Strong scientific evidence suggests that pervasive use of triclosan poses imminent threats to human health and the environment, which is why Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch submitted an amended petition a month ago to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to ban the use of the controversial pesticide triclosan for non-medical applications. The petition establishes that FDA’s allowance of triclosan in the retail market violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.

The CMA resolution echoes concerns raised not only by Beyond Pesticides, but also by the American Medical Association (AMA) that date as far back as 2000, citing the lack of studies pertaining to the health and environmental effects of its widespread use. Because no data exists to support the need for such products or dispute scientific concerns about their contribution to bacterial resistance, the AMA decided that it would be “prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.”

“It’s about time that the problems with triclosan were addressed,” says Linda Duncan, a member of the Canadian Parliament for the New Democratic Party and long time environmentalist. “We must ensure that the medical community has all the tools it needs to control the spread of bacteria, and avoid abusing antibacterials to the detriment of health and the environment.”

Regulated by both the FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), triclosan is an antibacterial used in hundreds of common consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics, deodorants, toys, and even clothing. Such widespread use in everyday consumer products can contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria, lessening their effectiveness, and they can affect the environment in runoff and wastewater.

A U.S Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and at some of the highest concentrations, because it is so frequently used in households and washed down the drains. Triclosan has been found to be highly toxic to different types of algae, keystone organisms for complex aquatic ecosystems. A recent U.S. EPA survey of sewage sludge found that triclosan and its cousin triclocarban were detected in sewage sludge at the highest concentrations out of 72 tested pharmaceuticals.

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

Handwashing with soap and water is essential. An FDA panel concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than washing hands with soap and water. The Center for Disease Control recommends that children wash their hands several times a day for 20 seconds or the time it takes to sing “Happy Birthday” twice.

“Really all you need is soap and water and the alcohol rubs that are available,” says Dr. Khatter. “There isn’t any benefit to going to these other products – there’s only potential harm.”

For more information, including the hazards of triclosan and tips on how to get it out of your school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Triclosan program page.

“The data shows that EPA is unable to adequately regulate atrazine and protect the public from this hazardous herbicide in our drinking water,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “With studies showing hormonal and other adverse effects at extremely low levels, any level of atrazine in our drinking water is dangerous and spikes above EPA’s 3 ppb threshold are completely unacceptable. EPA must put public health first and ban this toxic chemical.”

Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, municipal water supplies are tested for chemicals about four times a year. Because this is done so infrequently, EPA mandates that companies manufacturing a chemical””in this case, Syngenta for atrazine””must monitor drinking water in a sample pool of towns as much as once a week. A New York Times investigation finds, however, that too often reports of these spikes of atrazine in the drinking water go unreported to residents or fail to reflect the higher concentrations.

The town of Piqua, Ohio was found to have concentrations of atrazine at 59.57 parts per billion in April of 2005 by Syngenta, with similar levels in 2004 and 2007. In a report sent to citizens in 2005, though, the highest level was said to be 11.6 parts per billion. Residents were also not told when or for how long these peaks occurred. Syngenta claims that they provided city officials in Piqua with results, yet city officials are unaware of this.

EPA asserts that it does not believe these one-time spikes are of concern to human health; however, plenty of evidence exists suggesting otherwise.

“Our biggest concern is early-life-stage development,” says Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at NRDC. “”¦These endocrine disruptors act in the body at extremely low levels. These spikes matter.”

Earlier this year, a study published in the medical journal Acta Paeditrica found that the highest rates of birth defects for U.S. babies occur when conception occurs in the spring and summer months, when the highest concentrations of pesticides are found in surface waters. The correlation between the month of the last menstrual period and higher rates of birth defects is statistically significant for half of the 22 categories of birth defects reported in the Centers for Disease Control database from 1996 to 2002, including spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot and Down’s syndrome.The study relies on findings by the U.S. Geological Survey, the EPA and other agencies on the seasonal variations in nitrates, atrazine and other pesticides in the surface water.

Even at levels considered “safe” by EPA drinking water standards, atrazine is linked to endocrine-disrupting effects. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion, turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

Atrazine has also been implicated in a study as a possible cause for male infertility, blocking the action of the male sex-hormone testosterone and could impact the development of male reproductive organs in humans.

In yet another study last year by Dr. Rick Relyea, Ph.D., an associate professor of biological sciences in the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Arts and Sciences, a mixture of small amounts of ten of the most commonly used pesticides, including atrazine killed 99 percent of the leopard frog tadpoles that he was testing.

While EPA is aware of these new studies, the agency will not review the research until sometime next year, and in the meantime has not warned pregnant women about the risks of atrazine or to use a simple carbon water filter.

“The public believes that the EPA has carefully reviewed all the chemicals that are used and has the authority it needs to deal with risks, but that’s often not the case,” says Erik D. Olson, director of food and consumer product safety at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

While atrazine is one of the most common agricultural pesticides in the U.S., runoff from lawns and gardens is a serious concern. Dr. David Skelley, Ph.D. a professor of ecology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, discovered last year that intersex frogs are more common in suburban areas than agricultural areas. His research focused on specific chemicals, such as atrazine which is increasingly used to manicure home lawns and gardens.

Pesticides, such as atrazine, even at low levels, have been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, with an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine applied in the U.S. annually. Atrazine has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant.

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

TAKE ACTION! Contact EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and tell her that any level of atrazine in our drinking water is unacceptable. If a pesticide cannot be used in a way that prevents the contamination of drinking water by that chemical, its use must be banned.

If your child’s quote is chosen, he/she will win: 1) A $500 U.S. Savings Bond for your child’s future education; 2) A $500 donation in your child’s name to an environmental group of your child’s choosing (we hope you’ll pick Beyond Pesticides!); and, 3) Winning quotes will appear on the back of Earthbound Farm’s salad labels and website. Earthbound Farm will select a new winner every month through the end of 2009. Submit a quotation.

A five year old winner from Scituate, MA, Schuyler, who chose to designate Beyond Pesticides, wrote, “…just like being 5, we only get to do it once! Take care of our Earth by going organic.”

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.

Learn more about why organic is better for consumers, kids and farmworkers, as well as the environment.

Other courses around the country are striving for ways to reduce the environmental impact of golf course management, some adopting integrated pest management (IPM) techniques that reduce pesticide use. The question, of course, is whether the continued use of poisons in sensitive ecosystems with techniques that are not adhering to organic turf management practices are adequate in protecting human health and the environment.

Golf courses can have fast greens and outstanding playing conditions without the massive load of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and the crew at Bethpage State Park’s world-renowned golf courses, the largest public golf complex in the country, is out to prove it. For their involvement in nearly a decade of groundbreaking research to develop, test, and fine-tune techniques that steeply cut chemical inputs, Dave Catalano, Andy Wilson, Craig Currier and Kathie Wegman have earned an Excellence in IPM award from the New York State Integrated Pest Management (NYS IPM) Program at Cornell University.

Golf courses are often faulted for heavy pesticide use. According to Cornell, the Bethpage project has cut environmental impact up to 96 percent over conventional practices — and this in a climate where weather conditions and heavy foot traffic from 250,000 golfers each year ensure constant disease pressure. Home of the 2009 US Open, Bethpage State Park comprises five separate golf courses on its 1,500 acres in the heart of densely populated Long Island, just 25 miles east of the New York City line.

“We can’t emphasize enough how important long-term, real-world research is,” says Jennifer Grant, assistant director of NYS IPM, who coordinates turf IPM research. “You don’t get truly useful results until you’ve tested your work over time, keeping what works and incorporating promising new practices and products.”

When Mr. Wilson is out on the green with his stimpmeter or moisture probe and a golfer asks what he’s up to, the conversation could easily cut to the new tactics and products the crews are testing to deliver quality conditions with lower inputs. Wilson supervises Bethpage’s aptly named Green Course, where core IPM practices are developed.

That stimpmeter, for example, measures how fast the ball rolls, something golfers care a lot about. It tells Wilson more–tells him whether IPM greens provide the same level of play.

But when Wilson talks to other golf-course superintendents, he cuts to the essential ingredient in high-level IPM — careful recordkeeping. “It keeps your mind sharp, helping you think through alternate solutions to typical problems instead of falling back on the tried and true,” Wilson says.

Just as essential is scouting — monitoring greens and fairways for insect, weed, and plant disease pests.

“Scouting can be as low-tech as flushing insects from the turf with a lemon soap solution, or as high tech as looking at root pieces through a microscope to precisely identify a disease,” says Ms. Wegman, Bethpage’s IPM specialist. “We find out where the hot spots are and treat them, which lessens or even eliminates the need to spray.”

But can steeply cutting pesticide use really produce satisfactory play? “Surveys consistently show high golfer satisfaction with IPM-managed greens at Bethpage,” says Frank Rossi, professor and turf specialist at Cornell University. “This has been a monumental project, both in scope and impact.”

IPM relies on non- and least-toxic ways of preventing and managing pest problems that minimizes the use of pesticides and the hazards to human health and the environment associated with pesticide applications. Such methods include site and pest inspections, pest population monitoring, an evaluation of the need for pest control, cultural, mechanical and biological control strategies, and, if non-toxic options are unreasonable and have been exhausted, the least-toxic pesticide.

In what it called the most important article it has ever published, Golf Digest in its May 2008 issue publishes an article, How Green is Golf?, which asked the hard questions about the environmental impact of golf in a series of in-depth interviews, including a builder, golf course superintendent, regulator and environmentalist. The article spans a range of opinions on water usage, pesticide contamination, and management practices, with general agreement that golfer expectations and management practices must move and are moving in an environmental direction, citing important ways in which attitudes and understanding must change.

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

In the study, Lorence Oki, from the Department of Environmental Horticulture at the University of California Davis, Darren Haver, with University of California Cooperative Extension, and their colleagues explain that runoff results from rainfall and watering of lawns and gardens, which winds up in municipal storm drains. The runoff washes fertilizers, pesticides and other contaminants into storm drains, and they eventually appear in rivers, lakes and other bodies of water.

“Results from our sampling and monitoring study revealed high detection frequencies of pollutants such as pesticides and pathogen indicators at all sites,” Mr. Oki said of their study of eight residential areas in Sacramento and Orange Counties in California.

Preliminary results of the study suggest that current models may underestimate the amount of pollution contributed by homes by up to 50 percent. That’s because past estimates focused on rain-based runoff during the wet season. “Use of pesticides, however, increases noticeably during the dry season due to gardening, and our data contains greater resolution than previous studies,” said Mr. Oki.

Organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides were found in all water samples taken over a two year period on a weekly, bi-weekly and monthly basis for the study, according to Scientific American. The majority of the pesticides detected in the runoff were for ant control, which is supported by data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation that has shown that the majority of pesticides purchased by homeowners are used to control ants.

Last month, the report “Pesticides and the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Watershed” was released, warning that pesticide pollution from households and farm fields is contributing to the Chesapeake Bay’s decline, and may well be linked to declines in frogs across the region and intersex fish seen in the Potomac River.

Another study reported by Beyond Pesticides last month found that insecticides used in highly populated agricultural areas of California’s Central Valley affect amphibians that breed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. This study adds to the increasing evidence that pesticides impact areas and wildlife species that are miles from sources of pesticide application.

Over the past decade, Dr. Isman and colleagues tested many plant essential oils and found that they have a broad range of insecticidal activity against agricultural pests. Some spiced-based commercial products now being used by farmers have already shown success in protecting organic strawberry, spinach, and tomato crops against destructive aphids and mites, the researcher says.

“These products expand the limited arsenal of organic growers to combat pests,” explains Isman. “They’re still only a small piece of the insecticide market, but they’re growing and gaining momentum.”

These natural pesticides have several advantages. First of all, Dr. Isman says that insects are less likely to evolve resistance to these oils like they can other once-effective toxins. They’re also safer for farm workers, who are at high risk for pesticide exposure. Essential oils also do not require extensive regulatory approval and are already widely available as inexpensive ingredients for food flavorings and in perfume.

Certain plant essential oils have different qualities. In his research, Dr. Isman found that mints, thyme, rosemary, clove, citrus, have a wide range of insecticidal activity that can be utilized for integrated pest management in organic food production. Rosemary and thyme are useful for preventing against plant pathogenic fungi such as powdery mildew, while others, like clove, and citrus are toxic to other plants at certain concentrations and can be used as herbicides.

According to his research, the oils may interfere with the insect nervous system of pests, making the muscles spasm. In some cases, essential oils can disrupt an insect’s cell membranes, causing the insect’s fluids to leak, thus killing it. His research also suggests that the plant oils are most effective against small, soft-bodied bugs that suck on plant juices, such as aphids, whiteflies, and spider mites. These bugs also have large surface areas relative to their internal volume, so more of the bug is likely to come into contact with the oil, he added.

“Small, soft-bodied insects are more vulnerable to having their membranes melted or smothered by the oils,” Isman said.

Since essential oils tend to evaporate quickly and degrade rapidly in sunlight, the spice-based pesticides needs to be applied to crops more frequently than conventional pesticides. Some last only a few hours, compared to days or even months for conventional pesticides. And, because these natural pesticides are much less toxic than conventional pesticides, they will likely be applied in higher concentrations. Due to these reasons, researchers are now seeking ways of making the natural pesticides longer-lasting and more potent.

“…At the end of the day, it comes down to what’s good for the environment and what’s good for human health,” explains Dr. Isman.

Beyond its use in agriculture, research is also being done to examine the effectiveness of essential oils for use in the home as a more eco-friendly and safer approach to combating pests such as mosquitoes, flies, and roaches. Conventional bug sprays that use DEET can cause numerous health problems. These chemicals can also have a harsh odor, while these natural pesticides tend to have a pleasant, spicy aroma since many contain the same oils that are used in aromatherapy products, including cinnamon and peppermint, Isman notes.

Spice-based products are also being developed to repel ticks and fleas on dogs and cats without harming the animals. And, researchers are currently exploring the use of other spice-based products to destroy microbes, such as E. coil and Salmonella, on fruits and vegetables.

Other scientists are currently exploring the insect-fighting potential of lavender, basil, bergamot, patchouli oil, and at least a dozen other oils from exotic plant sources in China. Funding for this study was provided by EcoSMART ®, a botanical pesticide company based in Alpharetta, Ga.

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, because products that are designed to kill living organisms should be treated with caution.

The concern with essential oils is its volatility and ability to vaporize into the air. It is important to remember that there is still a potential to cause harm to human and environmental health and to read labels on all products before using to make sure it does not also include any toxic pesticides, synergists or non-disclosed inert ingredients. Also, if you are chemically sensitive, you will need to carefully evaluate the product to decide whether it makes sense for you to use.

For more information on alternative ways to manage pests, please see our Alternatives Fact Sheet.

Source: The American Chemical Society

Study: Plant Essential Oils as Green Pesticides for Pest and Disease Management, Agricultural Applications in Green Chemistry, Editor(s): William M. Nelson1, Volume 887, Publication Date (Print): July 07, 2004, Copyright © 2004, American Chemical Society

The factsheet, What’s the right answer to the germ question?, by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, pulls together information from various scientific studies documenting the adverse impacts of triclosan on health and the environment, as well as antibiotic and antibacterial resistance. It also provides alternatives, cites Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations for hand washing and disease prevention, and lists triclosan-free brands and retailers.

Triclosan is associated with skin irritation or eczema, has been shown to interfere with the body’s hormones, and has been linked to an increased risk of developing respiratory illness, or asthma, and cancer, as well as subtle effects on learning ability. Because the chemical goes down the drain, it also wreaks havoc with the environment, converting to highly toxic dioxins and contaminating waterways and wildlife. Furthermore, by killing some, but not all bacteria, widespread triclosan use has led to resistant strains and cross resistance with antibiotics. See Beyond Pesticides’ Triclosan program page for study citations.

Handwashing with soap and water is essential. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than washing hands with soap and water. The CDC recommends that children wash their hands several times a day for 20 seconds or the time it takes to sing “Happy Birthday” twice.

“Considering the health risks associated with triclosan use and increased bacterial resistance, consumers may actually be doing more harm than good,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Parents should follow CDC recommendations and protect their children by washing hands with warm soap and water.”

Ikea, The Body Shop and Whole Foods Markets sell only triclosan-free products. Other triclosan-free brands and products include: CleanWell, LUSH, Nature’s Gate, Vermont Country, Naked Soap Works, MiEssence, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Ivory, Paul’s Organic, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Tom’s of Maine, The Natural Dentist, Listerine Essential Care, Peelu, Weleda and Toxic Free Basics.

The letter, dated May 15, 2009 and posted on EPA’s website last week, addresses pesticide products that are sold and distributed and labeled “Professional” and “Professional Grade” among others, in product names and advertising. EPA finds that such statements are “inappropriate.”

According to the letter, “Section 12 (a) (1) (E) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states that it is unlawful to distribute or sell ”˜any pesticide which is”¦.misbranded.’ A pesticide is misbranded if ”˜its labeling bears any statement, design or graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular.’ FIFRA § 2(q)(1)(A) [emphasis added]. The following describes why EPA finds use of “Professional Grade” in these products’ labeling and marketing to be a false and misleading claim and therefore unacceptable.”

The letter continues, “”¦’Professional Grade’ implies a falsehood that pesticides are classified by grade, which they are not. This is a false and misleading comparison to other pesticides under 40 CFR § 156.10(a)(5)(ii). “Professional Grade” implies or could well imply that the products are more efficacious than competitors’ products. This is likely a false and misleading statement about the comparative effectiveness of the product under 40 CFR §156 (a)(5)(iv).”

The use of ”˜Professional’ is misleading, according to EPA, since not only does it not explain which professionals are being referenced, but the products labelled in this manner are not restricted use products (those only available to licensed pest control operators), and are legally available to average consumers. EPA also goes on to state these claims, which were not accepted at the time of the products’ registration, are in violation of 40 CFR § 152.132(d), and thus, both the distributor and the basic registrant are liable for the violations.

However, while EPA is aware of these misleading label claims and violations, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which oversees pesticide registration, has yet to take any definitive action on such misbranding. The letter states that OPP is “considering whether to refer this and similar matters to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for potential enforcement action.” In the past, EPA has maintained that pesticide labels should, on the whole, be free from any symbol or claim that might mislead consumers or give a false sense of a product’s safety. Crackdowns concerning the sale and distribution of unregistered, mislabeled pesticides have occurred in the past, with EPA maintaining that this is a serious violation that can result in harm to public health and the environment. However, EPA enforcement against non-compliance is generally very limited.

Last fall, EPA withdrew its draft notice on label statements regarding cause marketing and third-party endorsements. In this particular case, the Clorox Company submitted an application to EPA to add cause marketing language and the Red Cross symbol to some of its labels, specifically to display a philanthropic partnership between it and the American Red Cross. After a two-year process of EPA proposals and public comment periods, and a large public outcry by states, environmental and activists groups, including Beyond Pesticides denouncing this action, the agency determined that such label statements do nothing to promote “consumer understanding” of the risks and applications of pesticide products, and will not be encouraging further submissions.

The team exposed nine species of frog and toad tadpoles to endosulfan levels “expected and found in nature” for the EPA’s required four-day period, then moved the tadpoles to clean water for an additional four days, Jones reported. Although endosulfan was ultimately toxic to all species, three species of tadpole showed no significant sensitivity to the chemical until after they were transferred to fresh water. Within four days of being moved, up to 97 percent of leopard frog tadpoles perished along with up to 50 percent of spring peeper and American toad tadpoles.

Of most concern, explained Dr. Relyea, is that tadpoles and other amphibians are famously sensitive to pollutants and considered an environmental indicator species. The EPA does not require testing on amphibians to determine pesticide safety, but Dr. Relyea previously found that endosulfan is 1,000-times more lethal to amphibians than other pesticides. Yet, he said, if the powerful insecticide cannot kill one the world’s most susceptible species in four days, then the four-day test period may not adequately gauge the long-term effects on larger, less-sensitive species.

“When a pesticide’s toxic effect takes more than four days to appear, it raises serious concerns about making regulatory decisions based on standard four-day tests for any organism,” Dr. Relyea said. “For most pesticides, we assume that animals will die during the period of exposure, but we do not expect substantial death after the exposure has ended. Even if EPA regulations required testing on amphibians, our research demonstrates that the standard four-day toxicity test would have dramatically underestimated the lethal impact of endosulfan on even this notably sensitive species.”

Andrew Blaustein, a professor in Oregon State University’s nationally ranked Department of Zoology, who is familiar with the Pitt study, said the results raise concerns about standards for other chemicals and the delayed dangers that might be overlooked. Some of the frog eggs the Pitt team used had been collected by Blaustein’s students for an earlier unrelated experiment, but he had no direct role in the current research.

“The results are somewhat alarming because standards for assessing the impacts of contaminants are usually based on short-term studies that may be insufficient in revealing the true impact,” Blaustein said. “The implications of this study go beyond a single pesticide and its effect on amphibians. Many other animals and humans may indeed be affected similarly.”

Tadpoles in the Pitt project spent four days in 0.5 liters of water containing endosulfan concentrations of 2, 6, 7, 35, 60, and 296 parts-per-billion (ppb), levels consistent with those found in nature. The team cites estimates from Australia-where endosulfan is widely used-that the pesticide can reach 700 ppb when sprayed as close as 10 meters from the ponds amphibians typically call home and 4 ppb when sprayed within 200 meters. The EPA estimates that surface drinking water can have chronic endosulfan levels of 0.5 to 1.5 ppb and acute concentrations of 4.5 to 23.9 ppb.

Leopard frogs, spring peepers, and American toads fared well during the experiment’s first four days, but once they were in clean water, the death rate spiked for animals previously exposed to 35 and 60 ppb. Although the other six species did not experience the lag effect, the initial doses of endosulfan were still devastating at very low concentrations. Grey and Pacific tree frogs, Western toads, and Cascades frogs began dying in large numbers from doses as low as 7 ppb, while the same amount killed all green frog and bullfrog tadpoles.

A second paper by Dr. Relyea and Devin Jones, a recent Pitt biological sciences graduate, also in the current Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry expands on one of Dr. Relyea’s most notable investigations, a series of findings published in Ecological Applications in 2005 indicating that the popular weed-killer Roundup ®(active ingredient glyphosate is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. The latest work determined the toxicity of Roundup Original Max for a wider group of larval amphibians, including nine frog and toad species and four salamander species.

In November 2008, Dr. Relyea reported in Oecologia that the world’s 10 most popular pesticides-which have been detected in nature-combine to create “cocktails of contaminants” that can destroy amphibian populations, even if the concentration of each individual chemical is within levels considered safe to humans and animals. The mixture killed 99 percent of leopard frog tadpoles and endosulfan alone killed 84 percent.

A month earlier, Dr. Relyea published a paper in Ecological Applications reporting that gradual amounts of malathion, one of the most popular insecticides in the U.S., too small to directly kill developing leopard frog tadpoles instead sparked a biological chain reaction that deprived them of their primary food source. As a result, nearly half the tadpoles in the experiment did not reach maturity and would have died in nature.

Last month, Beyond Pesticides reported on a new study that found that insecticides, such as endosulfan, used in highly populated agricultural areas of California’s Central Valley affect amphibians that breed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog for additional news stories on pesticides’ impact on frogs.

The NOP is USDA’s regulatory body that develops, implements, and administers the USDA organic seal and national standards for organic agricultural products sold in the U.S. It accredits domestic and foreign certifying agents who inspect organic production and handling operations producing organic food sold in the U.S. as compliant with USDA organic standards.

NIST’s National Voluntary Conformity Assessment Systems Evaluation (NVCASE) program reviews accreditation programs such as the NOP to assess their ongoing conformity with international standards for management of accreditation program through onsite audit, evaluation of office system, and oversight of record keeping, enforcement, and corrective actions.

“Third-party recognition is important for many of USDA’s audit-based programs,” Ms. Merrigan said in her letter to the National Organic Coalition. “We understand the value of this step as we continue working to strengthen the integrity of the NOP and to build the organic community’s trust in the program.” She anticipates that the NIST review will begin October 1, 2009.

“We applaud USDA’s willingness to submit its organic program to the rigors of these international norms and believe this will pave the way for continued growth and success of the U.S. organic industry,” said Robynn Shrader, a National Organic Coalition founding member and CEO of the National Cooperative Grocers Association.

In June, the National Organic Coalition met with Ms. Merrigan to discuss the need for greater consistency in the implementation of NOP rules. The coalition proposed that the NOP apply to NIST at the U.S. Department of Commerce for recognition of its accreditation function and to make a commitment to strictly comply with NIST requirements.

“USDA’s organic seal is the best guarantee for people who want to eat healthy foods grown without the use of toxic pesticides, GMOs or artificial growth hormones such as rBGH,” said Liana Hoodes, National Organic Coalition policy coordinator. “We anticipate that the potential changes NOP will make to earn NIST recognition will result in greater consistency and integrity in USDA organic standards, greater fairness to organic farmers and handlers, and greater consumer confidence in the USDA organic label.”

In order for the NOP to be recognized by the NIST NVCASE program, National Organic Coalition anticipates NOP will be required to make significant modifications to its accreditation procedures.

“We think the USDA and the entire Obama Administration have sent a clear message that maintaining and improving the integrity of the organic industry is a national priority, and that the USDA will continue to build a trusting alliance with the broader organic community as the NOP grows and matures,” Ms. Hoodes added.

The National Organic Coalition is a non-governmental alliance of organizations working to provide a “Washington voice” for farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, consumers and progressive industry members involved in organic agriculture. Beyond Pesticides is a member of the National Organic Coalition and believes the integrity of the organic label is central to a national program.

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.

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.

Photo: www.denaliaccommodations.com

Current methods of weed management utilized by the railroad are mechanized rail-based brushcutters, off-rail hydroaxing, wayside manual cutting. The extents to which these methods are used are unknown, however, and the railroad states that these are effective””but only within limited ranges. Beyond Pesticides has an entire factsheet on least toxic control of weeds which also includes the use of biological controls, or least-toxic sprays such as acetic acid or herbicidal soap, and are not mentioned anywhere in the Alaska Railroad’s proposal. In addition to the aforementioned tools, one thing that advocates suggest the railroad consider, which is gaining attention nationwide as an effective control of, is the use of goats along its railroad ties.

Furthermore, the Alaska Railroad plans to implement the glyphosate spraying prior to the completion of a two-year study on herbicides in the Alaska environment, done in conjunction with the Alaska University Transportation Center. While the railroad purports that this chemical will be safe and nontoxic to the surrounding environment, including waterways and the soil, studies have shown that it is moderately persistent in soil, with an average half-life of 47 days, though field half lives have been found up to 174 days. Residues are difficult to detect in environmental samples and due to lack of availability and economically feasible methodology, most labs are unable to perform these services. EPA acknowledges that glyphosate has the potential to contaminate surface water because it does not readily break down in water or sunlight. Evidence of this has been found in water samples taken by the U.S. Geological survey Toxic Substances Program in a survey of Midwest streams in 2002 that showed glyphosate contamination from Spring through Fall, when many researchers presumed it would have degraded so late in the growing season. Current reports of glyphosate contamination in bodies of water, such as the Chesapeake Bay, strengthen this data.

Glyphosate is also a known carcinogen, neurotoxin, irritant, and can cause liver, kidney and reproductive damage. In recent news, glyphosate has been identified as a common chemical found in acute agricultural worker poisonings, and linked to intersex frogs. For more information on the harmful effects of glyphosate, please refer back to our page on the pesticide gateway.

TAKE ACTION (NATIONAL): For more information on herbicide right-of-way policies and tools on how to organize for the adoption of such policies at the state or local level, please contact Beyond Pesticides by email [email protected] or call 202-543-5450.

TAKE ACTION (LOCAL): Show your disapproval of toxic herbicide use by writing to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to tell them the dangers of glyphosate and the benefits of alternatives that the Alaska Railroad has not yet considered. Written comments are accepted until Sept. 15. They should be mailed to Stephanie Stewart, ADEC Pesticide Program, 555 Cordova St., Anchorage 99501, or e-mailed to [email protected].