“Earth Day Network had previously announced an educational sponsorship with TruGreen in respect to organic and sustainable lawn and landscape care. Due to unanticipated events, Earth Day Network and TruGreen regrettably announce their relationship for the 40th anniversary event has been suspended. TruGreen continues to respect the commitment Earth Day Network is making to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, and Earth Day Network recognizes TruGreen’s efforts on behalf of organic and sustainable lawn and land care.”

New York State is demanding a civil penalty of $400,000 be paid by TruGreen before April 15, 2010. As part of the consent order agreement, $100,000 of the civil penalty is suspended as long as TruGreen meets the requirements of the order which requires the company to retain an independent third-party auditor to conduct an Environmental Management Systems review of TruGreen statewide operations. TruGreen is then required to create and implement an Environmental Management Systems manual.

The violations took place between 2007 and 2009, with the most egregious occurring in 2009. The following are examples of the violations:
* DEC staff observed TruGreen applying pesticides pesticide when winds were between 22 and 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph and the pesticide product label states to not apply when winds are above 5 mph;
* DEC staff observed a granular pesticide applied off target (granules were found on sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots) and the label specifically states not to apply the product off-target;
* DEC staff observed a pesticide application following rain, which created ponded water accumulation and the product label states not to appliy to water;
* DEC staff reviewed approximately six weeks of TruGreen’s pesticide application records from 2007, 2008, and 2009 and found many instances where the application records reflected the application of pesticide inconsistent with label directions;
* DEC found evidence that a weed killer and fertilizer were illegally poured down a drain in TruGreen’s Albany facility;
* DEC staff observed TruGreen on several occasions failed to properly label service containers;
* DEC staff found that TruGreen made a category 6A application (commercial application) and neither the apprentice making the application nor the supervising applicator were certified 6A applicators and there were no training records for the apprentice;
* Trugreen invoices for 2007, 2008, and 2009 failed to provide the required information or provided inaccurate information;
* TruGreen provided “free service calls” and did not amend the contracts to reflect those applications; and,
* Trugreen annual reports to DEC for 2007 and 2008 contained inaccurate information.

This is not the first time that TruGreen has been fined for misapplications. In 2006, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and Division of Consumer Affairs filed suit against TruGreen, alleging that the company violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act by performing unauthorized lawn treatments in addition to other infractions. The New Jersey complaint alleged that TruGreen engaged in unconscionable commercial practices, made false promises and misrepresentations, and knowingly omitted material facts. TruGreen, is alleged to have:
* Provided lawn treatment applications not authorized by consumers;
* Renewed agreements for applications without the consumer’s knowledge or consent;
* Billed consumers for unauthorized applications;
* Charged consumers for applications that were advertised or represented as being free;
* Quoted a price above the company’s regular price and then offered a “discount price” that in fact was equal to the company’s regular price;
* Sent to collection agencies the accounts of consumers who received unauthorized treatment applications or unauthorized service renewals;
* Failed to suspend collection efforts after being informed by a consumer that a bill was unjustified;
* Failed to honor consumers’ requests to cancel treatment applications;
* Failed to respond to consumer complaints and inquiries;
* Misrepresented the actual price of treatment applications;
* Failed to notify customers of scheduled application dates as promised; and
* Failed to honor consumers’ requests for credits or refunds for unauthorized applications as promised.

Take Action!

1. Contact Kathleen Rogers, President of Earth Day Network and thank her for her decision to disallow the takeover of Earth Day by chemical-intensive lawn care companies.

2. Get involved: Refuse to Use ChemLawn is a campaign headed by Toxics Action Center and Pesticide Watch dedicated to putting pressure on TruGreen to stop using toxic pesticides. You can take the pledge here.

3. On a related matter, sign the petition to stop Major League Baseball for promoting chemical-intensive lawn care management practices through a partnership with the Scotts Company. See background and petition.

“Based on today’s ruling, we are encouraged that Judge White will order permanent injunction relief,” said Paul Achitoff, attorney for Earth Justice in a release by Center for Food Safety (CFS). “We will ask the Court to halt the use of genetically engineered sugar beets and seeds until the federal government does its job to protect consumers and farmers alike.”

The Plaintiffs, CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds represented by Earth Justice and CFS filed suit against APHIS in January of 2008, on grounds that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to adequately assess the environmental, health, and associated economic impacts of allowing “Roundup Ready” sugar beets to be commercially grown without restriction. In September of 2009 the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordered APHIS to prepare an EIS.

According to a New York Times article, 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. Organic farmers are concerned about cross pollination between GE and organic crops. Roundup Ready sugar beets are planted for seed in Willamette Valley Oregon. Willamette Valley is also a major producer of organic Swiss chard, table beets and other sexually compatible seed crops. “Organic chard and beets as we know them are at serious risk of being lost” according to Frank Morton, an organic grower of chard and table beet seed.

About half of the country’s sugar is supplied by beets and about 95% of the US crop is genetically engineered, according to Monsanto. The GE beets were developed by the company to be glyphosate resistant or “Roundup Ready.” Monsanto said in a press release that they look forward to demonstrating that a broad permanent injunction is not appropriate, saying that, “Alternative [non-GE] technologies require more applications of pesticides, with greater impacts on the environment and lower productivity on farms.” The release, however, did not provide any data to support these claims.

Furthermore, independent analysis of USDA data by Dr. Charles Benbrook, former Board of Agriculture Director of the National Academy of Sciences, showed a 15 fold increase in herbicide use in the US from 1994 (when GE herbicide-resistant crops were introduced) to 2004. The use of glyphosate on all of the Round-Up Ready crops available has lead to increasing cases of glyphosate resistant weeds. Genetic engineering has also failed to increase US crop yields according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of GE crops and supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. For other studies and more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE Program and Organic Program pages.

In response, activists created a Facebook page dedicated to stopping the sponsorship, which garnered over 250 fans in less than two days, with comments continually pouring in. The sponsorship has been taken down from Earth Day Networks website, and some internet activists have posted that Kathleen Rogers, President of Earth Day Network, has retracted the sponsorship. However, an email to Beyond Pesticides that had initially confirmed that TruGreen has no affiliation with Earth Day Network has been retracted. Communications Director Jennifer Resick said that the statement was premature and that the group at this time has no official comment regarding the sponsorship or affiliation to Earth Day Network.

Important Update, March 22, 2010 – Beyond Pesticides received the following statement from Earth Day Network regarding their sponsorship agreement with TruGreen: “Earth Day Network had previously announced an educational sponsorship with TruGreen in respect to organic and sustainable lawn and landscape care. Due to unanticipated events, Earth Day Network and TruGreen regrettably announce their relationship for the 40th anniversary event has been suspended. TruGreen continues to respect the commitment Earth Day Network is making to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, and Earth Day Network recognizes TruGreen’s efforts on behalf of organic and sustainable lawn and land care.”

So is TruGreen planning to reduce the hazardous synthetic materials used in chemical-intensive lawn care in a meaningful way? In the past, under pressure from activists and shareholders, TruGreen has taken steps toward pesticide reduction, but at the time, it was not nearly enough to warrant praise from the environmental or organic community.

For the Earth Day sponsorship, the company was suggesting to homeowners ten sustainable lawn care tips that it says qualifies it for Earth Day Network’s Billion Acts of Green initiative for commitment to acts of environmental service. While the use of 100% organic fertilizer is included in this list, there is no mention of pesticides, and tip number 10, the very last one, states: “I will read and follow all lawn care product instructions for proper usage and disposal of unused product.”

It’s important to note that on the TruGreen’s website, there is no mention of reducing chemical pesticides, and that there are two different lawn care programs offered, “TruPerformance” and “TruNatural.” Additionally, not all branches offer all services. The TruNatural option also does not cover weed control, stating that, “Because there is no 100% natural weed control, this service is offered to our TruNatural customers only on a case by case basis at the request of the homeowner. Please call your TruGreen Lawn Specialist if you have questions.”

Perhaps the company was the only lawn care sponsor on the bill for Earth Day; however, there is no evidence from any of the information documented on the website that TruGreen will be providing an actual organic service, as they claim in their press release. In the nature of full chemical disclosure, Beyond Pesticides has asked TruGreen to fill out a Safety Source for Pest Management survey. A representative said that they are working on filling it out and sending it back, at which point we will be sure to post to our website.

Organic lawn care companies and “all-natural” services have been sprouting up across the country due to the increasing marketplace for “environmentally friendly” alternatives. While this is a great testament to the power of the movement, it also opens the door to fraudulent and misleading claims on all fronts. Sustainability claims that ignore standards of soil health and continued hazardous chemical use are dangerous distractions from the urgent global environmental and health need to transition to truly sustainable organic approaches to pesticide management.

It is ultimately the responsibility of the consumer to determine the validity of the companies’ claims. Here is what you can do:

1) Do not simply take the company’s marketing claims at face value; find out what products (and their active ingredients) will be used — they will speak for themselves. Contact Beyond Pesticides if you need help with this.

2) Investigate the toxicity and environmental effects of each ingredient. You can search for information on the active ingredients at Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Gateway Page. Many products contains a small percentage of the organic or less-toxic alternative mixed with a large percentage of synthetic, petroleum-based fertilizer. Be cautious of the word “natural” and other claims that can’t be substantiated.

3) Question the service people you contact. When a service provider asserts that he or she has an alternative lawn care or indoor pest control service, find out the specifics of their program – an integrated pest management program is only as good as the principles of the person providing it. It is important to know the components of a good IPM program. Here are a few questions to get you started:

Ӣ What products do they consider acceptable?
Ӣ Do they monitor for pests (good) or spray on a fixed schedule (bad)?
Ӣ Do they attempt to determine the cause of a pest problem and fix it (good) or do they treat the symptoms only (bad)?
Ӣ Do they perform yearly soil tests?
Ӣ Do they keep records of their monitoring results?
Ӣ What training do they have in alternative services?
Ӣ Is most of their business is chemically-based programs or alternative ones?

Make sure you read the fine print on any contract or literature: some companies will choose to use “plant protection chemicals” (pesticides) if a “special situation” arises. Get what you want in writing, and hold them to their commitment.

For additional information, see Beyond Pesticides’ guide on how to talk to service providers, and look at our Lawns and Landscaping page for ideas on how to improve your lawn without the use of toxic chemicals.

Take Action!

1. Contact Kathleen Rogers, President of Earth Day Network and thank her for her decision to disallow the takeover of Earth Day by chemical-intensive lawn care companies.

2. Contact TruGreen and ask them how they are planning to reduce their pesticide usage for their landcare services, and urge them to switch to an organic, holistic system.

2. Get involved: Refuse to Use ChemLawn is a campaign headed by Toxics Action Center and Pesticide Watch dedicated to putting pressure on TruGreen to stop using toxic pesticides. You can take the pledge here.

While it is wise to keep all potentially harmful household products out of the reach and hands of children, Beyond Pesticides recommends to the public to abandon poisonous chemicals and instead practice non-toxic methods of pest management and use least-toxic chemicals where possible. EPA continues to facilitate and apologize for the unnecessary use of highly toxic pesticides, disinfectants, solvents and other hazardous materials that it registers, and misses every year the important opportunity during National Poison Prevention Week to alert families with children about integrated pest management and organic methods that are effective, but not reliant on hazardous methods. Numerous scientific studies that show children carrying a body burden of pesticides used in homes and elevated rates of childhood cancer in households that use pesticides, given children’s special vulnerability to pesticides.

“Proper and safe storage, use and supervision of all household products can substantially reduce exposures in the home,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Poison Prevention Week serves as a reminder for everyone to keep pesticides away from children, and to read and follow all labels to minimize the potential dangers from pesticides.”

However, EPA fails to alert the public to the limitations of the pesticide regulatory process, such as no evaluation of endocrine disrupting effects, low level exposures, the effects of mixtures and synergistic effects between pesticides and with pharmaceuticals, etc. EPA chooses to focus on pesticide poisoning of children associated with accidental ingestion which, while important, does not capture the many other ways through which children are exposed to chemicals. For instance, a wide range of consumer products such as deodorants, soaps and toys contain the antibacterial pesticide triclosan, which is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase the risk for cancer. Fetal exposure to triclosan, which accumulates in the human body, can impair brain development and long-term neuropsychological development.

Secondary exposures to pesticides and other toxic chemicals should not be ignored. Studies have found pesticides in household dust and persists in homes, even after removed from the market. In 2008, a study found significant amounts of pyrethroid pesticides in indoor dust of homes and childcare centers, while another found that 75% of homes with pregnant women were contaminated with pesticides. Hazardous wood preservatives, still allowed for use on utility poles, continue to be found on children’s playgrounds. In a tragic case earlier this year, two girls, aged 4 years and 15 months, died after a toxic pesticide drifted into their home. The agency stresses the importance of reading the product label, which is misleading in suggesting that compliance with the pesticide label instructions is fully protective of children, the public and the environment.

EPA promotes poison prevention each year during National Poison Prevention Week to increase public awareness of the potential danger to children from pesticides and other household products. In 2008, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported that more than half of the two million poisoning incidents each year involve children younger than six years old. Leading causes of poisoning include cosmetics such as perfume and nail polish, deodorant and soap, household cleaning products and medications.

If you have been exposed to a pesticide or other toxic substance and may be experiencing non-life-threatening symptoms, call your local poison center hotline at 1-800-222-1222. Call 911 in case of more serious exposures. EPA urges the public also to report all exposures to the product manufacturer (including the registration number found on the product label of all pesticide products registered by EPA).

See Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, Common Pesticide Poison Homes and Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

At the House Environment and Agriculture Committee hearing on HB 1456 in February, the issue of studying the impact of pesticides, mainly herbicides, on children where they are commonly used in residential neighborhoods, on school grounds, playgrounds, and other places where children congregate was hotly debated. The committee hearing lasted more than 2 hours with opposing testimony from pesticide manufacturers, pesticide applicators, and those that sell pesticides. Supporting testimony came from organic lawn care professionals, public health and medical community members, environmentalists, individuals that had been poisoned by pesticides and concerned citizens.

The interim study bill passed with no floor debate with 193 votes in favor and 110 opposed. Now the House Environment and Agriculture Committee will work over the next several months gearing up for the next push for HB 1456. The interim study will give advocates more time to show the legislature why New Hampshire needs to prohibit certain high hazard pesticides and provide a solid list of alternative methods and approaches to managing lawns and landscapes throughout the state.

As Beyond Pesticides stated in written testimony on HB 1456, the registration of pesticides is fraught with studies of adverse human health and environmental effects and uncertainties associated with effects on children and untested health outcomes. Any pesticide legally used in this country must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This registration does not constitute an approval rating or safety claim of any sort — nor does it guarantee that the chemicals have been fully tested for environmental and human health effects. Risk assessment calculations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) — the federal pesticide registration and tolerance laws, respectively — are fraught with limitations in fully evaluating health effects and false realities about daily toxic exposure and individual sensitivities. Risk management decisions under these laws assume the benefits of toxic pesticide products to society or to various sectors of users, and then make a determination that the risks are “reasonable.” Even under FQPA, which has been touted for its health-based standard, there is an inherent assumption that if a pesticide meets a highly questionable “acceptable” risk threshold, it has value or benefit. This is the practice even though there are typically less or non-toxic methods or products available. Absent altogether is any analysis of whether the so-called “pest” (insect or plant) has been accurately defined. EPA does not regularly consider non-chemical alternatives (such as organic agricultural methods), nor does it evaluate the need for or the benefit provided to society (do we need to use toxic chemicals to kill clover in our yards?). The agency assumes 100 percent compliance with pesticide product labels, ignoring real world violations or accidents, which are widespread. While much is known about the effects of individual pesticides and products, the health effects of the mixtures are not evaluated by EPA. Many people think that the pesticides “wear off” and children are not being exposed.

In addition, we now know that in all circumstances it is not the dose that makes the poison, that even low dose exposure can cause significant adverse health effects. For example, there is significant scientific evidence of the endocrine disrupting mechanism —which defies classical “dose-makes-the poison” toxicological theory with exquisitely low doses causing effects based on timing of exposure. Risk assessments justify use patterns for widely used pesticides based on assumptions about toxicity and exposure, which are truncated by the lack of data on endocrine disruption. The analyses are skewed in favor of the continued use of hazardous chemicals. Beyond Pesticides has urged EPA and local decision makers, because of this and other regulatory inadequacies, to embrace the precautionary principle, and promote the avoidance of toxic pesticide use in favor of non-chemical practices. Beyond Pesticides believes that the only reasonable action to take is prohibiting the use of toxic pesticides and only allow the use of defined least-toxic pesticides.

The pesticide lobby pushes the notion that without toxic pesticides buildings and lawns would be overwhelmed by disease-carrying pests and unsightly and dangerous weeds. This is not true. Experience shows that pest problems can be effectively managed without toxic pesticides. The vast majority of insect and weed pests may be a nuisance, or raise aesthetic issues, but they do not pose a threat to children’s health. Where they do present a threat, they can be prevented or managed effectively without toxic chemicals. There is no rational use of a toxic pesticide linked to asthma, cancer, learning disabilities or other adverse health effects to manage pest problems when safer alternative non-chemical and least-toxic pest management strategies exist.

Organic products are making inroads into the $35 billion lawn- and garden-care industry, which for years has been focusing on chemically-intensive methods. The growing demand for organic land care is coming from all sectors: homeowners, municipal park managers, and business professionals alike. Examples from around the country prove that pest management without toxic chemicals is effective and successful. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as new policies and programs that have restrictions on pesticide use are continually being implemented by local and state government entities as well as schools and homeowner associations.

* Massachusetts statewide pest management requirements prohibit the Massachusetts prohibit pesticide applications on school grounds for purely aesthetic purposes. The state law also prohibits the use known, probable, or likely carcinogens as well as products that contain EPA List 1, Inerts of Toxicological Concern.

* Connecticut statewide pest management requirements prohibit the use of pesticides on day care center and kindergarten through 8th grade schools’ grounds. Connecticut law that prohibits pesticides from being applied on school grounds has resulted in several municipalities finding success in implementing pesticide-free, organic turf programs on their property.

* Oregon statewide pest management requirements prohibit the use of known, probable, or likely carcinogens and EPA toxicity category I or II pesticides product (bares the words “Warning” or “Danger” on its label) as well as the application of a pesticide for purely cosmetic/aesthetic purposes or a schedule routine preventive application.

* San Francisco, California passed their pesticide ordinance in 1996, which requires all city departments to eliminate their use of the most hazardous pesticides, including immediately banning the use of pesticides linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and those that are most acutely toxic. It also banned all pesticides except for a list of approved least toxic pesticides effective January 1, 2000.

* Camden and Rockport, Maine have both adopted policies that eliminate the use of pesticides on town-owned property including parks and on playing fields. Camden’s pesticide policy states, “All pesticides are toxic to some degree and the widespread use of pesticides is both a major environmental problem and a public health issue. Federal regulation of pesticides is no guarantee of safety. Camden recognizes that the use of pesticides may have profound effects upon indigenous plants, surface water and ground water, as well as unintended effects upon people, birds and other animals in the vicinity of treated areas. Camden recognizes that all citizens, particularly children, have a right to protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides.”

* Branford, Connecticut is a model for others around the country in managing town playing fields, parks and public lawns without using pesticides. The town’s Parks and Recreation Department’s remarkable success in implementing an organic land management approach has resulted in healthier turf and lower maintenance costs. Alex Palluzzi, Jr., director of the Branford Parks and Recreation Department, says he once was “on the other side” but now is motivated by the results he sees with organic and wants to get others to do the same. All twenty-four of the town’s fields are maintained with organic practices. “We have not used pesticides in years,” says Mr. Palluzzi. Instead, the town relies on properly aerating the soil, overseeding, mowing the turf high, adding compost and testing the soil.

* Greenwich, Connecticut also passed a policy banning the use of pesticides on all of its athletic fields and parks.

* Rockland County, New York legislators passed a bill to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides on all county-owned or leased land.

* Marblehead, Massachusetts Board of Health adopted an organic landscape managment policy for turf and landscape on all town-owned lands. The policy prohibits the use of toxic chemical pesticides on town property, including known, likely or probable human carcinogens or probable endocrine disrupters, and those pesticides that meet the criteria for Toxicity Category I or II, as defined by the US EPA. Products approved by the Northeast Organic Farmer’s Association (NOFA) Organic Land Care Program or of the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), which reviews the allowed inputs for USDA certified organic food, may be used on town-owned lands.

* Thirty-one communities in New Jersey have adopted pesticide-free zones and pest management programs that aim to eliminate toxic pesticide use on township property including playing fields, parks and public lawns. Examples of New Jersey communities with such policies include the townships of Hamilton, 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 as well as Burlington and Cape May Counties.

* Seventeen Northwest U.S. cities have adopted a pesticide-free parks programs, allowing more than 50 parks to be managed without the use of any pesticides (including insecticides, fungicides and herbicides), according to the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Weeds in these parks are managed with a variety of techniques including hand pulling, flame weeding and mulching by parks staff and sometimes by volunteers.

* The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is driven by a policy that targets areas frequented by children, such as playgrounds, picnic areas, baseball fields, campgrounds, beaches, and hiking trails to substantially reduce pesticide use throughout the State park system. “New York has a magnificent State park system that is a tremendous resource for all New Yorkers,” said Governor Paterson. “People visiting our parks, particularly children, should not be exposed to pesticides. The policy asserts in the introduction that, “[T]he use of pesticides can cause potential environmental and human health risks, even when pesticides are used in compliance with regulatory requirements and manufacturer recommendations.”

* Harvard University has committed to managing its entire 80-acre campus with pesticide-free, natural, organic lawn and landscape management strategies, all the while saving tens of thousands of dollars a year. According to reports, managing the grounds with an organic management approach saves the school two million gallons of water a year as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent. It cost Harvard $35,000 a year to get rid of “landscape waste” from its campus grounds. Now that cost is gone, as the school keeps all grass clippings, leaves and branches it can for composting and making compost teas, which in turn saves the university an additional $10,000 from having to purchase fertilizers elsewhere.

For more examples and for more information, see Beyond Pesticides lawn and landscape pages and children and pesticides pages.

In its letter to Major League Baseball, 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. In fact, 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. Tim Brosnan, Executive Vice President of Business, to whom the letter was sent, has not responded as of this writing.

The coalition makes the following points:

1. The toxic chemicals being promoted are not needed for a beautiful lawn. The Scotts approach to turf management is dependent on chemical products it sells. Its 4-step program converts the home lawn to chemical dependency, including heavy reliance on hazardous herbicides, insecticides and synthetic fertilizers. However, lawns are best managed successfully without a reliance on these toxic chemicals with a program that focuses on cultural practices that address soil health, aeration, mowing height, proper organic fertilization, watering techniques, and appropriate grass varieties.

2. Major League Ballparks are currently different from home lawns and the same approach is not appropriate. While homeowners should select grass seed based on soil, light and local climatic conditions, ballparks choose seed selected for its ability to withstand high amounts of pesticide and fertilizer applications and frequent (often daily) care. Homeowners should focus on healthy soil to achieve a healthy lawn, whereas ballparks often contain artificial soil and drainage pipes below the field. In the home environment, mowing, watering and fertilizer inputs should be minimized as much as possible. This is especially true in an era when as much as a third of the nation may be under water restrictions at various times of year.

3. Pesticides are hazardous. Below ground, pesticides harm the microorganisms, beneficial insects and earthworms that are essential to maintaining healthy soil, and therefore, healthy turf. Pesticides also harm water bodies and groundwater. Above ground, pesticides harm all forms of life. The risks are higher when products containing pesticides are applied by unlicensed applicators.

4. Synthetic fertilizers are hazardous. Synthetic fertilizers also harm beneficial organisms in the soil and lead to undesirable conditions that restrict water and air movement in the soil. High nitrogen fertilizers can disrupt the nutrient balance, accelerate turf growth, increase the need for mowing and contribute to thatch buildup. These fertilizers are also prone to leaching and runoff, which contaminates water above and below ground.

5. Children are especially vulnerable to adverse effects from pesticides. Because the home lawn is often the play space for children, and children are among the most vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure, chemical-intensive lawn management should be replaced with organic approaches. Exposure occurs as a result of direct contact with the treated lawn areas, chemical drift off the treated areas, and tracking and drifting inside of homes, which leaves residues on fabrics and surfaces. Scientific studies show that children face elevated rates of diseases associated with pesticide exposure and pesticides are linked to cancer, endocrine system disruption, neurological and immune system effects, asthma and respiratory effects, and behavioral and learning effects.

At a time when homeowners across the country and communities are looking at ways to adopt practices that are protective of the environment, the coalition believes that Major League Baseball, in aligning with Scotts, is out of step. The coalition is telling baseball that it should be leading efforts to help people green their homes and communities.

The coalition consists of 28 groups from around the country: 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, and Watershed Partnership, Inc.

For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes program page.

After receiving a call that two dead bald eagles were found near the Genesee River last fall, DEC began an investigation and sent the eagles to the department’s Wildlife Pathology Unit. Lab results showed that the birds died of poisoning from consumption of carbofuran, which occurred after the eagles consumed prey that had ingested the pesticide.

State officials with the DEC’s Division of Pesticides and the Division of Wildlife, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted in the investigation, which found that a farm within 500 yards of where the dead eagles were recovered had purchased the pesticide Furadan in 2008. After obtaining a search warrant, DEC found 35 dead geese and two dead crows in a corn field at the farm. Samples of these birds were also sent to DEC’s Wildlife Pathology Unit for testing, where it was confirmed that they too died from consuming carbofuran.

Carbofuran, the active ingredient in Furadan, is a toxic insecticide that does not meet current U.S. food safety standards, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward to implement the agency’s May 2009 final rule revoking tolerances, or residue limits, for the pesticide. Thanks to public pressure and overwhelming scientific data showing harm, EPA says that it continues to find that dietary exposures to carbofuran from all sources combined are not acceptable.

According to EPA, the May 2009 final rule to revoke carbofuran tolerances, effective December 31, 2009, was the culmination of a regulatory process that began in 2006 when the agency published its risk assessments for carbofuran and determined in August 2006 that no uses were eligible for reregistration. While carbofuran maker FMC Corporation has voluntarily canceled 22 carbofuran uses, the elimination of these uses was not sufficient to allow the agency to make a finding that combined dietary exposure to carbofuran from food and water meet aceptable hazard standards. The process to cancel the remaining carbofuran registrations is under way and will address unacceptable risks to farmworkers during pesticide application and to birds in and around treated fields.

FMC Corporation and three grower associations (corn, sunflowers and potatoes) submitted objections to EPA’s tolerance revocations and requested an administrative hearing. EPA concluded in October 2009 that the regulatory standard for holding an evidentiary hearing had not been met. EPA’s detailed explanation about why a hearing was not warranted, and the reasons for denying the objections are included in Carbofuran; Order Denying FMC’s Objections and Requests for Hearing – November 18, 2009.

According to interviews, Mr. Sekoll had applied leftover Furadan to a cut sweet-corn field in order to use up the product that he purchased in 2008. Mr. Sekoll faces more than 40 charges by DEC Environmental Conservation Police:

Ӣ One count of failure to maintain annual records for restricted use pesticide applications.
Ӣ One count of failure to prevent the contamination of wildlife while using or applying a pesticide.
Ӣ One count of unlawful taking of a bald eagle (adult bird).
Ӣ One count of unlawful taking of a bald eagle (immature bird).
Ӣ 37 counts of taking wildlife in contravention to the Fish & Wildlife Law.

“DEC actively enforces pesticide laws in New York State in accordance with Environmental Conservation Law,” DEC Regional Police Captain David Bennett told reporters. “Even unintentional, improper use of pesticides can pose a serious threat to wildlife. It is extremely important for pesticide applicators to be familiar with and adhere to all applicable pesticide regulations and precautions each time pesticides are applied.”

If you suspect a pesticide has been illegally or improperly used, see Beyond Pesticides’ guide on what to do in a pesticide emergency. Beyond Pesticides monitors the effectiveness of state and federal enforcement programs, so we will know the real hazards associated with pesticides. Please tell us what happened and how well the state agency and EPA responded, or call our office at 202-543-5450 if you have any questions.

Sources: Wellsville Daily Reporter and The Buffalo News

“Effects of sublethal concentrations of bifenthrin and deltamethrin on fecundity, growth, and development of the honeybee Apis mellifera ligustica” published in the March issue of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, investigated the effects of the two pesticides at sublethal concentrations on fecundity, growth, and development of honeybees were examined with the feeding method for a three-year period (2006-2008). It was shown that both bifenthrin and deltamethrin significantly reduced bee fecundity, decreased the rate at which bees develop to adulthood, and increased their immature periods. Queens in the control group in 2006 laid a little more than 1,200 eggs each day, compared to not quite 900 a day in the bifenthrin group and roughly 600 per day in the deltamethrin group. In general, the hatch rate of pyrethroid-exposed eggs was also significantly depressed. The success rate of hatchlings, that is the share that reached adulthood, varied from 75 to 95 percent in the control hive — making it between 20 and 40 percentage points higher than in hives where bees had been exposed to a pyrethroid. The researchers conclude: “The impact of pesticides on the colony may be severe.”

Both pyrethroids, bifenthrin and deltamethrin, are neurotoxic, typically causing paralysis in target pests. Pyrethroids are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural insecticide found in certain species of chrysanthemum. It initially was introduced on the market as a ”˜safer’ alternative to the heavily regulated and highly toxic organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon, which were banned for homeowner use in 2001 and 2004, respectively. Despite the fact that there are plenty of effective pest control methods that are not nearly as toxic, it is now one of the most popular class of household pesticides, available in the form of powders and sprays to control ants, mosquitoes, fleas, flies, and cockroaches. These high-volume uses of pyrethroid pesticides are cause for concern to consumers because of their link to serious chronic health problems. Synthetic pyrethroids are suspected endocrine disruptors, have been linked to certain cancers and are particularly dangerous to aquatic life even at low concentrations.

Research into Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the widespread disappearance of honeybees that has killed off more than a third of commercial honey bees in the U.S., has been linked to larval exposure to a cocktail of frequently used pesticides. Research is ongoing as to the cause of the CCD phenomenon, but pesticides 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.

David Hackenberg, the beekeeper who first discovered a mysterious disappearance of honeybees now known as colony collapse disorder (CCD), is schedule to speak at Beyond Pesticides’ 28th National Pesticide Forum, Greening the Community, April 9-10 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH. Mr. Hackenberg believes that pesticides contribute to CCD and that honeybees are a barometer of the environment. Featured in several films and news investigations, he has been front and center in this important fight to protect our pollinators. Read about Mr. Hackenberg, other Forum speakers and how to register, for the Forum at www.beyondpesticides.org/forum

For more information on pollinators and CCD, read our factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action.

The panel will feature founders of Good Nature Organic Lawn Care (organic lawn care), Mustard Seed Market and Café (organic grocery store and café), A Piece of Cleveland (deconstruction company which ”˜recycles’ unwanted materials into furniture and other products), D’Bug Lady Pest Management (least-toxic pest control), Green Clean Inc. (environmentally-friendly cleaning), and Expedite Renewable Energy (helps companies reduce their carbon footprint).

The Forum will also feature session on organic gardening and community spaces, lawn pesticide bans, health impacts of pesticides, the health benefits of organic food, green local government efforts and much more. It officially kicks off Friday afternoon with a tour of the Cleveland Botanical Garden and its affiliated community gardens, with sessions officially starting Friday at 5:30pm, and will conclude Saturday at 10:30pm. Please RSVP to attend the garden tour.

We hope that you are able to join us at this important event to discuss the latest information on pesticides and alternatives, meet scientists and community leaders, and network with other activists working to change policies at the local, state and national levels. Download the Forum flyer to help promote Greening the Community.

Registration
$25 advance “recession rate” for grassroots activists, Ohio residents and students; $65 for members; $75 for non-members; and, $175 for businesses. Rate includes all speakers, sessions, live music and organic food and drink. Register now and save.

Green Entrepreneurs Panelists
Carol Kauscher, nicknamed “D ´Bug Lady”, started an environmentally-friendly pest management business of the same name in 1993. Formerly employed by the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority for six (6) years, she supervised eleven employees in the Pest Control Department. Driven by a desire to help people and the environment, Carol founded the company. Carol believes in her cause and is very active with environmental groups around the country, as well as sponsoring speaking engagements and programs on least toxtic pest control. In 2000, Carol was presented with a Leading Women 2000 Award for Skilled Trades.

Chris Kious is the material recovery partner to A Piece of Cleveland, a business which seeks to preserve the rich history of the city by telling a story and turning unwanted materials into furniture and other products that will increase their value. Working in community development within Cleveland for 5 years, Kious has seen many perfectly good buildings slated for demolition. Since 2006 Chris has worked at making deconstruction a successful industry in Cleveland. Chris’s passion is to build sustainable/green businesses out of the recycling of buildings.

Alec McClennan is Founder and President of Good Nature Organic Lawn Care, a firm specializing in naturally-based, organic fertilization and natural weed suppression for lawns, trees, and shrubs on residential and commercial properties. Good Nature offers a full line of organically-based lawn and tree care services centered around proprietary, feed-grade formulas and processes that require no toxic chemical applications. A Cleveland native, Alec grew up in Bainbridge, Ohio. He earned a degree in Civil Engineering, with specialization in Urban Transportation and Business, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Phillip Nabors, co-owner of Mustard Seed Market & Café – the largest locally-owned retailer of natural and organic products in Ohio, is dedicated to serving the consumer of the natural foods industry. Phillip is a veteran in food safety and consumer rights legislation. He was instrumental in helping to get organic legislation passed by Congress in 1990, which required the USDA to develop organic guidelines. Recently, Phillip has been active in lobbying for legislation that would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods, allowing for consumers to recognize a food’s origin and composition and choose accordingly.

Rebecca Reynolds is the owner and president of Green Clean Inc., an environmentally-friendly cleaning service in Cleveland, OH. Ms. Reynolds, who suffered from a rare blood disorder but turned her health around by converting to an organic diet, realized there was a great inconsistency between the organic food she was feeding her family and the toxic chemicals she had been cleaning with for years. After researching day and night the hazards of common cleaning chemicals and trying to get companies to disclose their ingredients, she founded Green Clean in 2002. She now employs over 30 people at a living wage and provides a valuable service to the people of Northeast Ohio.

Stefanie Penn Spear is founder and executive director of EcoWatch. She is passionate and committed to educating people about environmental issues and bringing people together to achieve a sustainable world. She is president of Expedite Renewable Energy, a company that helps businesses access their electricity usage, strategize the best renewable energy project for their site and implement the project. She is on the advisory committee for GreenCityBlueLake and Tri-C’s Green Academy and Center for Sustainability, and co-chair for the steering committee for the Advanced Energy Generation for Sustainable Cleveland 2019.

Originally developed as an anti-bacterial agent for hospital settings, triclosan is widely found in many consumer and household products ranging from dish soaps and detergents to toothpastes, deodorants, and others. A known endocrine disruptor, triclosan has been linked to antibiotic resistance, and can affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for cancer. Due to its prevalence in so many products, triclosan is now showing up in many things, from human breast milk to earthworms and marine life. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that triclosan is found in the urine of about 75% of the U.S. population. When exposed to UV light, triclosan has also been shown to convert to dioxin, an environmental pollutant and known carcinogen. Because many products that contain triclosan wash down the drain, it is a common contaminant in rivers, streams and drinking water, and is often present in the sewage sludge used to fertilize food crops.

“We are excited to see these businesses joining us in the fight to stop using a harmful and unnecessary pesticide,” said Jim Walsh, Eastern Region Director of Food & Water Watch. “We hope their actions will inspire local policymakers to do their part by banning the municipal purchase of products that contain triclosan.”

“It is great to see so many leaders from our community standing together for the health and well being of our community,” said Highland Park Council member Jon Erikson at the event. “Thanks to their leadership, the Highland Park Board of Health will be considering a resolution that would ensure that the borough does not buy or use any of these products in the future.”

Richard Menashe, M.D., who practices Family Medicine in Edison, N.J., spoke about the concern among health care providers with regards to triclosan. “When triclosan bioaccumulates, endocrine disruption can result, which may threaten healthy thyroid tissue and other organ function. It could also contribute to the risk for cancer, through its affect on hormones in the body. Further, evidence suggests that triclosan may be linked to resistance to antibiotic medications, which could open vulnerable populations to bacteria-induced illnesses or even death. There are simply too many health risks associated with the pesticide triclosan for it to be considered safe for consumers to use.”

“The local businesses that have made this pledge have shown their dedication to the health and safety of the Highland Park community,” said James McCrone, Executive Director of Main St. Highland Park. “They have taken this step to put their customers’ well-being first and we are very proud of their leadership.”

John Leary, President of George St. Co-op, spoke on behalf of one of the twenty businesses and organizations that pledged to stop using and selling products with triclosan. “It is dangerous to let triclosan continue contaminating our water systems,” said Leary. “At our co-op, we have a responsibility to our community to sell the most environmentally sustainable, healthiest, and safest items to our customers, and products with triclosan just don’t fit the bill.”

The local businesses that have made the pledge include: Anna’s Health Food Center, Clean Ocean Action, Edible Garden Project, Food & Water Watch, George St. Co-op, G & P Lebanese Pastry & Fast Food, Highland Printing Center, Joanne Nails, Kiss Nail Salons, Law Office of Nels J. Lauritzen, Main Street Highland Park, Michael Bianc, Namaste Café, Over the Moon Toys, Peachepot, Rutgers Take Back the Tap, Sophisticated Smoker Inc., The Hub City Hub, Through the Moongate, and White Lotus Futon.

Food & Water Watch, in partnership with Beyond Pesticides, has submitted petitions to both the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring that they all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes.

“Non-medical uses of triclosan are totally unnecessary,” said Nichelle Harriot, research associate for Beyond Pesticides. “The constant exposure to triclosan becomes a health and environmental hazard, which is why Beyond Pesticides is actively working to get federal action for the removal of triclosan from the market place as well as continuing to work with retailers and manufacturers to remove triclosan from their products and store shelves.”

TAKE ACTION: On February 22, 2010 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a federal notice requesting data and information regarding the potential environmental impact of triclosan’s use in acne and antiplaque/antigingivitis products. The agency, in order to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), must complete environmental assessments (EA) for active ingredients before they are included in the agency’s over-the-counter (OTC) drug regulation system. Tell FDA that triclosan use in acne, antigingivitis/antiplaque and other products poses and unreasonable harm to our environment. Submit electronic comments to the FDA at www.regulation.gov using docket number: FDA-1996-N-0006. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management HFA-305, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Comments must be submitted by May 24, 2010.

Get your municipality, institution, school or company to adopt the Triclosan Model Resolution to not buy products with triclosan and support broader elimination of non-medically prescribed uses. For more information on triclosan and its impacts on human and environmental health, visit our Antibacterial program page.

The opposition to GM crops or “Frankenstein Foods,” as many call it, is very strong in several EU countries. Martin Haeusling, an EU Parliament and Green Party member, says that 70% of the EU population opposes genetically modified foods. This is the first time the EU has approved a GM crop since 1998 when Monsanto’s MON 810, a variety of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn was approved for human consumption. When Austria and Hungary banned the crop, the EC unsuccessfully tried to force the two nations to allow Bt corn production. France has also banned MON810.

Following suit, Germany banned MON810 in April last year. Germany’s Agriculture and Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner said that genetic engineering “has so far not yielded tangible benefits for the people.” In the same month, scientists in the U.S. reported that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields. Monstanto, however, has since filed a lawsuit against the German government claiming that the ban is “arbitrary.”

Amflora is engineered to have 98% starch content, and was developed by BASF, the world’s largest chemical company. The approval of Amflora, “puts profits before people,” says to Heike Moldenhauer, a spokeswoman for the Friends of the Earth Europe. Hubert Weigner, President of Friends of the Earth Germany says it is “a political genuflection towards BASF.”

Italy and Austria have already announced plans to ban the GM potato. Germany will allow the potato to be cultivated only for industrial purposes, not animal feed. Despite being opposed to MON810, Minister Aigner applauded the decision and said, “I plan to enter into a dialogue with Germany’s states and, of course, the federal parliament on how we can implement this possibility in Germany in a responsible way.” Amflora potatoes will be planted in Germany and the Czech Republic this year, possibly followed by plantings in the Netherlands and Sweden where the variety was developed.

In a press release, the EC claims that adequate preventive measures will be taken, however, many are concerned that Amflora will still find its way into the food supply. In the U.S., the moratorium on cultivation of GE alfalfa will soon go before the Supreme Court. Organic farming and environmental groups are fighting to stop cultivation, because the genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa is contaminating nearby organic alfalfa. Unlike alfalfa, which can cross pollinate with plants several miles away, potatoes are propagated vegetatively, and are harvested before the plants can go to seed, making cross pollination less of an issue. Spuds may remain after a field is harvested, and there is the possibility that a field may still contain GM spuds when it is planted in later years with conventional potatoes, when there would be no way to separate the lingering GM potatoes from the rest of the harvest.

The widespread production of GM crops is also a threat to human health, because antibiotic resistance genes are incorporated into their DNA. It is possible that bacteria could take up these resistant genes from crops and incorporate them into their genome making them into more virulent pathogens. The threat of spreading antibiotic resistance helped derail approval of a GM eggplant in India. The group Doctors for Food and Biosafety said in a statement that the practice of using antibiotic resistance genes in genetic engineering could have a disastrous effect in developing nations struggling to control communicable disease. After protests broke out across the nation, with some protestors dressed as purple or white eggplants, the Indian government decided to impose a moratorium on the GM crop.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of genetically modified organisms because of the dangers they pose to human health and the environment. The widescale adoption of genetically modified crops has lead to a marked increase in the use of pesticides, and emerging research has linked genetically modified crops to organ damage. All the while, these crops have failed in their promise to deliver a marked increase in yield.

Sources: Spiegel Online, New York Times

The study, “The effects of silver nanoparticles on fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryos,” led by Maria Sepúlveda, PhD and published in Ecotoxicology, describes the toxicity of two commercial silver nanoparticle products: NanoAmor and Sigma.

Fathead minnows at several stages of their development were exposed to varying concentrations of either suspended or stirred nanoparticle solutions for 96 hours. When the nanosilver was allowed to settle, the solution became several times less toxic, but still caused malformations in the minnows. With or without sonication, nanosilver caused irregularities, including head hemorrhages and edema, and was ultimately lethal.

“Silver nitrate is a lot more toxic than nanosilver, but when nanosilver was sonicated, or suspended, its toxicity increased tenfold,” said Dr. Sepúlveda. “There is reason to be concerned.”

Using Transmission Electron Microscopy, Dr. Sepúlveda was able to detect nanosilver particles measuring 30 nanometers or less inside the minnow embryos. Thirty nanometers is more than 3,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.

“These nanosilver particles are so small they are able to cross the egg membranes and move into the fish embryos in less than a day,” said Dr. Sepulveda. “They had a potentially high dose of silver in them.”

Silver nanoparticles are now widely impregnated into a wide variety of consumer products used to kill off bacteria in odor-control clothing, bedding, vacuums, baby and infant products, food packaging and a host of others. However, very little is known about where these particles end up when such products are put to use, and little work is being done to estimate the current level of nanosilver being released into the environment.

Scientists have concluded that nanoparticles can pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that silver nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells or tissue) by accumulating in the brain over a long period of time. A study conducted in 2008 and confirmed by another study in 2009 showed that washing nano-silver textiles released substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms.

In May, 2008, a legal petition was filed by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and others including Beyond Pesticides, challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide. The 100-page petition addresses the serious human health concerns raised by these unique substances, as well as their potential to be highly destructive to natural environments, and calls on the EPA to fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, and require labeling of all products.

So far, the U.S. federal government has invested only a small percentage of its overall nanotechnology research funding to understand the risks posed by nanomaterials, according to an analysis conducted last year by Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, further highlighting the need for more research on the potential risks posed by nanomaterials.

Dr. Sepúlveda said she plans to develop tests to understand the effect that different nanoparticles have on fish and other organisms. She also wants to develop testing to determine nanosilver concentrations in the environment. “How are we going to know the risk unless we know the concentration of these particles?” she said.

For more information, download Beyond Pesticides factsheet “What’s the right answer to the germ question?” Or, for more information, including tips on how to get toxic antimicrobials out of your home, school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials program page.

Source: Purdue University Press Release

The study, “Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis),” led by Tyrone Hayes, PhD, at the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Dr. Hayes and other researchers examined a group of 40 African clawed frogs, all of which carried male chromosomes. As tadpoles, the frogs were put in water with 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine — a concentration within federal drinking water standards. Atrazine-exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. Exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs. The eggs produced were all male offspring since both parents contributed male genes. When competing for female frogs’ attentions, atrazine-treated males frequently lost out to males that had not been treated. Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility. According to the researchers, these data are consistent with effects of atrazine observed in other vertebrate classes.

“It’s a chemical . . . that causes hormone havoc,” Dr. Hayes said. “You need to look at things that are affecting wildlife, and realize that, biologically, we’re not that different.”

Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which re-approved the use of atrazine in 2006 concluding that there was no evidence atrazine was causing adverse impacts on the amphibians’ development, initiated a new evaluation of its potential health effects after well-publicized reports and a New York Times investigative piece found EPA’s regulations of atrazine in water to be insufficient. Even at levels considered “safe” by EPA drinking water standards, atrazine is linked to endocrine-disrupting effects. Other research by Dr. Hayes and others demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion, turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

Atrazine has also been implicated in a study as a possible cause for male infertility, blocking the action of the male sex-hormone testosterone and could impact the development of male reproductive organs in humans. In yet another study last year by Rick Relyea, PhD, an associate professor of biological sciences in the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Arts and Sciences, a mixture of small amounts of ten of the most commonly used pesticides, including atrazine killed 99 percent of the leopard frog tadpoles that he was testing.

Studies from 2007, done by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. With the growing proof of the negative effects of atrazine, levels of exposure must be properly monitored and accounted for. Public health advocates have argued that exposure to atrazine should be eliminated entirely through its cancellation.

According to EPA, agency staff will evaluate the pesticide’s potential cancer and non-cancer effects on humans. Included in this new evaluation will be the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births. Steve Owens, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances said, “Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate.” During the new evaluation, EPA says it will consider the potential for atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects, and will include data generated since 2003 from laboratory and population studies. EPA will also seek advice from the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge

Filed in the U.S. District Court for Delaware by the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic on behalf of Delaware Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Food Safety, the federal suit charges that the Fish & Wildlife Service had illegally entered into Cooperative Farming Agreements with private parties, allowing hundreds of acres to be plowed over without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In March 2009, the same groups won a similar lawsuit against GE plantings on Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. Ironically, Prime Hook has now been administratively incorporated into Bombay Hook, meaning that the same refuge management that is overseeing execution of the Prime Hook verdict is violating its tenets on Bombay Hook. In August 2009, several environmental groups led by the Center for Food Safety and PEER wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to alert him to the implications of the Prime Hook ruling and asking him to “issue a moratorium on all GE crop cultivation in National Wildlife Refuges.” Secretary Salazar has never responded.

“By definition, these refuges are to be administered to benefit wildlife, not farmers,” stated PEER Counsel Christine Erickson, noting that Fish & Wildlife Service policy explicitly forbids “genetically modified agricultural crops in refuge management unless [they] determine their use is essential to accomplishing refuge purpose(s).” “GE crops serve no legitimate refuge purpose, and in fact impair the objectives for which the wildlife sanctuaries were originally established,” she said.

National wildlife refuges have allowed farming for decades to help prepare seed beds for native grasslands and provide food for migratory birds. In recent years, however, refuge farming has been converted to GE crops because that is only seed farmers can obtain. Today, the vast majority of crops grown on refuges are genetically engineered.

Yet farming on wildlife refuges often interferes with protection of wildlife and native grasses. Scientists also warn that GE crops can lead to increased pesticide use on refuges and can have other negative effects on birds, aquatic animals, and other wildlife. In the Prime Hook case, Federal District Court Chief Judge Gregory Sleet found that, “It is undisputed that farming with genetically modified crops at Prime Hook poses significant environmental risks.”

“Using genetically engineered crops designed to be used in conjunction with repeated applications of pesticides is a practice in direct opposition to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuges: to serve as safe havens for wildlife,” said Paige Tomasilli, staff attorney with the Center for Food Safety. “The fact that farmers can obtain no other seeds underscores the questionable business practices of companies like Monsanto that are trying to limit farmer and consumer choice in order to sell more chemical pesticides.”

If successful, the suit will enjoin any cultivation of GE crops on Bombay Hook until environmental assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act have been completed. Meanwhile, unless practices on the refuges change, PEER and the Center for Food Safety are preparing new suits against other refuges with GE farming programs.

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 resistant crop, the approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. Last month, Friends of the Earth International released the report, Who Benefits from GM Crops?, which examines industry claims and finds that GE crops actually increase carbon emissions while failing to feed the world. For other studies and more information on GE crops, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE program page and past Daily News entries on the subject.

The Friends of the Earth International report exposes the fact that globally GM crops remain confined to less than 3% of agricultural land and more than 99% are grown for animal feed and agrofuels, rather than food. GM crops are responsible for huge increases in the use of pesticides in the US and South America, intensifying fossil fuel use. The cultivation of GM soy to feed factory farmed animals is also contributing to widespread deforestation in South America, causing massive climate emissions.

Ongoing concerns about the negative impacts of GM crops mean many governments are still cautious about adopting them. India has placed a moratorium on the planting of its first GM food crop due to widespread concerns about its health, environmental and socio-economic impact. In Europe the area planted with GM crops has declined for the fifth consecutive year for the same reasons.

Millions are being spent by governments on GM crops. Promoted as a solution to climate change, they could be funded in the future through the United Nations (UN) climate emission reduction Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The UN Organization for Food and Agriculture is currently hosting a conference in Guadalajara, Mexico from March 1-4, 2010 in support of the biotechnology industry.

“GM crops are being promoted as a solution to feed us in a warming world, when in reality they are wiping out forests, damaging farmers’ livelihoods and increasing harmful emissions,” said Friends of the Earth Europe GM campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran. “Given the damaging track record of GM crops to date, and unfulfilled promises to feed the world, we would be well advised to disregard claims that GM crops can combat climate change.”

In South America, a cocktail of pesticides are being applied on GM soy, which is poisoning communities and contaminating the environment. GM crops, and the corporate control of seeds, are also hindering the development of real solutions by starving them of funding and restricting farmers’ access to seeds and knowledge. Genetically diverse, ecological farming and traditional knowledge have been identified as key to facing future challenges.

“The reality is that GM farming is not a success story. Small farmers across the world are already using planet-friendly methods to feed themselves and cool the planet,” said Friends of the Earth International food coordinator Martin Drago. “These methods must be supported rather than environmentally and socially destructive GM farming.”

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because of the dangers they pose to human health and the environment. Two 2009 reports show that the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops in the United States has actually increased pesticide use but failed to increase yield. Recent studies have also linked GMO consumption to organ failure. Organic agriculture does not permit GM crops or the use of synthetic herbicides, and focuses on building the soil—minimizing its effect on climate change. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GM program page.

TAKE ACTION: Public Comments Needed To Stop Genetically Engineered Alfalfa in the U.S. The USDA says consumers do not care about genetic contamination. If you disagree, tell them they are wrong by this Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

In the case of the Texas Water Development Board v. the Department of Interior, local government intended to build a reservoir in an area designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as a wildlife refuge. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the FWS did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act when it created the refuge, and so a reservoir cannot be constructed in that area.

In the case of Rose Acre Farms Inc. v. the United States, an egg producer sued the government for damages after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) destroyed some of the farm’s eggs in an effort to contain an outbreak of salmonella that was traced back to the farm. The Court of Federal Claims originally awarded Rose Acre Farms $5.4 million in damages, but that ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Environmentalists were concerned that a reversal of the Appeals Court decision would discourage government agencies from enforcing regulations.

The NCC v. EPA decision overturned a 2006 Bush Administration rule, condemned by environmentalists, which exempted certain pesticide applications from CWA regulations. In cases when pesticides are applied directly to water to control pests such as mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds, or pesticides are applied to control pests that are present over or near water (where pesticides invariably drift into local water bodies) applications were held to the much less stringent standards of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA unlike the CWA does not fully regulate or oversee water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in the local context. When a pesticide is registered under FIFRA the dangers of heightened toxicity due to combinations of chemicals, and chemical drift are not fully considered. EPA, in implementing FIFRA, uses controversial and many studies say inadequate exposure and need assumptions in its risk assessment and does not take least-toxic alternatives into account. CWA in contrast uses a health-based standard setting maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requiring permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams.

Numerous conservatives and farm industry trade groups have criticized the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case, arguing waterways are adequately protected under FIFRA, and requiring farmers to obtain a permit under CWA will only increase bureaucratic red tape. The National Association of Wheat Growers called the Appeals Court’s decision a major defeat for American agriculture. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said in a statement, “All farmers know they must use chemicals properly. Going through redundant bureaucratic red tape for a duplicate permit to apply a safe product is preposterous. That kind of regulatory overkill will not improve food safety or the environment.”

Conservationists disagree, saying the new regulations will better protect the local environment and human health by requiring the regulatory agencies to evaluate the effects of pesticide applications on fish and wildlife, and to monitor the amount of pesticides in the country’s waterways. Communities near application sites will also gain some say in what pesticides are added to their waterways, as the NPDES permits also allow local citizen input. Charlie Tebbutt, lead council for the environmental organizations and the organic farm that challenged the Bush administration’s rule, said, “We look forward to making sure that the EPA and state permitting processes will protect people and increase protections for clean water, fish and wildlife.”

Sources: NY Times, Western Environmental Law Center Press Release

We are also pleased to announce exciting additions to our speaker list including: journalist, author, democracy and environmental activist Harvey Wasserman; ecologist, ecological engineer and 2004 Stockholm Water Prize laureate William Mitsch, PhD; and several others. These speakers join Jeff Moyer, organic farming and gardening expert with the Rodale Institute; Melinda Hemmelgarn, award-winning “Food Sleuth” journalist who encourages people “think beyond their plates”; David Hackenberg, beekeeper who first discovered colony collapse disorder; Canadian organizers who played a key role in the effort that banned cosmetic pesticide use in Ontario in 2009; and, cutting-edge scientists focusing on endocrine disruption, cancer, learning disabilities, and the link between birth defects and season of conception.

Harvey Wasserman is a journalist, author, democracy activist and environmental advocate. He is author of a dozen books, including Solartopia! Our Green Powered Earth. Harvey helped found the communal/organic Montague Farm, now home to the Zen Peacemaker Community. He also co-founded the Great Blue Heron Alliance and numerous other grassroots groups which, among other things, shutdown a trash-burning power plant, stopped a regional radioactive waste dump in Ohio, shut a McDonald’s, and saved the city of Bexley’s Jeffrey Park. Read recent entries at the Huffington Post, including this post on what the U.S. must do to go truly green.

William Mitsch, PhD is an ecosystem ecologist and ecological engineer who was co-laureate of the 2004 Stockholm Water Prize as a result of a career in wetland ecology and restoration, ecological engineering, and ecological modeling. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Environment and Natural Resources at Ohio State University and director of the University’s Olentangy River Wetland Research Park. Dr. Mitsch played a key role in the development of the field of ecological engineering as an author of the first book on this subject and the founder and editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Ecological Engineering.

The Forum will begin Friday afternoon with a tour of the Cleveland Botanical Garden, with sessions officially starting Friday at 5:30pm, and will conclude Saturday at 10:30pm. Founded in 1930, Cleveland Botanical Garden is now made up of 20 exquisite specialty gardens and exotic indoor biomes. The Garden’s community involvement extends beyond its 10 acres into city neighborhoods through its Green Corps program, which has enlightened area youth with the opportunities of urban farming. Please RSVP to attend this tour.

Triclosan, a controversial antibacterial agent found in hundreds of consumer products, from hand sanitizers to toys, is one of 13 chemicals being assessed by FDA for environmental impacts according to their proposed uses. According to FDA regulations, the agency must conduct EAs before chemicals are approved for use in OTC drug products. In this case, triclosan is being considered for use in acne and antiplaque/antigingivitis products. Even though this action is being taken, FDA has never been able to finalize and approve the use of triclosan in any OTC products, despite the proliferation of these products in the consumer marketplace. It appears that EAs for the vast majority of triclosan uses have been completed. Other FDA regulations on triclosan have not been updated since 1994 and much of the data used by the FDA dates back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Triclosan is regulated by both the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) however, neither agency has moved to restrict triclosan despite the emerging science that supports the limitation of the chemical’s use. Last month, Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch and over 75 concerned environmental and health groups petitioned EPA to ban triclosan use, citing numerous statutes under which the government must act to stop non-medical uses of triclosan, including laws regulating pesticide registration, use and residues, clean and safe drinking water, and endangered species. Last summer, Beyond Pesticides and others submitted an amended petition to FDA requiring that the agency ban the use of the controversial pesticide triclosan for non-medical applications on the basis that those uses violate the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.

Chief among those issues is bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications and bacterial cleansers, a problem for all people, but especially vulnerable populations such as infants and the elderly. Triclosan is also an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Further, the pesticide can also transform to dioxins, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals. A recent study found that triclosan alters thyroid function in male rats. Other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in waterways, fish, human milk. The CDC’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that triclosan is found in the urine of about 75% of the U.S. population. Due to the fact that many products containing triclosan are washed down the drain, triclosan also shows up in water systems and sewage sludge. Accumulation of the pesticide in waterways and soil has been shown to threaten ecosystems and produce residues in fish and possibly food crops. A U.S Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and at some of the highest concentrations. Triclosan has been found to be highly toxic to different types of algae, keystone organisms for complex aquatic ecosystems. A recent EPA survey of sewage sludge found that triclosan and its cousin triclocarban were detected in sewage sludge at the highest concentrations out of 72 tested pharmaceuticals.