In a policy context, Beyond Pesticides believes that this type of green chemistry framework can identify safer products and should trigger the cancellation of more hazardous products evaluated under risk assessment standards that allow continuing public and environmental exposure despite the identification of hazards and uncertainties associated with chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, and untested health outcomes and ecological effects. Central to this thinking is the need to use information on green chemistry to evaluate the necessity of hazardous products and institute a mechanism to screen out unnecessary hazardous chemical use. At this time, public policy at the federal regulatory level largely ignores the “benefit” side of the equation, which is largely left consumers in the marketplace. Current reform proposals being considerd by Congress currently do not incorporate this thinking.

The report was released on November 17 by the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR), and the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell (UMASS Lowell).

“Green chemistry offers states economic opportunity that focuses on safer chemicals and products,” said Ken Zarker, NPPR Policy Chair. “We expect this report will be a useful resource to those states considering opportunities for growing green jobs.”

Green chemistry was defined by Drs. Paul Anastas and John Warner as “the utilization of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use orgeneration of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of chemicals products.”

The report recommends states take action to promote safer products in four broad areas: 1) information development, collection and dissemination, 2) economic incentives; 3) recognition programs, and 4) regulation and policy, including the following:

* Promote chemical information and alternatives assessment.
* Provide tax incentives for green chemistry and design for
environment.
* Implement award programs for green chemistry and design for
environment.
* Require safer alternatives planning.

“This report will promote new collaborations and business leadership to assist industry with the tools to spur cleaner products and services,” says Roger McFadden, Senior Scientist, Staples, Inc. “The successful completion of all these actions is needed to help drive innovation throughout the supply chain to promote sustainability.”

In the U.S., green chemistry programs already exist at the federal level and at the state level in both Michigan and California. Design for environment (DfE) is the program within the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that “uses the office’s chemical assessment tools and expertise to inform substitution to safer chemistries.” This report defines a vision and an approach to use creative green chemistry and DfE policy approaches as key economic tools.

California instituted a Green Chemistry program after a report by a University of California (UC) research team urged the state to restrict toxic chemical use and replace it with safer substitutes, citing that federal law is too weak to protect the public from toxic chemicals that can build up in the human body and the environment. This report was the first in the nation to lay out a framework for government to implement the green chemistry approach toward designing and using chemicals that are less hazardous to people and ecosystems.

Despite the limitations of current risk assessment “reform” proposals being discussed in Congress, there is a growing movement for safety from highly toxic chemicals based on the common sense principle of precaution. In registering pesticides, for example, the Precautionary Principle would flip the burden of proof to the chemical industry to prove “allowable risk standards” are met, address uncertainties, establish the need, and show that a safer method or product was not available before the product is allowed on the market. Polls show that many Americans think such an approach is already in use in the U.S. Of course, it is not. Under the current regulatory system, by the time undeniable scientific proof of harm is established — the damage is often too severe to correct. By using the Precautionary Principle, advocates seek to prevent chemical exposure and utilize known non-harmful, or least-toxic alternative techniques and products.

For more information on the precautionary principle, read our article “Replacing Poisons with Precaution in Pest Management” from Pesticides and You (Vol 27 No. 3).

Tulane University’s Center for Bioenvironmental Research Howard Mielke, PhD and his colleagues, concerned about risks to children posed by treated wood, used a portable X-ray fluorescence instrument to survey playgrounds for arsenic. Their results, presented at the 30th annual North American meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry and entitled “Soil arsenic surveys of New Orleans: Localized hazards in children’s play areas,” finds that 56.8% of wood sampled are treated with CCA and 78% of soils sampled from playgrounds contain levels of arsenic greater than the state “acceptable” level. One playground in particular contains CCA-treated wood that had been chipped and used as a cushioning ground surface around slides, swings and other equipment from which a child might fall. These chips contain high concentrations -813 to 1,654 ppm- of leachable arsenic. Note: The researchers informed the school of the high arsenic concentrations and the tainted chips were replaced with untreated bark.

The researchers also examined the effect of a child’s ingestion of contaminated soil. Soil samples were digested in one-molar nitric acid, a solution meant to mimic the pH of a child’s stomach, and found that the median arsenic concentration which resulted was on the order of 57 ppm – a concentration much higher than the median of 1.5 ppm in soils generally found throughout the city of New Orleans.

“The irony,” Dr. Mielke contends, “is that if you want to find arsenic in soil, go to a child’s play area with wood structures.” They will likely be pressure treated with the CCA combo and leach substantial quantities of this carcinogen and neurotoxic agent into soil. And he predicts New Orleans’ arsenic hazard will not prove unique: “I would expect to see it all over the country.” For decades, CCA-treated lumber was the wood of choice, nationally, for play structures, picnic tables, decks and fencing.

Researchers also found that many child-care centers do not want to know the results of their study and, as a result, parents are often the last to know of any problem. “We found that when we were going to take samples at child-care centers, we quickly learned they don’t want to know the results,” remarks Dr. Mielke. There are no requirements that playground managers survey for arsenic in soil, but they could face liability issues if they learned they had a problem and did not immediately shut down until tests confirmed the area was clean. “So for our study, we agreed to take the samples and not give them the results until after we were done [cleaning up the site],” says Dr. Mielke. This offers many facilities plausible deniability of any preexisting problem.

The cost of cleaning up contaminated wood is not enormous, perhaps a few thousand dollars per playground (Dr. Mielke’s estimate from having worked to clean up several in town), but still beyond the discretionary budgets of cash-strapped parks and schools. However, removing contaminated soil, which is considered hazardous material, can be a problem. Soil must be placed at a hazardous waste facility and the cost for removal, as well as special equipment to dig contaminated materials out can be extraordinarily high.

Beyond Pesticides has called for a banning of heavy duty wood preservatives and said that the slow phase-out of residential uses of these chemicals does not adequately protect public health or the environment. Wood preservatives are known to leach from previously treated wood and children, as demonstrated in this study, are at risk when they put their unwashed hands in their mouths after touching soil or wood that is contaminated with preservatives. Although, as of January 2004, most residential uses of CCA can no longer be manufactured for decks and patios, picnic tables, playground equipment, walkways/boardwalks, landscaping timbers, or fencing, already existing residential CCA-treated wood and structures may continue to be sold and used. Continuing uses, such as utility poles, continue to be manufactured and put workers and the public at risk. For Beyond Pesticides’ Resource Kit to take action in your community and state, go to our wood preservatives Resources and Toolkits page.

For more information on CCA and other wood preservatives visit our Wood Preservative program page.

Applying an additional uncertainty factor in risk assessments affecting infants and children and a reassessment of all existing pesticide tolerances were touted as the centerpieces of FQPA, which passed and amended the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal pesticide law, in 1996. The legislation gained momentum after a 1993 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, recommended an uncertainty factor. Responding to the NAS recommendation, FQPA states that, “An additional tenfold [10X] margin of safety for the pesticide chemical residue and other sources of exposure shall be applied for infants and children to take into account potential pre- and post-natal toxicity and completeness of data with respect to exposure and toxicity to infants and children. Notwithstanding such requirement for an additional margin of safety, the Administrator may use a different margin of safety for the pesticide chemical residue only if, on the basis of reliable data, such margin will be safe for infants and children.”

Director of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Debbie Edwards, Ph.D. said that the question of how much more broadly to apply the standard is a top priority for 2010. She said OPP will release a white paper on the idea for public comment. The idea is in part a response to the agency’s new focus on environmental justice, a key priority of Administrator Lisa Jackson. “We’re looking to develop a consistent human health risk assessment for all,” Dr. Edwards told Inside EPA. “We’re looking to [consider all populations] the same.”

Inside EPA reports that “an agency source says a group of agency lawyers and risk assessors is considering the issue, and OPP is also consulting with EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP), which is seeing a resurgence of influence under the new administration. The idea is to take into account all exposures including residential and food exposures.”

Over the years, Beyond Pesticides has periodically criticized the agency in public comments for what appears to be an arbitrary application of the FQPA 10X safety factor, which has manipulated safety data and allowed hazardous pesticide uses to remain on the market. Additionally, EPA typically fails to add the FQPA safety factor when evaluating specific pesticide risks to farmworker children. Even under the current policy, an additional 10X safety factor should be added to protect the unborn children of pregnant farmworkers because these babies, who are not employees, may be exposed to pesticides at a very vulnerable stage of their development.

In August 2007, Bush administration officials were widely criticized for overruling career staff at the USDA and instead of decertifying Aurora as staff had recommended, banning it from organic commerce, the corporate dairy was allowed to continue in business under a one-year probation. Now agribusiness lobbyists are concerned that citizens prevailing in court, alleging fraud, will set a precedent necessitating large corporations to incur added expenses to more carefully check the sources and credibility of their organic suppliers.

“Due diligence by food manufacturers and retailers is the heart and soul of what maintaining the integrity of the organic label is about,” said Mark Kastel, co-director of The Cornucopia Institute, the farm policy research group that initially exposed the corruption taking place at Aurora.

In an internal document, the Organic Trade Association told its membership that, “OTA is taking this action in order to protect consumers’ access to organic products and the guarantee by organic farmers, producers and processors that their valid organic certificate fully demonstrates that their product is considered organic when marketed.” Lobbyists from the Grocery Manufacturers also are concerned that if the consumers prevail in this legal matter it would become, according to a copy written article in Sustainable Food News, “prohibitively expensive to continue developing organic products.”

“This type of rhetoric is just a stick in the eye to the ethical participants in this industry who make it a point, in their everyday course of business, to judiciously assure that their products meet not only the letter but the spirit of the organic law,” added Mr. Kastel.

Just like Aurora Dairy, Wal-Mart and Target were both found to have misrepresented organic products in the marketplace and were the subject of separate USDA investigations.

“Yes, it does cost more money to legally and ethically participate in organic commerce,” said Will Fantle, research director for Cornucopia. “One of the reasons that big-box retailers are able to undercut their competition on price is they refuse to hire, train and adequately compensate management and frontline employees who know anything about the organic law.” Aurora produces private label, or storebrand milk, for about 20 of the largest grocery chains in the United States.

“Aurora’s factory farm milk has injured the vast majority of Organic Valley’s own farmer-members by depriving them of markets for their milk and unfairly driving down retail pricing. Earlier this year the cooperative cut the pay price to its members and required its farmers to reduce production because of a milk surplus in the marketplace – a surplus that would be much smaller if Aurora legitimately managed its dairy cows like Organic Valley’s ethical dairy farmers,” Mr. Kastel said.

Cornucopia analysis, and USDA research, suggests that as much as a third of the nation’s organic milk supply comes from giant factory farms. Another organic factory farm operator, Dean Foods, the country’s largest milk marketer, and an OTA and GMA member, has been widely criticized in the organic community for procuring much of its milk for its Horizon brand from mega-dairies allegedly breaking the same rules as Aurora.

The friend of the court brief, opposing a lower court ruling, expresses fears about a precedent should consumers be compensated for any fraud committed by Aurora.

Analysts at Cornucopia strongly refute the contention that the Aurora matter would leave all organic marketers open to tort complaints by consumers. “Obviously, there is strong evidence for these consumers to believe they were defrauded by Aurora and the supermarket chains,” Mr. Kastel said. “This is an exceptional situation not indicative of the industry as a whole.”

Mr. Kastel cited the fact that Cornucopia sent certified letters to every one of Aurora’s retailer customers informing them that the reputation of their store’s label was at risk and encouraging them to take action. Only two marketers, the Publix supermarket chain in Florida and United Natural Foods International, the largest organic food distributor in the country, did the due diligence necessary and switched suppliers.

“The organic certification documents alone are not enough if evidence is brought to a marketer’s attention that some kind of improprieties are taking place,” Mr. Fantle added. “There is always the possibility that collusion or incompetence has taken place on the part of the supplier, certifier or the USDA.”

A comprehensive investigative story that appeared in The Washington Post referenced the Aurora matter, and a cozy relationship between the powerful Washington lawyer and lobbyist for Aurora, Dean and the OTA, and the former director of the organic program at the USDA alleged malfeasance at the Department has sparked the interest of Congress and an expanded investigation is currently taking place by the Office of the Inspector General at the USDA.

“Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 charging the USDA with preventing fraud; protecting the interests of ethical industry participants and consumers,” observed Mr. Kastel. “The obvious allegation here is that the regulatory branch, the USDA under the Bush administration, failed to properly enforce the law. It is appropriate for citizens who feel they were defrauded to seek a judicial remedy,” he added.

When the nation’s largest organic milk producer Aurora dairy, with five “factory style” farms, in Colorado and Texas, each milking thousands of cows, entered the marketplace in 2004 they proudly stated that they would make organic milk more “affordable.” What they didn’t tell their customers was that their products would be more affordable, allowing them to undercut competitors in the marketplace, because they wouldn’t go to the expense of meeting the strict federal regulations governing organic marketing.

In 2007, after investigating legal complaints filed by Cornucopia about Aurora’s organic livestock practices, USDA staff concluded that Aurora had “willfully violated” 14 tenets of federal organic regulations. Aurora was found by federal investigators to have been illegally confining their cattle to feedlots, brought in conventional cattle that could not comply with organic regulations and, most seriously, selling milk labeled as “organic” that did not meet the legal requirements.

In its formal letter to the company, USDA staff at the National Organic Program stated: “Due to the nature and extent of these violations, the NOP proposes to revoke Aurora Organic Dairy’s production and handling certifications under the NOP.”

But the powerful Washington-based lobby of Covington in Burling, representing Aurora, worked with the Bush administration officials at the USDA to instead allow the $100 million corporation to continue in the organic business with a one-year probation and some modest changes to their operations. The “sweetheart” settlement between Aurora and the USDA provoked a consumer led effort to seek justice in federal courts. Nineteen separate class action lawsuits were brought against Aurora and several national grocery retailers selling Aurora’s suspect organic milk including Wal-Mart, Target and Safeway. The lawsuits claiming consumer fraud were eventually consolidated into a single case in the federal district court in St. Louis. Earlier this year, federal court judge E. Richard Webber dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds. An appeal has since been filed seeking to bring the merits of the lawsuit, which have not been heard, back before the court.

J.R. Simplot Company of Boise, Idaho; Agricare of Amity, Ore.; and Northwest Agricultural Products of Pasco, Wash. violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) at their respective facilities, according to the EPA.

Numerous other violations of FIFRA this past year have led to EPA fines or lawsuits, including several in the state of Washington last spring. In October, EPA fined Samsung for violating the federal pesticide law when it publicized that its keyboards, produced with nanosilver, were antimicrobial and inhibited germs and bacteria without registering its products. EPA also filed suit against VF Corporation for the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides through its retail company, The North Face.

“Companies that produce pesticides but fail to register their facilities or submit required reports are not only operating illegally, but also pose a safety hazard to the public,” said Scott Downey, manager of EPA’s pesticide unit in the Seattle office. “Knowing where pesticides are produced provides vital information to EPA and to responders in the event of a spill or natural disaster.”

Here are the latest three companies that have been targeted as violating FIFRA:

J.R. Simplot Company

J.R. Simplot Company is being fined $28,080 for failing to register two pesticide facilities.

A facility in Grafton, N.D. owned and operated by J.R. Simplot produced three pesticides in 2008 but inactivated its registration in 2002 and did not register until 2009, according to an EPA order. Facilities must be actively registered with EPA to produce pesticides.

An additional facility in Moorhead, Minnesota produced six pesticides in 2008, but was inactivated in 1996 and did not reactivate until 2009.

These violations were processed through EPA Region 10 because the J.R. Simplot Company headquarters is located in Idaho.

Agricare

Agricare is being fined $2,160 for failing to register a pesticide facility.

The facility in Amity, Ore. produced a pesticide in 2008, but did not register until 2009, in violation of FIFRA.

Northwest Agricultural Products

Northwest Agricultural products is being fined $1,280 for failing to submit yearly reports on time that document the types and amounts of pesticides produced and distributed. These reports are due March 1 for the previous calendar year.

The company submitted its report for 2006 on March 6, 2007. For 2008 it submitted its report on July 17, 2009.

In order to be effective or to have any relevance, environmental laws, like other laws, must be enforced. Pesticides are regulated primarily under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which authorizes EPA to oversee the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. States are authorized to regulate pesticides under FIFRA and under state pesticide laws, which differ from state to state. Pesticide application must be consistent with both federal and state laws. When it comes to enforcement, states have primary authority for compliance monitoring and enforcing against use of pesticides in violation of the law, efforts that are supported with a grant from the federal government. Generally, many pesticide complaints arise because the pesticide was used in violation of labeling requirements, applied at the wrong location, or because of pesticide drift.

For more information on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, go to: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws.htm

If you believe that a pesticide application violates the law, or you believe that the application has harmed you or the environment, there are some measures you can take. For a list of these, please visit Getting the Pesticide Law Enforced and What To Do in a Pesticide Emergency.

Mr. Kigai said he had purchased Furadan a few months ago in preparation for planting vegetables at his small farm. Carbofuran is sold in Kenya in both a liquid form and a more widely available granular form, which farmers sprinkle around their seeds when planting crops.

“I am sure he ate it, because he had [the pesticide] in his hand and in his mouth,” Mr. Kigai said.

Mr. Kigai had put the Furadan into a small container, which his son later found. Soon after Kimutai apparently ate the Furadan, the boy began to show signs of paralysis and later became unconscious.

Carbofuran 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 carbofuran. EPA says that it continues to find that dietary exposures to carbofuran from all sources combined are not safe.

EPA’s May 2009 action to revoke carbofuran tolerances 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 the 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 exposures to carbofuran from food and water are safe. 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.

Thanks to public pressure and overwhelming scientific data showing harm, EPA has cancelled all uses of the pesticide carbofuran and revoked the associated tolerances (legal residue limits on food). EPA concluded that there are considerable risks associated with carbofuran in food and drinking water, risks to pesticide applicators and risks to birds that are exposed in treated fields. However, if the FMC Corporation, the manufacturer of carbofuran, does not voluntarily withdraw the registration, it will be allowed to sell the deadly pesticide for years while it fights the decision in court.

After December 31, 2009, the use of carbofuran in the U.S. could result in adulterated food products, which would be subject to enforcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Once the cancellation is complete though, it is immediately effective for the main uses of carbofuran: alfalfa, corn, cotton, cotton, potatoes, and rice. Its use will be phased out over four years for other minor uses including artichokes, chili peppers in the southwest, cucumbers, spinach for seed, sunflowers, and pine seedlings. The cancellation also applies to use on most major imported agricultural products. This means that countries wishing to export agricultural produce to the United States will not be able to use carbofuran on those crops.

“The evidence is clear that carbofuran does not meet today’s rigorous food-safety standards,” says Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “EPA has carefully evaluated the scientific issues and has provided more than 500 days of public comment on this decision. It is now important to move forward with the needed public health protections, especially for children.”

Short-term health effects include headache, sweating, nausea, diarrhea, chest pains, blurred vision, anxiety and general muscular weakness.

While FMC voluntarily stopped selling the carbufuran under the trade name Furadan in Kenya in 2008 and announced a buyback program, the pesticide remains on store shelves in rural parts of the country. It is a cheap chemical that is often used illegally by herders to kill lions, hyenas, and other wildlife that could harm the domesticated animals. Furthermore, the packaging does not make clear how deadly the pesticide is.

“This is a pesticide that has recently been banned in the United States. It’s also banned in Europe because it’s been found to be unsafe to be used even if we follow the label instructions.”¦ It’s one of the most dangerous pesticides actually available at the moment,” says Paula Kahumbu, executive director of the Nairobi-based conservation group WildlifeDirect. “The chemical attacks the nervous system and only small amounts can kill an animal. It can also be fatal to humans if ingested. ‘It takes only a quarter of a teaspoon to kill people,’ says Kahumbu. She says lower concentrations can cause neurological problems, such as paralysis and breathing problems.”

Conservationists have led a campaign to ban the toxic pesticide in Kenya. Often, it is used illegally by pastoralists who add it to livestock carcasses to kill lions, hyenas, and other wildlife that could harm the domesticated animals.

In response, Kenyan MP John Matutho introduced legislation earlier this year to prohibit the use of Furadan with support from the group Wildlife Direct.

One man who has campaigned against Furdan, Dereck Joubert, a National Geographic explorer-in-residence, is seeking to have the product banned not just in Kenya but the entire continent. “We need to use whatever networks we’ve got, whatever political power we’ve got, to impose on FMC to pull this product out of Africa””that’s the bottom line,” said Mr. Joubert.

The report, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years,” explores the impact of the adoption of genetically modified (GM) corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The most striking finding, is that GM crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008). The report identifies, and discusses in detail, the primary cause of the increase–the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.

The steep rise in the pounds of herbicides applied with respect to most GM crop acres is not news to farmers. Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GM cropping systems. The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these is known as “Roundup Ready” for its ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) and are developed and marketed by industry leader Monsanto. However, the report states that a key problem resulting from the increase in herbicide use is the emergence of “super weeds,” which are difficult to kill because they have become resistant to the herbicides. In 2008, GM crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of resistant weeds.

“With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management systems will surely rise,” said Dr. Benbrook.

Farmers have become increasingly critical of both GM seed, as it goes up in price, and herbicides like Roundup, as ‘superweeds’ become prevalent in treated fields. The growth of pigweed, which can quickly reach widths of six inches at the stalk, and other invasive, glyphosate-resistant species increases farmers reliance on more high-risk herbicides, including 2,4-D, dicamba and paraquat, and has resulted in a return to hand harvesting and even abandoning of fields.

Noteworthy is that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. The adoption of GM corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996, according to the study.

The report also criticizes the agricultural biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for GM seeds are justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides. The report states that biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent more than the original biotech version. Meanwhile, USDA, which continues to collect farm-level data on pesticide applications, has been essentially silent on the impacts of GM crops on pesticide use and the integrity of U.S. agriculture for almost a decade.

“This report confirms what we’ve been saying for years,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “The most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it’s bad news for farmers, human health and the environment.”

Without performance, costs, and human and environmental risk assessments associated with GM crops, the report concludes, “U.S. agriculture is likely to continue down the road preferred by the biotechnology industry, a path that promises to maximize their profits by capturing a larger share of farm income, and limit the ability of plant breeders and other agricultural scientists to address other pressing issues of goals importance to society as a whole.”

For more Information on GM crops visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering program page

Read the full analysis of the study on the Rodale Institute website.

On June 8, 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dow AgroSciences, reached an agreement to stop the sale of most home, lawn and garden uses for chlorpyrifos because of its health risks to children. However, its use continues in agriculture. According to advocates, this new study provides further evidence for the need to ban chlorpyrifos and fully protect farmworkers, their families, and rural communities from the toxic hazards of this outdated, unnecessary pesticide.

According to the Rodale Institute, which provided part of the funding for the study, “The new animal study accentuates the risk of ultra-low levels of the common pesticide chlorpyrifos to cause long-lasting birth defects in female offspring of exposed mothers. The daughters exhibited learning delays, disturbed brain function and altered thyroid levels. Significantly, these symptoms resulted from low toxicity exposure during late gestation””an impact route not even part of current regulatory pesticide testing. Damage at these doses highlights vulnerability during gestation from toxins even at the parts per billion level.”

The following is taken from the Rodale Institute’s analysis of the study.

Pregnant mice were injected with 0, 1 or 5 mg CPF per kg of body weight. Their offspring were evaluated for several types of learning ability in a foraging maze from the age of 60 days to 150 days of age. The mice were evaluated for their ability to find food, how fast they found it, how well they remembered where it was. Thyroid hormone levels were checked at the end of the test.

Females exhibite “diminished foraging ability in a dose dependant manner due to in utero CPF exposure,” the paper says. In food recognition and food position learning assessments (a novel food in a novel place), the young mice with no exposure learn at a steady rate, while the lower-dosed group takes longer to reach the same level. The higher dose group never attains the same level of success in these foraging ability tests.

The authors conclude that the study is further evidence that chlorpyrifos and all organophosphates should be evaluated for endocrine disrupting potential, and that all EPA pesticide registrations should include in utero multi-generational toxicity testing.

Despite local authorities promising to send ambulances to assist people suffering complaints such as vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and fainting following the spraying, it took several hours for them to receive any health treatment. Over 200 people were affected, and at least seven people were taken to the hospital.

According to observers, a troubling precedent had been set earlier in the week when the Human Rights Commission of the Paraguayan Senate, the same body that recently thwarted attempts to return traditional land to another indigenous community, the Yakye Axa, was used as a platform to promote the eviction. The eviction order was cancelled by a district prosecutor just before it was due to be carried out on November 6. It is believed that the threats against the community were carried out in retaliation.

“Indigenous Peoples ´ lives are being put in jeopardy by those who should protect them,” said Louise Finer, Paraguay Researcher at Amnesty International. “The risk faced by the Itakyry communities was predictable. Insufficient action was taken to protect them from the threats they faced from this renewed attempt to evict them from their ancestral lands ”¦ The Paraguayan authorities – the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary – must work together to address the immediate needs of the communities after this attack, but also to ensure that it does not happen again.”

Only a small number of local police were present during the attack, despite the threat of intimidation toward the communities. Even with the rights of Paraguay ´s Indigenous Peoples being a key campaign pledge of President Fernando Lugo, the legacy of widespread land misappropriation from the dictatorship-period remains unaddressed, according to advocates.

Promoting large agricultural development is often put before safeguarding the land titles of Indigenous Peoples. The seriousness of the government ´s commitment to addressing their land claims has not been demonstrated in practice. In May, Amnesty International denounced that deforestation, soy plantations and the use of agro-chemicals continued to affect the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.

According to international human rights standards, the right to traditional lands is crucial to Indigenous Peoples as it is a vital element of their sense of identity, livelihood and way of life.

In a statement by Esperanza Martinez, Paraguay’s minister of health, officials are investigating who may have been responsible for the aerial spraying.

Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati are all experiencing a surge of bed bug infestations. According to Richard Pollack, a Harvard University public health entomologist, this is probably due to the fact that bedbugs are becoming resistant to many pesticide products that are used today.

The use of broad spectrum insecticides, which kill common household insects such as cockroaches, ants and other insects including bed bugs, has resulted in insect resistance to these chemicals. Many of the chemicals used against bed bugs, such as esfenvalerate and various pyrethroids (permethrin, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, etc) are also associated with adverse human effects, including skin irritation (important if applied to mattresses) endocrine disruption, cancer and neurotoxicity.

Propoxur is labeled as a highly toxic chemical, and the symptoms of poisoning include malaise, muscle weakness, dizziness, and sweating. Headache, nausea, and diarrhea are often prominent. Propoxur is a known neurotoxin, and likely a carcinogen. Propoxur has been linked to kidney and liver damage, and potentially cancer. A non-specific poison, propoxur is highly toxic to non-target, beneficial species such as bees and is of very high toxicity to crustaceans, fish, aquatic insects, and aquatic worms. Propoxur was first registered in the U.S. in 1963. In the 1990s numerous uses were withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer, Bayer. The remaining uses were reregistered by EPA with severe restrictions in 1997.

However, propoxur still remains a very common pesticide, due to its controversial use on flea and tick collars, and roach and ant spray, which are being increasingly scrutinized by the EPA. In April, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit, NRDC v. Albertsons, Inc. et al, in California against major pet product retailers and manufacturers for illegally selling pet products containing propoxur as a known cancer-causing chemical without required warning labels under the state’s Proposition 65.

Earlier this year, EPA held the first ever National Bed Bug Summit to solicit recommendations from scientists, state and local officials, pest control operators and the general public on how to tackle the resurgence of these pests. Among the recommendations from the participants, support for an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach was one of the most commonly discussed solutions.

While bed bugs may have recently re-emerged as a common unwanted insect and troublesome infestation problem, it’s important to note that the transmission of disease by bed bugs is highly unlikely. Importantly, there are many alternative ways to manage bed bugs without the use of harmful chemicals such as propoxur. These strategies include habitat modifications and least-toxic alternatives available to prevent and control bed bugs. These include sealing cracks and crevices where bed bugs can hide, regular laundering of bed linens and clothing in hot water (120oF), as well as regular vacuuming and steam cleaning of carpets and other soft furnishings, which can destroy bed bugs and their eggs. There are also several least-toxic chemical alternatives on the market, including diatomaceous earth.

For more information on detecting and preventing a bed bug infestation in your home, read our factsheet “Bed Bugs – Back with a Vengeance.”

Source: Wikimedia Commons

A 10 cm-long bioactive paper-based solid-phase biosensor was developed to detect acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors, including organophosphate pesticides. The researchers tested this sensor using food and beverage samples intentionally contaminated with common pesticides. The strip accurately detected trace amounts of the chemicals within five minutes, according to the scientists. The test strip changes color shades (a yellow-to-blue color change) depending on the amount of pesticide present. Also noteworthy is that the sensor is able to detect any AChE inhibitor, not just pesticides and may have potential applications in the study of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Their results were consistent with those of conventional analytical methods. The researchers also found that the sensor strips remained viable during storage over a period of at least 1 month when stored at 4 °C, demonstrating sufficient shelf life for storage and shipping.

“The tests could be most useful in developing countries and in the market of imported fruits and vegetables as well as in rural settings for on-site testing where testing equipment is not available or there’s no electricity,” said Dr. Brennan in an interview. He added that a number of regulatory hurdles and scale-up issues remain before the dipstick would be available. Each strip could cost as little as 25 cents and could also be adapted to test for toxins in water or even for E-coli before it enters the food chain.

Pesticide regulations in the United States set limits for pesticide levels found in fruits, vegetables and drinking water and under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must assess the cumulative risks of pesticides including exposures from food and drinking water and set chemical tolerances (the maximum amount of pesticide residue allowed to remain on food products) for pesticides. However, the cumulative effects of these allowed pesticide residues are not fully evaluated, nor are cumulative exposures to a mixture of many different pesticides and other toxics.

“Although it’s a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants,” said Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace. Attempts by House Republicans to weaken the legislation were voted down. “The day after a terrorist attack at a chemical plant kills thousands of Americans, any suggestion that we should not require the use of safer chemicals at these plants will be considered totally crazy. Republicans should have been offering amendments to strengthen this modest legislation instead of trying to cripple it,” said Mr. Hind.

The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act will require thousands of facilities where a toxic release endangers the surrounding community to assess their ability to “reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack” by switching to safer alternative chemicals or processes, and authorizes the Department of Homeland Security and Environmental Protection Agency to require use of those alternatives at the nation’s most dangerous facilities where feasible and cost-effective.

“With this historic vote, the House said, ”˜Yes, we can’ protect American communities in the face of the ”˜can’t do’ rhetoric of the chemical lobby,” said U.S. PIRG Public Health Advocate Liz Hitchcock. “Reducing the use of dangerous chemicals will make communities safer while also reducing the threat that chemical stockpiles become terrorist targets.”

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one hundred facilities endanger more than a million people in the event of an accident or attack; more than 7000 facilities endanger thousands. One hundred and ten million Americans live in the shadow of catastrophic poison gas release from one of 300 chemical facilities.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced that he intends to introduce a Senate version of H.R. 2868 this year, noting the momentum of the House vote.

“We should not tolerate unnecessary risk to millions of Americans when we know that we can do better, and we should not tolerate further delay in passing this already long overdue protection for America’s communities,” said Ms. Hitchcock. “We applaud the bill’s sponsors for their tenacious support for this important legislation, and look forward to working with champions in the Senate to bring this bill to the President’s desk.”

Earlier this week, the Clorox Company announced plans to convert all of its U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to Clorox CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won’t affect the size of the company’s workforce.” Mr. Hind added, “By leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox provided Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation.”

Since 9/11 more than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes, eliminating poison gas risks to more than 30 million Americans. Yet 300 other chemical plants together put 110 million Americans at risk.

On October 1, the Department of Homeland Security and EPA for the first time testified in favor of this legislation. “For the first time since the September 11th attacks Congressional leaders and the administration are in agreement on legislation that will actually protect the millions of Americans that remain at risk from chemical plants that can be turned into weapons of mass destruction,” said Mr. Hind.

In addition, water utility groups and a blue-green coalition of more than 50 organizations are urging Congress to enact this legislation. They include: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace.

The House-passed bill (H.R. 2868) will:
”¢ Conditionally require the highest risk plants to use safer chemical processes where feasible and cost-effective and requires the remaining high risk plants to “assess” safer chemical processes;
”¢ Eliminate the current law’s exemption of thousands of chemical facilities, such as waste water and drinking water plants and port facilities;
Ӣ Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers and limit back ground check abuses;
”¢ Preserve state’s authority to establish stronger security standards;
Ӣ Provide funding for conversion of plants, including drinking water facilities and wastewater
Ӣ facilities, and
Ӣ Allow citizen suits to enforce government implementation of the law.

Examples of the compromise include:
Ӣ Limits the number of chemical facilities (approximately 107) subject to safer chemicals;
Ӣ Allows chemical plants to appeal safer chemicals requirements;
Ӣ Limits citizen enforcement suits to government agencies, and
Ӣ Limits information to the public on which chemical facilities are regulated.

According to CSPI, in 2008, 57 percent of the corn acreage in the United States was planted with corn spliced with genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium, or Bt. Those crops produce natural toxins that are harmless to humans but will kill corn rootworms and corn borers, which otherwise reduce crop yields. Farmers who plant such crops are supposed to plant a refuge of conventional corn in, adjacent to, or near the GE crop. That refuge is designed to reduce the risk that pests that survive the toxin will breed with each other and produce resistant offspring. Resistant offspring would not only reduce yields of the Bt crops, but could also threaten organic or conventional farmers who use natural Bt-based pesticides on non-GE crops.

Depending on the location of the crop and the pests targeted by the strain of corn, farmers have varying requirements specifying the size of the refuge and its distance from the GE crop. According to industry surveys submitted to EPA in 2008:
Ӣ Only 78 percent of growers planting corn-borer-protected crops met the size requirement, and only 88 percent met the distance requirement.
Ӣ Only 74 percent of growers planting rootworm-protected crops met the size requirement, and 63 percent met the distance requirement.
”¢ Only 72 percent of farmers growing stacked varieties of GE corn””corn protected against both corn borer and rootworm””met the size requirement and 66 percent met the distance requirement.

Those compliance rates are down, in some cases sharply, from 2003 to 2005, when compliance rates were often above 90 percent. Although, compliance assessments made on the farm tend to show higher compliance rates than the surveys, those rates also decreased in the last three years, according to CSPI.

“Given the tremendous growth in the acreage given over to genetically engineered corn since its introduction, it is intolerable for farmers not to be meeting their refuge requirements,” said CSPI biotechnology director Greg Jaffe. “Given the stakes, regulators should insist on compliance rates much closer to 100 percent to prevent insect problems that threaten all farmers, not just those planting biotech crops.”

In a letter sent today to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, CSPI said that the agency should not re-register the existing varieties of Bt corn until the companies demonstrate higher levels of compliance. But, if the EPA does re-register the products, registrants such as Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences should be subject to severe fines or seed sales restrictions if noncompliance rates remain high, according to the letter. Those biotech companies should also provide farmers with incentives to meet their obligations. CSPI also wants the EPA to obtain more reliable data by requiring biotech companies to pay for independent, third-party assessments of farmer compliance with refuge requirements, and to require labeling on bags of biotech seed corn to specify refuge requirements.

Beyond Pesticides’ position is 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. GE crops should be subject to complete regulatory review, which is currently not the case.

Last week Beyond Pesticides reported on Ireland’s new policy banning the cultivation of all GE crops and introducing a voluntary GE-free label for food — including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GE animal feed. In addition, there are national and regional GE crop bans or moratoria on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Switzerland.

Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides, and focuses on building the soil and thus, minimizing its environmental impact. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering Page.