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.

This story showcases the importance of a comprehensive school and community pesticide and pest management policy in response to the mass hysteria that bedbugs are causing and as a general public health protection measure. The bedbug outbreak prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue warnings against improper treatments and misuses of pesticides. Despite the fact that bed bugs do not transmit diseases and are not generally considered to be a threat to health, the recent resurgence of these pests have caused many people to take desperate measures to eradicate them by using dangerous outdoor pesticides and fly-by-night exterminators. To solve the bed bug problem nationwide, it is going to take a comprehensive public health campaign -public-service announcements, travel tips and perhaps even government-sponsored integrated pest management programs for public housing and other high density areas. Recently, Los Angeles and San Francisco hosted workshops on bed bugs, and Beyond Pesticides released an updated fact sheet on how to deal with bed bugs without toxic pesticides.

It is important to focus on non-toxic pest control in schools because children are especially vulnerable to the health hazards associated with pesticide exposure due to their small size, greater intake of air and food relative to body weight, and developing organ systems. Several pesticides, including pyrethroids, organophosphates and carbamates are known to cause or exacerbate asthma. In fact, of the 48 most commonly used pesticides in schools, 22 are probable or possible carcinogens, 26 have been shown to cause reproductive effects, 31 damage the nervous system, 31 injure the liver or kidney, 41 are sensitizers or irritants, and 16 can cause birth defects. 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.

Beyond Pesticides recommends the implementation of a defined IPM system to prevent pest problems with non-chemical management strategies and only least-toxic pesticides as a last resort. IPM relies on a combination of methods that address sanitation, structural repair, mechanical measures, biological controls and other non-chemical methods inside buildings and additional approaches for turf and ornamental plant management that build healthy soil and natural resistance to pests. The report by the National School Pesticide Reform Coalition and Beyond Pesticides entitled, “Safer Schools: Achieving a Healthy Learning Environment Through Integrated Pest Management” elaborates on the IPM system, and how it can be implemented successfully.

Additionally, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) H.R. 4159 (see bill summary and bill text) is intended to provide protection for all children nationwide, beyond what is included in Indiana’s proposal. SEPA ensures a healthy learning environment for children through the management of school buildings and school grounds without toxic pesticides through the implementation of an IPM, among other least-toxic approaches. Help educate on SEPA:
”¢ Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S Representative to educate them on SEPA (see sample letter) (See www.senate.gov and www.house.gov for their contact information (Email Beyond Pesticides and we’ll also send follow-up information).
”¢ Sign your organization up as a supporter of SEPA by emailing Beyond Pesticides your name and organization’s contact information (See a list of current SEPA supporters).
”¢ Pass this information to your mayor, city council, local PTA and civic association and request that they endorse SEPA. (Email Beyond Pesticides, and we’ll also send follow-up information. Please be sure to include all the necessary contact information).

The draft ”˜Drinking Water Protection Zone,’ which would restrict hazardous materials entering sources of drinking including nitrogen and phosphate-based fertilizers, paint, oils and fuels, wood preservatives, solvents among others. Utilities and public-water operators asked the county in 2008 to strengthen drinking-water protections by restricting development and other activity that could contaminate the water supply, upset riverbanks or affect the filtering functions of wooded streamside areas. In a report to the board, county staff said the drinking-water rules “are being proposed to reduce the possible health and safety risks associated with ”¦contamination of sources public drinking water.” Reducing fertilizers can have the added benefit of reducing the levels of pesticides that runoff into lakes and streams as well, as many pesticide products are formulated with both fertilizers and herbicides.

The recommendations call for a 200-foot buffer around streams, rivers and lakes that provide public drinking water. That’s up from the current 50-foot setback for residential, commercial and industrial land and a 100-foot setback for farm and forest land. Current lawn care and landscaping could be maintained, but new removal or destruction of additional areas of vegetation through means such as thinning, cutting or applying herbicides would be barred. A number of public and municipal water utilities draw their supplies from local rivers, especially the McKenzie and the Willamette. The rules would protect those rivers, as well as tributaries that feed into them, so the amount of affected property is significant.

Recent U.S. Geological Survey data have found that 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. Nitrates are the most common inorganic contaminant derived from man-made sources, such as from fertilizer applications and septic-tanks. Studies show that the occurrence of selected contaminants varies across the country, often following distinct geographic patterns related to geology, geochemical conditions, and land use. These contaminants have been linked to hormone disruption, birth defects, developmental/reproductive effects and even cancer. The Pesticide Induced Disease Database provides more information on the link between chemical exposure and diseases. Also read Beyond Pesticides’ “Threatened Waters” for more information on drinking water and contaminants found in drinking water.

Lane County Planning Commissioner and the Lane County Board of Commissioners convened a public hearing to determine if proposed changes to the County’s floodplain regulations should be approved, modified or denied. The Board discussed whether or not to adopt a new set of zoning regulations intended to protect sources of public drinking water.

Opponents to the proposal claim that they will be unable to remove vegetation, to garden in those riverfront areas, or to rebuild close to the river. They say property values could drop due to river views overgrown with brush and trees, and limitations on development of homes, septic tanks and grading. Some of these concerns can be addressed through organic and other green management practices which are currently being employed by homeowners and communities around the country, including organic turf management and gardening, as well as using goats to clear brush and restore land. Many clean water advocates say limiting waterfront development by property owners is often necessary to protect everyone’s right to clean water.

Source: The Register-Guard and Lane County Oregon News Release

The Cornucopia Institute developed the report, Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production from Authentic Organic Agriculture, following nearly two years of research into organic egg production. The report also contains a scorecard rating various egg brands on how their eggs are produced in accordance with federal organic standards and consumer expectations.

“After visiting over 15% of the certified egg farms in the United States, and surveying all name-brand and private-label industry marketers, it’s obvious that a high percentage of the eggs on the market should be labeled ”˜produced with organic feed’ rather than bearing the USDA-certified organic logo,” said Mark A. Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute’s co-director and senior farm policy analyst.

According to the United Egg Producers (UEP), the industry lobby group, 80 percent of all organic eggs are produced by just a handful of its largest members. Most of these operations own hundreds of thousands, or even millions of birds, and have diversified into “specialty eggs,” which include organic.

Cornucopia’s report focuses not on the size of some of these mammoth agribusinesses but rather on their organic livestock management practices. It says that most of these giant henhouses, some holding 85,000 birds or more, provide no legitimate access to the outdoors, as required in the federal organic regulations.

Scrambled Eggs comes at a critical juncture for the organic poultry industry. The NOSB has been debating a set of proposed new regulations for poultry and other livestock that would establish housing-density standards and a clearer understanding of what the requirement for outdoor access truly means. The industry’s largest operators, along with their lobbyists, have been loudly voicing their opposition to requirements for outdoor space.

“Many of these operators are gaming the system by providing minute enclosed porches, with roofs and concrete or wood flooring, and calling these structures ”˜the outdoors,’” stated Charlotte Vallaeys, a farm policy analyst with Cornucopia and lead author of the report. “Many of the porches represent just 3 to 5 percent of the square footage of the main building housing the birds. That means 95 percent or more of the birds have absolutely no access whatsoever.”

After visiting scores of egg producers in nine states, the authors of the Cornucopia report also conclude that the vast majority of family-scale producers are complying with the organic regulations and meeting consumer expectations. “This is the good news in this report,” explained Mr. Kastel. “Now the USDA needs to step up and protect ethical organic farmers from unfair and illegal competition.”

The best producers with permanent housing profiled in Scrambled Eggs have plenty of pasture available surrounding their chicken houses, multiple popholes (doors) of adequate size and maintain the birds by rotating them into separate paddocks, allowing a rest period for the pasture to recover. Laying hens on pasture-based farms tend to be under less stress””based on their greater opportunity to exercise and ability to engage in instinctive foraging behaviors that cuts down on aggression toward their flock mates”” and frequently live closer to three years instead of the one year that is common on industrial-scale farms.

Organic customers are also becoming increasingly aware of a growing body of scientific literature confirming the nutritional superiority of eggs when the birds have an opportunity to eat fresh forage, seeds, worms and insects.

“Our job, and the basis of this research and report, is protecting the livelihoods of family-scale organic farmers who are being placed at a distinct competitive disadvantage by corporations that are more than willing to ignore the rules and cut corners in pursuit of profit,” added Mr. Kastel.

One of these producers is Ivan Martin of Natural Acres in Millersburg, Pennsylvania, whose pastured poultry operation went out of business last year. “Consumers saw my eggs next to other so-called organic eggs bearing the exact same USDA Organic label, and probably thought they were equivalent in terms of outdoor access and nutrition. We could not compete with those [factory farm] eggs,” said Mr. Martin, who hopes to re-launch his organic poultry business.

“Whether it’s laying hens for eggs, hogs for meat, or cows for dairy, organic customers expect livestock to be treated with respect and in compliance with the standards,” said Mr. Kastel. “The good news in this report is that the vast majority of organic farmers meet these high expectations. Now the USDA needs to step up to protect them from unfair competition. Congress gave the USDA the authority to protect these farmers from unscrupulous competitors. It needs to wield that power!”

Public Participation: Making organic better

While organic agriculture is far better than chemical-intensive conventional agriculture for people and the environment, there is always room for improvement. When there is a problem with the organic regulations, there is a process for the public to weigh in on what is allowable in organic production. For information on making general comments to the NOSB on issues such as chicken stocking rates, see Getting Involved on the USDA National Organic Program website.

While many salmon farmers are pleased, the decision by Canada’s federal agency has many local fishermen concerned about the effects the pesticide will have on fish and shellfish populations. “Basically we are shocked in a nutshell,” said Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association project manager Melanie Sonnenberg, adding, “Dsappointed doesn’t cover it.”

The use of deltamethrin will be restricted to tarped cages or well boats, boats with large holds. Treatment would involve placing fish in the boats, bathing them in Alphamax and releasing them back into cages along with the treated water. The industry is ready to start using the treatment in the Bay of Fundy. Fish farmers have been challenged in controlling sea lice outbreaks this summer, particularly in the upper Passamaquoddy Bay area. They have been using other chemicals to control the outbreaks, including hydrogen peroxide, Salmosan (azamethiphos), SLICE (emamectin benzoate) and Calicide (teflubenzuron). Glenn Brown, owner of the Grand Manan Company Admiral Fish Farms Ltd. explained, “What we’d really like is a suite of tools we could use in a strategic way.” Unfortuantly pesticides that kill sea lice also kill lobster explained Ms. Sonnenberg.

Deltamethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid. Synthetic pyrethroids are synthesized deriviatives of naturally occurring pyrethrins produced by the chrysanthemum flower. They are designed to be more toxic and take longer to break down than natural pyrethrins. These types of pesticides are extremely toxic to aquatic organisms including fish. Lobster, shrimp, mayfly nymphs and zooplankton are the most susceptible non-target aquatic organisms.

Synthetic pyrethroids are also dangerous to human health. While not easily absorbed through the skin pyrethroids are absorbed through the gut and pulmonary membrane and can act as neurotoxins. Acute exposure can result in asthma like symptoms and irritation of the skin. Emerging evidence shows many pyrethroids are endocrine disruptors, interfering with sexual development and the immune system.

Environment Canada is currently investigating the illegal use of another synthetic pyrethroid cypermethrin. Cypermethrin is not permitted for use in Canada but is used to control sea lice in salmon farms in Maine. Cypermethrin has been linked to lobster deaths in waters around New England and Canada.

According to Matthew Abbot, coordinator of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick’s Fundy Baykeeper Project, putting anything into the water that kills sea creatures is a violation of Canada’s Fisheries Act. He suggests controlling sea lice simply by limiting the number of salmon in cages

The 2006 final rule lifted a ban on human testing put in place by Congress. It allows experiments in which people are intentionally dosed with pesticides to assess the chemicals’ toxicity and allows EPA to use such experiment to set allowable exposure standards. In such experiments, people have been paid to eat or drink pesticides, to enter pesticide vapor “chambers,” and to have pesticides sprayed into their eyes or rubbed onto their skin. The pesticide industry has used such experiments to argue for weaker regulation of harmful chemicals.

The coalition that challenged the regulation argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the rule ignores scientific criteria proposed by the National Academy of Sciences, did not prohibit testing on pregnant women and children, and even violated the most basic elements of the Nuremberg Code, including fully informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, a set of standards governing medical experiments on humans, was put in place after World War II following criminal medical experiments performed by Nazi doctors.

According to Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., the proposed rule is expected to closely follow the text that was included in the court settlement. It is unknown whether comments submitted on the proposed rule will lead to any significant revisions. EPA states in its Federal Register notice that the draft proposed amendments would “clarify the applicability of the rules to human testing for pesticides submitted to EPA under any statute, would disallow consent by a legally authorized representative of participants in pesticide studies who cannot consent for themselves, and would identify specific considerations to be addressed in EPA science and ethics reviews of proposed and completed human research for pesticides, based on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and on the Nuremberg Code.”

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling in a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances. EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”

This draft proposed rule is required to be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the Federal Register under section 24(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The draft will not be available to the public until after EPA has signed it. The Secretary has 30 days to submit comments in writing which will be included on the public proposed rule along with any responses by EPA. Under this agreement, a proposed rule must be issued for public comment by January 2011.

Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here.

Pat Leavy, president of the American Organic Hop Grower Association and his colleagues petitioned the NOSB to vote on a mandate that would “mandate organic hops in organic beer in about three years.” They believe it is likely to pass. The NOSB Handling Committee responded to the petition on October 8, 2010 and recommends transitioning hops for inclusion on the National List of Allowed Substances, which identifies synthetic substances that may be used, and the nonsynthetic substances that cannot be used, in organic production and handling operations.

Organic hops have been exempted from certified organic beer because they were too difficult to get enough of in the organic form. When the NOSB, which operates within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), deems an organic ingredient too hard to get, it can waive it for producers and still allow them to display the USDA’s certified organic label. The non-organic ingredients have to be less than 5 percent of the product’s total weight, excluding water (the other main ingredient -barley – has to be organic because it’s the bulk of the product’s weight.)

In 2007, several organic beer makers petitioned USDA, arguing there weren’t enough organic hops available to meet the growing demand for organic beer. The NOSB agreed that organic hops were not “commercially available” and, because hops comprise less than 5% of the product, qualified for the organic label. Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides and a member of the NOSB said, “It is critical that the board carefully evaluates and adjusts it commerical availaibiltiy findings on an ongoing basis to ensure that there is incentive for more producers to develop organic product ingredients.”

The NOSB is recommending that hops remain listed until 2013 to give brewers two seasons to secure contracts for organic hops. According to NOSB’s document, “This time interval formally recognizes the growth of organic hops’ availability and yet allows brewers two growing seasons to secure their organic hops through forward contracting, making adjustments to future product formulations and specifications, and preparing their customers and consumers for the product changes anticipated, if any.”

Organic beer manufacturers have their concerns that organic hops growers won’t be able to produce enough of the product to meet current production needs. Mr. Leavy believes that in the three years before organic hops would be required, the industry would have the time to expand, in part because many Northwest hop growers have extra acreage already qualified for organic crops or on its way toward qualifying.

Organic beer remains a sliver of the $7 billion U.S. craft beer market. But the economic stakes are significant for organic growers and brewers. From 2003 to 2009, U.S. organic beer sales grew more than fourfold, from $9 million to $41 million, the Organic Trade Association says. Organic production of hops in the Yakima Valley, Washington state, which accounts for more than 30 percent of the world’s hops production, has grown from nearly none three years ago to its current 100 acres, but organic growers say they need a better market to survive.

The petition will be considered by the full National Organic Standards Board when it meets next week. The board’s standard setting authority will be open to public comment before it goes to the National Organic Program, which verifies that NOSB decisions meet statutory standards.

There is a force behind efforts to require the use of organic hops. Some brewers, even Anheuser-Bush, have submitted letters in the petition in support of the move. Consumer Reports and the Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit public interest organization based in Finland, Minn., have also gotten behind the effort. Encouraging organic brewers to use organically produced hops would spawn great incentive for farmers to grow them and create a market at the same time.

For more information on the importance of eating organic food for you, workers and the environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience food guide and organic food program page.

Take Action: You too can be a part of efforts to strengthen the integrity of the Organic Program. The process is open to public involvement and comments. Any person can petition to amend the National List and the NOP regulations. For more information on how to get involved and to attend meetings or submit comments, visit NOP’s website.

Keep abreast of NOSB meeting information, including agendas and transcripts. Read public comments and NOSB recommendations.

Fish farmers have been challenged in controlling sea lice outbreaks this summer, particularly in the upper Passamaquoddy Bay area. They have been using other chemicals to control the outbreaks, including hydrogen peroxide, Salmosan (azamethiphos), SLICE (emamectin benzoate) and Calicide (teflubenzuron). New Brunswick aquaculture organizations have maintained that fish farmers do not use cypermethrin, which is not permitted for use there. The New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association referred to the cocktail of pesticides used on salmon farms as “medicine” and referred to salmon farming techniques as “natural.” However, shoddy farming practices, such as growing too many fish per site and having too many sites in the same area, can lead to the sea lice infestations. The salmon farming industry relies on chemicals to then control the problems that result from their practices.

Although cypermethrin’s use in the marine environment is prohibited in Canada, the pesticide is permitted under certain restrictions for use at salmon farms in Maine, under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) program. Cypermethrin, an insecticide in the synthetic pyrethroid family, is known to be highly acutely toxic to aquatic life, including fish and crustaceans such as lobsters. It is also classified as a possible human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Throughout the winter and spring Environment Canada and provincial and federal partners monitored salmon sites for illegal usage of pesticides, according to Robert Robichaud, operations manager for the district of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island for Environment Canada’s environmental enforcement branch. During May, July, August and September, the department conducted routine and sporadic inspections at sites to verify compliance. Lab results from samples taken in May and July showed that farms owned by Northern Harvest Sea Farms and Ocean Legacy, which are headquartered in Letang, had detectable levels of cypermethrin in fish samples. Those results triggered the opening of two more investigations on September 8 and the issuing on September 22 of the nspector’s directions to those two companies, ordering them to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to prevent the release of substances that are harmful to fish into fish-bearing waters.

Along with the two new investigations, Environment Canada is continuing to conduct two investigations into the lobster deaths last fall, with one investigation into the cause of dead lobsters found near Seal Cove, Grand Manan (opened on December 22), and another concerning the lobster deaths near Fairhaven, Deer Island (opened on February 10). So far, Environment Canada is only indicating that the lobsters were exposed to cypermethrin and is not commenting on the cause of the deaths.

Environment Canada will not release the location of the companies’ farm sites or the number of farms that had detectable levels of cypermethrin in fish samples. However, according to the provincial Department of Agriculture and Aquaculture’s listing of marine aquaculture sites, Ocean Legacy has a site located near Back Bay that is off the western side of Frye Island and just north of Douglas Island. Northern Harvest has three salmon farms at Harbour de Loutre, Campobello; a single farm site off the western side of Deer Island, just north of Davidson’s Head near Hersonville; a farm in upper Passamaquoddy Bay, just north of McCann Head, St. Andrews; two farms just east of Frye Island in Bliss Harbour; and a farm in Letang Harbour.

For more information on issues related to pesticides and water pollution, see Beyond Pesticides Threatened Waters program page and the Daily News Blog.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, soy, and other crops have been engineered to resist the broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Monsanto holds the patent for its Roundup Ready seeds, meaning farmers must sign a contract with the company in order to purchase seeds, and are not allowed to save seeds to plant the following season. As seen in the recent documentary Food Inc., Monsanto has been ruthless in collecting royalties from growers.

Despite Monsanto’s safety claims, glyphosate is actually very dangerous to human health and the environment. Glyphosate has been linked to cancers including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Acute exposure can lead to swelling of the eyes, face and joints; burning or itching, blisters rapid heart rate, chest pains and other symptoms. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has found glyphosate to be the most common cause of pesticide-induced illness or injury. Glyphosate is also dangerous to wildlife, especially beneficial insects and earthworms.

Monsanto’s cut throat business practices had garnered the company a large share of the market for genetically engineered (GE) seeds. In the 2009 fiscal year, Monsanto’s revenue from seeds and seed genes was $7.3 billion; nearly double that of second place DuPont. Over the previous five years sales for Monsanto had increased 18% annually.

This year, however, Monsanto’s stock has fallen about 42%. According to Stock market commentator Jim Cramer, “This may be the worst stock of 2010.” The company’s newest product developed with Dow Chemical, SmartStax corn, which contains eight inserted genes and is resistant to two different broad spectrum herbicides, has not been shown to yield more than the company’s less expensive varieties. Monsanto’s newest soybean variety Roundup Ready 2 Yield also showed disappointing sales. This. in addition to increased competition from DuPont, has forced the company to cut prices on both products.

The largest threat to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready products may not be economic but environmental. The overuse of the broad spectrum herbicide has lead to widespread resistance among weeds. As environmentalists and human health advocates have fought to stop the use of the known carcinogen, neurotoxin, and irritant, the indiscriminant use of glyphosate is quickly making the herbicide, and in turn any crops engineered to resist it, obsolete. After being on the market for less than 20 years, glyphosate resistance genes will most likely soon be useless. However, unlike most obsolete technology that is thrown on the scrap heap, glyphosate-resistant genes have been introduced into the ecosystem, and cannot be removed. There is no way to know what long-term effects these genes will have on our environment.

Genetic engineering is a short-sighted and possibly dangerous method of pest control. Studies show that genetically engineered crops have significantly increased the amount of chemical pesticides used in US agriculture. However they have not delivered any notable increase in yield.

The recent economic troubles for Monsanto could indicate that the future of food production does not lie with a few Biotech giants promoting genetically engineered monocultures, but with biodiverse organic farms.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine insecticide that was first registered for use in the U.S. in the 1950s. It is an endocrine disruptor and exposure in male children may delay sexual maturity and interfere with sex hormone synthesis. Endosulfan also decreases semen quality, sperm count, spermatogonial cells, and sperm morphology, and contributes to other defects in male sex hormones. It is volatile, persistent, and has a high potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Two-headed bass, for example, were found in the Noosa River resulting from surrounding pesticide drift from neighboring farms in Queensland, Australia. The pesticides, endosulfan and carbendazim, were implicated in the contamination of the river, which has yielded thousands of chronically deformed fish.

In December 2009, the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) recommended that urgent “global action” was needed to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide. Scientific experts at the POPRC concluded that endosulfan is likely to cause significant adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of the chemical’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media.

In June, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would take action to end all uses of the insecticide endosulfan, deciding that new data presented to the agency in response to its 2002 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), which shows that risks faced by workers are greater than previously known. In completing revised assessments, EPA concluded that endosulfan’s significant risks to wildlife and agricultural workers outweigh its limited benefits to growers and consumers. EPA also found that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as to birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey which have ingested endosulfan.

EPA’s decision followed a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of environmental and farmworker groups, including Beyond Pesticides, on July 24, 2008. The suit cited a glaring omission in the EPA’s decision in its failure to consider risks to children: a 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

Also on October 13, the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), led by renowned scientist Theo Colborn, PhD, announced the addition of chlorpyrifos to its online database, Critical Windows of Development, spotlighting research that links prenatal, low dose chlorpyrifos exposure to altered health outcomes in the brain and other organs.

“Human studies have now linked prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos with mental and developmental delays emphasizing even more the urgency to remove the product from the market,” said Dr. Colborn, President of TEDX and a signatory on the letter. “Chlorpyrifos illustrates the urgent need to be cautious, prevent further exposure and protect our children from the time they are conceived onward.”

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).

Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic insecticide whose use was found to exceed acceptable rates of illness, especially to children. By focusing on risk reduction strategies to come up with “acceptable,” but unnecessary, rates of illness across the population, EPA virtually ignored the chemical’s widespread use in agriculture, resulting in exposure to farmworkers, farm families and others living near agricultural areas. It is also a frequent water contaminant and a long range contaminant, exposing communities and contaminating pristine areas far from where it was applied. Short term effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos include chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Prenatal and early childhood exposure has been linked to low birth weights, developmental delays, ADHD and other health effects.

David Carpenter, M.D., Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany (State University of New York) said, “It is unacceptable that farmworker children, and children in the general population continue to be exposed to these neurotoxins.”

“As more families cope with the suffering and costs of learning and developmental disabilities and attention problems, EPA must prevent further exposures to neurotoxic pesticides,” said Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. “EPA needs to protect people, especially children and pregnant women, from any chemical that threatens brain development. In addition to banning neurotoxic pesticides, we must reform the Toxic Substance Control Act to require EPA to address the many neurotoxic chemicals in our everyday products.”

“The last time EPA reviewed these pesticides, its own scientists complained that the Agency was not assuring adequate protection of the nation’s children, and that it was unduly influenced by those it regulates,” said William Hirzy, Ph.D., a professor at American University in Washington D.C. and a former EPA chemist. While at EPA, Dr. Hirzy was involved in a letter raising these concerns sent to management by six unions representing 9000 EPA scientists and other staff, as the Agency was finalizing its Cumulative Risk Assessment for organophosphates in 2006. “Five years later, with even more sobering studies in hand, will EPA finally act to protect children?,” Dr. Hirzy asked.

Chlorpyrifos is used widely on corn, orchard, and vegetable row crops all over the country. While it is known to contaminate dozens of fruits and vegetables with detectable residues, Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database reveals that chlorpyrifos is also registered for use on more than half of the 15 “cleanest” fruits and vegetables, or those with the lowest pesticide residues (asparagus, cabbage, corn, grapefruit, kiwi fruit, onion, peas and sweet potatoes). So while there may be little residue remaining by the time it reaches your store shelf, these crops may be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife, while not all showing up at detectable levels on our food. An estimated 8 to 10 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are applied to U.S. crops each year (see a U.S. Geological Survey map showing where chlorpyrifos is used.)

“The warning signs have been obvious for decades, yet EPA has allowed generation after generation to suffer exposures and consequences,” said Carol Dansereau, Executive Director of the Farm Worker Pesticide Project, a Washington State farmworker organization that initiated the letter to EPA. “EPA is promising to better protect children and other vulnerable people, but that promise is meaningless as long as it keeps reregistering chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates, ” she said. FWPP and others are asking the public to contact EPA and join in demanding a ban, and precaution-based policies.

“Unfortunately chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates do not stay where sprayed. They evaporate and move with wind and fog. That’s how they contaminated our fields,” said Larry Jacobs of Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, an organic grower in California. “There are better ways to manage insect pests than depending on organophosphates like chlorpyrifos. We signed onto the letter to EPA to protect our health and to protect our farm.”

EPA is in the process of considering re-registration for chlorpyrifos, one of the most widely used pesticides in agriculture in the US and worldwide.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices. The chlorpyrifos story, in addition to untold damage it has caused families across the U.S., is testimony to the need to adopt alternatives assessments that force chemicals off the market that can be replaced by safer or green practices. Despite agency efforts to use failed risk assessment decision making to claim that the food supply is safe and the environment protected, an informed public is driving the growth of organic production in the marketplace, choosing health and environmental protection over risk assessment. It is a process that can be supported through purchasing decisions everyday in the grocery store and advocacy that effects a conversion of land and building management in parks, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, indoor and outdoor spaces to nontoxic and least-toxic methods. Whether it is agriculture, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, or community insect management, turn to Beyond Pesticides for the latest on science, policy, safe management practices, and activism.

For more information, contact:

Market research has shown that consumers often misunderstand the intentions of some green claims. Some labels make claims that are too broad and difficult to quantify. The revised guidelines advise producers not to make such broad claims on labels such as “environmentally friendly,” because according to an FTC consumer perception study, consumers often assume the product has far reaching environmental benefits. “What companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. The proposed guidelines are also intended to clarify claims such as: biodegradable, renewable materials, or renewable energy.

FTC is currently taking public comments until December 10, 2010. The “Green Guides” are 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. The “Green Guides” were revised in 1996 and again in 1998.

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.

With so many different claims about environmentally friendly products it’s easy for a consumer to feel confused and even intimidated. Fortunately, there are a few simple steps a consumer can take to learn more about these claims. It is important to read product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and find out the ingredients being used. The ingredients speak for themselves. If you are unsure about one or more ingredients, or do not understand the label, you may wish to research them either on the internet, at the local library or by contacting a group knowledgeable about that type of product, such as Beyond Pesticides.

When shopping for food, USDA Certified Organic labels are the best bet. The USDA Organic Label 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” from Pesticides and You.

Organic agriculture embodies 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.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. For more information on organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Program.

Researchers looked at the proteins of thousands of healthy and collapsing bee colonies using mass spectrometry-based proteomics (MSP) that revealed two previously unreported RNA viruses in honey bees in North America, one of which is the IIV. Researchers say this virus is similar to a virus that was first reported in India 20 years ago, as well as a virus found in moths. Interestingly, researchers point out that due to its potency IIVs have been considered for potential use as a biopesticide for controlling boll weevils, mosquitoes and other insect pests.

It’s important to point out that while this is an important step in solving the mystery of the bees, there may very well be more than just these two factors at play. Because our survival depends on healthy pollinators, we must take a precautionary approach and continue working towards finding a solution. We still don’t know what role the combination of pesticides play in the grand scheme of healthy pollinators, why CCD is so prevalent right now, or what factors are allowing IIV or N. ceranae to spread and kill the bees.

“We truly don’t know if these two pathogens cause CCD or whether the colonies with CCD are more likely to succumb to these two pathogens,” Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D. of the University of Montana said in a statement to the Associated Press.

In the past four years, scientists have connected many other suspects to colony collapse disorder. Researchers had previously suspected and then dismissed N. ceranae because it was found in both healthy and failing colonies. Earlier this year, a study conducted by Penn State University found that there is widespread pesticide contamination of beehives. This research did not find a direct correlation from pesticides to colony collapse, because like the N. ceranae fungus, these chemicals were also present in healthy hives. What it does imply is that bees and their hives are being exposed to high numbers of toxic chemicals and that the synergistic, aggregate, and cumulative effects from exposure need to be explored for their possible contribution to bee mortality, fitness and even potentially colony collapse. The fact that this new study discovered a combination of two things as a cause for CCD highlights the importance of studying the effects of these materials in combinations.

Pesticides, especially neonictinoids, have been previously implicated as a cause for CCD, and a previous study criticized risk assessments for downplaying their potential role. These pesticides are a class of chemicals that target nerve cells in a similar way as nicotine, acting as neurotoxins to insects. One of the most commonly used neonicotinoid is the insecticide imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer Crop Science and used in agriculture to control aphids, beetles, and other sucking insects. Imidacloprid has been linked to neural effects in honeybees, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior – similar behaviors that are being displayed by bees suffering from CCD. The use of imidacloprid was banned in France after it was suspected to be responsible for the decline of honeybee populations in the late 1990s.

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. Large declines of honeybee colonies were also experienced in select European countries, where average losses were 26%. For more information, read Beyond Pesticides previous news coverage on pollinators.

“Unlike some other applications of nanotechnology, which are further along in development, applications for pesticides are in their infancy,” said Dr. Stacey Harper, PhD, an assistant professor of nanotoxicology at Oregon State University. “There are risks and a lot of uncertainties, however, so we need to understand exactly what’s going on, what a particular nanoparticle might do, and work to eliminate use of any that do pose dangers.

Some of the potential benefits of nanotechnology that scientists discuss in the report are that it may provide better control and delivery of active ingredients, less environmental drift, formulations that will most effectively reach the desired pest, and perhaps better protection for agricultural workers. “If you could use less pesticide and still accomplish the same goal, that’s a concept worth pursuing,” said Dr. Harper.

However, she adds that researchers need to be equally realistic about the dangers. Like many other new technologies, all of the big promises that nanotechnology has made still remain to be seen and there are still big unanswered questions about their potentially harmful effects on our health and the environment. OSU labs have tested more than 200 nanomaterials, and while they report that very few posed concern, some were found to be highly toxic.

There is much reason to be cautious, especially since a recent study found that nanosilver can interrupt important cell signaling within male reproductive sperm cells, causing them to stop growing. Previous studies have shown that the particles, which are between one and 100 nanometers in size and smaller than many viruses, can enter the environment through wastewater, where they can accumulate in biosolids at wastewater treatment plants. These biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are often sold to consumers as fertilizer, despite the fact that they can contain toxic contaminants. Nanosized particles can also be released from impregnated materials via washing or or as a result of sweating, posing unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Some of the concerns that researchers highlight include the potential need for new methodologies from traditional chemical tests in order to fully understand the effects of nano sized particles. They also call for full disclosure from manufacturers on exactly what nanoparticles are involved in their products and what their characteristics are. They also say that special assessments are needed for sensitive populations, such as infants, the elderly or fetal exposure to nanoparticles.

Another issue is to ensure that compounds are tested in the same way humans would be exposed in the real world. Dr. David Stone, PhD, an assistant professor in the OSU Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology explains: “You can’t use oral ingestion of a pesticide by a laboratory rat and assume that will tell you what happens when a human inhales the same substance. Exposure of the respiratory tract to nanoparticles is one of our key concerns, and we have to test compounds that way.”

Researchers also say that future regulations need to acknowledge the additional level of uncertainty that will exist for nano-based pesticides with inadequate data and want tests to be done using the commercial form of the pesticides and a health surveillance program as well as other public educational programs should be developed. They conclude that there needs to be a “coordinated effort between governmental, industry, academic and public entities to effectively deal with a revolutionary class of novel pesticides.”

Back 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.

Earlier this year, Canada joined several other countries that have either banned or proposed a ban on nanotechnology in organic recognizing the potential risks that have yet to be addressed. These countries include the United Kingdom’s Soil Association, Biological Farmers of Australia, and Austrian organic certifier Austria Bio Garantie. 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 earlier this year and the US-based Organic Crop Improvement Association has added a clause in their organic standard to regulate the use of nanotechnology.

For more information on nanomaterials, see Beyond Pesticides’ nanosilver page or nanotechnology news alerts.

Commissioner Dalli presented to the Farm Council proposals on GMO cultivation, as well as a new “best practice document” for maize. “Commissioner Dalli is trying to snake his way through crucial GMO policies by attempting to satisfy all conflicting parties with his proposals to the Farm Council this morning. But his approach still fails to solve the main problems,” comments Christopher Stopes, President of the IFOAM EU Group. “Consumers refuse to eat GMOs which is their democratic right.”

The best practice document authored by the European Coexistence Bureau, developed in light of a July 2010 recommendation, reflects the possibility for EU member states to establish coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. Best practices as outlined in the document include isolation distances, buffer zones and the use of dedicated machinery or storage places. However, economic and social damage from the potential impacts of a new GMO on the GMO-free food and feed sector were not fully considered and explored.

“The European Coexistence Bureau did an extensive job with its maize best practice document, but we are disappointed by the fact that our concerns about the legal requirement to avoid all contamination in the harvest and about the real costs of machinery cleaning were not sufficiently considered,” adds Antje Kölling, Policy Coordinator IFOAM EU Group. “If the Commission speaks about coexistence, it must ensure the maintenance of GMO-free food and farming, not give way to commingling up to tolerance thresholds and increasing contamination.”

According to IFOAM, farmers want to meet the demand for GMO-free food, but they are facing increasing obstacles and costs to do so. Farmers need legal certainty, not only voluntary guidelines, to be able to stay in business. IFOAM calls on EU farm ministers to defend the right of farmers to produce GMO-free food and to push for this legal certainty.

“Organic farmers in Spain gave up growing maize because of the high contamination risks and the fact that contamination with GMO maize has already happened. Many farmers face enormous costs as they have to import GMO-free and organic maize from abroad to feed their animals according to the organic rules and market demand,” adds Victor Gonzálvez of Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE) Spain. “EU-wide compulsory measures to prevent contamination as well as full liability of those who place GMO on the market for costs that non-GMO growers and processors face are long overdue.”

Recently, a study by University of Notre Dame ecologist Jennifer Tank, PhD and colleagues found that streams throughout the Midwest are contaminated with GM materials from corn crop byproducts, even six months after harvest. GM crops are already known to contaminate conventional non-GM and organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment by increasing resistant insects and weeds, contaminating water and affecting pollinators and other non-target organisms. The long-term health effects of consuming GM food are still unknown. GM crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GM crops and unmodified varieties. Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GM planted barriers around sites planted with GM crops. However, a 2009 study shows that one out of every four farmers who plants GM corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement.

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

For more information on GM crops please see Beyond Pesticides page on Genetic Engineering.

Source: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)— EU Regional Group Press Release

The report, State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, is the sixth edition published by the Breast Cancer Fund. “With each new edition of the report, the growing scientific evidence compels us to act to prevent breast cancer,” said Jeanne Rizzo, RN, president of the Breast Cancer Fund. “This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, our message is clear: we must move beyond awareness to prevention.”

The report states that a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is 1 in 8””representing a dramatic increase since the 1930s, when the first reliable cancer incidence data were established. Between 1973 and 1998 alone, breast cancer incidence rates in the United States increased by more than 40 percent. Strikingly, the increasing incidence of breast cancer since the 1930s parallels the proliferation of synthetic chemicals. Today, approximately 85,000 synthetic chemicals are registered for use in the United States, more than 90 percent of which have never been tested for their effects on human health.

The report’s lead author, Janet Gray, PhD, professor at Vassar College, said that widely understood risk factors for breast cancer such as primary genetic mutations, reproductive history and lifestyle factors do not address a considerable portion of the risk for the disease. “A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that exposures to common chemicals and radiation also contribute to the unacceptably high incidence of breast cancer,” Dr. Gray said. “This report focuses on these environmental issues.”

The report dedicates several chapters to pesticides, focusing on various studies linking triazine herbicides (atrazine, simazine), organochlorines (aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, heptachlor) and the phenoxy herbicide 2,4-D, as well as the link between hormones used in meat production to breast cancer. The report reviews both epidemiologic and animal studies and routes of exposure, with an emphasis on exposure to farmworkers and other vulnerable populations. Toxic synthetic pesticides and hormones are prohibited in organic agriculture.

This report comes just months after the President’s Cancer Panel’s report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, finds that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. The report levels a hefty critique of failed regulation, undue industry influence, and inadequate research and funding. It also finds that the government has been locked in a cancer-fighting paradigm that has failed to look at the complexity of cancer causation and, in so doing, has missed the opportunity to create a national campaign for cancer prevention.

In addition to a comprehensive summary of the science and policy recommendations, the report also presents advice on what individuals can do to reduce their risk. Regarding pesticides, the report stops short of recommending an overhaul of federal pesticide law to be precautionary and focus more on alternatives assessment, but does recommend several improvements to our current regulatory system:

”¢ EPA should follow the EU’s lead and ban the use of atrazine in the United States.

Ӣ The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) should be revised so that pesticides cannot enter the market with a conditional registration. Inert ingredients along with active ingredients should be included in toxicity testing. Pesticide registration procedures need to be more stringent, and the EPA should establish and enforce rigorous testing requirements.

Ӣ Strengthened premarket health and safety testing and regulation of pesticides should be included in comprehensive chemical policy reform.

Ӣ The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) needs to be more vigilantly implemented and to move beyond policy that addresses one pesticide or agent at a time, to consider multiple concurrent pesticide exposures.

Ӣ More research is needed on the cumulative exposures of agricultural workers and their families to gain a greater understanding of the role of pesticides in the development of breast cancer and other diseases.

Ӣ Manufacturers should be provided with incentives to adopt safer pesticide practices and develop product alternatives.

“At a time when virtually every American has been touched by breast cancer,” said Ms. Rizzo, “we need individual, corporate and government commitment to eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer. Action now means fewer of our children and grandchildren will face the devastating diagnosis of breast cancer. We simply can’t afford not to act.”

Sen. Nelson recently brought up his concerns at a Senate hearing with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Nebraska Farm Bureau is asking the state’s congressional delegation to work with their colleagues to halt EPA’s “non-stop regulatory assault on the state’s farmers and ranchers and their counterparts nationwide.” In addressing Administrator Jackson, Sen. Nelson said he agreed with a number of Nebraska producers who have told him that agriculture’s perspective is not being considered in EPA’s decision making, saying that, “EPA is overreaching with proposed regulations for carbon emissions, atrazine, dust standards, applying clean water rules on pesticide use and greenhouse gas reporting for livestock operations.”

“Many in the agricultural community are rightly concerned about EPA’s actions because the agency’s rules typically are implemented in a top-down fashion with too little consideration for their impact,” Sen. Nelson said. “These rules often are costly and time-consuming for Nebraska farmers and ranchers. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture works more cooperatively when it implements new rules.”

In letters sent last week to Nebraska’s U.S. senators and representatives, Farm Bureau Board of Directors cited several of what they view as examples of the so-called regulatory assault on agriculture since 2009. Including:

– EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” gives it authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
– Proposed revisions to coarse particulate matter (dust) standards, which may trigger restrictions on everything from gravel roads to farm field activities.
– A re-evaluation of atrazine.
– Action to expand federal authority over individual states’ management of surface water quality.
– Expansion of Clean Water Act permit requirements that leave open the option of regulating common pesticide applications.

New actions at EPA have led to the current re-evaluation of atrazine. Despite industry insistence that the chemical is “safe,” atrazine contaminates surface and drinking waters, is a known endocrine disruptor and is linked to birth defects and cancer. It has also been banned in every other developed country. At the end of the review process, the agency will decide whether to revise its current risk assessment of the pesticide and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect public health. The decision to review atrazine follows recent scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate.

EPA, under court order, proposed new permit requirements for the discharge of pesticides into US waterways in keeping with the Clean Water Act, which the agency has a duty to uphold. However in response to this action, industry groups and members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, drafted a bill, S. 3735 aimed at stripping the Clean Water Act of its directive to protect U.S. waters from pesticide contamination. A letter, authored by Beyond Pesticides and supported by dozens and environmental and public health groups from across the country, urges Congress to support EPA in fulfilling its task, rather than undermining the laws that protect public health and the environment.

Powerful industry groups have stepped up efforts to lobby Congress to admonish and undermine EPA’s recent efforts to exert its authority and stewardship over environmental laws that serve to protect human health and the environment. According to Beyond Pesticides’ newly released Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, many pesticides currently regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are linked to numerous chronic health effects including cancer and reproductive/developmental disorders. While environmental and public health advocates argue that many EPA actions do not go far enough to protect vulnerable populations and wildlife species, many recent decisions are aimed to increase transparency in the regulatory process. Claiming “undue burden” industry groups are determined to derail EPA’s progress.

Take Action: Beyond Pesticides encourages its members to contact their Senators and let them know how they feel about S. 3735.View the legislation and contact your Senators.

Source: The Grand Island Independent Nebraska

“We found that corn crop byproducts were common in agricultural streams and that 86 percent of sites contained corn leaves, cobs, husks and/or stalks in the active stream channel,” Dr. Tank said. “In addition, using a sensitive laboratory test that specifically measures the amount of Cry1Ab protein from Bt corn, we detected Cry1Ab in corn collected from 13 percent of the stream sites. We also detected Cry1Ab dissolved in stream water samples at 23 percent of the sites, even six month after crop harvest.”

Dr. Tank points out that a majority of streams in the Midwestern corn belt are located in close proximity of corn fields. “Our GIS analyses found that 91 percent of the more than 200,000 kilometers of streams and rivers in Indiana, Iowa and Illinois are located within 500 meters of a corn field, suggesting that corn crop byproducts and any associated insecticidal proteins may enter streams across the corn belt states.”

Previous research has overlooked the potential for crop byproducts from transgenic corn to enter and be dispersed by headwater streams. “Our study demonstrates the persistence and dispersal of crop byproducts and associated transgenic material in streams throughout a corn belt landscape even long after crop harvest,” Dr. Tank concludes. The research emphasizes that there is a tight link between streams and adjacent agricultural fields and dispersal of crop byproducts could affect natural ecosystems beyond field boundaries.

GE crops are already known to contaminate conventional non-GE and organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment by increasing resistant insects and weeds, contaminating water and affecting pollinators and other non-target organisms. The long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown. GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GE planted barriers around sites planted with GE crops. However, a 2009 study shows that one out of every four farmers who plants GE corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement.

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

The research team, which presented its findings at a recent British Society meeting at the University of Leeds, compared the yields of pollinator-dependent crops such as pumpkins, squash and cucumbers with pollinator-independent crops, such as cereals. The data shows that while yields of pollinator-independent crops continue to increase, the crops that are dependent on pollinators have leveled off.

Though the researchers would have liked to specifically compare pollinator abundance over the years, this kind of data is not currently available in India. The use of domesticated bees for pollinating crops is not widespread in India and across South Asia, according to Dr. Basu. He attributes the “political noise” in the U.S. and Europe on the pollinator problem to this identifiable domesticated bee colony collapse; however, he says that the results of his team’s research shows that it is clear that India is indeed experiencing a decline as well, albeit in the wild bee population.

According to the BBC news, pollination is estimated to be worth $224 billion globally each year. First reported in 2006, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is unlike other ailments that have affected honey bees 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). CCD can be especially devastating since honey bees are essential pollinators of crops that constitute over one third of the U.S. food supply or $15 billion worth of food. It has been reported that losses of honey bee colonies across 21 states in the winter of 2007-8 averaged 35%, with a high degree of variability. Large declines of honey bee colonies were also experienced in select European countries, where average losses were 26%.

Dr. Basu says that the team is currently carrying out additional research comparing conventional agriculture to “ecological” agriculture. He defines ”˜ecological’ as a sort of hybrid of conventional and organic farming, focusing on a system that is integrated, humane and environmentally and economically sustainable. He says that ecological farming provides habitats for natural pollinators and is “the way forward.”

Research is ongoing as to the cause of the CCD phenomenon, but pesticides, especially neonictinoids, such as imidacloprid and thiacloprid, have been implicated. A recent study shows that due to a flaw in standard risk assessments, which consider toxic effects at fixed exposure times, the risks posed by imidacloprid and thiacloprid are likely to be underestimated. Another study found unprecedented levels of pesticide contamination in beehives, with 98 different kinds of pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 parts per million (ppm).

Beyond Pesticides believes that pesticides are likely to be a part of the CCD equation and a precautionary approach must be taken. Solutions to the loss of bees and human productivity are clearly within our reach if we engage our communities and governmental bodies. We know how to live in harmony with the ecosystem through the adoption of sustainable practices that simply do not allow toxic pesticide use. Because our survival depends on healthy pollinators, we must do everything in our power to solve this problem.

The plaintiff, David Walls, in his suit states there are no reliable studies that show Dial Complete lives up to these claims. His complaint states: “Through its extensive and comprehensive nationwide marketing campaign, defendant claims that Dial Complete ‘kills 99.99% of germs’, is the ‘#1 Doctor Recommended’ brand of antibacterial liquid hand wash and ‘kills more germs than any other liquid hand soap’, when in actuality, it does not, a fact which Dial knew and purposely misrepresented and failed to disclose to consumers. To this day, Dial has taken no meaningful steps to clear up consumer misconceptions regarding its product.” Citing a series of false and misleading information via television commercials, advertisements, and the packaging of the product, all of which is intended to mislead unsuspecting consumers about the efficacy of the product, Dial Corp conveyed and continues to convey, according to the suit, deceptive claims about Dial Complete. As a result, the suit claims consumers have paid more for Dial Complete than they otherwise would have.

Triclosan, an antibacterial pesticide found in hundreds of consumer products, from clothing and toys to hand soap and toothpaste, has not been proven to be any more effective at killing germs than regular soap and water. A systematic review of research assessing the risks and potential benefits associated with the use of soaps containing triclosan found that data do not support the effectiveness of triclosan for reducing infectious disease symptoms or bacterial counts on the hands when used at the concentrations commonly found in consumer antibacterial hand soaps. In fact, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs reported in 2000 that, “There is little evidence to support the use of antimicrobials in consumer products such as topical hand lotions and soaps.”

As a result of growing concern over the health and environmental effects of the widespread use of triclosan, Beyond Pesticides in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they ban all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes.

In a recent letter to Rep. Markey (D-Mass), regarding the status of triclosan’s regulation and efficacy, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated it is “not aware of any evidence that antibacterial washes were superior to plain soap and water for reducing transmission of or preventing infection for consumers.” The agency went on to further state 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. [Triclosan is jointly regulated by FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)]

The class action complaint was filed September 23, 2010 in the U.S. District Court of Southern Illinois on behalf of Mr. Walls and other similarly situated consumers in the State of Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (“Consumer Fraud Act”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et.seq., to halt the dissemination of this false and misleading advertising, correct the false and misleading perception has been created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased the Dial Complete.

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. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and is also shown to alter thyroid function. Due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. A recent study shows that triclosan from sewage sludge can be taken up by soybean plants and translocated into the beans themselves, then consumed by people and animals. 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.

The study, “Low Dose of Some Persistent Organic Pollutants Predicts Type 2 Diabetes: A Nested Case—Control Study,” examines participants who were diabetes free in 1987—1988. By 2005—2006, the 90 controls remained free of diabetes, whereas the 90 cases developed diabetes. Using serum collected in 1987—1988, the authors measured 8 organochlorine pesticides, 22 polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs), and 1 polybrominated biphenyl (PBB). They compare POP concentrations from Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) cohort and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2003—2004.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, to be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and to have potential significant impacts on human health and the environment. Many POPs are currently or were in the past used as pesticides. Others are used in industrial processes and in the production of a range of goods such as solvents, polyvinyl chloride, and pharmaceuticals. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

While the POPs pesticides implicated in this study are no longer used in the U.S., the study illustrates how the health impacts of pesticides are often subtle and delayed, and how pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health years after being pulled from the market. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, to capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

To address this issue, Beyond Pesticides has called for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from risk assessment in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where the database shows clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.