While these products do not purport to usie nano-sized silver materials, the claims that are made for these products are suspiciously similar to those made by manufacturers for other nano-based antimicrobial products. These claims include: inhibiting the growth of disease-causing bacteria; preventing bacterial and fungal growth; and the continuous release of antimicrobial agents.

Because of the lack of regulation, nanotechnology products are not always easy to recognize in the marketplace, and even the best lists do not include everything. Consumer products that include nano-based technologies, however continue to grow.

EPA has taken a few regulatory actions against other manufacturers whose products made similar claims as this case, including action against the manufacturer of a washing machine generating silver nanoparticles. In early 2008, the EPA imposed a landmark fine of over $200,000 on a California company selling computer keyboards and other parts coated with nanosilver without being registered.

In 2004, EPA prevailed in a case against the manufacturers of microban (triclosan) for making health-related claims that are not supported by its EPA pesticide registration. The company had claimed that its microban-treated plastic protected people, particularly children, from the transmission of bacterial disease. In that case, EPA iissued a fine, citing the language of FIFRA §12(a)(1)(B), which states, that each sale or distribution is a violation. The former EPA enforcement attorney in the case, James Handley, wrote in a piece in Pesticides and You, “The company’s liability was hardly in doubt: we even obtained copies of the registration documents that appeared to have been altered to omit crucial restrictive language; apparently these alterations were made in order to market microban’s alleged health benefits to companies such as those that make children’s toys.” (See “Reflections by Former EPA Enforcement Attorney James Handley on Triclosan and the EPA Review,” vol.24, no. 4, p11.)

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. However, despite over 200 products being sold on the consumer marketplace, EPA has done little to regulate or evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts these particles may cause.

According to AgION, the “cornerstone” of their technology is silver, which operates at the surface of a product through the controlled release of silver ions which attack microbes and inhibit their growth in three different ways. Under FIFRA, this meets the definition of a pesticide, and as such, it should and must be regulated by the EPA as a pesticide.

While AgION asserts that its silver is proven to be “safe” with “no toxic affects” on people, plants or animals, silver is known to be toxic to aquatic ecosystems. It is particularly harmful to aquatic organisms and microorganisms, such as fish and amphibians.

EPA, however, does not mention any plans to register this product as a pesticide “until it has been tested to show that it will not pose an unreasonable risk when used according to the directions.”

Recent scientific studies have shown that nano-silver is even more toxic and can cause damage in new ways. A 2008 study showed that washing nano-silver socks released substantial amounts of the nano-silver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. Another 2008 study found that releases of nano-silver destroy benign bacteria used in wastewater treatment.

The human health impacts of nano-silver are still largely unknown, but some studies and cases indicate that the nanomaterial has the potential to increase antibiotic resistance and potentially cause kidney and other internal problems.

After being contacted by EPA, The North Face stopped making claims that its footwear protects against germs, removed all claims from their website, and revised the packaging on their products. Whether the actual product materials have changed remains to be seen.

Beyond Pesticides does not believe that glyphosate should be eligible for registration on the grounds that: human exposures to glyphosate pose unacceptable risks; Roundup formulations are toxic, yet go unevaluated; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 10x (additional margin of safety) factor must be reinstated; Polyethoxylated Tallowamine (POEA) surfactant; glyphosate and Roundup threaten water quality and aquatic life; glyphosate and Roundup-ready crops lead to increasing resistance; and human incidents are too high.

As demonstrated in the comments submitted by Beyond Pesticides, herbicide resistance is on the rise. When genetically engineered food products, such as Roundup-ready crops, were commercially developed in the 1990’s, they were sold to the public as a technology that, among other things, would reduce pesticide use. In reality, it has done just the opposite. There are many concerns about genetically engineered food, as is demonstrated in our Daily News Article, Physicians Call for Immediate Moratorium on Genetically Engineered Foods. Roundup-ready crops, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup have been a boon to Monsanto’s profits, but not without environmental costs. The use of Roundup-ready crops increases the use of glyphosate products and in turn increases the onset of resistant species. In general, in regions of the U.S. where Roundup-ready crops dominate, there are now evolved glyphosate-resistant populations of economically-damaging weed species. For more dangers on genetically engineered foods, see our factsheet.

Glyphosate is found in two Monsanto products, available over the counter: Roundup and Rodeo. These are two of the most widely used and well-known herbicides on the market. Glyphosates are being used in such abundance because genetically engineered (GE) crops are modified to be resistant to this chemical, thus necessitating more glyphosate use.

Some of the most widespread uses of glyphosate that have been attracting public attention include its use in invasive weed management and home gardening. The increase of glyphosate use in these areas is directly tied to the larger problem of poor land management, including over grazing, over development, soil compaction and other stressors. Glyphosate has replaced ecologically sound and sustainable cultural practices such as green-mulching and preventive maintenance such as aeration and dethatching.

Glyphosate poses unacceptable risks to humans. Due to such widespread use of the weed killer glyphosate and the prevalent myth that it is harmless, it has been linked to acute human health effects such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Another recent study found that Roundup kills human embryonic cells.

Glyphosate is also harmful to the environment, particularly aquatic life and water quality; glyphosate has been linked to intersex frogs. Roundup is lethal to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment.

Roundup formulations include glyphosate and “inert” ingredients. Despite their name, these ingredients are neither chemically, biologically or toxicologically inert. In general, inert ingredients are minimally tested, however, many are known to state, federal and international agencies to be hazardous to human health. All pesticide formulations are actually toxic soups, a mixture of the active ingredient (the registered pesticide) with a variety of other chemicals such as solvents, surfactants (like POEA), and emulsifiers — the inerts. Federal law classifies inerts as trade secrets and pesticide manufactures are not required to list inert ingredients on the pesticide label. Inerts, which can make up to as much as 99% of a pesticide formulation, are often highly toxic chemicals that can be more hazardous than the active ingredient.

This increase is linked primarily to chemical-intensive corn and soybean production, which can suffer from fungal diseases such as Asian Soybean Rust (soy) and gray leaf spot (corn). Many are sprayed preemptively; rumors abound that the disease might spread to the Upper Midwest leaves farmers fearing that the fungal diseases will drastically cut their yields. In Iowa the number of licensed crop dusters has increased from about 40 in the 1990’s to about 200 today. In Illinois, the number of pilots has doubled in the past three years to 330, and Wisconsin went from 55 pilots in 2006 to 78 this year.

While the “new chemicals” are not identified in the AP report, Darin Eastburn, a plant pathologist with the University of Illinois, purports that pilots are spraying less chemicals now than they were a few years ago. Products used for disease control have changed, meaning they often now require “ounces per acre instead of pounds per acre,” Eastburn said. According to the article, these new products are typically applied in the form of liquids rather than dry chemicals, yet nothing is said on their toxicity.

Advocates for crop dusting say that as the planes have become more expensive and sophisticated pilots are less likely to be reckless about spraying. Global positioning systems, for instance, have helped to increase efficiency, according to Mark Hanna, an extension agricultural engineer with Iowa State University. These new technologies, along with larger plane designs with more powerful engines, have caused prices to climb from about $30,000 a plane in 1979 to more than $750,000 today.

All this is troubling news for the organic community, however as pesticide drift, the movement of pesticide particles or droplets during or after a pesticide application, is particularly common with crop dusting. In “Reducing Pesticide Drift,” from Crop Watch News Service, the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension 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.

Pilots might be spending more money on equipment and have access to better GPS technology, but the chemicals are still being applied in the same way: from the air and dusted over the crops. Chemical drift is inevitable, and there is always room for human error.

There are plenty of cost effective alternative methods for combating the fungal diseases farmers in the Midwest are worried about without the need for spraying harmful pesticides and chemicals. For instance, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service recommends managing gray leaf spot in corn by a combination of hybrid selection, crop rotation, and a tillage system.

According to ATTRA, the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Asian Soybean Rust can be controlled using a variety of organic methods. Because this disease is wind-borne and descends in clouds of spores, traditional crop rotation of corn and soybeans does not help mitigate the effects of this disease. However, compost teas, microbial inoculants, and foliar biostimulants have particularly disease suppressive characteristics.

Compost teas and microbial inoculants contain a diversity of microorganisms which help regulate soil fertility, boost crop health, and compete with plant pathogenic organisms for food resources in both the root and leaf zone. Foliar fertilization, with a blend of organic fertilizers, minerals, and biostimulants is also known to boost crop health. Foliar sprays are commonly employed in organic farming.

There is also a growing trend in to monitor plant tissue sap for pH levels, which can be used to indicate crop nutritional status, by using specialized hand-held pocket meters. One chart suggests that pH of plant sap can indicate plant susceptibility to insect and disease attack. A higher pH, alkaline, is said to increase probability of insect attack, while lower pH, acidic, is said to increase probability of disease attack.

Furthermore, according to a report by the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth International, from 80% to over 90% of the soybean, and corn planted in the U.S. are GE varieties, the main crops indicated in this latest surge of crop dusting activities. Despite more than a decade of its claims to the contrary, the biotechnology industry has not introduced a single GE crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields. Additionally, the biotechnology industry’s own figures show that 85% of all GE crop acreage worldwide in 2008 was planted with herbicide-tolerant crops, no doubt making crop dusting an appealing choice for farmers who use these varieties.

There are a variety of reasons to avoid genetically engineered crops: links to infertility, persistence in the environment, increased pesticide use, insect resistance, and risk to aquatic organisms. The organic label ensures that consumers can avoid all GE products, in addition to reducing toxic pesticide use and increasing environmental and public health. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE program page.

“These are the common, I guess you could say ‘classic,’ brown wood poles you see holding up wires on practically every street,” says ERF attorney Bill Verick. Pentachlorophenol (penta) is a chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon, closely related to other chlorophenols, hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans, all of which are found in commercial grade penta, along with secret “inert” ingredients.

It was 1978 when EPA began its review of wood preservatives, including penta, because of serious concerns about the public health and environmental threat that these chemicals represent. At that time, the agency put the chemicals into a special review process, then called Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR). Only chemicals that trigger serious health and environmental concerns are placed into this faster track review. However, instead of moving expeditiously to begin removing uses of the heavy-duty wood lpreservaitves, including penta, from the market, the agency delayed. A review timeline set by EPA at four years in 1978 was extended to over eight years ending in 1986. Over that period, EPA reversed itself and softened its approach under tremendous pressure and legal challenges from the chemical and wood preserving industry. The original proposals for chemical restriction became progressively weaker over the years. When EPA completed its review and negotiations with the wood preserving and chemical industry in 1986, it did not specifically regulate wood poles, but did regulate the use of wood preservatives. Moreover, as a part of this review, EPA did not evaluate the cradle to grave considerations. Over the history of its regulatory review, EPA has stated its concern about the ubiquity of pentachlorophenol, its persistence in the environment, its fetotoxic and teratogenic properties, its presence in human tissues, and its oncogenic risks from the presence of dioxins in the technical material.

ERF states that dioxin drips off the poles when it rains and is washed into San Francisco Bay. The group says it measured high levels of dioxin in rainwater that dripped off PG&E’s poles, and that this dioxin could be traced all the way to Alhambra Creek in Contra Costa County. lhambra Creek drains into the Carquinez Straight, part of San Francisco Bay.

EPA studies show that dioxin stays in the environment for decades and that it bio-concentrates as it moves up the food chain. “That means that it concentrates in anything whose food comes from the Bay, fish, birds, sea lions or people,” says Mr. Verick. “The higher on the food chain you eat, the more dioxin you eat,” he adds.

According to a California State Water Board study, what leaks out of the poles contains dioxin at levels 150,000 times what the EPA set as an acceptable level for dioxin in residential soil.

“During the summer this dioxin-laden soil gets blown into the air as dust; people get it on their shoes and track it home, where it comes off on the carpets their kids play on,” says Mr. Verick. Parents should be particularly careful not to allow their children to touch or play with utility poles, Mr. Verick added.

ERF’s complaint alleges that, “Each pole leaves a plume of highly toxic carcinogens and teratogens in the soil on property that belongs to many homeowners, as well as many businesses and governmental entities, in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco Counties, thus bringing thousands of citizens of these counties into close, daily, contact with
PG&E’s toxic waste.”

Alternatives to penta-treated poles include poles made from cement, fiberglass, or recycled metals, and laying utility lines under ground. Currently, the long term costs of purchasing, installing and maintaining fiberglass and concrete poles makes them competitive to treated wood utility poles.

Beyond Pesticides has focused on penta and the other two heavy-duty wood preservatives, inorganic arsenicals (such as chromated copper arsenate, or CCA) and creosote, since the early 1980s. The heavy-duty wood preservatives rank with the most deadly chemicals on the market. EPA has classified all of the chemicals, as well as their contaminants, as known or probable carcinogens. In April 2008, EPA released for public comment its revised risk assessments for the three heavy-duty toxic chemical wood preservatives. Read Beyond Pesticides comments.

Beyond Pesticides has published two reports addressing the risks of exposure to these chemicals. Our first report, Poison Poles, published in 1997 examines the toxic trail left by the manufacture, use, storage and disposal of the heavy-duty wood preservatives from cradle to grave. Pole Pollution, published in 1999, focuses on EPA’s draft preliminary science chapter on penta and provides the results of our survey of over 3,000 utilities across the United States and Canada. Both EPA’s science chapter and our survey provide shocking numbers. For example, EPA has calculated that children face a 220 times increase in the risk of cancer from exposure to soil contaminated with penta leaching out of the utility poles. Those utility poles are ubiquitous across our country. Beyond Pesticides also found that over 68 percent of utilities are in the habit of given away discarded utility poles that continue to leach toxic chemicals into the environment to the public.

See also background on Beyond Pesticides’ 2002 lawsuit against EPA, seeking to ban arsenic and dioxin-laden wood preservatives and filed in collaboration with a national labor union, environmental groups and a victim family.The case cites the hazards to utility workers exposed to treated poles, children playing near treated structures, and the environment, and cites the availability of alternatives.

USGS researchers examined 16 different species of fish across the U.S. between 1995 and 2004. The condition of intersex fish, male fish producing eggs, is most commonly found in smallmouth and largemouth bass. One third of male smallmouth bass and one fifth of the male largemouth bass are intersex.

Scientists tested sites in the Apalachicola, Colorado, Columbia, Mobile, Mississippi, Pee Dee, Rio Grande, Savannah, and Yukon River basins. Research shows intersex fish in approximately one-third of all examined sites. The only site where researchers found no intersex fish is the Yukon River basin.

While the study did not look for the causes for intersex fish, scientists believe endocrine disruptors, chemicals that interfere with the body’s hormonal systems, are certainly to blame.

“We know that endocrine-active compounds have been associated with intersex in fish, but we lack information on which fish species are most sensitive to such compounds, the way that these compounds interact to cause intersex, and the importance of environmental factors,” said Jo Ellen Hinck, the lead author of the paper and a biologist at the USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center. “Proper diagnosis of this condition in wild fish is essential because if the primary causes are compounds that disrupt the endocrine system, then the widespread occurrence of intersex in fish would be a critical environmental concern.”

While the government knows something is going wrong, it has yet to take any action to stop the contamination of water with endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environmentalists believe that given the severity of the situation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with USGS, should take a precautionary approach and begin phasing out suspected endocrine disruptors that contaminate the U.S. water supply while research continues. EPA announced in April 2009 that it is finally moving forward with the process, which experts call flawed, for screening endocrine disrupting chemicals, nearly 11 years after its deadline mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Beyond Pesticides believes the time for action is now.

Most scientists have suspected endocrine disruptors and synthetic estrogens, such as pesticides and birth control pills, from the beginning. Endocrine disruptors are a diverse group of several thousands of chemicals that are used in everything from pesticides and flame retardants to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Endocrine disruptors may be mistaken for hormones by the body and thus their presence may alter the function of hormones, either blocking their normal action or interfering with how they are made in the body. Since hormones regulate things like growth and body development, there is great potential for damage. In particular, some endocrine disruptors are mistaken for the female hormone estrogen. These estrogen mimics interfere with the reproductive system, causing infertility, malformed sexual organs, and cancer of sensitive organs.

When intersex fish were first discovered in the Potomac River, the USGS identified: atrazine, a common herbicide used in agriculture and on lawns that is already linked to sexual abnormalities in frogs; insecticides chlorpyrifos and endosulfan; the herbicide metolachlor; and two chemicals used to add fragrance to perfumes, soaps and other products, tonalide and galaxolide.

Disturbingly, there are many commonly used pesticides that are known or suspected endocrine disruptors, such as atrazine, 2,4-D, lindane, and permethrin. A recent study found that the commonly used lawn pesticide formulation Round-up, with the active ingredient glyphosate, causes damaging endocrine effects in fetuses. EPA does not currently evaluate or consider the endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides during registration or reregistration.

The environmental effects of these chemicals has been well-established: pseudo-hermaphrodite polar bears with penis-like stumps, panthers with atrophied testicles, hermaphroditic deformities in frogs, and male trout with eggs growing in their testes have all been documented as the probable result of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment. Many scientists believe that wildlife provides early warnings of effects produced by endocrine disruptors, which may as yet be unobserved in humans.

Many U.S. residents carry toxic pesticides in their bodies above government assessed “acceptable” levels. Biomonitoring, which measures levels of chemicals directly in people’s blood or urine, has become increasingly helpful for assessing people’s exposure to toxic substances as well as for responding to serious environmental public health problems. The PANNA report “Chemical Trespass: Pesticides in Our Bodies and Corporate Accountability” in 2004, which compiled data from previous CDC biomonitoring surveys found that children, women and Mexican Americans carried the heaviest “pesticide body burden.” Another biomonitoring study by the World Wildlife Fund UK in 2003, revealed that chemicals, such as DDT, which have been banned for decades and are associated with cancer, immune system disorders, and other health problems, are still found in people today.

“Biomonitoring measurements are considered the most health-relevant assessments of exposure because they measure the amount of the chemical that actually gets into people,” said Howard Frumkin, M.D., Ph.D., Director of CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Biomonitoring data improves health officials’ ability to make timely and appropriate health decisions by reducing the uncertainty in assessing levels of human exposure to environmental chemicals.”

The funding that CDC is providing for the states of Washington, New York and California will be used to increase the capability and capacity of state public health laboratories to assess human exposure to environmental chemicals within their states. States will be able to conduct statewide biomonitoring assessments in order to focus on communities or groups where chemical exposure is a concern. Specifically, states can conduct targeted exposure investigations in communities; assess over time the effectiveness of state public health actions to reduce exposures to specific chemicals of concern; and enhance existing biomonitoring projects.

The study, “Occupation and Risk of Parkinsonism: A Multicenter Case-Control Study,” set out to investigate occupations, specific job tasks, or exposures and risk of parkinsonism in collaboration with eight movement disorders centers in North America including, the Parkinson’s Institute, CA, Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine and Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York. The investigation focused on five occupations previously suggested as posing an increased risk of Parkinsonism: agriculture, education, healthcare, welding, and mining. This examination of toxicant exposures included solvents and pesticides putatively associated with Parkinsonism. 519 people with Parkinson’s disease and 511 similar people who did not have Parkinson’s were studied.

Overall, the study finds that those whose jobs involve using pesticides are 80 percent more likely to develop the condition. The data reveals that any exposure to the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) almost triples the risk of Parkinsonism compared with individuals who report no exposure to the agent. The herbicide paraquat and the insecticide permethrin are also associated with a more than three-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease.

“Occupational pesticide exposure emerges as the most consistent etiologic association with Parkinsonism,” Caroline M. Tanner, MD, PhD, of the Parkinson’s Institute in Sunnyvale, CA. Those who worked in agriculture, education, health care, or welding but who had not been exposed to pesticides through their work were not likely to develop the disease. The researchers note that while they did not look at pesticide exposures such as hobby gardening or residential exposure, “because these exposures may affect many more subjects, future attention is warranted.”

Previous studies have linked pesticide exposure to the onset of Parkinson’s disease (PD), including several published this year alone. A similar study conducted by French researchers found that farmworkers who used insecticides had over a two-fold increase in the risk of PD. Another recent publication found that rural residents who drank contaminated well water had an increased (up to 90 percent) risk of developing PD. Exposure to the pesticides, paraquat and maneb, within 500 meters of an individual’s home, increased the risk of developing Parkinson’s by 75 percent, according to a University of California, Berkeley study. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) found suggestive but limited evidence that exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam War is associated with an increased chance of developing ischemic heart disease and Parkinson’s disease in Vietnam veterans.

Parkinson’s Disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease affecting more than one million people in the U.S. Parkinson’s disease occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region of the brain are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nerve-signaling molecule that helps control muscle movement. All three pesticides in this study; 2,4-D, paraquat and permethrin, have effects on dopaminergic neurons. All three pesticides are currently registered for use in the U.S. 2,4-D is a herbicide most commonly found in many popular lawn care products, while permethrin is an insecticide (synthetic pyrethroid) found in many mosquito products and residential bug sprays. Both chemicals are already linked to cancer, endocrine disruption and other reproductive and developmental effects. Paraquat is a restricted-use pesticide (RUP) used primarily in agriculture.

For more on Parkinson’s disease, please read “Pesticides Trigger Parkinson’s Disease,” a review of published toxicological and epidemiological studies that link exposure to pesticides, as well as gene-pesticide interactions, to Parkinson’s disease and published in Pesticides and You (spring 2008).

The announcement comes in response to a series of lawsuits brought by Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, aimed at removing toxic pesticides from salmon spawning streams throughout the northwest.

In response to the litigation, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in November of 2008 released a “biological opinion” that set forth a plan for protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead from three toxic organophosphate pesticides. That decision came after almost a decade of legal wrangling between salmon advocates led by Earthjustice and the federal government. The biological opinion prescribed measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The announcement from EPA moves this work forward.

Although the experts at NMFS recommended prohibiting aerial applications of the three pesticides within 1,000 feet of salmon waters and ground applications within 500 feet of salmon waters, EPA has taken a different course. EPA believes it can achieve the same protections for salmon with buffers ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet depending on pesticide application rate and stream size. In its announcement today, EPA says it will require industry to fund and carry out monitoring of salmon streams in order to assure the pesticide restrictions work as intended.

“EPA’s decision is a major step toward protecting our salmon stocks and revitalizing the fishing industry, which can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in the region,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental law firm that represented the salmon advocates. “But we’re concerned that EPA’s alternative won’t be enough to keep these poisons out of salmon waters, and we urge the wildlife experts at NMFS to closely review EPA’s plan.”

The three pesticides at issue in the biological opinion are known to contaminate rivers and streams throughout California and the Pacific Northwest and poison salmon and steelhead (see background below).

“Our goal is to rebuild the healthy salmon stocks native to the Pacific Northwest,” said Osborne-Klein, of Earthjustice. “Getting agricultural poisons out of salmon spawning streams is one of many needed actions to see the salmon stocks rebuilt.”

In addition to jeopardizing salmon, these pesticides pose serious risks to public health — especially the health of young children. A number of recent studies have linked prenatal exposure to organophosphate insecticides with behavioral problems including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A 2006 study published in Pediatrics compared the risks of chlorpyrifos to prenatal cocaine exposure.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

In 2002, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, obtained a federal court order declaring that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. As a result of that lawsuit, EPA began consultations, but NMFS never issued biological opinions or identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. In 2007, the salmon advocates filed a second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with NMFS that establishes a schedule for issuing the required biological opinions.

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that accepted uses of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 27 species of endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead. NMFS found that current uses were likely reducing the number of salmon returning to spawn. These three pesticides are all organophosphates (a class of neurotoxic chemicals). They are used in both agricultural and/or urban insect control. Recent research has found that in combination the effect of organophosphate mixtures is greater than the effect of each of the chemicals’ effects when added together. These chemicals are often found together.

Chlorpyrifos
Ӣ Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where chlorpyrifos was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin.
”¢ Is “very highly toxic” to fish according to U.S. EPA’s toxicity classification system.
Ӣ Impairs fish reproduction by reducing egg production in fish.
Ӣ Inhibits juvenile coho salmon feeding behavior and swimming speed.
Ӣ Harms the survival and reproduction of salmon food sources.

Diazinon
Ӣ Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where diazinon was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, the Central Columbia Basin and Puget Sound. It was also detected in King County, Washington streams.
Ӣ Impairs feeding, predator avoidance, spawning, homing and migration capabilities by impeding salmon sense of smell.
Ӣ Leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout.
Ӣ Is acutely toxic to salmon food sources.

Malathion
Ӣ Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where malathion was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin. It was also detected in King County, Washington streams.
Ӣ Leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout.

PAST DAILY NEWS COVERAGE

President Obama signed the executive order on May 12, 2009. The seven draft reports are now available to the public. The Federal Leadership Committee will use these draft reports to create a strategy defining the actions needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. On November 9, 2009, the strategy will be released for public comment. The public comment period will last 60 days, and a final strategy will be completed by May 12, 2010.

Although the final strategy will not be released until May 2010, agencies will be taking action in several areas before the strategy is finalized. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, “We will not just be reviewing reports for the next eight months.” She promises to “take advantage of rules that she implied had been underenforced.” This suggests that change will start sooner, rather than later.

To meet water quality goals for the Bay, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution must be reduced by 44 percent and 27 percent respectively. Nitrogen excess is one cause of eutrophication, when water bodies receive a surplus of nutrients that cause excessive plant growth — algal bloom. When the dead plant material decomposes, it reduces the dissolved oxygen in the water, leading to the death of other organisms. This is a major problem for the Chesapeake Bay because the Bay supports over 3,600 species of plants, fish, and other animals. The Chesapeake Bay Program Executive Council confirmed at a 2007 meeting that the Bay Program would not meet its commitment to clean up the Bay by 2010 as per the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The most recent analysis of the water quality shows that the Chesapeake Bay is only reaching 21 percent of the goals set under the Agreement.

According to documents released with the announcement, “The report also relays EPA’s intention to hold the states in the watershed more accountable for controlling pollution, through increased oversight, enforcement activities and new policies. Urban and suburban runoff pollution is the fastest growing source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, while agricultural runoff is the largest.”

Many fertilizer products on the market contain a mixture of pesticides,nitrogen and phosphorus, such as “weed and feed” products. While the drafts propose to deal with pollution, they are not at this point addressing the problems associated with pesticide runoff in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This is not an issue addressed in this executive order, but it is a major issue for the health and safety of the Chesapeake Bay. One way that these pesticides get into the water is from runoff from lawns and other landscapes. In the absence of state action, it should be noted that 40 states preempt the authority of their towns, cities and counties to restrict pesticides, such as those polluting the Chesapeake Bay.

However, Dane County, Wisconsin has banned “weed and feed” as a fertilizer, circumventing state preemption law on pesticides. The decision by local officials was upheld in court after a challenge by the pro-pesticide trade group, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE).

As the White Paper produced by the Maryland Pesticide Network and the Pesticides and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Project explains, “in a study of Chesapeake waters in 2004, researchers detected atrazine in 100% of water samples taken at sixty different stations spread across five different Bay tributaries.” This White Paper also cites common sources for pesticides in water, including runoff water, spray drift, and sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants, to name a few.

The Stanford Hospital & Clinics (SHC) Farm Fresh program was developed in collaboration with Jesse Cool, a nationally recognized Northern California chef, restaurateur and food writer who has been an advocate and leader in healthy eating for over 30 years. The ingredients for Stanford Hospital’s Farm Fresh meals will primarily come from growers and producers within a 200-mile radius of Stanford Medical Center, based on seasonal availability. Among the items featured will be vegetables from local farms, olive oil from Napa Valley, strawberries from Watsonville, organic dairy from Petaluma, pasture raised range chickens and grass-fed range beef from Marin and Sonoma, and whole grain bread from a San Francisco bakery.

“Stanford Hospital is known for providing our patients with the latest medical advances and treatments in an environment that promotes healing,” said CEO Martha Marsh. “This exciting new approach to the food we serve our patients is not just an amenity. It is part of our commitment to help patients heal as quickly as possible and to feel comfortable and cared for while they are here.”

To create the new menu, Stanford Hospital’s executive chef Beni Velazquez worked with Ms. Cool, who is nationally recognized for her early and dedicated advocacy of organic food, grown locally with sustainable farming techniques. Mr. Velazquez, who joined SHC in December 2008, is a certified chef instructor with Culinary Institute of America, a former chef at the Ritz Carlton, and previously owned restaurants in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Mr. Velazquez is delighted with this step for the hospital. “I would never have thought of doing hospital food,” he said, “but Stanford has a vision and this is a very cutting edge program.”

Stanford’s Chair of the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery Robert Robbins, M.D., was an early enthusiast for development of the new menu, inspired by meals at one of Cool’s local restaurants. “Once people are in the hospital, especially when they have major surgeries, their digestive systems do not work quite as well,” he said. “This kind of food is perfect.”

Ms. Cool’s creative approach to developing a new menu option at Stanford Hospital reflects a basic principle””simple is best. Soup is the centerpiece of the new menu, with seven seasonal options and chicken noodle with vegetables offered each week. For patients who need extra protein, the vegetable soups can be bolstered with the addition of tofu, poached chicken or meatballs made from grass-fed beef. All the menu choices will be low in fat, salt and sugar.

To start, the Stanford Hospital has made the new soup recipes available online. Patients can take the recipes home by tearing off a section of the menus they receive while in the hospital, underscoring the message that whole foods, prepared at home, are an important contributor to well being. New tray liners feature scenes with images of Stanford’s farm heritage. All of the serving implements and printed materials have been produced with sustainability in mind. The tray liner, the bowls, cups and utensils are all made from materials that are reusable, compostable or recyclable.

“The health benefits of the new menu options are obvious,” Ms. Marsh said. “Delicious comfort food such as a beautiful basil corn soup can also lift your spirits and that is another way to promote healing. Not only are we feeding people well when they are in our care, we are encouraging them to go home and think of cooking differently. That’s an important message in this program.”

“If Stanford Hospital can play a leadership role in this area and be an advocate for organic, local and sustainable foods for patients, we’re proud to take that responsibility,” Ms. Marsh said.

According to Health Care Without Harm’s Healthy Foods Project, more than 200 health care facilities have taken a similar path to Standford’s, by adopting a Healthy Foods Pledge.

A recent study however, found that a cinnamon oil solution was just as effective at killing several common bacteria as many other antiseptics commonly used in hospitals. The team of surgeons conducting the research tested several common essential oils, and found that each has demonstrated promising efficacy against several bacteria, including multi-resistant strains.

Another study by researchers in France in 2008 tested bactericidal activity of 13 different essential oils and had similar results, with cinnamon being the most effective. At concentrations as low as 10 percent or less, cinnamon oil was also effective against several antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, such as Staphylococcus and E. coli.

One pediatrician in New Jersey, Dr. Lawrence D. Rosen, who advocates natural health solutions on his blog, wholechildcenter.org, recommends a homemade hand sanitizer called thieves oil.

“I add cinnamon bark, lemon oil and eucalyptus,” he said. “The recipe goes back to the Middle Ages, where it was used by these thieves who would go around stealing jewelry from dead bodies, and they never got sick.”

In light of other recent news about essential oils for agricultural use, we may be seeing many more products that contain essential oils on the market. While this may be good news for the consumer, it is important to proceed with caution. Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of non-toxic and least toxic pesticide alternatives. Essential oils are classified as a least-toxic method for pest management; however, just because it is derived from a plant does not mean that it is safe for humans and other mammals or that it cannot kill a wide variety of other life. Some botanical pesticides can be quite toxic to humans and should not be used. It’s crucial to read all labels and follow directions on a product before using, to make sure it does not also contain any toxic pesticides, synergists or non-disclosed inert ingredients.

Also, if you are chemically sensitive or have allergies, you will need to carefully evaluate the product to decide whether it makes sense for you to use. Cinnamon oil may cause reactions in some people.

For more information on chemical antibacterials and alternatives, please see our Antimimicrobials and Antibacterials Page.

An investigation last month by the Reno Gazette-Journal documented that an abandoned pesticide container dump was ordered closed, sealed with clay and local water wells were to be monitored for contamination in 1993. Documents show that state and federal officials directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to take action but the work was never done and the toxic dump was forgotten for 16 years.

Federal and state documents reported that the site poses “no significant hazard to human health or environment … (However) the shallow groundwater table conditions, high to moderate permeability of soils, and the extremely fractured bedrock in the study area make the groundwater vulnerable to contamination. It is suggested that the existing and any future disposal pits on the site be lined with impervious layers to prevent leaching into the groundwater system.” The documents also recommend the need for well water monitoring and monitor wells for five years. Although some liquid pesticide residue was removed from the site in 1992, the dump was never properly sealed and closed. The site was fenced off and signs posted.

Allen Biaggi, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and former administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, wrote on a state website that the site posed “no risk or threat whatsoever.” He said the NDEP was too busy with more important matters to make sure the site was properly cleaned and closed. Mr. Biaggi’s comments angered Antelope Valley residents who noted that environmental reports from the 1980s document the potential that poisons from the site could leach into well water supplies. They want to know why the matter has been forgotten for 16 years and why the requirements for site safety were such a low state priority.

“It’s outrageous,” said Liz Wear, who lived about a mile from the dump for six years and now suffers from lupus, an immune system disease. “For 16 years, (NDEP) couldn’t pick up a phone and find out if the pesticide dump was closed properly? They were too busy?” she said.

Since the investigation, BLM submitted a budget request for cleanup funds and made plans to test soil and possibly water wells for contamination. The abandoned dump site came to light in June after couple went looking for an environmental cause for what they perceived as a disease cluster in Antelope Valley. They documented two cases of rare brain cancers, two rare forms of stomach cancer, a fatal case of a soft-tissue cancer and a case of pancreatic cancer among valley residents over the last 10 years.

Source: Reno Gazette Journal

Photo: Photo by David B. Parker/RGJ
Rusting barrels are visible at the Antelope Valley Toxic Waste Site on Tuesday, June 16, 2009.