[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

  • Archives

  • Categories

    • air pollution (8)
    • Announcements (605)
    • Antibiotic Resistance (41)
    • Antimicrobial (18)
    • Aquaculture (31)
    • Aquatic Organisms (37)
    • Bats (7)
    • Beneficials (54)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (34)
    • Biomonitoring (40)
    • Birds (26)
    • btomsfiolone (1)
    • Bug Bombs (2)
    • Cannabis (30)
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (11)
    • Chemical Mixtures (8)
    • Children (114)
    • Children/Schools (240)
    • cicadas (1)
    • Climate (32)
    • Climate Change (90)
    • Clover (1)
    • compost (6)
    • Congress (21)
    • contamination (158)
    • deethylatrazine (1)
    • diamides (1)
    • Disinfectants & Sanitizers (19)
    • Drift (19)
    • Drinking Water (18)
    • Ecosystem Services (16)
    • Emergency Exemption (3)
    • Environmental Justice (167)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (550)
    • Events (89)
    • Farm Bill (24)
    • Farmworkers (200)
    • Forestry (6)
    • Fracking (4)
    • Fungal Resistance (6)
    • Fungicides (26)
    • Goats (2)
    • Golf (15)
    • Greenhouse (1)
    • Groundwater (16)
    • Health care (32)
    • Herbicides (48)
    • Holidays (39)
    • Household Use (9)
    • Indigenous People (6)
    • Indoor Air Quality (6)
    • Infectious Disease (4)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (72)
    • Invasive Species (35)
    • Label Claims (51)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (254)
    • Litigation (346)
    • Livestock (9)
    • men’s health (4)
    • metabolic syndrome (3)
    • Metabolites (6)
    • Microbiata (24)
    • Microbiome (30)
    • molluscicide (1)
    • Nanosilver (2)
    • Nanotechnology (54)
    • National Politics (388)
    • Native Americans (3)
    • Occupational Health (17)
    • Oceans (11)
    • Office of Inspector General (4)
    • perennial crops (1)
    • Pesticide Drift (164)
    • Pesticide Efficacy (12)
    • Pesticide Mixtures (16)
    • Pesticide Residues (185)
    • Pets (36)
    • Plant Incorporated Protectants (2)
    • Plastic (10)
    • Poisoning (20)
    • Preemption (46)
    • President-elect Transition (2)
    • Reflection (1)
    • Repellent (4)
    • Resistance (121)
    • Rights-of-Way (1)
    • Rodenticide (34)
    • Seasonal (3)
    • Seeds (7)
    • soil health (21)
    • Superfund (5)
    • synergistic effects (25)
    • Synthetic Pyrethroids (17)
    • Synthetic Turf (3)
    • Take Action (602)
    • Textile/Apparel/Fashion Industry (1)
    • Toxic Waste (12)
    • U.S. Supreme Court (3)
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (1)
    • Women’s Health (27)
    • Wood Preservatives (36)
    • World Health Organization (11)
    • Year in Review (2)
  • Most Viewed Posts

Daily News Blog

11
Aug

Toxic Contaminants Found in City’s Free ‘Organic Biosolids Compost’

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2010) Independent tests of sewage sludge-derived compost from the Synagro CVC plant -distributed free to gardeners since 2007 by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in their “organic biosolids compost” giveaway program — have found appreciable concentrations of contaminants with endocrine-disruptive properties. These contaminants include polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, nonylphenol detergent breakdown products, and the antibacterial agent triclosan. The independent tests were conducted for the Food Rights Network by Robert C. Hale, PhD of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.

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

Triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways; about 96 percent of triclosan from consumer products is disposed of in residential drains. This leads to large loads of the chemical in water entering wastewater treatment plants, which are incompletely removed during the wastewater treatment process. When treated wastewater is released to the environment, sunlight converts some of the triclosan (and related compounds) into dioxins. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Triclosan is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: PR Newswire

Share

10
Aug

Bill Would Strip Clean Water Act Protections from Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2010) Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) introduced legislation on August 6, 2010 that would strip the public of the protection provided by the Clean Water Act (CWA) from the toxic hazards of pesticides applied to or near U.S. waterways. If successful, the bill, S. 3735, would nullify regulations that require pesticide applicators apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under CWA before applying pesticides on or near surface waters. Beyond Pesticides encourages its members to contact their Senators and let them know how they feel about S. 3735.

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

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

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

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

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

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

View the legislation, S. 3735, and contact your Senators.

Share

09
Aug

New Data Shows Increased Triclosan Exposure

(Beyond Pesticides, August 9, 2010) Two separate findings that showcase increased exposure and potential for exposure in humans to the toxic chemical triclosan add to the mounting evidence that the non-medical use of this chemical should be banned. Newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that levels of triclosan in humans have increased by 50% since 2004. Moreover, a study by the University of Toledo shows that triclosan and triclocarbon, a similar compound, can enter the food chain through use of contaminated water or fertilizer on agricultural crops.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Share

06
Aug

Herbicide-Contaminated Manure Damages Organic Crops in Washington State

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2010) Organic farmers and gardeners across a Washington state county suspect that herbicide-contaminated manure and compost obtained from non-organic farms and dairies are responsible for severe crop loss reported throughout the region, raising questions about the adequacy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration process. Tests of soil and tissue samples of local dairy manure that is used in soil and compost mixtures revealed small amounts of aminopyralid, a potent and persistent herbicide approved for use by EPA in 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Bellingham Herald

Share

05
Aug

Utility Sprays Right-of-Way and Nearly Kills Centuries-Old Grape Vine

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2010) A 400-year old large old grape vine considered to be the nation’s oldest in Manteo, North Carolina and known lovingly as “Mother Vine,” is slowly recovering from a powerful dose of herbicide sprayed by a utility company. The Virginia-based Dominion Power Company contracted Lewis Tree Service to spray power poles along the roads in the Manteo in May. The herbicide they used, Garlon3A, was accidentally sprayed on a tiny shoot from the vine that had grown a few feet up a pole on 84-year old Jack Wilson’s property. Unaware of the recent herbicide spraying by the utility power company, he noticed various brown, dead sections that began to appear in the plant in May. Not only did the vine suffer, but about 10 feet of a nearby hedge died, along with three limbs of a large pecan tree that had to be trimmed.

Source: LA Times

Source: LA Times

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.â€

Source: LA Times

Share

04
Aug

Maine Towns Restrict Lawn Chemicals

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2010) Several coastal towns in Maine, concerned about water contamination and the potential for the effects on aquatic life, have adopted restrictions on lawn chemicals. Pesticide opponents praise towns for cutting back on pesticide use but say that a ban on private use would make a bigger difference.

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.

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

Share

03
Aug

Risk Assessment Flaw Downplays Insecticide’s Link to Bee Kills

(Beyond Pesticides, August 3, 2010) A new study shows that due to a flaw in standard risk assessments, which consider toxic effects at fixed exposure times, the risks posed by the neonicotinoid pesticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid are likely to be underestimated. The authors believe that minute quantities of imidicloprid may be playing a much larger role in killing bees over extended periods of time than previously thought. The study, “The significance of the Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation for risk assessmentâ€â€The toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to arthropods is reinforced by exposure time,†was published online July 23, 2010 in the journal Toxicology.

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.

Read other Daily News Blog postings on pollinators and pesticides.

Share

02
Aug

High Cost of Environment Related Childhood Diseases Estimated in MI

(Beyond Pesticides, Aug 2, 2010) A new report conducted by an Ann Arbor, Michigan based coalition of health and environmental groups estimates that children’s exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides, cost Michigan billions of dollars each year. The study examines the costs associated with four environmentally related childhood diseases: lead poisoning, asthma, pediatric cancer, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Treating these four disorders costs the state of Michigan an average of $5.85 billion annually. The study, “The Price of Pollution: Cost Estimates of Environment-Related Childhood Disease in Michigan†was released in time for the US House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings on the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, an overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

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.

Take Action:
Educate your U.S. Representatives and Senators on the need for stricter toxic chemicals policy, such as theToxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, and efforts to remove pesticides that present an unnecessary risk because of the availability of alternative management practices and products, such as organic food production and defined integrated pest management (IPM) that have eliminated toxic chemical dependency.

Share

30
Jul

Lawsuit Seeks Timeline for FDA Action on Antibacterial Pesticide Triclosan

(Beyond Pesticides, July 30, 2010) Adding to a campaign that Beyond Pesticides launched in 2004 to alert the public and pressure government to restrict the highly toxic antibacterial chemical triclosan -commonly found in antibacterial soaps and household and consumer products, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit earlier this week against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to issue a final rule regulating the chemical. The lawsuit follows on the heels of two petitions filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch in 2009 and 2010 with FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), respectively, to ban the chemical. Because of the widespread poisoning and environmental contamination caused by triclosan, the petitions cite numerous violations of statutory duties under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.

The NRDC lawsuit adds yet another dimension to the legal violations involving agency malfeasance on triclosan by asking the court to impose a strict deadline for FDA to finalize a proposed rule that has been pending for 32 years and could ban many uses of triclosan and its chemical cousin triclocarban. Citing these chemicals as suspected endocrine disruptors and linked to reproductive and developmental harm in laboratory studies, the lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Triclosan is regulated by both the FDA and EPA; however, neither agency has moved to restrict triclosan despite the longstanding and continually emerging science that supports the limitation of the chemical’s use. In May, Beyond Pesticides along with several other groups submitted comments to the FDA in response to the agency’s request for environmental data regarding tricosan’s use in acne and antiplaque/antigingivitis over-the-counter drug products. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, have submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they end the use of all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate numerous federal statutes.

Echoing these petitions, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also submitted letters of concern to both EPA and FDA. In FDA’s response, the agency acknowledged that soaps containing triclosan offer no additional benefit over regular soap and water. FDA stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients,†and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. FDA also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects. Despite these concerns, however, the agency did not actually move ahead on the rule-making.

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

Initially designed for hospitals and clinics, the majority of consumer soaps claiming to be “antibacterial†or “antimicrobial†contain the chemicals triclosan or triclocarban. Antimicrobials are now a billion dollar business with more than 5,000 products available to consumers ranging from household cleaners to mattresses and bedding, cosmetics, toys, toothpaste, chopsticks, and even No. 2 pencils. These products are marketed to the health conscious despite no firm evidence of benefits and amid growing data of human health and environmental consequences.

The growing use of these chemicals in products has led to widespread residues in the environment and in people. Recent studies found that triclosan was present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with higher levels in people in their third decade of life and among people with the highest household income. Several studies also suggest that the widespread use of triclosan and triclocarban may also contribute to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Since the 2004 publication of “The Ubiquitous Triclosan,†Beyond Pesticides has been exposing the dangers of this toxic chemical. Now, along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 environmental and public health groups, Beyond Pesticides is leading a national grassroots movement calling for the ban of triclosan from consumer products. Beyond Pesticides is calling on manufacturers, retailers, school districts, local businesses and communities to wash their hands of triclosan and protect our nation’s waters and public health from this toxic pesticide. To learn more about this grassroots campaign and the join the movement, visit our triclosan homepage.

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

Source: NRDC Press Release

Share

29
Jul

New Pesticide Restrictions Set for Approval in Indiana Schools

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2010) A set of mandatory rules intended to reduce pesticide use in public and private schools in Indiana is pending approval after voluntary implementation guidelines failed. The Indiana Pesticides Board submitted a draft proposal in June outlining rules to minimize pesticide exposure to students. These measures include banning the use of pesticides when students are present, keeping pesticides locked in storage areas where students do not have access, providing advance notice of pesticide applications, and using pesticides with the lowest hazards to children. Although Beyond Pesticides recommend the additional step of developing a defined Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, these tactics represent a good first step towards pesticide reduction in schools.

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 floorâ€â€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.â€

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:
â€Â¢ 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).
â€Â¢ 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).
â€Â¢ 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]

A public hearing for the draft proposal will be held at 9 a.m. on August 2nd, at the Office of the Indiana State Chemist, Purdue University, 175 South University Street, Room A151, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Share

28
Jul

EPA To Elevate Environmental Justice in Its Rulemaking

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public comment on an interim guidance document that requires agency staff to incorporate environmental justice into the agency’s rulemaking process. The rulemaking guidance is a step toward meeting EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s priority to work for environmental justice and protect the health and safety of communities that have been disproportionally impacted by pollution.

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.

Share

27
Jul

Groups Seeking Ban on Chlorpyrifos Go to Federal Court

(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2010) Groups filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to decide whether or not it will cancel all remaining uses and tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which has been banned for residential use, but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture. In September 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed a petition with EPA asking the agency to ban chlorpyrifos. In the nearly three years since, the agency has not responded. NRDC and PANNA v. EPA, filed by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice on July 22, 2010, would force EPA to make a decision on the pesticide’s ban.

“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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic sytems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices. The chlorpyrifos story, in addition to untold damage it has caused families across the U.S., is testimony to the need to adopt alternatives assessments that force chemicals off the market that can be replaced by safer or green practices. Despite agency efforts to use failed risk assessment decision making to claim that the food supply is safe and the environment protected, an informed public is driving the growth of organic production in the marketplace, choosing health and environmental protection over risk assessment. It is a process that can be supported through purchasing decisions everyday in the grocery store and advocacy that effects a conversion of land and building management in parks, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, indoor and outdoor spaces to nontoxic and least-toxic methods. Whether it is agriculture, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, or community insect management, turn to Beyond Pesticides for the latest on science, policy, safe management practices, and activism.

Share

26
Jul

Many CA Child Care Centers Are Ignoring Pesticide Regulations

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2010) Researchers at the Center for Children’s Environmental Health Research, UC Berkeley School of Public Health has found that the majority of child daycare centers surveyed do not understand the term Integrative Pest Management (IPM), and many spray pesticides without notifying parents or posting signs. Specifically, the survey found that over 90% of participating child care centers in the state of California have at least one pest problem, yet only 25% understand what IPM means. When using pesticides, 24% of survey participants do not notify parents and 35% do not post any warning signs. The survey was conducted for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), which is required under the California Healthy Schools Act to collect data on pest management in child care centers.

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.â€

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.

California residents can visit California Safe Schools for more information.

Share

23
Jul

Use of Household Cleaners Linked to Increased Risk of Breast Cancer

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2010) A new study published in BioMed’s online journal, Environmental Health, links endocrine disrupting pesticides and other chemicals in household cleaning products to an elevated risk of breast cancer. Researchers at the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, MA and Boston University found that women who use household cleaners more often have double the risk of breast cancer, compared to women who use household cleaners less frequently. The study includes over 1,500 women selected from Cape Cod, MA and found a correlation between cases of breast cancer and the number of women who reported using household cleaners, particularly solid, slow-release air fresheners when used more than seven times a year, and mold removers when used more than once a week.

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.â€

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.â€

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.

You can reduce your risk by avoiding toxic pesticides and switching to more natural cleaning products as recommended by Beyond Pesticides in our 2007 issue of our School Pesticide Monitor. You can also find products free of the harmful antibacterial triclosan from our list of companies that have signed the pledge to be triclsoan-free. For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ antibacterial and antimicrobial page.

Share

22
Jul

Monsanto Closer to Registering Dicamba-Resistant Soy

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2010) In a press release submitted last week, the Monsanto Company, Inc. announced that it has taken a vital step towards commercializing a new soybean product that is tolerant to the neurotoxic pesticide dicamba by completing its regulatory submission to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for dicamba-tolerant soybeans. Monsanto expects to complete regulatory submission to the USDA and key global markets in the coming months.

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.â€

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.

Share

21
Jul

Alaska Supreme Court Issues Restraining Order on Herbicide Spraying By Railroad

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2010) Alaska’s Supreme Court halted plans to use glyphosate to kill weeds along track owned by the Alaska Railroad, which is believed to be the only herbicide-free stretch of rail in the country. This decision is in response to an emergency petition filed by Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) and others against the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC) who requested the use of glyphosate for weed control.

Source: www.denaliaccommodations.com

Source: www.denaliaccommodations.com

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 â€Ëœalternative 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.

The railroad was granted the permit that would have allowed it to start spraying last week, but a temporary stay delayed that until July 15. The railroad had until Jul 20th to file with the court and challenge a review of the case. Groups say a majority of residents oppose the spraying, and the village of Eklutna protested the permit. The permit specifies that spraying cannot happen within 200 feet of groundwater sources or within 100 feet of a stream or pond.

Source: Alaska Community Action on Toxics

Photo: www.denaliaccommodations.com

Share

20
Jul

Washington State Denies State Registration of Methyl Iodide

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2010) Washington state has denied approval of the highly toxic fumigant-based pesticide methyl iodide, and environmentalists hope other regulators follow its lead. Citing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment, the Washington Department of Agriculture requested that Arysta LifeScience withdraw its application for the registration of methyl iodide on July 15, 2010. Beyond Pesticides encourages its California members and allies to contact the Governor’s office and ask that California, which is expected to make its final decision on the pesticide this month, follow Washington’s lead. All are encouraged to contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ask that it reevaluate its decision to register methyl iodide. Find instructions for contacting the governor and EPA below.

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.

Conventional chemical-based agriculture often poses risks to farmworkers, farm families and others living near agricultural areas. Because of these risks, as well as the health impacts to consumers and adverse environmental impacts, Beyond Pesticides encourages people to eat organic food whenever possible. Learn more about why eating organic is the right choice on Beyond Pesticides new Eating with a Conscience website.

Share

19
Jul

New Mobile App to Help Consumers Choose GM Free Food

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2010) The Washington D.C. based Center for Food Safety (CFS) has unveiled an application for mobile phones to help shoppers quickly and easily identify foods made with ingredients from genetically modified (GM) organisms. Many consumers are leery of GM foods, yet unfortunately producers are not required to label products that contain GM ingredients, leaving consumers guessing about what they are eating. To aid consumers where regulatory oversight has failed, CFS created its new True Food Shoppers Guide Mobile Application available for free through iTunes and Android Market.

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.

To download the app from iTunes or Android Market, search for the term “True Foodâ€. For those who do not have a smart phone, Center for Food Safety is working on a web version, and a printable PDF shoppers guide is also available.

Share

16
Jul

Alaskan Non-Profit Stops Pesticide Use on Local Park

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2010) Under pressure from the grassroots group Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), the city of Anchorage canceled plans to spray the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba on the Town Square Park citing concerns over the safety of children playing in the park. ACAT members attended the Anchorage Assembly public meeting with an NBC TV affiliate and discussed their reservations over spraying Town Square Park, a popular gathering place for families, workers eating their lunches, and tourists. Soon after, the mayor announced the spraying would be canceled, and that the city would remove dandelions by hand. Environmentalists called the decision a victory for the health of Anchorage residents and the environment.

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.

Source: Associated Press

Share

15
Jul

Industry Responds to Agency, Environmentalists on Atrazine Review

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2010) Swiss chemical manufacturing giant Syngenta, one of the makers of the commonly used and heavily scrutinized pesticides atrazine, are speaking out against anti-pesticide activists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of atrazine. Despite mounting peer-reviewed scientific literature and research, Syngenta refuses to acknowledge the dangers of atrazine and, according to Legal Newsline, claims that the review is “redundant,†and merely “an unprecedented war on agriculture by anti-pesticide activists.†The company, which made over $11 billion in sales in 2009 even accuses the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has spearheaded a campaign to persuade EPA to initiate reviews, of being “slick†and “well-funded.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.

For more information on the chemical atrazine, please see our atrazine fact sheet on our pesticide gateway. Beyond Pesticides is working to halt the senseless use and exposure to lawn pesticides and herbicides, such as atrazine, that are so pervasively used in the U.S. Avoid using these pesticides by following organic and least-toxic management strategies for your lawn and gardens, such as composting, rain gardens, habitat protection, and natural predators. For more ideas, look at our Lawns and Landscape Page and our Invasive Weed Management Page.

Share

14
Jul

EPA Fines Monsanto for Distributing Misbranded GE Cotton

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that Monsanto Company Inc. has agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty to resolve misbranding violations related to the sale and distribution of cotton seed products containing genetically engineered (GE) pesticides. This is the largest civil administrative penalty settlement ever received under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

“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.â€

“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.â€

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.

Source: EPA News Release

Share

13
Jul

Tell EPA to Strengthen Proposed Pesticide Water Permits

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2010) Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to send comments by July 19, 2010 to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its recently issued draft “general permit†under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that will govern aquatic pesticides and certain pesticide spraying over or near surface waters, including mosquito spraying and spraying over forest canopies and near irrigation ditches. Environmental groups believe the pesticide industry is lobbying to make this permit as weak as possible.

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:

â€Â¢ 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.

â€Â¢ 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.

â€Â¢ 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.

â€Â¢ 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]

â€Â¢ 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

Sources: Toxics Action Center, Pesticide Watch, National Environmental Law Center, EPA

Share

12
Jul

USDA Study Compares Organic and Conventional Eggs, But Misses Big Picture

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2010) A study comparing the quality (measured in fat and protein content, egg white and shell thickness, and other physical characteristics) of various types of chicken eggs, including conventional, free-range and organic, failed to examine pesticide residues or vitamin content, nor does it consider the environmental and health impacts of conventional, chemical-based production systems, according to food and environmental safety advocates. The study is receiving attention after a recent article in Time magazine points out that organic eggs are often three times more expensive than conventional factory farm eggs. The study concludes that there is no substantial quality difference between eggs produced under different production systems.

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.

For more information on the importance of eating organic food for you, workers and the environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience food guide and organic food program page.

Share
  • Archives

  • Categories

    • air pollution (8)
    • Announcements (605)
    • Antibiotic Resistance (41)
    • Antimicrobial (18)
    • Aquaculture (31)
    • Aquatic Organisms (37)
    • Bats (7)
    • Beneficials (54)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (34)
    • Biomonitoring (40)
    • Birds (26)
    • btomsfiolone (1)
    • Bug Bombs (2)
    • Cannabis (30)
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (11)
    • Chemical Mixtures (8)
    • Children (114)
    • Children/Schools (240)
    • cicadas (1)
    • Climate (32)
    • Climate Change (90)
    • Clover (1)
    • compost (6)
    • Congress (21)
    • contamination (158)
    • deethylatrazine (1)
    • diamides (1)
    • Disinfectants & Sanitizers (19)
    • Drift (19)
    • Drinking Water (18)
    • Ecosystem Services (16)
    • Emergency Exemption (3)
    • Environmental Justice (167)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (550)
    • Events (89)
    • Farm Bill (24)
    • Farmworkers (200)
    • Forestry (6)
    • Fracking (4)
    • Fungal Resistance (6)
    • Fungicides (26)
    • Goats (2)
    • Golf (15)
    • Greenhouse (1)
    • Groundwater (16)
    • Health care (32)
    • Herbicides (48)
    • Holidays (39)
    • Household Use (9)
    • Indigenous People (6)
    • Indoor Air Quality (6)
    • Infectious Disease (4)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (72)
    • Invasive Species (35)
    • Label Claims (51)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (254)
    • Litigation (346)
    • Livestock (9)
    • men’s health (4)
    • metabolic syndrome (3)
    • Metabolites (6)
    • Microbiata (24)
    • Microbiome (30)
    • molluscicide (1)
    • Nanosilver (2)
    • Nanotechnology (54)
    • National Politics (388)
    • Native Americans (3)
    • Occupational Health (17)
    • Oceans (11)
    • Office of Inspector General (4)
    • perennial crops (1)
    • Pesticide Drift (164)
    • Pesticide Efficacy (12)
    • Pesticide Mixtures (16)
    • Pesticide Residues (185)
    • Pets (36)
    • Plant Incorporated Protectants (2)
    • Plastic (10)
    • Poisoning (20)
    • Preemption (46)
    • President-elect Transition (2)
    • Reflection (1)
    • Repellent (4)
    • Resistance (121)
    • Rights-of-Way (1)
    • Rodenticide (34)
    • Seasonal (3)
    • Seeds (7)
    • soil health (21)
    • Superfund (5)
    • synergistic effects (25)
    • Synthetic Pyrethroids (17)
    • Synthetic Turf (3)
    • Take Action (602)
    • Textile/Apparel/Fashion Industry (1)
    • Toxic Waste (12)
    • U.S. Supreme Court (3)
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (1)
    • Women’s Health (27)
    • Wood Preservatives (36)
    • World Health Organization (11)
    • Year in Review (2)
  • Most Viewed Posts