Some California activists have expressed concern that SB 1157 has been amended eight times since its introduction in February 2010. The version of the legislation described here is current as of the August 20th amendments. Beyond Pesticides encourages California residents to view the latest version of the bill here (the Legislative Counsel’s Digest provides a good summary) and let your member of the State Assembly know how you feel about the Healthy Schools Act.

According to grassroots group Californians for Pesticide Reform, nearly all Assembly Republicans oppose this bill, and 18 Democrats are on the fence. These 18 votes would most likely be needed to pass the bill. The 18 key Democrats are: Marty Block, (San Diego), (916) 319-2011; Steven Bradford, (Inglewood), (916) 319-2051; Joan Buchanan, (San Ramon, Sacramento, Walnut Creek), (916) 319-2015; Wilmer Amina Carter, (San Bernadino), (916) 319-2062; Mike Gatto (Burbank), (916) 319-2043; Alyson Huber, (Lodi), (916) 319-2010; Tony Mendoza, (Eastern LA), (916) 319-2056; Manuel V. Perez, (Imperial Valley), (916) 319-2080; Jose Solorio, (L.A.), (916) 319-2069; Tom Torlakson, (Martinez), (916) 319-2011; Norma Torres, (L.A.), (916) 319-2061; Juan Arambula (Fresno), (916) 319-2031; Anna Caballero (Salinas/Watsonville), (916) 319-2028; Charles Calderon (East LA), (916) 319-2058; Cathleen Galgiani (Stockton/Tracy/Merced), (916) 319-2017; Fiona Ma (San Francisco); (916) 319-2012; Tony Mendoza (Norwolk/Cerritos), (916) 319-2056; Mariko Yamada (Davis/Fairfield/Vacaville/West Sacramento), (916) 319-2008.

Contaminated Elementary School

A coalition of health and environmental justice groups, including California Safe Schools, concerned about the potential exposure to dangerous chemicals for teachers and students sent a letter to LAUSD board members and superintendent regarding an elementary school built on top of a contaminated site. Central School #13 (to ironically be renamed the Rachel Carson – Al Gore School of Environmental Studies), has been constructed atop contaminated groundwater and between an operating oil well and a contaminated gas station. As a Title 1 school, Central School #13 would serve low-income students. To qualify as a Title I School, 40% or more of its students come from low-income families.

The groups are concerned about the potential exposure to dangerous chemicals for teachers and students at the new school because:

Ӣ Excavation of contaminated soils is still occurring on the site, as well as treatment of contaminated groundwater, yet school starts in three weeks.
Ӣ The new school site has requested a deed restriction (restricting the construction of new buildings at the site) in an effort to reduce exposure to contaminated soil vapors.
”¢ Unidentified offsite sources of toxic contamination are still spreading and further contaminating groundwater under the site, creating a new threat to students’ health.

The US EPA is poised to use a framework similar to California’s in its new national school siting guidance document to be released this December. Advocates are concerned that since California’s school siting laws, considered to be the most protective in the country, could allow the construction of this elementary school on such a contaminated site and that relying on them for new national guidance is not sound public policy.

For additional information on Central School #13 contact California Safe Schools, 818-785-5515.

Take Action Nationwide

American golf courses hold themselves to a high standard, when it comes to maintaining the thick perfectly manicured and weed free turf on greens and fairways. To attain this standard golf course managers rely on a toxic assortment of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and other chemicals. These practices have been linked to numerous diseases in humans including cancer, as well as damage to local wildlife. Jeff Carlson, the superintendent of the Vineyard golf club recalls one of his earlier jobs where he used mercury based fungicides, soon his wife’s hair started to fall out from mercury poisoning. Environmentalists and human health advocates have mounted strong opposition to the creation of new golf courses. In recent years however golf course managers have begun to work with environmental experts to maintain their greens in ways that are less damaging to the environment and human health.

Many courses around the country are adapting IPM practices to reduce their reliance on pesticides. The Vineyard Golf Club was proposed it had to overcome strong opposition from residents concerned with heavy pesticide use in their area. The Martha’s Vineyard Commission approved the project on the condition that no products are used with a synthetic active ingredient. As a recent piece in The New York Times points out, many were initially skeptical that a golf course could meet the standards of well to do golfers without the help of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Eight years later the Vineyard Golf Club with its $350,000 initiation fee and annual dues of $12,000, is not only a recreation spot for Martha’s Vineyard’s wealthy summer residents, it is also a laboratory for demonstrating safe and effective ways to control weeds and pests organically. The Vineyard Golf Club relies on such practices as planting more disease resistant grass, using boiling water for weed control, and using microscopic worms to kill turf destroying grubs.

Despite being good enough for our commander and chief, many conventional golf course managers argue synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are a necessary to maintain healthy looking grass, and an organic approach is not viable. Others disagree. Arguing that instead of relying on large amounts of synthetic chemicals to make turf appear healthy, managers should instead work to create turf that actually is healthy. Healthy soils and turf are less hospitable to weeds and diseases. In addition as pesticide use declines biodiversity increases, this can naturally reduce the populations of various pests. Beyond Pesticides serves on a steering committee that seeks to develop a collaborative strategy with the golf course industry in an effort to effect change. This group developed the Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the U.S. Increasingly, players and golf course managers are asking the right questions and looking for answers that result in meaningful reductions in pesticide use.

These techniques are not just reserved for exclusive golf clubs with huge budgets. Parks and school playing fields across the country have converted to organic techniques, even on cash-strapped publically funded budgets. A 2010 report by the environmental health group Grassroots Environmental Education concludes that the annual cost of maintaining a field using organic products and techniques can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of conventional programs using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

While not acknowledged in the Times, Howard Garret, the host of a local organic gardening show in Texas also runs several organic golf course maintenance programs in the Dallas area. According to The Dallas Observer the organic practices Mr. Garret employs are not only safer for the environment, but they have also managed to save golf courses money, mostly by reducing water requirements.

The methods used to maintain an organic golf course are similar to those used to maintain any organic lawn or turf. Maintaining organic turf starts with healthy soil. This may require aerating compacted soil. Earthworms and other organisms will aerate soil naturally, but they are usually absent from soils treated with large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Soil should be tested for pH and nutrient content. Watering and drainage should be carefully monitored. Too much or too little water will encourage weed growth. The variety of grass should be carefully selected, to ensure it can thrive in the given climate.

The decision was reached after EPA completed a revised risk assessment indicating that the pesticide does not meet the agency’s food safety standards. EPA scrutinized recent food consumption data from USDA to complete the risk assessment, which considered the percent of the crop treated, processing/cooking data, and estimated drinking water concentrations. The risk assessment found that the aggregate dietary exposure reflecting the existing uses exceeds the level of concern for children and infants, with exposures at 800% for infants, 440% for children ages 1-2 and 360% for children ages 3-5 of the acute population assessment dose (PAD), assuming a half life of 2 hours. Potatoes, citrus fruits and water were found to be the greatest contributors to the aldicarb exposure. Food only (and not drinking water) passed the acute PAD when all citrus foods and potatoes were removed. However, the aggregate exposure (from all other food and drinking water estimates) for infants and children still exceeds the level of concern at 800% for infants, 330% for children ages 1-2 and 290% for children ages 3-5.

Since uses for citrus and potatoes pose the most significant risks, Bayer has agreed to cancel the registrations for these uses immediately, meaning no new products labeled for potatoes and citrus fruits can be distributed; however, existing supplies may be used until the end of 2011. Though Bayer has agreed to end production of aldicarb by December 31, 2014, the pesticide will continue to be distributed until the end of 2016, and will still be registered for use on cotton, beans, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes until August 31, 2018. In this time, Bayer has also agreed to limited uses on cotton, peanuts and soybeans, in order to reduce its runoff in water wells in parts of the southeastern U.S., where drinking water exposure is considered the highest.

Aldicarb is the active ingredient in Bayer’s Temik 15G, and is used on a variety of agricultural crops. This systemic N-methyl carbamate insecticide is used to control mites, nematodes, and aphids, but has no residential uses. Aldicarb targets the nervous system, and effects infants and children more severely than adults. Symptoms from exposure include sweating, nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and even death due to paralysis of the respiratory system. Aldicarb is listed as a potential endocrine disruptor on the European Commission list of endocrine disruptors. It has also been linked to neurotoxic and reproductive effects, asthma, and learning behavior problems.

Aldicarb was first registered in 1970, but was placed under Special Review in 1984. EPA is authorized to use the Pesticide Special Review process, an expedited process because of elevated risks, when a pesticide is suspected to have unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment. EPA identified potential human health risks from drinking water exposure and environmental risks to birds, mammals, and fish in 2007. However, despite these adverse effects, EPA decided to approve aldicarb for reregistration provided that risk mitigation measures and label amendments were adopted to protect against unreasonable risk.

Aldicarb won’t be completely banned from use until 2018, which is a long period of time for such a hazardous pesticide proven to leach into drinking water supplies and endanger human and environmental health. It is believed that EPA chose to negotiate with Bayer CropScience instead of outright banning the use of aldicarb outright because the agency likely thought that it would spur a lengthy legal battle. However, due to the toxic nature of the chemical, Beyond Pesticides believes that EPA in cases like this should use its “imminent hazard” authority to take immediate action, if Bayer chose to fight it in court, which would bring unfavorable publicity to Bayer and an industry that struggles with its public health and environmental image.

While getting toxic pesticides off the market is a good thing, this classic Dursban ad shows why lengthy EPA phase-outs are problematic...

This kind of negotiation between a chemical manufacturer and EPA echos EPA’s 2000 negotiated settlement with Dow AgroSciences, which allows the highest volume of use of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos to continue (groups recently filed a lawsuit in federal court to force EPA to decide whether or not it will cancel all remaining uses and tolerances for chlorpyrifos). This represents a classic failure of the risk assessment process (including the so-called cumulative risk assessment which accounts for all chemicals with the same mechanism of toxicity) under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) —a failure that is repeated over and over again in agency chemical regulation decisions.

The agency is arguing the same thing now as it did then: that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in one setting without taking into account risks to other populations’ exposure, as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that make the chemical unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. The risk assessment process does not force a consideration of those who suffer disproportionate risk or groups of people (such as those with neurological dieases in this case who are disproportinately affected), or the often overlooked seasonal variations in food consumptions.

In September, EPA plans to publish a Federal Register notice announcing the voluntary cancellation of aldicarb use on citrus and potato. The notice will be open to public comment for 30 days, after which the EPA plans to grant the requested cancellations. The memorandum of agreement and the agency’s updated dietary risk assessment and supporting materials will be available in the aldicarb reregistration docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163, and in the aldicarb Special Review docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0197, at regulations.gov.

To capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies, the national environmental and public health group Beyond Pesticides launched in the summer issue of its newsletter, Pesticides and You, the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to track the studies. “A read through the scientific literature on pesticides and major preventable diseases afflicting us in the 21st century suggests that one of the first responses called for is an all out effort to stop using toxic pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. The database begins an ongoing effort by Beyond Pesticides to maintain this comprehensive database of the studies that the group says “supports an urgent need to shift to toxic-free practices and policies.”

The group is calling for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. ”Under risk assessment, we constantly play with ”˜mitigation measures’ that the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database tells us over and over is a failed human experiment,” said Mr. Feldman.

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.

Earlier this year Beyond Pesticides released its Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide that explains how foods grown with hazardous chemicals contaminate water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife even though the finished commodities, often referred to as “clean,” may have minimal or nondetectable residues. The guide can be found at www.eatingwithaconscience.org.

The Household Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law, signed into law by the Governor David Paterson on July 15, 2010, aims to improve water quality in New York by reducing phosphorus runoff into the State’s waterbodies. Environmental officials say phosphorus drains into New York lakes and rivers, which turn green with algae, degrading drinking water and reducing oxygen that fish need. More than 100 bodies of water in the state are considered impaired, including Cayuga Lake and Lake Champlain. With similar measures now effective in 16 other states, including neighboring Vermont and Pennsylvania, many detergent makers produce low-phosphate formulas. Consumer tests show some are cleaning better than even earlier detergents considered environmentally friendly.

“The impact of phosphorus is particularly significant in lakes and reservoirs. Over half of all the lake acres in the state have water quality impacts for which phosphorus is a contributing cause,” according to a Department of Environmental Conservation analysis.

As a cleaning agent, dishwasher detergents may contain up to 9 percent phosphorus by weight, and as a plant nutrient, lawn fertilizer contains up to 3 percent. The New York law lowers permissible levels to 0.5 percent for household dishwasher detergent and 0.67 percent for lawn fertilizer.

“We’re chipping away at sources of pollution. This is one. Nitrogen is another,” said DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis. Pesticides are a third, and the agency backed legislation enacted earlier this year that will ban the use of pesticides on schoolyards and playing fields.

The agency says that while dishwasher detergent and lawn fertilizer are only two sources of phosphorus, they are relatively easy and inexpensive to control. Steps were taken in the early 1970s to eliminate phosphorus from hand soap and laundry detergents, but exempting dishwasher detergent, which was not common at the time. Of the phosphorus found in municipal wastewater, dishwashing detergent accounts for 9 percent to 34 percent. Removing phosphorus at a wastewater treatment plants costs approximately $1 to $20 per pound. Lawn fertilizer can account for about 50 percent of phosphorus found in storm runoff.

The provision on lawn fertilizers prohibits applying the compounds between Dec. 1 and April 1 or near surface water. However, it contains exceptions for new lawns or when a test shows an existing lawn has too little phosphorus. It does not affect fertilizer for agriculture or gardens. Maine, Florida and Wisconsin also have fertilizer controls.

Reducing phosphorus-rich fertilizers can have the added benefit of reducing the levels of pesticides that runoff into lakes and streams as well. Fertilizers are often paired with pesticides in weed-and-feed products, the use of which will fall under the fertilizer restrictions. Local bans of such products have been upheld in federal courts in the past, despite state preemption laws aimed at limiting local authority. For information on least toxic alternatives for lawn care, visit our Lawns and Landscapes program page.

TAKE ACTION: Community activism is the best way to get your town to adopt such a policy. For assistance in proposing a policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450. For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page. Let your neighbors know your lawn and garden are organic by displaying a Pesticide Free Zone sign.

Source: Times Herald-Record

Blueberry farmers said Novartis should have warned them that a new version of its pesticide, including diazinon as the active ingredient, also included a surfactant that reacts badly with fungicides. The promotional brochure failed to mention this reaction and when farmers mixed the diazinon pesticide with the fungicides Captan and Captec, it caused phytotoxic damage, including blotches, depressions and spots, and in some cases killed their plants. It was not clear to the appeals court that the practice of combining pesticides with fungicides was a “foreseeable use” of the product, though farmers are arguing that is was because tank mixing is a common practice.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Walter K. Stapleton, however found that a manufacturer’s brochure “does not qualify as ”˜labeling’ under FIFRA,” and that U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the District of New Jersey had therefore erred in holding that the claims were preempted. In addition to the fraud and misrepresentation claims, Mr. Stapleton also found that the farmers should be allowed to pursue two products liability claims -design defect and failure to warn- because those, too, would not be preempted by FIFRA.

“Given that Congress in FIFRA imposed a generalized duty to include in one’s labeling any warning statement necessary to protect plant life and the fact that the EPA has not seen fit to narrow that duty, we find no basis for concluding that New Jersey law imposes a duty to warn different than or in addition to the scope of the requirement imposed by FIFRA,” Mr. Stapleton and Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote.

The farmers’ lawyer, Scott K. Attaway of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C., however, argued that the practice of tank mixing pesticides and fungicides was both a common one and well known to Novartis. Mr. Stapleton sided with the plaintiffs on this, finding that the “evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude that tank mixing pesticides and fungicides was a reasonably foreseeable practice.”

This case brings up previous efforts to sue pesticide manufacturers, such as the 2005 Supreme Court case, Bates et al v. Dow AgroSciences LLC. In this case, Texas peanut farmers argued that the Dow herbicide Strongarm (diclosulam) ruined their crops, but were prevented from suing after Dow successfully argued in a lower District court that the registration of pesticides under FIFRA insulates it from citizen suits, or preempts litigation. Dow Chemical Company argued that, because its products are registered by EPA, chemical manufacturers should be shielded from litigation; the Justice Department brief filed before the high court in late November, 2004 was designed to protect pesticide manufacturers when their products cause harm.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that citizens damaged by pesticides do have the right to sue producers of these toxic products, saying that federal pesticide law does not offer adequate protection from “manufacturers of poisonous substances.” This was an extremely important court decision because it found that: (i) “Pesticides are registered by the Environmental Protection Agency under a risk assessment review process that implicitly does not consider all aspects of potential harm,” (ii) “The potential for court review of cases in which people are harmed creates a strong incentive for the development of safer products,” and (iii) “The same companies or their trade associations, including Dow Chemical Company, that have successfully lobbied for weak national laws and standards do not want people who are harmed as a result to seek redress.”

Source: Law.com

The 2008 study examined the concentrations of organophosphate pesticides in the bodies of children who consumed a diet of conventional produce and then switched to a diet of organic produce. The study examined two groups of 23 children ranging in age from 3 to 11, in Seattle, Washington and Atlanta, Georgia. Researchers measured the concentrations of malathion, chlorpyrifos, and other organophosphate pesticide metabolites in the children’s urine. These pesticides have no residential uses, and because all children in the study group live in urban or suburban areas, researchers assumed that all exposure to these pesticides were the result of diet. The children were then fed a strictly organic diet for five days. After the five day period, researchers found that concentrations of malathion and chlorpyrifos metabolites in the children’s urine were reduced to non-detectable or close to non-detectable levels. What this study did not establish was how much pesticide residue the children actually consumed from the diet of conventional produce.

This new study, on the other hand, uses the same group of children to examine the amount of pesticides children take in when eating conventional produce. To determine the precise amount of pesticide residue consumed, parents collected duplicate food samples of all fruits, vegetables, and juices equal to the quantity consumed by their children over a 24-hour period. Parents were instructed to wash and prepare the duplicate samples in the same way as the food their children consumed. This process was repeated at different times during the year to account for seasonal differences in diet.

Researchers also conducted a market basket analysis, testing the residue on fruits and vegetables purchased from a supermarket in the same neighborhood as children in the Seattle study group (a market based analysis was not conducted in Atlanta due to lack of resources). Samples were analyzed for residues of organophosphosphours and pyrethroid pesticides. When possible, residue results were then compared with the residues reported by the United States Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program (PDP). However, because many of the foods consumed by children in the study group have not been tested by the PDP, researchers were not always able to compare residue results. Researchers found pesticide residues in 19% of the duplicate food samples; 23% of the Seattle samples and 15% of the Atlanta samples contained either an organophosphorus or pyrethroid insecticide. The most commonly consumed foods included apples, apple juice, bananas, carrots, orange juice, peaches, and watermelon. In the market basket analysis, 28% of samples contained either an organophosphorus or pyrethroid pesticide. With a few exceptions researchers found residues to be within the range reported by the PDP.

Researchers also noted that consumption of certain foods varies greatly if those foods are seasonal. Currently, seasonal differences in the consumption of fresh produce are not taken into account by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when creating mathematical models to estimate pesticide dietary exposure and risk. As a result, these models may greatly underestimate pesticide exposure from these foods. For example the consumption of peaches increases greatly when it is in season. Because peaches are considered by Environmental Working Group to be a member of the Dirty Dozen, the twelve types of fruits and vegetables contaminated with the most pesticide residue, models that look at the annual average peach consumption may assume that children consume an average of one or less servings a week, and would therefore estimate the risk posed by peach consumption to be acceptable. When peaches are in season, children might consume one or more servings a day, meaning the risk to their health is much higher than the model implies. Moreover, many types of fresh produce are in season around the same time of year, meaning that children may be getting a much higher pesticide load from their diet over a short span of time. This study is especially important as research continues to strengthen the link between pesticide exposure in children and diseases such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

“There have been a lot of lab studies looking at silver nanoparticles showing that they are highly toxic to bacteria, fungi, other microorganisms,” explained Ben Colman, PhD to Scientific American. Dr. Coleman is a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University who led the study. “Most of these studies have been conducted in very simple lab settings, [with] one species of bacteria””often the “lab rat” of the bacteria world, E [scherichia]. coli ””[in] a test tube with very simple media and nanoparticles. So we wanted to move beyond this because it’s really hard to extrapolate from these single-species studies in simple environments to what will inevitably happen when these particles enter the environment.”

The particles, which are between one and 100 nanometers in size and smaller than many viruses, can enter the environment through wastewater, where it 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 it can contain toxic contaminants. Sewage sludge-derived compost distributed free to gardeners by the city of San Francisco and its Utilities Commission was recently found to contain significant levels of toxins, including those with endocrine-disrupting properties such as polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, nonylphenol detergent breakdown products, and the other heavily scrutinized antibacterial agent triclosan.

Scientists are applying nanotechnology to many industries, and much like triclosan, nanoparticles are now widely impregnated into a wide variety of consumer products to kill off bacteria, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, little is known about the impact of nanoparticles on human health and the environment, and mounting evidence suggests that these materials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. Nanosized particles can be released from impregnated materials via washing or sweating where they may pose numerable unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Though the use of silver nanoparticles typically falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA) definition of a pesticide as substances intended to kill pests such as microorganisms, EPA does not currently regulate it as such. In 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and others including Beyond Pesticides filed a legal petition challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide. The 100-page petition addresses the serious human health concerns raised by these unique substances, as well as their potential to be highly destructive to natural environments, and calls on the EPA to fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, and require labeling of all products.

You can reduce the potential environmental impacts of nanosilver by avoiding products that contain antibacterials. In addition to a slew of health and environmental effects associated with increasing chemical exposure, these antibacterial products tend to kill a wide variety of bacteria, reducing both “bad” bacteria associated with illness, as well as the “good” bacteria that perform useful functions in our environment and in our bodies. The overuse of antimicrobial chemicals has also been linked to the creation of drug-resistant bacteria, or “superbugs,” which are bacteria and viruses that have become resistant to the antimicrobial compounds and antibiotic drugs developed to control them. To download Beyond Pesticides factsheet What’s the right answer to the germ question? or for more information, including tips on how to get toxic antimicrobials out of your home, school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials program page.

Additionally, this issue highlights the importance of knowing what inputs are going into our gardens, lawns, school yards and agricultural fields. The problem of contaminated compost keeps coming up because pesticide use patterns result in the contamination of treated land and EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs allows the widespread fertilizer use of treated plant material (such as composted grass clippings).

Consumers should not be fooled by claims such as “safe” or “natural” when choosing products. Fertilizer cannot contain the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic seal, however it can be listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (OMRI) list of approved substances, and will often contain “OMRI approved” on its label. If it is not listed, then it does not meet the organic standards. For more information on labeling, visit our National Organic Standards page.

Composting is still a great way to improve the health of soil by adding much-needed organic content to soil, however, the best way to utilize organic compost, free of synthetic chemicals and avoid compost consisting of sewage sludge and other synthetic chemicals is to make it yourself. For more information, read Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, “Compost Is the Key to Successful Plant Management.”

Source: Scientific American

Ever since NStar started using herbicides in 2004, local residents have worried about potential contamination of the Cape’s underground drinking water supply. Even though NStar has a “green” commitment statement on its website, pledging to lessen impacts to the environment as much as possible, the coalition argues that the company’s use of herbicides on rights-of-way violates this promise. NStar representative Michael Duran said that the herbicides are part of a state-regulated integrated vegetation management plan to help ensure reliable power to its 200,000 customers on the Cape and Martha’s Vineyard.

“We know that NStar can manage without pesticides. They did for decades. For them it comes down to cost,” remarked Sylvia Broude of Toxics Action Center to the Cape Cod Times. Before 2004, NStar used effective non-chemical methods for controlling weeds along its rights-of-way, including mechanical cutting and hand-mowing.

Besides contaminating drinking water, many of the chemicals used by NStar have hazardous effects on humans, pets, and the environment, such as Fosamine ammonium, which EPA has found to cause kidney and liver damage, and could leach into groundwater. Triclopyr ester has been found to have effects on reproduction, the kidney and liver, and is toxic to fish. Studies have also shown that another chemical used by NStar called glyphosate causes cancer, reproductive effects, and is a neurotoxin.

Each year, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, railroad corridors and other types of rights-of-way are treated with herbicides to control the growth of unwanted plants. Unfortunately, drift from the application of these herbicides can negatively affect organic farmers and chemically sensitive residents. Rights-of-way include roads, utility lines, and railroad corridors, although different states have varying policies for maintaining rights-of-way. Recently, a utility company in North Carolina nearly destroyed one of the nation’s oldest and most famous vines, “Mother Vine,” when it accidentally sprayed a part of the plant while spraying the right-of-way.

The antibacterial triclosan, an endocrine disruptor, was also found in the sewage sludge compost, at an average of 1,312 ng/g (or ppb). Last week, the Centers for Disease Control updated their National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals and noted that triclosan levels in people increased by over 41% between just the years 2004 and 2006. Also last week, a scientific paper 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. PBDEs are persistent and bioaccumulate in the environment and elevated levels have been found in California citizens. The average total of the PBDE congeners tested in the compost was 731 ng/g (or ppb – parts per billion) (dry weight basis).

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 dioxins. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Triclosan is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk.

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.

Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union, reviewed the tests conducted and stated, “Giving out sludge-based ‘compost’ that contains PBDEs, triclosan, and who knows what other toxins, while calling it ‘organic compost,’ knowing it would be applied to school and home gardens, is wrong on a number of levels. Given the toxic compounds that have been found in this San Francisco sludge product, the ‘compost’ giveaway should be permanently ended by the City of San Francisco.”

Last September, the Center the Food Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Systems petitioned the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to immediately suspend the SFPUC’s Compost Giveaway program because the compost is made with sewage sludge which contains toxic chemicals and hazardous materials. The petition cited that the distribution of contaminated compost will spread toxic sludge to homeowners’ backyards, increasing the risk of health problems to children and the community.

John Mayer, Bay Area resident and researcher for the Food Rights Network, stated: “The sludge tests that the PUC released in late July 2010, are grossly insufficient, relying on outdated science and regulatory standards, and limited to ‘priority pollutants,’ a list developed more than 30 years ago. As the Center for Food Safety noted recently, the PUC failed to test for nanoparticles, ‘antibiotics and their degradation products, disinfectants, other antimicrobials, steroids, hormones, and other drugs present in sewage sludge as indicated by EPA’s 2009 Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey. “Our ongoing investigation of this issue has shown that the Office of the Mayor and the staff of the PUC have colluded with the national sewage sludge lobby, Synagro corporation and other private interests to promote and defend growing food in sewage sludge. We call upon the five PUC Commissioners to put this issue on their public agenda for September, and to stop allowing sludge politics to trump health, environment and the precautionary principle in San Francisco.”

Composting is still a great way to improve the health of soil by adding much-needed organic content to soil. However, it is best to utilize organic compost, free of synthetic chemicals and avoid compost consisting of sewage sludge and other synthetic chemicals. Luckily, compost is relatively easy to make at home. For more information on organic compost, read Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, “Compost Is the Key to Successful Plant Management”

TAKE ACTION: Join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Avoid products containing triclosan, and encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

Senators Lincoln and Chambliss say that because pesticides are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) additional regulation is unnecessary and the legislation will reduce the burden on farmers, foresters and ranchers. Environmentalists argue that CWA is more protective, and pesticides should be regulated under both statues to improve protections for human health and the environment. CWA uses a health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly subjective risk assessment that does not consider safer alternatives.

Through the many limitations of FIFRA and its risk assessment process, many pesticides are introduced to the market with many data gaps and insufficient analysis of their potential to impact aquatic organisms, water quality and human health. For example, atrazine, the controversial and widely used herbicide, is currently linked to numerous adverse effects including the reproduction, immune and hormone system disruption of fish, other aquatic organisms and humans. Yet, atrazine continues to poison waterways. The NPDES permitting system is an important tool for monitoring and regulating pesticide discharges into waterways versus FIFRA.

The introduction of S. 3735 follows the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) June 2010 posting of a draft NPDES General Permit for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The development of the permit stems from a 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, in which the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require permitting under CWA. This ruling overturned the previous Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under CWA, and instead applied the less stringent standards of FIFRA.

In July 2010 Beyond Pesticides and others sent comments to EPA requesting improvements to the proposed PGP and CWA regulations. These suggestions include: making general improvements to address specific limitations of the proposed permit (size of annual treatment areas, monitoring requirements, opportunities for public input); encouraging EPA to consider organic alternatives when reviewing permits; and, requiring EPA to set water quality standards for all pesticides that may contaminate water.

The pesticide industry and conventional grower associations have opposed NPDES permitting requirements for the same reasons cited by Senators Lincoln and Chambliss. Both Senators have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from agricultural and forestry interests in the past five years. (See Senator Lincoln and Senator Chambliss’s supporters).

For decades our nation’s waterways have been polluted with hazardous pesticides and their degradates which impact aquatic populations of animals and plants, and decrease surface and drinking water quality. Many of these pesticides accumulate in fish and other organisms, making their way up the food chain, to eventually be consumed by the American public. To learn more about conventional fruits and vegetables grown with pesticides that are known to contaminate in drinking water and accumulate in the aquatic food chain, as well as poison farmworkers and wildlife, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience webpage.

CDC’s updated National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals finds that the 50% increase in levels of triclosan is across all demographics in the U.S. population. Data was collected on the concentration of triclosan in urine. Affluent people and those over the age of 20 have the highest concentrations of triclosan in their urine.

The study released by the University of Toledo, “Uptake of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products by Soybean Plants from Soils Applied with Biosolids and Irrigated with Contaminated Water,” examines the potential for crops to take up contaminants such as triclosan from water or fertilizer. Conventional crops are often fertilized with sewage sludge and irrigated with waste water. Sewage sludge often contains numerous pharmaceutical and personal care compounds. Researchers simulated biosolid application and wastewater irrigation on soybeans. Plant tissues were analyzed for several compounds. Triclosan, triclocarbon, and the pharmaceutical carbamazepine are all found to be readily taken up by the roots and traslocated to other parts of the plants including beans. This study worries health experts because it suggests that people may be exposed to these harmful compounds not just by the products they use, but by unknowingly consuming contaminated food.

Triclosan is one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds in cleaning and personal care products. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial, endocrine disruption and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

In 1972, when triclosan was first introduced to the market, the antibacterial was limited to hospital and health care settings. In recent years, triclosan has been added to hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, textiles, toys, and other household and personal care products.

Growing concern over the health and environmental effects of the widespread use of triclosan lead Beyond Pesticides to launch a campaign to ban the non-medical uses of the antibacterial compound. In 2009 and 2010, Beyond Pesticides along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 health and environmental groups issued petitions to the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the chemical. Last month, the Natural Resources Defense Council launched its own efforts to better regulate triclosan, filing suit against the FDA for failing to issue a final ruling on the ubiquitous chemical.

Aminopyralid is generally used for weed control in pastures and fields that grow silage crops for dairy cows. When cows eat the grass that has been treated with the chemical, it passes through them unchanged and remains in their manure in concentrations that can still be high enough to damage broadleaf crops if the manure is used to fertilize them. Aminopyralid is produced by Dow AgroSciences, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co., and often manufactured under the product name Milestone.

Former coordinator of the Washington State University master gardeners’ program Jill Cotton has noticed the damage in her garden and said reports continue to filter in from other gardens around the county. One Whatcom County grower, Kirk Hayes, who sells his crops to the Bellingham Community Food Co-op and four other co-ops in the region estimates that he lost about $40,000 worth of sales in the past two months because of the problems.

“It’s killed off most of our potato crop, our salad crops,” said Mr. Hayes. “We’ve contaminated about seven and a half acres, it looks like.”

Dow says that “inadvertent residues are at low enough levels that you can eat the produce.” Aminopyralid, however, is not licensed to be used on food crops and carries a label warning farmers using it not to sell manure that might contain residue to gardeners. According to EPA, tolerances (residue limits for pesticides used in the U.S. or by countries exporting to the U.S.) have been established only for the following crop food/feed and animal commodities: grass, forage and hay; wheat for bran, forage, grain, hay and straw; aspirated grain fractions; cattle fat, meat, byproducts and kidney; goat fat, meat, byproducts and kidney; horse fat, meat, byproducts and kidney; milk; sheep fat, meat, byproducts, and kidney.

Aminopyralid’s potential to taint manure and harm other crops is well-known and has been documented in other regions, including a case in the United Kingdom a few years ago. The label precautions for Milestone and other similar products containing the active ingredient aminopyralid state that treated plant residues or manure from animals that have grazed on treated forage (within the previous 3 days) should not be used in compost or mulch to be used on susceptible broadleaf plants. Additionally, those who have already used contaminated manure are advised not to replant on the affected soil for at least a year.

It appears that the contaminated manure and compost may have been sold as “natural” fertilizer. However, consumers should not be fooled by claims such as “safe” or “natural.” Though fertilizer cannot contain the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic seal, it can be listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (OMRI) list of approved substances, and will often contain “OMRI approved” on its label. If it is not listed, then it does not meet the organic standards. For more information on labeling, visit our National Organic Standards page.

Walter Haugen, one regional growers, stressed that this incident shows how important it is to be a self-contained operation. He relies on compost produced from his own farm’s crop wastes, rather than bringing in manure that might have suspect ingredients. You can often create all the fertilizer you need yourself through simple composting of kitchen and yard scraps. This way, as Mr. Haugen points out, you know exactly what is in your compost, and you don’t have to purchase many “external inputs.”

The problem of contaminated compost keeps coming up because pesticide use patterns result in the contamination of treated land. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs allows the widespread fertilzer use of treated plant material (such as composted grass clippings). In the fall of 2009, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) conducted tests and determined that three of California’s largest compost producers had product which tested positive for the insecticide bifenthrin. Bifenthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide used commercially and residentially for the control of pests (i.e. ants, spiders, etc.).

Source: Bellingham Herald