Nanotechnology involves the creation and manipulation of materials at the scale of atoms and molecules. Scientists are applying nanotechnology to many industries, including food production. Critics say that too little is known about the impact of nanoparticles on human health and the environment. Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature’s Path Foods, sponsored the comment banning nanotechnology in organics to the Canadian General Standards Board, which then voted for the ban. According to Mr. Falck, reasons given for the ban on nanotechnology are that consumers are very concerned about the technology, that it is incompatible with organic principles, and that safety aspects of the technology are unknown.

Mr. Falck says there is no regulation on nanotechnology, which presents even more potential problems than genetic engineering. “Genetic engineering is a definable science: splicing genes into crops. With nanotechnology there are at least 1000 different applications, all unregulated with unknown risks.”

In the U.S., the Materials Handling Committee of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) planned last fall to recommend that nanotechnology be banned from organic food production. But in February the committee published a “request for information for developing a usable definition of the term (nanotechnology) in organics.” The document says “a difficulty in developing a definition for the term ”˜nanotechnology’ has prevented the committee from completing a final recommendation on this important issue.” As a result, the committee has requested a technical and scientific review of the issue to aid the committee in clearly identifying the term “nanotechnology.” The committee wants to avoid including in the definition products of technologies that are currently allowed in organic production and processing. For example, homogenizing milk and grain milling create nanosized particles””milk molecules and wheat flour dust””but would not be considered products of nanotechnology.

Banning nanotechnology in organic production presents challenges because it is already being used in some organic products. Nano Green Sciences, Inc. sells a nano-pesticide that they claim is “organic.” Other pesticides, such as pyrethrin and copper, could contain nanoparticles and nanosilver could be used to clean vegetables of bacteria. Some personal care products promoted as organic already contain nanoparticles.

Canada joins several other countries that have either banned or proposed a ban on nanotechnology in organic including the United Kingdom’s Soil Association, Biological Farmers of Australia, and Austrian organic certifier Austria Bio Garantie. The US-based Organic Crop Improvement Association has added a clause in their organic standard to regulate the use of nanotechnology.

In 2007, a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations released the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, which calls for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products, citing risks to the public, workers and the environment. The manufacture of products using nanotechnology—a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order to alter properties—has exploded in recent years. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed. Nanosized particles such as nanosilver can be released from impregnated materials via washing or sweating where they may pose numerable unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Tell the NOSB to keep nanotechnology out of organic production and processing. See sample letter.

If registered, methyl iodide will be used primarily to fumigate and sterilize the California’s strawberry fields, although the pesticide will also be used in nurseries and nut tree production. DPR’s proposal does not require neighbor notification before use of this extremely toxic chemical.

As evidenced by California’s thriving organic industry, alternatives to fumigants exist and are in use in California. In a hearing on February 8, 2010, before the California Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, two panels of California growers and researchers discussed a number of safe and effective alternatives to methyl iodide. These methods include solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation, crop rotation, biological controls, selective breeding, soil steaming, hydroponics, and steam treatment for containerized plants.

“Why are we risking our children’s lives when alternatives to methyl iodide are already being used successfully to grow strawberries?” said Marilyn Lynds, resident of Moss Landing. “With this decision, the Department of Pesticide Regulation has put communities in harm’s way. With increasing levels of cancer all around us, why would DPR put one more dangerous carcinogen into the air””especially one scientists consider difficult, if not impossible, to control.”

A panel of internationally-renowned scientists convened by DPR, which conducted a formal review of the chemical during 2009—2010, concluded in its report that due to the high toxicity of methyl iodide any agricultural use “would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on the public health,” adding that, “Adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

“Under this proposal, fieldworkers near fumigation sites would have significant risk for miscarriages and nervous system effects,” explains Anne Katten, a pesticide and worker safety specialist at California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Further, 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.”

DPR says it will impose more comprehensive controls on methyl iodide than EPA or any other state, including: larger buffer zones around all applications; a minimum of a half—mile buffer around schools, hospitals, nursing homes and similar sites; reduced application rates and acreage that can be treated; and, application limits to protect groundwater. Opponents do not think these steps go far enough to protect the public.

Dr. Susan Kegley, chemist and consulting scientist for Pesticide Action Network North America, commented, “If DPR’s decision holds, in addition to increased thyroid disease and more cancers generally, scientific evidence predicts we will see a leap in late-term miscarriages for pregnant women who live or work near methyl iodide applications. We want them to reconsider this decision immediately.”

The pesticide is promoted by the largest privately-held pesticide company in the world, Arysta LifeScience. Arysta has invested significant resources in lobbying and a communications campaign within the state to secure registration in one of the most lucrative markets in the nation.

Advocates say that Californians have been clear that they do not want the carcinogenic pesticide approved for use in the state, and that there are safer, cleaner and more viable ways to grow strawberries. Opposition has measured in the thousands, and includes farmworkers, mothers, doctors and nurses, victims of pesticide poisoning and residents of rural communities.

On April 12, 2010, environmental, public health, labor and farmworker advocacy organizations from across the country filed a petition asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind the Bush administration era approval of methyl iodide in light of troubling new findings uncovered in California studies.

Paul Towers of Pesticide Watch said, “DPR should take these forty-five days to truly review and reconsider its approval of a known carcinogen and miscarriage-inducing pesticide. In 2010 we should be moving towards green solutions that are safe for our communities, not backtracking by adding new poisons to the arsenal.”

Take Action: Tell the California Department of Pesticide Regulation that the risks posed by methyl iodide are too great and, as proof by the state’s thriving organic market, alternatives exist. Comments are due June 14, 2010, by e-mail to [email protected], or to Pesticide Registration Branch, Department of Pesticide Regulation, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015.

Silver has long been used as an antiseptic to reduce bacterial growth on skin, however recent advances in nanoscience (the science and manipulation of chemical and biological materials with dimensions in the range from 1-100 nanometers) led to the development of silver nanoparticles. Due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them, and silver nanoparticles (or nanosilver) are now widely impregnated into a wide range of consumer products, including textiles such as socks, sportswear, underwear and bedding, vacuums, washing machines, toys, sunscreens, and a host of others.

The researchers tested and compared eleven different fabrics for the study, “Determination of silver nanoparticle release from antibacterial fabrics into artificial sweat” in Particle and Fibre Toxicology journal. Six of the fabrics were commercially made shirts that were sold as containing nanosilver, and five fabrics were treated in the lab with a silver nanoparticle solution containing nanoparticles of silver chloride and titanium dioxide. The lab-prepared fabrics were treated with 0, 0.5, 1, 5 and 10 grams per liter of the nanosilver solution. The fabric was then incubated for 24 hours in four formulations of artificial sweat varying in acidity but containing the same compounds as human sweat (i.e. lactic acid, salt compounds, water). After the fabric was removed, the artificial sweat was analyzed for silver nanoparticles. Researchers then compared which fabrics were effective at reducing bacterial growth for Staphylococcus aureaus (staph) and E. coli by incubating the bacteria with the fabric samples and counting the results.

Silver content in the lab prepared fabrics ranged from 36 to 425 milligrams of silver per kilogram (mg/kg), and released up to 322 mg/kg of fabric weight of the silver nanoparticles. The consumer fabrics, on the other hand, contained less silver to begin with, between 1 and 15 mg/kg, therefore releasing less silver into the artificial sweat. Researchers also found that half of the commercially made shirts did not contain any silver or feature any antibacterial properties, despite being labeled so. Overall, the lab-prepared fabrics released more silver nanoparticles into the artificial sweat and were more able to reduce bacterial growth than the store-bought ones, with the exception of one that inhibited bacterial growth similarly to that of the lab-prepared shirts while leaching less nanoparticles (0.5 mg/kg).

The researchers conclude that as nanotechnology becomes increasingly prevalent in consumer products, the potential for exposure to nanoparticles increases. Yet, little is known about how these silver materials may interact with people’s bodies. There is concern that the the tiny particles may be more toxic than other, larger-sized and more traditional types of silver compounds, as the smaller particles could be more easily absorbed and distributed throughout the body.

The authors suggest more research is needed to better understand the risks associated with nanotechnologies as more consumer products, such as socks and other clothing fabrics, incorporate silver nanoparticles in an attempt to reduce bacterial growth and the odors associated with it. Other studies have reported that silver can migrate from treated fabrics during washing in a washing machine. The silver from these particles are presumed to be carried into the environment by wastewater, causing concerns for aquatic life.

The study highlights a potential exposure source of nanoparticles that we know very little about in terms of the potential health effects. More research is needed to better understand the risks associated with nanotechnologies as more consumer products, such as socks and other clothing fabrics, incorporate silver nanoparticles in an attempt to reduce bacterial growth and the odors associated with it.

Current regulations fail to guarantee consumers that these new technologies are safe to use. All pesticidal substances must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under FIFRA, silver nanoparticles meet the definition of a pesticide- that is, as a substance that is intended to disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or development of microbiological organisms. As such, silver nanoparticles, with their antimicrobial activity, should and must be regulated by the EPA as a pesticide. However EPA has done little to regulate or evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts these particles may cause. In 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed a petition with the EPA challenging the agency’s failure to regulate nanomaterials.

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

For more information, including tips on how to get toxic antimicrobials out of your home, school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterials program page.

Roundup Ready Alfalfa is genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Alfalfa is a bee pollinated crop used primarily for forage. The potential for cross pollination between GE and non-GE varieties of alfalfa is much higher than in other crops such as corn, because of the way Alfalfa is pollinated. In 2007, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered a moratorium on GE alfalfa until the USDA completed an EIS. The USDA released a draft EIS in December of 2009 again calling for deregulation of the crop. Despite the expected release of a final draft next year Monsanto has decided to press ahead with a Supreme Court Case. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is the EIS that will determine if growers in the United States will once again be able to purchase GE alfalfa. However this case could still be very important to stakeholders, because of the precedent it could set.

This case hinges on the question of whether the organic growers were able to demonstrate a “likelihood of irreparable [environmental] harm.” It is Monsanto’s claim that the growers only demonstrated the likelihood of economic harm. Environmental groups are concerned that a ruling in favor of Monsanto could set a precedent greatly weakening NEPA. The law has been used by various environmentalists to bring suit against industry and government agencies. Unfortunately environmental cases brought under NEPA have not fared well before the Supreme Court. According to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club certain Justices seem to be “on a kick to gut NEPA remedies.” Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court not to rule in favor of Monsanto. Defenders of Wildlife has not been involved with the issue of genetically engineered crops, but decided to weigh in, because of the potential impact this case could have on environmental litigation. Industry groups are also concerned with the outcome of the case. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, Croplife America and the National Association of Home Builders filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to Tighten restrictions on plaintiffs seeking injunctions against industry for environmental reasons.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer brother of US District Judge Charles Breyer will not take part in case. Justice Clarence Thomas will take part despite being a former Monsanto employee.

Such an infestation, according to BLM, would result in substantial loss of vegetation and ground cover that is vital to providing food and habitat to wildlife and livestock populations and maintaining properly functioning ecosystems. While the insects are native to Wyoming, outbreaks of certain pest species can be problematic because of their voracious appetites for grass.

In discussions with APHIS and local county weed and pest districts, the BLM believes that all BLM states, excluding Alaska and Eastern States, may require some treatments and those grasshopper suppression treatments will be essential to protect private rangelands and crops. Treatments also protect federal rangelands from massive defoliation, particularly the loss of forbs, essential for many wildlife species.

Grasshoppers, as well as other insects, are an important food source for chicks, and treatment as well as application timing could potentially disturb sage—grouse, particularly during early brood rearing.

Earlier this year, scientists were looking into a fungus that eats Mormon crickets (which are more closely related to grasshoppers than crickets) alive by depositing spores inside them that multiply and eventually break through their exoskeletons. While the fungus is already providing an organic method of controlling crickets and grasshoppers in Australia, Africa and South America, exotic species laws prevents its importation into the U.S.

According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA), a healthy and diverse farm environment usually discourages the build-up of a lasting infestation and improving biodiversity is the single most important step that can be taken. The best way to control grasshoppers is by preventing them in the first place by taking cultural measures, such as tillage, fall clean-up, trap cropping, early seeding and early harvest, in conjunction with biological controls, such as Nosema locustae, a naturally occurring protozoan that causes disease and death in crickets and grasshoppers.

Typically, the pesticides utilized by APHIS in the grasshopper program include carbaryl, diflubenzuron and malathion. APHIS applies these pesticides by ground equipment by distributing baits usually made of wheat bran or rolled oats and carbaryl or aerially by distributing ultra—low—volume applications (any application of less than .5 gallons per acre).

Instead of using full coverage insecticide treatment, the BLM has selected the “Reduced Area and Agent Treatments” (RAATs) method, which will purportedly require less land area and uses insecticides at lower rates. The plan involves spraying alternating strips of land with the toxic pesticide diflubenzuron, which stops grasshoppers from growing.

While this is slightly better than the alternative of blanket spraying, the BLM decided against another alternative that would have required more restrictive buffers around certain bird and big game habitat. Under the other alternative–RAATs with Additional Buffers– additional seasonal or spatial buffers would have be employed to protect specific resources, as described below:
Ӣ To protect raptors during the breeding season, no aerial or ground treatments would occur within 0.5 mile of known active nests. This would extend the 1,000-foot buffer described above for bald and golden eagles to 0.5 mile and would extend this protection to all raptors. The primary concern for bird species is related to disturbance (from aircraft or vehicles used in the application of the pesticides) and the effects of decreases in insect populations from pesticide applications on insectivorous species rather than to the direct toxicity to birds.
Ӣ To protect the greater sage-grouse, an ESA candidate species, no aerial or ground treatments would occur within 3 miles of known leks or brood rearing areas until after June 30. The primary concern for sage-grouse is the effect the grasshopper suppression program would have on the forage base of young sage-grouse, which rely most heavily on insects during the first three weeks of life. Although RAATs methodology would leave a significant food base under both action alternatives, this measure would ensure that no additional disturbance occurs around leks and early brood rearing areas.
Ӣ No aerial or ground treatments would occur within 1 mile of known mountain plover nesting areas until after July 31. The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is an ESA candidate species that nests and feeds in shortgrass prairie habitat, especially in heavily grazed areas and within prairie dog colonies. The primary concern for the mountain plover is the effect the grasshopper suppression program would have on their insect food base and the potential for ground-based treatments to destroy their nondescript nests.
Ӣ No aerial or ground treatments would occur within one mile of known big game parturition areas until after the calving season is complete, typically by July 15. The primary concern for big game animals would be the disturbance caused by aircraft or vehicles used in the application of the pesticides.
Ӣ No ground treatments would occur within 1,000 feet of known pygmy rabbits burrows. Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) populations have been declining throughout the west and they have been petitioned for ESA listing. Pygmy rabbits are typically found in areas of tall, dense sagebrush upon which they depend for both food and shelter. The primary concern for the pygmy rabbit is the potential for ground-based treatments to destroy their burrows.

The agency was taking feedback until April 26th on its environmental study, however based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted by BLM, it concluded that implementing their preferred treatment- the RAATs method- not pose a threat and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Wyoming BLM Weed and Pest Coordinator Ken Henke said: “If public comments come in, if there’s something really significant we missed or some issue we just overlooked, that also could be addressed in the final (environmental assessment).”

For more information on grasshopper control, please see ATTRA’s Grasshopper Management Page.

Source: The Associated Press

The preliminary report from the SCCS, entitled “Preliminary opinion on triclosan (Antimicrobial Resistance),” was published in March 2010 and open to comment. The committee was asked to answer the question: “Does the SCCS consider a continued use of triclosan as a preservative in cosmetic products as safe taking into account the new provided documentation of resistance development by certain micro-organisms and cross-resistance?”

The SCCS also found that, “Some reported environmental concentrations in a number of geographically distinct areas are high enough to suggest that such triggering of bacterial resistance could also occur in the environment. This warrants further investigation.” However, it continues, “The applications of triclosan which contribute to those high environmental concentrations cannot be properly identified nor quantified at present.” As a result, the report concludes, “Based on the available scientific information, it is not possible to quantify the risk of development of antimicrobial resistance induced by triclosan applications, including its use in cosmetics”¦.This should be taken into account when considering the current and future uses of triclosan in all applications so as to ensure that the demonstrable benefits for human health in certain applications are not compromised.”

This follows a 2006 European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) report which concluded that “[more] information is required on consumer exposure to triclosan from all sources, including cosmetic products.” This SCCP report found that “continued use of triclosan as a preservative at the current concentration limit of maximum 0.3% in all cosmetic products is not safe for the consumer because of the magnitude of the aggregate exposure.” A dossier was then provided by industry consisting of an update on the bacterial resistance issue for triclosan. Furthermore, the Norwegian authority on cosmetics submitted a report, “Risk assessment on the use of triclosan in cosmetics; Development of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria – II,” which concludes that, “[T]riclosan use may elevate the risk of increased antimicrobial resistance (co- and/or cross—resistance) in clinically important bacteria” and that triclosan use, “should be limited to situations for which scientific data are available demonstrating obvious health benefits.”

In response to Rep. Markey’s letter of concern, written to the agency earlier this year regarding triclosan, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that, “[E]xisting data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients,” and that “studies suggest that it is relatively easy for bacteria to develop altered susceptibilities to both antiseptics and antibiotics in the laboratory setting..”¦.FDA continues to believe that the possibility that antiseptics contribute to changes in antibiotic susceptibility warrants further investigation.”

Triclosan products, such as hand sanitizers, soaps, cutting boards, toys and fabrics (see a list of triclosan products) leave behind residues which continually expose bacteria to low level concentration of the pesticide. Studies have shown that at these sublethal concentrations, triclosan inhibits a specific bacterial target, and several mechanisms of resistance to triclosan have been demonstrated. The implications are grave for public health as overuse or improper usage of antibacterials in the home can enhance the selection process for resistance to these antibacterial products and to antibiotics. As a result, Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch and several other groups petitioned FDA in 2009 calling for the ban of triclosan citing the possibility of bacterial resistance to antibacterial substances and antibiotics, along with other human and environmental health concerns including endocrine disruption and water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which shares regulatory jurisdiction over triclosan, has no plans to review triclosan till 2013. For more information of the human health implications surrounding triclosan use, read the factsheet, “Triclosan: What the Research Shows.”

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 go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

“On this 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, I can think of no better tribute to our planet and our people than protecting it from known harmful chemicals,” Rep. Ellison said. “No one should ever have to worry if the water they drink is making them sick or preventing fertility.” Rep. Ellison’s bill cites widespread environmental contamination, health and environmental effects, as well as bans in other countries, as justification for the ban.

The current SAP meeting follows EPA’s October 2009 announcement that it would begin a new evaluation of atrazine to determine its effects on humans, following scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. Records brought to public attention by a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) lawsuit shows that EPA had more than 50 closed door meetings with Syngenta, atrazine’s manufacturer, during its 2003 reregistration. At the end of the new evaluation process, the agency will decide whether to revise its current risk assessment of the pesticide and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect public health.

Atrazine has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, low sperm quality, low birth weight, impaired immune system function and cancer. A 2009 study by Paul Winchester, PhD, who spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ 28th National Pesticide Forum in Cleveland, OH, linked birth defects to time of conception, with the great impact on children conceived when concentrations of atrazine and other pesticides were the highest in the local drinking water.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses and residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. In the U.S. alone, 60-80 million pounds are used per year. The herbicide is a common contaminant of municipal drinking water because it does not cling to soil particles and washes easily with the rain into surface and ground water. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found atrazine in approximately 75 percent of stream waters and 40 percent of all groundwater samples from agricultural areas tested.

Atrazine is also a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Studies show 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.

In the absence of federal law, such as the proposed School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), some states and local school districts have attempted to provide children with the protection they need from hazardous pesticide exposure while at school, yet the level of protection is uneven and inadequate across the country, with the majority of children left unprotected. There is no reason to expose children to hazardous pesticides and cleaning agents. The tools and experience are available to ensure environmentally safe schools for all children.

“The vulnerability of infants and children to the harmful effects of pesticides continues to attract national attention. Schools from across the country document a growing trend to adopt safer pest management strategies that do not rely on toxic pesticides, providing children with a healthier learning environment. Communities are also acknowledging the health and environmental risks of antimicrobial cleaning agents such as triclosan. Because of its link to resistant bacteria and adverse health effects – including asthma, cancer and learning disabilities, triclosan has no place in the classroom,” said Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director.

In the U.S., there are 55 million children and seven million adults in the nation’s 125,000 K-12 schools, many of which suffer from polluted indoor air, due to multiple factors, such as poor construction or ventilation, use of hazardous materials, inadequate sanitation, siting near hazards, and/or the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides or chemicals. The effects on children and staff are profound. Federal and state agencies and the research community are aware that unhealthy school environments erode health, learning and productivity, increase risks and health care costs, as well as increase asthma absenteeism.

“As school system leaders, members of the American Association of School Administrators set the pace for academic achievement and student welfare,” said Dan Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators Schools. “Schools that are environmentally safe are key to student learning and student and staff health and well-being.”

With the overarching goal of this year’s National Healthy Schools Day to make every school healthy for every child by promoting healthy and green school environments, 55 activities are taking place to promote the day throughout the U.S. and Canada. One such event that is focusing on safer pest management practices is being organized by the Greater Grand Rapids Children’s Environmental Health Initiative which is giving a presentation on pests and Integrated Pest Management to third graders at Ada Vista Elementary School. The presentation concludes with a scavenger hunt to find all the things in the room that would provide a pest friendly environment, a great way for the students to become pest-prevention detectives at school and at home. (Grand Rapids school district has had an IPM program in place for more than twenty years.)

There are many ways to promote Healthy Schools Day locally and nationally:
* Encourage your school to adopt safer pest management practices. Start by finding out about your school’s pest management/pesticide policy. Where a policy already exists, make sure that it is being enforced. If your school doesn’t have a policy in place, Beyond Pesticides can work with you and your school to ensure children are protected.
* Support federal legislation, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), that will protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide.
* Contact your state legislators and Governor requesting that they require schools adopt safer pest management practices and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides. See Beyond Pesticides’ report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws — 2010 Update for information on existing state laws and model provisions.
* Avoid harmful germs without using the antibacterial chemicals triclosan, a hazardous endocrine disrupting chemical commonly found in soaps and sanitizers, as well as lunch bags, shoes, socks, toys and school supplies. Join Beyond Pesticides’ campaign to end the consumer use of triclosan and take the “>pledge.
* Persuade your school to adopt the Triclosan Resolution to not buy or use products containing triclosan and supporting broader elimination of non-medical uses.
* Ask your school to serve healthier cafeteria choices with organic, locally grown foods.
* Learn how you can eliminate children’s exposure to toxic wood preservative. Although, as of January 2004, most residential uses of chromated-copper-arsenic (CCA) can no longer be manufactured for decks and patios, picnic tables, playground equipment, walkways/boardwalks, landscaping timbers, or fencing, already existing CCA-treated wood and structures may continue to be sold and used and continues to be found on children’s playgrounds, putting children at risk. Use Beyond Pesticides’ Resource Kit to take action in your community and state.
* Find ways to manage specific pest problems without toxic chemicals by using one Beyond Pesticide’s alternatives factsheets.
* Educate yourself on the hazards and risks of commonly used toxic pesticides through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticide Information Gateway.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The U.S. EPA, National Academy of Sciences, and American Public Health Association, among others, have voiced concerns about the danger that pesticides pose to children. The body of evidence in the scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels.

“[The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities] strongly believes that all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have the right to live, work, learn, worship and play in environments that are healthy and safe. This is particularly the case for children with special needs,” said Laura Abulafia, Environmental Health Initiative Director with the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. “Children, especially those who may have additional vulnerabilities such as developmental delays or intellectual/learning disabilities, may be more at risk to indoor toxic exposures.”

“Children spend many hours in one environment – school. They need a safe, healthy setting in which to thrive, learn and succeed. An excellent school environment can improve academic achievement and children’s enjoyment of school. A substandard school environment will interfere with learning and peer interactions at school. But as many as one-third of schools have substandard environments, said Robert J. Geller, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine, and Director of Emory Southeast Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit Our. “Current economic challenges hamper the abilities of many schools, and may allow some schools to deteriorate further. This is a false savings, one that we must resist.”

When Environmental Action planned the first Earth Day in 1970 at a cost of $125,000, it accepted no money from corporations. Some 20 million Americans from across the country participated in the day’s marches, demonstrations, lectures, workshops, and other events, making it one of the most successful political events in American History. Since that time, many companies have started making donations to Earth Day events, and selling products or services marketed as “green.” While some companies have made major strides to protect the environment, and contribute to a green economy, others are simply “greenwashing” their products. The Wall Street Cheat Sheet has called Dow Chemical, “this year’s Earth Day winner of Most Obscene Greenwashing.”

The Dow Chemical Company acquired the assets and liabilities of Union Carbide in 2001. According to the Bhopal Medical Appeal, the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal India leaked 27 tons of methyl isocyanate a toxic gas used in the production of certain carbamate insecticides on the night of December 2, 1984. An estimated 10,000 people died within the first 72 hours, and an additional 15,000 people have died as a result of chronic exposure. An additional 120,000 people require serious ongoing medical care. The Indian Council of Medical Research estimated that over half a million people were harmed in some way. Today the rate of birth defects in Bhopal is 10 times higher than India’s national average.

The factory which ceased active production in 1980 after the venture proved unprofitable. Despite being stocked with a surfeit of deadly chemicals, the plant’s safety system was allowed to fall into disrepair. The first reported poisonings occurred in the early 1980’s when animals grazing near the site became ill and died. After the disaster the plant was effectively abandoned and left to rot. To this day the plant is still leaking a deadly brew of industrial waste into the surrounding soil and water. The nearby aquifer, the only source of drinking water for an estimated 25,000 people, has since been contaminated, poisoning a whole new generation.

Some might expect a company that has put its name on an event dedicated to clean water would be concerned with cleaning the environmental devastation its subsidiary caused. However, according to a Dow statement, “Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal.” Union Carbide’s official statement says, “In the wake of the gas release, Union Carbide Corporation, and then chairman Warren Anderson, worked diligently to provide aid to the victims and set up a process to resolve their claims.” In 1989 the Supreme Court of India ordered Union Carbide to pay a $470 million settlement. Union Carbide and Dow are currently making no effort to remediate the ongoing water pollution from the plant.

Dow Chemical was also a major manufacturer of Agent Orange, the herbicide used by the U.S. military to defoliate forests during the Vietnam War. It contained the deadly byproduct 2,3,7,8-TCDD a dioxin compound. Dioxin contamination that still persists in the soils of Vietnam is an ongoing health and environmental crisis for the developing nation. Many U.S. Veterans and their children also continue to struggle with the effects of Agent Orange. Dow’s stance is that the evidence does not support a link between Agent Orange and illness in veterans.

Dow is also responsible for ground and surface water poisoning in the United States. As recently as last week a malfunction at a Dow Chemical plant in Norco Louisiana forced residents to evacuate when their homes were contaminated with titanium tetrachloride. Titanium tetrachloride can convert into hydrochloric acid which causes eye and throat irritation, along with other more serious health problems. Evacuees have since filed a federal class action suit. Even when things are going “right” Dow’s pesticides are linked to serious health and environmental effects. Learn more about their pesticides and alternatives in the Safer Choice consumer brochure.

While equivocating on the science on triclosan’s adverse effects, FDA does question the efficacy of the widely marketed triclosan products with the statement, “At this time the agency does not have evidence that triclosan in antibacterial soaps and body washes provides any benefit over washing with regular soap and water.”

The new FDA factsheet, featured on FDA’s Consumer Update webpage, “Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know,” responds to the petition submitted to the agency by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch outlining the dangers associated with triclosan, which were subsequently echoed by congressional letters submitted by Rep. Markey (D-MA) and recent media attention. However, the agency does not disclose the mounting scientific evidence that suggests triclosan is dangerous to human and environmental health.

Several laboratory studies have shown that triclosan acts as an endocrine disruptor by interfering with the thyroid hormone, as well as estrogen and androgen receptors, which could increase the risk of breast cancer. Triclosan can also transform into dioxin and interact with other chemicals to form chloroform, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals. In light of these data, triclosan is considered hazardous to human health, i.e. posing a threat, risk or danger to human health. For more information of the human health implications surrounding triclosan use, read the factsheet, “Triclsoan: What the Research Shows.”

To add to the confusion, FDA equivocates on its own science, which relies on laboratory animal testing to extrapolate to the human population, a practice that has substituted for direct laboratory testing on humans. FDA states, “[Existing] data showing effects in animals don’t always predict effects in humans,” and then says, “ [I]n light of questions raised by recent animal studies of triclosan, FDA is reviewing all of the available evidence on this ingredient’s safety..” First, FDA is well aware that in the United States, scientists and federal risk assessments (including those carried out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) assume that the toxic response observed in laboratory animals are indicative of toxic responses that are likely to occur in people. To predict responses in people, various animals (mammals) species that are biologically similar to humans are often used (e.g. mice) as models for responses in humans. Therefore, data showing effects of triclosan in laboratory animals, such as mice, are used to predict effects in humans. FDA also admits that “several scientific studies have come out since the last time FDA reviewed this ingredient.” The agency has not been able to finalize its regulation of triclosan since it was first initiated in the early 1970s, and most recently amended in the 1990s. Beyond Pesticides is urging FDA to move expeditiously with its review on the human health impacts of triclosan.

FDA also notes in its factsheet that it does not have sufficient safety evidence to recommend changing consumer use of products. The agency is ignoring a wealth of evidence in the scientific literature, and those submitted to the agency in Beyond Pesticides’ 2009 and 2004 petitions which show that triclosan poses a public health risk by way of endocrine disruption, and increased antibacterial resistance, as well as environmental contamination of surface waters and food. However, the agency does advise concerned consumers to check product labels to determine whether products contain triclosan and to wash with regular soap and water.

FDA has come under intense scrutiny recently over the use of triclosan in consumer products. Triclosan is used in a wide range of products including soaps, sanitizers, cosmetics etc. (See the list of commonly used triclosan-containing products). In February, the agency responded to a congressional letter authored by Rep. Markey (D-MA), stating 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. The agency has not formally responded to Beyond Pesticides’ petition.

Both FDA and EPA share jurisdiction over the regulation of triclosan, and to date neither agency has moved to restrict this hazardous chemical. EPA conducted a risk assessment of triclosan in 2008 and found it eligible for continued use despite evidence of endocrine disruption and widespread water contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that triclosan is one of the most detected pharmaceuticals substances in the nation’s waters. Triclosan impacts the hormone systems of amphibians, accumulates in fish and destroys algal communities. A study conducted by researchers at the CDC detected triclosan in 75 percent of the U.S. population. It has also been found in human breast milk.

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.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2010) New York lawmakers debated legislation yesterday that would help protect school children by banning the use of pesticides on school playing fields and playgrounds; it passed in the Senate late last night and still needs to be passed by the Assembly and then signed by the Governor. Because of an expected backlash by the chemical industry, Beyond Pesticides encourages residents of New York to contact their elected officials to let them know their position on the Child Safe Playing Fields Act, (S.4983/A.7937). In New York and across the country, schools routinely apply pesticides and “weed and feed” products (pesticides mixed with chemical fertilizers), which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, learning disabilities, asthma and more, even though organic turf management is proven effective and economical.

While the legislation has passed the state Assembly in last year, the bill has previously died in the Senate. To help push it through both chambers this year, the bill’s sponsors, Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-Setauket) and Senator Brian Foley (D-Blue Point), have narrowed its scope. While previous versions have always been limited to outdoor use, this year’s language is limited to school playing fields and playgrounds, and excludes other school grounds. It also allows for emergency use to control stinging insects and venomous spiders. Containerized, non-volatile bait stations are also permitted for insect and rodent control.

Bill Cooke of the New York-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, told Albany’s Post Standard newspaper that 28 of the 32 Democratic senators have committed to voting in favor of the Child Safe Playing Fields Act. Mr. Cooke said most Republican senators are opposed. The bill needs 32 votes to pass. Sens. Darrel Aubertine (D-Cape Vincent) and David Valesky (D-Oneida) told the newspaper they were undecided.

The bill is supported by the state Association for Superintendents of School Buildings and Grounds, but the state School Boards Association opposes the legislation. Typically this type of legislation is resisted because of the belief that it will cost more than chemical lawn care. However, a new report, prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education and organic horticulturalist Chip Osborne of Osborne Organics for members of the New York State legislature, concludes that organic approaches can save money. The report compares the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and a natural (organic) program over a five-year period and finds that the annual cost of maintaining an organic field can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of chemical-based programs.

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogencity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds

Take Action:

Everyone – 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.

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.

Atrazine is also 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.

A carbon filter with granular activated carbon (similar to a Brita filter) is needed to remove any significant amount of atrazine from the water supply. Unfortunately this technology is much more expensive and shorter lived than the rapid sand filters used by many utilities in the Corn Belt. Rapid sand filters can last 20 to 30 years but do not remove organic pollutants such as pharmaceuticals and certain pesticides, such as atrazine.

Marc Edwards, a civil engineering professor at Virginia Tech University estimates that implementing granular activated carbon filtration could more than double the total cost of drinking water treatment in some rural communities. Kirk Leifheit, Assistant Chair of the Drinking Water Program at the Ohio EPA said “most water systems don’t have the resources to buy a new filter,” adding that implementing this technology would add up to billions of dollars.

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.

EPA is currently reviewing the approval of atrazine; it was last renewed in 2006. According to records obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bush administration officials met privately with Syngenta executives 50 times, before EPA renewed Atrazine, and the EPA was heavily influenced by research conducted by Syngenta.

Despite mounting research, Syngenta refuses to acknowledge the dangers of atrazine. According to their website, “Syngenta is convinced of the safety of atrazine,” and “The U.S. litigation has no merit and should be dismissed.”

Source: Chicago Tribune

Specifically, this new law, effective July 1, 2010, requires schools to allow students to self-administer asthma and anaphylaxis medication; recommends students with asthma to have an Asthma Action Plan on file at the school; provides training for teachers, nurses, and all other school staff on asthma; requires buses to minimize idling time; requires local school health councils to adopt and support the implementation of a local school wellness policy that includes minimizing children’s exposure to pollutants that can aggravate asthma and prohibits the use of hazardous substances such as cleaning products and pesticides in and around school buildings during the hours children are present. The bill also states that the Mississippi Department of Education requires all public school districts to implement IPM.

Unfortunately, the law does not include criteria for cleaning products or pesticides considered a “hazardous substance,” nor does the bill define IPM. In reference to IPM, the bill simply states that it “includes procedural guidelines for pesticide application, education of building occupants and inspection and monitoring of pesticide applications. The integrated pest management program may limit the frequency, duration and volume of pesticide application on school grounds.”

Mississippi will need to be vigilant in its implementation of this new law as all too often IPM is a term that is used loosely with many different definitions. It is not uncommon for pest control programs that continue to unnecessarily rely on pesticide applications to be described as IPM. Those that are implementing a truly comprehensive IPM program utilize pest prevention and management strategies that exclude pests from the school facility through habitat modification, entry way closures, structural repairs, sanitation practices, natural organic management of playing fields and landscapes, other non-chemical, mechanical and biological methods, and the use of the least-toxic pesticide only as a last resort. Constant monitoring ensures that pest buildups are detected and suppressed before unacceptable outbreaks occur. IPM in schools has proven to be an effective and economical method of pest management that, when done correctly, can eliminate pest problems and the use of hazardous pesticides in school buildings and on school grounds. Toxic, hazardous pesticides including those that are carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive and developmental toxicants, neurotoxic poisons, and pesticides listed by the U.S. EPA as a toxicity category I or II pesticide, should never be used in a school environment.

According to Beyond Pesticides report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws — 2010 Update, Mississippi joins 15 additional states that require their public schools to adopt an IPM program. Of these states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon have comprehensive definitions of IPM in their laws, and allow only the least-toxic pesticide to be used as a last resort. In addition, Massachusetts and Oregon specifically prohibit a defined list of toxic pesticides from being used in their IPM program.

School pest problems can be effectively managed without toxic pesticides. With a quality IPM program, examples prove that there is never a real justification or need to use pesticides in a school environment. When pesticides are found to be needed in those rare circumstances of last resort, limiting when and what pesticides are applied in and around schools is important to the reduction of pesticide exposure.

According to the American Lung Association’s Environmental Health public policy position, adopted in 2007, “The American Lung Association supports the adoption of policies that require schools and child care facilities to practice least toxic pest control methods, such as integrated pest management, and strategies to minimize or eliminate the exposure to pesticides.”

The 2009 “Mississippi Asthma Surveillance Report,” by the Mississippi Department of Health, states that more than ten percent of Mississippi children under the age of 18 years currently have asthma. Nationwide, nearly one in eight school-aged children have asthma and is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness.

Beyond Pesticides’ booklet, Asthma, Children and Pesticides, highlights the many studies that have found evidence that exposure to pesticides is correlated with asthma. In addition to being an underlying cause of asthma, pesticides can also trigger asthma attacks in those who already suffer from the disease.

The Pennsylvania Asthma Partnership, funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Health and managed by the American Lung Association, states in a March press release that, “Asthma is a chronic lung disease that, for many individuals, can be controlled by avoiding ”˜triggers’ ”¦ Environmental factors that can trigger asthma and asthma symptoms include pests, such as cockroaches and mice, pest by-products such as cast skins, feces and urine, as well as some of the pesticides often used to get rid of pests.” The Philadelphia School and Community IPM Partnership (PSCIP) is currently working to educate residents on reducing allergies and asthma triggers in homes, schools and childcare centers by promoting “less-risky” methods of controlling indoor pests.

As referenced above, different states have different levels of protection in regards to children’s exposure to pesticides at school. Without minimum federal standards on school pest management and pesticide use, such as the proposed School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) the protection provided children across the country is uneven and inadequate. SEPA provides basic levels of protection for children and school staff from the use of pesticides in public school buildings and on school grounds by requiring schools to implement a comprehensive IPM program, establishing a list of least-toxic pesticides to be used only as a last resort, and requiring notification provisions when pesticides are used in a public health emergency.

According to Testbiotech, a research based non-profit organization operating out of Germany, this new pest has been caused by the large-scale cultivation of genetically engineered plants expressing Cry1Ab such as MON810 (sold as YieldGard by company of Monsanto). The infestation has been observed since 2000, and the western bean cutworm is emerging as a new plant pest. Historically, this species of cutworm has been confined to very limited regions and did not cause any major problems in maize crops. However, for the past several years the pest has been spreading into more and more regions within the US Corn Belt causing substantial economic damage. Maize plants affected by the western bean cutworm were even found in Canada in 2009 for the first time.

Reports have historically provided significant documentation of herbicide-resistant weeds and insect resistance developing as a result of heavy reliance on the chemicals crops are bred to tolerate. This is seen as a classic case of ‘pest replacement,’ often found where there is extensive use of pesticides in industrial agriculture. Pest replacement means that new ecological niches open up which other competitors then occupy. In this case, a naturally occurring competitor of the western bean cutworm has been intentionally suppressed by the extensive cultivation of Bt maize plants, thus allowing the new pest to spread on a large scale and heavily infest the crop. A whole arsenal of insecticides – some of them highly toxic – and genetically engineered multi-stacked maize are recommended for controlling the pest. These so-called solutions such as “Herculex”1 or “SmartStax” can however substantially add to the problem or cause even new ecological risks.

“Several reports show that the damage is increasing from year to year,” explains Christoph Then, executive director of Testbiotech and author of the report. “But not much information is given to the farmers about the causes. The agrochemical companies are mainly interested in using this as an opportunity to sell other genetically engineered corn and insecticides that are highly toxic.”

Testbiotech analysed many reports on the spread of the western bean cutworm and exchanged opinions with several experts. The cause of the spread of the new pest is hardly known to farmers in US, despite the fact that the western bean cutworm has spread through the whole Corn Belt since the year 2000. Farmers have only been told how to identify infestation and which insecticides they can use. No warnings were given on the dangers of large- scale MON810 cultivation. Instead, companies like Monsanto are trying to sell new varieties of genetically engineered corn such as ‘SmartStax’ that produces six different insecticides in its plant tissue.

Martin Hofstetter of Greenpeace, Germany, the organization that commissioned the report, summed up the report: “There is a race going on in the fields which will lead to an increasing use of insecticides and the cultivation of more and more genetically engineered plants. There is a huge risk of causing ecological damage. Farmers are likely to lose the race by being forced to invest more and more in chemicals and high priced seed without being able to increase their yields. Industry’s solution doesn’t appear to be either sustainable or ecologically sound. It will just foster extremely industrialized agriculture.”

Testbiotech presented the report at an international conference, “Second International Conference on Implications of GM Crop Cultivation at Large Spatial Scales,” in Bremen, Germany in March.

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

“If we can do it, why can’t people do it on their own lawn?” the village president, Douglas Newman, asked last week. On April 1, at Meadowland Park, village officials and local and state environmentalists unveiled a sign featuring a ladybug that will soon be posted in the village’s 10 parks, fields and playgrounds. James McGowan, of the South Orange Environmental Commission, which is credited with spearheading the village’s initiative, said inorganic pesticides and their use still pose a danger.

“There is some serious effects from these things,” he said. “People have good alternatives,” such as integrated pest management, which uses biological controls, such as plants that are resistant to common pests.” The village’s program, he said, “brings together a lot of environmental initiatives.” Eric Benson, canvass director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said the benefit of announcing the plan right now is to get people to realize they have alternatives in their own homes and gardens, just as residents are tending to them anew.

But the parks initiative helps protect those most vulnerable to pesticide use and its side effects — children. Children’s body sizes, as well as their penchant to roll around in the grass, means they ingest chemicals at a greater concentration, Mr. Benson said. Similar initiatives are already in place in Newark, Montclair and about three dozen other New Jersey municipalities, Mr. Benson said. Many residents welcomed the initiative. One parent, called the village’s initiative “awesome.” “We won’t have to worry about our kids getting harmed.”

The village’s resolution is scheduled for a vote at the village trustees’ April 12 meeting.

Last fall, another New Jersey municipality, Hamilton Township, joined other communities in the state that have made their parks pesticide-free zones and have adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for managing town property by passing a resolution adopting a pesticide reduction policy. So far over 30 communities in New Jersey have designated Pesticide Free Zones in parks including Burlington and Cape May Counties, and the townships of Bernards, Chatham, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Asbury Park, East and West Windsor, Hightstown, Montclair, Ocean City, Dennis, Colts Neck, Hazlet, Neptune, Red Bank, Pine Beach and Wall Townships.

Other places around the country are also moving forward to protect their residents from harmful chemicals. New York State Parks recently passed a similar policy that also establishes pesticide-free zones. In addition, Chicago City Parks has reduced pesticide use by 80 percent in their parks, many of which are pesticide-free; in the Northwest U.S. there are more than 50 parks; as well as in communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine, New York and Connecticut. For information about getting your community to reduce pesticide use visit Beyond Pesticides’ activists tools page.

Other resources available through the New Jersey Environmental Federation and Beyond Pesticides Lawn and Landscape program page.

“It seems insane to have stringent rules protecting nuts and peaches while schoolchildren remain at risk from chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, and other serious health problems,” said Paul Towers, director of Pesticide Watch Education Fund and a co-author of the report. “But that’s exactly what’s happening in counties across California. It is past time for a simple, statewide rule that protects all California children from pesticide drift at school.”

“Our children deserve to be protected from these cancer-causing chemicals,” said
Assembly member Sandré Swanson, who has introduced AB 1721, the Health and Safety School Zones Act, to fix the problem. “The people of California have made it clear that clean air is a right and not a privilege. Many communities have recognized the unintended side-effects of aerial spraying and have passed rules to protect their school sites,” said Assembly member Swanson. “I will work cooperatively with the Legislature to pass this common sense approach to protect our children.”

HB 1721 establishes a statewide rule prohibiting pesticide spraying within a quarter mile of any California school and prohibiting restricted-use pesticide spraying within a half-mile of a school.

California provides for only a patchwork of inconsistent and inadequate county rules. In six counties, school protection zones apply only when children are present, even though many pesticides persist in the environment and can pose health threats long after spraying. By contrast, rules prohibiting pesticide spraying to protect the state’s agricultural sector are detailed and stringent.

For example, the report found that:
”¢ In Colusa County, areas around schools are less protected than those around many crops, including walnuts, peaches, rice and others. Regulations state that when “sensitive crops” are more than one mile away and are downwind, “extreme caution must be used under all conditions” [emphasis in the original];
Ӣ In Kern County, spraying of certain pesticides is restricted within one quarter mile of schools only when children are present, but to protect bees, spraying of three insecticides is prohibited within one mile of almond orchards;
Ӣ In Tulare County, spraying of certain pesticides is restricted within one quarter mile of schools only when school is in session, but spraying of three insecticides is prohibited within one mile of any pollinating fields, even when weeds are the only pollinating plants; and,
Ӣ In Sutter County, spraying of certain pesticides is restricted within one quarter mile of schools is prohibited when school is in session, but spraying of one herbicide is prohibited four miles around prunes.

In California, 90% of pesticides used are prone to “pesticide drift,” the movement of pesticides away from the application site. Almost 20% of the pesticides used in California are known to cause cancer, almost 10% are known to damage the nervous system, and more than 10% are known to harm the reproductive system. Children are especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of pesticide exposure because of their rapidly growing bodies.

While it is illegal to expose people to drifting pesticides, the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation admits that “some off-site movement occurs with every [pesticide] application” and “drift into surrounding areas is expected with all pesticide applications.” A 2005 study by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found more than 250 incidents of pesticide exposure to children occurred in California schools between 1998-2002, with 50 of the incidents resulting from nearby agricultural pesticide use. NIOSH recommends establishing and enforcing pesticide spray buffer zones around schools to protect children.

A 2008 study by Pesticide Action Network North America confirms that school children continue to breathe air contaminated by hazardous agricultural pesticides. Air monitoring near South Woods Elementary School in Hastings, Florida detected four agricultural chemicals in the air, often at levels that pose unacceptable risks to children.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ report The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws — 2010 Update, only nine states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey) have some sort of a restriction on pesticide applications made near school properties, ranging from 300 feet to two and a half miles, depending on the application method, pesticide type and site to be protected from potential drift. In order to adequately protect against drift, Beyond Pesticides recommends a minimum two-mile radius around the school’s property for ground applications and a minimum three mile radius for aerial applications. California’s existing law states that when a school property is within 300 feet of a methyl bromide application, the application must be completed no less than 36 hours prior to the start of the school day. (California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4, Article 4, Section 6447.2(i)).

The report, Pesticide Protection Zones: Keeping Kids Safe at School, was co-released by Pesticide Watch Education Fund, The Center for Environmental Health, and published by Californians for Pesticide Reform, a statewide coalition of over 185 groups working to protect public health and the environment from the dangers of pesticide use.

For more information on how pesticides impact children’s health and strategies for getting pesticides out of the school environment, see Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools webpage.

The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns and its allies are asking individuals, as baseball season officially starts, to call or email Tim Brosnan, MLB Executive Vice President for Business, at 212-931-7800, ext. 7501, [email protected], and tell him there is serious concern regarding the partnership, both in the way MLB fields are being managed, and more importantly, with the message MLB is sending to homeowners that they should treat their lawns with the same toxic chemical products.

Make your voice heard! The nationwide MLB season begins today. Call during MLB’s opening week, April 5 — 11, 2010.

Background
A coalition of 28 environmental groups sent a letter to MLB chastising its new alliance with the Scotts Company. Scotts introduced newly branded products, which it will promote with the logo of Major League Baseball, alongside its chemical “weed and feed” and insecticide products. Weed and feed products contain herbicides and synthetic fertilizers that are tied to adverse health and environmental effects. In its letter to MLB, the coalition told officials that associating the organization with Scotts Miracle-Gro and allowing the company to use its name to promote a chemical-intensive philosophy to homeowners sends the wrong message —that toxic chemicals are necessary to have a beautiful green lawn.

The coalition says homeowners are learning that turf can be managed effectively utilizing organic methods that are safer for children, families, and the environment. In this critical period of history when we are shifting to “green” practices around the home and in our communities, Major League Baseball can and should be an environmental leader, rather than advancing toxic products with well documented deleterious health and environmental impacts.

After you call or email Mr. Brosnon at MLB, join the Coalition in signing-on to the petition: Oppose Baseball’s chemical lawn care deal with Scotts.

Thank you – National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns and Allies
Beyond Pesticides, Biological Urban Gardening Services, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Casco Baykeeper, Clean New York, Emerald Coastkeeper, For A Better Bronx, Friends of Casco Bay, Friends of the Earth, Galveston Baykeeper, Grassroots Environmental Education, Greenpeace, Healthy Lawn Team, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Maryland Pesticide Network, New Jersey Environmental Federation, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Oregon Toxics Alliance, Pesticide Action Network North America, Pesticide Watch, Pesticide-Free Zone, Project Ladybug, SafeLawns.org, Safer Pest Control Project, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sassafras Riverkeeper, Toxics Action Center, Watershed Partnership, Inc.