American golf courses hold themselves to a high standard, when it comes to maintaining the thick perfectly manicured and weed free turf on greens and fairways. To attain this standard golf course managers rely on a toxic assortment of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and other chemicals. These practices have been linked to numerous diseases in humans including cancer, as well as damage to local wildlife. Jeff Carlson, the superintendent of the Vineyard golf club recalls one of his earlier jobs where he used mercury based fungicides, soon his wife’s hair started to fall out from mercury poisoning. Environmentalists and human health advocates have mounted strong opposition to the creation of new golf courses. In recent years however golf course managers have begun to work with environmental experts to maintain their greens in ways that are less damaging to the environment and human health.

Many courses around the country are adapting IPM practices to reduce their reliance on pesticides. The Vineyard Golf Club was proposed it had to overcome strong opposition from residents concerned with heavy pesticide use in their area. The Martha’s Vineyard Commission approved the project on the condition that no products are used with a synthetic active ingredient. As a recent piece in The New York Times points out, many were initially skeptical that a golf course could meet the standards of well to do golfers without the help of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Eight years later the Vineyard Golf Club with its $350,000 initiation fee and annual dues of $12,000, is not only a recreation spot for Martha’s Vineyard’s wealthy summer residents, it is also a laboratory for demonstrating safe and effective ways to control weeds and pests organically. The Vineyard Golf Club relies on such practices as planting more disease resistant grass, using boiling water for weed control, and using microscopic worms to kill turf destroying grubs.

Despite being good enough for our commander and chief, many conventional golf course managers argue synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are a necessary to maintain healthy looking grass, and an organic approach is not viable. Others disagree. Arguing that instead of relying on large amounts of synthetic chemicals to make turf appear healthy, managers should instead work to create turf that actually is healthy. Healthy soils and turf are less hospitable to weeds and diseases. In addition as pesticide use declines biodiversity increases, this can naturally reduce the populations of various pests. Beyond Pesticides serves on a steering committee that seeks to develop a collaborative strategy with the golf course industry in an effort to effect change. This group developed the Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the U.S. Increasingly, players and golf course managers are asking the right questions and looking for answers that result in meaningful reductions in pesticide use.

These techniques are not just reserved for exclusive golf clubs with huge budgets. Parks and school playing fields across the country have converted to organic techniques, even on cash-strapped publically funded budgets. A 2010 report by the environmental health group Grassroots Environmental Education concludes that the annual cost of maintaining a field using organic products and techniques can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of conventional programs using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

While not acknowledged in the Times, Howard Garret, the host of a local organic gardening show in Texas also runs several organic golf course maintenance programs in the Dallas area. According to The Dallas Observer the organic practices Mr. Garret employs are not only safer for the environment, but they have also managed to save golf courses money, mostly by reducing water requirements.

The methods used to maintain an organic golf course are similar to those used to maintain any organic lawn or turf. Maintaining organic turf starts with healthy soil. This may require aerating compacted soil. Earthworms and other organisms will aerate soil naturally, but they are usually absent from soils treated with large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Soil should be tested for pH and nutrient content. Watering and drainage should be carefully monitored. Too much or too little water will encourage weed growth. The variety of grass should be carefully selected, to ensure it can thrive in the given climate.

The decision was reached after EPA completed a revised risk assessment indicating that the pesticide does not meet the agency’s food safety standards. EPA scrutinized recent food consumption data from USDA to complete the risk assessment, which considered the percent of the crop treated, processing/cooking data, and estimated drinking water concentrations. The risk assessment found that the aggregate dietary exposure reflecting the existing uses exceeds the level of concern for children and infants, with exposures at 800% for infants, 440% for children ages 1-2 and 360% for children ages 3-5 of the acute population assessment dose (PAD), assuming a half life of 2 hours. Potatoes, citrus fruits and water were found to be the greatest contributors to the aldicarb exposure. Food only (and not drinking water) passed the acute PAD when all citrus foods and potatoes were removed. However, the aggregate exposure (from all other food and drinking water estimates) for infants and children still exceeds the level of concern at 800% for infants, 330% for children ages 1-2 and 290% for children ages 3-5.

Since uses for citrus and potatoes pose the most significant risks, Bayer has agreed to cancel the registrations for these uses immediately, meaning no new products labeled for potatoes and citrus fruits can be distributed; however, existing supplies may be used until the end of 2011. Though Bayer has agreed to end production of aldicarb by December 31, 2014, the pesticide will continue to be distributed until the end of 2016, and will still be registered for use on cotton, beans, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes until August 31, 2018. In this time, Bayer has also agreed to limited uses on cotton, peanuts and soybeans, in order to reduce its runoff in water wells in parts of the southeastern U.S., where drinking water exposure is considered the highest.

Aldicarb is the active ingredient in Bayer’s Temik 15G, and is used on a variety of agricultural crops. This systemic N-methyl carbamate insecticide is used to control mites, nematodes, and aphids, but has no residential uses. Aldicarb targets the nervous system, and effects infants and children more severely than adults. Symptoms from exposure include sweating, nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and even death due to paralysis of the respiratory system. Aldicarb is listed as a potential endocrine disruptor on the European Commission list of endocrine disruptors. It has also been linked to neurotoxic and reproductive effects, asthma, and learning behavior problems.

Aldicarb was first registered in 1970, but was placed under Special Review in 1984. EPA is authorized to use the Pesticide Special Review process, an expedited process because of elevated risks, when a pesticide is suspected to have unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment. EPA identified potential human health risks from drinking water exposure and environmental risks to birds, mammals, and fish in 2007. However, despite these adverse effects, EPA decided to approve aldicarb for reregistration provided that risk mitigation measures and label amendments were adopted to protect against unreasonable risk.

Aldicarb won’t be completely banned from use until 2018, which is a long period of time for such a hazardous pesticide proven to leach into drinking water supplies and endanger human and environmental health. It is believed that EPA chose to negotiate with Bayer CropScience instead of outright banning the use of aldicarb outright because the agency likely thought that it would spur a lengthy legal battle. However, due to the toxic nature of the chemical, Beyond Pesticides believes that EPA in cases like this should use its “imminent hazard” authority to take immediate action, if Bayer chose to fight it in court, which would bring unfavorable publicity to Bayer and an industry that struggles with its public health and environmental image.

While getting toxic pesticides off the market is a good thing, this classic Dursban ad shows why lengthy EPA phase-outs are problematic...

This kind of negotiation between a chemical manufacturer and EPA echos EPA’s 2000 negotiated settlement with Dow AgroSciences, which allows the highest volume of use of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos to continue (groups recently filed a lawsuit in federal court to force EPA to decide whether or not it will cancel all remaining uses and tolerances for chlorpyrifos). This represents a classic failure of the risk assessment process (including the so-called cumulative risk assessment which accounts for all chemicals with the same mechanism of toxicity) under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) —a failure that is repeated over and over again in agency chemical regulation decisions.

The agency is arguing the same thing now as it did then: that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in one setting without taking into account risks to other populations’ exposure, as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that make the chemical unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. The risk assessment process does not force a consideration of those who suffer disproportionate risk or groups of people (such as those with neurological dieases in this case who are disproportinately affected), or the often overlooked seasonal variations in food consumptions.

In September, EPA plans to publish a Federal Register notice announcing the voluntary cancellation of aldicarb use on citrus and potato. The notice will be open to public comment for 30 days, after which the EPA plans to grant the requested cancellations. The memorandum of agreement and the agency’s updated dietary risk assessment and supporting materials will be available in the aldicarb reregistration docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163, and in the aldicarb Special Review docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0197, at regulations.gov.

To capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies, the national environmental and public health group Beyond Pesticides launched in the summer issue of its newsletter, Pesticides and You, the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to track the studies. “A read through the scientific literature on pesticides and major preventable diseases afflicting us in the 21st century suggests that one of the first responses called for is an all out effort to stop using toxic pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. The database begins an ongoing effort by Beyond Pesticides to maintain this comprehensive database of the studies that the group says “supports an urgent need to shift to toxic-free practices and policies.”

The group is calling for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. ”Under risk assessment, we constantly play with ”˜mitigation measures’ that the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database tells us over and over is a failed human experiment,” said Mr. Feldman.

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.

Earlier this year Beyond Pesticides released its Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide that explains how foods grown with hazardous chemicals contaminate water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife even though the finished commodities, often referred to as “clean,” may have minimal or nondetectable residues. The guide can be found at www.eatingwithaconscience.org.

The Household Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law, signed into law by the Governor David Paterson on July 15, 2010, aims to improve water quality in New York by reducing phosphorus runoff into the State’s waterbodies. Environmental officials say phosphorus drains into New York lakes and rivers, which turn green with algae, degrading drinking water and reducing oxygen that fish need. More than 100 bodies of water in the state are considered impaired, including Cayuga Lake and Lake Champlain. With similar measures now effective in 16 other states, including neighboring Vermont and Pennsylvania, many detergent makers produce low-phosphate formulas. Consumer tests show some are cleaning better than even earlier detergents considered environmentally friendly.

“The impact of phosphorus is particularly significant in lakes and reservoirs. Over half of all the lake acres in the state have water quality impacts for which phosphorus is a contributing cause,” according to a Department of Environmental Conservation analysis.

As a cleaning agent, dishwasher detergents may contain up to 9 percent phosphorus by weight, and as a plant nutrient, lawn fertilizer contains up to 3 percent. The New York law lowers permissible levels to 0.5 percent for household dishwasher detergent and 0.67 percent for lawn fertilizer.

“We’re chipping away at sources of pollution. This is one. Nitrogen is another,” said DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis. Pesticides are a third, and the agency backed legislation enacted earlier this year that will ban the use of pesticides on schoolyards and playing fields.

The agency says that while dishwasher detergent and lawn fertilizer are only two sources of phosphorus, they are relatively easy and inexpensive to control. Steps were taken in the early 1970s to eliminate phosphorus from hand soap and laundry detergents, but exempting dishwasher detergent, which was not common at the time. Of the phosphorus found in municipal wastewater, dishwashing detergent accounts for 9 percent to 34 percent. Removing phosphorus at a wastewater treatment plants costs approximately $1 to $20 per pound. Lawn fertilizer can account for about 50 percent of phosphorus found in storm runoff.

The provision on lawn fertilizers prohibits applying the compounds between Dec. 1 and April 1 or near surface water. However, it contains exceptions for new lawns or when a test shows an existing lawn has too little phosphorus. It does not affect fertilizer for agriculture or gardens. Maine, Florida and Wisconsin also have fertilizer controls.

Reducing phosphorus-rich fertilizers can have the added benefit of reducing the levels of pesticides that runoff into lakes and streams as well. Fertilizers are often paired with pesticides in weed-and-feed products, the use of which will fall under the fertilizer restrictions. Local bans of such products have been upheld in federal courts in the past, despite state preemption laws aimed at limiting local authority. For information on least toxic alternatives for lawn care, visit our Lawns and Landscapes program page.

TAKE ACTION: Community activism is the best way to get your town to adopt such a policy. For assistance in proposing a policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450. For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page. Let your neighbors know your lawn and garden are organic by displaying a Pesticide Free Zone sign.

Source: Times Herald-Record

Blueberry farmers said Novartis should have warned them that a new version of its pesticide, including diazinon as the active ingredient, also included a surfactant that reacts badly with fungicides. The promotional brochure failed to mention this reaction and when farmers mixed the diazinon pesticide with the fungicides Captan and Captec, it caused phytotoxic damage, including blotches, depressions and spots, and in some cases killed their plants. It was not clear to the appeals court that the practice of combining pesticides with fungicides was a “foreseeable use” of the product, though farmers are arguing that is was because tank mixing is a common practice.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Walter K. Stapleton, however found that a manufacturer’s brochure “does not qualify as ”˜labeling’ under FIFRA,” and that U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the District of New Jersey had therefore erred in holding that the claims were preempted. In addition to the fraud and misrepresentation claims, Mr. Stapleton also found that the farmers should be allowed to pursue two products liability claims -design defect and failure to warn- because those, too, would not be preempted by FIFRA.

“Given that Congress in FIFRA imposed a generalized duty to include in one’s labeling any warning statement necessary to protect plant life and the fact that the EPA has not seen fit to narrow that duty, we find no basis for concluding that New Jersey law imposes a duty to warn different than or in addition to the scope of the requirement imposed by FIFRA,” Mr. Stapleton and Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote.

The farmers’ lawyer, Scott K. Attaway of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C., however, argued that the practice of tank mixing pesticides and fungicides was both a common one and well known to Novartis. Mr. Stapleton sided with the plaintiffs on this, finding that the “evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude that tank mixing pesticides and fungicides was a reasonably foreseeable practice.”

This case brings up previous efforts to sue pesticide manufacturers, such as the 2005 Supreme Court case, Bates et al v. Dow AgroSciences LLC. In this case, Texas peanut farmers argued that the Dow herbicide Strongarm (diclosulam) ruined their crops, but were prevented from suing after Dow successfully argued in a lower District court that the registration of pesticides under FIFRA insulates it from citizen suits, or preempts litigation. Dow Chemical Company argued that, because its products are registered by EPA, chemical manufacturers should be shielded from litigation; the Justice Department brief filed before the high court in late November, 2004 was designed to protect pesticide manufacturers when their products cause harm.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that citizens damaged by pesticides do have the right to sue producers of these toxic products, saying that federal pesticide law does not offer adequate protection from “manufacturers of poisonous substances.” This was an extremely important court decision because it found that: (i) “Pesticides are registered by the Environmental Protection Agency under a risk assessment review process that implicitly does not consider all aspects of potential harm,” (ii) “The potential for court review of cases in which people are harmed creates a strong incentive for the development of safer products,” and (iii) “The same companies or their trade associations, including Dow Chemical Company, that have successfully lobbied for weak national laws and standards do not want people who are harmed as a result to seek redress.”

Source: Law.com

The 2008 study examined the concentrations of organophosphate pesticides in the bodies of children who consumed a diet of conventional produce and then switched to a diet of organic produce. The study examined two groups of 23 children ranging in age from 3 to 11, in Seattle, Washington and Atlanta, Georgia. Researchers measured the concentrations of malathion, chlorpyrifos, and other organophosphate pesticide metabolites in the children’s urine. These pesticides have no residential uses, and because all children in the study group live in urban or suburban areas, researchers assumed that all exposure to these pesticides were the result of diet. The children were then fed a strictly organic diet for five days. After the five day period, researchers found that concentrations of malathion and chlorpyrifos metabolites in the children’s urine were reduced to non-detectable or close to non-detectable levels. What this study did not establish was how much pesticide residue the children actually consumed from the diet of conventional produce.

This new study, on the other hand, uses the same group of children to examine the amount of pesticides children take in when eating conventional produce. To determine the precise amount of pesticide residue consumed, parents collected duplicate food samples of all fruits, vegetables, and juices equal to the quantity consumed by their children over a 24-hour period. Parents were instructed to wash and prepare the duplicate samples in the same way as the food their children consumed. This process was repeated at different times during the year to account for seasonal differences in diet.

Researchers also conducted a market basket analysis, testing the residue on fruits and vegetables purchased from a supermarket in the same neighborhood as children in the Seattle study group (a market based analysis was not conducted in Atlanta due to lack of resources). Samples were analyzed for residues of organophosphosphours and pyrethroid pesticides. When possible, residue results were then compared with the residues reported by the United States Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program (PDP). However, because many of the foods consumed by children in the study group have not been tested by the PDP, researchers were not always able to compare residue results. Researchers found pesticide residues in 19% of the duplicate food samples; 23% of the Seattle samples and 15% of the Atlanta samples contained either an organophosphorus or pyrethroid insecticide. The most commonly consumed foods included apples, apple juice, bananas, carrots, orange juice, peaches, and watermelon. In the market basket analysis, 28% of samples contained either an organophosphorus or pyrethroid pesticide. With a few exceptions researchers found residues to be within the range reported by the PDP.

Researchers also noted that consumption of certain foods varies greatly if those foods are seasonal. Currently, seasonal differences in the consumption of fresh produce are not taken into account by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when creating mathematical models to estimate pesticide dietary exposure and risk. As a result, these models may greatly underestimate pesticide exposure from these foods. For example the consumption of peaches increases greatly when it is in season. Because peaches are considered by Environmental Working Group to be a member of the Dirty Dozen, the twelve types of fruits and vegetables contaminated with the most pesticide residue, models that look at the annual average peach consumption may assume that children consume an average of one or less servings a week, and would therefore estimate the risk posed by peach consumption to be acceptable. When peaches are in season, children might consume one or more servings a day, meaning the risk to their health is much higher than the model implies. Moreover, many types of fresh produce are in season around the same time of year, meaning that children may be getting a much higher pesticide load from their diet over a short span of time. This study is especially important as research continues to strengthen the link between pesticide exposure in children and diseases such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

“There have been a lot of lab studies looking at silver nanoparticles showing that they are highly toxic to bacteria, fungi, other microorganisms,” explained Ben Colman, PhD to Scientific American. Dr. Coleman is a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University who led the study. “Most of these studies have been conducted in very simple lab settings, [with] one species of bacteria””often the “lab rat” of the bacteria world, E [scherichia]. coli ””[in] a test tube with very simple media and nanoparticles. So we wanted to move beyond this because it’s really hard to extrapolate from these single-species studies in simple environments to what will inevitably happen when these particles enter the environment.”

The particles, which are between one and 100 nanometers in size and smaller than many viruses, can enter the environment through wastewater, where it 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 it can contain toxic contaminants. Sewage sludge-derived compost distributed free to gardeners by the city of San Francisco and its Utilities Commission was recently found to contain significant levels of toxins, including those with endocrine-disrupting properties such as polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, nonylphenol detergent breakdown products, and the other heavily scrutinized antibacterial agent triclosan.

Scientists are applying nanotechnology to many industries, and much like triclosan, nanoparticles are now widely impregnated into a wide variety of consumer products to kill off bacteria, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, little is known about the impact of nanoparticles on human health and the environment, and mounting evidence suggests that these materials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. Nanosized particles can be released from impregnated materials via washing or sweating where they may pose numerable unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Though the use of silver nanoparticles typically falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA) definition of a pesticide as substances intended to kill pests such as microorganisms, EPA does not currently regulate it as such. In 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and others including Beyond Pesticides filed a legal petition challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide. The 100-page petition addresses the serious human health concerns raised by these unique substances, as well as their potential to be highly destructive to natural environments, and calls on the EPA to fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, and require labeling of all products.

You can reduce the potential environmental impacts of nanosilver by avoiding products that contain antibacterials. In addition to a slew of health and environmental effects associated with increasing chemical exposure, these antibacterial products tend to kill a wide variety of bacteria, reducing both “bad” bacteria associated with illness, as well as the “good” bacteria that perform useful functions in our environment and in our bodies. The overuse of antimicrobial chemicals has also been linked to the creation of drug-resistant bacteria, or “superbugs,” which are bacteria and viruses that have become resistant to the antimicrobial compounds and antibiotic drugs developed to control them. To download Beyond Pesticides factsheet What’s the right answer to the germ question? or for more information, including tips on how to get toxic antimicrobials out of your home, school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials program page.

Additionally, this issue highlights the importance of knowing what inputs are going into our gardens, lawns, school yards and agricultural fields. The problem of contaminated compost keeps coming up because pesticide use patterns result in the contamination of treated land and EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs allows the widespread fertilizer use of treated plant material (such as composted grass clippings).

Consumers should not be fooled by claims such as “safe” or “natural” when choosing products. Fertilizer cannot contain the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic seal, however it can be listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (OMRI) list of approved substances, and will often contain “OMRI approved” on its label. If it is not listed, then it does not meet the organic standards. For more information on labeling, visit our National Organic Standards page.

Composting is still a great way to improve the health of soil by adding much-needed organic content to soil, however, the best way to utilize organic compost, free of synthetic chemicals and avoid compost consisting of sewage sludge and other synthetic chemicals is to make it yourself. For more information, read Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, “Compost Is the Key to Successful Plant Management.”

Source: Scientific American

Ever since NStar started using herbicides in 2004, local residents have worried about potential contamination of the Cape’s underground drinking water supply. Even though NStar has a “green” commitment statement on its website, pledging to lessen impacts to the environment as much as possible, the coalition argues that the company’s use of herbicides on rights-of-way violates this promise. NStar representative Michael Duran said that the herbicides are part of a state-regulated integrated vegetation management plan to help ensure reliable power to its 200,000 customers on the Cape and Martha’s Vineyard.

“We know that NStar can manage without pesticides. They did for decades. For them it comes down to cost,” remarked Sylvia Broude of Toxics Action Center to the Cape Cod Times. Before 2004, NStar used effective non-chemical methods for controlling weeds along its rights-of-way, including mechanical cutting and hand-mowing.

Besides contaminating drinking water, many of the chemicals used by NStar have hazardous effects on humans, pets, and the environment, such as Fosamine ammonium, which EPA has found to cause kidney and liver damage, and could leach into groundwater. Triclopyr ester has been found to have effects on reproduction, the kidney and liver, and is toxic to fish. Studies have also shown that another chemical used by NStar called glyphosate causes cancer, reproductive effects, and is a neurotoxin.

Each year, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, railroad corridors and other types of rights-of-way are treated with herbicides to control the growth of unwanted plants. Unfortunately, drift from the application of these herbicides can negatively affect organic farmers and chemically sensitive residents. Rights-of-way include roads, utility lines, and railroad corridors, although different states have varying policies for maintaining rights-of-way. Recently, a utility company in North Carolina nearly destroyed one of the nation’s oldest and most famous vines, “Mother Vine,” when it accidentally sprayed a part of the plant while spraying the right-of-way.

The antibacterial triclosan, an endocrine disruptor, was also found in the sewage sludge compost, at an average of 1,312 ng/g (or ppb). Last week, the Centers for Disease Control updated their National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals and noted that triclosan levels in people increased by over 41% between just the years 2004 and 2006. Also last week, a scientific paper showed that triclosan from sewage sludge can be taken up by soybean plants and translocated into the beans themselves, then consumed by people and animals. PBDEs are persistent and bioaccumulate in the environment and elevated levels have been found in California citizens. The average total of the PBDE congeners tested in the compost was 731 ng/g (or ppb – parts per billion) (dry weight basis).

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 dioxins. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Triclosan is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk.

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes. Prompted by this petition, which was then echoed by Rep. Markey’s (D-MA) letters of concern, the FDA responded, “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients,” and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. EPA, however, in its response maintains that the agency does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013.

Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union, reviewed the tests conducted and stated, “Giving out sludge-based ‘compost’ that contains PBDEs, triclosan, and who knows what other toxins, while calling it ‘organic compost,’ knowing it would be applied to school and home gardens, is wrong on a number of levels. Given the toxic compounds that have been found in this San Francisco sludge product, the ‘compost’ giveaway should be permanently ended by the City of San Francisco.”

Last September, the Center the Food Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Systems petitioned the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to immediately suspend the SFPUC’s Compost Giveaway program because the compost is made with sewage sludge which contains toxic chemicals and hazardous materials. The petition cited that the distribution of contaminated compost will spread toxic sludge to homeowners’ backyards, increasing the risk of health problems to children and the community.

John Mayer, Bay Area resident and researcher for the Food Rights Network, stated: “The sludge tests that the PUC released in late July 2010, are grossly insufficient, relying on outdated science and regulatory standards, and limited to ‘priority pollutants,’ a list developed more than 30 years ago. As the Center for Food Safety noted recently, the PUC failed to test for nanoparticles, ‘antibiotics and their degradation products, disinfectants, other antimicrobials, steroids, hormones, and other drugs present in sewage sludge as indicated by EPA’s 2009 Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey. “Our ongoing investigation of this issue has shown that the Office of the Mayor and the staff of the PUC have colluded with the national sewage sludge lobby, Synagro corporation and other private interests to promote and defend growing food in sewage sludge. We call upon the five PUC Commissioners to put this issue on their public agenda for September, and to stop allowing sludge politics to trump health, environment and the precautionary principle in San Francisco.”

Composting is still a great way to improve the health of soil by adding much-needed organic content to soil. However, it is best to utilize organic compost, free of synthetic chemicals and avoid compost consisting of sewage sludge and other synthetic chemicals. Luckily, compost is relatively easy to make at home. For more information on organic compost, read Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, “Compost Is the Key to Successful Plant Management”

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

Senators Lincoln and Chambliss say that because pesticides are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) additional regulation is unnecessary and the legislation will reduce the burden on farmers, foresters and ranchers. Environmentalists argue that CWA is more protective, and pesticides should be regulated under both statues to improve protections for human health and the environment. CWA uses a health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly subjective risk assessment that does not consider safer alternatives.

Through the many limitations of FIFRA and its risk assessment process, many pesticides are introduced to the market with many data gaps and insufficient analysis of their potential to impact aquatic organisms, water quality and human health. For example, atrazine, the controversial and widely used herbicide, is currently linked to numerous adverse effects including the reproduction, immune and hormone system disruption of fish, other aquatic organisms and humans. Yet, atrazine continues to poison waterways. The NPDES permitting system is an important tool for monitoring and regulating pesticide discharges into waterways versus FIFRA.

The introduction of S. 3735 follows the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) June 2010 posting of a draft NPDES General Permit for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The development of the permit stems from a 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, in which the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require permitting under CWA. This ruling overturned the previous Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under CWA, and instead applied the less stringent standards of FIFRA.

In July 2010 Beyond Pesticides and others sent comments to EPA requesting improvements to the proposed PGP and CWA regulations. These suggestions include: making general improvements to address specific limitations of the proposed permit (size of annual treatment areas, monitoring requirements, opportunities for public input); encouraging EPA to consider organic alternatives when reviewing permits; and, requiring EPA to set water quality standards for all pesticides that may contaminate water.

The pesticide industry and conventional grower associations have opposed NPDES permitting requirements for the same reasons cited by Senators Lincoln and Chambliss. Both Senators have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from agricultural and forestry interests in the past five years. (See Senator Lincoln and Senator Chambliss’s supporters).

For decades our nation’s waterways have been polluted with hazardous pesticides and their degradates which impact aquatic populations of animals and plants, and decrease surface and drinking water quality. Many of these pesticides accumulate in fish and other organisms, making their way up the food chain, to eventually be consumed by the American public. To learn more about conventional fruits and vegetables grown with pesticides that are known to contaminate in drinking water and accumulate in the aquatic food chain, as well as poison farmworkers and wildlife, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience webpage.

CDC’s updated National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals finds that the 50% increase in levels of triclosan is across all demographics in the U.S. population. Data was collected on the concentration of triclosan in urine. Affluent people and those over the age of 20 have the highest concentrations of triclosan in their urine.

The study released by the University of Toledo, “Uptake of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products by Soybean Plants from Soils Applied with Biosolids and Irrigated with Contaminated Water,” examines the potential for crops to take up contaminants such as triclosan from water or fertilizer. Conventional crops are often fertilized with sewage sludge and irrigated with waste water. Sewage sludge often contains numerous pharmaceutical and personal care compounds. Researchers simulated biosolid application and wastewater irrigation on soybeans. Plant tissues were analyzed for several compounds. Triclosan, triclocarbon, and the pharmaceutical carbamazepine are all found to be readily taken up by the roots and traslocated to other parts of the plants including beans. This study worries health experts because it suggests that people may be exposed to these harmful compounds not just by the products they use, but by unknowingly consuming contaminated food.

Triclosan is one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds in cleaning and personal care products. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial, endocrine disruption and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

In 1972, when triclosan was first introduced to the market, the antibacterial was limited to hospital and health care settings. In recent years, triclosan has been added to hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, textiles, toys, and other household and personal care products.

Growing concern over the health and environmental effects of the widespread use of triclosan lead Beyond Pesticides to launch a campaign to ban the non-medical uses of the antibacterial compound. In 2009 and 2010, Beyond Pesticides along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 health and environmental groups issued petitions to the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the chemical. Last month, the Natural Resources Defense Council launched its own efforts to better regulate triclosan, filing suit against the FDA for failing to issue a final ruling on the ubiquitous chemical.

Aminopyralid is generally used for weed control in pastures and fields that grow silage crops for dairy cows. When cows eat the grass that has been treated with the chemical, it passes through them unchanged and remains in their manure in concentrations that can still be high enough to damage broadleaf crops if the manure is used to fertilize them. Aminopyralid is produced by Dow AgroSciences, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co., and often manufactured under the product name Milestone.

Former coordinator of the Washington State University master gardeners’ program Jill Cotton has noticed the damage in her garden and said reports continue to filter in from other gardens around the county. One Whatcom County grower, Kirk Hayes, who sells his crops to the Bellingham Community Food Co-op and four other co-ops in the region estimates that he lost about $40,000 worth of sales in the past two months because of the problems.

“It’s killed off most of our potato crop, our salad crops,” said Mr. Hayes. “We’ve contaminated about seven and a half acres, it looks like.”

Dow says that “inadvertent residues are at low enough levels that you can eat the produce.” Aminopyralid, however, is not licensed to be used on food crops and carries a label warning farmers using it not to sell manure that might contain residue to gardeners. According to EPA, tolerances (residue limits for pesticides used in the U.S. or by countries exporting to the U.S.) have been established only for the following crop food/feed and animal commodities: grass, forage and hay; wheat for bran, forage, grain, hay and straw; aspirated grain fractions; cattle fat, meat, byproducts and kidney; goat fat, meat, byproducts and kidney; horse fat, meat, byproducts and kidney; milk; sheep fat, meat, byproducts, and kidney.

Aminopyralid’s potential to taint manure and harm other crops is well-known and has been documented in other regions, including a case in the United Kingdom a few years ago. The label precautions for Milestone and other similar products containing the active ingredient aminopyralid state that treated plant residues or manure from animals that have grazed on treated forage (within the previous 3 days) should not be used in compost or mulch to be used on susceptible broadleaf plants. Additionally, those who have already used contaminated manure are advised not to replant on the affected soil for at least a year.

It appears that the contaminated manure and compost may have been sold as “natural” fertilizer. However, consumers should not be fooled by claims such as “safe” or “natural.” Though fertilizer cannot contain the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic seal, it can be listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (OMRI) list of approved substances, and will often contain “OMRI approved” on its label. If it is not listed, then it does not meet the organic standards. For more information on labeling, visit our National Organic Standards page.

Walter Haugen, one regional growers, stressed that this incident shows how important it is to be a self-contained operation. He relies on compost produced from his own farm’s crop wastes, rather than bringing in manure that might have suspect ingredients. You can often create all the fertilizer you need yourself through simple composting of kitchen and yard scraps. This way, as Mr. Haugen points out, you know exactly what is in your compost, and you don’t have to purchase many “external inputs.”

The problem of contaminated compost keeps coming up because pesticide use patterns result in the contamination of treated land. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs allows the widespread fertilzer use of treated plant material (such as composted grass clippings). In the fall of 2009, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) conducted tests and determined that three of California’s largest compost producers had product which tested positive for the insecticide bifenthrin. Bifenthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide used commercially and residentially for the control of pests (i.e. ants, spiders, etc.).

Source: Bellingham Herald

The active ingredient in Garlon 3A, a Dow Chemical product, is triclopyr. It is a systemic herbicide which means that the poison spreads from the ends of the vine back toward the root. As a broadleaf weed killer, triclopyr is frequently used along rights-of-way and on industrial sites. In laboratory tests, triclopyr causes a significant increase in the incidents of breast cancer and genetic damage in rat embryos, and studies also link the pesticide to kidney and reproductive problems. The brush with danger from the herbicide means that local residents won’t be eating or making jelly from the amber grapes of the vine.

Mr. Wilson said he was never contacted by representatives of Dominion Power, who expressed their apologies after hearing about the vine. Senior vice president Dan Oberlies said the worker responsible for the mistake was retrained in spraying procedures and in getting permission from property owners. Dominion Power also called Lloyd Hipkins, a Virginia Tech weed specialist to offer his prognosis, which after looking at vine, was to water, prune, and fertilize.

Mr. Wilson and his family have been living on the island for 11 generations and they have cared for the vine since 1957. Mr. Wilson became increasingly concerned as he found himself cutting back the dead portions day after day, so he called the North Carolina State Department of Agriculture, who sent North Carolina’s finest viticulture arborist to help out with the vine. Together, they administered rapid-release nitrogen fertilizers, watered the vine every few days, and thinned the canopy to let the sun in to stimulate new growth away from the damaged area.

The Mother Vine has become a symbol for North Carolina, where the official state toast praises a land “where the scuppernong perfumes the breeze at night.” Thousands of cuttings from the vine have helped sustain North Carolina’s growing wine industry. The vine’s gnarly trunk measures two feet thick, and its green canopy, supported by posts and arbors extends 32 feet wide and 120 feet long. It was first spotted by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe in 1584 their American expedition, sponsored by Sir Walter Raleigh. The vine was probably planted by Croatian Indians, but almost definitely helped sustain the early settlers of the Lost Colony. Though the settlers on Roanoke Island perished, this Mother Vine has survived storms, bugs, mildew, and suburbanization to provide scuppernong grapes and cuttings to local residents and visitors alike for over 400 years.

Each year, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, railroad corridors and other types of rights-of-way are treated with herbicides to control the growth of unwanted plants. Unfortunately, drift from the application of these herbicides can negatively affect organic farmers and chemically sensitive residents. In North Carolina, utility companies reached a private agreement with landowners regarding management of their 75,000 miles of rights-of-way. The final agreement requires utilities to include inserts about their herbicide use in customer bills with information on chemical names and application methods. State residents are also given the right to refuse herbicide use on their property and people can post their property with no spraying signs provided by the utilities.

To learn more about how states can and have handled rights-of-way management, read Beyond Pesticides article “The Right Way To Vegetation Management.”

Source: LA Times

Ogunquit is among the growing number of Maine towns that are restricting the use of lawn chemicals from municipal property because of environmental and public health concerns. About two dozen other communities have adopted some form of pesticide limits, including Brunswick, Castine and Harpswell. There are common traits among the towns that are limiting pesticides. They tend to have affluent residents that do more lawn care applications employing lawn care companies. Mike Horn, chair of Ogunquit’s Conservation Commission, helped to guide the pesticide restriction to passage at last year’s town meeting. Mr. Horn is worried about lawn chemicals such as phoshorous and nitrogen running downhill during rain. “What is going to happen if this level of pesticides just continues to rise and people’s lawns are just running, you’re just putting a big nail in Mother’s nature’s foot,” said Mr. Horn. He added that by protecting the environment, the town is also protecting its economy.

“If the pollution gets so bad then we close the beach up, there goes our revenue, there goes our reputation, everything we built, and consequently, there goes our source of revenue, there goes everything,” said Mr. Horn. “We don’t have any commercial diversity here outside of tourism –that’s not a great thing to say but that’s where we’re at, right?”

However, while some local communities have made the step to restrict pesticides, many Maine property owners appear comfortable using lawn care chemicals. Maine residents spread more than 6.2 million pounds of pesticides and fertilizers in 2007, the most recent year of data from the board of pesticide control. That is up from 800,000 pounds in 1995.

Paul Tukey, founder of safelawns.org, has been spreading the message to various towns around Maine, by showing his documentary film “A Chemical Reaction,” which chronicles Canadian’s fight with the pesticide industry. City councilor Rosemarie DeAngelis, after viewing the film, said she was interested in a citywide ban on pesticides, but recognizing the challenges of that, she wanted to reduce the use of pesticides on city property. Ms. DeAngelis also said she would like to start a grassroots campaign to get residents to voluntarily stop using pesticides on their lawns.

The adoption of pesticide-free and pesticide reduction policies have been gaining momentum across the country. Other examples include: New York State Parks; Chicago City Parks; 29 communities and townships in New Jersey; at least 17 cities in the Northwest covering more than 50 parks; and, numerous communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as new policies and programs are continually being implemented by local and state government entities as well as schools and homeowner associations.

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management, considering that of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (RoundUp) have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomena.

The authors believe that standard risk assessment calculations underestimate toxicity because they do not accurately account for the interplay of time and level of exposure. According the study:

The essence of the Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation states that the total dose required to produce the same effect decreases with decreasing exposure levels, even though the exposure times required to produce the same effect increase with decreasing exposure levels. Druckrey and Küpfmüller inferred that if both receptor binding and the effect are irreversible, exposure time would reinforce the effect. The Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation explains why toxicity may occur after prolonged exposure to very low toxicant levels. . .Traditional approaches that consider toxic effects at fixed exposure times are unable to allow extrapolation from measured endpoints to effects that may occur at other times of exposure.

The Druckrey—Küpfmüller equation was developed in the 1960’s to estimate cancer risks, but the study authors say the principle is relevant to environmental toxicology as well. They say that similar dose—response characteristics have recently been established for the toxicity of the neonicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid to arthropods that confirm the theorem of Druckrey and Küpfmüller.

“The risks of the neonicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid to arthropods in water and soil may be seriously underestimated,” said Henk Tennekes, PhD, lead author of the study. “The acceptable limits are based mainly on short-term tests. If long-term studies were to be carried out, far lower concentrations may turn out to be hazardous. This explains why minute quantities of imidacloprid may induce bee decline in the long run.” Because of their high persistence, significant quantities of neonicotinoids may remain in the soil for several years. Consequently, untreated plants growing on soil previously exposed to imidacloprid may take up the substance via their roots and become hazardous for bees.

Neonicotinoids 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. 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.

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 Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). In CCD, bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. Researchers say the bees are presumably dying in the fields, perhaps becoming exhausted or simply disoriented and eventually falling victim to the cold.

Research is ongoing as to the cause of the CCD phenomenon, but pesticides, especially neonictinoids, such as imidacloprid, have been implicated. CCD can be especially devastating since honeybees are essential pollinators of crops that constitute over one third of the U.S. food supply or $15 billion worth of food. For more information on pollinators and CCD, read our factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action.

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.

Using conservative estimates researchers consider direct costs such as medical treatment, as well as less direct costs such as parent wage losses. The study also notes the substantial emotional costs to families dealing with these potentially life threatening or debilitating conditions which cannot be quantified. Lead poisoning is found to be the most costly of the diseases studied, costing on average $4.85 billion annually, followed by childhood asthma, pediatric cancer, and neurodevelopmental disorders. These four disorders alone cost the state of Michigan 1.5% of its Gross Domestic Product each year; however, the number would be much higher if all environmentally related diseases had been included.

“While the report offers only an estimation of Michigan’s annual costs of diseases due to environmental exposures, it shows the magnitude of how much these toxicants cost every year,” says lead author of the report, Aviva Glaser. The important thing to take away from the report, Ms. Glaser says, is that the number represents costs for diseases that are preventable. “By removing toxic exposures in our community, we not only improve children’s health, but we can also improve Michigan’s economic health.”

This recent study is part of a growing body of literature demonstrating the need to reduce pollution from pesticides and other toxic chemicals, not only for the sake of our health, but for the economy as well. The use of pesticides in the U.S. creates large negative externalities. An externality is a spillover effect of economic activity when a third party experiences a consequence of a transaction; the consequence is not reflected in the cost. Pollution is an externality where the negative effects are felt by society as a whole. The costs of these negative externalities are much more difficult to study than revenues and production costs.

A 2005 study by Dr. David Pimentel, professor emeritus of entomology at Cornell University, found the economic cost of U.S. pesticide usage on society as a whole to be $10 billion annually. The public health costs are estimated to be $1.1 billion annually. These costs include acute poisonings, cancer, neurological, respiratory, and reproductive effects.

Industries have argued that with the current state of the economy, it is too costly to institute tighter environmental controls, and doing so would result in additional job loss. When examining the larger picture, however, the economic benefits of greater environmental protection greatly outweigh the costs. In an analysis in a 1995 issue of Pesticides and You, researchers show that a cleaner environment actually correlates with job growth and a healthy economy. A cleaner environment makes a state more attractive to new businesses, in addition environmental practices such as waste reduction often increase efficiency making industry more competitive. A cleaner environment also results in a healthier work force meaning increased productivity and fewer sick days. Stricter environmental regulations also create more jobs, as additional workers must be hired to implement new regulations, and agencies must hire more people to enforce those regulations.

The Indiana School Board Association developed a set of voluntary pesticide guidelines in 2001, but while rates of adoption increased, the Indiana state chemist’s office found that some schools were not implementing those policies, or had not adopted pesticide guidelines.

It is important that schools adopt a comprehensive pesticide policy 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 symptoms. 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.

Dave Scott, pesticide administrator for the Indiana state chemist’s office told the Associated Press that if approved, these rules could be in place by early 2011. After a year of compliance inspections and education, those districts in violation of the rules would face penalties up to $1,000 for repeated offenses.

Julie Slavens, staff attorney of the Indiana School Boards Association commented, “It’s not an unduly burdensome mandate” and said that the new rules aren’t expected to create new costs for schools. If anything, a reduction in pesticide use could result in lower costs, as it did for the Pike Township School district, which adopted a least-toxic approach in 2008.

Paul Rivas, the district’s director of facilities, trained custodians, teachers and staff in ways to keep the district’s nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and high school clean in order to avoid attracting pests. The shelving in kitchen pantries are raised at least eight inches off the floor so workers can sweep crumbs out from underneath, and staff has sealed up cracks on the outside and installed extra weather stripping to block pest entrances. Mr. Rivas estimated that these measures have saved his district between $6,000 and $10,000 a year by reducing the need for pesticides.

These least-toxic measures are imperative to ensuring a healthy environment, since children are among the group least protected from pesticide exposure. See Pesticides and Children Don’t Mix. Mr. Rivas commented, “If you know anything about elementary school kids, they’re everywhere. They’re on the floor, their hands are on the floor, they’re sitting on the floor””and if someone is in there spraying stuff it’s going to get on their hands, and when they eat they’re going to be putting their fingers in their mouths.”

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 education 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 full Indiana draft proposal can be found here and comments should be directed to Dave Scott at [email protected]

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has been touring the country talking about environmental justice, which involves paying special attention to the vulnerabilities of low income or underserved communities on the grounds that the areas have been exposed to a combination of chemical, biological, social and other burdens that are disproportionately higher than the burdens faced by the general population. Under interim guidance announced Monday, EPA staff will reach out to people in the affected communities early in the process, building awareness and seeking feedback along the way.

“Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven’t had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA’s work can make a real difference for health and the economy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices.”

The document, Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, seeks to advance environmental justice for low-income, people of color and indigenous communities, and tribal governments that have been historically underrepresented in the regulatory decision-making process. The guide also outlines the multiple steps that every EPA program office can take to incorporate the needs of overburdened neighborhoods into the agency’s decisionmaking, scientific analysis, and rule development. According to EPA, agency staff is to become familiar with environmental justice concepts and the many ways they should inform agency decisionmaking. The guide directs EPA rule writers and decisions makers to respond to three basic questions throughout the process:

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

2. How did you identify and address existing and new disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

3. How did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?

Environmental justice is based on the idea that some people, specifically, people of color and low income people suffer significantly higher rates of environmentally induced problems than the average. In the early 1980s, a landmark U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that three out of four landfills in the Southeast were located in communities of color. A 1992 National Law Journal study found that Superfund offenders paid 54 percent lower fines in communities of color than in white communities. In 2005, under the Bush Administration, EPA drafted a strategic plan on Environmental Justice that defined environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. However, critics said eliminating considerations of race and income made the program meaningless. More than 70 legislators, including Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), sent a letter to EPA saying that the draft plan “fails to address the real environmental-justice problems facing our nation’s most polluted communities” and lambasting the dismissal of race as “a significant departure from existing environmental-justice policies.”

A 2006 report released by the Inspector General (IG), EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Its Programs, Policies and Activities, found that senior management at EPA has not directed program and regional offices to conduct environmental justice reviews as required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898. The report said, “Until these program and regional offices perform environmental justice reviews, the Agency cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.”

Last year, farmworker unions, support groups, and worker advocacy organizations asked Administrator Jackson to stop the pesticide poisoning of farmworker communities and uphold the Obama administration’s commitment to environmental justice. Citing a long EPA history of “inhumane neglect of toxic pesticide effects on farmworker community health.” Farmworkers and their families suffer injuries and illnesses at high rates. They suffer from exposure to pesticides, nicotine poisoning during the tobacco harvest, extreme temperatures and are constantly stooping, bending, and lifting, while earning an average of $12,500 to $15,000 per year.

Beyond Pesticides has urged EPA and policy makers to recognize that risk assessment calculations are inherently antithetical to environmental justice principles because it calculates “acceptable” risks across all population groups without identifying the disproportionate effect that exposure has on people of color and low income communities. In an article entitled Race, Poverty and Pesticides, Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, wrote:

“There is an inherent assumption that if a pesticide meets a highly questionable “acceptable” risk threshold, it has value or benefit. This calculation ignores the disproportionate risk, for example, to African American inner city children whose asthmatic conditions are caused or triggered by the very pesticide products that meet the health-based standard. The disproportionate impact of this and other public health and environmental policies, contributing to disproportionately high morbidity and mortality due to asthma, is borne out by the statistics on asthma: 12.5 percent of children nationwide; 17 percent of children in New York City; and, 30 percent of children in Harlem, New York City. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, African Americans are 4 to 6 times more likely than whites to die from asthma. Therefore, any time our policies allow regulators to permit uses of pesticides with known asthma effects, which is done daily, a disproportionate impact is felt in the African American community. Among other policies, this toxics policy contributes to a cycle of poverty, as asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness.”

TAKE ACTION: EPA is seeking public feedback on how to best implement and improve the guide for agency staff to further advance efforts toward environmental justice. Read the document and leave comments here.

“This dangerous pesticide has no place in our fields, near our children, or on our food,” said Earthjustice attorney Kevin Regan. “We’re asking a court to rule so that EPA will finish the job and ban this poison.”

According to Beyond Pesticides, EPA’s 2000 negotiated settlement with Dow AgroSciences, which allows the highest volume chlorpyrifos uses to continue, represents a classic failure of the risk assessment process (including the so-called cumulative risk assessment which accounts for all chemicals with the same mechanism of toxicity) 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 dieases in this case who are disproportinately affected). Farmworker groups and Beyond Pesticides, represented by Earthjustice, sued the agency but failed to move the litigation forward on a procedural issue.

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 in Beyond Pesticides’ view unnecessary) rates of illness across the population, EPA virtually ignored the chemical’s widespread use in agriculture (with one exception that focused on dietary residues), 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 and other health effects. A Harvard University study links exposure to organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). EPA has literally had information on chlorpyrifos’ adverse effects for decades.

“The overwhelming evidence shows that chlorpyrifos is dangerous, especially to children and fieldworkers,” said Aaron Colangelo, a senior attorney with NRDC. “There’s no good reason for EPA to take three years to decide what to do about it.”

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.)

Luis Medellin has experienced the dangers of this pesticide firsthand. Medellin lives with his parents and three little sisters in the agricultural town of Lindsay, California, where chlorpyrifos is sprayed routinely on the orange groves surrounding his home. During the growing season, the family is awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting. After undergoing testing for pesticides in his body, the 24-year-old Medellin discovered concentrations of chlorpyrifos breakdown compounds nearly five times the national average for adults, as calculated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“When I found out I had this chemical in my body, it scared me. But what really worries me is how my little sisters might be affected.” said Mr. Medellin, a community organizer with the Lindsay-based El Quinto Sol. “I wish the growers would stop using such dangerous chemicals so my family and I can be safe.”

Exposure to chlorpyrifos in agricultural communities is widespread. California Air Resources Board monitoring in the state’s San Joaquin Valley detected chlorpyrifos in one-third of all ambient air samples, sometimes at levels that pose serious health risks to young children. Monitoring by PANNA and community groups in Washington state and Luis Medellin’s hometown of Lindsay, California has shown that daily exposure to chlorpyrifos can be substantial, regularly exceeding the “acceptable” 24-hour acute dose for a one-year-old child established by the EPA. In one 2000 incident, dozens of students and staff at an elementary school in Ventura, CA fell ill after chlorpyrifos applied to a nearby lemon orchard drifted onto school grounds.

“Chlorpyrifos is among a class of pesticides that targets developing nervous systems — in insects and humans alike. These pesticides are linked to a host of devastating diseases ranging from ADHD to childhood brain cancer,” said PANNA senior scientist Margaret Reeves, PhD. “Their human health costs are just too high and farmers are farming successfully without them. There’s no defensible reason for continuing to use chlorpyrifos.”

This is the second lawsuit aimed at banning chlorpyrifos uses that remained on the market following the 2001 residential use cancellations. UFW et al. v. EPA was filed in federal district court July 31, 2007 by Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and California Rural Legal Assistance, on behalf of farmworkers, farmworker advocacy organizations and Beyond Pesticides. The lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality after the pesticide industry successfully argued in a related case that the lawsuit should have been filed in appellate court, rather than district court. The plaintiffs disagreed with the logic of the argument, but accepted the dismissal and pursued other options.

Children are especially vulnerable to pesticides due to their developing organ system. Because they eat more and respire more than adults relative to body size, and they often put things in their mouths, they are exposed to more pesticides than adults. Research shows that even low levels of pesticide exposure can affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system.

The California Healthy Schools Act requires schools as well as private child care facilities to keep records of pesticide use and inform parents. The law covers the use of pesticide sprays or foggers, pesticides contained in baits, gels, or traps are exempt. The Act also requires DPR to develop programs to encourage child care centers to voluntarily develop IPM plans; however there are no provisions for enforcement. DPR defines Integrated Pest Management as “a strategy to prevent and treat pest problems using a combination of prevention, monitoring, record keeping and control methods… Chemical controls that pose the least possible hazard to human health and the environment are used only after careful monitoring and when non-chemical methods have failed.”

According to the survey, 55% of child care facilities use pesticides to control pests. Of these, 29% apply pesticides only once or a few times a year, but 20% apply pesticides on a weekly or monthly basis, and more than 25% of facilities do not keep records of pesticide use. Just 8% reported using only pesticides exempt from the Healthy Schools Act, such as baits, gels or traps. Survey participants cited ants as the biggest pest problem. Other common pests include spiders, mice or rats, cockroaches, head lice, bees or wasps, weeds and squirrels or gophers.

Researchers stress the importance of educating people who make pest management decisions for child care facilities on the concept of IPM, ensuring they understand implementing IPM is not prohibitively expensive or time consuming. In fact, many child care facilities reported relying on IPM practices such as sealing cracks and eliminating pests’ food sources, despite not knowing what IPM means. The survey shows that in most child care facilities (87%) the director is responsible for pest management decisions; however many other people often take part in the decision making process including child care and custodial staff, pest management professionals, and property owners. Therefore researchers recommend targeting IPM education to a broad range of people who may be involved in pest management practices. Educational materials about IPM in California child care facilities in English and Spanish are available online. In addition, DPR in collaboration with UC San Francisco School of Nursing designed an IPM curriculum specifically for child care providers that will be available this summer.

Take Action!
Parents–Talk to your child’s school or day care provider. Ask them what pesticides they have used in the past, about notification requirements, and urge them to use defined IPM that specifies nonchemical practices and only allowable least-toxic pesticides as a last resort. For more information and ideas on how to speak up at your child’s school or day care center, see Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools page.

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

The antimicrobials, phthalates and alkylphenolic surfactants often found in mold and mildew products are associated with various health and environmental issues. The antimicrobial triclosan for example, can cause skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, and dioxin that jeopardizes fragile aquatic ecosystems. The study highlights methylene chloride (in some fabric cleaners), nitrobenzene (soaps, polishes), perfluorinated compounds (stainresistant, waterproof coatings), phthalates (surfactants), alkylphenols (solvents), parabens (preservatives), triclosan, and polycyclic musks (fragrance) as ingredients of concern.

Past studies from the Silent Spring Institute have shown that many of the chemicals used in household cleaning products are endocrine disrupting compounds that produce mammary gland tumors in rats.

This study focuses on 787 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1988 and 1995 and 721 controls from the Cape Cod, MA area. Through telephone interviews, researchers collected information about the participants’ family history of breast cancer, menstrual and reproductive history, height, weight, alcohol and tobacco use, physical activity, pharmaceutical hormone use, and education. They were also asked about five categories of cleaning products, including solid and spray air fresheners, surface cleaners, oven cleaners, and mold/mildew products, as well as 10 categories of pesticides in and around their homes, including insecticides, lawn care, herbicides, lice control, insect repellents, and pest control on pets.

Using predefined categories, the women reported on the frequency of their use of the different products and were then asked about their beliefs about factors that may contribute to breast cancer. These factors include heredity, diet, chemicals and pollutant in the air and water, and a woman’s reproductive or breastfeeding history. Details on the interview questions are posted on Silent Spring Institute’s website.

The researchers acknowledged and corrected for potential recall bias (for instance, a woman who believed chemicals contribute to breast cancer might falsely believe she used those products more frequently) by comparing the odds ratio of product use and beliefs about whether chemicals and pollutant contribute to breast cancer to the odds ratio for family history and beliefs about heredity.

However, researchers point out that self-reported product use has the potential to represent long-term exposure to a wide range of compounds and stated in their report, “Although exposure levels may be low and EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals) are typically less potent than endogenous hormones, limited knowledge of product formulations, exposure levels, and the biological activity and toxicity of chemical constituents alone and in combination make it difficult to assess risks associated with product use.”

Confounders such as mammography use, medical radiations, lactation, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use, diethylstilbestrol exposure, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, teen and adult physical activity, race, marital status, and religion were evaluated, but none changed the core adjusted odds ratio estimates by over 10%, so they were not included in the final analysis. Study participants are predominantly white (98%), 60-80 years of age (60%), and completed high school or higher education (94%).

Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., a New York ecologist, cancer survivor and author of the books Living Downstream and Having Faith, told the Columbus Dispatch that she advises everyone to stop using chemical cleaners, and stick to least-toxic alternatives, such as baking soda and vinegar. Dr. Steingraber, who is a scholar in residence at Ithaca College stated, “I just see this as such an easy problem compared to a lot of things” but points to the new research as evidence that “the conversation is shifting now. We can’t just sort of look at the murky evidence on cancer and the environment and sort of set it aside because it’s too inscrutable.”

Linking the use of particular chemicals in our environment to cancer cases is indeed difficult to research, and the epidemiologists involved in this study recommend that “in order to avoid possible recall bias, the researchers recommend further study of cleaning products and breast cancer using prospective self-reports and measurements in environmental and biological media.”

Additionally, past studies covered by Beyond Pesticides suggest that overuse of disinfectants can be harmful, rather than beneficial to our health and the environment. Disinfectants tend to kill a wide variety of bacteria, reducing both “bad” bacteria associated with illness, as well as the “good” bacteria that perform useful functions in our environment and in our bodies. The overuse of antimicrobial chemicals has also been linked to the creation of drug-resistant bacteria, or “superbugs,” which are bacteria and viruses that have become resistant to the antimicrobial compounds and antibiotic drugs developed to control them.

The dicamba tolerance trait is expected to also be stacked with the glyphosate-resistant, or “Roundup Ready” soybean trait upon commercialization. While Monsanto claims that this is a “highly effective and economical weed control package,” it is likely to be similar to Roundup (glyphosate) Ready crops, just another way to sell more pesticide product. Monsanto is banking on the idea that mixing dicamba with glyphosate will help manage the hard-to-control broadleaf weeds in chemical-intensive farming systems, targeting both pre-plant and post-emergence weed control in an effort to reduce resistance.

In a report published last year, analysts found that genetically engineered (GE) crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008). The primary cause of the increase, according to the report, is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. Scientists at the Pan-American Weed Resistance Conference earlier this year gathered to discuss the increasing documented cases of glyphosate resistance, and the possibility that the broadscale use of the herbicide would “be driven to redundancy in the cotton, corn and soybean belt.”

While Monsanto asserts that farmers have used dicamba successfully to control broadleaf weeds in crops for decades with very little weed resistance, reports have historically provided significant documentation of herbicide-resistant weeds developing as a result of increased use of pesticides that a crop is bred to tolerate. Two species of weeds in the U.S. have shown resistance to dicamba already.

In addition to the dicamba- and glyphosate-resistant soy that Monsanto is hoping to commercialize, the company also has plans to seek approval for a dicamba tolerant, Roundup Ready Flex product in cotton. However, even if dicamba-tolerant cotton does not come to the market, it will still be affected by the GE soy. According to Alan York, Ph.D, Williams Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus of crop science and extension specialist for North Carolina State University, soybean is used as a rotation crop for cotton, which will purportedly help cotton farmers manage weeds.

A major problem with dicamba is its extreme mobility in soils, regardless of organic matter or clay content, and high water solubility. Dicamba residues are both quite persistent (2 months to 1 year) and able to move vertically in the soil column. In fact, USDA found that dicamba was the most mobile of forty herbicides evaluated, a warning that dicamba would likely contaminate groundwater.

GE crops can contaminate conventional or organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment- increase resistant weeds, contaminate water and affect 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.

Monsanto has recently come under fire for distributing misbranded GE cotton. Additionally, a Supreme Court judgment in April involving GE alfalfa ruled that the ban on GE alfalfa remains intact and that the planting and sale of GE alfalfa remains illegal, pending environmental review. In addition, the Court opinion supported the argument that gene flow (contamination) is a serious environmental and economic threat. This means that genetic contamination from GE crops can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective. A Federal District Judge in California denied a preliminary injunction on GE sugar beets and sugar beet seeds. The Court declined to impose an immediate ban on GE sugar beets because the seeds have already become so entrenched that there is not enough conventional (non-GE) seed available for a full crop this year.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of GE crops because its approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides. It focuses on effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE Program and Organic Program pages.