Among restrictions is one that would restrict EPA’s ability to act in several key areas, including pesticide suspensions and cancellations related to endangered species protections, pesticide product brand names, and Clean Water Act (CWA) permits for pesticide use on or near water. It includes language that would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the CWA to exempt FIFRA-compliant pesticides from requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the CWA. The appropriations includes bill language that is essentially the same as that contained in stand-alone legislation (H.R. 872) approved by the House and reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) have placed a hold on H.R. 872 in the Senate. Just last week, the House passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018, that would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law, and also prevents EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Take Action: Tell your Senator to oppose HR 872.

As of July 27, 77 amendments and anti-environmental riders have been filed, and House leaders have said they are expecting about 200 total amendments to be filed throughout the bill’s floor debate. Before the bill came to the House floor Tuesday morning, it already had 38 anti-environmental policy riders unrelated to spending that attack clean air, clean water, endangered species, and iconic places. One measure -to forbid the Fish and Wildlife Service to list any new plants or animals as endangered- was so extreme that 37 Republicans broke ranks and voted to strip it from the bill. Many believe the legislation is essentially a targeted attack on some of President Obama’s signature items: tackling climate change, regulating fossil-fuel pollution, and protecting public lands and waters.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), the ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said that while the bill has been put on the back burner while lawmakers and the media focus on the debt ceiling issue, “it is boiling over” with threats to the environment.

Although inserting policy changes into appropriations bills is a common strategy when government is divided as it is now, no one can remember such an aggressive use of the tactic against natural resources. Environmental groups worry that more than a few of these so-called riders could stick when both sides negotiate and leverage budget concessions in the fall.

The Interior and Environment spending bill would provide EPA with $7.1 billion for fiscal 2012, about $1.5 billion below this year’s spending levels and $1.8 billion less than President Obama requested. Interior would receive $9.9 billion, which is $720 million below the agency’s current budget and $1.2 billion below the president’s request. It would slice spending on climate-change programs, slash money for the federal government to acquire new public lands, and effectively gut the nation’s land and water conservation fund, with a cut of more than 90 percent. The legislation is also laden with dozens of policy riders that would do everything from block EPA from regulating power plants’ greenhouse-gas emissions to allow uranium mining around the Grand Canyon.

Among the original 38 riders in the bill are provisions to:

-Ban EPA from all work to reduce the climate change pollution of power plants, refineries, and other major polluters for one full year, and allow major new sources of carbon pollution to be built without any controls.

-Mandate that California’s National Forests allow off-road vehicles in places where they cause harm and raise significant safety concerns.

-Leave millions of acres of wilderness-quality lands open to drilling, mining, and off-road vehicles.

-Prohibit EPA from ensuring that hardrock mining companies —not American taxpayers— are responsible for footing the bills of costly environmental cleanups at their mine sites.

For more on the riders, visit Earthjustice.

Take Action:

U.S. House of Representatives: Call or email your Representative today and demand a stop to attacks of environmental protections and programs. Find your Representative here.

U.S. Senate: Tell your Senator to oppose HR 872.

According to the Inspector General (IG), these failures led to only a fraction of the chemical assessments for the pilot being completed. IG found that VCCEP’s pilot was critically flawed and that the design of the program “did not allow for the desired outcomes to be produced.” It had a flawed chemical selection process and lacked an effective communication strategy.

VCCEP is no longer operational and EPA has no plans to revive, replace, or terminate the program. The program was set up as part of the Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative in 1998 to ensure that there are adequate publicly available data to assess the special impact that industrial chemicals may have on children. EPA is not meeting the goals outlined in this initiative given the failure of this program, along with a lack of any alternative program to fill the void. The report highlights that there is no readily understandable source of chemical exposure information that the general public can access to determine potential risks to children. According to the IG report:

“Children face significant and unique threats from environmental hazards and industrial chemicals. Children encounter their environments differently than adults. Physically, their neurological, immunological, respiratory, digestive, and other physical systems are still developing and can be more easily harmed by exposure to environmental factors. Children eat more, drink more, and breathe more than adults in proportion to their body weight. Children’s exposures to environmental pollutants are often different from those of adults because they engage in different activities, such as playing on floors and in soil and mouthing of their hands, toys, and other objects that can bring them into greater contact with environmental pollutants.”

The IG report recommends that EPA design and implement a process to assess the safety of chemicals to children that (1) identifies the chemicals with highest potential risk to children, (2) applies the Toxic Substances Control Act regulatory authorities as appropriate for data collection, (3) interprets results and disseminates information to the public, and (4) includes outcome measures that assure valid and timely results.

Many environmental groups and scientists, however, believe that we need to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Legislation was introduced back in April to update and modernize TSCA, which will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

Previous government reports document a systemic failure by EPA to adequately regulate chemicals due to a lack of data. According to the agency, since TSCA was passed in 1976, EPA has restricted or banned five and required testing for 200 existing chemicals. Currently there are approximately 84,000 chemicals on the market.

Beyond Pesticides has long 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.

Increasing rates of chronic diseases linked to toxic chemical exposure, including cancer, asthma, and infertility have created an urgency to enact policies to get harmful chemicals off the market. To learn more about how pesticides are linked to serious health concerns, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases database.

The survey asked five questions of respondents: (1) Given a choice, would you prefer to eat organic or non-organic foods? (2) What are your reasons for preferring organic food? (3) What are your reasons for preferring non-organic food? (4) Given a choice, where would you most prefer to get your produce? (5) In a restaurant, would your ordering decision be influenced by the availability of organic options?

Among reasons for buying organic food, avoidance of toxins and support for local farmers roughly tied for most common reasons at 34% and 36% respectively. Second was concern for the environment at 17%, with better taste coming in last at 13%. Interestingly, the percentage of people who identified concern for the environment as their reason for buying organic food increased with age of the respondent. For those under 35 years old, only 12% identified this as a reason, while 23% of those over 65 did so. The trend was reversed, though not as dramatically, for concern about toxic exposure through food. 36% of those under 35 identified this as a reason for buying organic, while only 31% of those over the age of 65 did so. Support for local farmers was highest among those under 35 at 40%.

The poll results also demonstrate the potential for growth in the organic food sector if organically produced foods were to become more easily accessible to consumers. According to the poll, the most common roadblock for consumers who wish to buy organic food but are unable to is cost, with 54% stating that their preference for non-organic food stems from the fact that organic food is too expensive. The second most common reason for not buying organic food was simply that it is not always easy to find. 21% of respondents stated that they do not buy organic food because non-organic food is more readily available. With farmers markets being the most preferable venue for respondents to buy their produce when given the choice — 43%, compared with supermarkets (32%), co-ops (5%), or home gardens (20%) — these numbers suggest that there is ample consumer demand to support increasing the number of farmers markets, achieving greater access to organic food for consumers.

“It stands to reason that, by expanding the network of farmer’s markets, we could see a further groundswell around the support for organic foods,” said Raymond Fabius, M.D., chief medical officer at the healthcare business of Thomson Reuters. He also pointed out that “[t]here appears to be a generational difference in preference for organic foods. The strong, positive sentiment among young people indicates they are more concerned with exposure to toxins and place a higher premium on supporting local markets.”

“This month’s poll gives us some insight into what is going through consumers’ minds when they’re making the choice of what they will feed themselves and their families,” said Scott Hensley, NPR health correspondent and blogger. “We find it especially intriguing that a very small percentage of respondents are choosing organic foods based on taste. This makes organic vs. conventional a really unique case where food decisions are being made consciously by consumers.”

To learn more about the benefits of organic food and farming, visit our organic web page.

Under the federal organic standards authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), produce may not be labeled organic if it is contaminated with pesticide residues, as a result of off-site use, o greater than five percent of the allowable pesticide tolerance levels. Pesticide tolerances are the pesticide residue limits used in the U.S. or by countries imporing to the U.S., which are set by the federal government under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Because we live in a polluted world where pesticide residues are present, often at low levels, nearly everywhere. A very small amount of pesticide contamination can be considered unavoidable and permitted in organic agriculture, based on an inspection and efforts on the farm to reduce contamination.

According to court documents, Oluf and Debra converted their conventional family farm to a certified-organic farm during the mid-1990s. Oluf Johnson posted signs at the farm’s perimeter indicating that it was chemical-free, maintained a buffer zone between his organic fields and his chemical-using neighbors’ farms. He also notified commercial pesticide sprayer Paynseville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company of the transition. He specifically asked the cooperative to take precautions to avoid pesticide drift onto his fields when treating adjacent fields. Despite the Johnsons’ requests, in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, the cooperative sprayed pesticides that drifted and contaminated the Johnson’s organic crop, forcing them to sell at a lower, non-organic price.

The District Court in Minnesota ruled that pesticide drift cannot be trespass, but the Appeals Court disagreed. While no Minnesota courts have previously ruled that drift can be trespass, courts in other states have ruled in favor of organic farmers. The appeals court sent the organic farmers’ lawsuit back to a lower court for further action.

Pesticide drift is not only a problem for organic growers. Pesticide drift has recently been suspected in the tree deaths throughout the East Coast and Mid-West. A 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) finds that pesticide drift from conventional farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents in recent years.

Similar to the threat of pesticide drift faced by organic farmers, is the threat of genetic drift -typically pollen from a field of a genetically engineered (GE) crop being carried by wind or pollinators like honey bees, which are known to travel six miles or further. While organic food is not currently tested for GE drift contamination the way it is spot checked for pesticides, consumers paying a premium for organic food demand purity. Therefore the growing threat of genetic contamination is a serious issue facing organic farmers as well.

While most organochlorine pesticides are banned or restricted, they still continue to cause problems decades after their widespread use has ended. This study reinforces the need for a more precautionary approach to regulating pesticides and industrial chemicals. Once released into the environment, many chemicals can affect health for generations, either through persistence or genetic means.

PAHs are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances like tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are usually found as a mixture containing two or more of these compounds, such as soot. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) says exposure to PAHs usually occurs by breathing air contaminated by wild fires or coal tar, or by eating foods that have been grilled.

According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), neural tube defects are birth defects of the brain and spinal cord. The two most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly. In spina bifida, the fetal spinal column doesn’t close completely during the first month of pregnancy. There is usually nerve damage that causes at least some paralysis of the legs. In anencephaly, much of the brain does not develop. Babies with anencephaly are either stillborn or die shortly after birth. They are one of the most common birth defects, occurring in approximately one in 1,000 live births in the U.S.

While insufficient levels of folic acid, a type of B vitamin, before and during pregnancy are solidly linked to neural tube defects, environmental pollutants have also been suspected. Previous studies have linked PAHs to this type of birth defect, but only relying on questionnaires or blood tests alone. By examining the placenta, the researchers were able to see what was actually reaching the fetus.

The researchers told Reuters that they recruited pregnant women in four rural counties in northern Shanxi province where neural tube defects occur in 14 out of every 1,000 babies, far higher than the national average. Women whose placentas had higher than average levels of the PAH chemicals from burning coal were 4.5 times more likely to have babies with defects, while those with higher than average levels of pesticides were around 3 times more likely to have babies with defects.

The bills would create a more updated scientific evaluation process than any that currently exists in the federal government for reviewing potential endocrine disruptors and would have a strong regulatory mandate to ban or restrict chemicals that are found to present serious health risks. The specific process outlined directs the National Toxicology Program at NIEHS to evaluate each chemical according to (i) the amount of evidence that it is an endocrine disruptor, (ii) the “level of concern” that it may disrupt hormones, and (iii) the pathways of exposure by which it may affect both humans and animals. Every two years the Program would then submit a list of chemicals to Congress and federal agencies detailing the chemicals it has reviewed and what it found regarding the three evaluation criteria. There would then be a regulatory trigger for federal agencies to reduce human exposure for chemicals found to present a “minimal level of concern,” or a ban on chemicals found to be of “highest level of concern.” The bills also contain provisions allowing citizens or local governments to petition NIEHS to evaluate a particular chemical or reverse a finding on a previous chemical regarding whether or not it is an endocrine disruptor.

Common household products including detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides contain chemical ingredients that enter the body, disrupt hormones and cause adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems. Known as endocrine disruptors, these chemicals, which interact with the endocrine system, wreak havoc in humans and wildlife. 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.

The chemicals 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 a range of health problems, including 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. Learn more by visiting our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. Many everyday chemicals that people are exposed to can be endocrine disruptors. Pesticides such as triclosan, atrazine, permethrin and many others have been associated with effects on the body’s hormone system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a list of chemicals that will be screened for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system, along with a draft of the policies and procedures that the agency has proposed to follow for testing. The agency is mandated to test chemicals for their potential to affect the hormone system. However, the agency has yet to finalize its procedures or officially test a chemical for endocrine disruption since tasked to do so in 1996 by an act of Congress. The tests to be used by EPA were first recommended in 1998. Since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated. Current research is based on different assumptions than the toxicological assumptions that first drove the EPA test designs. However, EPA has not updated its protocol. The system created by these two bills would present the opportunity for a comprehensive federal evaluation process so that EPA would not have to rely on its own outdated system.

Earlier this year, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc. (TEDX) released a comprehensive list of potential endocrine disruptors. It is the most complete such list to date and currently approximately 800 distinct chemicals. Each one has one or more verified citations to published, accessible, primary scientific research demonstrating effects on the endocrine system.

S 1361 and HR 2521 have been referred to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Contact your Senators and Representative and urge them to support these bills and the commitments to public health that they represent.

As temperatures have warmed, the amount and variety of pests in regions that do not traditionally have problems are increasing. Researchers at the University of Washington have found that insect species that adapt to warmer climates also will increase their maximum rates of population growth, meaning that global warming will likely lead to increased insect populations. In New England, entomologists have noted an increase in the number of insects, including ticks carrying lyme disease and mosquitos with West Nile Virus and encephalitis. Scientists believe that climate change will increase disease transmission by shifting insects’ geographic range, increasing reproductive and biting rates of the insects, and by shortening the pathogen incubation period.

The whitebark pine is being attacked by the mountain pine beetle. Though the beetles are native to the region where whitebark pine grows, according to National Park Service, higher average winter temperatures in the Rocky Mountains over the last ten years have allowed the pests to proliferate. Hard winters with cold temperatures can kill beetle eggs and larvae wintering under a tree’s outer bark.

Roughly two-thirds of all the whitebark pine trees have been wiped out in the hardest-hit areas, Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced earlier this week that an endangered or threatened species listing was “warranted but precluded.” There is not enough funding or staff time to allow it to be listed as threatened or endangered. According to National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who filed a petition to have the tree listed, FWS’s decision means that the tree’s status will be revisited in 12 months to determine if resources are available to begin generating a species recovery plan which would outline goals and tactics for protecting and recovering whitebark pine. FWS has given the species the highest possible priority, unfortunately given the current economic and political climate, funding for managing essential environmental protections have been mired.

What else can we expect in the coming future because of climate change? In addition to increases in insects and insect-borne diseases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research shows that weeds also flourish from increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Researchers have found “noxious” weeds to be more adaptable to changing conditions than crops, predicting further growth of their productivity and range in urban and rural areas. Other research by the same team shows that common pollen allergens – including the troublesome ragweed pollen – may be getting worse as a result of global climate change as well.

Despite the increase of pests that climate change may bring, using more pesticides is not the answer and will only lead to increased problems with climate change, along with risking our health and the health of our ecosystems. Studies show that conventional landscaping practices actually cause greenhouse gas emissions at a rate up to four times greater than the lawn’s ability to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

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

One way to reduce the impact of chemical-intensive agriculture on climate change is to grow an organic garden. Research suggests that organic techniques can reduce the output of carbon dioxide by 37-50%, reduce costs for the farmer, and increase our planet’s ability to positively absorb and utilize greenhouse gases. The Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST – comparing organic and conventional) shows that organic techniques actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change and restore soil fertility.

For more information on pesticides and climate change, see our Organic Program page and related daily news entires.

The Bath and Body Works antibacterial line, which includes products with names like “Tangelo Orange Twist” and “Sugar Lemon Fizz,” is marketed to teenagers using the slogan “spread love, not germs.” Although not listed on their website, this antibacterial line and others sold by the company contain triclosan as their main germ fighting ingredient. Beyond Pesticides in 2004 began voicing concern about the dangers of triclosan and in 2009 and 2010, submitted petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the removal of triclosan from consumer products. Since then many major companies are quietly and quickly removing triclosan from their products. Colgate-Palmolive, makers of SoftSoap, and GlaxoSmithKline, makers of Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpastes, have reformulated these products to exclude triclosan. Others, including Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, The Body Shop, and Staples, have started phasing it out of products.

“Given triclosan’s widespread environmental contamination and public health risk, companies must be held accountable for the safety of the substances they put into their products, especially when safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Take Action! Tell Bath & Body Works CEO: “Stop using toxic triclosan in your products.”

Triclosan is not only an endocrine disruptor found at increasing concentrations in human urine and breast milk, but also contaminates waterways and possibly even the water we drink. To add insult to injury, triclosan is not even effective against harmful bacteria, including those found in hospitals.

Triclosan’s efficacy has been called into question numerous times, even though triclosan is marketed as a germ-killing substance. A systematic review of research assessing the risks and potential benefits associated with the use of soaps containing triclosan finds that data do not show the effectiveness of triclosan for reducing infectious disease symptoms or bacterial counts on the hands when used at the concentrations commonly found in antibacterial products. There is also evidence that the widespread use of antibacterial compounds, such as triclosan and triclosan-containing products, promote the emergence of bacterial resistant to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers. The American Medical Association has stated, “No data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them”¦it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.”

The scientific literature has extensively linked the uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. As an endocrine disruptor, triclosan has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development, and also shown to alter thyroid function. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also has found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 42% since 2004.

Over 10,000 individuals told EPA this spring, via email and docketed comments supporting Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch’s petition, to ban the dangerous antibacterial triclosan. Additionally, scores of public health and advocacy groups, local state departments of health and the environment, as well as municipal and national wastewater treatment agencies submitted comments requesting an end to triclosan in consumer products. EPA published the petition for public comment in December 2010 and closed the comment period on April 8, 2011.

Tell your family and friends to beware of products that contain triclosan.

Take Action Today: Tell Bath & Body Works CEO: “Stop using toxic triclosan in your products.”

Prior to this field study, many experts believed that volatilization was not a contributing factor to water contamination because atrazine and metolachlor had a low vapor pressure. However, the monitoring of both herbicide volatilization and surface runoff at the field-scale over multiple years had never been done. So the team set up a 10-year study in an experimental field in Beltsville that is equipped with remote sensing gear and other instrumentation for monitoring local meteorology, air contaminates, soil properties, plant characteristics, and groundwater quality. This allowed the team to carry out its studies on a well-characterized site where only the meteorology””and the soil water content””would vary.

Drs. Prueger and Gish observe that when air temperatures increases, soil moisture levels have a tremendous impact on how readily atrazine and metolachlor volatilize into the air, a key factor that had not been included in previous models of pesticide volatilization. When soils are dry and air temperatures increase, there is no increase in herbicide volatilization, but herbicide volatilization increases significantly when temperatures rise and soils are wet. Most of the volatilization from wet soils occurs within the first 3 days after the herbicide is applied.

The largest annual runoff loss for metolachlor never exceeds 2.5%, whereas atrazine runoff never exceeds 3% of that applied. On the other hand, herbicide cumulative volatilization losses after 5 days range from about 5 to 63% of that applied for metolachlor and about 2 to 12% of that applied for atrazine. Additionally, daytime herbicide volatilization losses are significantly greater than nighttime vapor movement.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. The herbicide does not cling to soil particles, but washes into surface water or leaches into groundwater, and then finds its way into municipal drinking water. It has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, birth defects, and cancer. As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine is applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant. Atrazine is a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

Metolachlor is used for grass and broadleaf weed control in corn, soybean, peanuts, sorghum, and cotton, as well as on lawns, golf courses and ornamental plants. It is classified as a possible human carcinogen. Evidence of the bioaccumulation of metolachlor in edible species of fish as well as its adverse effect on the growth and development raise concerns on its effects on human health. Metolachlor is a suspected endocrine disruptor and linked to organ damage.

The bill passed the House on a largely party-line vote of 239-184. 16 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the measure, while 13 Republicans voted against it. The fate of the bill in the U.S. Senate is less certain, as the Democrat-controlled chamber will be much less likely to pass such sweeping changes to environmental safeguards. After passage of the bill in the House, the White House issued a strongly worded statement threatening a veto if the bill made it to President Obama’s desk.

This action falls on the heels of another bill weakening the CWA, H.R. 872, already passed by the House earlier this year and recently voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The so-called Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 would revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways. Several Democratic Senators have voiced strong opposition to the bill, suggesting the possibility of a filibuster. In response, Republican lawmakers have been attempting to amend the bill to an environmental appropriations act that is currently working its way through the Senate. Click here to send a message to your Senators urging them to stand with you in opposition to this dangerous bill.

Enforcement of national standards for clean water is based on a partnership of federal and state agencies. CWA delegates enforcement of federal clean water standards to state agencies by default, once EPA signs off. However, it gives authority to EPA to step in if the agency determines that a state’s actions do not measure up to the standards outlined in the act. H.R. 2018 would strip EPA of that oversight role and would require the agency to evaluate the economic impact of any enforcement actions that it takes. In addition to restricting the ability of EPA to issue new standards on water contaminants, provisions of the bill would prevent EPA from withdrawing approval of a state pollution permitting program or from objecting to any individual state-issued permit which EPA suspects is in violation of water quality standards.

Despite the suggestion of cooperation in the bill’s title, many agree that, if enacted, it would actually decrease the amount of give and take between state and federal agencies as it significantly limits the input that EPA can have in the process. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service stated in a memo that, “It is highly unusual for Congress to advance legislation that would broadly alter the federal-state partnership in order to address dissatisfaction with specific actions by EPA or another agency.”

The bill has been interpreted by some as a response to two recent instances in which EPA stepped in to enforce federal standards. The first was in 2005 and involved regulating agricultural runoff in Florida. In the second more recent instance EPA revoked a previously approved permit for water discharge from a planned coal mine in West Virginia. The speculation is fueled by the fact that the original sponsors of the bill are U.S. Representative John Mica (R) of Florida and U.S. Representative Nick Rahall (D) of West Virginia. Despite EPA’s efforts to ensure that their constituents have access to clean water for drinking and recreation, the two Representatives have sought to limit the agency’s powers in an attempt to rein in a perceived “regulatory nightmare.”

The bill would have implications reaching far beyond the two specific instances at issue. Clean water standards are set for a range of contaminants, including agricultural and pesticide discharge or runoff. As evidenced by the developments around H.R. 872, many believe regulation of pesticides around waterways to be burdensome and unnecessary despite widespread evidence that water contaminated with pesticides poses serious risks to public health and upsets fragile ecosystems, damaging natural resources. Critics of the bill also point to the fact that it makes little sense for states to be the only regulators ensuring clean water since most waterways cross state lines and watersheds cover large geographical areas encompassing many states. David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council points out that the Clean Water Act was adopted for a reason:

“On clean water, history has already shown what happens when states are left to their own resources. They often engage in a ”˜race to the bottom,’ granting concessions to businesses whatever the impact on health and water quality, especially if the consequences will be most felt downstream in other jurisdictions. This was life before the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 and few would see that as ”˜the good old days.’ Optimism is sometimes defined as the triumph of hope over experience. For this Congress, we need a word for the triumph of failure over experience.”

EPA was recently cited by Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for its lax regulations regarding drinking water contaminants. Passage of H.R. 2018 would make it significantly more difficult for EPA to take action by regulating activities that cause these contaminants to enter waterways and end up in public drinking water supplies.

Although the bill’s supporters claim it would create jobs and help the economy, some observers are calling that claim into question. Additionally, an economic analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office found that enacting the bill would result in no significant reduction in federal spending.

As wild areas providing natural habitat to a range of wildlife and beneficial insects are destroyed and converted to conventional crop production, pest populations in the area will be robbed of their natural predators. This leads to pest population booms and to a corresponding increase in pesticides in an attempt to control them. Monocultural crop production —growing a single crop on hundreds and often thousands of acres— presents a uniquely perfect breeding ground for pests as it provides acres upon acres of food and habitat with no natural checks or barriers.

The study lays out the problems in this way: “The link between landscape simplification, pest pressure, and insecticide use is expected on the basis of two lines of logic. First, conversion of diverse natural plant assemblages to monocultures, at both patch and landscape scales, is known to reduce the abundance and diversity of natural enemies of crop pests, which has been associated with reductions in natural pest-control services. Second, increases in the size, density, and connectivity of host crop patches are expected to facilitate movement and establishment of crop pests, leading to higher pest pressure regardless of natural enemy activity.”

To obtain its results, the research team evaluated agricultural activity in 562 counties across seven states in the Midwestern U.S. —Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. The researchers examined data showing rates of insecticide application, the percentage of land area in a county that is crop land compared to natural area, and what crops were grown on the cropland. The team uses the term “landscape simplification” as a way of describing conversion of natural areas with diverse populations of plants and animals to open areas of land where only a one or a small handful of plant species are intensively cultivated.

The findings show that, as land is cleared for crop production, insecticide use goes up. This is not surprising in itself, since insecticides would be unlikely to be used in great amounts in natural areas. However, the team noted that, since farmers are likely to want to minimize insecticide use owing to the financial costs, the fact that they are applying it in such large numbers likely betrays a disproportionately large insect population. This suspicion was verified by collecting data from aphid monitoring networks. As the team puts it, “We also found a positive relationship between aphid abundance and proportion cropland,” meaning the more farmland there was, the more aphids there were, and the more insecticide was being used to control them.

The team also examined the financial costs that farmers incur as a result of the increased pest pressure, in the form of insecticide costs as well as crop losses due to the pests. The results show that increased pest pressure due to landscape simplification cost farmers $48 per hectare, resulting in a total increase in the cost of farming of about $122,000 in the average Midwestern county, or $69 million across the region.

The paper also cites the indirect costs that result from the increased rates of pesticide application. These costs are more often borne by society at large rather than the producer and include “(i) health problems due to direct human exposure [to pesticides] or air and water pollution, (ii) development of insecticide resistance by crop pests, and (iii) mortality of beneficial organisms that perform services across agricultural landscapes.”

Biodiversity —the range of wildlife in an ecosystem and the unique roles fulfilled by each individual species— is an often neglected factor in food production. However, as this study shows, it is actually an integral factor in ensuring efficient and productive agricultural systems. Ignoring the important roles that it plays will lead only to more headaches and higher costs for farmers.

Organic agriculture is the embodiment of a food production system that nurtures biodiversity and encourages diverse cropping systems and integrated management of pests. Organic systems have been proven effective at reducing pests through harnessing the power of ecosystem services such as growing a diversity of crops and maintaining wild areas on the farm to support populations of natural pest predators, pollinators, and other beneficial insects. For more information visit our page on organic food and farming.

Essentially, the proposed Pesticides General Permit grants blanket approval to all pesticide applicators operating near waterways by issuing a single permit which would apply to all such potential applications, and largely removes the opportunity for environmental oversight of specific applications. The findings in this Biological Opinion are particularly relevant in light of current efforts by Congress to strip protections from the Clean Water Act (CWA) by prohibiting discharge permits for pesticides in waterways.

Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies have an obligation to insure, in consultation with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that has been designated for such species.

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

In order to insure that the actions authorized by the general permit are not likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species, NMFS outlines a proposed RPA to limit pesticide applications in waterways. This alternative would restrict pesticides in areas known to be home to threatened and endangered species and increases monitoring and reporting of applications.

EPA developed the Pesticide General Permit for point source discharges from the application of pesticides to U.S. waters in response to a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under the Federal Insecticide, Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and CWA, EPA must require such permits as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Prior to this case, EPA had deemed it unnecessary to require permits for pesticide applications near waterways.

The purpose of the NPDES permits is to reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment through requiring polluters to obtain permits. This allows for oversight of the proposed discharge, including evaluation of the potential risks it might present to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Because the discharges are weighed against standards that don’t protect all species, are implemented with limited monitoring, and don’t consider need, even approved permits often present the potential for damage to ecosystems in affected areas. However, NPDES permits do allow for local citizen input through allowing the public to comment on the proposed pesticide application in the context of the CWA goal of “restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation’s waters,” and thus provide the opportunity for increased oversight and accountability in a goal-oriented framework.

FIFRA, unlike the CWA, does not fully regulate or monitor water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in the local context. When a pesticide is registered under FIFRA, the dangers of heightened toxicity due to combinations of chemicals and chemical drift are not fully considered. EPA, in implementing FIFRA, uses controversial and, many studies say, inadequate exposure and essentially assumptions in its risk assessment and does not take least-toxic alternatives into account. CWA, in contrast, uses a health-based standard, setting maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requiring permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams. In deciding the case, the court ruled that pesticides, when entering waterways, constitute pollutants, and as such, are subject to the permitting requirements of the CWA.

EPA has been in the process of developing the permit requirements in accordance with the 2009 court ruling since June 2010. The current proposal has not significantly changed from the 2010 draft version. The Proposed General Permit covers operators who apply pesticides that result in discharges from the following use patterns: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. The permit would not cover 1) non-target spray drift, or 2) discharges of pesticides to waterbodies that are impaired for that pesticide. Agricultural runoff and irrigation return flows are exempt from permitting under CWA and, thus, do not require CWA permits. The permit also does not cover, nor is permit coverage required, for pesticide applications that do not result in a point source discharge to waters of the U.S. such as terrestrial applications for the purpose of controlling pests on agricultural crops, forest floors, or range lands. To learn more about Beyond Pesticides’ concerns regarding the Pesticide General Permit, read our comments to EPA on the 2010 draft.

For decades our nation’s waterways have been polluted with hazardous pesticides and their degradates impacting aquatic populations of animals and plants, and decrease surface and drinking water quality. Results from the U.S. Geological Survey’s (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 protect U.S. waterways from indiscriminate pesticide contamination. The permit did not pose undue burden to farmers, foresters and ranchers as the permits are only required for a narrow range of uses, and does not affect terrestrial agricultural spraying.

TAKE ACTION:

EPA is seeking public comment on the “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative” as suggested by NMFA. The agency is particularly interested in the appropriateness of the proposed RPA for protecting jeopardized species and their critical habitat, issues that would be associated with implementing the RPA, and on possible alternatives to the RPA that would also avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the likely existence of threatened or endangered species or the destruction of adverse modification of critical habitat.

Center for Biological Diversity has an action alert with a form letter that can be sent, or comments may be submitted through regulations.gov, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257, or by email to [email protected]. Comments must be received by July 25, 2011.

The research team, a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ad Arizona State University, set out to determine whether in utero exposure to chlordane or permethrin is associated with changes in levels of cytokines at birth. A previous study by the team showed that exposure to these two pesticide compounds was ubiquitous among newborns. In the current study, researchers measured serum levels of nine cytokines and recorded birth weight, length, head circumference, and gestational age. They then collected umbilical cord serum from 300 newborns at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, and measured concentrations of cis- and trans-permethrin, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) at the CDC.

Permethrin, belongs to the chemical class of synthetic pyrethroid pesticices which are chemically formulated versions of the natural-based pesticide pyrethrum, made from extracts from plants in the chrysanthemum family. Due in part to the prevalent myth that it is “natural,” synthetic pyrethroids are a widely used class of insecticides. Unfortunately, they have not been widely evaluated for developmental toxicity, despite the fact that they are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore more potent to insects and pose elevated risks to humans. Permethrinit is a potential neurdevelopmental toxicant, a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, and exposure can cause immunotoxicity, and reproductive effects.

Furthermore, permethrin is often combined with piperonyl butoxide (PBO), also knwon as a synergist, to increase its toxicity. PBO is a highly toxic substance that causes a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system. A study published earlier this year found that children with high exposure to pyrethroid insecticides and PBO have an increased chance of learning problems.

Chlordane, the other pesticide implicated in this body of research, is an organochlorine chemical classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen and is also associated with adverse neurological and gastrointestinal effects. Studies also report an association between chlordane exposure and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma. Chlordane was registered in the U.S. in 1948 and was used as a pesticide on agricultural crops and gardens until 1978 when its registered uses on food crops and other above ground uses were cancelled. In 1988, chlordane’s termicide use and all other uses were cancelled.

Though chlordane has been cancelled for a while, this bioaccumulative chemical still persists in the environment. Current research measuring pesticide residues in the home found high levels for chlordane and permethrin, suggesting that these compounds are essentially “ubiquitous in our living areas and that popular use, both past and present, has a major influence on their occurrence in homes.” Last year, researchers found detectable levels of common, nonpersistant pesticides in umbilical cord blood. These persistent residues continue to expose people, especially vulnerable children, to the health risks associated with these chemicals.

One of the researchers involved in the recent studies, Dana Boyd Barr, PhD, recently spoke at Beyond Pesticides 29th Annual National Pesticide Forum. A video of her presentation at the forum is available on our youtube channel.

USDA’s authority to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stems from provisions of the Plant Protection Act (relevant regulations can be found at 7 CFR 340) that are designed to ensure that GMOs do not present the potential for new “plant pests.” As the New York Times explains, “Since companies have created most genetically modified crops, like herbicide-resistant corn and soybean, using either genes or tools derived from microbes, USDA has long extended its powers to nearly every biotech plant developed in the country.” However, the GE bluegrass was developed using genetic material from other plants, such as corn and rice, and contains no microbes. Accordingly, APHIS stated that, “The GE bluegrass variety is not within the Agency’s regulatory authority because it does not contain plant pest sequences and no plant pest was used to create the GE Kentucky bluegrass.”

This finding is distinct from previous findings of “deregulated status” for other GE crops, such as GE alfalfa. In those cases, APHIS had used its authority to evaluate any potential plant pest risk posed by the new crop and found that the risk was minimal, meaning that the crop did not need to be regulated (though the agency is currently being challenged in court over the integrity of its evaluation process). For the GE bluegrass, no review was conducted, since APHIS does not believe it has the authority.

Aside from the likely increase in residential herbicide applications as a result of home plantings, allowance of the GE bluegrass presents the potential for increased difficulties for organic farmers and ranchers. Because of the popularity of the grass in yards, pastures, and prairies, its use is expected to be quite widespread. This will make conversion of new land to organic food production more difficult as, according to APHIS’s fact sheet on the decision, “Once established, GE Kentucky bluegrass may prevent transition to organic status unless eradicated from the acreage to be transitioned.” Additional concerns stem partly from the fact that a separate variety of GE grass, which USDA is still considering, escaped from a Scotts test plot in Oregon in 2007. The company was fined $500,000 as a result.

In a letter accompanying the GE bluegrass decision, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack urged the Scotts Company to “work closely with a broad range of stakeholders” to “develop appropriate and effective stewardship measures to minimize commingling and gene flow between GE and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass,” reflecting the Secretary’s continuing belief and insistence on coexistence between GE, non-GE, and organic farmers.

Responding to questions about whether this decision sets a precedent for future unregulated approval of GMOs, USDA indicates that the decision does not represent a shift in policy and that it will make decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, the agency added that, “If a GE organism is not a plant pest, is not made using plant pests, and APHIS has no reason to believe that it is a plant pest, then the GE organism would not fall under APHIS regulatory authority.”

Glyphosate is a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. One of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells. It is also of particular concern due to its toxicity to aquatic species as well as instances of serious human health effects from acute exposure.

Herbicide applications to control weeds on residential lawns and playing fields are dangerous and unnecessary. A healthy lawn will be free of pests and will create a safe area for outdoor recreation. For more information see our fact sheet on why children and pesticides don’t mix as well our guide on how to “Read Your Weeds” to create a healthy lawn. More resources can be found on our Lawns and Landscapes page.

Beyond Pesticides believes that whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of an 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 ecologically-based management systems.

For more news and information, see Beyond Pesticides’ genetic engineering page.

This will have immediate implications for consumers, according to Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Consumers International’s lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. He stated: “We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring. This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labeled – so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction.”

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is comprised of over 100 agencies that monitor food safety around the world. It was created in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.

According to the Non GMO Project, Codex guidance on the topic of labeling GMO food began in 1991 and was met with a tremendous amount of resistance from the US. In 1995, the Codex executive committee stated that, “The claimed right to know was ill-defined and variable and in this respect could not be used by codex as the primary basis of decision making on appropriate labeling.”

Currently, there are no regulations requiring GM foods to be labeled as such and the best way for consumers to avoid GM foods is to choose organic products. Beyond Pesticides has long pushed for stronger regulations reflecting a precautionary approach toward GM food technologies. Several challenges are currently being litigated against federal regulators regarding lax regulatory review of GM products and their potential for contamination of the natural environment as well as traditionally-bred cultivated species.

Though genetic engineering is often touted by chemical manufacturers as a way to reduce pesticide usage and increase disease resistance, so far it has been shown to increase pesticide usage, while disease resistant varieties are still largely in the experimental stages. Most GM crops currently on the market are genetically modified to be resistant to pests and pesticides through the incorporation of genes into food crops from a natural bacterium insecticide (Bt) or the development of herbicide-resistant crops. Thus, there are serious public health and pest resistance problems associated with GM food.

Dinotefuran is already approved by EPA for use on other crops, such as grapes, cotton, and some vegetables. The emergency approval relates to the pesticide’s use on orchard crops such as apples, pears, peaches, and nectarines, for which it has not previously been allowed. Growers of those crops will now be able to apply dinotefuran from the ground twice per season. The agency will allow a total of 29,000 orchard acres to be treated, which does not include applications to the previously approved crops.

Under a controversial stipulation known as a Section 18 exemption in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the federal law governing pesticides, EPA can grant temporary approval for the unregistered use of a pesticide if it determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” In this case, the agency apparently felt that the pest was a sufficient enough risk to agriculture in the seven states that it merited the emergency approval. The Section 18 emergency exemption loophole has been used in the past to skirt pesticide regulations meant to ensure health and safety and has resulted in the widespread application of unreviewed, and often unnecessary, hazardous substances.

Neonicotinoids, including dinotefuran, are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which pollinators such as bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides began to take over the seed treatment market. Clothianidin and imidacloprid are two of the most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in honey bee colony collapse disorder.

The brown marmorated stink bug, not to be confused with other kinds of common stink bugs, is a non-native species thought to have been accidentally introduced to North America from Asia in the 1990s. The pests were first identified in Allentown, PA and have since spread rapidly throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Because they are not native to this continent, they have no natural predators or ecological checks on population here, allowing their numbers to skyrocket.

Although they can be found in the home, marmorated stink bugs are primarily a cause for concern among farmers, who have seen the pests decimate crops in recent years. The bugs land on fruit and inject a straw-like device to suck out the juice or simply feed on the skin or flesh of the fruit. As a result of the bugs’ feeding, the fruits end up with holes, scars, or necrotic, rotted spots, leading to farmers being unable to sell the damaged produce. It is estimated that the pest caused $37 million of damage for apple growers in the state of Virginia last year. Previous attempts at controlling the pests through chemical means have proven almost entirely ineffective. It is unclear whether dinotefuran will have a markedly different result or not.

Despite urging from states and farmers in the mid-Atlantic region to approve the pesticide, recent research has increasingly shown that there are alternatives to temporary solutions like chemical controls. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been conducting research on controlling brown marmorated stink bugs by introducing a natural predator from its native Asia. Tiny trissolcus wasps lay their eggs only in eggs of the brown marmorated stink bug. When the wasp eggs hatch, they feed on the stink bug eggs as they grow and will eventually emerge from the shell in place of the stink bug.

Additionally research has shown that, for row crops, floating row covers can be an effective prevention measure against the bugs. There is also ongoing research on the effectiveness of pheromones and bait traps to combat them. Michigan State University has been conducting research on organic management options for brown marmorated stink bugs. Their findings suggest that products such as kaolin clay can effectively prevent the insects from feeding on fruit.

In announcing the Section 18 exemption for dinotefuran, EPA also stated that it had reviewed and approved a new product for stink bug control containing ingredients which have been approved for organic farmers. Specifically, the control measures contain azadirachtin, or neem oil, and pyrethrins, both natural products and thus, allowable for use under USDA National Organic Standards.

No pesticide should ever be necessary for home control of stink bugs. They do not carry disease and do not bite or sting. You will find them indoors most often in cooler times of the year as they seek shelter from cold temperatures. The Secretary of Agriculture for the state of Maryland, Buddy Hance, has strongly cautioned against the use of any chemicals in indoor stink bug control: “Spraying stink bugs with chemicals won’t eliminate them, and the potential damage to human health is far greater than anything stink bugs can do to you.” The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) has also stated, “We do not recommend insecticides for controlling brown marmorated stink bugs because:

ӢMost are ineffective
ӢSome are broad-spectrum and will kill beneficial insects like honeybees and predators that eat pest insects.
ӢUse of broad-spectrum insecticides can lead to secondary pest outbreaks such as spider mites.
”¢They pose human and environmental health risks.”

If you do come across a stink bug in your home, MDA recommends the following measures:

ӢSeal up all external holes and cracks where stink bugs may enter;
ӢClose your window shades at night since stink bugs (and other insects) are attracted to light.
ӢPhysically trap and kill the stinks bugs with insecticidal soap [or simply a cup of soapy water].
ӢOnce the insect is indoors, residents can vacuum them up and place in an outdoor trash receptacle. It should be noted that if many of them are squashed or pulled into a vacuum cleaner, their odor can be quite strong.

The issue began for Nicole Baumann, one of the concerned parents who started the petition, when she heard other parents describe an incident when TruGreen sprayed the herbicide 2,4-D on school grounds while kids were playing soccer and parents were standing outside waiting to pick up their children. School officials say they do not know what happened that day; however Trena Deane, executive director of facilities management for Denver Public Schools (DPS) told Education News Colorado that they have no reason to believe TruGreen was misapplying them, and that the chemicals are typically not toxic unless they are used inappropriately.

“These kids are rolling around in the grass,” Ms. Baumann told Change.org. “Our kids’ immune systems are not really developed yet. They’re susceptible. Why would we knowingly apply this where our kids are playing in the grass when we know there are other options out there that are safe?”

School is a place where children need a healthy body and a clear head in order to learn. Numerous scientific studies find that pesticides typically used in schools are linked to chronic health effects such as cancer, asthma, neurological and immune system diseases, reproductive problems, and developmental and learning disabilities. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in schools has proven to be an effective and economical method of pest management that can prevent pest problems and eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides in school buildings and on school grounds.

2,4-D has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, kidney and liver damage, is neurotoxic and toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2,4-D than those who don’t; dogs whose owners use 2,4-D on their lawns are more likely to develop canine malignant lymphoma than those whose owners do not. Despite the known health and environmental effects of 2,4-D, it is the top selling herbicide for non-agricultural use, such as lawns, in the United States. It is also the fifth most commonly used herbicide in the agricultural sector and total annual usage in the U.S. tops 40 million pounds.

Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable to pesticides because of their rapid development and behavior patterns. Adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions. Pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system and have been shown to cause or exacerbate asthma symptoms. Studies show that children living in households where pesticides are used suffer elevated rates of leukemia, brain cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. Because most of the symptoms of pesticide exposure, from respiratory distress to difficulty in concentration, are common in school children and may also have other causes, pesticide-related illnesses often go unrecognized and unreported.

Many communities across the country have taken a stand against the use of toxic pesticides on their lawns and landscapes. Last year, the state of New York passed the Child Safe Playing Fields Act (A 7937-C) prohibiting the use of toxic pesticides on school and daycare center playgrounds, turf, athletic and playing fields. Recently, a bill to prohibit the use of most lawn pesticides on public and private playgrounds, recreation fields and daycare centers in New Jersey, The Child Safe Playing Field Act has passed the Senate Budget Committee and is awaiting posting in the Senate. This bill will support the over 30 communities in New Jersey that have made their parks pesticide-free zones and have adopted an IPM program for managing town property by passing a resolution adopting a pesticide reduction policy. Connecticut and Illinois have also moved forward to reduce children’s exposures to lawn pesticides.

“This is not an easy task for an overnight fix,” said Ms. Bauman to EdNews. “But a lot of places have eliminated pesticide use. We’d like to offer our support in making this happen.”

Take Action (Locally-Denver Region): Read and Sign the Petition by the Edison Elementary Green Team to stop the use of pesticides with harmful chemicals at Denver Public Schools.

The cosmetic and personal care product industry is self-regulated. But the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 will, according to U.S. Representative Ed Markey, a lead sponsor on the bill, “close a gaping hole in the federal law that allows potentially toxic chemicals to remain in the cosmetics products consumers use every day. Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin offered the “Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011,” which would require companies to put all of a product’s ingredients on its label. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct random annual tests of products for harmful substances and would force FDA to produce a list of ingredients that are prohibited from being used in cosmetics. It would also mandate that cosmetics companies report any cases of adverse health effects associated with a product.

The key points in the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011:
Ӣ Phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm;
Ӣ Creation of a health-based, risk assessment, safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations;
Ӣ Elimination of labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company websites, including salon products and the constituent ingredients of fragrance;
Ӣ Worker access to information about unsafe chemicals in personal care products;
Ӣ Required data-sharing to avoid duplicate testing and encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing; and
Ӣ Adequate funding to the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors so it has the resources it needs to provide effective oversight of the cosmetics industry.

While Beyond Pesticides generally supports legislation that removes hazardous chemicals from the market like the Safe Cosmetics Act, the organization, in addition, advances public policies that require alternatives assessments that remove synthetic chemicals from the market. Alternatives assessments typically show that many of the chemicals that meet risks assessment standards are allowed in commerce with “acceptable” hazards or uncertainties related to chemical interactions, depsite the availability of less toxic or green technologies.

The cosmetics industry uses approximately 12,500 unique chemicals in cosmetic products. The majority of those chemicals have never been tested for adverse health effects.

“The growing number of reports of serious health problems arising from the use of dangerous chemicals in personal care products show a need to update our laws and protect men, women, and children from harmful exposure,” Rep. Schakowsky said in a statement. “Currently, manufacturers are not required to disclose all their ingredients on labels and the FDA has no power to supervise the use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.”

The bill has been updated since 2010 to make it more manageable for smaller companies to comply with its regulations which is extremely important considering many small businesses are the ones spearheading the push for safer cosmetics in their products. The bill will have its first hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where it’s three lead sponsors, Representative Ed Markey, Representative Jan Schakowsky, and Representative Tammy Baldwin, are committee members.

Having full ingredient disclosure on consumer products have received push back from industry, which claims revealing such information would be a breach of confidential business information. Recent attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose “inert” ingredient on pesticide products have stalled due to industry pressure. Ingredients like triclosan, the controversial antibacterial pesticides found in many consumer products from toothpastes to toys is under scrutiny due to its association with thyroid impacts and other endocrine disrupting effects. Beyond Pesticides and others have petitioned both FDA and EPA to remove this harmful chemical form cosmetics and other consumer products. For more on triclosan in your favorite products, visit the Triclosan Program page. Sign the pledge today to go triclosan-free.

Support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 here.