Researchers looked at sediment core samples that contained pollution accumulation records from the past 50 years from Lake Pepin, a part of the Mississippi River 120 miles downstream from the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. The sediment samples were then analyzed for triclosan, the four dioxins that are derived from triclosan and the entire family of dioxin chemicals.

In papers published in 2003 and 2009, Dr. Arnold and Dr. McNeill discovered that triclosan, when exposed to sunlight, generated a specific suite of four dioxins. Dioxin refers to a family of chemicals linked to cancer, weakened immune systems and reproductive problems. They are persistent organic pollutants that bioaccumulate in humans and other animals, especially in fatty tissue. Dioxin can be highly carcinogenic and can cause health problems as severe as weakening of the immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones, miscarriage, birth defects, and cancer. Because of the chemical structure as a polychloro phenoxy phenol, it is possible that dioxin can be found in triclosan as synthesis impurities. In addition to being formed during the manufacturing process, dioxin may also be formed upon incineration of triclosan.

“These four dioxins [found in the sediment core samples] only come from triclosan. They didn’t exist in Lake Pepin before triclosan was introduced,” Dr. Arnold said in a Science Daily news release. “In the most current sediments, these triclosan-derived dioxins account for about 30 percent of the total dioxin mass.”

Triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways; according to the study, 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. Researchers believe that triclosan and the dioxins ended up in Lake Pepin sediments by sticking to organic particles in the river, which then sank when they reached the calmer waters of the lake. Additionally, Triclosan can combine with chlorine in tap water to form chloroform, which is listed as a probable human carcinogen.

There are many additional human health and environmental hazards associated with the extensive use of triclosan. 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. Another study found that triclosan was present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with higher levels in people in their third decade of life and among people with the highest household income.

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.

Since the 2004 publication of “The Ubiquitous Triclosan,” Beyond Pesticides has been exposing the dangers of this toxic chemical. Now, along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 environmental and public health groups, Beyond Pesticides is leading a national grassroots movement calling for the ban of triclosan from consumer products. Beyond Pesticides is calling on manufacturers, retailers, school districts, local businesses and communities to wash their hands of triclosan and protect our nation’s waters and public health from this toxic pesticide. To learn more about this grassroots campaign and the join the movement, visit our triclosan homepage.

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.

Source: Science Daily

The new protections are based on recommendations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in their April 2009 Biological Opinion relative to use of the three pesticides to ensure no likely jeopardy to 28 threatened or endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead species. In a May 14, 2010 letter to NMFS, EPA explains how the Agency plans to achieve protection goals through the methods outlined by NMFS in the Biological Opinion or by alternative methods that EPA’s scientific analyses determined will achieve the same purpose. For example, EPA will require pesticide drift buffers adjacent to salmon and steelhead habitat but will impose different width buffers, some wider and others narrower than those recommended by NMFS, depending on factors that affect how far the pesticide might drift from the application site.

In correspondence to the EPA dated May 7, 2010, Dow AgroSciences and Cheminova, manufacturers of the pesticides in question, stated that they were “baffled by the agency’s position,” saying that their products do not threaten endangered species. Citing their “solid scientific evidence”, that they claim is “far more complete than is reflected in the NMFS Biological Opinion,” they are not prepared to make the registration revisions [to their products] described in the EPA’s April 29, 2010 and November 16, 2009 letters.

The changes include the addition of buffer zones; application limitations based on wind speed, soil moisture and weather conditions; and a fish mortality incident reporting requirement. The buffers will apply to surface waters within the geographic range of 22 salmon or steelhead for which NMFS indicated continued use of the pesticides would result in likely jeopardy to the species. The remaining limitations will apply to all surface waters within the geographic range of all 28 salmon and steelhead species in the four states. They will replace interim limitations put in place by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in 2004.

Previously, NMFS determined that current uses of the pesticides were jeopardizing the existence of west coast salmon and steelhead. EPA, charged with regulating pesticide use, had earlier determined that many salmon runs were not at risk from these pesticides. NMFS’s review found serious flaws with EPA’s analytical methods and conclusions, and determined that EPA underestimated the risk that the pesticides pose to salmon.

In 2002, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, NCAP, and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, obtained a federal court order declaring that EPA had violated ESA by failing to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. As a result of that lawsuit, EPA began consultations, but NMFS never issued biological opinions or identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. In 2007, the salmon advocates filed a second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with NMFS that establishes a schedule for issuing the required biological opinions. Under the terms of settlement, the EPA must implement measures within a year-long timeframe to prevent further exposure of the pesticides to the water that cultivate these species. The measures recommended by NMFS include: a ban on application of the three pesticides in windy conditions and buffer zones near water resources and require that land applications must be at least 50-600 feet from the water resource and aerial spraying requires a 600-1,000 foot buffer zone.

The pesticides that have been reviewed so far are some of the most dangerous chemicals used today. All of them””chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl””are neurotoxic and pose serious risks to both humans and wildlife. While many of these pesticides have been phased out for residential use, they continue to expose wildlife and farmworkers through their use in agriculture. Thirty-one more pesticides will undergo review by NMFS over the next three years. The next opinion, reviewing 12 pesticides, is due on June 30, 2010.

“Previous studies have shown that exposure to some organophosphate compounds cause hyperactivity and cognitive deficits in animals,” says lead author Maryse F. Bouchard, a professor at the University of Montreal Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and scientist at the Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center. “Our study found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.” Marc Weisskopf, PhD, ScD, another study author told Reuters, “What this paper specifically highlights is that this may be true even at low concentrations.”

For children with a 10-fold increase in the concentration of the most common dialkyl phosphate metabolites (an indicator of organophosphate exposure), the odds of ADHD increases by more than half. And for the most common breakdown product, called dimethyl triophosphate, the odds of ADHD almost doubled in kids with above-average levels compared to those without detectable levels.

Because the research links ADHD with pesticide breakdown products in urine, exposure can only be traced to OP pesticide exposure, either on food or in the home, not a specific pesticide. Garry Hamlin of Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures chlorpyrifos, an OP pesticide widely found as a residue in food becuase of its widespread use in chemical-intensive agriculture, was quick to say, “The results reported in the paper don’t establish any association specific to our product…”

Environmentalists point to this study, as well as Mr. Hamlin’s reaction, as examples of what is wrong with the approach we take to toxic chemicals, especially pesticide regulation, in the U.S. Risk assessment calculations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) — the federal pesticide registration and tolerance laws, respectively — evaluate harm based on false realities about daily toxic exposure and individual sensitivities. Risk management decisions under these laws assume the benefits of toxic pesticide products to society or to various sectors of users, then make a determination that the risks are “reasonable.” Even under FQPA, which has been touted for its health-based standard, there is an inherent assumption that if a pesticide meets a highly questionable “acceptable” risk threshold, it has value or benefit. This is the practice even though there are typically less or non-toxic methods or products available. Pesticides, like the OPs linked to ADHD in the current study, are completely unnecessary given organic alternatives in agriculture and residential integrated pest management techniques, which do not rely on toxic chemicals.

The study, “Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides,” was published May 17, 2010 in the online version of the journal Pediatrics. The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

It may come as no surprise that famously progressive companies such as Google have created gardens for its employees but more traditional companies have also joined in the trend. PepsiCo, the $60 billion manufacturer of highly processed products, including Mountain Dew, Amp Energy Drink, Doritos, and Cap’n Crunch, has created an organic garden a five minute walk from corporate headquarters in Purchase, New York. The garden at Kohl’s Department Stores’ headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin provides not only food, but a place for children from the company day care center to play. Other companies that have added organic gardens for their employees to tend include the Toyota Plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, the corporate headquarters for Yahoo and Sunset Magazine in Silicon Valley, and Best Buy has planted a garden at its headquarters to supply the company cafeteria.

Providing employees with organic produce at little to no cost also makes smart business sense. Human Resources Executive magazine named the organic garden of the public relations firm Haberman one of the five best benefits ideas of the year. Companies see it as an inexpensive way to improve morale. Having employees from the mailroom working with middle management to build tomato trellises is great for teambuilding without the constraints of office hierarchy. In addition, employees eating more fresh organic fruits and vegetables may also help to reduce health care costs.

The size and cost of corporate organic gardens varies greatly. Some have created a small container gardens for under $1,000, while others take a much more ambitious approach. Chesapeake Energy, a power company based in Oklahoma City is building a $500,000 garden that will fill a city block.

Starting an organic garden in a city or corporate office park can be a challenge. Soil may be contaminated by heavy metals, and fill from building construction, and turf in corporate office parks is usually treated with many pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Depending on the pollutants, remediation may be necessary, or a container garden may be more cost effective. Companies must also deal with waning employee interest. Last year 200 of PepsiCo’s employees signed up to work on the organic garden, compared to 75 this year. A number of the plots are empty or overgrown with weeds. However, cosmetics company Aveda recognized the need for careful planning to ensure the success of their organic garden. An employee devised a chore calendar with email reminders to program participants when they are signed up to work.

This new trend of corporate organic gardens tended by employees can be attributed to an increased awareness of human health and environmental issues stemming from agriculture. It reflects the rapidly growing movement in the United States toward organic locally grown produce. Gardening’s increasing popularity also plays a part. A survey by the National Gardening Association shows a 13% increase in the number of Americans who grew fruit and vegetables from 2008 to 2009.

In order to hunt for blood, female mosquitoes use their antenna to locate humans; however, according to researchers, DEET temporarily destroys an insect’s sense of smell by hindering the function of certain odor receptors. The researchers observed which insects bit DEET-treated human arms and discovered that a gene alteration prohibited a sensory cell on the bugs’ antennae from detecting the chemical.

“There is something in the antenna they use to smell that reacted differently,” Dr. Nina Stanczyk of Rothhamstead Research, an agricultural research center in the U.K., told the Toronto Star.

Scientists studied one species of DEET-insensitive mosquitoes, the Aedes aegypti, a species that carry the diseases yellow fever and dengue fever. When mutated females were bred with males of unknown sensitivity in tests, the quantity of mosquitoes that were insensitive to DEET rose from 13 to 50 percent in one generation.

Though scientists are warning that this research is limited to the laboratory and admit that they are not concerned that the resistant bugs will spread tremendously, insecticide resistance in mosquitoes is nothing new. A 2003 study found that mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus and malaria developed resistance to organophosphate and carbamate insecticides as a result of a single genetic mutation. Such resistance renders the broadcast spraying of mosquito adulticides and overuse of repellents an inefficient form of control that puts public health and the environment at risk to the chemical’s adverse effects.

For years scientists have raised concerns about the use of DEET and seizures among children, even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that there is not enough information to implicate DEET with these incidents. DEET is quickly absorbed through the skin and has caused adverse effects including severe skin reactions such as large blisters and burning sensations. Use of DEET by pregnant woman has been linked to birth defects, and laboratory studies have found that DEET can cause neurological damage, including brain damage in children.

DEET’s synergistic effect with other insecticides is also a major health concern. DEET, when used in combination with permethrin -a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, likely facilitates enhanced dermal absorption of permethrin and induces symptoms such as headache, loss of memory, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, and ataxia, which causes an inability to coordinate muscular movements.

There are many least-toxic options for repelling insects that include the use of citronella and other essential oils, like oil of lemon eucalyptus, which has been recommended as an efficacious alternative by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

For more information on safer methods to protect yourself from insects, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet on repellents and our West Nile Virus/Mosquito Management program page.

Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez is a third grader who loves playing kickball and baseball in Boulder city parks. But then he heard that the advisory committee had approved two new herbicides for use on city parks. “I didn’t think it was right,” he said. “The children of this generation should be able to grow up without worrying about the air they’re breathing or the grass they’re playing on.” The Integrated Pest Management Subcommittee – made up of representatives of three city boards – recommended that Boulder add the herbicides, Tenacity and Barricade, to the list of allowed turf treatments. Xiuhtezcatl organized a group of some two dozen children to protest the potential use of the herbicides. They gathered Friday in front of the Boulder County Courthouse on the Pearl Street Mall waving hand-lettered signs that read “Let us play in clean parks,” “We love dandelions” and “Babies crawl in parks. No Spray!”

Myra Noble, 11, said many parks are next to streams and rivers and spraying herbicides there allows them to enter the water supply. “How would you feel if you were in Mother Nature’s shoes?” she asked a small crowd of supporters. “How would you like to have critters on your face, digging holes in you and putting chemicals in you and you couldn’t do anything to shake them off?” Sabrina Evans, also 11, said, “You know that big oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico? Maybe you’ve heard of it?,” she said. “As many people are trying to stop that, that’s how many people I want trying to stop these chemicals on our parks.”

Both Tenacity and Barricade are used to prevent broad-leaf weeds in grass and carry warning labels about potential dangers to people and animals. The warning label on Tenacity says that expectant mothers, infants and children “should not come into contact with or have any exposure to Tenacity.”The active ingredient in Tenacity is mesotrione, which may give rise to ocular, liver and kidney effects and there is concern, according to the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) factsheet, about its effects on the developing nervous system in children. Barricade, whose active ingredient is prodiamine is a group C -possible human carcinogen, and a suspected endocrine disruptor.

Many communities across the country have taken a stand against the use of toxic pesticides on their lawns and landscapes. Most recently, the state of New York passed the Child Safe Playing Fields Act (A 7937-C) that would prohibit the use of toxic pesticides on school and daycare center playgrounds, turf, athletic and playing fields. In New Jersey, over 30 communities have made their parks pesticide-free zones and have adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for managing town property by passing a resolution adopting a pesticide reduction policy. Connecticut and Illinois have also moved forward to reduce children’s exposures to lawn pesticides.

Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable to pesticides because of their rapid development and behavior patterns. Many scientific studies indicate that pesticides threaten the public’s health by increasing the risk of cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, and reproductive problems. These chemicals can also poison animals, pollute local streams and rivers and seep through the ground into underground aquifers. Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogenicity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds.

Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Lawn Care Program webpages for more information on toxic herbicides and what you can do to keep you and your pesticide-free.

“There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives — our workplaces, schools and homes,” said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., chair of the Panel. “The increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm,” he added. Beyond Pesticides applauds the chairman’s precautionary approach and encourages President Obama to heed the panel’s call to “use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

Part Two of the report focuses on sources and types of environmental contaminants, and its second chapter focuses specifically on agricultural sources of exposure. The chapter begins, “The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals. Many of these chemicals are known or suspected of having either carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties.” It continues, “[B]etween three and five million individuals and their families work as migrant or seasonal workers. Due to working and housing conditions, including lack of child care that forces parents to take their children with them into the fields, these workers and their families often have disproportionate exposures to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.” The report also emphasizes the risk of exposure in utero, underscoring the need to better protect pregnant farmworkers.

The Panel also points out that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical registration process does not eliminate these chemicals from our lives. “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered by EPA for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian (female spouses), pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma”¦Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are used in EPA-registered pesticides now on the market.” The Panel notes that the pesticide tolerances, the allowable limit on food, have been criticized by environmentalists as being inadequate and unduly influenced by industry. Because chemical-intensive agriculture has created such a hazardous food system — for consumers, workers and the environment — Beyond Pesticides recommends eating organic food whenever possible.

The cancer threat posed by pesticides extends beyond agriculture. Of the 40 most commonly used pesticides in schools, 28 can cause cancer, and 19 of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides are carcinogens or have been linked to cancer. Learn more about organic lawn and landscape management and efforts to protect children from pesticides in schools.

Key Report Findings

With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the U.S., many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or under-studied and largely unregulated, the report finds that exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. Yet, the public remains unaware of many of these carcinogens as well as their own level of exposure, especially to many common environmental carcinogens such as radon, formaldehyde and benzene.

In addition to environmental carcinogens, the report finds that while improved imaging technologies have facilitated great strides in diagnosing and treating diseases, including cancer, some of these technologies also carry risks from increased radiation exposures. Many health care professionals, as well as the public, are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime.

In addition, the report finds that health care providers often fail to consider occupational and environmental factors when diagnosing patient illness. Physicians and other medical professionals ask infrequently about patient workplace and home environments when taking a medical history, thereby missing out on information that could be invaluable in discovering underlying causes of disease.

The report also recognizes the U.S. military as a major source of toxic occupational and environmental exposures that can increase cancer risk. Information is available about some military activities that have directly or indirectly exposed military and civilian personnel to carcinogens and contaminated soil and water in numerous locations in the United States and abroad, such as radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons testing. Nearly 900 Superfund sites are abandoned military facilities or facilities that produced materials and products for, or otherwise supported, military needs. In some cases, these contaminants have spread far beyond their points of origin because they have been transported by wind currents or have leached into drinking water supplies.

The Panel concludes that federal responses to the plight of affected individuals have been unsatisfactory, and that those affected lack knowledge about the extent of their exposure or potential health problems they may face.

Recommendations

The Panel recommends concrete actions that government; industry; research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation and other harmful exposures. Key recommendations include —

— Increase, broaden and improve research regarding environmental contaminants and human health.
— Raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve understanding and reporting of known exposures.
— Increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of exposure among health care providers.
— Enhance efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality.
— Aggressively address the toxic environmental exposures the US military has caused, and improve response to associated health problems among both military personnel and civilians.

Additional recommendations that are underscored in the report include those related to the needs for a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda on the issue, stronger regulation and safer alternatives to many currently used chemicals, among other highlights.

The Panel concludes, “Just as there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist for intervention, change, and prevention to protect the health of current and future generations and reduce the national burden of cancer.”

According to Ray Pogwist, Chair of the Ocean Township Environmental Commission, the IPM policy for the township identifies key sensitive areas like the village parks to be managed without harmful chemical pesticides. These areas will be posted with a sign indicating that chemical pesticides have not been applied to the site.

“Ocean Township’s action reinforces their commitment to protecting parks and open spaces and reducing its pesticide use,” said Jane Nogaki, program coordinator for NJ Environmental Federation (NJEF). “Since IPM is now the law on all New Jersey school grounds, it makes perfect sense to try to expand it to all public property as well. I am pleased that when residents and visitors use the parks, they will not be exposed to pesticides. That was always important to me when my children were small,” said Ms. Nogaki.

The Township of Ocean joins 38 other communities, and is one of six communities in Monmouth, which have designated Pesticide Free Zones (PFZ) in parks including Asbury Park, Colts Neck Hazlet, Neptune, Wall, East and West Windsor, Irvington, Newark, Manasquan, Ocean City, Pine Beach, and the counties of Burlington and Cape May.

Many scientific studies indicate that pesticides threaten the public’s health by increasing the risk of cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, and reproductive problems. These chemicals can also poison animals, pollute local streams and rivers and seep through the ground into underground aquifers. Every body of water tested in New Jersey has evidence of pesticide contamination, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable because of their rapid development and behavior patterns. Currently New Jersey uses about four million pounds of pesticides annually for lawn care, mosquito control, agricultural production, and golf course maintenance.

“We especially want to protect children because they are closer to pesticide applications on the ground, and they are still developing and absorb more pesticides than adults,” said Ms. Nogaki.

Fortunately, alternatives exists that are cost effective and friendly to the environment, simple things like hand pulling weeds, mowing at a height of 3 inches to shade out weeds, mulching areas properly to prevent weeds, planting native plants that do not get insect problems, and reducing or eliminating lawns to cut down on the need for watering, fertilizing and mowing.

“We need residents to do their part in reducing pesticides in our environment and keeping our air, water and land safe from toxic chemicals,” said Mr. Pogwist, chair of the Ocean Township Environmental Commission who brought the PFZ resolution to the attention of the town elected officials. “Residents can participate by making their own property a ”˜Pesticide Free Zone.’”

Ocean Township manages the Colonial Golf Course, Community Pool and Tennis Facility, Joe Palaia Park, Oakhurst First Aid & Fire Company Memorial Fields, Wanamassa Firemen’s Memorial Park, Dave Dahrouge Park, and Wayside Park.

For more information on non-toxic lawn care and “Pesticide Free Zone” ladybug logo yard signs see NJEF’s Pesticide Campaign and Beyond Pesticides’ Lawn Care Program webpages.

Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. Children are much more vulnerable than adults to the injuries and illnesses brought on by this type of work. Due to children’s higher rate of metabolism, they take in more pesticides per unit weight than adults, and their developing organ systems are more sensitive to the effects of pesticides. To protect workers from acute pesticide exposure, EPA sets Restricted Entry Intervals (REI), the time after a pesticide is sprayed during which workers are not permitted to enter the field. REIs, however, are based on a 154 pound male. EPA does not make any special considerations for children or pregnant women. Children interviewed by Human Rights Watch for the report described many cases where they were exposed to drift from neighboring fields, or went to work in a field where crops were still wet from pesticide application. Children were observed to be working without any protective clothing, such as long pants or long sleeved shirts. Many were seen working without even shoes. When asked, the children said they do not wear gloves when they work because it makes harvesting more difficult, and their pay will be docked if they bruise the produce. In addition to increased pesticide exposure, children who do not wear gloves suffer from painful cuts and blisters. Children who were wearing protective clothing often said it was at the insistence of their parents, not their employer. A child’s growing bones also make him or her more vulnerable to repetitive stress injury.

The children interviewed by Human Rights Watch described many symptoms of pesticide poisoning such as headache, dizziness, blurred vision, vomiting, and rash. However, having never been educated on the dangers of pesticides or their proper use they did not connect their symptoms to pesticides. Julia N., a former child farm worker who now trains farm workers on pesticide safety, described being poisoned by pesticides when she took off her bandanna and gloves. She experienced itching, dizziness, and blurred vision. “I feel so bad that I didn’t know and that so many people don’t know that if they take off a glove that could expose them to pesticides and they’ll have so many problems,” she said. Several children said they were never told what pesticides were used, and what safety measures they should be taking. “They don’t tell us anything [about pesticides],” 16 year old Noemi J. said.

FLSA was enacted in 1938 to protect child laborers. It provided no protection to children in agriculture, since most of them were working on their families’ farms. The law was amended in 1974 to provide some protection to child farm workers. Outside of agriculture children must be 16 or older to accept most jobs. Employers may hire 14 year olds for certain jobs such as a cashier, but they are only allowed to work 18 hours a week during the school year, and 40 hours a week in the summer. There is no minimum age for children working on small farms. Large farms children as young as 12. Children in the report described working 12 and 14 hour shifts despite being ill or injured. The minimum age for jobs considered especially hazardous is 16 in the agricultural industry, but 18 in all other industries. For example a 16 year old can operate a forklift on a farm, but cannot operate on in a store warehouse. Seventeen states do not cover agricultural workers in their child labor regulations. Human Rights Watch cites many instances where employers disregarded the few protections in place. Children reported being paid much less than minimum wage. Employers underreported hours, and docked workers’ pay for equipment and transportation to the work site. Exploitation of children in agriculture goes largely unreported. Many child farm workers are natural born U.S. citizens of undocumented or illegal immigrants. They do not make complaints, for fear of losing their job or having family members deported.

In response to the report, EPA and the Department of Labor (DOL) promised to crack down on the exploitation of children in agriculture. In September of 2009 Rep. Roybal-Allard introduced CARE, a bill that would extend the protections given to working children under FLSA to children working in agriculture, unless the child is working on a farm owned by the parents. The bill would require DOL to keep better records on child farm workers, and increase penalties for FLSA violations. The American Farm Bureau opposes the bill. Ron Gaskill, the Bureau’s senior director of congressional relations, suggested the bill might “take away the opportunity for rural youth to get gainful work experience.” So far the bill has 87 co sponsors. The United States Department of Agriculture has also come out in support of tougher enforcement.

Source: The Washington Post

Take Action:
Human Rights Watch has a campaign, End Child Labor in the Fields. They are urging you to contact your Congressional Representative to ask them to support CARE.

Ciba, the Swiss-based company that is a subsidiary of BASF, announced last year that they had withdrawn the application of triclosan as a food contact additive so that they could instead focus their sales in the personal hygiene, health care and medical device sector. The company declared this to be a “strategic business decision” and declared that triclosan use as as an additive in plastics intended to come into contact with food was no longer “appropriate.” In the U.S. in 2009, Ciba requested a voluntarily cancellation of the registrations for the technical grade triclosan regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and incorporated into plastics and textiles. Ciba continues to market triclosan for medical and personal care products, which are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administrative (FDA). Har-Met International, Inc is the remaining registrant of technical grade triclosan in the U.S. for uses regulated by EPA. In EPA’s 2008 dietary risk assessment (as part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision) for indirect food uses of triclosan, the agency found that when the chemical was incorporated into plastics and textiles, such as cutting boards, countertops conveyor belts etc., it posed no risks, even though no residue chemistry data were formally submitted to the agency for triclosan. Beyond Pesticides, in comments to the agency in 2008, notes that researchers find that triclosan can migrate from kitchenware into food, including from a treated cutting board, and that the agency should not register any uses of triclosan that come in contact with food before exposures are adequately assessed and a food use tolerance set.

Ciba claims that its decision to pull out of the plastics and textiles market enables the company to focus on personal care and hygiene, while arguing that there exists an “exhaustive database of safety research” and an “exemplary record of safety and efficacy.” It is rare, however, for chemical companies to pull out of a growing and apparently lucrative market.

The scientific literature has extensivelly linked the non-medical uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. 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. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives also found that triclosan was present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with higher levels in people in their third decade of life and among people with the highest household income.

Researchers have associated triclosan use with bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications and bacterial cleansers. Triclosan products are so widely used that they promote the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers because they leave behind residues that continually expose bacteria to low level concentrations of the pesticide. The European Commission recently requested the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety to assess the issue of bacterial resistance to triclosan, and found that there are concerns that low concentrations can “trigger the expression of resistance” in bacteria and that more investigation is needed.

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 residues in fish and possibly food crops. A 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 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. Triclosan can combine with chlorine in tap water to form chloroform, which is listed as a probable human carcinogen. Also, triclosan is converted into dioxin- a highly toxic compound, when exposed to sunlight in an aqueous environment, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals.

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.

Since the 2004 publication of “The Ubiquitous Triclosan,” Beyond Pesticides has been exposing the dangers of this toxic chemical. Now, along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 environmental and public health groups, Beyond Pesticides is leading a national grassroots movement calling for the ban of triclosan from consumer products. Beyond Pesticides is calling on manufacturers, retailers, school districts, local businesses and communities to wash their hands of triclosan and protect our nation’s waters and public health from this toxic pesticide. To learn more about this grassroots campaign and the join the movement, visit our triclosan homepage.

Nanotechnology involves the creation and manipulation of materials at the scale of atoms and molecules. Scientists are applying nanotechnology to many industries, including food production. Critics say that too little is known about the impact of nanoparticles on human health and the environment. Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature’s Path Foods, sponsored the comment banning nanotechnology in organics to the Canadian General Standards Board, which then voted for the ban. According to Mr. Falck, reasons given for the ban on nanotechnology are that consumers are very concerned about the technology, that it is incompatible with organic principles, and that safety aspects of the technology are unknown.

Mr. Falck says there is no regulation on nanotechnology, which presents even more potential problems than genetic engineering. “Genetic engineering is a definable science: splicing genes into crops. With nanotechnology there are at least 1000 different applications, all unregulated with unknown risks.”

In the U.S., the Materials Handling Committee of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) planned last fall to recommend that nanotechnology be banned from organic food production. But in February the committee published a “request for information for developing a usable definition of the term (nanotechnology) in organics.” The document says “a difficulty in developing a definition for the term ”˜nanotechnology’ has prevented the committee from completing a final recommendation on this important issue.” As a result, the committee has requested a technical and scientific review of the issue to aid the committee in clearly identifying the term “nanotechnology.” The committee wants to avoid including in the definition products of technologies that are currently allowed in organic production and processing. For example, homogenizing milk and grain milling create nanosized particles””milk molecules and wheat flour dust””but would not be considered products of nanotechnology.

Banning nanotechnology in organic production presents challenges because it is already being used in some organic products. Nano Green Sciences, Inc. sells a nano-pesticide that they claim is “organic.” Other pesticides, such as pyrethrin and copper, could contain nanoparticles and nanosilver could be used to clean vegetables of bacteria. Some personal care products promoted as organic already contain nanoparticles.

Canada joins several other countries that have either banned or proposed a ban on nanotechnology in organic including the United Kingdom’s Soil Association, Biological Farmers of Australia, and Austrian organic certifier Austria Bio Garantie. The US-based Organic Crop Improvement Association has added a clause in their organic standard to regulate the use of nanotechnology.

In 2007, a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations released the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, which calls for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products, citing risks to the public, workers and the environment. The manufacture of products using nanotechnology—a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order to alter properties—has exploded in recent years. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials can pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed. Nanosized particles such as nanosilver can be released from impregnated materials via washing or sweating where they may pose numerable unknown adverse effects to humans and water systems.

Tell the NOSB to keep nanotechnology out of organic production and processing. See sample letter.

If registered, methyl iodide will be used primarily to fumigate and sterilize the California’s strawberry fields, although the pesticide will also be used in nurseries and nut tree production. DPR’s proposal does not require neighbor notification before use of this extremely toxic chemical.

As evidenced by California’s thriving organic industry, alternatives to fumigants exist and are in use in California. In a hearing on February 8, 2010, before the California Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, two panels of California growers and researchers discussed a number of safe and effective alternatives to methyl iodide. These methods include solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation, crop rotation, biological controls, selective breeding, soil steaming, hydroponics, and steam treatment for containerized plants.

“Why are we risking our children’s lives when alternatives to methyl iodide are already being used successfully to grow strawberries?” said Marilyn Lynds, resident of Moss Landing. “With this decision, the Department of Pesticide Regulation has put communities in harm’s way. With increasing levels of cancer all around us, why would DPR put one more dangerous carcinogen into the air””especially one scientists consider difficult, if not impossible, to control.”

A panel of internationally-renowned scientists convened by DPR, which conducted a formal review of the chemical during 2009—2010, concluded in its report that due to the high toxicity of methyl iodide any agricultural use “would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on the public health,” adding that, “Adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

“Under this proposal, fieldworkers near fumigation sites would have significant risk for miscarriages and nervous system effects,” explains Anne Katten, a pesticide and worker safety specialist at California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Further, a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates, sent a letter of concern to EPA about methyl iodide 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 is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

DPR says it will impose more comprehensive controls on methyl iodide than EPA or any other state, including: larger buffer zones around all applications; a minimum of a half—mile buffer around schools, hospitals, nursing homes and similar sites; reduced application rates and acreage that can be treated; and, application limits to protect groundwater. Opponents do not think these steps go far enough to protect the public.

Dr. Susan Kegley, chemist and consulting scientist for Pesticide Action Network North America, commented, “If DPR’s decision holds, in addition to increased thyroid disease and more cancers generally, scientific evidence predicts we will see a leap in late-term miscarriages for pregnant women who live or work near methyl iodide applications. We want them to reconsider this decision immediately.”

The pesticide is promoted by the largest privately-held pesticide company in the world, Arysta LifeScience. Arysta has invested significant resources in lobbying and a communications campaign within the state to secure registration in one of the most lucrative markets in the nation.

Advocates say that Californians have been clear that they do not want the carcinogenic pesticide approved for use in the state, and that there are safer, cleaner and more viable ways to grow strawberries. Opposition has measured in the thousands, and includes farmworkers, mothers, doctors and nurses, victims of pesticide poisoning and residents of rural communities.

On April 12, 2010, environmental, public health, labor and farmworker advocacy organizations from across the country filed a petition asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind the Bush administration era approval of methyl iodide in light of troubling new findings uncovered in California studies.

Paul Towers of Pesticide Watch said, “DPR should take these forty-five days to truly review and reconsider its approval of a known carcinogen and miscarriage-inducing pesticide. In 2010 we should be moving towards green solutions that are safe for our communities, not backtracking by adding new poisons to the arsenal.”

Take Action: Tell the California Department of Pesticide Regulation that the risks posed by methyl iodide are too great and, as proof by the state’s thriving organic market, alternatives exist. Comments are due June 14, 2010, by e-mail to [email protected], or to Pesticide Registration Branch, Department of Pesticide Regulation, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015.

Silver has long been used as an antiseptic to reduce bacterial growth on skin, however recent advances in nanoscience (the science and manipulation of chemical and biological materials with dimensions in the range from 1-100 nanometers) led to the development of silver nanoparticles. Due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them, and silver nanoparticles (or nanosilver) are now widely impregnated into a wide range of consumer products, including textiles such as socks, sportswear, underwear and bedding, vacuums, washing machines, toys, sunscreens, and a host of others.

The researchers tested and compared eleven different fabrics for the study, “Determination of silver nanoparticle release from antibacterial fabrics into artificial sweat” in Particle and Fibre Toxicology journal. Six of the fabrics were commercially made shirts that were sold as containing nanosilver, and five fabrics were treated in the lab with a silver nanoparticle solution containing nanoparticles of silver chloride and titanium dioxide. The lab-prepared fabrics were treated with 0, 0.5, 1, 5 and 10 grams per liter of the nanosilver solution. The fabric was then incubated for 24 hours in four formulations of artificial sweat varying in acidity but containing the same compounds as human sweat (i.e. lactic acid, salt compounds, water). After the fabric was removed, the artificial sweat was analyzed for silver nanoparticles. Researchers then compared which fabrics were effective at reducing bacterial growth for Staphylococcus aureaus (staph) and E. coli by incubating the bacteria with the fabric samples and counting the results.

Silver content in the lab prepared fabrics ranged from 36 to 425 milligrams of silver per kilogram (mg/kg), and released up to 322 mg/kg of fabric weight of the silver nanoparticles. The consumer fabrics, on the other hand, contained less silver to begin with, between 1 and 15 mg/kg, therefore releasing less silver into the artificial sweat. Researchers also found that half of the commercially made shirts did not contain any silver or feature any antibacterial properties, despite being labeled so. Overall, the lab-prepared fabrics released more silver nanoparticles into the artificial sweat and were more able to reduce bacterial growth than the store-bought ones, with the exception of one that inhibited bacterial growth similarly to that of the lab-prepared shirts while leaching less nanoparticles (0.5 mg/kg).

The researchers conclude that as nanotechnology becomes increasingly prevalent in consumer products, the potential for exposure to nanoparticles increases. Yet, little is known about how these silver materials may interact with people’s bodies. There is concern that the the tiny particles may be more toxic than other, larger-sized and more traditional types of silver compounds, as the smaller particles could be more easily absorbed and distributed throughout the body.

The authors suggest more research is needed to better understand the risks associated with nanotechnologies as more consumer products, such as socks and other clothing fabrics, incorporate silver nanoparticles in an attempt to reduce bacterial growth and the odors associated with it. Other studies have reported that silver can migrate from treated fabrics during washing in a washing machine. The silver from these particles are presumed to be carried into the environment by wastewater, causing concerns for aquatic life.

The study highlights a potential exposure source of nanoparticles that we know very little about in terms of the potential health effects. More research is needed to better understand the risks associated with nanotechnologies as more consumer products, such as socks and other clothing fabrics, incorporate silver nanoparticles in an attempt to reduce bacterial growth and the odors associated with it.

Current regulations fail to guarantee consumers that these new technologies are safe to use. All pesticidal substances must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under FIFRA, silver nanoparticles meet the definition of a pesticide- that is, as a substance that is intended to disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or development of microbiological organisms. As such, silver nanoparticles, with their antimicrobial activity, should and must be regulated by the EPA as a pesticide. However EPA has done little to regulate or evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts these particles may cause. In 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), and a coalition of consumer, health, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed a petition with the EPA challenging the agency’s failure to regulate nanomaterials.

With an increasing number of scientific studies looking at these antibacterial substances, two basic, yet important, questions arise: Are they safe for human health and the environment? And are they necessary?

For more information, including tips on how to get toxic antimicrobials out of your home, school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterials program page.

Roundup Ready Alfalfa is genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Alfalfa is a bee pollinated crop used primarily for forage. The potential for cross pollination between GE and non-GE varieties of alfalfa is much higher than in other crops such as corn, because of the way Alfalfa is pollinated. In 2007, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered a moratorium on GE alfalfa until the USDA completed an EIS. The USDA released a draft EIS in December of 2009 again calling for deregulation of the crop. Despite the expected release of a final draft next year Monsanto has decided to press ahead with a Supreme Court Case. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is the EIS that will determine if growers in the United States will once again be able to purchase GE alfalfa. However this case could still be very important to stakeholders, because of the precedent it could set.

This case hinges on the question of whether the organic growers were able to demonstrate a “likelihood of irreparable [environmental] harm.” It is Monsanto’s claim that the growers only demonstrated the likelihood of economic harm. Environmental groups are concerned that a ruling in favor of Monsanto could set a precedent greatly weakening NEPA. The law has been used by various environmentalists to bring suit against industry and government agencies. Unfortunately environmental cases brought under NEPA have not fared well before the Supreme Court. According to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club certain Justices seem to be “on a kick to gut NEPA remedies.” Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court not to rule in favor of Monsanto. Defenders of Wildlife has not been involved with the issue of genetically engineered crops, but decided to weigh in, because of the potential impact this case could have on environmental litigation. Industry groups are also concerned with the outcome of the case. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, Croplife America and the National Association of Home Builders filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to Tighten restrictions on plaintiffs seeking injunctions against industry for environmental reasons.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer brother of US District Judge Charles Breyer will not take part in case. Justice Clarence Thomas will take part despite being a former Monsanto employee.

Such an infestation, according to BLM, would result in substantial loss of vegetation and ground cover that is vital to providing food and habitat to wildlife and livestock populations and maintaining properly functioning ecosystems. While the insects are native to Wyoming, outbreaks of certain pest species can be problematic because of their voracious appetites for grass.

In discussions with APHIS and local county weed and pest districts, the BLM believes that all BLM states, excluding Alaska and Eastern States, may require some treatments and those grasshopper suppression treatments will be essential to protect private rangelands and crops. Treatments also protect federal rangelands from massive defoliation, particularly the loss of forbs, essential for many wildlife species.

Grasshoppers, as well as other insects, are an important food source for chicks, and treatment as well as application timing could potentially disturb sage—grouse, particularly during early brood rearing.

Earlier this year, scientists were looking into a fungus that eats Mormon crickets (which are more closely related to grasshoppers than crickets) alive by depositing spores inside them that multiply and eventually break through their exoskeletons. While the fungus is already providing an organic method of controlling crickets and grasshoppers in Australia, Africa and South America, exotic species laws prevents its importation into the U.S.

According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA), a healthy and diverse farm environment usually discourages the build-up of a lasting infestation and improving biodiversity is the single most important step that can be taken. The best way to control grasshoppers is by preventing them in the first place by taking cultural measures, such as tillage, fall clean-up, trap cropping, early seeding and early harvest, in conjunction with biological controls, such as Nosema locustae, a naturally occurring protozoan that causes disease and death in crickets and grasshoppers.

Typically, the pesticides utilized by APHIS in the grasshopper program include carbaryl, diflubenzuron and malathion. APHIS applies these pesticides by ground equipment by distributing baits usually made of wheat bran or rolled oats and carbaryl or aerially by distributing ultra—low—volume applications (any application of less than .5 gallons per acre).

Instead of using full coverage insecticide treatment, the BLM has selected the “Reduced Area and Agent Treatments” (RAATs) method, which will purportedly require less land area and uses insecticides at lower rates. The plan involves spraying alternating strips of land with the toxic pesticide diflubenzuron, which stops grasshoppers from growing.

While this is slightly better than the alternative of blanket spraying, the BLM decided against another alternative that would have required more restrictive buffers around certain bird and big game habitat. Under the other alternative–RAATs with Additional Buffers– additional seasonal or spatial buffers would have be employed to protect specific resources, as described below:
Ӣ To protect raptors during the breeding season, no aerial or ground treatments would occur within 0.5 mile of known active nests. This would extend the 1,000-foot buffer described above for bald and golden eagles to 0.5 mile and would extend this protection to all raptors. The primary concern for bird species is related to disturbance (from aircraft or vehicles used in the application of the pesticides) and the effects of decreases in insect populations from pesticide applications on insectivorous species rather than to the direct toxicity to birds.
Ӣ To protect the greater sage-grouse, an ESA candidate species, no aerial or ground treatments would occur within 3 miles of known leks or brood rearing areas until after June 30. The primary concern for sage-grouse is the effect the grasshopper suppression program would have on the forage base of young sage-grouse, which rely most heavily on insects during the first three weeks of life. Although RAATs methodology would leave a significant food base under both action alternatives, this measure would ensure that no additional disturbance occurs around leks and early brood rearing areas.
Ӣ No aerial or ground treatments would occur within 1 mile of known mountain plover nesting areas until after July 31. The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is an ESA candidate species that nests and feeds in shortgrass prairie habitat, especially in heavily grazed areas and within prairie dog colonies. The primary concern for the mountain plover is the effect the grasshopper suppression program would have on their insect food base and the potential for ground-based treatments to destroy their nondescript nests.
Ӣ No aerial or ground treatments would occur within one mile of known big game parturition areas until after the calving season is complete, typically by July 15. The primary concern for big game animals would be the disturbance caused by aircraft or vehicles used in the application of the pesticides.
Ӣ No ground treatments would occur within 1,000 feet of known pygmy rabbits burrows. Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) populations have been declining throughout the west and they have been petitioned for ESA listing. Pygmy rabbits are typically found in areas of tall, dense sagebrush upon which they depend for both food and shelter. The primary concern for the pygmy rabbit is the potential for ground-based treatments to destroy their burrows.

The agency was taking feedback until April 26th on its environmental study, however based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted by BLM, it concluded that implementing their preferred treatment- the RAATs method- not pose a threat and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Wyoming BLM Weed and Pest Coordinator Ken Henke said: “If public comments come in, if there’s something really significant we missed or some issue we just overlooked, that also could be addressed in the final (environmental assessment).”

For more information on grasshopper control, please see ATTRA’s Grasshopper Management Page.

Source: The Associated Press

The preliminary report from the SCCS, entitled “Preliminary opinion on triclosan (Antimicrobial Resistance),” was published in March 2010 and open to comment. The committee was asked to answer the question: “Does the SCCS consider a continued use of triclosan as a preservative in cosmetic products as safe taking into account the new provided documentation of resistance development by certain micro-organisms and cross-resistance?”

The SCCS also found that, “Some reported environmental concentrations in a number of geographically distinct areas are high enough to suggest that such triggering of bacterial resistance could also occur in the environment. This warrants further investigation.” However, it continues, “The applications of triclosan which contribute to those high environmental concentrations cannot be properly identified nor quantified at present.” As a result, the report concludes, “Based on the available scientific information, it is not possible to quantify the risk of development of antimicrobial resistance induced by triclosan applications, including its use in cosmetics”¦.This should be taken into account when considering the current and future uses of triclosan in all applications so as to ensure that the demonstrable benefits for human health in certain applications are not compromised.”

This follows a 2006 European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) report which concluded that “[more] information is required on consumer exposure to triclosan from all sources, including cosmetic products.” This SCCP report found that “continued use of triclosan as a preservative at the current concentration limit of maximum 0.3% in all cosmetic products is not safe for the consumer because of the magnitude of the aggregate exposure.” A dossier was then provided by industry consisting of an update on the bacterial resistance issue for triclosan. Furthermore, the Norwegian authority on cosmetics submitted a report, “Risk assessment on the use of triclosan in cosmetics; Development of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria – II,” which concludes that, “[T]riclosan use may elevate the risk of increased antimicrobial resistance (co- and/or cross—resistance) in clinically important bacteria” and that triclosan use, “should be limited to situations for which scientific data are available demonstrating obvious health benefits.”

In response to Rep. Markey’s letter of concern, written to the agency earlier this year regarding triclosan, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that, “[E]xisting data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients,” and that “studies suggest that it is relatively easy for bacteria to develop altered susceptibilities to both antiseptics and antibiotics in the laboratory setting..”¦.FDA continues to believe that the possibility that antiseptics contribute to changes in antibiotic susceptibility warrants further investigation.”

Triclosan products, such as hand sanitizers, soaps, cutting boards, toys and fabrics (see a list of triclosan products) leave behind residues which continually expose bacteria to low level concentration of the pesticide. Studies have shown that at these sublethal concentrations, triclosan inhibits a specific bacterial target, and several mechanisms of resistance to triclosan have been demonstrated. The implications are grave for public health as overuse or improper usage of antibacterials in the home can enhance the selection process for resistance to these antibacterial products and to antibiotics. As a result, Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch and several other groups petitioned FDA in 2009 calling for the ban of triclosan citing the possibility of bacterial resistance to antibacterial substances and antibiotics, along with other human and environmental health concerns including endocrine disruption and water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which shares regulatory jurisdiction over triclosan, has no plans to review triclosan till 2013. For more information of the human health implications surrounding triclosan use, read the factsheet, “Triclosan: What the Research Shows.”

Since the 2004 publication of “The Ubiquitous Triclosan,” Beyond Pesticides has been exposing the dangers of this toxic chemical. Now, along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 environmental and public health groups, Beyond Pesticides is leading a national grassroots movement calling for the ban of triclosan from consumer products. Beyond Pesticides is calling on manufacturers, retailers, school districts, local businesses and communities to wash their hands of triclosan and protect our nation’s waters and public health from this toxic pesticide. To learn more about this grassroots campaign and the join the movement, visit our triclosan homepage.

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.

“On this 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, I can think of no better tribute to our planet and our people than protecting it from known harmful chemicals,” Rep. Ellison said. “No one should ever have to worry if the water they drink is making them sick or preventing fertility.” Rep. Ellison’s bill cites widespread environmental contamination, health and environmental effects, as well as bans in other countries, as justification for the ban.

The current SAP meeting follows EPA’s October 2009 announcement that it would begin a new evaluation of atrazine to determine its effects on humans, following scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. Records brought to public attention by a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) lawsuit shows that EPA had more than 50 closed door meetings with Syngenta, atrazine’s manufacturer, during its 2003 reregistration. At the end of the new evaluation process, the agency will decide whether to revise its current risk assessment of the pesticide and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect public health.

Atrazine has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, low sperm quality, low birth weight, impaired immune system function and cancer. A 2009 study by Paul Winchester, PhD, who spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ 28th National Pesticide Forum in Cleveland, OH, linked birth defects to time of conception, with the great impact on children conceived when concentrations of atrazine and other pesticides were the highest in the local drinking water.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses and residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. In the U.S. alone, 60-80 million pounds are used per year. The herbicide is a common contaminant of municipal drinking water because it does not cling to soil particles and washes easily with the rain into surface and ground water. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found atrazine in approximately 75 percent of stream waters and 40 percent of all groundwater samples from agricultural areas tested.

Atrazine is also a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Studies show fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

In the absence of federal law, such as the proposed School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), some states and local school districts have attempted to provide children with the protection they need from hazardous pesticide exposure while at school, yet the level of protection is uneven and inadequate across the country, with the majority of children left unprotected. There is no reason to expose children to hazardous pesticides and cleaning agents. The tools and experience are available to ensure environmentally safe schools for all children.

“The vulnerability of infants and children to the harmful effects of pesticides continues to attract national attention. Schools from across the country document a growing trend to adopt safer pest management strategies that do not rely on toxic pesticides, providing children with a healthier learning environment. Communities are also acknowledging the health and environmental risks of antimicrobial cleaning agents such as triclosan. Because of its link to resistant bacteria and adverse health effects – including asthma, cancer and learning disabilities, triclosan has no place in the classroom,” said Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director.

In the U.S., there are 55 million children and seven million adults in the nation’s 125,000 K-12 schools, many of which suffer from polluted indoor air, due to multiple factors, such as poor construction or ventilation, use of hazardous materials, inadequate sanitation, siting near hazards, and/or the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides or chemicals. The effects on children and staff are profound. Federal and state agencies and the research community are aware that unhealthy school environments erode health, learning and productivity, increase risks and health care costs, as well as increase asthma absenteeism.

“As school system leaders, members of the American Association of School Administrators set the pace for academic achievement and student welfare,” said Dan Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators Schools. “Schools that are environmentally safe are key to student learning and student and staff health and well-being.”

With the overarching goal of this year’s National Healthy Schools Day to make every school healthy for every child by promoting healthy and green school environments, 55 activities are taking place to promote the day throughout the U.S. and Canada. One such event that is focusing on safer pest management practices is being organized by the Greater Grand Rapids Children’s Environmental Health Initiative which is giving a presentation on pests and Integrated Pest Management to third graders at Ada Vista Elementary School. The presentation concludes with a scavenger hunt to find all the things in the room that would provide a pest friendly environment, a great way for the students to become pest-prevention detectives at school and at home. (Grand Rapids school district has had an IPM program in place for more than twenty years.)

There are many ways to promote Healthy Schools Day locally and nationally:
* Encourage your school to adopt safer pest management practices. Start by finding out about your school’s pest management/pesticide policy. Where a policy already exists, make sure that it is being enforced. If your school doesn’t have a policy in place, Beyond Pesticides can work with you and your school to ensure children are protected.
* Support federal legislation, the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), that will protect school children from pesticides used both indoors and on all school grounds nationwide.
* Contact your state legislators and Governor requesting that they require schools adopt safer pest management practices and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides. See Beyond Pesticides’ report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws — 2010 Update for information on existing state laws and model provisions.
* Avoid harmful germs without using the antibacterial chemicals triclosan, a hazardous endocrine disrupting chemical commonly found in soaps and sanitizers, as well as lunch bags, shoes, socks, toys and school supplies. Join Beyond Pesticides’ campaign to end the consumer use of triclosan and take the “>pledge.
* Persuade your school to adopt the Triclosan Resolution to not buy or use products containing triclosan and supporting broader elimination of non-medical uses.
* Ask your school to serve healthier cafeteria choices with organic, locally grown foods.
* Learn how you can eliminate children’s exposure to toxic wood preservative. Although, as of January 2004, most residential uses of chromated-copper-arsenic (CCA) can no longer be manufactured for decks and patios, picnic tables, playground equipment, walkways/boardwalks, landscaping timbers, or fencing, already existing CCA-treated wood and structures may continue to be sold and used and continues to be found on children’s playgrounds, putting children at risk. Use Beyond Pesticides’ Resource Kit to take action in your community and state.
* Find ways to manage specific pest problems without toxic chemicals by using one Beyond Pesticide’s alternatives factsheets.
* Educate yourself on the hazards and risks of commonly used toxic pesticides through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticide Information Gateway.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The U.S. EPA, National Academy of Sciences, and American Public Health Association, among others, have voiced concerns about the danger that pesticides pose to children. The body of evidence in the scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels.

“[The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities] strongly believes that all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have the right to live, work, learn, worship and play in environments that are healthy and safe. This is particularly the case for children with special needs,” said Laura Abulafia, Environmental Health Initiative Director with the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. “Children, especially those who may have additional vulnerabilities such as developmental delays or intellectual/learning disabilities, may be more at risk to indoor toxic exposures.”

“Children spend many hours in one environment – school. They need a safe, healthy setting in which to thrive, learn and succeed. An excellent school environment can improve academic achievement and children’s enjoyment of school. A substandard school environment will interfere with learning and peer interactions at school. But as many as one-third of schools have substandard environments, said Robert J. Geller, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine, and Director of Emory Southeast Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit Our. “Current economic challenges hamper the abilities of many schools, and may allow some schools to deteriorate further. This is a false savings, one that we must resist.”

When Environmental Action planned the first Earth Day in 1970 at a cost of $125,000, it accepted no money from corporations. Some 20 million Americans from across the country participated in the day’s marches, demonstrations, lectures, workshops, and other events, making it one of the most successful political events in American History. Since that time, many companies have started making donations to Earth Day events, and selling products or services marketed as “green.” While some companies have made major strides to protect the environment, and contribute to a green economy, others are simply “greenwashing” their products. The Wall Street Cheat Sheet has called Dow Chemical, “this year’s Earth Day winner of Most Obscene Greenwashing.”

The Dow Chemical Company acquired the assets and liabilities of Union Carbide in 2001. According to the Bhopal Medical Appeal, the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal India leaked 27 tons of methyl isocyanate a toxic gas used in the production of certain carbamate insecticides on the night of December 2, 1984. An estimated 10,000 people died within the first 72 hours, and an additional 15,000 people have died as a result of chronic exposure. An additional 120,000 people require serious ongoing medical care. The Indian Council of Medical Research estimated that over half a million people were harmed in some way. Today the rate of birth defects in Bhopal is 10 times higher than India’s national average.

The factory which ceased active production in 1980 after the venture proved unprofitable. Despite being stocked with a surfeit of deadly chemicals, the plant’s safety system was allowed to fall into disrepair. The first reported poisonings occurred in the early 1980’s when animals grazing near the site became ill and died. After the disaster the plant was effectively abandoned and left to rot. To this day the plant is still leaking a deadly brew of industrial waste into the surrounding soil and water. The nearby aquifer, the only source of drinking water for an estimated 25,000 people, has since been contaminated, poisoning a whole new generation.

Some might expect a company that has put its name on an event dedicated to clean water would be concerned with cleaning the environmental devastation its subsidiary caused. However, according to a Dow statement, “Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal.” Union Carbide’s official statement says, “In the wake of the gas release, Union Carbide Corporation, and then chairman Warren Anderson, worked diligently to provide aid to the victims and set up a process to resolve their claims.” In 1989 the Supreme Court of India ordered Union Carbide to pay a $470 million settlement. Union Carbide and Dow are currently making no effort to remediate the ongoing water pollution from the plant.

Dow Chemical was also a major manufacturer of Agent Orange, the herbicide used by the U.S. military to defoliate forests during the Vietnam War. It contained the deadly byproduct 2,3,7,8-TCDD a dioxin compound. Dioxin contamination that still persists in the soils of Vietnam is an ongoing health and environmental crisis for the developing nation. Many U.S. Veterans and their children also continue to struggle with the effects of Agent Orange. Dow’s stance is that the evidence does not support a link between Agent Orange and illness in veterans.

Dow is also responsible for ground and surface water poisoning in the United States. As recently as last week a malfunction at a Dow Chemical plant in Norco Louisiana forced residents to evacuate when their homes were contaminated with titanium tetrachloride. Titanium tetrachloride can convert into hydrochloric acid which causes eye and throat irritation, along with other more serious health problems. Evacuees have since filed a federal class action suit. Even when things are going “right” Dow’s pesticides are linked to serious health and environmental effects. Learn more about their pesticides and alternatives in the Safer Choice consumer brochure.

While equivocating on the science on triclosan’s adverse effects, FDA does question the efficacy of the widely marketed triclosan products with the statement, “At this time the agency does not have evidence that triclosan in antibacterial soaps and body washes provides any benefit over washing with regular soap and water.”

The new FDA factsheet, featured on FDA’s Consumer Update webpage, “Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know,” responds to the petition submitted to the agency by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch outlining the dangers associated with triclosan, which were subsequently echoed by congressional letters submitted by Rep. Markey (D-MA) and recent media attention. However, the agency does not disclose the mounting scientific evidence that suggests triclosan is dangerous to human and environmental health.

Several laboratory studies have shown that triclosan acts as an endocrine disruptor by interfering with the thyroid hormone, as well as estrogen and androgen receptors, which could increase the risk of breast cancer. Triclosan can also transform into dioxin and interact with other chemicals to form chloroform, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals. In light of these data, triclosan is considered hazardous to human health, i.e. posing a threat, risk or danger to human health. For more information of the human health implications surrounding triclosan use, read the factsheet, “Triclsoan: What the Research Shows.”

To add to the confusion, FDA equivocates on its own science, which relies on laboratory animal testing to extrapolate to the human population, a practice that has substituted for direct laboratory testing on humans. FDA states, “[Existing] data showing effects in animals don’t always predict effects in humans,” and then says, “ [I]n light of questions raised by recent animal studies of triclosan, FDA is reviewing all of the available evidence on this ingredient’s safety..” First, FDA is well aware that in the United States, scientists and federal risk assessments (including those carried out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) assume that the toxic response observed in laboratory animals are indicative of toxic responses that are likely to occur in people. To predict responses in people, various animals (mammals) species that are biologically similar to humans are often used (e.g. mice) as models for responses in humans. Therefore, data showing effects of triclosan in laboratory animals, such as mice, are used to predict effects in humans. FDA also admits that “several scientific studies have come out since the last time FDA reviewed this ingredient.” The agency has not been able to finalize its regulation of triclosan since it was first initiated in the early 1970s, and most recently amended in the 1990s. Beyond Pesticides is urging FDA to move expeditiously with its review on the human health impacts of triclosan.

FDA also notes in its factsheet that it does not have sufficient safety evidence to recommend changing consumer use of products. The agency is ignoring a wealth of evidence in the scientific literature, and those submitted to the agency in Beyond Pesticides’ 2009 and 2004 petitions which show that triclosan poses a public health risk by way of endocrine disruption, and increased antibacterial resistance, as well as environmental contamination of surface waters and food. However, the agency does advise concerned consumers to check product labels to determine whether products contain triclosan and to wash with regular soap and water.

FDA has come under intense scrutiny recently over the use of triclosan in consumer products. Triclosan is used in a wide range of products including soaps, sanitizers, cosmetics etc. (See the list of commonly used triclosan-containing products). In February, the agency responded to a congressional letter authored by Rep. Markey (D-MA), stating that “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. The agency has not formally responded to Beyond Pesticides’ petition.

Both FDA and EPA share jurisdiction over the regulation of triclosan, and to date neither agency has moved to restrict this hazardous chemical. EPA conducted a risk assessment of triclosan in 2008 and found it eligible for continued use despite evidence of endocrine disruption and widespread water contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that triclosan is one of the most detected pharmaceuticals substances in the nation’s waters. Triclosan impacts the hormone systems of amphibians, accumulates in fish and destroys algal communities. A study conducted by researchers at the CDC detected triclosan in 75 percent of the U.S. population. It has also been found in human breast milk.

Since the 2004 publication of “The Ubiquitous Triclosan,” Beyond Pesticides has been exposing the dangers of this toxic chemical. Now, along with Food and Water Watch and over 80 environmental and public health groups, Beyond Pesticides is leading a national grassroots movement calling for the ban of triclosan from consumer products. Beyond Pesticides is calling on manufacturers, retailers, school districts, local businesses and communities to wash their hands of triclosan and protect our nation’s waters and public health from this toxic pesticide. To learn more about this grassroots campaign and the join the movement, visit our triclosan homepage.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2010) New York lawmakers debated legislation yesterday that would help protect school children by banning the use of pesticides on school playing fields and playgrounds; it passed in the Senate late last night and still needs to be passed by the Assembly and then signed by the Governor. Because of an expected backlash by the chemical industry, Beyond Pesticides encourages residents of New York to contact their elected officials to let them know their position on the Child Safe Playing Fields Act, (S.4983/A.7937). In New York and across the country, schools routinely apply pesticides and “weed and feed” products (pesticides mixed with chemical fertilizers), which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, learning disabilities, asthma and more, even though organic turf management is proven effective and economical.

While the legislation has passed the state Assembly in last year, the bill has previously died in the Senate. To help push it through both chambers this year, the bill’s sponsors, Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-Setauket) and Senator Brian Foley (D-Blue Point), have narrowed its scope. While previous versions have always been limited to outdoor use, this year’s language is limited to school playing fields and playgrounds, and excludes other school grounds. It also allows for emergency use to control stinging insects and venomous spiders. Containerized, non-volatile bait stations are also permitted for insect and rodent control.

Bill Cooke of the New York-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, told Albany’s Post Standard newspaper that 28 of the 32 Democratic senators have committed to voting in favor of the Child Safe Playing Fields Act. Mr. Cooke said most Republican senators are opposed. The bill needs 32 votes to pass. Sens. Darrel Aubertine (D-Cape Vincent) and David Valesky (D-Oneida) told the newspaper they were undecided.

The bill is supported by the state Association for Superintendents of School Buildings and Grounds, but the state School Boards Association opposes the legislation. Typically this type of legislation is resisted because of the belief that it will cost more than chemical lawn care. However, a new report, prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education and organic horticulturalist Chip Osborne of Osborne Organics for members of the New York State legislature, concludes that organic approaches can save money. The report compares the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and a natural (organic) program over a five-year period and finds that the annual cost of maintaining an organic field can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of chemical-based programs.

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogencity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds

Take Action:

Everyone – 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.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and even residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. The herbicide does not cling to soil particles, but washes into surface water or leaches into groundwater, and then finds its way into municipal drinking water. It has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, birth defects, and cancer.

Atrazine is also a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

A carbon filter with granular activated carbon (similar to a Brita filter) is needed to remove any significant amount of atrazine from the water supply. Unfortunately this technology is much more expensive and shorter lived than the rapid sand filters used by many utilities in the Corn Belt. Rapid sand filters can last 20 to 30 years but do not remove organic pollutants such as pharmaceuticals and certain pesticides, such as atrazine.

Marc Edwards, a civil engineering professor at Virginia Tech University estimates that implementing granular activated carbon filtration could more than double the total cost of drinking water treatment in some rural communities. Kirk Leifheit, Assistant Chair of the Drinking Water Program at the Ohio EPA said “most water systems don’t have the resources to buy a new filter,” adding that implementing this technology would add up to billions of dollars.

The European Union banned atrazine in 2004, after repeated testing found the herbicide in drinking water supplies, and health officials were unable to find sufficient evidence the chemical is safe. In much of Europe the burden of proof falls on the pesticide manufacturer to prove it is safe, unlike in the U.S. where EPA has assumed the burden of proving a pesticide does not meet acceptable risk standards before taking regulatory action.

EPA is currently reviewing the approval of atrazine; it was last renewed in 2006. According to records obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bush administration officials met privately with Syngenta executives 50 times, before EPA renewed Atrazine, and the EPA was heavily influenced by research conducted by Syngenta.

Despite mounting research, Syngenta refuses to acknowledge the dangers of atrazine. According to their website, “Syngenta is convinced of the safety of atrazine,” and “The U.S. litigation has no merit and should be dismissed.”

Source: Chicago Tribune