The new study, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a branch of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several private foundations, found that children exposed to high levels of PAHs in New York City had full scale and verbal IQ scores that were 4.31 and 4.67 points lower than those of less exposed children. High PAH levels were defined as above the median of 2.26 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3). A difference of four points, which was the average seen in this study, could be educationally meaningful in terms of school success, as reflected, for example, in standardized testing and other measures of academic performance. However, the researchers point out that the effects may vary among individual children.

“This research clearly shows that environmental PAHs at levels encountered in an urban setting can adversely affect a child’s IQ,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of NIEHS. “This is the first study to report an association between PAH exposure and IQ, and it should serve as a warning bell to us all. We need to do more to prevent environmental exposures from harming our children.”

The study was conducted by scientists from the Columbia University Center for Children’s Environmental Health. It included children who were born to non-smoking black and Dominican-American women age 18 to 35 who resided in Washington Heights, Harlem or the South Bronx in New York. The children were followed from utero to 5 years of age. The mothers wore personal air monitors during pregnancy to measure exposure to PAHs and they responded to questionnaires.

At 5 years of age, 249 children were given an intelligence test known as the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of the Intelligence, which provides verbal, performance and full-scale IQ scores. The test is regarded as a validated, reliable and sensitive instrument for assessing intelligence. The researchers developed models to calculate the associations between prenatal PAH exposure and IQ. They accounted for other factors such as second-hand smoke exposure, lead, mother’s education and the quality of the home caretaking environment. Study participants exposed to air pollution levels below the average were designated as having low exposure, while those exposed to pollution levels above the median were identified as high exposure.

“The decrease in full-scale IQ score among the more exposed children is similar to that seen with low-level lead exposure,” said lead author Frederica P. Perera, Dr.P.H., professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health.

A 1999 study found that PAHs that are abundant in house dusts increase the toxicity of chlorpyrifos in vitro, particularly at low levels (i.e., 2-50 FM PAHs with 1-180 nM chlorpyrifos-oxon, a metabolite of chlorpyrifos that inhibits acetyl cholinesterase.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ wood preservatives campaign research, PAHs are one of the three classes of chemicals found in coal-tar creosote that are known to cause harmful health effects. Many of the components of the creosote mixture, such as PAHs, are rapidly absorbed through the lungs, stomach and intestines. Creosote is made up of about 75-85 percent PAHs. PAHs can attach to soil particles and may move with sediments into streams or remain part of a tarlike mass, but they may also move into groundwater in sandy soils low in organic matter. The remaining PAHs are bioaccumulative and carcinogenic. According to ATSDR’s Toxicological Profile on PAHs, “Studies of people show that individuals exposed by breathing or skin contact for long periods to mixtures that contain PAHs and other compounds can also develop cancer.” Creosote contains several carcinogenic PAHs, including benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, and dibenz[a,h]anthracene. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that these three PAHs are known animal carcinogens. The EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined they are probable human carcinogens.

“IQ is an important predictor of future academic performance,” said Dr. Perera. “Fortunately, airborne PAH concentrations can be reduced through currently available controls, alternative energy sources and policy interventions.”

While Federal law requires organic producers to comply with certain non-genetically engineered (GE) requirements identified in the USDA organic standards, there is no standard for labeling them in non-organic products. The PVP is the first system in the U.S.designed to scientifically test whether a product has met a set of defined standards for the presence of GE organisms (also known as GMOs, or genetically modified organisms).

“From the moment GMOs were approved for use in the U.S., we recognized the need for transparency, but there was no definitive standard by which to evaluate or label products,” said Margaret Wittenberg, Whole Foods Market global vice president of quality standards. “We searched high and low for years for a way to do this and now, thankfully, the Non-GMO Project has answered that challenge by creating a standard and a practical system by which manufacturers may measure their products. At last, shoppers concerned about foods made with genetically modified ingredients will be able to make informed choices.”

“Since there is no U.S. regulation regarding disclosure on products manufactured with GMO ingredients, we are committed to helping our shoppers make confident choices by knowing that what they are buying has been verified as meeting the standards on the non-GMO project,” said Michael Besancon, senior global vice president of purchasing for Whole Foods.

According to the FDA, as much as 75 percent of processed food in the U.S. may contain components from genetically modified crops. Despite the abundance of products with genetically modified ingredients, a Pew Initiative study on Food and Biotechnology shows that 59 percent of Americans are unfamiliar with the issue of genetically modified ingredients in food.

“In 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan and all of the nations in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs, due to environmental impact and concerns about GMO safety,” said Megan Thompson, executive director of the Non-GMO Project.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to allowing consumers to make informed choices and to working toward the sustained availability of non-GMO options. Whole Foods Market is a member of the group, which is a collaboration of manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers. Together these members have established a working standard and have developed North America’s first independent third-party Product Verification Program.

The PVP uses a process that combines on-site facility audits, document-based review and DNA testing to measure compliance with the standard. For a product to bear the seal it must undergo a process through which any ingredient at high risk for genetic contamination – soy or corn, for example – has been shown to meet the non-GMO standard through avoidance practices and testing.

Once a product has been approved through the PVP it can be described as being verified by the Non-GMO Project and/or be labeled with the Non-GMO Project’s compliance seal. The first Whole Foods Market private label products to bear this seal are expected to be in stores before the end of the year.

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

Researchers from the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) examined the chronic toxicity of two of the insecticides most commonly used in the Central Valley- chlorpyrifos and endosulfan, to larval Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) and foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii), the amphibians with declining populations that live and breed in meadows surrounding the Sierra Nevada. The results are discussed in “Toxicity of Two Insecticides to California, USA, Anurans and Its Relevance to Declining Amphibian Populations.” The study used laboratory testing to examine how the insecticides affected the two frogs at environmentally realistic concentrations. During testing, tadpoles were observed at various stages of development to see how the insecticides affected their growth and health.

The researchers found that endosulfan was more toxic than chlorpyrifos to both species, and tadpoles of both species developed abnormalities when exposed to high endosulfan concentrations. Endosulfan also affected the growth and development rates in both species. The researchers say this affects the amphibians’ behavior and increases their vulnerability to predators and hydrological events such as floods and droughts. The yellow-legged frogs, which rely more on standing water during reproduction and have seen higher population declines compared with other species like the tree frog, was the more sensitive of the two.

Winds blow insecticide residues into the mountains, and they fall as rain or snow, say the researchers, Donald Sparling, PhD, of Southern Illinois University, and Garry Fellers, PhD, of the USGS’ Western Ecology Research Center in Point Reyes. Here, the chemicals breakdown more slowly due to cooler temperatures. “Concentrations of insecticides in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California may have the ability to inflict serious damage on native amphibians,” Dr. Sparling and Dr. Fellers write. “The present study adds to the increasing evidence that pesticides are very harmful to amphibians living in areas that are miles from sources of pesticide application.”

The 2008 PURS report documents agricultural and household pesticide use, which totaled almost 20,000 pounds and 572 different active ingredients. The top five active ingredients, by pounds, were all used in agriculture: metam sodium, glyphosate, 1,3-dichloropropene, sulfuric acid, and aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons. Agriculture totaled 77 percent of all pesticide use, with urban/general indoor and outdoor uses totaling under four percent. The total used dropped by half from 2007, due in part to improved record keeping and a decline in the use of metam sodium, a popular fumigant in potato production.

In households, pesticide use may be shifting away from the most toxic products. “In 2007, everyone was just grabbing DEET (a mosquito repellent),” said Aimee Code, water quality coordinator for the National Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). The report indicates that some users were trying citronella and castor oil as repellents. “That’s really good to see.”

When the program returns in 2013, it will be altered to require reporting in 95 or 96 specific watershed regions, rather than the 15 geographic regions in the existing reports. “Right now it is so large. Something used in the Willamette water basin could be anywhere from Portland to Eugene,” said Sunny Jones, an ODA pesticide investigator. “People who do the research roll their eyes. This puts it at a scale where researchers can use it.”

Ms. Code hopes the program will return with the legislature’s support. “If we don’t know what pesticides are being used in what amounts, how do we prioritize them?” she said.

In 2007, the same year that Beyond Pesticides toured the Chicago City Hall Green Roof at our 25th National Pesticide forum Changing Course in a Changing Climate, Uncommon Ground restaurant owners Helen and Michael Cameron decided to find a second home to expand their business, making it as environmentally efficient as possible. Extensive remodeling of the new building took extra steps to assure that the building could support a green roof, such as digging an extra five feet into the basement to accommodate heavy-duty steel beams. Aside from employing an organic production garden however, the building uses solar panels to heat up to 70% of the water in the restaurant, and has two beehives that produce over 40 pounds of honey. Though it’s not open to the public, there are ”˜rooftop tours’ during the farmer’s markets that the restaurant hosts every Friday in its parking lot, and classes are held for 3rd graders at the local Waldorf school where kids can learn about urban agriculture. “Our mission is to stand as a working model for other restaurants, businesses and home owners,” Ms. Cameron says, “to show what is possible within an urban environment.”

While organic rooftop gardening requires a lot more planning and investment than other typical forms of urban agriculture, a unique benefit is that there is virtually no transition period for becoming certified. Whereas city soils are often contaminated with harmful chemicals such as pesticides used on lawns and lead, inputs for rooftop and container gardens are completely controlled by the gardener or farmer, so there is a lot less room for contamination, and there is no amendment period needed for already contaminated soil. Rooftop gardening has other built in perks too, as it acts as an insulator, keeping the building cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, and as with all container gardens, weeds are lot easier to control. For more information on starting your own organic garden, read our factsheets: “Planning an Organic Garden” and “Organic Gardening: The Basics.”

“The hazards of using sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture have not been evaluated,” said Brian Hill, Ph.D., a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. Releasing just 10 percent of the proposed amount into the air would be equivalent to releasing 15.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide. “A car that gets 30 miles per gallon would have to be driven 23 million miles — the distance of a trip circling the world over 930 times — to cause that much global warming,” said Dr. Hill.

“Other offices within EPA are currently working diligently to control climate change, which the EPA recognizes as the most pressing environmental challenge of our times,” said Justin Augustine of the Center for Biological Diversity. “It makes no sense for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs to work at cross purposes with the rest of the agency by allowing the use of such a harmful substance.”

Not only is sulfuryl fluoride a potent greenhouse gas, its high toxicity likewise poses significant human health and ecological risks. Thus far, EPA has not carefully reviewed the health risks for those exposed to the chemical or considered the impacts of the releases on endangered species and other wildlife. The groups’ letter asks EPA to take a hard look at these questions, including by consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Dow would like to sell this toxic chemical to farmers across the country — and will apply to do so if this test goes well,” said Craig Segall of the Sierra Club. “We don’t need more global warming pollution, so we’re asking EPA to nip this problem in the bud.”

Sulfuryl fluoride has typically been used for structural pest control of termites. The insecticide is pumped into a tent that covers a termite-infested structure. When the tent is removed, the compound escapes into the atmosphere. Sulfuryl fluoride blocks a wavelength of heat that otherwise could easily escape the Earth, according to University of California at Irvine scientist. Carbon dioxide blocks a different wavelength, trapping heat near the surface.

“The only place where the planet is able to emit heat that escapes the atmosphere is in the region that sulfuryl fluoride blocks,” said Donald Blake, chemistry professor University of California at Irvine. “If we put something with this blocking effect in that area, then we’re in trouble ”” and we are putting something in there.”

According to Beyond Pesticide research, sulfuryl fluoride is acutely moderately toxic by oral exposure (Toxicity Category II) and slightly toxic for acute inhalation (Toxicity Categories III and IV) and dermal vapor toxicity (Toxicity Category IV). Residents and workers are at risk for neurotoxic effects from acute exposure. Subchronic studies on rats have indicated effects on the nervous system, lungs, and brain. Developmental and reproductive effects have also been noted in relevant studies on rats. According to the National Research Council, fluorides might also increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and boys exposed to fluoride in drinking water are five times more likely to develop osteosarcoma , a rare form of bone cancer. Since sulfuryl fluoride was only registered for use as a fumigant for existing infestations, EPA waived the environmental fate data requirements for reregistration in 1993 and did not consider ecological risks. The agency expects that non-target organisms would not likely be exposed to sulfuryl fluoride and that the pesticide would not leach to groundwater or persist in the environment for any significant amount of time.

According to the most recent data (2007) by the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, sulfuryl fluoride is the top pesticide used in the state for structural pest control and 14th for all pesticide application sites, with over 2.1 million pounds used in 2007 for structural pest control, over 3,200 pounds for landscape and rights-of-way applications, and about 42,000 on agricultural products such as almonds, broccoli, dried fruits, prunes, rice and other agricultural commodities.

Five years ago, a study by Dr. Weston and his colleague Michael J. Lydy, Ph.D of Southern Illinois University in Carbondale found that synthetic phyrethroids were collecting in river and creek sediments at levels that are toxic to bottom dwelling fish. Current research holds that there are enough pyrethroids to kill tiny shrimp, which are said to be the first link in the aquatic food chain.

Pyrethroids are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural insecticide found in certain species of chrysanthemum. It initially came on the market as a ”˜safer’ alternative to the heavily regulated and highly toxic organophosphates, such as diazinon and chlorypyrifos. Despite the fact that there are plenty of effective pest control methods that are not nearly as toxic, it is now one of the most popular class of household pesticides, making appearances in the form of powders and sprays to control mosquitoes, fleas, flies, and cockroaches. This high-volume use of pyrethroid pesticides is cause for concern to consumers as it has been linked to serious chronic health problems. They are classified as possible human carcinogens and suspected endocrine disruptors, and have been found lingering in the dust at daycare centers. Pyrethroids, however, are particularly dangerous to aquatic life even at the same concentrations used to fend off mosquitoes.

Common pyrethroid-based pesticides include: Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermenthrin, Deltamethrin, Fenvalerate, Permethrin, Resmethrin, Sumithrin, and Tetramethrin.

Unlike pyrethrins, synthetic pyrethroids are designed to last longer in the sunlight, and can remain toxic in soil for months, where they can easily make their way into the watershed through storm drains. Contamination may also be caused by the dumping of unused pesticides down sink drains, as Dr. Weston’s study shows that Sacramento’s regional wastewater treatment plant is the single largest source of pyrethroid pollution in the Delta.

Dr. Weston’s study was presented to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in Rancho Cordova. The board plans to list much of the area’s waterways as “impaired” due to the high levels of pyrethroid pesticides. This, hopefully, could bring about new usage rules and a ban on some products that contain pyrethroids. For more information on less toxic alternatives to pyrethroids, refer to our factsheets on the web.

Imidacloprid was first registered in the U.S. in 1994 as an insecticide to control a range of pests on crops, structures, indoor and outdoor residential areas, as well as pet products. While the use of imidacloprid has been gaining in popularity, its health and environmental effects have not been adequately studied. EPA, with its registration review program, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 3(g), must review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The public docket for imidacloprid was opened in December 2008 and has since received over 12,000 comments, including those submitted by Beyond Pesticides, NRDC, the National Honey Bee Advisory Board (NHBAB) and Sierra Club, among others. These comments provided the agency scientific studies detailing the toxicity of imidacloprid to honeybees. Commenters also stated that in regard to imidacloprid, there are too many data gaps, its review process needs to be accelerated, and that cancellation or suspension of all neonicotinic pesticides is warranted given the potential economic harm to the commercial honey bee industry.

However, in a letter to Sierra Club dated October 10, 2008, in response to its request for suspension of the use of nicotinyl insecticides, including imidacloprid, the agency said, “In order to suspend the registration of a pesticide under FIFRA, EPA must find that an ”˜imminent hazard’ exists. The federal courts have ruled that to make this finding, EPA must conclude, among other things, that there is a substantial likelihood that imminent, serious harm will be experienced from use of the pesticide. While the information before EPA, including the information you have provided to us, clearly indicates that further study regarding the possible connection between these pesticides and serious harm to bees is warranted, your request for suspension does not demonstrate a causal link sufficient to justify the suspension of these pesticides under the FIFRA standard.”

It is likely that EPA would continue to ignore the precautionary principle and the emerging science that demonstrates that imidacloprid and other chemicals in its class are immediate threats to pollinators. Several countries in the European Union (EU) have already taken action and suspended the use of imidacloprid including Italy, Germany, Slovenia and France.

Imidacloprid has been linked to sublethal effects in honeybees, which include disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior. Lethal and sublethal exposures to imidacloprid have been shown to decrease foraging activity, along with olfactory learning performance and decrease hive activity. Bees are exposed when they pollinate flowering crops treated with imidacloprid, or pesticide drift (via wind) from surrounding areas. The rapid disappearance of the honeybees, also dubbed “Colony Collapse Disorder” or CCD, has been observed in the U.S. since 2006. Research is ongoing as to the cause of the phenomenon, but pesticides, especially 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”

Imidacloprid is also associated with human impacts including fatigue, twitching, salivation, convulsions, and muscle weakness, including the muscles necessary for breathing. Reproductive and mutagenic effects have also been noted, as well as elevated blood cholesterol levels and stress to the liver in dogs. Imidacloprid also persistently contaminates groundwater and soil.

EPA’s FWP for imidacloprid outlines that the agency is requiring field-based data on imidacloprid to better understand its potential impact on pollinators. It also states that EPA will be working with federal and state officials, as well as the international community and other stakeholders, to develop data and help understand the potential impact of the neonicotinoid insecticides on pollinators. To view EPA’s final work plan for imidacloprid, visit their page.

Take Action: Tell EPA that imidacloprid poses unreasonable threats to honey bees and other beneficial insects, and contaminates water supplies and soil. You can submit your comments to the docket at www.regulation.gov using docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844.

Studies show using warm soap and water is still the best option

“Numerous scientific studies and reports clearly indicate that in addition to its human health and environmental dangers, triclosan is not effective for many of its intended benefits and may actually be doing consumers more harm than good,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “Even worse, is that current regulations on triclosan haven’t been updated since 1994 and much of the science used by the FDA to regulate the pesticide dates back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The agency’s inconsideration of new scientific research on triclosan represents an egregious failure to properly protect the public against this dangerous pesticide.”

Regulated by both the FDA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), triclosan is commonly found in hand soaps, toothpastes, deodorants, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, facial tissues, antiseptics, fabrics, toys, and medical devices. Scientific studies indicate that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems.

Chief among those issues is resistance to antibiotic medications and bacterial cleansers, a problem for all people, but especially vulnerable populations such as infants and the elderly. Triclosan is also a known endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. Further, the pesticide can also interact with other chemicals to form dioxin and chloroform, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals.

Due to the fact that many products containing triclosan are washed down the drain, triclosan also shows up in water systems and sewage sludge. Accumulation of the pesticide in waterways and soil has been shown to threaten ecosystems and produce hazardous residues in fish and food crops.

“Triclosan’s growth to a nearly $1 billion consumer market is indicative of the failure of the FDA to regulate unnecessary, ineffective products that are toxic to both people and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “The marketing of triclosan preys on consumer fears regarding bacterial-born illness, despite the fact that scientific findings show triclosan to be no more effective than soap and water, and may actually cause more harm than good in advancing bacterial resistance.”

Triclosan is a widely used antibacterial agent found in hundreds of consumer products, from hand soap, toothpaste and deodorant to cutting boards, socks and toys. A recent study found that triclosan alters thyroid function in male rats. Other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in waterways, fish, human milk, serum, urine, and foods. A U.S Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and at some of the highest concentrations. Triclosan has been found to be highly toxic to different types of algae, keystone organisms for complex aquatic ecosystems. A recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) survey of sewage sludge found that triclosan and its cousin triclocarban were detected in sewage sludge at the highest concentrations out of 72 tested pharmaceuticals.

“There can be no good explanation for why Senator Hagan thinks it would be a good idea to exclude seasonal farmworkers from access to affordable health care coverage, other than that she is pandering to agricultural employers and upholding the long tradition of excluding some of America’s lowest paid and hardest working employees from the benefits that other workers receive,” said attorney Kate Woomer-Deters of the North Carolina Justice Center.

Farmworkers in the U.S. earn an average of $12,500 to $15,000 per year. They work in some of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs, and 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. A 2008 study by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher finds the pesticide poisoning incidence rate among U.S. agricultural workers is 31 times higher than the incidence rate found in all other industries combined. The study, “Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Agricultural Workers in the United Sates, 1998-2005,” was published in the December issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

Take Action: Call the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask for Sen. Hagan’s office. Ask Sen. Hagan to withdraw her amendment number 200 to the health care reform bill because farmworkers and their family members need health care coverage and health care reform.

Please also call your Senators on the HELP Committee. Ask them to oppose the Hagan amendment in the Senate HELP Committee to the health care reform bill, amendment number 200 that would deny seasonal farmworkers coverage under the new health care system. It is unfair, immoral and economically counterproductive.

HELP Committee Members

Democrats by Rank
Edward Kennedy (MA), Christopher Dodd (CT), Tom Harkin (IA), Barbara A. Mikulski (MD), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Patty Murray (WA), Jack Reed (RI), Bernard Sanders (I) (VT), Sherrod Brown (OH),
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA), Kay Hagan (NC), Jeff Merkley (OR).

“Methyl iodide is so toxic that scientists working with it in the laboratory take extreme precautions when handling it, using a ventilation hood, gloves, and special equipment for transferring it so it does not escape to the air,” notes Susan Kegley, Ph.D., a chemist and consulting scientist for Pesticide Action Network North America. “This degree of protection is not possible in an agricultural setting where the pesticide would be applied at rates of 175 pounds per acre in the open air. Buffer zones of 400 feet (a distance most growers would say is unworkable) for a 40-acre fumigation would still result in a dose of methyl iodide to neighbors that is 375 times higher than DPR believes is acceptable. For workers, the numbers are much worse, with exposures estimated at 3,000 times higher than DPR’s acceptable dose for some tasks.”

Methyl iodide would primarily be used on strawberries in California, affecting people in the Coastal parts of the state from San Diego and Ventura to Watsonville. Communities and farmworker advocates across the state are urging Governor Schwarzenegger to consider the serious potential impacts this chemical will have on their lives if it is permitted for use. According to Anne Katten of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, “People who would suffer the highest exposure to methyl iodide are among the state’s least protected: farmworkers and their families, including especially vulnerable young children and pregnant and nursing women.”

According to unnamed sources, representatives from the pesticide manufacturers and agricultural industry have been meeting with the Governor’s office to demand faster registration of Midas, a fumigation product containing methyl iodide and chloropicrin, by the end of the summer. The same sources indicate that the Governor’s office has directed DPR to register methyl iodide by a certain date, apparently regardless of DPR’s toxicological assessment or the results of a scientific peer review.

DPR’s risk assessment is on track to be peer-reviewed by a Scientific Review Panel, comprised of highly respected university scientists. Industry interests (primarily the methyl iodide manufacturer, Arysta, and select grower organizations) are now pressuring the Governor to forego the scientific review and force DPR to allow the use of methyl iodide for California’s fall fumigation season. In 2007 the Bush administration bowed to similar pressures, doctoring the science used to assess the risks of methyl iodide, and allowing it to be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“California produces eighty percent of the nation’s strawberries and we lead the nation in sustainable and organic agricultural practices. CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers) has 127 certified organic strawberry producers who do not use harmful chemicals of this sort and are successful business operations,” states Peggy Miars, Executive Director of CCOF. “Registering methyl iodide would be a big step backwards, we need to hold the line here. It’s clear from the success of organic farming practices that a replacement chemical is not what is required, instead what is needed is a greater commitment to innovation and using alternative, more ecologically integrated pest and disease control methods.”

Highly toxic and with application rates of up to 175 pounds per acre, methyl iodide has been controversial from the time EPA announced its intent to register this chemical for legal use as a pesticide. In 2007, EPA fast-tracked the registration of methyl iodide (a Proposition 65 carcinogen) for use as a soil fumigant despite serious concerns raised by a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates. These scientists sent a letter of concern to EPA explaining, “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people. In addition to the potential for increased cancer incidence, EPA’s own evaluation of the chemical also indicates that methyl iodide causes thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals.” The letter concludes, “It is astonishing that the Office of Pesticide Programs (of EPA) is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

If registered as a soil fumigant, methyl iodide would be applied primarily in California’s strawberry fields, and as a gas it would drift away from the application site, and expose neighboring residents and farmworkers in nearby fields. Methyl iodide is a threat to air and water supplies and has been linked to very serious illnesses including cancer, miscarriages, thyroid toxicity, and neurological problems.

“Methyl iodide is even more toxic than what it is supposed to be replacing. More to the point, it is entirely unnecessary, as sustainable and organic farming systems are available now,” says Brett Melone of the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA) in Salinas, California. “ALBA has trained hundreds of farmers to grow food — including strawberries — without chemicals in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties. Most of the farmers ALBA works with are former farmworkers seeking a healthier work environment to grow food.”

A body of literature demonstrates the far-reaching effects of commonly used pesticides that are suspected endocrine disruptors and persistent organic pollutants, such as atrazine, 2,4-D, lindane, endosulfan, and permethrin, on global ecosystems. These pesticides, among others, and related contaminants have been linked to suppressed immune function, endocrine disruption, abnormalities in reproductive organs, hermaphroditism, and increased cub mortality in polar bears. Human subsistence hunters in the Arctic, who share the top spot on the food web with the polar bear, also face increased risks from exposure to these contaminants.

“The poisoning of the Arctic is a silent crisis that threatens not just the polar bear, but the entire Arctic ecosystem, as well as the people and communities that live within it,” said Rebecca Noblin with the Center for Biological Diversity in Anchorage. “Because the polar bear sits at the top of the food pyramid, if we do what is necessary to protect the bear from pesticides, we will also be protecting the Arctic ecosystem and the people that depend upon it.”

All pesticides in the U.S. must be registered by EPA before they can be lawfully used. Courts have held that the agency must examine the impacts of any pesticide it approves on species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008 following a petition and litigation by the Center for Biological Diversity, but EPA has yet to examine the impacts of any approved pesticide on the species.

“The United States has lagged far behind the international community in taking action to protect the species and people of the Arctic from contaminants,” said Brendan Cummings, a senior attorney at the Center. “But with the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA now has not just the opportunity but the legal obligation to take meaningful steps to address the poisoning of the Arctic.”

The IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group, comprised of the world’s leading polar bear scientists, met last week in Copenhagen and highlighted adverse health impacts from contaminants as one of the leading threats to the polar bear in its summary of the meeting. In addition to pesticide contamination and loss of sea-ice habitat from global warming, polar bears face threats from increased oil and gas development in their habitat and the proliferation of shipping routes in an increasingly ice-free Arctic. These activities bring heightened risk of oil spills and rising levels of noise pollution and other kinds of human disturbance.

The Center for Biological Diversity’s 60-day notice of intent to sue is a legally required precursor before a lawsuit can be filed under the Endangered Species Act to compel EPA to comply with the law.

While the action marks the first legal challenge to pesticide registrations due to their impacts on the Arctic, the Center has brought several successful lawsuits against EPA over the impacts of pesticides in the lower 48 states. In 2006 the Center reached a settlement with the agency over the use of 66 pesticides in the habitat of an imperiled amphibian in California, while last week, as a result of a settlement of another Center lawsuit, \EPA proposed restrictions on 74 pesticides due to their impacts on 11 threatened and endangered species in California.

“This move by Dean Foods comes at a time when organic dairy farmers around the country are in financial crisis due to a glut of milk,” says Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. “Responsible participants in this industry are using their marketing strength to ramp up organic demand. Dean has instead chosen to profiteer at the expense of the hard-working family farmers who have built this industry.”

The USDA Organic Label is intended to show consumers that the product adheres to uniform standard which meet the requirements of the Final National Organic Program Rule. An expose by The Washington Post this past week however, “Purity of Federal ‘Organic’ Label Is Questioned”, highlights some of the recent problems that the organic industry faces including the recent news by Dean Foods. Under the Organic Foods Production Act, 5% of a USDA certified organic product can consist of synthetic substances as long as the organic version is not commercially available and it is approved by the National Organic Standards Board. Instead of getting smaller, the original list of 77 substances in 2002 has grown to 245 due to lobbying efforts on the part of companies who want a piece of the organic market. You can read more about the history, standards and pesticide regulation of organic standards on our organic food program page. Provisions in the the new 2008 Farm Bill are intended to strengthen support for organic and organic transition.

It is absolutely crucial that we, as consumers, don’t play victim to this latest food-industry scam. In a national survey examining consumer perception on food labeling, Suzanne Shelton claims that people prefer ”˜natural’ to ”˜organic,’ believing that organic is an unregulated word used to increase the price of a product, even though the complete opposite is true. The marketing of ”˜natural’ dairy products under the Horizon brand umbrella by Dean is just a ploy to further confuse shoppers.
However, explains Mr. Kastel: “Dean Foods will not be able to mention that the products are produced without pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and other drugs, and genetically modified feed crops, or that the cows are required to graze in pastures rather than confined to factory farm feedlots. These are all factors that truly differentiate organic production from natural/conventional agricultural and livestock production.” It’s important that consumers know what the labels mean. Our publication, “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims are Truthful”, is a handy guide on how to read through these so-called “eco-labels.”

Georgina Downs, who lives on the edge of farmland, launched a campaign in 2001 against the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), documenting and collected evidence from other rural residents reporting health problems including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and asthma believed to be linked to crop spraying. Last November, Justice Collins said there was “a very strong case for a buffer zone” between spraying and human habitation. He ruled that the government had failed to comply with a European directive to protect people from the possible harmful effects of exposure to toxic chemicals. DEFRA challenged the ruling and yesterday the Court of Appeal overturned Justice Collins’ decision.

The three judges on the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling that the department was following guidance that gave priority to human health. One judge, Lord Justice Sullivan, said that although Ms. Downs is “a most effective campaigner” she has no formal scientific or medical qualifications. On the previous ruling, which favored Ms. Downs, Lord Justice Sullivan said that the judge’s reference to “solid evidence” was substituting his own evaluation for that of DEFRA.

Ms. Downs said the appeal judges ignored her evidence and used old official reports to reach their findings. Outside the court, Ms Downs remarked, “This judgment is a complete whitewash. I think it may well go down in history as being the most bizarre and inaccurate judgment to have ever come out of the Court of Appeal. The Government could not have wished for a better result than if it wrote the judgment itself. The fact remains that there has never been any assessment for the long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school near pesticide sprayed fields. I continue to maintain (that this) is an absolute scandal considering that crop-spraying has been a predominant feature of agriculture for over 50 years.”

Not surprisingly, the Crop Protection Association said the judgment was a victory for common sense.”Crop protection products are essential to maintain an adequate supply of high quality, affordable food,” said CPA chief executive Dominic Dyer.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said, “We welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment that the government has complied with its obligations under European law, and we also welcome the public debate on this matter.” However, in spite of the ruling, Secretary Benn also said that DEFRA is considering new measures to protect the public from crop spraying, and would consult on giving people access to farmers’ records of spraying activity near their properties and providiing residents with prior notification of spraying from farmers. The consultation, according to Secretary Benn, will also cover monitoring of pesticide use, new training requirements for operators, and other issues that should be included in DEFRA’s new National Action Plan for crop spraying.

But Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said, “Whatever the Court of Appeal says, the fact is UK regulation of pesticide spraying does not take into account the safety of schools or families living next to sprayed fields.” Advocates say the same holds true in the U.S. In aerial application of pesticides, over 40 percent of the pesticide is lost to drift, while estimates put aerially applied pesticides that miss the target insect at over 90 percent.. Pesticides also drift when applied from a truck or hand held application. According to Beyond Pesticides’ report Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities, only seven states have recognized the importance of controlling drift by restricting pesticide applications around school properties, residential areas and other sensitive sites. A recent EPA rule which includes creating or altering buffer zones, enforcing posting requirements, adding measures to protect agricultural workers, and strengthening training programs intended to reduce pesticide fumigant exposures to bystanders: people who live, work, attend school, or spend time near agricultural fields that are fumigated, fell short of adopting more stringent use restrictions and chemical bans, according to critics. Advocates, including Beyond Pesticides, criticize the agency’s buffer zone (an established non-treatment area in which it is known that chemical from the treated area drifts) provision, which can incorporate residential areas, as severely limited and question the enforceability of the standard.

Pesticides that migrate from their intended application sites can cause eye, nose, throat, or respiratory irritation, or more severe poisonings, depending on the chemical and level of exposure. Chronic exposure to some of these chemicals can also lead to lasting health effects, like cancer and developmental defects.

The research team, led by USU insect pathologist Donald Roberts, PhD, is analyzing 10,000 soil samples gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 17 states. After isolating the various fungi, each is grown in the lab and tested individually on Mormon crickets. Because the Mormon cricket is actually a katydid and more closely related to grasshoppers than crickets, it could be used as an organic control on other unwanted grasshopper species.

The research team warns that while they believe the fungus will not harm fish or mammals, it could harm non-target insects. They also question its effectiveness during huge swarms and admit the fungus’s potency is impacted by weather conditions.

The so-called Mormon cricket is actually a shieldbacked katydid, and not a cricket at all. They are large insects that can grow to almost three inches in length. They live throughout western North America in rangelands dominated by sagebrush and forbs. The Mormon cricket is flightless, but capable of traveling up to two kilometers a day in its swarming phase. It prefers to eat forbs, especially cultivated crops such as alfalfa, and vegetables. The most common chemical control is carbaryl. According to an April 2009 Wall Street Journal article, residents of some small towns have been effectively using boom boxes and sound systems playing loud rock music to divert the moving swarms away from crops and houses, although it is unknown if the result is due to the music or the heavy vibrations.

In 2006, mushroom expert Paul Stamets spoke at Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum in Washington, DC and discussed, among other things, the role fungi can play in controlling insects in the home. Mr. Stamets and his colleagues have been working with fungi that feed on insects, and he has figured out a way to grow fungi that delay their spore formation and actually attract the insect to the fungus, thus breaking through an obstacle in using fungi to protect homes from carpenter ants and termites. However, in doing so, he says his philosophy “is not to wage war against the insect kingdom but to enlist fungal allies for the intelligent, natural, and localized control of targeted insects… We seek balance, not extinction.”

“Tens of millions of pounds of toxic and poisonous chemicals, known to be deadly to endangered species and harmful to human health, including proven carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, are applied in the Bay Area each year, and many of those find their way through runoff or drift into our soil, creeks and rivers, San Francisco Bay, and sensitive wildlife habitats,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. “The toxic stew of pesticides in the Bay-Delta has played a major role in the collapse of native fish populations, and pesticides are a leading cause of the loss of native amphibians. This agreement is a positive step for protection of some of the Bay Area’s most endangered wildlife from pesticides.”

The 11 San Francisco Bay-area endangered species are the Alameda whipsnake, bay checkerspot butterfly, California clapper rail, California freshwater shrimp, California tiger salamander, delta smelt, salt marsh harvest mouse, San Francisco garter snake, San Joaquin kit fox, tidewater goby, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Similar protections were obtained by the Center for the California red-legged frog under a 2006 settlement that prohibited use of 66 pesticides in and adjacent to frog habitats statewide.

EPA is required under the Endangered Species Act to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on registration, re-registration and approved uses of pesticides that may endanger listed species or adversely affect their designated critical habitat. The consultation is designed to ensure that EPA avoids authorizing pesticide uses that jeopardize the existence of endangered species. EPA has consistently failed to evaluate or adequately regulate pesticides harmful to endangered species.

EPA today published a proposed settlement agreement with the Center and is taking public comment on a stipulated injunction that would establish a series of deadlines for EPA to conduct formal consultations with the Service and make “effects determinations” on 74 pesticides that may affect 11 Bay Area species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The injunction would set aside EPA’s authorization of use for each of the 74 pesticides in, and adjacent to, endangered species habitats within eight Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma) until formal consultation is completed. The consultations should result in cancellation of some pesticide uses and permanent use restrictions for harmful pesticides. EPA will make the determinations beginning October 20, 2009 and ending June 30, 2014.

The settlement includes interim pesticide-use restrictions in habitat for the 11 Bay Area species, in order to reduce the potential exposure of these species to harmful pesticides during the consultation period and Fish and Wildlife Service assessments of pesticide impacts.

Reported pesticide use in the Bay Area is about 10 million pounds annually, but actual pesticide use is estimated to be several times this amount since most home and commercial pesticide use is not reported to the state. Pesticides have been implicated in the recent collapse of Bay-Delta fish populations such as delta smelt, longfin smelt, and chinook salmon. Toxic pulses of pesticides have been documented in Bay Area streams and the Delta during critical stages in fish development, and many local water bodies are listed as “impaired” for not meeting water-quality standards due to high concentrations of extremely toxic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon.

Numerous studies have definitively linked pesticides with significant developmental, neurological, and reproductive damage to amphibians. Pesticide contamination can cause deformities, abnormal immune system functions, diseases, injury, and death of frogs and salamanders. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. at the University of California have strengthened the case for banning atrazine, a potent chemical that is the most common contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water nationwide. Dr. Hayes demonstrated that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that “assaults male sexual development,” interfering with reproduction by chemically castrating and feminizing male frogs. Atrazine has also been linked to increased prostate cancer, decreased sperm count, and high risk of breast cancer in humans. Thousands of pounds of atrazine are used each year in the Bay Area in proximity to amphibian habitats.

In 2006, the Center published Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife: San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides, a report analyzing the EPA’s dismal record in protecting endangered species and the agency’s ongoing refusal to reform pesticide registration and use in accordance with scientific findings. In 2004, the Center published Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered Species, detailing the decades-long failure of the EPA to regulate pesticides harmful to endangered species. EPA still has no meaningful plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

Concentrations of DDT and PCBs in fish continue to pose a threat to human health and the natural environment including the discovery of highly contaminated fish. In addition, a surge of additional problems with the lingering effects of DDT have risen in recent years, particularly with its buildup in our waterways. It has currently been identified as a threat to the Columbia River, as well as to the arctic. It has also been linked to a plethora of health concerns, including breast cancer, diabetes, non Hodgkin lymphoma, and autism.

Most of the contamination of the Palos Verdes Shelf is attributed to The Montrose Chemical Corporation of California. At one time this was the nation’s largest manufacturer of DDT, and it operated a plant near Torrance, California. Between the years of 1947 to 1971 the company has been charged of releasing over 1,700 tons of DDT into the LA sewer system which discharges into the Pacific Ocean from White Point. During this time, several other companies discharged PCBs into this sewer system leading to further chemical contamination of the sediment and causing serious environmental and health problems in the region.

In order to help combat this problem, the Montrose firm (which no longer operates) along with Aventis CropScience USA Inc., Chris-Craft Industries Inc., and Atkemix Thirty-Seven Inc., agreed to pay a total of $73 million towards restoration of the Palos Verdes Shelf in 2000 in a settlement with the US Department of Justice and the California Attorney General. Each of these companies either owned or operated DDT plants in LA County.

With this money, the EPA is proposing four different alternative plans and is urging the public to submit comments by July 15th 2009. The different plans are:
* Alternative 1: the “no action” alternative
* Alternative 2: institutional controls and monitored natural recovery
* Alternative 3: institutional controls, monitored natural recovery, and small cap
* Alternative 4: institutional controls, monitored natural recovery, and large cap

The EPA’s preferred plan is number 3, with institutional controls, monitored natural recovery and small cap. This cap would be an 18-inch layer of clean sand and coarse silt to cover about 320 acres of the shelf and approximately 36.5 metric tons of DDT. Alternative 4, on the other hand, would cap approximately 640 acres under an 18-inch layer of clean sand and silt, covering an estimated 54.4 metric tons of DDT. Under alternative 3, a surface water quality goal of 0.22 ng/L would be reached by 2023 while under alternative 4, it would be reached in 2019. A sediment cleanup level of 230 μg/kg DDT under alternative 3 would be reached by approximately 2039, whereas under alternative 4, it would be reached by 2031. Furthermore, under alternative 4, the PCB sediment cleanup level o f 7 mg/kg PCBs OC would be immediately met for the shelf, but not the slope of the Palos Verdes Shelf, according to the EPA, whereas PCB sediment level has not been determined for alternative 3.

The cap obviously does not clean the area, but would work by physically containing an area of the shelf in order to prevent erosion of the contaminated sediment, preventing dissolved contaminants from the sediments from flowing into the water, and by reducing the exposure of contaminants to benthic with a clean layer of sediment. Some of the reasons that the EPA states for favoring alternative 3 over 4, despite the fact that it would be more efficient and longer lasting, is because the smaller cap will cause less disruption of sediment and benthic organism habitat. It will also cost less and be less difficult to implement, overall.

If you’d like to express your opinions or concerns to the EPA regarding their cap plan, The EPA will accept written comments until July 15, 2009. These can be sent to: C.R. White (SFD-8-2) U.S. EPA, Region IX75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.