Anderson County Deputy Coroner Don McCown said, “It appears mom has been using a pesticide fogger in the house that may have contributed to their illnesses.” Ms. Whitfield had been in the house, a rental property, for about a month and had used the foggers several times inside the small home. He said it may have been a day or two days since the last insect fogger was used inside. Investigators found seven foggers inside the house. “Most people put these foggers in ”” they do it one time a month or every couple of months. She was using two to three a week,” Mr. McCown said.

Ms. Whitfield was reportedly coated in chemicals when she first arrived to the hospital and had to remove her clothes and take a shower. The scent of chemicals at the home was so strong authorities called in a hazardous materials team before entering. One deputy complained of headaches, Mr. McCown said.

Anderson County Safe Kids Coordinator Dwayne Smith says that while he rarely hears cases of people who die directly from poisoning, places like the Palmetto Poison Center receive thousands of calls annually about children exposed to poisons. In 2007 alone, the Palmetto Poison Center received over 36,000 calls, more than half of which were cases of children six years or younger who had been exposed to poisons.

Children are at higher risk to pesticide poisoning because they are smaller and have faster metabolisms. The Beyond Pesticides factsheet “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix” highlights particular vulnerabilities of children to pesticides. The U.S. EPA, National Academy of Sciences, and American Public Health Association, among others, have voiced concerns about the danger that pesticides pose to children. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels.

In July, Beyond Pesticides submitted a letter to the Washington, D.C. Department of the Environment urging the suspension of foggers after an explosion on July first. As Mr. Feldman states in the letter, “Aside from fire and explosive dangers, most foggers contain synthetic pyrethroids, such as permethrin, which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, respiratory problems, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity and other health and environmental issues. With a high incidence of illness, explosions and even death from the use of these products, their use must be suspended now and ultimately eliminated or highly restricted.”

Foggers, or “bug bombs” are notoriously dangerous and as such, plans to restrict their use in New York state to commerical applicators and take them off the retail market were announced by the Department of Environmental Conservation in October, 2008. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, which pulled data from eight states, identified a total of 466 cases of acute, pesticide-related illness or injury associated with exposure to foggers between 2001 and 2006. In each of the past several years, total release foggers have caused at least four to eight serious explosions in apartments in New York City, according to Fire Department data. Just last month, an apartment building in Manhattan was evacuated after a fogger caused an explosion. Ten people were treated at the scene, including six who were brought to the hospital.

Last month, a petition filed by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice asked EPA to set safety standards protecting children who grow up near farms from the harmful effects of pesticide drift. The groups also asked the agency to adopt an immediate no-spray buffer zone around homes, schools, parks and daycare centers for the most dangerous and drift-prone pesticides.

According to the agency, the new instructions are said to prohibit drift that could cause “adverse health or environmental effects,” by evaluating scientific information on risk and exposure based on individual product use patterns on a pesticide-by-pesticide basis. These assessments will help the agency determine whether no-spray buffer zones or other measures, such as restrictions on droplet or particle size, nozzle height, or weather conditions, are needed to protect people, wildlife, water resources, schools and other sensitive sites from potential harm.

“The new labels will carry more uniform and specific directions on restricting spray drift while giving pesticide applicators clear and workable instructions,” says Steve Owens, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

The draft PR Notice contains:

1. A general drift statement that varies according to product type. The general drift statement prohibits drift that could cause an adverse effect to people or any other non-target organism or site.

2. Examples of risk-based, product-specific drift use restrictions, along with formats for presenting these statements on product labeling. On a pesticide-by-pesticide basis, based on individual product use patterns, EPA will evaluate scientific information on risk and exposure from pesticide drift. These assessments will help the agency determine whether product-specific use restrictions are needed to protect people, wildlife, water resources, schools, or other sensitive sites from potential harm. These restrictions could include no-spray buffer zones, or requirements related to droplet or particle size, nozzle height, or weather conditions at the time of application.

3. Guidance to applicants and registrants about the process for implementing the new statements and formats on product labeling.

The agency believes the use of these statements and formats on labels will provide users with more consistent, understandable, and enforceable directions about how to protect human health and the environment from harm that might result from off-target pesticide drift.

EPA does not intend to apply the guidance in this PR Notice to fumigant products, which are among the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture. Fumigants are gases or liquids that are injected or dripped into the soil to sterilize a field before planting. Even with plastic tarps on the soil, fumigants escape from the soil and drift through the air into schools, homes, parks and playgrounds. Strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, carrots and potatoes are some of the major crops for which fumigant use is high. Earlier this year, EPA announced its decision to allow continued use of toxic soil fumigants with modified safety measures, falling far short of safety advocate efforts to adopt more stringent use restrictions and chemical bans, and requiring a “buffer zone” which advocates criticized as being severely limited and questioned its enforceability.

The guidance is also not intended to apply to products labeled solely for indoor use, fully-enclosed greenhouses, and animal treatments, or for products formulated as gels or baits or labeled solely for direct application to people, such as skin-applied insect repellents. It also does not apply to mosquito adulticide products labeled for wide-area application by ground or aerial equipment, such as Ultra Low Volume (ULV) sprays or fogs. The guidance does, however, apply to home and garden use products which may list mosquitoes on the label, and/or to coarse non-ULV sprays intended for residual treatment of vegetation or other surfaces.

Pesticides can volatilize into the gaseous state and be transported over long distances fairly rapidly through wind and rain. Documented exposure patterns resulting from drift, causes particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups, as adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions. For more information on pesticide drift, read Beyond Pesticides’ report Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities.

Take Action: EPA is seeking comment on a draft pesticide drift labeling interpretation document that provides guidance to state and tribal enforcement officials. A second document provides background information on pesticide drift, a description of current and planned EPA actions, a reader’s guide explaining key terms and concepts, and specific questions on which EPA is seeking input. These documents and further information are available in docket EPA—HQ—OPP—2009—0628 at http://www.regulations.gov.

The National Organic Coalition (NOC) sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance intending “to bring to the committee’s attention serious concerns and questions” surrounding the nomination of Dr. Siddiqui, including positions that promoted hazardous and unnecessary chemical dependency, as well as his advocacy of genetically modified organisms. NOC states in its letter that, “We have no reason to believe that, at this time, [Dr. Siddiqui’s] history of positions makes him the appropriate person for the job,” and urges that the “nomination is rejected in favor of a candidate with a fresh and critically needed sustainable approach to trade policy.” The letter goes on to request that the committee and the candidate answer some important questions before moving ahead with final confirmation. For example, how will the candidate:

(i) ensure that past ties with organizations that have challenged the legitimacy of organic agriculture as a solution to polluting practices will not undermine Congressional intent to specifically support organic methods?
(ii) guarantee that he will reverse past positions that challenge sound science that has led to the European Union decision to restrict the use of genetic engineering in agriculture?
(iii) support efforts of the Administration to educate the public on organic gardening and agriculture, and food security through local-based food systems?
(iv) engage in decision making supported by scientific integrity?

The letter also raises questions such as, “What role did Dr. Siddiqui play in the USDA initial recommendation that biotechnology, sewage sludge and irradiation are allowed in the production and process of food labeled organic? The Department position was reversed after extraordinary public outcry. Has Dr. Siddiqui reversed his position?” NOC and other groups including Beyond Pesticides and Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) believe that this nomination undermines other efforts of the Obama administration to promote organic and sustainable agriculture.

Dr. Siddiqui is responsible for regulatory and international trade issues at CropLife, a trade association representing producers and distributors of “crop protection products” -commonly known as pesticides. He was a registered lobbyist for CropLife from 2001 to 2003. Dr. Siddiqui has made disturbing statements over the years while he worked as an industry lobbyist regarding the use of hormones and genetically modified organisms (GMO). In 1999, for instance, he derided the European Union’s ban on hormone-treated beef. According to reports, when the French agriculture minister expressed concern that the hormones could cause cancer in 20 to 30 years, Dr. Siddiqui reportedly said of the minister, “He wanted assurances that 30 years from now, nothing would happen. No one in the scientific community can give you that kind of decision.” As then-special assistant for trade to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Siddiqui expressed concern about possible GMO labeling requirements by Japan when he met senior officials of the Agriculture Ministry in Tokyo. Dr. Siddiqui was quoted as saying, ”˜We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none. Mandatory labeling could mislead consumers about the safety of these products.’”

Croplife America has been an aggressive promoter of chemical-dependent agricultural practices and an opponent of organic methods. When the White House announced plans to establish an organic garden on its grounds this year, CropLife played the lead role in challenging the credibility of the effort. Instead of supporting this form of agriculture, CropLife said it “shuddered at the thought that the White House garden will be organic.” CropLife was also instrumental in securing an exemption for American farmers from the 2006 worldwide ban of the highly controversial chemical methyl bromide, a pesticide that depletes the ozone layer. CropLife also pushed an amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill that would have prohibited the Secretary of Agriculture from restricting pesticides in the administration of the Conservation Title. The amendment was ultimately rejected in favor of conference report language that suggests that the Secretary should not regulate pesticides, a statutory duty already under EPA authority.

Another nomination, that of Roger Beachy, PhD, as director of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), has also been met with ire. This office comes with a $500 million budget, and control over the U.S. ag research agenda for years to come. Mr. Beachy was a long-time head of Monsanto’s defacto nonprofit research arm.

On November 4, 2009, The New York Times editorialized against the appointment of Mr. Siddique. Read it here.

Take Action: Join Beyond Pesticides and coalition groups including PANNA, National Family Farm Coalition, Food & Water Watch, Farmworker’s Association of Florida, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, Food Democracy Now!, Greenpeace, and Center for Food Safety in calling on President Obama to advance his stated vision for sustainable and green agriculture.

The passage of the policy is at a time when the international market for GM-free animal produce is growing rapidly. Across Europe, hundreds of leading food brands and dozens of leading retailers now offer premium meat, fish, eggs, poultry eggs and dairy produce made without the use of GM feedstuffs. These are backed by GM-free labels and Government regulations in Austria, Italy, Germany, with France to follow later this year. Sales of GM-free milk have skyrocketed since the label came into effect in Germany.

In the U.S., to which Ireland exports vast quantities of dairy produce (including milk powder and casein for cheese production), leading food manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers have set up joint venture called the Non-GMO Project, which already provides GM-free labels for over 1,000 food products by individual manufacturers in addition to thousands of GM-free private retail brands. The Non-GMO (genetically modified organism) Project focuses on the belief that everyone deserves the information to make an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified products, and a common mission to ensure the sustained availability of non-GMO choices. The Non-GMO Project has enrolled over 1,000 food products by individual manufacturers in its non-GMO verification program, in addition to thousands of private retail labels that are also in the process of becoming “”˜Non-GMO Project Verified.”

Ireland’s geographical isolation and offshore Atlantic western winds provide a natural barrier to contamination by wind-borne GM pollen drift from countries such as the UK and Spain, which still allow commercial release and/or field trials of GM crops. There has never been any commercial release of GM crops on the island of Ireland, and the only field trial of GM crops that took place in the Republic was stopped by protestors in 1998. This is not the case in other European Union (EU) member states. Despite national and regional bans or moratoria on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Switzerland, many of these countries have previously allowed (or been illegally subjected to) the commercial release of GM crops, and many of them still allow uncontained GM field trials. Banning GM crops in a given country does not guarantee their absence there, and conducting field trials usually results in contamination, which can travel across borders and is frequently irreversible.

In 2007, the Irish Government adopted a weaker policy “to seek to negotiate to declare the island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone,” but failure to define the implications of the policy for GM animal feed created confusion in the farming sector and the Government failed to even draft any related legislation to implement the policy. That said, Ireland did stop voting in favor of new GMOs in Brussels and has since joined the majority of EU member states that back an Austrian proposal, presented in June 2009, for the EU Commission to allow national bans on GM crops. The Austrian proposal is co-signed by Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the Netherlands; it was subsequently backed by France, Poland, Portugal, and parts of the German government, and is now supported by the majority of member states.

Although Ireland’s new affirmative GM-free policy unambiguously aims to ban both commercial release as well as field trials of GM crops, it requires implementing legislation in the Republic, as well as Northern Ireland to prevent contamination from across the border. Although the UK is one of the few remaining EU member states whose government still officially supports GM food and farming, the UK regions of Scotland and Wales also strongly oppose the release of GM crops. This leaves Westminister isolated with only a few English counties still in favour of GM crops in the whole of the UK.

Michael O’Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said the policy signals a new dawn for Irish farmers and food producers, “The WTO’s economic globalization agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidized GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labor. Meanwhile, hundreds of European food brands, retailers and Regions now offer GM-free beef, pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce as part of their Food Safety, Quality Agriculture, Biodiversity, Fair Trade, Sustainable Development and Climate Change strategies. Thousands of brands in the USA are doing likewise. Without a GM-free label to distinguish our produce, Irish food is being excluded from this global market.”

“Ireland has taken a truly inspiring step towards ensuring consumers’ right to choose non-GMO products,” said Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project Megan Thompson. “As more and more companies in the USA and Canada are looking for non-GMO ingredients, this is a very timely move and we look forward to developing sourcing opportunities with GM-free producers in Ireland.”

The study, which looked at more than 75,000 women, shows that those who spray insecticides at least six times per year have almost two and a half times the risk of developing lupus and rheumatoid arthritis versus those who do not use insecticides. The risk doubles if insecticides were used in the home for 20 years or more.

Hiring a gardener or commercial company to apply insecticides also resulted in a doubling of risk, but only if they were used long-term, says Christine G. Parks, PhD, an epidemiologist with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., one of the lead researchers who analyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Observational Study.

“Our new results provide support for the idea that environmental factors may increase susceptibility or trigger the development of autoimmune diseases in some individuals,” said Dr. Parks. While the study does not confirm cause and effect, Dr. Parks added, “We need to start thinking about what chemicals or other factors related to insecticide use could explain these findings.”

Of the 76,861 postmenopausal, predominantly white women, ages 50 to 79, in the WHI study, 178 of them had rheumatoid arthritis and 27 had lupus. An additional eight women had both disorders. As part of the study, the women were asked a number of questions relating to farming and insecticide use. “Importantly, the relationships we observed were not explained by other factors that we considered, including farm history, age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors such as education and occupation, smoking and other risk factors for disease,” Dr. Parks said.

“The findings are fairly compelling” because they show the greater and longer the exposure, the greater the risk,” said Darcy Majka, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern Univ\ersity Feinberg School of Medicine, another researcher who analyzed the WHI data.

According to Dr. Parks, studies show that up to three fourths of U.S. households reported using insecticides in either or both the home and garden, and 20% of the households had applied insecticides within the last month. “Insecticide exposure in the home can be quite persistent because [the chemicals] don’t break down in the home environment.”

Beyond Pesticides has reported about potential autoimmune effects because of pesticides. In Nevada in September 2009, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) officials said that its department was too busy to make sure they properly cleaned and closed a pesticide container site in Antelope Valley. Residents in the area have reported an unexpected number of rare cancers and immune diseases in the valley over the last decade and have long suspected contamination from the dump site for the outbreak.

With new information like this study showing correlations between pesticides and autoimmune diseases, advocages say it is critical to start and continue to use alternatives to harmful pesticides.

For more information please see our Lawns and Landscapes program page and our Alternatives factsheets page.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, chronic exposure to organic arsenic, such as MSMA, is known to cause cancer and has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and declines in brain functions. It is also been identified as a potential leacher and is toxic to birds, fish, aquatic organisms and bees.

EPA’s Reregulation Eligibility Decision (RED) states that most uses of this product as well as other arsenical herbicides, disodium methanearsonate (DSMA) and hydroxydimethylarsine oxide (cacodylic acid, or sodium salt) are banned except for use on cotton, and will be phased out by the end of 2013, in two phases.

In the meantime, many new restrictions apply in an attempt to protect water resources. For instance, MSMA use on golf courses, sod farms, and highway rights-of-way will be canceled as of December 31, 2012, with use of existing stocks permitted through 2013 –a phase-out approach to regulation that health and environmental advocates have criticized as inadequately protective. The following new use restrictions will apply for golf courses: spot treatments only (100 sq feet per spot), not to exceed 25 percent of the total golf course acreage per year; and one broadcast treatment for newly constructed courses only. In addition, the requests terminate all uses of MSMA in Florida except for use on cotton grown in Calhoun, Columbia, Escambia, Gadsden, Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Suwannee, Walton, and Washington counties.

Unfortunately, herbicidal arsenicals are only one small part of the larger problem of herbicides used on golf courses. Golf courses consistently have one of the most highly concentrated per acre use of pesticides than any other land area. The extensive use of pesticides on golf courses raises serious questions about people’s toxic exposure, drift over neighboring communities, water contamination, and effects on wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.

Perhaps more troubling, this particular park has a youth program in which approximately 300 kids came out to hit balls at the golf courses driving range or play a two-hole match game. This in itself negates EPA’s rebuttal to a Golf Digest article last year, “How Green is Golf?,” in which EPA failed to recognize the harmful effects that golf course chemicals may have on children under the age of six if they are exposed. Children are especially vulnerable to lawn chemicals and pesticides and suffer their greatest risk of adverse effect during this period of life.

The good news is that there are plenty of cost effective ways in which golf courses can reduce pesticide use, and many courses around the country are striving for ways to reduce the environmental impact of golf course management by seeking Integrative Pesticide Management (IPM strategies). Leading golf courses, such as Bethpage State Park are proving that they can have fast greens and outstanding playing conditions without the massive load of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

For more information on issues surrounding pesticides and golf, see Beyond Pesticides Golf and the Environment program page. If you like to golf or live near a golf course, check out the Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, a set of principles jointly developed by a group of leading golf and environmental organizations that seeks to produce environmental excellence in golf course planning and siting, design, construction, maintenance and facility operations, and encourage your local golf course to adopt these principles.

If golf courses can eliminate pesticides, so can homeowners! For more information on cost effective ways of eliminating lawn pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns program page.

The scientific panel held a public workshop, entitled “Methyl Iodide External Peer Review Panel Workshop,” on September 24-25, 2009 in Sacramento, CA as part of an additional, external peer review for methyl iodide. Previously planned public and scientific review processes were subject to cancellation or postponement by the Governor’s office. Led by John Froines, Ph.D., director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of California, Los Angles, the panel consisted of eight experts in various scientific fields. The scientists expressed concern over inadequate buffer zones, ground water contamination and drinking water exposures, body burden, neuro-degeneration, reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity that are associated with methyl iodide use and exposures. Panel members also challenged EPA’s assessment and found EPA’s scientific conclusions on methyl iodide to be lacking. The transcripts and other workshop presentations are available here. These concerns underscore previous opposition to the use of methyl iodide, including a letter from a group of over 50 of the nation’s most eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates that raised serious objections to EPA’s approval of the product.

DPR’s draft methyl iodide risk assessment has already undergone peer review by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If registered as a soil fumigant, methyl iodide would be applied primarily in California’s strawberry fields before planting, and as a gas it would drift away from the application site, and expose neighboring residents and farmworkers in nearby fields. Methyl iodide is a threat to air and water supplies and has been linked to very serious illnesses, including cancer, miscarriages, thyroid toxicity, and neurological problems.

In 2007, EPA fast-tracked the registration of methyl iodide (a Proposition 65 carcinogen in California) for use as a soil fumigant, despite serious scientific concerns. State legislators also signed a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger urging to keep the controversial pesticide out of California’s strawberry fields. The health concerns associated with methyl iodide suggest the need for continued exploration of safer alternatives, according to advocates. The University of California Cooperative Extension has already experimented with alternatives to pesticide use, including steam and heat. Other alternatives include organic practices which have shown that crops, like strawberries, can be grown organically.

The trial court awarded Plaintiffs approximately $97 million under “Special Law 364,” enacted by the Nicaraguan legislature in 2000 specifically to handle DBCP claims. The average award was approximately $647,000 per plaintiff. According to the Nicaraguan trial court, these sums were awarded to compensate plaintiffs for DBCP-induced infertility and its accompanying adverse psychological effects.

In similar cases in the past, the companies have refused to pay. Dow Chemical has called such judgments “unenforceable” because the ruling was “based on a law passed in Nicaragua that its own attorney general has called unconstitutional.” Judge Huck says that the law “unfairly discriminates against a handful of foreign defendants with extraordinary procedures and presumptions found nowhere else in Nicaraguan law.”

Dole claims that Nicaraguan courts have issued judgments in 32 such suits for a total of $2.05 billion against Dole and pesticide makers since 2002. After this ruling, it is unlikely that Dole and Dow will pay any settlements to injured Nicaraguan banana workers.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Dole argued that the 2001 Nicaraguan law is biased against defendants like itself. They say the statute was enacted to litigate injury claims against foreign corporations by banana workers and presumes that DBCP causes sterility and other injuries. Environmentalists and public health advocates argue that decades of EPA data confirms that DBCP exposure is linked to adverse health impacts, and that use of the pesticide continued abroad after it was banned for causing sterility in the U.S.

Until 1977, DBCP was used in the U.S. as a soil fumigant and nematocide on over 40 different crops. From 1977 to 1979, EPA suspended registration for all DBCP-containing products except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. In 1985, EPA issued an intent to cancel all registrations for DBCP, including use on pineapples. Subsequently, the use of existing stocks of DBCP was prohibited. In Nicaragua, DBCP was legal from 1973 until 1993.

EPA’s website states the following:

Acute (short-term) exposure to DBCP in humans results in moderate depression of the central nervous system (CNS) and pulmonary congestion from inhalation, and gastrointestinal distress and pulmonary edema from oral exposure. Chronic (long-term) exposure to DBCP in humans causes male reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm counts. Testicular effects and decreased sperm counts were observed in animals chronically exposed to DBCP by inhalation. Available human data on DBCP and cancer are inadequate. High incidences of tumors of the nasal tract, tongue, adrenal cortex, and lungs of rodents were reported in a National Toxicology Program (NTP) inhalation study. EPA has classified DBCP as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.

The study was carried out in the central/coastal region of China, a relatively wealthy area with a rapidly developing economy. In a very large survey of mental health in rural community residents, participants were also asked about how they stored pesticides. The study found that people who stored pesticides at home, i.e. those with more exposure, were more likely to report recent suicidal thoughts. Supporting this, the survey also found suicidal thoughts to be associated with how easily accessible these pesticides were in the home and that the geographic areas with highest home storage of pesticides also had highest levels of suicidal thoughts in their populations.

“Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide,” stated one of the study researchers, Dr. Robert Stewart. “Our research findings that suggest that higher exposure to these chemicals might actually increase the risk of suicidal thoughts provides further support for calls for tighter international restrictions on agricultural pesticide availability and use.”

The analysis involved data from a survey of a representative sample of 9,811 rural residents in Zhejiang province who had been asked about the storage of pesticides at home and about whether or not they had considered suicide within the two years before the interview. The Chinese version of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) was administered to screen for mental disorder.

According to the study findings, the odds ratio for the association between pesticides stored at home and suicidal ideation over the 2 years prior to the study was more than double. Of the pesticides stored at home, nearly 87 percent comprised or included organophosphates. The most commonly stored pesticide was methamidophos, which was present in 63 percent of households that stored pesticides.

Previous studies have shown that farmers often have higher rates of depression than other population groups. A study published in 2008, “Depression and pesticide exposures among private pesticide applicators enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study,” found that both acute high-intensity and cumulative pesticide exposure contribute to depression in pesticide applicators. Another 2008 study “A cohort study of pesticide poisoning and depression in Colorado farm residents,” found adverse effects on mental health such as irritability were associated with pesticide poisoning.

A 2002 study found that farmers poisoned by agricultural pesticides containing organophosphates are nearly six times as likely to suffer depression in their lifetimes as compared to their counterparts. The study showed that populations exposed to the agricultural pesticides also face long-term risks of anxiety, irritability, restlessness and depression. In the study, 69 participants reported having been sickened by pesticide poisoning. Other study findings include that the Colorado farm population was more likely to have high depressive symptoms if they were female and in poor physical health and younger farmers were more likely to have high depressive symptoms compared to older farmers.

Organophosphates are a family of insecticides that are derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning that they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme.

Nanosilver has been promoted for its antibacterial properties and is used in many products such as sporting goods, band-aids, clothing, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, very little is known about where these particles end up when such products are put to use. Many consider silver to be more toxic than other metals when in nanoscale form and that these particles have a different toxicity mechanism compared to dissolved silver. Scientists have concluded that nanoparticles can pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that silver nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells or tissue) by accumulating in the brain over a long period of time.

The federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), is designed to regulate the sale and use of pesticides in the U.S. Before a pesticide can be sold or distributed in the country, FIFRA requires that registration be obtained from EPA. In making a registration decision, EPA must determine that the pesticide, when used in accordance with label directions, will not cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment. Without a pesticide product in its registration database, EPA cannot, for example, prescribe labeling requirements that set forth effective warnings and specific directions for use. Under FIFRA, silver nanoparticles meet the definition of a pesticide; that is, as a substance that is intended to disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or development of microbiological organisms. As such, silver nanoparticles, with their antimicrobial activity, should and must be regulated by EPA as a pesticide.

Consumer products that include nano-based technologies continue to grow, and cases like this have become much more common, including a recent lawsuit involving the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides by The North Face. An AgION silver treated footbed, which the company claimed to have antimicrobial properties, was featured in over 70 styles of their shoes.

In this case, Samsung will pay a $205,000 fine and provide a certification that it has complied with FIFRA by removing all pesticidal claims made in connection with the sales and distributions of these products. Additionally, Samsung has notified its retailers and distributors to remove any pesticidal claims from labels, promotional brochures and internet/Web-based content for the subject products.

For more information on nanosilver, visit the Nanosilver section at our Antibacterial Program Page.

During the congress, it became known that in the former Kalush factory in the west of Ukraine there is a stockpile of no less than 10,000 ton of superfluous Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). The factory location along the Dniester River makes the situation extremely hazardous: a single flood and the high concentrations of poison would pollute the natural habitat of some seven million people in the west of Ukraine and Moldavia.

Pesticides are threatening tens of millions of people living throughout Europe, Central Asia, and the former Soviet Union, accordding to the statement. There is an estimated 178,000 to 289,000 tons of obsolete pesticides stockpiled throughout the European Union, Southeast Europe, and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine alone has 4,500 storage locations with over 30,000 tons of old pesticides. These pesticides have been prohibited since 2001. The packaging only lasts between five and ten years, so if nothing is done in that time, the pesticides could end up in the water or the soil.

The IHPA reports that it is the rural population which is in danger. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that by 2050 50 percent of people will die from cancer due to the contamination in food, water and the environment. A major portion will be caused by pesticides. There’s also the threat of major financial losses. The relatively minor Nitrofen scandal (2002) in the former East Germany alone cost a total of 500 million euro.

The IHPA estimates that the stabilization or destruction of all current stocks of superfluous pesticides amounts to one billion euros. In the final statement, the IHPA calls on the European Commission to make haste in developing a solid plan of action, in close cooperation with the EU member states, the non-EU countries covered by the European Neighborhood Policy and the relevant countries in Central Asia.

Hexachlorobenzene (HBC) is a pesticide in the organochlorine family. Most organochlorine pesticides have been banned due to their toxicity, environmental persistence, and tendency to bioaccumulate. Other harmful organochlorine pesticides are endosulfan, DDT and lindane. Some highly reactive organochlorides such as phosgene have even been used as chemical warfare agents.

Organochlorine contaminants bioacummulate and remain preferentially in fat, and concerns about theri long-term effects are well-documented. The use of organochlorines has been controversial for decades because of its cancer causing and neurotoxic properties. Organochlorines interfere with the flux of cations across nerve cell membranes, and the adverse health effects include apprehension, agitation, mental/motor impairment, excitation vomiting, stomach upset, abdominal pain, central nervous system depression, convulsions, muscle weakness and spasm, loss of balance, grinding of the teeth, hyperirritability, violent seizures, increased respiratory rate and/or failure, dermatitis, immunotoxicity, and fetotoxicity.

Exposure to organochlorines is associated with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The study, “Organochlorines and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” was published in the International Journal of Cancer on December 15, 2007 with new research funded by the British Columbia Cancer Agency and is so far the largest to examine organochlorines in plasma and their link to illness. “Our study helps to provide answers to this puzzle by showing a strong link between these specific environmental contaminants and this particular type of cancer.” Participants with NHL showed much higher levels of environmental contaminants than the control group. Individuals who had the highest total exposure to PCBs showed almost twice the risk of NHL compared to those with the lowest exposure.

While many countries have phased out the use of some types of organochlorines such as the U.S. ban on DDT, persistent DDT, PCBs, and other organochloride residues continue to be found in humans and mammals across the planet many years after production and use have been limited.

With the availability of the assays and test guidelines, EPA will move forward with issuing test orders to manufacturers to compel the generation of the needed data. However, acquisition of new, relevant data may be limited. This is because after EPA submitted the request for additional information for OMB approval, the Office issued a directive that approved EPA’s request to collect additional data for the 67 chemicals but warned the agency that it should “to the greatest extent possible” accept existing data to satisfy test requirements.

The OMB directive, which observers say contains unusually strong language, is being hailed by industry groups that had been concerned about the prospects for expensive testing mandates. But many environmental groups and scientists say OMB’s directive will undermine the endocrine program which has already been plagued with short-comings, including a thirteen year delay after the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 ordered EPA to develop a screening process for endocrine disrupting chemicals.

The tests are to help EPA identify whether chemicals have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, and/or thyroid hormone systems, which regulate growth, metabolism, development, and reproduction. The program, Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), which according to EPA, has been developed through a multi-year research program and validated through a transparent technical review process, will eventually screen all pesticide chemicals. The data generated from the screens will provide scientific information that will help EPA identify and regulate, as appropriate, potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

CropLife, a trade association for the pesticide industry, petitioned EPA earlier this year and expressed concern that “unnecessary and redundant testing” could occur if the agency does not review data already submitted by pesticide registrants. EPA rejected the petition, saying it would ensure that each chemical is tested just once. The agency said it also plans to review all information on chemicals submitted by manufacturers, including submissions that cite existing data, and would develop standard evaluating procedures for chemicals.

OMB’s directive would impact the integrity of EPA’s program. Critics of EDSP say that EPA’s testing protocol is already outdated, not being updated since 1998. Since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated. Current research is based on different assumptions than the toxicological assumptions that first drove the EPA test designs. According to prominent endocrinologist, founder and president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, and Co-author of Stolen Future, Theo Colborn, PhD, the agency has ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers. Most important, because of the limited scope of its test battery, EPA is not in a position to address endocrine-related disorders that pose a threat to every child born today.

According to Peter deFur, PhD, a scientist who has served on three federal advisory committees for the program, “This is really short-sighted of OMB, and it indicated to me they don’t understand the science or the toxicology. The language I’ve seen is just shocking for its failure to understand the basic biology behind the endocrine disruptor discussion that’s been going on for 20 years now.”

OMB is also requiring that EPA estimate again the burden of collecting chemical information based on responses it gets to the Tier 1 requirements, which must include cases in which EPA has determined that existing data do not satisfy the testing requirements, before the agency can require data from more chemicals. The test guidelines can be found on EPA website and the schedule of EDSP screening here.

A wide variety of pesticides has been found to affect both human and animal hormone systems at low levels. For an overview of endocrine disruptors, view Beyond Pesticides’ article, “Pesticides that Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.”

Coal ash spill in Tennessee, December 2008

This month, USDA enters the final year of a three-year partnership with EPA as part of a larger effort by the American Coal Ash Association, the Electric Power Research Institute and others to “promote appropriate increased use of” coal ash in agriculture. The implementing Memorandum of Understanding obliges USDA to generate “documentation of the effectiveness, safety and environmental benefits, including bioavailability of trace elements such as mercury, arsenic and selenium”¦to satisfy the concerns of producers, generators, regulators and the public.”

According to EPA, agriculture annually uses more than 180,000 tons of coal ash and other coal combustion byproducts. There are no federal standards governing agricultural applications of coal ash. EPA has publicly vowed to promulgate hazardous waste rules by the end of 2009 for coal ash, one year after last December’s disastrous coal ash spills from Tennessee Valley Authority sludge ponds.

“USDA should pull out of the coal ash business tomorrow morning,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. “USDA does American agriculture no favors by duping farmers into spreading hazardous wastes across their fields.”

In an April 2, 2009 letter to EPA, USDA Agricultural Research Service Deputy Administrator Steven Shafer expressed “ARS interest” in exploring greater use of coal combustion wastes in crop production as a fertilizer treatment and soil amendment. His letter cites current application of coal ash in growing corn, tomatoes, alfalfa, peanuts, and other crops. While generally sanguine about coal ash use, Mr. Shafer concedes that the “long-term effects”¦remain a subject of research.” See USDA talking points.

Nonetheless, EPA promotional materials state that EPA and “USDA support the use of” coal combustion byproducts “in appropriate soil and hydrogeologic conditions as an effective method of soil conservation and industrial material recycling.”

“The public does not want its food to come from ”˜industrial material recycling’ any more than it wants coal-flavored cauliflower,” Mr. Ruch added. “This coal ash re-use campaign is really just a multi-billion dollar backdoor subsidy to the coal industry to relieve it of the true costs of handling its toxic wastes.”

The policy establishes Pesticide Free Zones for 50 feet surrounding township playgrounds, picnic grounds, pavilions and rest areas, dog parks and ballfields, as well as 300 feet from any stream bank, pond, lake or natural wetland. It also requires the implementation of an IPM program for all township buildings and grounds.

Hamilton Mayor John F. Bencivengo endorsed the policy, stating that it is a great way to educate the public about pesticide use, and ensure that the township continues on its path of “pesticide free zones” in its parks, municipal building and library. Schools in New Jersey are already required by law to follow IPM plans using non-toxic methods first and conventional pesticides only if the non-toxic methods are ineffective.

“It is easy to manage a lawn without harmful chemical pesticides,” said Jane Nogaki, program coordinator for the Federation. Cost-effective and environmental friendly alternatives to pesticides include mechanical pulling of weeds, mulching areas properly to prevent weeds, planting native plants that do not attract insects, and reducing or eliminating lawns to cut down on the need for watering, fertilizing, and mowing.

“[The] Township’s IPM Policy incorporates focusing on long-term prevention and will give non-chemical methods first consideration when selecting appropriate pest control techniques. The Township will strive to ultimately eliminate the use of all chemical controls,” states the policy. “Integrated Pest Management activities will consist principally of using native plant species and biological controls to encourage natural land management. Manual/mechanical controls, such as pulling weeds by hand or mowing, will be the first choice for management of invasive or undesirable plant species when and where most feasible. Other low impact pest management tools are also available for use when manual or mechanical controls are impractical. The use of pesticides should be reviewed and limited so that they are not applied unnecessarily or as a matter of routine. Where plant, fungal or insect pests become otherwise unmanageable by the various low impact pest management methods, pesticides may be used as a control method of “last resort.” When pesticide use is required, public notification shall be made.” In addition, pesticides may not be used for aesthetic/cosmetic purposes.

According to the policy, low impact management tools include native plantings, hand weeding, cutting and mulching, and products containing vinegar or citric acid, corn gluten, neem, horticultural oil, potassium soaps of fatty acids, boric acid, diatomaceous earth, microbe based insecticides (Bt), non-pesticide pest traps and biological controls (predator species).

Many scientific studies indicate that pesticides threaten the public’s health by increasing the risk of cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, kidney disease and other ailments. These chemicals can also poison animals, pollute local streams and rivers and seep through the ground into our underground aquifers. Every body of water tested in New Jersey exhibits evidence of pesticide contamination, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable because of their rapid development and behavior patterns.

Currently, New Jersey uses about four million pounds of pesticides annually for lawn care, mosquito control, agricultural production, and golf course maintenance.

Hamilton Township joins 31 other communities in New Jersey that have designated Pesticide Free Zones in parks including Burlington and Cape May Counties, and the townships of Bernards, Chatham, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Asbury Park, East and West Windsor, Hightstown, Montclair, Ocean City, Dennis, Colts Neck, Hazlet, Neptune, Red Bank, Pine Beach and Wall Townships.

“We also need residents to do their part in reducing pesticides in our environment and keeping our air, water and land safe from toxic chemicals,” said Ms. Nogaki. “Residents can participate by making their own property a “Pesticide Free Zone.”

The passage of pesticide-free and pesticide reduction policies are taking place around the country. For example, the New York State Parks recently passed a similar policy that also establishes pesticide-free zones. In addition, Chicago City Parks has reduced pesticide use by 80 percent in their parks, many of which are pesticide-free; in the Northwest U.S. there are more than 50 parks; as well as in communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine, New York and Connecticut. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as new policies and programs are continually being implemented by local and state government entities as well as schools and homeowner associations. For a fuller list of examples see Beyond Pesticides activists tools pages.

For more information, see resources available through the New Jersey Environmental Federation and Beyond Pesticides Lawn and Landscape program page.

The petition was filed by the public interest law firms on behalf of farmworker groups: United Farm Workers, Oregon-based Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noreste, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO as well as Physicians for social Responsibility, Washington-based Sea Mar Community Health Center, Pesticide Action Network North America, and MomsRising.org.

Specifically, the petition states that the EPA has failed to address the facts that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides according findings by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1993. Congress took recommendations from NAS and passed the Food Quality Protection Act in1996, requiring EPA to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure” to pesticides.

However, while EPA has made some progress in canceling numerous home uses of pesticides because of excessive risks to children, the harmful effects of pesticide drift from agricultural areas was ultimately ignored. According to the petition, EPA’s failure comes despite its acknowledgment of its obligation to protect children from drift, which can cause acute poisonings as well as cancer, long-term reproductive and developmental disorders, and other chronic adverse effects.

There are many documented cases of the harmful effects of agricultural pesticide drift on children. Among the many examples, one new study shows that children exposed to agricultural pesticides applied near their home have up to twice the risk of developing the most common form of childhood leukemia. Also, recent air monitoring conducted near an elementary school in Florida detected pesticides in every sample, sometimes at levels that may pose serious health risks to young children.

“We traditionally think of farms as healthy places,” said MomsRising.org President Joan Blades. “But children and families across the country are being poisoned by pesticides that travel from the fields into their houses and bedrooms, causing serious and long-lasting damage to their health. We already have standards barring the use of such pesticides for homes and lawns to protect children. But all children deserve such protection. You shouldn’t have to live in the suburbs to be safe from deadly pesticides.”

According to Beyond Pesticides’ report Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities, pesticides can volatilize into the gaseous state and be transported over long distances fairly rapidly through wind and rain. Documented exposure patterns resulting from drift, causes particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups, as adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions.

“In farming communities throughout the country, children have been abandoned by federal pesticide protections,” said Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer. “We’re asking EPA to finish the job it started so children who live, go to school, or play near farms and orchards are kept safe from poisonous pesticides.”

EPA has acknowledged the risk of pesticide drift, but still chose to protect urban and suburban areas, while leaving the children of farm workers and other rural kids vulnerable. The petition asks EPA to take immediate steps to comply with its legal duty to protect all children from pesticide drift.

“It’s time the EPA put an end to this double-standard for farm workers. EPA’s policies must protect farm workers and their children from unnecessary poisoning,” said Farmworker Justice attorney Virginia Ruiz.

A study by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension “Reducing Pesticide Drift,” estimates that up to 40% of a pesticide applied in aerial spraying is lost to drift. (Klein, B. 2002) Another study, Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: Environmental impacts and ethics found that an estimated less than 0.1% of an insecticide actually reached target pests. Therefore, more than 99% of the applied pesticide is released and left to impact the surrounding environment.

“It’s outrageous that our own government isn’t protecting our children from being poisoned by pesticides drifting on their homes and schools,” said Julie Montgomery, Project Director and Attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. “How can parents possibly protect their children from these dangers on their own?”

The petition focuses on the toxic drift of organophosphates, particularly: endosulfan, oxydemeton-methyl, ethoprop, methyl parathion, and chlorpyrifos. Short term exposures of chlorypyrifos has been likened to a chemically-induced flu with even short term exposure: chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Studies have also shown that young children are potentially susceptible to certain organophosphates for a longer period of time than previously thought.

“Children are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposures both because their smaller bodies cannot break down toxins as well as adults, and because their developmental processes are prone to being derailed — even by very low-level exposure,” explains Dr. Margaret Reeves, Senior Scientist for Pesticide Action Network. “The particular pesticides we’re finding in our drift catching and biomonitoring results are some of the worst: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan…these are associated with serious short- and long-term health effects. They are also entirely unnecessary.”

For more information on how pesticides impact children’s health, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools page.

The study, “The Behavior of Silver Nanotextiles during Washing” published in Environmental Science and Technology, found that the total amount and form of silver (dissolved or particulate) that leaches during washing varies significantly depending on the product and the conditions. The goal was to determine the amount and the form of silver released during washing from nine fabrics with different ways of silver incorporation into or onto the fibers. The effect of pH, surfactants, and oxidizing agents was also evaluated. In the washing machine the majority of the nanosilver (at least 50% but mostly >75%) was released in the size fraction more than 450 nm, indicating the dominant role of mechanical stress. The researchers found that under typical washing conditions (pH 10—11, with high levels of surfactants), dissolved concentrations of silver were 10 times lower than at pH 7. However, when bleaching agents such as hydrogen peroxide or peracetic acid (a mixture of acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide) were added, the dissolution of nanosilver particles was greatly accelerated.

The results do not contradict the previous Arizona State study, which found that socks impregnated with nanosilver release these particles when washed. This new study goes one step further to show that washing conditions matter in the leaching of silver nanomaterials from fabric. The study “gives us a much better idea of how silver might be released into the environment from the new wave of silver-nanoparticle-containing fabrics,” says Andrew D. Maynard, chief science adviser at the nonprofit Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Nanosilver has been touted for its antibacterial properties and is used in many products such as sporting goods, band-aids, clothing, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, very little is known about where these particles end up when such products are put to use. Nanosilver that leaches out of fabrics is released into wastewater treatment systems and into nearby aquatic environments. The environmental risks are not clear however. Many particles may aggregate or associate with other ions or materials in the environment and deposit into sediments and soils. Some however, can remain in surface waters, where they can be absorbed and/or ingested by aquatic organisms. Microbial populations especially those in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are vulnerable to silver nanoparticles contamination.

Many consider silver to be more toxic than other metals when in nanoscale form and that these particles have a different toxicity mechanism compared to dissolved silver. Scientists have concluded that nanoparticles can pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that silver nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells or tissue) by accumulating in the brain over a long period of time.

For more information on nanosilver, visit the Nanosilver section at our Antibacterial Program Page.

The Hazardous Chemicals in Health Care report offers preliminary indicators of what the broader health care community may be experiencing. The project tested for 62 distinct chemicals in six categories: bisphenol A, mercury, perflourinated compounds, phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and triclosan. The chemicals tested in the investigation are used in products common to the health care setting, from baby bottles, hand sanitizer, and medical gauges, to industrial paints, IV bags and tubes and stain-resistant clothing. Twelve doctors and eight nurses, two in each of 10 states were tested for the presence of six major chemical types used in the health care setting that are associated with health problems and are pervasive in our environment.

Study participant George Lundgren, M.D., a family practice physician from Minneapolis Minnesota said upon learning his results “When you do find out some of the specific unnatural chemicals in your body it is hard to deny, minimize, rationalize or justify their presence. It is disturbing to know the only body I have is permanently contaminated.”

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Biomonitoring Project has found that synthetic chemicals linked to health problems are present in every American. Overall, PSR’s test results were consistent with the findings by the CDC, with the exception of a specific type of toxic chemical, dimethyl phthalate, which was found at levels above the CDC’s 95th percentile. Future biomonitoring may illuminate a work source of exposure to dimethyl phthalate, which is used in hair spray and other personal care items, rocket fuel and more. Dimethyl phthalate was also registered for use by the US EPA as an insect repellent, but the 32 different insecticide products containing this chemical, often along with DEET, were cancelled back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

According to the report, 15 of the 20 study participants had triclosan in their bodies, mirroring CDC’s finding that 74.6% of 2003-2004 samples contained triclosan. PSR’s new biomonitoring study also found three times more triclosan in participants urine than in CDC’s study, although the study’s maximum was below CDC’s 95th percentile.

Other findings include:
Ӣ Eighteen of the same chemicals were detected in every single participant;
Ӣ All 20 participants had at least five of the six major types of chemicals tested;
Ӣ Thirteen participants tested positive for all six of these major chemical types; and,
Ӣ All participants had bisphenol A, phthalates, PBDEs and PFCs, priority chemicals for regulation by the EPA and associated with chronic illness such as cancer and endocrine malfunction.

“Simply put, we are being ”˜polluted’ by exposure to chemicals used in health care. This study demonstrates the urgent need to find safer alternatives to toxic chemicals whenever possible; to demand adequate information on the health effects of chemicals; and to require manufacturers to fully disclose the potential risks of their products and their components, for the safety of both health care professionals and the communities we serve,” added ANA President Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR.

“Stronger laws are necessary to keep us safe from toxic chemicals. In 33 years, the EPA has tested for safety only 200 and banned only five of the more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce. We need to do better to protect public health,” says Charlotte Brody, RN, Health Care Without Harm Board Member, registered nurse, and National Field Director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Regulated by both the FDA and US EPA, triclosan is an antibacterial used in hundreds of common consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics, deodorants, toys, and even clothing. Such widespread use in everyday consumer products can contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria, lessening their effectiveness, and they can affect the environment in runoff and wastewater. A U.S Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and at some of the highest concentrations, because it is so frequently used in households and washed down the drains.

Scientific studies indicate that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems. Among these issues is the resistance to antibiotic medications and bacterial cleansers, a problem for all people, but especially vulnerable populations such as infants and the elderly. Triclosan is also a known endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. A recent study found that triclosan alters thyroid function in male rats. Other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in fish, human milk, serum, urine, and foods. Further, the pesticide can also interact with other chemicals to form dioxin and chloroform, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals.

Washing with soap and water is essential. An FDA panel concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than washing with soap and water. For more information, including tips on how to get triclosan out of your school, office or community, or visit Beyond Pesticides’ Triclosan program page.

“When the fungal spores are applied to the sheep, they stick to the surface of lice as they move around in the fleece,” explains QPIF Senior Scientist Diana Leemon, PhD. “The lice also consume spores as they feed on wool grease and the spores germinate inside the insect, killing it.”

Tim Mulherin, Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland, stated, “Livestock industries, including sheep, are extremely important to our economy. Parasites such as sheep lice damage wool and reduce yields, leading to significant losses for the producer. Lice cost the Australian wool industry $123 million annually through lost production and control costs.”

QPIF and Australian Wool Innovation Limited (AWI) have signed an agreement with commercial partner Becker Underwood Australia to develop the biopesticide to help the lice problem. AWI CEO Brenda McGahan said the research was timely as sheep lice are building resistance to some current treatments. “Producers are reporting sheep lice are becoming a major problem, particularly following a recent ban on the use of the effective insecticide diazinon in a wet dip.”

Fungal biopesticides have shown potential as insecticides of other bugs as well. Recently, researches worked with fungus as an insecticide for crickets and grasshoppers. The research team, led by USU insect pathologist Donald Roberts, PhD, is analyzing 10,000 soil samples gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 17 states. After isolating the various fungi, each is grown in the lab and tested individually.

Some fungi are more effective than others as pesticides. Paul Stamets, a mushroom expert who spoke at the 2006 Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum in Washington, DC on how fungus can play a part in insect control, has provided much research to the field of fungal pesticides, providing invaluable information on breeding fungus and fungus’ pesticidal usages. The green mold fungus Metarhizium anisopliae seems to be one effective fungal pesticide during certain phases of its life. One problem is that insects are sensitive to the spores and avoid them, and soldier insects guarding nests sense and intercept most spore-contaminated foragers to prevent them from entering and infecting the colony. Strains of the fungus produce chemical attractants in the mycelial state, the stage of the life cycle when a fuzzy mat of mycelium protrudes from a dead carpenter ant, making the mycelium an effective biopesticide.

Fungi found in soil are a less toxic solution to certain insect problems. Beneficial fungus pathogens, Beauveria spp., is a fungus that is used as a pesticide for controlling many kinds of insects. Many strains of this fungus are found worldwide in the soil. They control insects by growing on them, secreting enzymes that weaken the insect’s outer coat, and then getting inside the insect and continuing to grow, eventually killing the infected pest. Available EPA information indicates that use of Beauveria spp. as a pesticide is not expected to adversely affect people or the environment and tests show that the fungus is not toxic to mammals, birds or plants. There is a potential for pesticide products containing the fungus to harm bees, so the products must not be applied near beehives or where bees are actively hunting for food.

As the demand for organic products (including raw textile materials such as cotton and wool) grows, producers are looking for organic pest control options. As Richard Waterworth, Director of Becker Underwood Australia says, “Given the increasing demand for low residue and organic wool, we believe this form of lice management will become mainstream.” Many consumers now want to buy organic, chemical free materials; not just food. With advancements of this sort, the accessibility of organic products will increase.

Mr. Stamets and his colleagues have been working with fungi that feed on insects, and he has figured out a way to grow fungi that delay their spore formation and actually attract the insect to the fungus, thus breaking through an obstacle in using fungi to protect homes from carpenter ants and termites. However, in doing so, he says his philosophy “is not to wage war against the insect kingdom but to enlist fungal allies for the intelligent, natural, and localized control of targeted insects”¦ We seek balance, not extinction.” Beyond Pesticides offers a video of Mr. Stamets’ speech and the article, “Fungi to the Rescue: Biopesticide derived from mold has promise as a greener method for eradicating unwanted insects,” in the Winter 2007 issue of Pesticides and You.

This announcement follows recent scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. In August this year, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published a report, Poisoning the Well which found that the commonly used herbicide atrazine can spike at extremely high levels which go undetected by regular monitoring. Concurrently, The New York Times published an investigative piece based on the NRDC findings and confirmed that the public is not informed when reports of these spikes of atrazine in drinking water occur.

One of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the U.S., atrazine can currently legally be applied before and after planting to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. Its increased use to manicure home lawns and gardens has become a serious environmental concern as runoff has had severe health and environmental consequences.

Even at low levels that are considered “safe” by EPA standards, atrazine is known to harm fish, and has been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion, turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine is applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant. Research found that intersex frogs are more common in suburban areas than agricultural areas. Another study suggests it as a possible cause for male infertility.

According to the EPA, agency staff will evaluate the pesticide’s potential cancer and non-cancer effects on humans. Included in this new evaluation will be the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births.

“One of Administrator Jackson’s top priorities is to improve the way EPA manages and assesses the risk of chemicals, including pesticides, and as part of that effort, we are taking a hard look at the decision made by the previous administration on atrazine,” said Steve Owens, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate.”

During the new evaluation, EPA will consider the potential for atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects, and will include data generated since 2003 from laboratory and population studies. To be certain that the best science possible is used in its atrazine human health risk assessment and ensure transparency, EPA will seek advice from the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

EPA will engage the SAP to evaluate the human health effects of atrazine over the coming year. Below is the timeline:

Ӣ November 2009: EPA will present SAP its plan for the new atrazine evaluation.
Ӣ February 2010: EPA will present and seek scientific peer review of its proposed plan for incorporating population studies into the atrazine risk assessment.
Ӣ April 2010: EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of atrazine non-cancer effects based on animal laboratory toxicology studies, selection of safety factors in the risk assessment, and the sampling design currently used to monitor drinking water in community water systems.
”¢ September 2010: EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects based on animal toxicology studies and epidemiology studies. This review is intended to include the most recent results from the National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study, anticipated for publication in 2010.

At the conclusion of this process, EPA will ask the SAP to review atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems. The SAP meetings will be open to the public.
In addition to the scientific review of the effects of atrazine, EPA plans to meet with interested groups to explore better ways to inform the public more quickly about results of atrazine drinking water monitoring.

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

TAKE ACTION! (LOCAL): If you’re in the area, attend the informational meeting held on November 3, 2009 from 9am to 12pm at the EPA Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bld.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

TAKE ACTIOION! (NATIONAL): Tell the EPA to revise the current risk assessment of atrazine and to impose greater restrictions. Comments can be submitted to the EPA in writing by October 23 2009, or orally by October 27 2009. Submit your comments identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0759 to either: online at Federal eRulemaking Portal; by mail to Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-011; or delivered to OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bld.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is 703-305-5805.