The active ingredient in Garlon 3A, a Dow Chemical product, is triclopyr. It is a systemic herbicide which means that the poison spreads from the ends of the vine back toward the root. As a broadleaf weed killer, triclopyr is frequently used along rights-of-way and on industrial sites. In laboratory tests, triclopyr causes a significant increase in the incidents of breast cancer and genetic damage in rat embryos, and studies also link the pesticide to kidney and reproductive problems. The brush with danger from the herbicide means that local residents won’t be eating or making jelly from the amber grapes of the vine.

Mr. Wilson said he was never contacted by representatives of Dominion Power, who expressed their apologies after hearing about the vine. Senior vice president Dan Oberlies said the worker responsible for the mistake was retrained in spraying procedures and in getting permission from property owners. Dominion Power also called Lloyd Hipkins, a Virginia Tech weed specialist to offer his prognosis, which after looking at vine, was to water, prune, and fertilize.

Mr. Wilson and his family have been living on the island for 11 generations and they have cared for the vine since 1957. Mr. Wilson became increasingly concerned as he found himself cutting back the dead portions day after day, so he called the North Carolina State Department of Agriculture, who sent North Carolina’s finest viticulture arborist to help out with the vine. Together, they administered rapid-release nitrogen fertilizers, watered the vine every few days, and thinned the canopy to let the sun in to stimulate new growth away from the damaged area.

The Mother Vine has become a symbol for North Carolina, where the official state toast praises a land “where the scuppernong perfumes the breeze at night.” Thousands of cuttings from the vine have helped sustain North Carolina’s growing wine industry. The vine’s gnarly trunk measures two feet thick, and its green canopy, supported by posts and arbors extends 32 feet wide and 120 feet long. It was first spotted by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe in 1584 their American expedition, sponsored by Sir Walter Raleigh. The vine was probably planted by Croatian Indians, but almost definitely helped sustain the early settlers of the Lost Colony. Though the settlers on Roanoke Island perished, this Mother Vine has survived storms, bugs, mildew, and suburbanization to provide scuppernong grapes and cuttings to local residents and visitors alike for over 400 years.

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. In North Carolina, utility companies reached a private agreement with landowners regarding management of their 75,000 miles of rights-of-way. The final agreement requires utilities to include inserts about their herbicide use in customer bills with information on chemical names and application methods. State residents are also given the right to refuse herbicide use on their property and people can post their property with no spraying signs provided by the utilities.

To learn more about how states can and have handled rights-of-way management, read Beyond Pesticides article “The Right Way To Vegetation Management.”

Source: LA Times

Ogunquit is among the growing number of Maine towns that are restricting the use of lawn chemicals from municipal property because of environmental and public health concerns. About two dozen other communities have adopted some form of pesticide limits, including Brunswick, Castine and Harpswell. There are common traits among the towns that are limiting pesticides. They tend to have affluent residents that do more lawn care applications employing lawn care companies. Mike Horn, chair of Ogunquit’s Conservation Commission, helped to guide the pesticide restriction to passage at last year’s town meeting. Mr. Horn is worried about lawn chemicals such as phoshorous and nitrogen running downhill during rain. “What is going to happen if this level of pesticides just continues to rise and people’s lawns are just running, you’re just putting a big nail in Mother’s nature’s foot,” said Mr. Horn. He added that by protecting the environment, the town is also protecting its economy.

“If the pollution gets so bad then we close the beach up, there goes our revenue, there goes our reputation, everything we built, and consequently, there goes our source of revenue, there goes everything,” said Mr. Horn. “We don’t have any commercial diversity here outside of tourism –that’s not a great thing to say but that’s where we’re at, right?”

However, while some local communities have made the step to restrict pesticides, many Maine property owners appear comfortable using lawn care chemicals. Maine residents spread more than 6.2 million pounds of pesticides and fertilizers in 2007, the most recent year of data from the board of pesticide control. That is up from 800,000 pounds in 1995.

Paul Tukey, founder of safelawns.org, has been spreading the message to various towns around Maine, by showing his documentary film “A Chemical Reaction,” which chronicles Canadian’s fight with the pesticide industry. City councilor Rosemarie DeAngelis, after viewing the film, said she was interested in a citywide ban on pesticides, but recognizing the challenges of that, she wanted to reduce the use of pesticides on city property. Ms. DeAngelis also said she would like to start a grassroots campaign to get residents to voluntarily stop using pesticides on their lawns.

The adoption of pesticide-free and pesticide reduction policies have been gaining momentum across the country. Other examples include: New York State Parks; Chicago City Parks; 29 communities and townships in New Jersey; at least 17 cities in the Northwest covering more than 50 parks; and, numerous communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as new policies and programs are continually being implemented by local and state government entities as well as schools and homeowner associations.

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management, considering that of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (RoundUp) have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomena.

The authors believe that standard risk assessment calculations underestimate toxicity because they do not accurately account for the interplay of time and level of exposure. According the study:

The essence of the Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation states that the total dose required to produce the same effect decreases with decreasing exposure levels, even though the exposure times required to produce the same effect increase with decreasing exposure levels. Druckrey and Küpfmüller inferred that if both receptor binding and the effect are irreversible, exposure time would reinforce the effect. The Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation explains why toxicity may occur after prolonged exposure to very low toxicant levels. . .Traditional approaches that consider toxic effects at fixed exposure times are unable to allow extrapolation from measured endpoints to effects that may occur at other times of exposure.

The Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation was developed in the 1960’s to estimate cancer risks, but the study authors say the principle is relevant to environmental toxicology as well. They say that similar dose—response characteristics have recently been established for the toxicity of the neonicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid to arthropods that confirm the theorem of Druckrey and Küpfmüller.

“The risks of the neonicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid to arthropods in water and soil may be seriously underestimated,” said Henk Tennekes, PhD, lead author of the study. “The acceptable limits are based mainly on short-term tests. If long-term studies were to be carried out, far lower concentrations may turn out to be hazardous. This explains why minute quantities of imidacloprid may induce bee decline in the long run.” Because of their high persistence, significant quantities of neonicotinoids may remain in the soil for several years. Consequently, untreated plants growing on soil previously exposed to imidacloprid may take up the substance via their roots and become hazardous for bees.

Neonicotinoids are a class of chemicals that target nerve cells in a similar way as nicotine, acting as neurotoxins to insects. One of the most commonly used neonicotinoid is the insecticide imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer Crop Science and used in agriculture to control aphids, beetles, and other sucking insects. The use of imidacloprid was banned in France after it was suspected to be responsible for the decline of honeybee populations in the late 1990s.

Imidacloprid has been linked to neural effects in honeybees, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior – similar behaviors that are being displayed by bees suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). In CCD, bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. Researchers say the bees are presumably dying in the fields, perhaps becoming exhausted or simply disoriented and eventually falling victim to the cold.

Research is ongoing as to the cause of the CCD phenomenon, but pesticides, especially neonictinoids, such as imidacloprid, have been implicated. CCD can be especially devastating since honeybees are essential pollinators of crops that constitute over one third of the U.S. food supply or $15 billion worth of food. For more information on pollinators and CCD, read our factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action.

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

Using conservative estimates researchers consider direct costs such as medical treatment, as well as less direct costs such as parent wage losses. The study also notes the substantial emotional costs to families dealing with these potentially life threatening or debilitating conditions which cannot be quantified. Lead poisoning is found to be the most costly of the diseases studied, costing on average $4.85 billion annually, followed by childhood asthma, pediatric cancer, and neurodevelopmental disorders. These four disorders alone cost the state of Michigan 1.5% of its Gross Domestic Product each year; however, the number would be much higher if all environmentally related diseases had been included.

“While the report offers only an estimation of Michigan’s annual costs of diseases due to environmental exposures, it shows the magnitude of how much these toxicants cost every year,” says lead author of the report, Aviva Glaser. The important thing to take away from the report, Ms. Glaser says, is that the number represents costs for diseases that are preventable. “By removing toxic exposures in our community, we not only improve children’s health, but we can also improve Michigan’s economic health.”

This recent study is part of a growing body of literature demonstrating the need to reduce pollution from pesticides and other toxic chemicals, not only for the sake of our health, but for the economy as well. The use of pesticides in the U.S. creates large negative externalities. An externality is a spillover effect of economic activity when a third party experiences a consequence of a transaction; the consequence is not reflected in the cost. Pollution is an externality where the negative effects are felt by society as a whole. The costs of these negative externalities are much more difficult to study than revenues and production costs.

A 2005 study by Dr. David Pimentel, professor emeritus of entomology at Cornell University, found the economic cost of U.S. pesticide usage on society as a whole to be $10 billion annually. The public health costs are estimated to be $1.1 billion annually. These costs include acute poisonings, cancer, neurological, respiratory, and reproductive effects.

Industries have argued that with the current state of the economy, it is too costly to institute tighter environmental controls, and doing so would result in additional job loss. When examining the larger picture, however, the economic benefits of greater environmental protection greatly outweigh the costs. In an analysis in a 1995 issue of Pesticides and You, researchers show that a cleaner environment actually correlates with job growth and a healthy economy. A cleaner environment makes a state more attractive to new businesses, in addition environmental practices such as waste reduction often increase efficiency making industry more competitive. A cleaner environment also results in a healthier work force meaning increased productivity and fewer sick days. Stricter environmental regulations also create more jobs, as additional workers must be hired to implement new regulations, and agencies must hire more people to enforce those regulations.

The Indiana School Board Association developed a set of voluntary pesticide guidelines in 2001, but while rates of adoption increased, the Indiana state chemist’s office found that some schools were not implementing those policies, or had not adopted pesticide guidelines.

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

Dave Scott, pesticide administrator for the Indiana state chemist’s office told the Associated Press that if approved, these rules could be in place by early 2011. After a year of compliance inspections and education, those districts in violation of the rules would face penalties up to $1,000 for repeated offenses.

Julie Slavens, staff attorney of the Indiana School Boards Association commented, “It’s not an unduly burdensome mandate” and said that the new rules aren’t expected to create new costs for schools. If anything, a reduction in pesticide use could result in lower costs, as it did for the Pike Township School district, which adopted a least-toxic approach in 2008.

Paul Rivas, the district’s director of facilities, trained custodians, teachers and staff in ways to keep the district’s nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and high school clean in order to avoid attracting pests. The shelving in kitchen pantries are raised at least eight inches off the floor so workers can sweep crumbs out from underneath, and staff has sealed up cracks on the outside and installed extra weather stripping to block pest entrances. Mr. Rivas estimated that these measures have saved his district between $6,000 and $10,000 a year by reducing the need for pesticides.

These least-toxic measures are imperative to ensuring a healthy environment, since children are among the group least protected from pesticide exposure. See Pesticides and Children Don’t Mix. Mr. Rivas commented, “If you know anything about elementary school kids, they’re everywhere. They’re on the floor, their hands are on the floor, they’re sitting on the floor””and if someone is in there spraying stuff it’s going to get on their hands, and when they eat they’re going to be putting their fingers in their mouths.”

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

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

The full Indiana draft proposal can be found here and comments should be directed to Dave Scott at [email protected]

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has been touring the country talking about environmental justice, which involves paying special attention to the vulnerabilities of low income or underserved communities on the grounds that the areas have been exposed to a combination of chemical, biological, social and other burdens that are disproportionately higher than the burdens faced by the general population. Under interim guidance announced Monday, EPA staff will reach out to people in the affected communities early in the process, building awareness and seeking feedback along the way.

“Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven’t had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA’s work can make a real difference for health and the economy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices.”

The document, Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, seeks to advance environmental justice for low-income, people of color and indigenous communities, and tribal governments that have been historically underrepresented in the regulatory decision-making process. The guide also outlines the multiple steps that every EPA program office can take to incorporate the needs of overburdened neighborhoods into the agency’s decisionmaking, scientific analysis, and rule development. According to EPA, agency staff is to become familiar with environmental justice concepts and the many ways they should inform agency decisionmaking. The guide directs EPA rule writers and decisions makers to respond to three basic questions throughout the process:

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

2. How did you identify and address existing and new disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

3. How did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?

Environmental justice is based on the idea that some people, specifically, people of color and low income people suffer significantly higher rates of environmentally induced problems than the average. In the early 1980s, a landmark U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that three out of four landfills in the Southeast were located in communities of color. A 1992 National Law Journal study found that Superfund offenders paid 54 percent lower fines in communities of color than in white communities. In 2005, under the Bush Administration, EPA drafted a strategic plan on Environmental Justice that defined environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. However, critics said eliminating considerations of race and income made the program meaningless. More than 70 legislators, including Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), sent a letter to EPA saying that the draft plan “fails to address the real environmental-justice problems facing our nation’s most polluted communities” and lambasting the dismissal of race as “a significant departure from existing environmental-justice policies.”

A 2006 report released by the Inspector General (IG), EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Its Programs, Policies and Activities, found that senior management at EPA has not directed program and regional offices to conduct environmental justice reviews as required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898. The report said, “Until these program and regional offices perform environmental justice reviews, the Agency cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.”

Last year, farmworker unions, support groups, and worker advocacy organizations asked Administrator Jackson to stop the pesticide poisoning of farmworker communities and uphold the Obama administration’s commitment to environmental justice. Citing a long EPA history of “inhumane neglect of toxic pesticide effects on farmworker community health.” Farmworkers and their families suffer injuries and illnesses at high rates. They suffer from exposure to pesticides, nicotine poisoning during the tobacco harvest, extreme temperatures and are constantly stooping, bending, and lifting, while earning an average of $12,500 to $15,000 per year.

Beyond Pesticides has urged EPA and policy makers to recognize that risk assessment calculations are inherently antithetical to environmental justice principles because it calculates “acceptable” risks across all population groups without identifying the disproportionate effect that exposure has on people of color and low income communities. In an article entitled Race, Poverty and Pesticides, Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, wrote:

“There is an inherent assumption that if a pesticide meets a highly questionable “acceptable” risk threshold, it has value or benefit. This calculation ignores the disproportionate risk, for example, to African American inner city children whose asthmatic conditions are caused or triggered by the very pesticide products that meet the health-based standard. The disproportionate impact of this and other public health and environmental policies, contributing to disproportionately high morbidity and mortality due to asthma, is borne out by the statistics on asthma: 12.5 percent of children nationwide; 17 percent of children in New York City; and, 30 percent of children in Harlem, New York City. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, African Americans are 4 to 6 times more likely than whites to die from asthma. Therefore, any time our policies allow regulators to permit uses of pesticides with known asthma effects, which is done daily, a disproportionate impact is felt in the African American community. Among other policies, this toxics policy contributes to a cycle of poverty, as asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness.”

TAKE ACTION: EPA is seeking public feedback on how to best implement and improve the guide for agency staff to further advance efforts toward environmental justice. Read the document and leave comments here.

“This dangerous pesticide has no place in our fields, near our children, or on our food,” said Earthjustice attorney Kevin Regan. “We’re asking a court to rule so that EPA will finish the job and ban this poison.”

According to Beyond Pesticides, EPA’s 2000 negotiated settlement with Dow AgroSciences, which allows the highest volume chlorpyrifos uses to continue, 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.

Advocates have pointed to chlorpyrifos as the poster child for why risk assessment does not work to protect the public, workers and the environment, even with safer practices and products available in the marketplace. EPA’s decision in 2000 and subsequent action removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses and retains all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf course and public health mosquito spraying. The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but ignored the special risks to farmworker children’s exposure as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. The decision at the time was hailed as a victory for the public because it eliminated high hazard exposures and showed that EPA could remove uses of a widely used chemical. Except, it did not do the job. The risk assessment process does not force a consideration of those who suffer disproportionate risk or groups of people (such as those with neurological dieases in this case who are disproportinately affected). Farmworker groups and Beyond Pesticides, represented by Earthjustice, sued the agency but failed to move the litigation forward on a procedural issue.

Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic insecticide whose use was found to exceed acceptable rates of illness, especially to children. By focusing on risk reduction strategies to come up with “acceptable” (but in Beyond Pesticides’ view unnecessary) rates of illness across the population, EPA virtually ignored the chemical’s widespread use in agriculture (with one exception that focused on dietary residues), resulting in exposure to farmworkers, farm families and others living near agricultural areas. It is also a frequent water contaminant and a long range contaminant, exposing communities and contaminating pristine areas far from where it was applied. Short term effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos include chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Prenatal and early childhood exposure has been linked to low birth weights, developmental delays and other health effects. A Harvard University study links exposure to organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). EPA has literally had information on chlorpyrifos’ adverse effects for decades.

“The overwhelming evidence shows that chlorpyrifos is dangerous, especially to children and fieldworkers,” said Aaron Colangelo, a senior attorney with NRDC. “There’s no good reason for EPA to take three years to decide what to do about it.”

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

Luis Medellin has experienced the dangers of this pesticide firsthand. Medellin lives with his parents and three little sisters in the agricultural town of Lindsay, California, where chlorpyrifos is sprayed routinely on the orange groves surrounding his home. During the growing season, the family is awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting. After undergoing testing for pesticides in his body, the 24-year-old Medellin discovered concentrations of chlorpyrifos breakdown compounds nearly five times the national average for adults, as calculated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“When I found out I had this chemical in my body, it scared me. But what really worries me is how my little sisters might be affected.” said Mr. Medellin, a community organizer with the Lindsay-based El Quinto Sol. “I wish the growers would stop using such dangerous chemicals so my family and I can be safe.”

Exposure to chlorpyrifos in agricultural communities is widespread. California Air Resources Board monitoring in the state’s San Joaquin Valley detected chlorpyrifos in one-third of all ambient air samples, sometimes at levels that pose serious health risks to young children. Monitoring by PANNA and community groups in Washington state and Luis Medellin’s hometown of Lindsay, California has shown that daily exposure to chlorpyrifos can be substantial, regularly exceeding the “acceptable” 24-hour acute dose for a one-year-old child established by the EPA. In one 2000 incident, dozens of students and staff at an elementary school in Ventura, CA fell ill after chlorpyrifos applied to a nearby lemon orchard drifted onto school grounds.

“Chlorpyrifos is among a class of pesticides that targets developing nervous systems — in insects and humans alike. These pesticides are linked to a host of devastating diseases ranging from ADHD to childhood brain cancer,” said PANNA senior scientist Margaret Reeves, PhD. “Their human health costs are just too high and farmers are farming successfully without them. There’s no defensible reason for continuing to use chlorpyrifos.”

This is the second lawsuit aimed at banning chlorpyrifos uses that remained on the market following the 2001 residential use cancellations. UFW et al. v. EPA was filed in federal district court July 31, 2007 by Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and California Rural Legal Assistance, on behalf of farmworkers, farmworker advocacy organizations and Beyond Pesticides. The lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality after the pesticide industry successfully argued in a related case that the lawsuit should have been filed in appellate court, rather than district court. The plaintiffs disagreed with the logic of the argument, but accepted the dismissal and pursued other options.

Children are especially vulnerable to pesticides due to their developing organ system. Because they eat more and respire more than adults relative to body size, and they often put things in their mouths, they are exposed to more pesticides than adults. Research shows that even low levels of pesticide exposure can affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system.

The California Healthy Schools Act requires schools as well as private child care facilities to keep records of pesticide use and inform parents. The law covers the use of pesticide sprays or foggers, pesticides contained in baits, gels, or traps are exempt. The Act also requires DPR to develop programs to encourage child care centers to voluntarily develop IPM plans; however there are no provisions for enforcement. DPR defines Integrated Pest Management as “a strategy to prevent and treat pest problems using a combination of prevention, monitoring, record keeping and control methods… Chemical controls that pose the least possible hazard to human health and the environment are used only after careful monitoring and when non-chemical methods have failed.”

According to the survey, 55% of child care facilities use pesticides to control pests. Of these, 29% apply pesticides only once or a few times a year, but 20% apply pesticides on a weekly or monthly basis, and more than 25% of facilities do not keep records of pesticide use. Just 8% reported using only pesticides exempt from the Healthy Schools Act, such as baits, gels or traps. Survey participants cited ants as the biggest pest problem. Other common pests include spiders, mice or rats, cockroaches, head lice, bees or wasps, weeds and squirrels or gophers.

Researchers stress the importance of educating people who make pest management decisions for child care facilities on the concept of IPM, ensuring they understand implementing IPM is not prohibitively expensive or time consuming. In fact, many child care facilities reported relying on IPM practices such as sealing cracks and eliminating pests’ food sources, despite not knowing what IPM means. The survey shows that in most child care facilities (87%) the director is responsible for pest management decisions; however many other people often take part in the decision making process including child care and custodial staff, pest management professionals, and property owners. Therefore researchers recommend targeting IPM education to a broad range of people who may be involved in pest management practices. Educational materials about IPM in California child care facilities in English and Spanish are available online. In addition, DPR in collaboration with UC San Francisco School of Nursing designed an IPM curriculum specifically for child care providers that will be available this summer.

Take Action!
Parents–Talk to your child’s school or day care provider. Ask them what pesticides they have used in the past, about notification requirements, and urge them to use defined IPM that specifies nonchemical practices and only allowable least-toxic pesticides as a last resort. For more information and ideas on how to speak up at your child’s school or day care center, see Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools page.

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

The antimicrobials, phthalates and alkylphenolic surfactants often found in mold and mildew products are associated with various health and environmental issues. The antimicrobial triclosan for example, can cause skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, and dioxin that jeopardizes fragile aquatic ecosystems. The study highlights methylene chloride (in some fabric cleaners), nitrobenzene (soaps, polishes), perfluorinated compounds (stainresistant, waterproof coatings), phthalates (surfactants), alkylphenols (solvents), parabens (preservatives), triclosan, and polycyclic musks (fragrance) as ingredients of concern.

Past studies from the Silent Spring Institute have shown that many of the chemicals used in household cleaning products are endocrine disrupting compounds that produce mammary gland tumors in rats.

This study focuses on 787 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1988 and 1995 and 721 controls from the Cape Cod, MA area. Through telephone interviews, researchers collected information about the participants’ family history of breast cancer, menstrual and reproductive history, height, weight, alcohol and tobacco use, physical activity, pharmaceutical hormone use, and education. They were also asked about five categories of cleaning products, including solid and spray air fresheners, surface cleaners, oven cleaners, and mold/mildew products, as well as 10 categories of pesticides in and around their homes, including insecticides, lawn care, herbicides, lice control, insect repellents, and pest control on pets.

Using predefined categories, the women reported on the frequency of their use of the different products and were then asked about their beliefs about factors that may contribute to breast cancer. These factors include heredity, diet, chemicals and pollutant in the air and water, and a woman’s reproductive or breastfeeding history. Details on the interview questions are posted on Silent Spring Institute’s website.

The researchers acknowledged and corrected for potential recall bias (for instance, a woman who believed chemicals contribute to breast cancer might falsely believe she used those products more frequently) by comparing the odds ratio of product use and beliefs about whether chemicals and pollutant contribute to breast cancer to the odds ratio for family history and beliefs about heredity.

However, researchers point out that self-reported product use has the potential to represent long-term exposure to a wide range of compounds and stated in their report, “Although exposure levels may be low and EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals) are typically less potent than endogenous hormones, limited knowledge of product formulations, exposure levels, and the biological activity and toxicity of chemical constituents alone and in combination make it difficult to assess risks associated with product use.”

Confounders such as mammography use, medical radiations, lactation, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use, diethylstilbestrol exposure, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, teen and adult physical activity, race, marital status, and religion were evaluated, but none changed the core adjusted odds ratio estimates by over 10%, so they were not included in the final analysis. Study participants are predominantly white (98%), 60-80 years of age (60%), and completed high school or higher education (94%).

Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., a New York ecologist, cancer survivor and author of the books Living Downstream and Having Faith, told the Columbus Dispatch that she advises everyone to stop using chemical cleaners, and stick to least-toxic alternatives, such as baking soda and vinegar. Dr. Steingraber, who is a scholar in residence at Ithaca College stated, “I just see this as such an easy problem compared to a lot of things” but points to the new research as evidence that “the conversation is shifting now. We can’t just sort of look at the murky evidence on cancer and the environment and sort of set it aside because it’s too inscrutable.”

Linking the use of particular chemicals in our environment to cancer cases is indeed difficult to research, and the epidemiologists involved in this study recommend that “in order to avoid possible recall bias, the researchers recommend further study of cleaning products and breast cancer using prospective self-reports and measurements in environmental and biological media.”

Additionally, past studies covered by Beyond Pesticides suggest that overuse of disinfectants can be harmful, rather than beneficial to our health and the environment. Disinfectants 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.

The dicamba tolerance trait is expected to also be stacked with the glyphosate-resistant, or “Roundup Ready” soybean trait upon commercialization. While Monsanto claims that this is a “highly effective and economical weed control package,” it is likely to be similar to Roundup (glyphosate) Ready crops, just another way to sell more pesticide product. Monsanto is banking on the idea that mixing dicamba with glyphosate will help manage the hard-to-control broadleaf weeds in chemical-intensive farming systems, targeting both pre-plant and post-emergence weed control in an effort to reduce resistance.

In a report published last year, analysts found that genetically engineered (GE) crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008). The primary cause of the increase, according to the report, is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. Scientists at the Pan-American Weed Resistance Conference earlier this year gathered to discuss the increasing documented cases of glyphosate resistance, and the possibility that the broadscale use of the herbicide would “be driven to redundancy in the cotton, corn and soybean belt.”

While Monsanto asserts that farmers have used dicamba successfully to control broadleaf weeds in crops for decades with very little weed resistance, reports have historically provided significant documentation of herbicide-resistant weeds developing as a result of increased use of pesticides that a crop is bred to tolerate. Two species of weeds in the U.S. have shown resistance to dicamba already.

In addition to the dicamba- and glyphosate-resistant soy that Monsanto is hoping to commercialize, the company also has plans to seek approval for a dicamba tolerant, Roundup Ready Flex product in cotton. However, even if dicamba-tolerant cotton does not come to the market, it will still be affected by the GE soy. According to Alan York, Ph.D, Williams Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus of crop science and extension specialist for North Carolina State University, soybean is used as a rotation crop for cotton, which will purportedly help cotton farmers manage weeds.

A major problem with dicamba is its extreme mobility in soils, regardless of organic matter or clay content, and high water solubility. Dicamba residues are both quite persistent (2 months to 1 year) and able to move vertically in the soil column. In fact, USDA found that dicamba was the most mobile of forty herbicides evaluated, a warning that dicamba would likely contaminate groundwater.

GE crops can contaminate conventional or organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment- increase resistant weeds, contaminate water and affect pollinators and other non-target organisms. The long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown. GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GE planted barriers around sites planted with GE crops.

Monsanto has recently come under fire for distributing misbranded GE cotton. Additionally, a Supreme Court judgment in April involving GE alfalfa ruled that the ban on GE alfalfa remains intact and that the planting and sale of GE alfalfa remains illegal, pending environmental review. In addition, the Court opinion supported the argument that gene flow (contamination) is a serious environmental and economic threat. This means that genetic contamination from GE crops can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective. A Federal District Judge in California denied a preliminary injunction on GE sugar beets and sugar beet seeds. The Court declined to impose an immediate ban on GE sugar beets because the seeds have already become so entrenched that there is not enough conventional (non-GE) seed available for a full crop this year.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of GE crops because its approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides. It focuses on effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE Program and Organic Program pages.

On June 2, 2010, ACAT joined with other community groups in challenging a permit that would allow the Alaska Railroad to spray toxic herbicides along the railbelt from Seward to Indian for the first time in 26 years. On July 14, 2010, the court ordered a temporary temporary restraining order and prelminary injunction for the planned spray program, in response to an emergency petition (and memorandum of points and authorities) filed by Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Center for the Environment, Alaska Survival, Cook InletKeeper and the Native Village of Eklutna.

The Alaska Railroad Corporation requested permission to use the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and Agri-Dex, along a 90 mile stretch of its track between Seward and Indian. The herbicide application was set for summer of 2919 for railroad operating property (rail yards, spurs, sidings, etc.) and along the main line and branch line right-of way for four feet out from both sides of the track. Despite the fact that previous requests have been met with opposition, the railroad states that its vegetation problem has gotten too out of hand for “so-called ”˜alternative methods,’” including flame throwers, a steam machine and inmate labor. ARC also argued that the Federal Railroad Administration, the railroad’s federal regulatory agency, will impose fines and operational restrictions such as reducing speeds or emergency closures of some sections of track if they are not cleared of overgrown vegetation. The company insists herbicides are the only way to control the plants, which can decay railroad ties and force the tracks apart. However, the uses of biological controls, or least-toxic sprays such as acetic acid or herbicidal soaps, were not considered in the Alaska Railroad’s proposal. Read Beyond Pesticides’ Least Toxic Control of Weeds.

The court said more information was needed on the plan. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, which submitted comments against the use of glyphosate on the railroad, are opposed to the strategy because they say regulators have not considered the chemicals’ effects on drinking water and streams where salmon live. Glyphosate is a neurotoxin, irritant, and can cause liver, kidney and reproductive damage. It is also linked to non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. In recent news, glyphosate has been identified as a common chemical found in acute agricultural worker poisonings, and linked to intersex frogs.

In a letter to Arysta LifeScience, Erik Johansen, Special Pesticide Registration Program Coordinator for the Washington Department of Agriculture stated, “WSDA is concerned that the proposed use of Midas products labeled in Washington could cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment.” Specific concerns stated in the letter include: potential for groundwater contamination; lack of data related to the pesticide’s ability to damage brain development; and cancer risk.

Methyl iodide is promoted by the pesticide industry as a replacement for methyl bromide, which is due to be phased out because it depletes the ozone layer. While methyl iodide does not deplete the ozone layer, it is more toxic to humans and likely to contaminate ground water. Health effects include late-term miscarriages, potential to cause damage to developing brains, and cancer. Methyl iodide is so reliably carcinogenic that scientists use it to induce cancer cells in the lab.

As evidenced by a thriving organic industry, alternatives to fumigants exist and are in use in California and around the country. Instead of using methyl iodide or methyl bromide, organic alternatives include solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation, crop rotation, biological controls, selective breeding, soil steaming, hydroponics, and steam treatment for containerized plants.

Despite significant public and scientific concern, EPA registered methyl iodide in 2007, during the final days of the Bush administration. Since then, controversy has surrounded the pesticide. New York was the first state to decline to register methyl iodide, Washington is the second, and opponents hope California will be the third. California proposed approving the fumigant in April 2010, but is reviewing public comments before making a final decision. Florida recently approved the chemical with additional use restrictions. Environmental and public health advocates believe that blocking methyl iodide registration in California will prevent its use elsewhere, since the state will account for the vast majority of usage and profitability nationwide.

“We’re so glad Washington did the right thing. Let’s hope California follows the science, too,” said Susan Kegley, PhD, a consulting chemist with Pesticide Action Network. Martha Dina Arguello, Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, said, “As Governor Schwarzenegger enters his final months of office, it’s hard to imagine he would allow more cancer, more miscarriages, contaminated drinking water, and a good chance of more developmental brain damage to be his legacy.”

On the national front, a coalition of environmental, health and labor organizations, with legal representation by the non-profit group Earthjustice, filed a petition on March 31 asking EPA to rescind the Bush administration era approval of methyl iodide, in light of troubling new findings uncovered in California studies. Methyl iodide is a water contaminant, nervous system poison, thyroid toxicant and is listed on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. It can readily become a gas and drift away from its intended target, despite any efforts to contain it. Methyl iodide is primarily used on tomato and strawberry fields. “A chemical used to create cancer cells in laboratories has no place being broadcast into the environment near where people live, work and play,” said Ed Zuroweste, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Migrant Clinicians Network. “Our communities are not lab rats.”

Methyl iodide is promoted by the largest privately—held pesticide company in the world, Arysta LifeScience. The corporation has recently invested significant resources in lobbying and a communications campaign in California in order to secure registration in one of the most lucrative potential markets in the nation. If approved, methyl iodide would be used as a soil fumigant in the state’s strawberry fields, where it would applied as a gas at up to 125 lbs per acre.

In 2007, a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates, sent a letter of concern to EPA about methyl iodide explaining, “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people. In addition to the potential for increased cancer incidence, EPA’s own evaluation of the chemical also indicates that methyl iodide causes thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals.” The letter concludes, “It is astonishing that the Office of Pesticide Programs is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

Take Action: Join the Nobel Laureates, farmworker advocacy groups, environmental organizations and individuals living near the fields where methyl iodide will be used to call for an end to this extremely hazardous pesticide. California residents — Call Governor Schwarzenegger and demand that methyl iodide not be used, 916-445-2841. Everyone — Call the office of Steve Owens, EPA Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and tell EPA to reevaluate its decision to register methyl iodide, 202-564-2902.

GM foods were first introduced into the U.S. food supply in 1994, promising to put an end to world hunger. Using genetic engineering, scientists were expected to create drought and salt tolerant crops, with higher yields and nutrient content. These crops never materialized, however, and industry giants such as Monsanto have collected huge revenues selling insecticide producing and herbicide resistant crops to American farmers. These crops have not only failed in their promise to boost crop yields, but studies have shown that they increase the use of pesticides, and create herbicide resistant weeds. While disillusionment with GM crops grows, the US government continues to bow to industry lobbyists, refusing to require labeling on GE foods.

The best way to avoid GE foods is to always buy organic. When the USDA proposed its original organic rule in 1998 that allowed GM crops, it received a record number of public comments criticizing the regulation. As a result, the Department in its final rule classified genetically modified organisms as “excluded methods,” thus requiring all food certified as organic to be free of GM crops. In addition to being free of GM crops, organic foods are also grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, and pesticides that can be very harmful to humans and the environment. Organic livestock are grown without the use of artificial growth hormones or a constant stream of antibiotics. In June 2010, Beyond Pesticides launched its Eating with a Conscience website, which educates consumers about the importance of eating organic food whenever possible.

In some markets organic foods are not always available, and consumers must rely on conventional products. CFS’s new app is designed to help consumers “quickly and easily identify foods made with ingredients from genetically modified organisms.” The True Food Shoppers Guide offers tips on avoiding GM ingredients, as well as listing brands to look for. It also includes a dairy guide to aid consumers in choosing rBGH free dairy products. The app also contains information on the dangers of GM foods and the benefits of organic foods. The Shopper’s Guide was complied primarily from direct communication with producers.

In addition to providing information to consumers, CFS’s Shopper’s Guide also makes it easy to take action. The app can be used to call or email companies listed in the “Red” (those who do not avoid GM ingredients in their products) so that consumers can urge companies to stop selling genetically modified food.

2,4-D is associated with a host of adverse human impacts, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as water contamination and toxicity to aquatic organisms. It is one of the most widely used herbicide for the control of broadleaf weeds in commercial agriculture and residential landscapes in the U.S. About 46 million pounds of 2,4-D are used annually, with 16 million pounds used in non-agricultural settings, including parks, playing fields, and residential lawns. Its health risks prompted a Special Review in 1986. A few years later in a unique move, several large pesticides companies with a common interest in keeping 2,4-D on the market formed a task force to keep the herbicide on the market. In 2007, EPA reversed its decision did not complete the Special Review. In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned EPA to cancel all uses of 2,4-D. Once part of the deadly duo of chemicals that made up Agent Orange, can also be contaminated with several forms of dioxin, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, a known carcinogen. Studies have also documented that once tracked indoors from lawns, 2,4-D can stay indoors (on carpets) for up to a year.

Dicamba, originally registered in 1967, is a benzoic acid herbicide used in agricultural, industrial, and residential settings. This neurotoxic pesticide is linked to organ damage and reproductive effects. A 1992 study of farmers by the National Cancer Institute found that exposure to dicamba approximately doubled the farmers’ risk of contracting the cancer non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma two decades after exposure. Symptoms poisoning include muscle cramps, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, loss of voice, and swollen glands. It has attracted attention because of the toxicity of its contaminants, both dioxin and nitrosamines, and its propensity to leach through soil.

Beautiful landscapes are possible without 2,4-D, dicamba or other pesticides. Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage provides information on pesticide hazards and information on organic management strategies. We also provide an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to help communities around the country go pesticide-free. The training is geared toward school or park and recreation officials, however landscapers interested in transitioning are encouraged to view the program. Contact Beyond Pesticides to learn more about using this a resource for your community.

ACAT’s success sends a great message to get involved in your local government and voice your concerns to effect change! For more information on what you can do to eliminate unnecessary pesticide use in your community, visit Beyond Pesticides Lawn and Landscapes program page. Also, pledge your yard, park or other community or business-managed green space as organically managed. Tell us how many acres (or what fraction of an acre) you can declare as organic!

In related news, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics has more recently been working toward blocking herbicide spraying along Alaskan railroad tracks. The state initially granted permission to the Alaska Railroad Corporation to spray glyphosate along 30 miles of tracks, but temporarily halted spraying when ACAT questioned the herbicide’s safety, since it can leach into groundwater and effect salmon habitat. The railroad has not used herbicides for 26 years due to public opposition. To read more about this issue, please refer to Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News.

Other critics of the agency’s decision include the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that has in the past received funding from Monsanto and Union Carbide (according to the group Center for Science in the Public Interest, ACSH stopped disclosing corporate donors in the early 1990’s). Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of ACSH told Legal Newswire that they believe EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to be “cooperating with, if not spearheading, a broad-based activist agenda.”

An article by The Huffington Post Investigative Fund published last week, however, found that EPA relies heavily on industry-backed studies. Companies, such as Syngenta, that have a heavy financial interest in atrazine have paid for thousands of studies that are used by federal regulators to assess health risks. More than 80 percent of these studies have never been published or subjected to independent, scientific peer review. Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., a senior scientist at NRDC, explained to the Investigative Fund that relying on a company to test for the safety of its own product is an inherent conflict of interest, and is a part of the larger pattern at EPA.

Earlier this year family farm groups across the Midwest urged EPA to reject industry-funded studies in the review process. The groups, lead by Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project (LSP) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), say that the studies Syngenta submitted to EPA in the past have been deeply flawed, hindering good decision-making. They argue that publicly-funded and peer-reviewed science should be given primary consideration.

The NRDC report published last summer found that current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. As a result of this report and numerous other bodies of scientific evidence of the hazards of atrazine, EPA announced that it would launch a new comprehensive evaluation of the pesticide atrazine to determine its effects on humans. In a statement to Legal Newsline, EPA said that, “Given the sizeable body of new scientific information as well as the documented presence of atrazine in both drinking water sources and other bodies of water, the agency determined it appropriate to consider the new research, including inviting independent scientific peer review, to ensure that our regulatory decisions on atrazine are protective of public health and the environment.”

In addition to the ongoing re-review of atrazine by EPA, 16 communities from six states filed a lawsuit in March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Syngenta to pay for the expensive carbon filters needed to remove atrazine from their drinking water supply. The United States’ largest private water utility, American Water Company, also joined the suit, representing 28 additional communities.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and even 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.

In 2007, Indiana researchers reported in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery that in their state, where rates of such birth defects are also very high, atrazine levels were significantly linked with the rate of gastroschisis and other defects. Another study, published last year in Acta Paediatrica, found similar results for the general rate of birth defects in the U.S. population; it found that atrazine upped the risk of nine birth defects in babies born to mothers who conceived between April and July, when surface water levels of the pesticide are highest. Another study also found that atrazine triggers the release of stress hormones leading researchers to believe that this may explain how the popular weed killer produces some of its harmful reproductive effects.

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. Research found that intersex frogs are more common in suburban areas than agricultural areas. Another study suggests it as a possible cause for male infertility.

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.

The European Union banned atrazine in 2004, after repeated testing found the herbicide in drinking water supplies, and health officials were unable to find sufficient evidence the chemical is safe. In much of Europe the burden of proof falls on the pesticide manufacturer to prove it is safe, unlike in the U.S. where EPA has assumed the burden of proving a pesticide does not meet acceptable risk standards before taking regulatory action.

“This agreement shows that when a company violates the law by distributing misbranded pesticides, EPA will take action,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The regulated community should understand that we take these violations seriously, and the public will accept nothing less than compliance.”

“People who manufacture and distribute pesticide products must follow the federal registration requirements,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These requirements are critical to preventing the development and spread of insect resistance.”

Monsanto Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed products contain genetically engineered pesticides known as plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are registered as a pesticidal product under FIFRA. As a condition of the registrations, EPA included planting restrictions on Bollgard and Bollgard II, which contain the PIP Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). EPA restricted planting of the cotton seed product in 10 Texas counties (Carson, Dallam, Hansford, Hartley, Hutchison, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Roberts and Sherman) to protect against pests becoming resistant to Bt PIPs and other microbial products used in sprays and dusts. Monsanto was required to control the sale and distribution of the cotton seed by including information on the planting restrictions in its labeling and grower guides.

In 2007, Monsanto disclosed to EPA that it had distributed misbranded Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed to customers in the Texas counties where EPA had restricted its planting. EPA’s subsequent investigation confirmed that between 2002 and 2007, the company distributed or sold the cotton products more than 1,700 times nationwide without the planting restrictions in its grower guides and that Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton was planted in the restricted counties.

Monsanto subsequently corrected the grower guides by including the required planting restriction for the Bollgard and Bollgard II products. In September 2008, EPA lifted the planting restriction in the 10 Texas counties for Bollgard II, after Monsanto applied for a change in the registration of that product. Monsanto last year said it was accelerating its long-term strategy to shift the majority of its business to genetically altered seeds for chemical-intensive farming operations, even though recent sales of GE seeds have declined as customers continue to shun its pesticidal technology in favor of cheaper generic versions.

Genetically engineered seeds that incorporate genes that are intended to resist insects or herbicides (like Round-up treated seeds) have seen their costs skyrocket over the last few years. In spite of this, more and more food products are produced from GE crops. GE crops can contaminate conventional or organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment- increase resistant weeds, contaminate water and affect pollinators and other non-target organisms. The long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown. GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GE planted barriers around sites planted with GE crops.

A recent Supreme Court judgment involving GE alfalfa ruled that the ban on GE alfalfa remains intact, and that the planting and sale of GE alfalfa remains illegal, pending environmental review. In addition, the Court opinion supported the argument that gene flow (contamination) is a serious environmental and economic threat. This means that genetic contamination from GE crops can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective. A federal district Judge in California denied a preliminary injunction on GE sugar beets and sugar beet seeds. The Court declined to impose an immediate ban on GE sugar beets because the seeds have already become so entrenched that there is not enough conventional (non-GE) seed available for a full crop this year.

GE seeds are patented by Monsanto which means farmers face lawsuits if they try to save and replant the GE seed because they do not own the technology. This means farmers are forced to purchase seeds from Monsanto for each growing season. Farms contaminated with GE material from neighboring farms have been sued by Monsanto, as in the case of Percy Schmeiser (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser) who was taken to court by Monsanto for patent infringement after unknowingly cultivating GE canola.

In a related matter, recently Monsanto donated crop seeds, some treated with toxic pesticides, to earthquake stricken Haiti to much protest in Haiti and abroad. Advocates for Haitian peasants said a U.S.-based company’s donation is an effort to shift farmer dependence from local seed to more expensive hybrid varieties and will harm the island-nation’s agriculture. Peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called the donation a new earthquake. Haitian farmers and small growers traditionally save seed from season to season or buy the seed they desire from traditional seed markets.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of GE crops. Whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide (Round-up)-resistant crop, the approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. Organic agriculture, however, does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides. It focuses on effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE Program and Organic Program pages.

Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals to send comments to EPA supporting strong, meaningful regulation of pesticide applications in order to fully protect public health and the environment. See talking points and instructions for sending comments below.

Background
EPA announced the public availability of a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, posted here, for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP) on June 2, 2010. The action 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 the CWA. This ruling overturned the Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under the CWA, and instead applied the less stringent standards of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

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. For more background on the issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ June 4, 2010 Daily News Blog entry.

Talking Points
EPA’s draft permit has several good features, but it is weak in certain areas and industry is pushing hard to make it even weaker. The following are important points about which EPA needs to hear from as many residents and community groups as possible:

”¢ Require the use of least toxic alternatives — The draft permit requires large applicators to evaluate available alternatives to pesticides (including taking no action, and using preventative or mechanical control methods), but essentially lets the applicator decide when a pesticide should be used instead. [p.8-14, 31] EPA should require the use of the least toxic alternative (or require that non-toxic methods of pest control be tried first), and set objective standards for when pesticide use is allowed.

”¢ Expand the range of pesticide applications covered by the permit — The draft permit imposes more stringent requirements on discharges that cover more than 20 acres for aquatic pesticides or more than 640 acres (one square mile) for mosquito spraying. [p. 3, 37-38] These thresholds are arbitrary and are too high. If you are concerned about a water body that doesn’t meet these thresholds, EPA needs to hear about it.

”¢ Protect drinking water and sensitive watersheds — The draft permit fails to make special considerations for pesticide applications directly into drinking water sources or into water bodies that feed drinking wells. When drinking water may be impacted by pesticide discharges, there should be more stringent limitations on pesticide use. The same should go for water bodies that serve as habitat for endangered or threatened species.

”¢ Strengthen site monitoring requirements — EPA should require meaningful water quality monitoring after pesticide applications in all cases, just like EPA requires for other sources of permitted water pollution. The draft permit does not require in-stream monitoring after pesticide applications; instead, the applicator need only conduct a visual “spot check,” and need only do that if the opportunity arises. [p. 14, 31]

”¢ Strengthen the public’s right-to-know — The public should have access — on EPA’s website and in state environmental agency offices — to all notices of intent to discharge pesticides, pesticide treatment planning documents, and monitoring data generated as part of the general permit process. The draft permit allows applicators to keep much of this information to themselves, or requires it to be disclosed only in the form of unhelpful summaries. [p. 19-25]

Take Action
1. Submit Comments to EPA — Written comments must be received on or before Monday, July 19, 2010. Email your comments to [email protected] identified by the subject line: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. The more specific you can be about your own experiences and the water bodies you care about, the better.

2. Sign-on to Others Comments — Beyond Pesticides, Toxics Action Center, Pesticide Watch, Riverkeeper, National Environmental Law Center and many other groups are submitting detailed comments. The more people and groups signing on the better. See contact info below.

3. Distribute this Action Alert — and ask others to take action. Re-post on listserves and send to friends and family.

For more information
Nichelle Harriott, Research Associate, Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450
Sylvia Broude, Organizing Director, Toxics Action Center, 617-747-4407
Elizabeth Martin-Craig, Community Organizer, Pesticide Watch, 415-622-0036
Joe Mann, National Environmental Law Center, 415-622-0086 ext. 306

The study, “Physical quality and composition of retail shell eggs,” which was originally published in the March 2010 issue of the journal Poultry Science, compares white and brown large-shell eggs with various production and nutritional differences such as traditional, cage-free, free-roaming, pasteurized, nutritionally-enhanced (omega-3 fatty acids), fertile and organic. The study examined two dozen eggs of each variety taken from two Athens, GA grocery stores on three separate occasions. ARS food technologist Deana Jones and her team in the agency’s Egg Safety and Quality Research Unit, found that on average, the eggs were of similar quality with respect to fat and protein content.

“We found no meaningful differences at all,” Ms. Jones told Time magazine. “We sampled eggs from a number of stores and kept getting the same results over and over. For shoppers, the decision comes down to your ethical and moral choices.”

The study did not examine other nutritional factors that farmers using organic methods often claim to be higher in organic eggs, such as vitamins A and E, beta carotene, folate, omega-3 fatty acids. Organic poultry and egg production also prohibits the prophylactic use of antibiotics and arsenic in chicken feed, as well as requiring outdoor access and organically produced chicken feed. Chemically-treated grains in conventional chicken feed can cause environmental damage in the form of water contamination and wildlife poisoning and can be hazardous to those who work on or live near farms.

Here’s how Organic Valley, a large egg producing coop of farmers describes how their production system differs from conventional egg production:

We raise hardy birds bred to forage. That’s important, because our chickens aren’t caged. Their hen houses have natural sunlight and access to the outdoors when weather permits. And we never force molt them. We believe caring for our hens contributes to egg quality. That’s why we employ staff veterinarians and an animal wellness expert to help manage the health of our flocks. We strive for quality, not quantity. Not only do we give our flocks 100% organic feed, but we also agreed years ago on a policy requiring us to give our chickens the chlorophyll-and-mineral-rich diet and sunlight they need to produce top-quality eggs with deep yellow yolks and strong shells.

The Time magazine article does reference other studies showing that free-range chickens are more likely to be contaminated with PCBs and other environmental contaminants because of their access to the outdoors, where such pollutants may be present. While this issue may not be addressed in eggs labeled as “Free-Range,” Organic certification requires residue testing that should identify sites that have environmental contamination, making organic eggs the best option.

Professor Tariq Butt, who led the ongoing research at Swansea observed, “The benefits are far reaching””not just for those with organic farms or nurseries but also for conventional growers, offering an effective, environmentally friendly alternative to chemicals.” Professor Butt, from the University’s School of Environment and Society, believes this new development could help reduce the use of pesticides and their impact on the environment while reducing costs for farmers.

The project was funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under the UK Horticulture LINK program, the government’s main vehicle for sponsoring applied research in horticulture. You can read the official university press release here.

The fungus has been registered in Europe with Novozymes, a company that specializes in enzymes and other bio-based solutions. Hugh Frost, European agronomist at Novozymes told Wales Online, “The Novozymes BioAg business has been working with Swansea University to better understand the performance of the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, and so develop products that can be registered for innovative, biological crop protection. Research is ongoing and Novozymes is keen to investigate the further potential of this fungus in controlling other insects, in wider application, to assist growers in producing crops in an efficient, yet sustainable manner that meets their challenges of a decreasing portfolio of conventional pesticides.”

This is not the first time a fungus has proven to be an effective natural pesticide. In 2009, an Australian government study has shown that lice on sheep may be controlled by fungal biopesticides. Researchers at Utah State University are studying a fungus that kills Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex) by depositing spores inside them that multiply and eventually break through their exoskeletons.

In 2006, mushroom expert Paul Stamets spoke at Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum in Washington, DC and discussed, among other things, the role fungi can play in controlling insects in the home. Mr. Stamets and his colleagues have also been working with Metarhizium anisopliae to control insects in the home. He has figured out a way to grow fungi that delay their spore formation and actually attract the insect to the fungus, thus breaking through an obstacle in using fungi to protect homes from carpenter ants and termites. However, in doing so, he says his philosophy “is not to wage war against the insect kingdom but to enlist fungal allies for the intelligent, natural, and localized control of targeted insects… We seek balance, not extinction.”

Watch Paul Stamets’s presentation in streaming video and read the article, “Fungi To The Rescue: Biopesticide derived from mold has promise as a greener method for eradicating unwanted insects,” in the Winter 2007 issue of Pesticides and You.

The report looks at 168 stream water samples that were taken over 2008 and 2009, which compares the water quality before and after the ban took effect. Sampling points were selected in areas mainly influenced by residential run-off — away from golf courses, sewage treatment plant effluents, and agricultural applications. The samples were analyzed for 105 pesticides and pesticide degradation products.

Preliminary results show a significant drop in concentrations of three commonly used lawn care products: 86 % of 2,4-D, 82% of dicamba, and 78% of MCPP. Previous estimates indicate that these three herbicides accounted for over half the total amount of pesticides used by lawn care companies in Ontario.

On the other hand, concentrations of some pesticides did not significantly change. Other pesticides commonly detected in urban stream water include glyphosate and carbaryl. The results for glyphosate are attributed to its continued use in exempt applications: to kill weeds and vegetation in urban and agricultural settings. The study suggests that carbaryl is used to control pests on lawns and gardens and agricultural crops, and to control fleas on household pets. Some environmentalists speculate that it might be due to its persistence in sediment.

On Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Ontario, Canada banned the use of over 250 pesticide products for cosmetic (lawn care) purposes, with no exceptions for pest infestations (insects, fungi or weeds) in these areas, as lower risk pesticides, biopesticides and alternatives to pesticides exist. It does not affect pesticides used for farming or forestry, and golf courses are exempt, but must meet certain conditions to minimize environmental impacts. There are no exceptions for pest infestations (insects, fungi or weeds) for lawn care in these areas, as lower risk pesticides, biopesticides and alternatives to pesticides exist. However, pesticides are still allowed for control of mosquitoes and other insects determined to represent a health threat.

Nitrate is a common contaminant of drinking water, particularly in agricultural areas where nitrogen fertilizers are used. High rates of fertilizer application may also increase the natural nitrate levels found in certain vegetables, such as lettuce and root crops. In the body, nitrate competes with uptake of iodide by the thyroid, thus potentially affecting thyroid function. This is the first study to show a link between nitrates and thyroid cancer in people, although nitrates have been shown to cause thyroid tumors in animal studies.

Researchers at the National Institute of Health, in a study entitled, ”Nitrate intake and the risk of thyroid cancer and thyroid disease,” investigated the association of nitrate intake from public water supplies and diet with the risk of thyroid cancer and self-reported hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism in a cohort of 21,977 older women in Iowa who were enrolled in 1986 and who had used the same water supply for >10 years. The results show a nearly three-fold increase in thyroid cancer risk for women with more than five year’s use of a public water supply that had nitrate levels of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or above. The maximum contaminant level of nitrate in drinking water is currently set at 10 mg/L in the United States. Increasing intake of dietary nitrate is associated with an increased risk of thyroid and with the prevalence of hypothyroidism, but not hyperthyroidism. Higher dietary nitrate levels are found in women who live in a larger town, are more educated, exercise more and eat more calories and Vitamin C. In conjunction with prior studies, the researchers suggest that nitrate inhibits the thyroid gland’s ability to use iodide. Iodine is a necessary mineral for proper thyroid hormone and gland function.

Synthetic fertilizer is a main source of nitrate in water and food. The foods that often have the highest concentrations of nitrate, such as spinach, kale, and beets, are known for their nutritional benefits, often due to the high application of nitrogen-based synthetic fertilizers. Agricultural and residential runoff from fields, lawns and home gardens that use synthetic fertilizers lead to large concentrations of nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, in the nation’s surface waters.

Thyroid cancer is estimated to be the seventh leading site of new cancers in U.S. women, according to the American Cancer Society. The incidence is about three times higher in women than in men, similar to the pattern worldwide.

Organic agriculture relies on natural sources of fertilizer such as manure, instead of potentially dangerous chemical sources. When used as a fertilizer, manure is turned from a hazardous waste product into a resource. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. See more at our Organic Agriculture Home page.

The report, A Review of the Role Pesticides Play in Some Cancers: Children, farmers and pesticide users at risk?, is published by the United Kingdom organization CHEM (Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring) Trust.

“Pesticide exposures may interact with other chemical exposures and genetic factors, to cause cancer. Research suggests that pregnant women, in particular, should avoid direct exposure to pesticides, if possible,” said Gwynne Lyons, Director of CHEM Trust and report co-author. “It is high time that the UK was more supportive of EU proposals to take a tougher approach to reducing exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. If the UK is to shed its image of being the laggard in the EU, then the UK Government must robustly implement the new EU pesticides legislation in order to try and reduce the burden of cancer in children, farmers and others exposed to pesticides.”

The CHEM Trust report also highlights that certain cancers have increased dramatically in recent decades in the UK, showing that environmental factors must be partly to blame with pesticide exposures suspected to play a role in some cases. Although, a proportion, but not all of this increase, is believed to be due to better diagnostic techniques, cancer trend data are raising the alarm. In Britain over the last 30 years (1975/6 — 2005/6):
”¢ Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has more than doubled;
Ӣ Testicular cancer has doubled;
Ӣ Breast cancer in women has increased by two thirds, and in men quadrupled;
Ӣ Prostate cancer has tripled; and,
Ӣ In the 35 years up to 1998, childhood cancer in Britain increased by 35%.

“Occupational and environmental cancers have been a neglected public health issue in the UK for decades. The report highlights the substantial nature of the threat from pesticide exposure. In the UK, oversight of pesticides has continued to err on the side of products rather than people and of course relies on data generated initially by the pesticide manufacturers,” said Andrew Watterson, Professor of Health at Stirling University and report coauthor. “The regulatory response has usually been ”˜if in doubt, do continue using pesticides’ when the scientific literature is littered with examples of products that have been cleared in the past emerging as known or suspect human carcinogens. There is a long-overdue and urgent need to mount a cancer prevention campaign on pesticides based on effective precautionary principles.”

With 1 in 3 Europeans being diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime, the report concludes that EU governments should urgently focus more on cancer prevention. CHEM Trust calls on the UK Government to give greater consideration to cancer prevention via better control of chemicals, and for specific measures to reduce pesticide exposures. These include:
Ӣ Strict implementation of the new EU legislation on pesticides so that pesticides that disrupt hormones, and those suspected to cause cancer are substituted with safer alternatives; and,
”¢ Giving people living in houses bordering agricultural land a legal right to be notified in advance of any pesticide spraying operations, if they so request. This would give those living in rural areas the option of reducing their families’ exposure by, for example, bringing their children in from the garden, not hanging clothes out to dry on that day, or shutting their windows.

In the U.S., with a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer in recent years, a report released May 6, 2010 by the President’s Cancer Panel finds that the true burden of environmentally-induced cancer is greatly underestimated. The Panel’s report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, concludes that while environmental exposure is not a new front on the war on cancer, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the nation’s cancer program.

The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel also points out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical registration process does not eliminate these chemicals from our lives. “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered by EPA for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian (female spouses), pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma”¦Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are used in EPA-registered pesticides now on the market.” The Panel notes that the pesticide tolerances, the allowable limit on food, have been criticized by environmentalists as being inadequate and unduly influenced by industry.

Because chemical-intensive agriculture has created such a hazardous food system — for consumers, workers and the environment — Beyond Pesticides recommends eating organic food whenever possible.

The cancer threat posed by pesticides extends beyond agriculture. Of the 40 most commonly used pesticides in schools, 28 can cause cancer, and 19 of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides are carcinogens or have been linked to cancer. Learn more about organic lawn and landscape management and efforts to protect children from pesticides in schools.