Methyl iodide poses great risk to farmworkers and those who live near fields where it will be applied as well as to air and waterways, should it escape into the surrounding environment. It is on California’s official list of known carcinogenic chemicals and has been linked to serious risks in reproductive and neurological health.

A coalition of farmworker, farm, public health and environmental groups is calling on the administration of governor-elect Jerry Brown to work with his agency staff to undo this approval, and deny the use of methyl iodide in California. Specifically, the groups call on Brown to:

”¢ Follow the recommendation of John Froines, PhD, Chair of the Scientific Review Committee, to reconvene the Committee and direct DPR to incorporate the Committee’s evaluation and analysis into its final decision and,
Ӣ Issue a moratorium on methyl iodide use on his first day in office.

Crumbling under chemical industry pressure, including an intensive pro-methyl-iodide lobbying and communications campaign run by Arysta LifeScience””methyl iodide manufacturer and the largest privately held pesticide company in the world, the state of California has disregarded the findings of top scientists who have consistently said that the chemical is too dangerous to be used in agriculture. Arysta LifeScience pushed to secure registration of the pesticide in California because it is one of the most lucrative pesticide markets in the nation.

The Scientific Review Committee (SRC) noted in its final report in February that, “Based on the data available, we know that methyl iodide is a highly toxic chemical and we expect that any anticipated scenario for the agricultural or structural fumigation use of this agent would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on the public health. Due to the potent toxicity of methyl iodide, its transport in and ultimate fate in the environment, adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

Permits will be required for the use of the pesticide and strict guidelines have been put in place. DPR has said that it will impose more comprehensive controls on methyl iodide than EPA or any other state that allows its use, including: larger buffer zones around all applications; a minimum of a half—mile buffer around schools, hospitals, nursing homes and similar sites; reduced application rates and acreage that can be treated; and, application limits to protect groundwater. However, state Assemblyman Bill Monning says that, “With a limited state budget, it is going to be very difficult to rely on [county level] agricultural commissioners to provide enough oversight and monitoring if this goes into use extensively.”

Dr. John Froines, Chair of the SRC and Professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health at UCLA said in a Senate Food and Agriculture Committee Hearing in June, “I believe that if you go out into the real world, and I think everybody in this room knows what the real world in the valleys are about, that the mitigation strategies that are promised so articulately by Mary-Ann [Warmerdam, DPR Director], are not going to be adequate, because this is without question one of the most toxic chemicals on earth.” (page 46 of transcript)

“The decision to permit use of a chemical in the fields that causes cancer, late-term miscarriage and permanent neurological damage is a ticking time bomb,“ said Dr. Susan Kegley, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network. “The idea that this pesticide can be used safely in the fields is a myth.”

“The science is clear: there’s no way to use this chemical safely in the fields, no matter what conditions DPR puts on its use,” said Anne Katten, Pesticide and Worker Safety Specialist at California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

“The Schwarzenegger administration has left a huge mess for Governor Brown to clean up. Governor Brown and his staff should act immediately to ban the use of methyl iodide in California,” said Paul Towers, State Director of Pesticide Watch Education Fund.

In 2007, the Bush Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved methyl iodide at the national level, ignoring concerns from a group of over 50 eminent scientists””including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry””who expressed astonishment in a letter to U.S. EPA that the agency was “working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

Since then, the more protective registration processes in New York State and Washington State both rejected methyl iodide, and in August, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the US EPA to review the pesticide’s registration nationally. The agency has said that it will open a public comment period on the pesticide’s approval due to the “complexity of the issues raised and the public interest in methyl iodide.”

Following their draft announcement in April to approve methyl iodide, DPR received over 53,000 public comments””the most in the history of the department, and the vast majority in opposition to approval.

“Today, California has failed communities who live near fields, trading our health to protect the profits of pesticide companies,” said Teresa DeAnda, President of the community group El Comité Para el Bienestar de Earlimart. “Governor Brown needs to take immediate action to ban methyl iodide because neither Arysta nor California regulators will be there to help when our communities get cancer and we lose our babies.”

The chemical will be used primarily to fumigate and sterilize strawberry fields. Despite the claims that it would not be possible to grow strawberries without methyl iodide, organic growers across the state do so successfully every year. In a February 8, 2010 hearing before the California Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, two panels of California growers and researchers discussed a number of safe and effective alternatives to methyl iodide. These methods include solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation, crop rotation, biological controls, selective breeding, soil steaming, hydroponics, and steam treatment for containerized plants. “I’ve been growing strawberries without using pesticides in California for 25 years,” said Jim Cochran, owner of Swanton Berry Farm in Davenport, California. “It’s certainly possible to grow commercially-viable and ecologically sound strawberry crops without using methyl iodide or any other chemical pesticides.”

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

In October, Beyond Pesticides along with over 13,000 organizations and individuals -consumers, parents, health advocates, farmworkers and others from across the U.S. sent a letter to the EPA calling for a ban on the insecticide chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Chlorpyrifos was phased out for residential use under a 2000 agreement between EPA and Dow Agrosciences, but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture. Beyond Pesticides calls EPA’s 2000 chlorpyrifos settlement with Dow a classic failure of the risk assessment process under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) —a failure that is repeated over and over again in agency chemical regulation decisions. Advocates have pointed to chlorpyrifos as the poster child for why risk assessment does not work to protect the public, workers and the environment, even with safer practices and products available in the marketplace. EPA’s decision in 2000 and subsequent action removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses and retains all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf course and public health mosquito spraying. The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but ignored the special risks to farmworker children’s exposure as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. The decision at the time was hailed as a victory for the public because it eliminated high hazard exposures and showed that EPA could remove uses of a widely used chemical. Except, it did not do the job. The risk assessment process does not force a consideration of those who suffer disproportionate risk or groups of people (such as those with neurological diseases in this case who are disproportionately affected).

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington is the fourth lawsuit the plainstiffs -Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations; Institute for Fisheries Resources and Defenders of Wildlife- brought against the EPA to restrict the pesticides diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran and methomyl in streams of endangered salmon and steelhead. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that EPA’s failure to implement the organophosphate (OP) and carbamate biological opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violates the ESA, and a judgment declaring that EPA is taking listed salmonids in violation of the ESA. The lawsuit seeks an order vacating and enjoining EPA’s authorization of the uses of diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl that do not comply with the recommended mitigation measures until such time as EPA has put in place permanent measures that ensure against likely jeopardy to listed salmon and steelhead or adverse modification of their critical habitat, and an order compelling EPA to put in place such permanent measures within one year.

According to the suit, to date EPA has not implemented a single one of NMFS’s recommendations, nor has EPA taken steps to implement any alternative protective measures that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification in response to the biological opinions. EPA asked manufacturers to adopt the restrictions voluntarily, the suit says, but the manufacturers refused and EPA has not followed through with new requirements.

NMFS issued three Biological Opinions, the latest on August 2010, which called for several limitations on aerial spraying and ground application of the pesticides near salmon waters, as well as buffer zones around salmon waters and ditches that drain to salmon habitat, among others. EPA was court ordered to consult with NMFS to identify measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides as a result of a 2002 and 2007 lawsuit.

Under pressure, EPA announced plans to place additional limitations on the use of three organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion in 2009. EPA issued less stringent protections than those of the NMFS and stated that it will require industry to fund and carry out monitoring of salmon streams in order to assure the pesticide restrictions work as intended. In a May 14, 2010 letter to NMFS, EPA explained how the agency planned to achieve protection goals through the methods outlined by NMFS in the Biological Opinions or by alternative methods that EPA’s scientific analyses determined will achieve the same purpose. At the same time, in an act of defiance, Dow AgroSciences and Cheminova, manufacturers of the pesticides in question, stated in correspondence to the EPA dated May 7, 2010, that they were “baffled by the agency’s position,” saying that their products do not threaten endangered species. Citing their “solid scientific evidence,” that they claim is “far more complete than is reflected in the NMFS Biological Opinion,” they are not prepared to make the registration revisions [to their products] described in the EPA’s April 29, 2010 and November 2009 requests.

The pesticides that have been reviewed so far are some of the most dangerous chemicals used today. Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl are neurotoxic and pose serious risks to both humans and wildlife. While many of these pesticides have been phased out for residential use, they continue to expose wildlife and farmworkers through their use in agriculture. Studies have shown that mixtures of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides cause more harm to endangered salmon than individual pesticide exposure and are commonly detected in freshwater habitats that support these threatened and endangered species.

Using data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), U-M researchers compared urinary BPA and triclosan with cytomegalovirus (CMV) antibody levels and diagnosis of allergies or hay fever in a sample of U.S. adults and children over age 6. Allergy and hay fever diagnosis and CMV antibodies were used as two separate markers of immune alterations. The study, “The Impact of Bisphenol A and Triclosan on Immune Parameters in the US Population, NHANES 2003-2006,” was published online November 30, 2010 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

“We found that people over age 18 with higher levels of BPA exposure had higher CMV antibody levels, which suggests their cell-mediated immune system may not be functioning properly,” said Erin Rees Clayton, PhD, research investigator at the U-M School of Public Health and first author on the paper.

Researchers also found that people age 18 and under with higher levels of triclosan were more likely to report diagnosis of allergies and hay fever. There is growing concern among the scientific community and consumer groups that these EDCs are dangerous to humans at lower levels than previously thought.

“The triclosan findings in the younger age groups may support the ‘hygiene hypothesis,’ which maintains living in very clean and hygienic environments may impact our exposure to micro-organisms that are beneficial for development of the immune system,” said Allison Aiello, PhD, associate professor at the U-M School of Public Health and principal investigator on the study. As an antimicrobial agent found in many household products, triclosan may play a role in changing the micro-organisms to which we are exposed in such a way that our immune system development in childhood is affected. “It is possible that a person can be too clean for their own good,” said Dr. Aiello.

Previous animal studies indicate that BPA and triclosan may affect the immune system, but this is the first known study to look at exposure to BPA and triclosan as it relates to human immune function, Dr. Aiello said.

One surprise finding is that with BPA exposure, age seems to matter, said Dr. Clayton. In people 18 or older, higher amounts of BPA were associated with higher CMV levels, but in people younger than 18 the reverse was true.

“This suggests the timing of the exposure to BPA and perhaps the quantity and length of time we are exposed to BPA may be affecting the immune system response,” Dr. Clayton said. This is just the first step, she said, but a very important one. Going forward, researchers would like to study the long-term effects of BPA and triclosan in people to see if they can establish a causal relationship.

One limitation of the study is that it measured disease and exposure simultaneously and thus shows only part of the picture, Dr. Aiello said. “It is possible, for example, that individuals who have an allergy are more hygienic because of their condition, and that the relationship we observed is, therefore, not causal or is an example of reverse causation.”

Earlier this month, Members of Congress, led by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban triclosan due to the hazards that this chemical poses, including antibiotic resistance and potentially leading to higher health care costs. In the letter, which cited the work of Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch and others, the Representatives stated concerns about the endocrine disrupting potential of triclosan.

The scientific literature has extensively linked the non-medical uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Triclosan is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives also found that triclosan was present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with higher levels in people in their third decade of life and among people with the highest household income.

The recommendations were submitted by the green group European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and the Center of International Environmental Law (CIEL) on November 19. The Commission is set to adopt a final definition, which will be applicable to all EU legislation addressing nanomaterials, by the end of the year.

“Regulation has been stuck for many years because of the absence of a definition, so this proposed definition is very much welcome,” says Senior Attorney David Azoulay from CIEL. “But if the final definition adopted is too narrow and does not include all materials for which there are health concerns, it might render all future regulation useless.”

In the U.S., the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) heard testimony on the development of a definition and policy on nanotechnology in organic standards in October. While the NOSB proposed a general ban over nanotechnology, there was debate over the definition of nanotechnology. Currently, the board has, as a working definition, defined engineered nanomaterials as substances deliberately designed, engineered and produced by human activity to be in the nanoscale range (approx 1-300 nm) because of very specific properties or compositions (eg. shape, surface properties, or chemistry) that result only in that nanoscale.

The groups calling on the EU warn against any attempt to narrow the scope of the definition, since it would then exclude several materials with serious health and environmental concerns. However, the groups do welcome the inclusion of the following in the draft definition:
Ӣ The inclusion of aggregates and agglomerates;
Ӣ The calculation of size distribution on the basis of particle number as opposed to mass;
Ӣ The adoption of a 1% threshold for particle number size distribution to consider a material a nanomaterial.

The groups also call for prompt evaluation analysis to ensure that the final definition includes materials that are already of concern, while avoiding materials that are unlikely to warrant additional scrutiny.

“Scientists have made it clear: there is no scientific basis to limit the definition of nanomaterials to particles below one hundred nanometres. The EU Commission should follow their advice and adopt a broad and cautious definition,” says Louise Duprez, EEB Nanotechnology Policy Officer.
Silver nanoparticles are now widely impregnated into a wide variety of consumer products to kill off bacteria, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, little is known about the impact of nanoparticles on human health and the environment, and mounting evidence suggests that these materials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. Nanosized particles can be released from impregnated materials via washing or sweating where they may pose numerable unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

“We urgently need risk management measures to ensure that companies only place safe nanomaterials on the market,” says Vito Buonsante, Health and Environment lawyer from ClientEarth.

A complete set of comments and proposals can be found on CIEL’s website.

ICTA research found nano-copper-based wood preservative pesticides in wide use. Yet, despite EPA’s two-year old policy to classify such pesticides as “new” and requiring further data, the agency has not treated them any different than larger particle based preservatives. The three nano-copper products highlighted in the letter are manufactured by Osmose, Inc. In each instance, although the active ingredient, copper carbonate, was purchased from another company, the copper carbonate is then milled by Osmose to produce nanoparticles of copper carbonate. A 2008 report notes that nano-copper preservatives have captured at least 50% of the North American wood preservative market. However, recent reports have noted that market capture could be as high as 75-80% now.

The ultra small size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, but those same new properties–tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity–can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Failure to adequately test nanomaterials for their health and environmental hazard potential could lead to a new health crisis like that of asbestos or lead paint.

Scientists and researchers are becoming increasingly concerned with the potential impacts of nano-particles on public health and the environment. A new study by scientists from Oregon State University (OSU) and the European Union (EU) highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides. The study was published October 2010 in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

Copper nanoparticles could be released from the treated wood during sawing or machining, cleaning, through normal wear and tear, or from product decomposition, and then become available for potential inhalation or ingestion. Reports stated in early 2009 that over five billion board feet of wood have been treated with its “micronized” copper products, so the potential for consumer exposure to nanoscale copper particles could be quite large.

“To our knowledge, EPA has never evaluated the potential hazards associated with the nanoscale particles of copper carbonate in wood treatment products,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for ICTA. “Yet one of the companies issued a press release in 2009 in which it claimed that the “consumer safety” of its products has been “confirmed.”’

It has been the announced policy of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs since at least 2008 to presume that any active or inert ingredient that is or contains nanoscale material is a ”˜new’ ingredient for regulatory purposes under its pesticide regulations. However, in each instance pesticide manufacturers failed to informed EPA that its products contains nanoscale particles. Consumers have also been left in the dark about their potential exposure as these products are currently being marketed under the ambiguous label “micronized” copper.

EPA itself has recently recognized that, “Nano copper is more acutely toxic than micro copper.” Studies of the acute toxicity of elemental copper nanoparticles (23.5 nm) in mice found “gravely toxicological effects and heavy injuries on kidney, liver, and spleen.” In a study comparing the toxicity of various metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes, copper oxide nanoparticles (averaging 43 nm) were the most potent of all the nanoparticles tested at causing cytotoxicity and DNA damage. Although the potential toxicity of nanoscale particles of copper carbonate has not been equally well characterized, the results of the study with copper oxide nanoparticles are of particular concern because both copper oxide and copper carbonate include a bivalent copper ion. Additionally, copper is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms particularly during the larval stages of invertebrates, and algae and plant life can be affected as well.

ICTA is asking that EPA:

Ӣ immediately investigate the composition the known nano-copper based pesticides, and take appropriate administrative action; and
Ӣ thoroughly investigate other possible nano-copper products, including but not limited to copper-based wood treatment products currently available on the market, as similar actions under FIFRA may be necessary; and
Ӣ if EPA determines that any manufacturer of copper-based pesticide products, has distributed or sold any product that has a composition that differs from the composition of the registration of the product, EPA should take enforcement action under FIFRA Section 12(a)(1)(C); and
Ӣ finally, EPA should publish its long-awaited industry guidance on nano-scale pesticides (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650). A notice on pesticide products containing nanoscale materials was submitted to the US Office of Management and Budget on July 30, 2010; however, no further action has been taken.

In 2007 a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, released the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, calling for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products. Beyond Pesticides has since advocated for a precautionary course of action in order to prevent unnecessary risks to the public, workers and the environment.

At its October 2010 meeting, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. More details about the NOSB action can be found in our blog posting, NOSB Proposes Ban on Nanotechnology in Certified Organic Products.

The 135-year-old charity endorsed pesticides used to combat the varroa mite that is linked to the collapse of colonies as “bee-friendly.” In return, for the past 12 years the association has received £17,500 ($27,949) a year from Bayer Crop Sciences and Syngenta. This relationship angered many members and some left the association. However, the BBKA denies that it has bowed to pressure from members who have been increasingly critical of its relationship with Bayer and other chemical companies.

In a statement sent out this week to the secretaries of local beekeeping associations across the UK, the BBKA’s president, Martin Smith, said: “Following discussion with the companies involved, the BBKA trustees have decided that endorsement and related product-specific payments will cease as soon as practically possible.” He added: “The four products subject to BBKA endorsement are of declining commercial importance and the development of new classes of pesticides and application techniques means that the relationship with the plant-protection industry should be reviewed.”

Beekeeper Graham White, who resigned from the BBKA more than two years ago in protest at what he called a “secret deal done with the pesticide manufacturers whose products are lethal to bees,” welcomed today’s decision.

“It’s great news, but it’s too little, too late,” he said. “They should have been showing solidarity with beekeepers in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia when pesticides were banned there after being implicated in bee deaths, instead of selling their logo to the manufacturers.” In 2008, Italy joined Germany, Slovenia and France in banning the pesticides linked to bee die-offs.

Mr. White says all ties to the pesticide industry should be immediately severed. “All of those who created and directed this policy of pesticide endorsement must be thrown out of the BBKA and replaced by real beekeepers. The BBKA is not fit for purpose and will never recover its moral integrity until it is reconstituted as a pure beekeeping organization that is willing to campaign against all use of systemic pesticides on British farms.”

Meanwhile, new research from the European Beekeeping Coordination and Corporate Europe Observatory published a report also released last week which states that industry “experts” are undermining EU review of the regulations of pesticides and putting Europe’s bee population further at risk. Further, a number of “experts” from pesticide companies were found to be involved in defining which tests are required to verify the safety of new pesticides under the EU pesticides directive. This report comes ahead of a vote by members of the European Parliament later this month on a resolution requiring independent research into bee mortality and a revision of EU rules governing risk assessments of bees’ exposure to pesticides.

The BBKA’s position has polarized the 45,000-strong beekeeping community, but the majority of BBKA members upheld its policy at its annual delegate meeting earlier this year and in 2009. At the next meeting in January, delegates will be asked to note this week’s decision “with respect to the cessation of BBKA endorsement of certain pesticides.”

The products implicated in bee deaths, clothianidin, imidacloprid, fipronil, and thiamethoxam, are approved to kill insects on a wide range of crops in the UK including very widely grown oilseed rape (canola), barley, and sugar beet. Bayer’s imidacloprid and clothianidin are implicated as causing the bee deaths. Since their introduction by Bayer CropScience in the U.S. in 2003, these neonicotinoid pesticides have been linked to the devastating loss of millions of honey bees in a number of countries. Germany banned the pesticides after beekeepers reported that two thirds of their bees died in May 2008 following the application of clothianidin.

These extensive bee deaths are known also as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). For the past several years, beekeepers in the U.S. have reported unexplained losses of 30-90% of the bees in their hives. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. As the bee deaths worsen, Americans will see their food costs increase. Congressional hearings on the phenomenon found that USDA was unable to account for the $20 million that Congress has allocated to the department for fighting CCD in the last two years. Recently, research found that a combination of a virus and a fungus may be responsible for bee deaths. Most other research work has hypothesized that there are numerous factors, including pesticides, that depress the immune and nervous system of bees, creating a vulnerability to other factor, however research is still not conclusive and researchers continue to search for a cause and a cure.

First reported in 2006, CCD is unlike other ailments that have affected honeybees in the past because worker bees simply disappear rapidly, never returning to the hive where the queen still lives with a small cluster of bees amidst pollen and honey stores in the presence of immature bees (brood). It has been reported that losses of honeybee colonies across 21 states in the winter of 2007-8 averaged 35%, with a high degree of variability. For more information, read Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators and Pesticides.

Rep. Slaughter concludes that “triclosan is clearly a threat to our health.” Among the reasons for her conclusion, she lists:
”¢ The presence of triclosan in the human body and its impact on our “body burden;”
Ӣ Bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleaners;
Ӣ The potential for endocrine disruption as a result of triclosan bioaccumulation in the body;
Ӣ Wastewater contamination;
Ӣ The threat of destroying ecological balance, and;
Ӣ The fact that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water.

The scientific literature has extensivelly linked the non-medical uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Triclosan is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives also found that triclosan was present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with higher levels in people in their third decade of life and among people with the highest household income.

Triclosan is regulated by both the FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, Rep. Slaughter focuses on FDA because it oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and products that come into contact with food, and triclosan is found in a growing number of these products. Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, has submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they end the use of all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate numerous federal statutes.

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

For years, scientists have noted strange anomalies in fish and wildlife in locations where endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are found. A recent study found that an astounding 100 percent of small mouth bass in certain sites of the Potomac River basin have exhibited both male and female organs, a characteristic linked to EDCs. According to a 2009 study by the U.S. Geologic Survey, the occurrence of “intersex” fish is now found to be nationwide.

EPA is currently proceeding with endocrine disruptor screening on three fronts: 1) Developing and validating Tier 2 tests; 2) Selecting chemicals for screening and testing; and 3) Implementing the policies and procedures the agency will use to require screening.

EPA announced the initial list of chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system on April 15, 2009 and the first test orders were issued on October 29, 2009. The inadequacy of the current federal effort was highlighted when the EPA unveiled this first phase to determine the presence of endocrine disrupting chemicals under an initiative mandated by Congress in 1996. Despite more than a decade’s time, the tests were limited to only a handful of pesticides and based on science that many consider outdated. Testing will eventually be expanded to cover all pesticide chemicals. Now that screening is underway, EPA is reviewing test order responses and making available the status or test order responses and/or any decisions regarding testing requirements.

The list includes chemicals that have been identified as priorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and may be found in sources of drinking water where a substantial number of people are exposed. The list also includes pesticide active ingredients that are being evaluated under EPA’s registration review program to ensure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data generated from the screens will provide robust and systematic scientific information to help EPA identify whether additional testing is necessary, or whether other steps are necessary to address potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

The chemicals listed include those used in products such as solvents, gasoline, plastics, personal care products, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, including benzene, perchlorate, urethane, ethylene glycol, and erythromycin.

“Endocrine disruptors represent a serious health concern for the American people, especially children. Americans today are exposed to more chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies than ever before, and it is essential that EPA takes every step to gather information and prevent risks,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We are using the best available science to examine a larger list of chemicals and ensure that they are not contaminating the water we drink and exposing adults and children to potential harm.”

In 2009, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) introduced The Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 [H.R. 4190]. Congress to explore linkages between hormone disrupting chemicals in the environment and everyday products and the dramatic increase of autism, hyperactivity, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer and other hormone related disorders. After the identification of endocrine disruptors, the bill, rquires federal agencies with regulatory authority to report to Congress on the action it plans to take.

For more information on Endocrine Disruptors, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Endorcrine Disruption brochure.

Take Action: EPA is accepting comments on their draft policies and procedures until January 16, 2011. All comments should be identified by docket identification (ID) no. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-1080. Comments can be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, or mailed to Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460—0001.

Farmers routinely use fungus-killing compounds to spray or dust food crops, such as strawberries, corn, and soybeans. Some crops receive up to a dozen doses per growing season. Nationwide, fungicide use has risen considerably since the 1990s, reaching 350 million pounds in 2001. However, the environmental prevalence and effects on wildlife and ecosystems, particularly of newer fungicides, are poorly understood, says Kathryn Kuivila, PhD, of the USGS California Water Science Center. Environmental monitoring programs monitor concentrations of few or no fungicides, she notes.

The study entitled, “Occurrence of Azoxystrobin, Propiconazole, and Selected Other Fungicides in US Streams, 2005—2006,” documents the occurrence of fungicides in select U.S. streams soon after the first documentation of soybean rust in the U.S. and prior to the corresponding increase in fungicide use to treat this problem. Water samples were collected from 29 streams in 13 states in 2005 and/or 2006, and analyzed for 12 target fungicides. Nine of the 12 fungicides were detected in at least one stream sample and at least one fungicide was detected in 20 of 29 streams. At least one fungicide was detected in 56% of the 103 samples, as many as five fungicides were detected in an individual sample, and mixtures of fungicides were common. Azoxystrobin was detected most frequently (45% of 103 samples) followed by metalaxyl (27%), propiconazole (17%), myclobutanil (9%), and tebuconazole (6%). The study reveals an indication of a seasonal pattern to fungicide occurrence, with detections more common and concentrations higher in late summer and early fall than in spring. At a few sites, fungicides were detected in all samples collected suggesting the potential for season-long occurrence in some streams.

USGS scientists have recently started to measure fungicide levels at a regional scale. Surveys on streams in southeastern and Midwestern states were published in October. Extending that research to agricultural areas in the West, Dr. Kuivila and her colleagues collected water and sediment samples from sites near three agricultural areas growing potatoes, stone fruits, or lettuce””three crops that, combined, account for half of U.S. fungicide use. In southwestern Idaho, two or more fungicides appeared in almost one-third of the samples from irrigation ditches and streams near a stretch of potato farms. In California’s Central Valley, the researchers found that more than half of the water and sediments collected from the San Joaquin River near stone-fruit orchards contained four or more fungicides. Fungicide incidences were similar for lettuce””growing areas of the central California coastland, and preliminary results indicate that crabs and flounder caught in nearby coastal river estuaries have fungicides in their tissues. While the types of fungicides varied, the scientists identified 18 compounds in the three settings, with six at trace levels.

“Some of these compounds degrade slowly and may persist in the environment for months or years,” said Dr. Kuivila. Furthermore, “the majority of information on toxicity relates to single compounds, but in combinations they may have additive effects.”

This research fills in the gaps concerning fungicides in the environment. Fungicides, typically used in smaller quantities compared with other types pesticides, however there use as increased in recent years. Less than 1% of U.S. soybeans were treated with a fungicide in 2002, but by 2006, 4% were treated. This increase is due to the constant pressure from fungal diseases such as the recent soybean rust outbreak, and the always-present desire to increase crop yields.

Previous USGS reports have documented pesticides and fertilizers in U.S. waters. Low levels of pesticides have also been detected in drinking water. Herbicides like atrazine, metalachlor, and simizine are among those often found in surface waters of 186 rivers and streams sampled by USGS since the early 1990s, and are highly correlated with the presence of upstream wastewater sources or upstream agricultural and urban land use.

The USGS is a non-regulatory agency which often monitors the quality of available, untreated water resources. These studies begin to relate the quality of these resources to drinking water. USGS studies are intended to complement drinking-water monitoring required by Federal, State, and local programs, which focus primarily on post-treatment compliance monitoring.

For more information on water quality, read Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters.

The study, “Impact on fetal growth of prenatal exposure to pesticides due to agricultural activities: a prospective cohort study in Brittany, France,” utilized a prospective birth cohort of 3421 pregnant women in a French agricultural region (Brittany, 2002-2006) through gynecologists, ultrasonographers, and maternity hospitals during routine prenatal care visits before 19 weeks of gestation. The national agricultural census in 2000 provided the percentages of the municipality area devoted to cultivation of corn, wheat, colza, peas, potatoes, and fresh vegetables.

The link between exposure to pesticides and birth outcomes, including birth weight, preterm birth and birth defects has been documented in the scientific literature and the national media. The issue received widespread attention in 2005 when three babies were born with severe birth defects in Florida to mothers who all worked for Ag-Mart Produce, a company that produces chemically-treated tomatoes and other agricultural products. In April 2009, a study by Paul Winchester, MD, published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica reported that the highest rates of birth defects for U.S. babies arise when conception occurs during the spring and summer months, when pesticide use increases and high concentrations of pesticides are found in surface waters. The study entitled, “Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the United States” was the first study to link increased seasonal concentration of pesticides in surface water with the peak in birth defects in infants conceived in the same months. Dr. Winchester presented his data at Beyond Pesticides’ 2010 National Pesticide Forum. A transcript of the talk, “Reproductive Effects Peak with Pesticide Exposure,” appears in the Fall 2010 issue of Pesticides and You.

Beyond Pesticides documents the link between pesticide exposure and health outcomes, including birth defects and fetal problems, in its Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. The Database facilitates access to epidemiologic and laboratory studies based on real world exposure scenarios that link pesticides to asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and several types of cancer. The current database, which contains hundreds of studies, itself is preliminary and will be added to over the coming months. We urge readers to send studies to [email protected] that you think should be added to the database.

According to the study entitled “Triclosan persistence through wastewater treatment plants and its potential toxic effects on river biofilms,” when triclosan finds its way into rivers and streams it can inhibit photosynthesis in algae and kill bacteria. The study examined a group of algae known as diatoms. Through photosynthesis, diatoms produce food as well as oxygen needed for other organisms. Diatoms produce an estimated 80 percent of the oxygen in our atmosphere making them essential to life on earth.

When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Aided by the false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria, triclosan has since exploded in the marketplace in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Due to the prevalence of this antibacterial, triclosan can now easily find its way from household products into the ecosystem. When a product such as soap is rinsed down the drain, it ends up at a sewage treatment facility. Such facilities are not designed to eliminate organic compounds such as pharmaceuticals or antibacterials, so these compounds end up in nearby waterbodies. Triclosan concentrations in treated wastewater can range from 0.027 – 2.7 micrograms per liter.

Researchers tested the effects of various triclosan concentrations on naturally-occurring microbial communities gathered from a river in northeast Spain. Bacterial populations were reduced at the lowest tested concentration of 0.5 micrograms per liter. At a concentration of 5 micrograms per liter triclosan was found to be toxic to diatoms, inhibiting photosynthesis.

This study is part of a growing collection of scientific data showing the dangers of triclosan outweigh its benefits. An article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” (2007), concludes that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps. This follows a recommendation by the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee on October 20, 2005 in a statement that antibacterial soaps and washes are no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections.

Dial Corp was recently hit with a class action suit over claims that its antibacterial soap Dial Complete, which contains triclosan, kills 99.99% of germs. The plaintiff, David Walls, stated in his suit that there are no reliable studies that show Dial Complete lives up to these claims.

Studies have found that triclosan contributes to the increasing rates of bacterial resistance. Triclosan persists in the environment and in human bodies, and has endocrine disrupting properties and causes adverse health problems in humans and wildlife species.

A recent study raises concern that triclosan interferes with human fetal growth and development. Researchers found that triclosan interferes with estrogen metabolism in women and can disrupt a vital enzyme during pregnancy. Data indicates that only a small amount of triclosan can be dangerous to an unborn baby.

Based on these numerous human and environmental health concerns, Beyond Pesticides in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring that they ban all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes. FDA recently stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.” FDA announced that it plans to review data concerning triclosan. EPA maintains that the agency does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013. [Triclosan is jointly regulated by FDA and EPA.]

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

The Child Safe Playing Field Act, which was enacted in May 2010, requires that all schools, preschools, and day care centers both public and private to stop using pesticides on any playgrounds or playing fields. The law allows for emergency application of pesticides for infestations if the County Health Department, the Commissioner of Health, the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation or the school board deems it an emergency. Containerized nonvolatile bait stations are also permitted for insect and rodent control. “The archaic practice of poisoning children’s playgrounds is coming to an end in New York State. We will now raise a generation of healthier, safer children because of this legislation,” said Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, Citizens’ Campaign for the Environment.

The draft guidance addresses five subjects, to provide information on the new requirements and how to comply:
A. Summary of requirements of Chapter 85 and identification of involved State agencies.
B. Information on how to maintain child-safe playing fields and turf without pesticides, to assist in complying with the new pesticide prohibition, including an introduction to alternative approaches to grounds maintenance and pest management and concepts about soil and plant health.
C. Brief description of the types of pesticide products allowed under the new law and ways to identify them.
D. Identification of agencies that schools and day care centers should contact to request an emergency pesticide application determination, as well as the basic framework for situations which will be considered an emergency by the NYS DOH and NYS DEC.
E. List of responsible State agencies and contact information for questions.

Take Action (New York): Comments on the draft guidance are being accepted until November 29, 2010. Comments should be submitted to: Mary A. Roy, NYS DEC – Division of Materials Management, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7257, e-mailed to [email protected] or faxed to (518) 402-9024.

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

The study, which was published in the November print issue of the journal Environment International, examines the effect of triclosan on a placental enzyme, called estrogen sulfotransferase. Triclosan is known to inhibit sulfonation of phenolic xenobiotics and is structurally related to other known inhibitors of estrogen sulfotransferase, such as polychlorobiphenylols (PCBs). During pregnancy, the placenta is an important source of estrogen, which is needed for normal fetal development and successful parturition (childbirth), and estrogen sulfotransferase is thought to play an important role in regulation of estrogen availability. Estrogen is a key hormone during pregnancy and controls the way a baby develops many key organs like the brain. Triclosan was found to be a very potent inhibitor of both estradiol and estrone sulfonation. The high potency of triclosan as an inhibitor of estrogen sulfotransferase activity raises concern about its possible effects on the ability of the placenta to supply estrogen to the fetus.

Aside from the role it plays in the fetus, estrogen also affects how much oxygen the baby gets from the mother. Estrogen is also involved in signaling the uterus to contract during labor. But maintaining the right levels of the hormone during pregnancy is a delicate balance. Too much estrogen could send the mother’s body into premature labor. Too little could hinder the flow of oxygen. Both instances could affect how the baby’s brain develops. This is one of the reasons scientists are concerned about the pregnancy-related effects of chemicals such as triclosan.

According to Margaret James, PhD, University of Florida medicinal chemist and lead author of the study, “We suspect that makes this substance dangerous in pregnancy if enough of the triclosan gets through to the placenta to affect the enzyme. We know for sure it is a very potent inhibitor. What we don’t know is the kinds of levels you would have to be exposed to see a negative effect. If this process is interrupted then we wonder if that might affect how the fetus develops. There is a chance it may not produce some of the proteins that it should during development. Therefore there might be a chance at either growth retardation or something worse happening to the fetus.”

“My recommendation would be if someone is pregnant that the best thing would be to avoid plaque reducing toothpastes that has Triclosan in it and also to avoid antibacterial soaps and other products that have Triclosan in it,” Dr. James also added.

Researchers are also concerned that some people cannot get rid of all the triclosan from their bodies once exposed. Research shows that just a small amount of triclosan can be potentially damaging to a developing baby. Triclosan has already been found in breast milk, urine and umbilical cord blood. The Centers for Disease Control in an updated National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals notes that triclosan levels in people increased by over 41% between just the years 2004 and 2006. It is the antimicrobial agent in hundreds of consumer products currently on the market including hand sanitizers, toys, clothing and kitchen utensils. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and is also shown to alter thyroid function. Triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways; about 96 percent of triclosan from consumer products is disposed of in residential drains. This leads to large loads of the chemical in water entering wastewater treatment plants, which are incompletely removed during the wastewater treatment process. When treated wastewater is released to the environment, sunlight converts some of the triclosan (and related compounds) into various forms of dioxins.

Based on these numerous human and environmental health concerns, Beyond Pesticides in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring that they ban all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes. FDA recently stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.” FDA announced that it plans to review data concerning triclosan. EPA maintains that the agency does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013. [Triclosan is jointly regulated by FDA and EPA.]

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

“These groups relentlessly pushed for molding the standard to validate industrial agriculture and high tech genetic manipulation,” says Jeff Moyer, Farm Director at the Rodale Institute and active member of the committee. “The model they propose confuses short-term profits for sustainability.”

Responding to the resignation, a Leonardo Academy spokesperson said it, “recognizes their perspective but disagrees with their assessment.” The Academy believes their ANSI-approved standard development process provides the balance across interest categories needed for developing a Sustainable Agriculture Standard that will be widely implemented and successful in the marketplace. They state that the balance is accomplished through these four ANSI-approved interest categories of producers, users, environmentalists and general interest. Other members of the group are listed here.

According to Mr. Moyer, “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are probably the biggest bone of contention. But, again, it is dishonest to claim these as the only ”˜modern’ techniques out there. Ecologically-minded farmers and researchers have developed things like hormone disruption, cover cropping and no-till rollers that are widely accepted and integrated on all kinds of farms. It is just biology instead of chemistry. And internationally organic agriculture has already been identified as the key to sustainability.”

As the Sustainable Agriculture Standard setting process was just beginning in 2008, Beyond Pesticides and the National Organic Coalition sent a letter to the Leonardo Academy voicing concerns over the proposed label being developed with Big Ag at the table. The later stated, “The National Organic Coalition is deeply concerned about the adverse impact that a sustainable agriculture label will have on the urgent need to increase our nation’s organic acreage and production practices. The advancement of organic systems, as an alternative to toxic agrichemical practices, is the most effective way to (i) eliminate hazardous and synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use, (ii) protect those who work in agriculture, (iii) curtail threats to the environment and wildlife, and (iv) reduce the pressures on global climate change. The growth of the organic sector is critically needed for environmental, health and labor protection. To the extent that a standard and label are created for the term sustainable, it most certainly compromises key standards that are critical to our national and global health.”

While organic food production reduces hazards from pesticides on the farm, Beyond Pesticides recognizes that a truly sustainable food system should incorporate other principles, especially farmworker justice. Farmworkers have long fought for better working conditions, wages and labor practices. Currently, the Domestic Fair Trade Association, a collaboration of organizations representing farmers, farmworkers, food system workers, retailers, manufacturers, processors, and non-governmental organizations, is in the final stage of developing a process to evaluate marketplace social justice claims for domestically produced products. Internationally, the non-profit group Equal Exchange certifies products as Fair Trade.

The overuse of pesticides in industrialized agriculture has created numerous problems for people and the environment. Pesticide use has been linked to many diseases including numerous types of cancer, Parkinson’s, and learning disabilities. In addition pesticides are also dangerous to wildlife. Pesticides often kill non-target organisms that may be beneficial to farmers, such as predatory insects.

Organic agriculture is an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting to produce healthy soil, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber.

Just as in the United States, demand for local and organic food is growing in China, and organic agriculture in China faces a unique set of challenges. For centuries, farming in China was viewed as work for impoverished peasants. Despite the fact that under Chairman Mao Zedong, farming was elevated to a noble profession, today it is once again considered one of the worst jobs in the country. When Shen Hui and her husband Chen Shuaijun decided to start farming, they were ridiculed by their neighbors and were furious to hear of their son’s plan to quit his job in the Shanghai banking sector to return to farming. Once they started the farm, things didn’t get much easier. Mr. Chen insisted on farming without any chemical pesticides or fertilizer, and many people scoffed at their methods. The work is incredibly physically demanding for the couple, and making things more difficult, since the farm has not turned a profit, the two still maintain their office jobs.

Several organic farmers in China also find it a challenge to deal with rampant pollution. While organic farmers do not rely on synthetic chemical fertilizers or pesticides, their soil or water supply may be laced with all kinds of pollutants. A government report found pollution makes 43 percent of state monitored rivers are unsuitable for human contact.

Marketing organic crops is another difficulty in China. Regulation of organic certification is weak at best and farmers say some agencies will certify anything for a price. As a result many organic growers don’t bother to certify their products, and instead just call them natural. The regulatory aspect of this is a huge issue, particularly in light of recent scandals with the food supply that have left many around the globe concerned about the safety of their food. In 2008, over 1200 babies became sick from milk powder formulated with the cheap industrial compound melamine. Other scandals involved vegetables infected with dangerous bacteria, fish poisoned by pollution, and cooking oil tainted with sewage.

Despite the difficulties of organic, farmers have plenty of reasons to be persistent. For organic grower Shen Hui the biggest draw of farming was the food safety: she wanted to know where her food came from, and what went into it. Organic food is also a luxury trend. China’s new super-rich consume organic food, because it has become a status symbol. Shen Hui and Chen Shuaijun also state that the simple joys of escaping city life and eating the produce they grow outweigh the challenges.

In this study, onions, carrots, and potatoes were cultivated in two-year field trials in three different geographical locations, comprising one conventional and two organic agricultural systems. The contents of two kinds of polyphenols, flavonoids and phenolic acids in plants were analyzed by pressurized liquid extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography−ultraviolet quantification. Polyphenols have one or more phenol units in their chemical structure and are a group of secondary plant metabolites. According to researchers, though secondary plant metabolites are nonessential to humans, some of them have been proposed to have positive health effects including a decreased risk of heart diseases, dementia, and cancer. The content of polyphenols in plants is affected by factors such as cultivar, pathogen infection and pest attack, time of harvest, and storage and processing procedures. The content of nutrients and secondary plant metabolites in food products is also affected by, for example, growth conditions, use of fertilizers, climate, and plant nutrient availability.

Despite the fact that this study only looks at polyphenol content, some news outlets have been quick to use this as evidence that there is absolutely no difference between organic and conventional. This is not true, in fact; Dr. Pia Knuthsen and colleagues point out in the study that there are still many reasons to pay a premium for organic food products. They state that the most important reasons for the popularity of organic food products include improved animal welfare, environmental protection, better taste, and possible health benefits. The health benefits of organic food need to be approached on a broader level than just individual nutritional quality of each food item.

The researchers state that the potential health benefits of organic food consumption are still controversial and not considered scientifically well documented, however they fail to cite a recent study that found that organically produced strawberries had higher antioxidant activity, longer shelf life, and fared better in taste tests than conventional berries. Soils on the organic farms are also found to be healthier with higher organic matter concentration, and greater microbial biodiversity.

The Monterey Coastkeeper, a program of The Otter Project, a nonprofit organization, filed suit against the county last week in Monterey County Superior Court. It is the first lawsuit to take action against a county agency in an attempt to enforce state water standards. Monterey Coastkeeper identifies the agency as a water distributor that provides water to farmers by channeling it from the reservoirs to the northern end of the river and into groundwater resources tapped for agricultural irrigation. The irrigation water, contaminated with pesticides, nitrates and sediments, runs off into the agency-operated Reclamation Ditch and Boronda Drain, and ultimately into the Salinas River, sloughs and the ocean. Without the agency’s efforts, the suit alleges, the farmers would be unable to irrigate their fields at current levels over the long term. An agricultural waiver protects owners and operators of irrigated cropland from prosecution for releasing toxic water. The suit states that this waiver does not apply to the county agency.

“The agency is facilitating taking clean water, turning it into dirty water and then releasing it, untreated,” said Deborah Sivas of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford, lead lawyer for the plaintiff. “We think they need to be held accountable to the state water quality standards. Obviously, we’re not going to stop fertilizer and pesticide use, but I think there are ways we can be more conservative about it.”

The suit, citing reports by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, says Salinas Valley has the highest percentage of tested surface water sites with toxic levels of pyrethroid pesticides and the highest application rate of these pesticides. In areas of the Salinas Valley, half of the sampled wells had nitrate concentrations above drinking water standards, according to regional water board reports. “Much of this contamination is from agricultural runoff,” said David Clegern, public information officer for the State Water Resources Control Board.

Pyrethroids, among the most widely-used home pesticides, are winding up in California rivers at levels toxic to some stream-dwellers, endangering the food supply of fish and other aquatic animals. A University of California, Berkeley, and Southern Illinois University study documents toxic levels of pyrethroids in the water column as well as in the sediments at the bottom of streams. The pyrethroid levels are around 10-20 parts per trillion, high enough to kill test organisms used to assess water safety. Another study found that runoff from rainfall and watering lawns and gardens ends up in municipal storm drains and washes fertilizers, pesticides and other contaminants into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. In this study, organophosphates and pyrethroid pesticides were found in all water samples taken over a two year period on a weekly, bi-weekly and monthly basis. In addition, a study published in 2008 found pyrethroid contamination in 100 percent of urban streams sampled.

Recent U.S. Geological Survey data have found that California and other U.S. waterways are contaminated with toxic substances including fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other industrial chemicals. Chemicals, even those detected at low-levels, are increasingly being linked to serious health and developmental effects, well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standards and levels of concern.

“We don’t want any money, we just want the pollution to stop,” said Steve Shimek, Monterey Coastkeeper’s program manager and former executive director of The Otter Project. Mr. Shimek said the water could be treated, perhaps with an artificially created wetland; farmers could manage fertilizers and pesticides more carefully; or, the agency could stop discharging.

Read Beyond Pesticides’ “Threatened Waters” for more information on drinking water and contaminants found in drinking water. The Pesticide Induced Disease Database provides more information on the link between chemical exposure and diseases.

Source: Monterey Herald

According to lead researcher Cedric Briens, PhD from the University of Western Ontario, concerns about the health risks of tobacco have reduced demand and hurt tobacco farmers in some parts of the world. Scientists are looking for new uses for tobacco. One potential use is as a natural pesticide, due to tobacco’s content of toxic nicotine. For centuries, gardeners have used home-made mixtures of tobacco and water as a natural pesticide to kill insect pests. A “green” pesticide industry based on tobacco could provide additional income for farmers, and as well as a new eco-friendly pest-control agent, the scientists say.

They describe a way to convert tobacco leaves into pesticides with pyrolysis, a process that involves heating tobacco leaves to about 900 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum to produce an unrefined substance called bio-oil. The scientists tested tobacco bio-oil against a wide variety of insect pests, including 11 different fungi, four bacteria, and the Colorado potato beetle, a major agricultural pest that is increasingly resistant to current insecticides. The oil killed all of the beetles and blocked the growth of two types of bacteria and one fungus. Even after removal of the nicotine, the oil remained a very effective pesticide. The ability of the oil to block some but not all of the microorganisms suggests that tobacco bio-oil may have additional value as a more selective pesticide than those currently in use, according to the study’s authors.

Some environmentalists criticize the widespread production of a nicotine-based pesticide as short sighted for not examining the full cradle-to-grave impacts of tobacco production. According to the World Health Organization, environmental degradation results from the tobacco plant leaching nutrients from the soil, as well as pollution from pesticides and fertilizers. The World Wildlife Fund says that tobacco leaches phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium from the soil at a rate higher than any other major crop and frequent applications of pesticides are required to protect the plant from insects and disease. Some management guides call for as many as 16 applications of pesticides during the three-month growing period before the plants even leave the greenhouse.

Additionally, farmworkers in tobacco fields face risks from green tobacco sickness (GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning caused by the dermal absorption of nicotine from the surface of wet tobacco plants. Tobacco harvesters, whose clothing becomes saturated from tobacco wet with rain or morning dew, are at high risk of developing GTS. Symptoms of GTS include nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and severe weakness. These symptoms may be accompanied by fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate. Abdominal cramping, chills, increased sweating, salivation and difficulty breathing are also common. A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study indicates that a startling number of tobacco workers are becoming afflicted with this illness, which may require hospital care.

Tests confirm the source of the contamination is a former Union Carbide site where the now-banned pesticide 2,4,5-T, a component of Agent Orange, was produced. For more than two decades, waste from the chemical plant thar was used for landfill leached into Homebush Bay. Union Carbide, the infamous pesticide manufacturer responsible for the world’s largest industrial disaster in Bhopal India, was purchased by Dow Chemical. When Union Carbide left Australia, it was not required to perform a comprehensive cleanup of its site. In the 1980s, tests showed waste from the site was the main source of contamination of fish in the bay.

Dioxin exposure has been linked to a myriad of health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and skin conditions.

In the 1990s, the New South Wales government bought the site with the intent of remediating it, but the efforts did not begin until 2004. The cleanup is scheduled to finish next year; however data obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald show dioxin contaminating an area ranging 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) up and downstream from the cleanup site. The area is too large to remediate so officials intend to wait until sediments cover the contaminated layer, and dioxin can no longer be absorbed by the fish and other aquatic life. When asked how long the ban on fishing may be in place NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water director of specialized regulation, Craig Lamberton, said, “We think it will be decades.”

Although water quality has improved a lot over the past few years, dioxin levels near the remediation area were as high as 610 picograms per gram of sediment. In a relatively clean estuary, levels would be 2.3 picograms per gram. Even ten kilometers from the remediation site reading are as high as 350 picograms per gram of sediment.

Since 2005, authorities have been warning people not to eat fish caught west of the Sydney Harbor Bridge, and to eat no more than 150 grams (5.3 oz) of fish per month if it was caught east of the bridge. Unfortunately, many recreational fishers are not heeding the government’s warnings. A Department of Industry survey found fishers caught and kept 25.3 metric tons (28 tons) of fish between 2007 and 2008.

The report, The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition, examines over 5,000 consumer products in 34 stores in the U.S. and Canada and finds 12,061 “green” claims. Researchers documented product details, claim details, any supporting information on labels or store shelves, and any explanatory details or offers of additional information or support. Those claims were tested against best practice and guidelines provided by the FTC, the Competition Bureau of Canada, and the ISO 14021 standard for environmental labeling.

Unfortunately, some supposedly green labels mean very little. For example, the “Earth Friendly Farm Friendly” label found on some dairy products actually encourages the use of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics to increase production. Sarah Lee has been accused of green washing for creating a line called Earth Grains bread. Despite a major marketing campaign to push the products as environmentally friendly, the grains for the breads are produced with only a slight decrease in the amount of synthetic fertilizer used.

“’Greenwashing’ is an issue that touches many industries, and education and awareness play a key role in helping to prevent it,” said Stephen Wenc, President, UL Environment. “We’re hopeful that the trends and tips identified in this study will help our business partners confidently and appropriately share their environmental achievements with their consumers.”

Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic label is the best bet. The USDA Organic Label info is intended to show consumers that the product adheres to uniform standard which meet the requirements of the National Organic Program Final Rule.

When choosing a product that is better for the environment, it is important that consumers are informed. It is due to consumer demand that the National Organic Standards Program was created. Consumers should read labels and do their homework to avoid being taken in by a company’s green washing. For more information on reading through “Green” consumer claims, read Beyond Pesticides’ “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims are Truthful.”

Take Action: FTC is currently taking public comments on their “Green Guides,” which only guidelines and not enforceable as law. The FTC can, however, take action if it deems a company’s marketing to be deceptive or misleading. This is the first time in twelve years that the FTC will revise its green marketing guidelines. The “Green Guides were originally issued in 1992 with the purpose of helping companies ensure the claims they make are true and substantiated. View the proposed “Green Guides” and Submit your comments to the FTC by December 10, 2010.