On June 2, 2010, ACAT joined with other community groups in challenging a permit that would allow the Alaska Railroad to spray toxic herbicides along the railbelt from Seward to Indian for the first time in 26 years. On July 14, 2010, the court ordered a temporary temporary restraining order and prelminary injunction for the planned spray program, in response to an emergency petition (and memorandum of points and authorities) filed by Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Center for the Environment, Alaska Survival, Cook InletKeeper and the Native Village of Eklutna.

The Alaska Railroad Corporation requested permission to use the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and Agri-Dex, along a 90 mile stretch of its track between Seward and Indian. The herbicide application was set for summer of 2919 for railroad operating property (rail yards, spurs, sidings, etc.) and along the main line and branch line right-of way for four feet out from both sides of the track. Despite the fact that previous requests have been met with opposition, the railroad states that its vegetation problem has gotten too out of hand for “so-called ”˜alternative methods,’” including flame throwers, a steam machine and inmate labor. ARC also argued that the Federal Railroad Administration, the railroad’s federal regulatory agency, will impose fines and operational restrictions such as reducing speeds or emergency closures of some sections of track if they are not cleared of overgrown vegetation. The company insists herbicides are the only way to control the plants, which can decay railroad ties and force the tracks apart. However, the uses of biological controls, or least-toxic sprays such as acetic acid or herbicidal soaps, were not considered in the Alaska Railroad’s proposal. Read Beyond Pesticides’ Least Toxic Control of Weeds.

The court said more information was needed on the plan. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, which submitted comments against the use of glyphosate on the railroad, are opposed to the strategy because they say regulators have not considered the chemicals’ effects on drinking water and streams where salmon live. Glyphosate is a neurotoxin, irritant, and can cause liver, kidney and reproductive damage. It is also linked to non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. In recent news, glyphosate has been identified as a common chemical found in acute agricultural worker poisonings, and linked to intersex frogs.

In a letter to Arysta LifeScience, Erik Johansen, Special Pesticide Registration Program Coordinator for the Washington Department of Agriculture stated, “WSDA is concerned that the proposed use of Midas products labeled in Washington could cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment.” Specific concerns stated in the letter include: potential for groundwater contamination; lack of data related to the pesticide’s ability to damage brain development; and cancer risk.

Methyl iodide is promoted by the pesticide industry as a replacement for methyl bromide, which is due to be phased out because it depletes the ozone layer. While methyl iodide does not deplete the ozone layer, it is more toxic to humans and likely to contaminate ground water. Health effects include late-term miscarriages, potential to cause damage to developing brains, and cancer. Methyl iodide is so reliably carcinogenic that scientists use it to induce cancer cells in the lab.

As evidenced by a thriving organic industry, alternatives to fumigants exist and are in use in California and around the country. Instead of using methyl iodide or methyl bromide, organic alternatives include solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation, crop rotation, biological controls, selective breeding, soil steaming, hydroponics, and steam treatment for containerized plants.

Despite significant public and scientific concern, EPA registered methyl iodide in 2007, during the final days of the Bush administration. Since then, controversy has surrounded the pesticide. New York was the first state to decline to register methyl iodide, Washington is the second, and opponents hope California will be the third. California proposed approving the fumigant in April 2010, but is reviewing public comments before making a final decision. Florida recently approved the chemical with additional use restrictions. Environmental and public health advocates believe that blocking methyl iodide registration in California will prevent its use elsewhere, since the state will account for the vast majority of usage and profitability nationwide.

“We’re so glad Washington did the right thing. Let’s hope California follows the science, too,” said Susan Kegley, PhD, a consulting chemist with Pesticide Action Network. Martha Dina Arguello, Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, said, “As Governor Schwarzenegger enters his final months of office, it’s hard to imagine he would allow more cancer, more miscarriages, contaminated drinking water, and a good chance of more developmental brain damage to be his legacy.”

On the national front, a coalition of environmental, health and labor organizations, with legal representation by the non-profit group Earthjustice, filed a petition on March 31 asking EPA to rescind the Bush administration era approval of methyl iodide, in light of troubling new findings uncovered in California studies. Methyl iodide is a water contaminant, nervous system poison, thyroid toxicant and is listed on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. It can readily become a gas and drift away from its intended target, despite any efforts to contain it. Methyl iodide is primarily used on tomato and strawberry fields. “A chemical used to create cancer cells in laboratories has no place being broadcast into the environment near where people live, work and play,” said Ed Zuroweste, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Migrant Clinicians Network. “Our communities are not lab rats.”

Methyl iodide is promoted by the largest privately—held pesticide company in the world, Arysta LifeScience. The corporation has recently invested significant resources in lobbying and a communications campaign in California in order to secure registration in one of the most lucrative potential markets in the nation. If approved, methyl iodide would be used as a soil fumigant in the state’s strawberry fields, where it would applied as a gas at up to 125 lbs per acre.

In 2007, 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.”

Take Action: Join the Nobel Laureates, farmworker advocacy groups, environmental organizations and individuals living near the fields where methyl iodide will be used to call for an end to this extremely hazardous pesticide. California residents — Call Governor Schwarzenegger and demand that methyl iodide not be used, 916-445-2841. Everyone — Call the office of Steve Owens, EPA Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and tell EPA to reevaluate its decision to register methyl iodide, 202-564-2902.

GM foods were first introduced into the U.S. food supply in 1994, promising to put an end to world hunger. Using genetic engineering, scientists were expected to create drought and salt tolerant crops, with higher yields and nutrient content. These crops never materialized, however, and industry giants such as Monsanto have collected huge revenues selling insecticide producing and herbicide resistant crops to American farmers. These crops have not only failed in their promise to boost crop yields, but studies have shown that they increase the use of pesticides, and create herbicide resistant weeds. While disillusionment with GM crops grows, the US government continues to bow to industry lobbyists, refusing to require labeling on GE foods.

The best way to avoid GE foods is to always buy organic. When the USDA proposed its original organic rule in 1998 that allowed GM crops, it received a record number of public comments criticizing the regulation. As a result, the Department in its final rule classified genetically modified organisms as “excluded methods,” thus requiring all food certified as organic to be free of GM crops. In addition to being free of GM crops, organic foods are also grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, and pesticides that can be very harmful to humans and the environment. Organic livestock are grown without the use of artificial growth hormones or a constant stream of antibiotics. In June 2010, Beyond Pesticides launched its Eating with a Conscience website, which educates consumers about the importance of eating organic food whenever possible.

In some markets organic foods are not always available, and consumers must rely on conventional products. CFS’s new app is designed to help consumers “quickly and easily identify foods made with ingredients from genetically modified organisms.” The True Food Shoppers Guide offers tips on avoiding GM ingredients, as well as listing brands to look for. It also includes a dairy guide to aid consumers in choosing rBGH free dairy products. The app also contains information on the dangers of GM foods and the benefits of organic foods. The Shopper’s Guide was complied primarily from direct communication with producers.

In addition to providing information to consumers, CFS’s Shopper’s Guide also makes it easy to take action. The app can be used to call or email companies listed in the “Red” (those who do not avoid GM ingredients in their products) so that consumers can urge companies to stop selling genetically modified food.

2,4-D is associated with a host of adverse human impacts, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as water contamination and toxicity to aquatic organisms. It is one of the most widely used herbicide for the control of broadleaf weeds in commercial agriculture and residential landscapes in the U.S. About 46 million pounds of 2,4-D are used annually, with 16 million pounds used in non-agricultural settings, including parks, playing fields, and residential lawns. Its health risks prompted a Special Review in 1986. A few years later in a unique move, several large pesticides companies with a common interest in keeping 2,4-D on the market formed a task force to keep the herbicide on the market. In 2007, EPA reversed its decision did not complete the Special Review. In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned EPA to cancel all uses of 2,4-D. Once part of the deadly duo of chemicals that made up Agent Orange, can also be contaminated with several forms of dioxin, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, a known carcinogen. Studies have also documented that once tracked indoors from lawns, 2,4-D can stay indoors (on carpets) for up to a year.

Dicamba, originally registered in 1967, is a benzoic acid herbicide used in agricultural, industrial, and residential settings. This neurotoxic pesticide is linked to organ damage and reproductive effects. A 1992 study of farmers by the National Cancer Institute found that exposure to dicamba approximately doubled the farmers’ risk of contracting the cancer non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma two decades after exposure. Symptoms poisoning include muscle cramps, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, loss of voice, and swollen glands. It has attracted attention because of the toxicity of its contaminants, both dioxin and nitrosamines, and its propensity to leach through soil.

Beautiful landscapes are possible without 2,4-D, dicamba or other pesticides. Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage provides information on pesticide hazards and information on organic management strategies. We also provide an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to help communities around the country go pesticide-free. The training is geared toward school or park and recreation officials, however landscapers interested in transitioning are encouraged to view the program. Contact Beyond Pesticides to learn more about using this a resource for your community.

ACAT’s success sends a great message to get involved in your local government and voice your concerns to effect change! For more information on what you can do to eliminate unnecessary pesticide use in your community, visit Beyond Pesticides Lawn and Landscapes program page. Also, pledge your yard, park or other community or business-managed green space as organically managed. Tell us how many acres (or what fraction of an acre) you can declare as organic!

In related news, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics has more recently been working toward blocking herbicide spraying along Alaskan railroad tracks. The state initially granted permission to the Alaska Railroad Corporation to spray glyphosate along 30 miles of tracks, but temporarily halted spraying when ACAT questioned the herbicide’s safety, since it can leach into groundwater and effect salmon habitat. The railroad has not used herbicides for 26 years due to public opposition. To read more about this issue, please refer to Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News.

Other critics of the agency’s decision include the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that has in the past received funding from Monsanto and Union Carbide (according to the group Center for Science in the Public Interest, ACSH stopped disclosing corporate donors in the early 1990’s). Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of ACSH told Legal Newswire that they believe EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to be “cooperating with, if not spearheading, a broad-based activist agenda.”

An article by The Huffington Post Investigative Fund published last week, however, found that EPA relies heavily on industry-backed studies. Companies, such as Syngenta, that have a heavy financial interest in atrazine have paid for thousands of studies that are used by federal regulators to assess health risks. More than 80 percent of these studies have never been published or subjected to independent, scientific peer review. Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., a senior scientist at NRDC, explained to the Investigative Fund that relying on a company to test for the safety of its own product is an inherent conflict of interest, and is a part of the larger pattern at EPA.

Earlier this year family farm groups across the Midwest urged EPA to reject industry-funded studies in the review process. The groups, lead by Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project (LSP) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), say that the studies Syngenta submitted to EPA in the past have been deeply flawed, hindering good decision-making. They argue that publicly-funded and peer-reviewed science should be given primary consideration.

The NRDC report published last summer found that current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. As a result of this report and numerous other bodies of scientific evidence of the hazards of atrazine, EPA announced that it would launch a new comprehensive evaluation of the pesticide atrazine to determine its effects on humans. In a statement to Legal Newsline, EPA said that, “Given the sizeable body of new scientific information as well as the documented presence of atrazine in both drinking water sources and other bodies of water, the agency determined it appropriate to consider the new research, including inviting independent scientific peer review, to ensure that our regulatory decisions on atrazine are protective of public health and the environment.”

In addition to the ongoing re-review of atrazine by EPA, 16 communities from six states filed a lawsuit in March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Syngenta to pay for the expensive carbon filters needed to remove atrazine from their drinking water supply. The United States’ largest private water utility, American Water Company, also joined the suit, representing 28 additional communities.

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.

In 2007, Indiana researchers reported in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery that in their state, where rates of such birth defects are also very high, atrazine levels were significantly linked with the rate of gastroschisis and other defects. Another study, published last year in Acta Paediatrica, found similar results for the general rate of birth defects in the U.S. population; it found that atrazine upped the risk of nine birth defects in babies born to mothers who conceived between April and July, when surface water levels of the pesticide are highest. Another study also found that atrazine triggers the release of stress hormones leading researchers to believe that this may explain how the popular weed killer produces some of its harmful reproductive effects.

As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine is applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant. Research found that intersex frogs are more common in suburban areas than agricultural areas. Another study suggests it as a possible cause for male infertility.

Atrazine is 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.

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.

“This agreement shows that when a company violates the law by distributing misbranded pesticides, EPA will take action,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The regulated community should understand that we take these violations seriously, and the public will accept nothing less than compliance.”

“People who manufacture and distribute pesticide products must follow the federal registration requirements,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These requirements are critical to preventing the development and spread of insect resistance.”

Monsanto Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed products contain genetically engineered pesticides known as plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are registered as a pesticidal product under FIFRA. As a condition of the registrations, EPA included planting restrictions on Bollgard and Bollgard II, which contain the PIP Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). EPA restricted planting of the cotton seed product in 10 Texas counties (Carson, Dallam, Hansford, Hartley, Hutchison, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Roberts and Sherman) to protect against pests becoming resistant to Bt PIPs and other microbial products used in sprays and dusts. Monsanto was required to control the sale and distribution of the cotton seed by including information on the planting restrictions in its labeling and grower guides.

In 2007, Monsanto disclosed to EPA that it had distributed misbranded Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed to customers in the Texas counties where EPA had restricted its planting. EPA’s subsequent investigation confirmed that between 2002 and 2007, the company distributed or sold the cotton products more than 1,700 times nationwide without the planting restrictions in its grower guides and that Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton was planted in the restricted counties.

Monsanto subsequently corrected the grower guides by including the required planting restriction for the Bollgard and Bollgard II products. In September 2008, EPA lifted the planting restriction in the 10 Texas counties for Bollgard II, after Monsanto applied for a change in the registration of that product. Monsanto last year said it was accelerating its long-term strategy to shift the majority of its business to genetically altered seeds for chemical-intensive farming operations, even though recent sales of GE seeds have declined as customers continue to shun its pesticidal technology in favor of cheaper generic versions.

Genetically engineered seeds that incorporate genes that are intended to resist insects or herbicides (like Round-up treated seeds) have seen their costs skyrocket over the last few years. In spite of this, more and more food products are produced from GE crops. GE crops can contaminate conventional or organic crops through “genetic drift” and take a toll on the environment- increase resistant weeds, contaminate water and affect pollinators and other non-target organisms. The long-term health effects of consuming GE food are still unknown. GE crops present a unique risk to organic growers. Wind-pollinated and bee-pollinated crops, such as corn and alfalfa, have higher risks of cross pollination between GE crops and unmodified varieties. Currently, no provision exists to effectively protect organic farms from contamination, although EPA has required “refuges” or non-GE planted barriers around sites planted with GE crops.

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

GE seeds are patented by Monsanto which means farmers face lawsuits if they try to save and replant the GE seed because they do not own the technology. This means farmers are forced to purchase seeds from Monsanto for each growing season. Farms contaminated with GE material from neighboring farms have been sued by Monsanto, as in the case of Percy Schmeiser (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser) who was taken to court by Monsanto for patent infringement after unknowingly cultivating GE canola.

In a related matter, recently Monsanto donated crop seeds, some treated with toxic pesticides, to earthquake stricken Haiti to much protest in Haiti and abroad. Advocates for Haitian peasants said a U.S.-based company’s donation is an effort to shift farmer dependence from local seed to more expensive hybrid varieties and will harm the island-nation’s agriculture. Peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called the donation a new earthquake. Haitian farmers and small growers traditionally save seed from season to season or buy the seed they desire from traditional seed markets.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of GE crops. Whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide (Round-up)-resistant crop, the approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. Organic agriculture, however, does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides. It focuses on effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE Program and Organic Program pages.

Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals to send comments to EPA supporting strong, meaningful regulation of pesticide applications in order to fully protect public health and the environment. See talking points and instructions for sending comments below.

Background
EPA announced the public availability of a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, posted here, for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP) on June 2, 2010. The action stems from a 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, in which the 6th circuit court of appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require permitting under the CWA. This ruling overturned the Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under the CWA, and instead applied the less stringent standards of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

CWA uses a health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly subjective risk assessment that does not consider safer alternatives. For more background on the issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ June 4, 2010 Daily News Blog entry.

Talking Points
EPA’s draft permit has several good features, but it is weak in certain areas and industry is pushing hard to make it even weaker. The following are important points about which EPA needs to hear from as many residents and community groups as possible:

”¢ Require the use of least toxic alternatives — The draft permit requires large applicators to evaluate available alternatives to pesticides (including taking no action, and using preventative or mechanical control methods), but essentially lets the applicator decide when a pesticide should be used instead. [p.8-14, 31] EPA should require the use of the least toxic alternative (or require that non-toxic methods of pest control be tried first), and set objective standards for when pesticide use is allowed.

”¢ Expand the range of pesticide applications covered by the permit — The draft permit imposes more stringent requirements on discharges that cover more than 20 acres for aquatic pesticides or more than 640 acres (one square mile) for mosquito spraying. [p. 3, 37-38] These thresholds are arbitrary and are too high. If you are concerned about a water body that doesn’t meet these thresholds, EPA needs to hear about it.

”¢ Protect drinking water and sensitive watersheds — The draft permit fails to make special considerations for pesticide applications directly into drinking water sources or into water bodies that feed drinking wells. When drinking water may be impacted by pesticide discharges, there should be more stringent limitations on pesticide use. The same should go for water bodies that serve as habitat for endangered or threatened species.

”¢ Strengthen site monitoring requirements — EPA should require meaningful water quality monitoring after pesticide applications in all cases, just like EPA requires for other sources of permitted water pollution. The draft permit does not require in-stream monitoring after pesticide applications; instead, the applicator need only conduct a visual “spot check,” and need only do that if the opportunity arises. [p. 14, 31]

”¢ Strengthen the public’s right-to-know — The public should have access — on EPA’s website and in state environmental agency offices — to all notices of intent to discharge pesticides, pesticide treatment planning documents, and monitoring data generated as part of the general permit process. The draft permit allows applicators to keep much of this information to themselves, or requires it to be disclosed only in the form of unhelpful summaries. [p. 19-25]

Take Action
1. Submit Comments to EPA — Written comments must be received on or before Monday, July 19, 2010. Email your comments to [email protected] identified by the subject line: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. The more specific you can be about your own experiences and the water bodies you care about, the better.

2. Sign-on to Others Comments — Beyond Pesticides, Toxics Action Center, Pesticide Watch, Riverkeeper, National Environmental Law Center and many other groups are submitting detailed comments. The more people and groups signing on the better. See contact info below.

3. Distribute this Action Alert — and ask others to take action. Re-post on listserves and send to friends and family.

For more information
Nichelle Harriott, Research Associate, Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450
Sylvia Broude, Organizing Director, Toxics Action Center, 617-747-4407
Elizabeth Martin-Craig, Community Organizer, Pesticide Watch, 415-622-0036
Joe Mann, National Environmental Law Center, 415-622-0086 ext. 306

The study, “Physical quality and composition of retail shell eggs,” which was originally published in the March 2010 issue of the journal Poultry Science, compares white and brown large-shell eggs with various production and nutritional differences such as traditional, cage-free, free-roaming, pasteurized, nutritionally-enhanced (omega-3 fatty acids), fertile and organic. The study examined two dozen eggs of each variety taken from two Athens, GA grocery stores on three separate occasions. ARS food technologist Deana Jones and her team in the agency’s Egg Safety and Quality Research Unit, found that on average, the eggs were of similar quality with respect to fat and protein content.

“We found no meaningful differences at all,” Ms. Jones told Time magazine. “We sampled eggs from a number of stores and kept getting the same results over and over. For shoppers, the decision comes down to your ethical and moral choices.”

The study did not examine other nutritional factors that farmers using organic methods often claim to be higher in organic eggs, such as vitamins A and E, beta carotene, folate, omega-3 fatty acids. Organic poultry and egg production also prohibits the prophylactic use of antibiotics and arsenic in chicken feed, as well as requiring outdoor access and organically produced chicken feed. Chemically-treated grains in conventional chicken feed can cause environmental damage in the form of water contamination and wildlife poisoning and can be hazardous to those who work on or live near farms.

Here’s how Organic Valley, a large egg producing coop of farmers describes how their production system differs from conventional egg production:

We raise hardy birds bred to forage. That’s important, because our chickens aren’t caged. Their hen houses have natural sunlight and access to the outdoors when weather permits. And we never force molt them. We believe caring for our hens contributes to egg quality. That’s why we employ staff veterinarians and an animal wellness expert to help manage the health of our flocks. We strive for quality, not quantity. Not only do we give our flocks 100% organic feed, but we also agreed years ago on a policy requiring us to give our chickens the chlorophyll-and-mineral-rich diet and sunlight they need to produce top-quality eggs with deep yellow yolks and strong shells.

The Time magazine article does reference other studies showing that free-range chickens are more likely to be contaminated with PCBs and other environmental contaminants because of their access to the outdoors, where such pollutants may be present. While this issue may not be addressed in eggs labeled as “Free-Range,” Organic certification requires residue testing that should identify sites that have environmental contamination, making organic eggs the best option.

Professor Tariq Butt, who led the ongoing research at Swansea observed, “The benefits are far reaching””not just for those with organic farms or nurseries but also for conventional growers, offering an effective, environmentally friendly alternative to chemicals.” Professor Butt, from the University’s School of Environment and Society, believes this new development could help reduce the use of pesticides and their impact on the environment while reducing costs for farmers.

The project was funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under the UK Horticulture LINK program, the government’s main vehicle for sponsoring applied research in horticulture. You can read the official university press release here.

The fungus has been registered in Europe with Novozymes, a company that specializes in enzymes and other bio-based solutions. Hugh Frost, European agronomist at Novozymes told Wales Online, “The Novozymes BioAg business has been working with Swansea University to better understand the performance of the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, and so develop products that can be registered for innovative, biological crop protection. Research is ongoing and Novozymes is keen to investigate the further potential of this fungus in controlling other insects, in wider application, to assist growers in producing crops in an efficient, yet sustainable manner that meets their challenges of a decreasing portfolio of conventional pesticides.”

This is not the first time a fungus has proven to be an effective natural pesticide. In 2009, an Australian government study has shown that lice on sheep may be controlled by fungal biopesticides. Researchers at Utah State University are studying a fungus that kills Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex) by depositing spores inside them that multiply and eventually break through their exoskeletons.

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

Watch Paul Stamets’s presentation in streaming video and read the article, “Fungi To The Rescue: Biopesticide derived from mold has promise as a greener method for eradicating unwanted insects,” in the Winter 2007 issue of Pesticides and You.

The report looks at 168 stream water samples that were taken over 2008 and 2009, which compares the water quality before and after the ban took effect. Sampling points were selected in areas mainly influenced by residential run-off — away from golf courses, sewage treatment plant effluents, and agricultural applications. The samples were analyzed for 105 pesticides and pesticide degradation products.

Preliminary results show a significant drop in concentrations of three commonly used lawn care products: 86 % of 2,4-D, 82% of dicamba, and 78% of MCPP. Previous estimates indicate that these three herbicides accounted for over half the total amount of pesticides used by lawn care companies in Ontario.

On the other hand, concentrations of some pesticides did not significantly change. Other pesticides commonly detected in urban stream water include glyphosate and carbaryl. The results for glyphosate are attributed to its continued use in exempt applications: to kill weeds and vegetation in urban and agricultural settings. The study suggests that carbaryl is used to control pests on lawns and gardens and agricultural crops, and to control fleas on household pets. Some environmentalists speculate that it might be due to its persistence in sediment.

On Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Ontario, Canada banned the use of over 250 pesticide products for cosmetic (lawn care) purposes, with no exceptions for pest infestations (insects, fungi or weeds) in these areas, as lower risk pesticides, biopesticides and alternatives to pesticides exist. It does not affect pesticides used for farming or forestry, and golf courses are exempt, but must meet certain conditions to minimize environmental impacts. There are no exceptions for pest infestations (insects, fungi or weeds) for lawn care in these areas, as lower risk pesticides, biopesticides and alternatives to pesticides exist. However, pesticides are still allowed for control of mosquitoes and other insects determined to represent a health threat.

Nitrate is a common contaminant of drinking water, particularly in agricultural areas where nitrogen fertilizers are used. High rates of fertilizer application may also increase the natural nitrate levels found in certain vegetables, such as lettuce and root crops. In the body, nitrate competes with uptake of iodide by the thyroid, thus potentially affecting thyroid function. This is the first study to show a link between nitrates and thyroid cancer in people, although nitrates have been shown to cause thyroid tumors in animal studies.

Researchers at the National Institute of Health, in a study entitled, ”Nitrate intake and the risk of thyroid cancer and thyroid disease,” investigated the association of nitrate intake from public water supplies and diet with the risk of thyroid cancer and self-reported hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism in a cohort of 21,977 older women in Iowa who were enrolled in 1986 and who had used the same water supply for >10 years. The results show a nearly three-fold increase in thyroid cancer risk for women with more than five year’s use of a public water supply that had nitrate levels of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or above. The maximum contaminant level of nitrate in drinking water is currently set at 10 mg/L in the United States. Increasing intake of dietary nitrate is associated with an increased risk of thyroid and with the prevalence of hypothyroidism, but not hyperthyroidism. Higher dietary nitrate levels are found in women who live in a larger town, are more educated, exercise more and eat more calories and Vitamin C. In conjunction with prior studies, the researchers suggest that nitrate inhibits the thyroid gland’s ability to use iodide. Iodine is a necessary mineral for proper thyroid hormone and gland function.

Synthetic fertilizer is a main source of nitrate in water and food. The foods that often have the highest concentrations of nitrate, such as spinach, kale, and beets, are known for their nutritional benefits, often due to the high application of nitrogen-based synthetic fertilizers. Agricultural and residential runoff from fields, lawns and home gardens that use synthetic fertilizers lead to large concentrations of nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, in the nation’s surface waters.

Thyroid cancer is estimated to be the seventh leading site of new cancers in U.S. women, according to the American Cancer Society. The incidence is about three times higher in women than in men, similar to the pattern worldwide.

Organic agriculture relies on natural sources of fertilizer such as manure, instead of potentially dangerous chemical sources. When used as a fertilizer, manure is turned from a hazardous waste product into a resource. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. See more at our Organic Agriculture Home page.

The report, A Review of the Role Pesticides Play in Some Cancers: Children, farmers and pesticide users at risk?, is published by the United Kingdom organization CHEM (Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring) Trust.

“Pesticide exposures may interact with other chemical exposures and genetic factors, to cause cancer. Research suggests that pregnant women, in particular, should avoid direct exposure to pesticides, if possible,” said Gwynne Lyons, Director of CHEM Trust and report co-author. “It is high time that the UK was more supportive of EU proposals to take a tougher approach to reducing exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. If the UK is to shed its image of being the laggard in the EU, then the UK Government must robustly implement the new EU pesticides legislation in order to try and reduce the burden of cancer in children, farmers and others exposed to pesticides.”

The CHEM Trust report also highlights that certain cancers have increased dramatically in recent decades in the UK, showing that environmental factors must be partly to blame with pesticide exposures suspected to play a role in some cases. Although, a proportion, but not all of this increase, is believed to be due to better diagnostic techniques, cancer trend data are raising the alarm. In Britain over the last 30 years (1975/6 — 2005/6):
”¢ Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has more than doubled;
Ӣ Testicular cancer has doubled;
Ӣ Breast cancer in women has increased by two thirds, and in men quadrupled;
Ӣ Prostate cancer has tripled; and,
Ӣ In the 35 years up to 1998, childhood cancer in Britain increased by 35%.

“Occupational and environmental cancers have been a neglected public health issue in the UK for decades. The report highlights the substantial nature of the threat from pesticide exposure. In the UK, oversight of pesticides has continued to err on the side of products rather than people and of course relies on data generated initially by the pesticide manufacturers,” said Andrew Watterson, Professor of Health at Stirling University and report coauthor. “The regulatory response has usually been ”˜if in doubt, do continue using pesticides’ when the scientific literature is littered with examples of products that have been cleared in the past emerging as known or suspect human carcinogens. There is a long-overdue and urgent need to mount a cancer prevention campaign on pesticides based on effective precautionary principles.”

With 1 in 3 Europeans being diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime, the report concludes that EU governments should urgently focus more on cancer prevention. CHEM Trust calls on the UK Government to give greater consideration to cancer prevention via better control of chemicals, and for specific measures to reduce pesticide exposures. These include:
Ӣ Strict implementation of the new EU legislation on pesticides so that pesticides that disrupt hormones, and those suspected to cause cancer are substituted with safer alternatives; and,
”¢ Giving people living in houses bordering agricultural land a legal right to be notified in advance of any pesticide spraying operations, if they so request. This would give those living in rural areas the option of reducing their families’ exposure by, for example, bringing their children in from the garden, not hanging clothes out to dry on that day, or shutting their windows.

In the U.S., with a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer in recent years, a report released May 6, 2010 by the President’s Cancer Panel finds that the true burden of environmentally-induced cancer is greatly underestimated. The Panel’s report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, concludes that while environmental exposure is not a new front on the war on cancer, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the nation’s cancer program.

The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel also points out that the U.S. 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.

“It’s always been a mystery how organic farmers get high yields without using synthetic insecticides,” says co-author Bill Snyder, Ph.D., associate professor of entomology at WSU. “Our study suggests that biodiversity conservation may be a key to their success.”

The study involved 42 potato plots enclosed in fine mesh on the Pullman campus of WSU. The researchers planted both potato plants and Colorado potato beetles (a very problematic pest of the potato) in each of the plots, adding varying numbers of beneficial insects, fungi and nematodes, microscopic soil-dwelling worms that attack beetles’ eggs and larvae.

Crops placed in the organic test plots with a more balanced insect population grew faster, because no one species of insect had a chance to dominate the plot and kill the potato plants. In fact, the study found that the increased evenness of species in the organic plots compared to the conventional plots led to 18% lower pest densities and 35% larger plants. Larger plants generally translate to greater potato yields, suggesting that organic methods might provide higher profits as well as an ecological sustainability advantage.

Though previous conservation and biodiversity studies tended to focus on species richness, or the number of individual species present in an area, this study is one of the few to consider the advantage of relatively equal numbers, or “evenness” of species for a beneficial agricultural ecosystem. Thus, the results show that both richness and evenness must be maintained to ensure a healthy environment. Conventional agricultural methods, which rely heavily on spraying pesticides, tend to wipe out the majority of insects, leaving behind a few hardy species that end up dominating the conventional field ecosystem. These findings promote the reliance on a mix of natural predators as a way to avoid the “pesticide treadmill” that forces farmers to use larger and larger volumes of different costly chemicals to kill hardy pests that develop resistance.

Research director Andrew Jensen from The Washington State Potato Commission, which partially funded Dr. Snyder’s research, says they hope to translate the study into practical advice their members can use. Washington is second (after Idaho) in potato production in the U.S., but less than 1% of the state’s potatoes are organically grown. Studies like these might convince potato growers to cut back on spraying and eventually switch to organic methods, which would suit top potato customers, like McDonalds and Wendy’s, who are being pushed to green up their practices.

“People who buy a lot of potatoes are asking the growers to reduce insecticide use as much as possible, to document pesticide use, and include biological control as a consideration,” remarked Dr. Snyder in a comment to the Seattle Times.

This study adds to the body of scientific literature considering the benefits of organic agriculture, which includes a paper published by the Rodale Institute in 2003, describing how an organic system produces better yields of corn and soybeans under severe drought conditions and gives better environmental stability under flood conditions through lower runoff risks and greater water retention capabilities in the soil. This helps to balance inaccurate, industry-funded studies which only confuse consumers.

For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture for pest control, please see Beyond Pesticides Organic Program and Alternatives Factsheets pages.

Antimicrobials are now a billion dollar business with more than 5,000 such products currently registered with EPA. Initially designed for hospitals and clinics, antimicrobial pesticides are today found in products ranging from household cleaners to mattresses and bedding, cosmetics, toys, toothpaste and even chopsticks. Antibacterial products are being marketed to the health conscious without firm evidence of real benefits and amid growing concern about downstream consequences. One prime example of this is the antibacterial pesticide triclosan that is formulated into hundreds of personal care products, toys and textiles. Studies show that triclosan is an endocrine disruptor, accumulates in human fatty tissue and can influence the onset of bacterial resistance.

Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch and several other groups petitioned FDA in 2009 and EPA in January 2010, 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. EPA, which shares regulatory jurisdiction over triclosan, has no plans to review triclosan until 2013. FDA, prompted by this petition, which was then echoed by Rep. Markey’s (D-MA) letters of concern, the agency 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.

PEER submitted comments in response to EPA’s proposed efficacy test guidelines for antimicrobial pesticide products. In its comments, PEER faults the efficacy test guidelines that EPA proposed in January as being, in essence, voluntary. More importantly, the EPA is statutorily mandated to consider environmental and human health risks when regulating these products, and yet its current approach is exceedingly narrow and overlooks many of these concerns, including that:

Ӣ The most prevalent antibacterial chemical used in consumer products (triclosan) is a likely endocrine disruptor that interferes with thyroid function. Other studies point to a correlation between overuse of these products and increased rates of allergies, asthma, and eczema;
”¢ Growing evidence that continued overuse of antimicrobial products will create strains of bacteria, known as “superbugs,” that are immune to the effects of therapeutic antibiotics, consequently denying doctors essential tools to treat the sick, elderly and other vulnerable populations; and
Ӣ Ample data showing that antimicrobial chemicals are often washed down the drain and end up in our rivers, lakes, and streams, proving toxic to fish and other aquatic plants and wildlife.

In 2008, EPA itself conceded that antimicrobial pesticides in wide use are not adequately tested for their effects on the environment and on human health and proposed a series of new data requirements from manufacturers, but the agency never finalized these rules. “EPA now only asks whether these products ”˜kill germs’ but myopically ignores what happens later,” stated New England PEER Director Kyla Bennett, a biologist and attorney formerly with EPA. “Incredibly, EPA does not even require manufacturers to submit definitive data about the environmental fate and human health effects of their own products.”

PEER also urges EPA to limit the use of currently registered antimicrobial pesticides to clinical settings and to decline to approve any pending or future registrations for general consumer use unless and until data that demonstrate appreciable health benefits to consumers is submitted and post-use effects are adequately considered.

“Overuse of antimicrobials may unleash adverse effects which we may not be able to counteract,” said PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein. “EPA is supposed to protect the environment and that is all we are requesting them to do.”

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.

“If the goal of their study was to educate consumers as their message to the media suggests, then the authors of this study have shown a surprising lack of knowledge about organic agriculture,” said Beyond Pesticides project director John Kepner. “Organic agriculture is based on pest prevention and soil health. Organic farmers use techniques such as crop rotation and the creation of habitat for beneficial species, with organic-approved natural pesticides only as a last resort. Substituting these chemicals into a conventional system, does not tell us anything about organic agriculture.”

The study, “Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans,” published online June 22, 2010 in the journal PloS One, tested six pesticides and compared their environmental impact and effectiveness in killing soybean aphids in conventional soybean fields. The scientists examined four synthetic pesticides: two conventional products commonly used by soybean farmers (cyhalothrin and dimethoate) and two new “reduced-risk” pesticides (spirotetramat and flonicamid). They also examined a mineral oil-based organic pesticide that smothers aphids and another product containing a fungus (beauvaria bassiana) that infects and kills insects.

The two researchers used the environmental impact quotient, a database indicating impact of active ingredients based on such factors as leaching rate into soil, runoff, toxicity from skin exposure, consumer risk, toxicity to birds and fish, and duration of the chemical in the soil and on the plant. They also conducted field tests on how well each pesticide targeted aphids while leaving their predators, ladybugs and flower bugs, unharmed.

Under their evaluation system, the researchers found the mineral oil to have the greatest impact on the environment because it works by smothering the aphids and therefore requires large amounts to be applied to the plants. While the conventional pesticides used in the study are linked to endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, organ damage, and more, the authors cite the killing of beneficial insects as the reason mineral oil had the worst rating. However, it is unlikely that organic farmers would use mineral oil in the same manner in which the authors did, because their methodology excludes all other organic techniques.

“It’s certainly a misconception to imagine that organic farmers are farming just the same way as pure conventional farmers but substituting organically approved pesticides and fertilizers for synthetic ones,” Simon Jacques, Ontario representative for organic certification program Ecocert, told Toronto’s Globe and Mail newspaper. “That’s not what’s happening.”

The conclusions of this study should have been limited to the substitution of mineral oil and beauvaria bassiana in conventional systems. However, the authors went as far as warning policy makers about promoting organic agriculture. The authors state, “Generalizations about the relative sustainability of one suite of practices over another are dangerous when integrated into policy: government regulations based on faulty assumptions about agricultural systems are expensive and do not effectively reduce the environmental risks they are designed to mitigate.” The recommendations are not consistent with the scope of the study.

Organic agricultural practices and U.S. organic regulations are constantly changing and improving based on the latest scientific and real world farming data. When problems with current organic inputs are identified, farmers or consumers petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture to have materials and uses prohibited. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat.

The authors received funding for the study from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The authors acknowledge receiving money from Bayer, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Dow, BASF, Syngenta, DuPont and others for projects within the past five years.

“While we were monitoring the air, there were no violations of the County’s permit – and yet we found we were still breathing chloropicrin at high levels,” says Deby DeWeese, one of the community members who collected air samples. “Clearly the rules and regulations do not protect our families.”

The Sisquoc monitoring, conducted during and after a soil fumigation in April 2008, found the pesticide chloropicrin in about half of the 57 air samples collected. Two samples had chloropicrin levels higher than DPR’s 24-hour level of concern for children, and the 19-day average level at one sampling site exceeded DPR’s level of concern for multiday exposure. Average levels over the 19-day period were 23 to 151 times higher than acceptable cancer risks.

“What’s striking about these results is what they imply about fumigation in general,” says PANNA Staff Scientist Karl Tupper. “Sisquoc is not unique in terms of how close fumigated fields are to people’s homes. The application we monitored was typical as well””there were no blunders and the amount of chloropicrin used was not abnormally high.”

“So if this is happening in Sisquoc, it’s surely happening in other California communities, and it will certainly happen with methyl iodide if it’s registered,” concludes Mr. Tupper.

California regulators are currently proposing to allow the use of a new, extremely volatile fumigant pesticide””methyl iodide. The proposal comes despite findings of DPR’s own Scientific Review Committee, whose experts reported in February that any agricultural use of methyl iodide would be harmful to public health. The proposal is open for public comment until June 29th.

Fumigant pesticides are used to sterilize soil prior to planting. After sulfur and crop oil, more fumigants are applied in California than any other pesticide, about 35 million pounds per year in California. “Sustainable farming is all about building healthy soil,” says organic farmer Jim Cochran of Swanton Berry Farm. “I’ve been growing strawberries for 25 years, and fumigant pesticides are the last thing I’d put in my soil.”

Fumigants are highly volatile, making them prone to drift. Health effects linked to exposure can include headaches, vomiting, severe lung irritation, and neurological effects. Some fumigants are linked to cancer, reduced fertility, birth defects and higher rates of miscarriage.

“The situation in Sisquoc illustrates exactly why the use of methyl iodide must not be allowed. Accidents happen. Rules aren’t always enforced. And even when soil fumigation goes smoothly, bystanders still end up breathing toxic chemicals,” says PAN Executive Director Kathryn Gilje.

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 29, 2010, by e-mail to [email protected], or to Pesticide Registration Branch, Department of Pesticide Regulation, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015.

Support organic farming and protect farmers, farmworkers, and their families and neighbors from toxic chemicals. Organic agriculture does not allow the use toxic chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.

For more information on organic versus conventional agricultural practices, see Beyond Pesticides’ new guide, Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience, urging consumers to consider impacts on the environment, farmworker and farm families’ health —in addition to personal health impacts posed by pesticide residues— when making food choices.

The other study collected samples of air, water, snow, sediment, lichens, conifer needles, and fish at remote alpine, subarctic, and arctic sites. Researchers found that these samples contained four current-use pesticides including dacthal (DCPA), chlorpyrifos, endosulfans, and y-hexachlorocyclohexane (HGH) as well as four historic-use pesticides including dieldrin, a-HCH, chlordanes, and hexachlorobenzene (HCB). Pesticide concentrations in snow are highest in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, Rocky Mountain and Glacier National Parks. Concentrations in vegetation are mostly dominated by endosulfan and dacthal, and are highest in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Glacier, and Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. Fish samples also show elevated concentrations of dieldrin and DDT (one of the first pesticides to be banned in 1972 because of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring).

Cold temperatures in alpine or arctic ecosystems tend to concentrate pesticides, which can also bioaccumulate in the local ecosystem and food web. These combined factors pose “potential risks for indigenous people and subsistence food consumers that rely on fish and meat from cold ecosystems,” according to Staci Simonich, Ph.D., an associate professor of environmental and molecular toxicology at Oregon State University, and lead investigator on both studies. Dr. Simonich stated, “Pesticide pollution is now so routine that we’ve had to look at museum specimens to find baseline data that existed prior to pesticide use. But it still seems surprising that such remote and supposedly pristine areas are not all that pristine.”

The research confirms the findings of previous studies completed by the National Park Service, but also helps provide a better understanding of which pesticides are most likely to accumulate and require better regulation.

Eating conventionally produced foods supports harmful agricultural practices that create long-range persistent organic pollutants. These dangerous pesticides can travel hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles to accumulate in the very same beautiful areas we aim to preserve as well as endanger the well-being of the flora, fauna and people that live nearby. Support the health of our national parks by eating organic (see our new Eating with a Conscience Guide) and promoting organic lawncare!

Snow on Sequoia Trees, photo courtesy National Park Service

The Eating with a Conscience guide explains to consumers the effect they are having on health and the environment when they purchase food grown with chemical-intensive methods, even if a large number of residues do not remain on the finished food product. The group points to USDA organic certification as “the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health.”

“Organic practices under the Organic Foods Production Act eliminate commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic, pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife,” said Mr. Feldman.

Recent media attention has focused consumers on purchasing foods that are often referred to as “clean,” but grown with toxic chemicals that show up as residues on their food in small amounts or are not detectable. While this approach is helpful to consumers in alerting them to hazardous residues on food, those very same “clean” food commodities can be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife.

For example, while conventional onions grown with toxic chemicals show low pesticide residues on the finished commodity, Eating with a Conscience explains that there are 63 pesticides with established tolerances for onions: 26 are acutely toxic creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 60 are linked to chronic health problems (such as cancer), 8 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 54 are poisonous to wildlife. While not all listed pesticides are applied to every onion, they may be used in the production of all onions, making it impossible at the point of sale to identify which specific chemicals are used.

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other farming and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit on behalf of Geerston Seed Farms. The suit led to a U.S. District Court ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by approving the sale of GE alfalfa without requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS). Monstanto was forced to stop selling the seed until a comprehensive EIS is prepared and assessed. A draft EIS was prepared in 2009.

This was the first ever moratorium in the U.S. on a genetically engineered crop. The ruling was upheld in two appeals. The Supreme Court, however, sided with Monsanto and ruled the District Court had overstepped its authority by prohibiting the USDA from pursuing any partial approval of the crop. Justice John Paul Stevens was the only dissenter saying, “It was reasonable for the court to conclude that planting could not go forward until more complete study … showed that the known problem of gene flow could in reality be prevented.” USDA said it intends to release an EIS in time for spring planting next year.

Though Monsanto’s Steve Welker is quoted in the company’s press release calling the ruling, “exceptionally good news,” in practical terms, the ruling is more of a victory for Monsanto’s opponents. The Supreme Court did agree with the lower court’s ruling that the USDA violated NEPA when it approved planting of GE alfalfa. This ruling made GE alfalfa illegal to plant, thus making a ban unnecessary. The Court agreed with CFS that gene flow is a serious environmental and economic threat.

“The Justices’ decision today means that the selling and planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal. The ban on the crop will remain in place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and they officially deregulate the crop. This is a year or more away according to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be subject to further litigation if the agency’s analysis is not adequate,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of CFS. “In sum, it’s a significant victory in our ongoing fight to protect farmer and consumer choice, the environment and the organic industry”

Alfalfa is our nation’s fourth largest crop. Grown on 23 million acres, and used primarily for forage, it is the first perennial crop to be genetically modified. It is estimated that before the ban over 260,000 acres of GE alfalfa had been planted in the U.S. by 5,500 growers. GE alfalfa presents a unique risk to organic growers: unlike wind pollinated crops such as corn, alfalfa is pollinated by bees. This results in higher risk of cross pollination between GE alfalfa and unmodified varieties. Growers of GE corn are required to plant a buffer of unmodified corn around their fields to keep pollen carrying engineered genes from contaminating other growers’ fields or wild plants. These regulations have reduced, but not eliminated, the incidence of cross fertilization in corn. In alfalfa fields, these regulations would be even less successful, since bees can carry pollen up to five miles from their hive.

Glyphosate is a known carcinogen, neurotoxin, irritant, and has been found to kill human embryonic cells, and can cause kidney and liver damage. Glyphosate is also harmful to the environment, particularly aquatic life and water quality and has been linked to intersex frogs, and is lethal to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. Furthermore, the spread of glyphosate resistance is a growing concern: Monsanto is now acknowledging the prevalence of glyphosate resistant weeds. In addition to a shoddy environmental record, Monsanto has also been criticized for its business practices, and is currently undergoing an antitrust probe by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of GE crops and supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. For other studies and more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE Program and Organic Program pages.

In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), EPA submitted the agency’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan to Congress on September 29, 2006. Now, the agency is releasing its Draft FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan for public review and comment through July 30, 2010.

GPRA requires agencies to develop a five-year Strategic Plan for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they are doing, make appropriate decisions based on the information they have gathered, and communicate information about their performance to Congress and to the public. It includes a mission statement and sets out long-term goals and objectives; Annual Performance Plans, which provide annual performance commitments toward achieving the goals and objectives presented in the Strategic Plan; and Annual Performance and Accountability Reports, which evaluate an agency’s progress toward achieving performance commitments.

To comply with certain GPRA requirements and further enable the agency to manage for results, EPA has built a framework that aligns planning, budgeting, and accountability in an integrated system. EPA says that they continue to look for ways to improve our planning and priority-setting both in terms of our annual planning and budgeting and our longer-range strategic planning and look forward to hearing comments and suggestions. The draft plan identifies the measurable environmental and human health benefits the public can expect over the next five years and describes how EPA intends to achieve those results. It proposes five strategic goals and five cross-cutting fundamental strategies that aim to foster a renewed commitment to accountability, transparency and inclusion.

EPA’s Draft Strategic Plan identifies five goals:
Ӣ Taking action on climate change and improving air quality
”¢ Protecting America’s waters
Ӣ Cleaning up our communities
Ӣ Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution
Ӣ Enforcing environmental laws

According to the draft, one of EPA’s highest priorities over the next five years is to “ensure the safety of chemicals and pesticides used in this country.” To do this, EPA says it will be taking a more integrated approach to managing chemical and pesticide risk reduction and is focusing on consumers, workers, and sensitive subpopulations like children. EPA is enhancing its ability to measure the effects of chemicals and pesticides on human health and the environment by introducing new measures to reduce the concentration of targeted chemicals and pesticides in the general population, children, and low-income communities.

EPA says that their pesticide review process will place emphasis on the protection of potentially sensitive groups, such as children, by reducing exposures from pesticides used in and around homes, schools, and other public areas. The agency also says that it is critically reviewing its worker safety and certification and training regulations to ensure that they are fully protective.

Also mentioned in the draft are EPA’s plans to address the risks of nano-scale materials during new chemical review, develop significant new use rules for nano-scale materials not subject to new chemical review, and improving data collection efforts. In addition, EPA is undertaking a new testing program to identify whether chemicals have the potential to interact with the endocrine system.

More broadly, EPA says it is looking to determine the best tools to apply to specific problems. For example, under a new drinking water strategy, the agency is exploring how to use the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ensure that drinking water is protected from pesticides and industrial chemicals and that chemicals found in drinking water are being screened for endocrine disrupting properties using the authorities of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and FIFRA.

Some highlights include:
Ӣ Reduce the number of moderate to severe incidents affecting workers exposed to acutely toxic pesticides by a certain percent by 2015. The six pesticides of concern are: chlorpyrifos; diazinon, malathion; pyrethrins; 2,4-D and carbofuran.

Ӣ Reduce the percentage of children with blood lead levels above 5ug/dl to 2.5 percent or less by 2015.

Ӣ Reduce concentration of targeted chemicals by a certain percent in the general population by 2015. Chemicals used as indicators under this measure will include pesticides and industrial/commercial chemicals.

Ӣ Reduce the disparity of concentration of chemicals in low income populations as compared to non-low income populations by a certain percent by 2015.

Ӣ Reduce concentration of targeted chemicals by a certain percent in children by 2015.

Ӣ Complete Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions for 100percent of chemicals for which complete EDSP information is expected to be available by the end of 2014.

More information about the draft plan can be found on EPA’s website.

For background on necessary reform efforts at EPA and across other federal agencies, see Transforming Government’s Approach to Regulating Pesticides.

For additional information on what EPA has been doing with pesticides over the years, please see Beyond Pesticides’ What’s New at EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)?

Take Action! Comments on the Draft Strategic Plan may be submitted at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2010-0486). The public comment period begins June 18 and will close July 30. EPA will use stakeholder feedback to prepare the final strategic plan, which will be released by September 30.

“People should never have been used as lab rats for testing pesticides,” said Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior attorney Michael Wall. “Under today’s settlement, EPA will propose far stronger safeguards to prevent unethical and unscientific pesticide research on humans.”

In 2006, a coalition of health and environmental advocates and farmworker protection groups led by NRDC filed a lawsuit against EPA, claiming EPA’s recent rule violated a law Congress passed in 2005 requiring strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans.

EPA’s 2006 rule lifted a ban on human testing put in place by Congress. It also allows experiments in which people are intentionally dosed with pesticides to assess the chemicals’ toxicity and allows EPA to use such experiment to set allowable exposure standards. In such experiments, people have been paid to eat or drink pesticides, to enter pesticide vapor “chambers,” and to have pesticides sprayed into their eyes or rubbed onto their skin. The pesticide industry has used such experiments to argue for weaker regulation of harmful chemicals.

“EPA’s 2006 rule allows pesticide companies to use intentional tests on humans to justify weaker restrictions on pesticides,” said Margaret Reeves, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist with Pesticide Action Network. “Pesticide companies should not be allowed to take advantage of vulnerable populations by enticing people to serve as human laboratory rats.”

The coalition that challenged the regulation argued in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the rule ignores scientific criteria proposed by the National Academy of Sciences, did not prohibit testing on pregnant women and children, and even violated the most basic elements of the Nuremberg Code, including fully informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, a set of standards governing medical experiments on humans, was put in place after World War II following criminal medical experiments performed by Nazi doctors.

“Unethical testing of pesticides on humans is wrong and has to be stopped,” said Jan Hasselman, an attorney with Earthjustice involved in the case. “EPA made the right decision to improve its rules to prevent the ethical abuses and unscientific experiments used in the past to justify weaker regulation.”

“We hope that improved regulations will result in greater protections for those who are most exposed to pesticides, particularly farmworkers and their families,” said Bruce Goldstein, Executive Director of Farmworker Justice.

Through the settlement announced last week, EPA has agreed to propose a new rule that would significantly strengthen scientific and ethical protections for tests of pesticides on humans. Under this agreement, a proposed rule must be issued for public comment by January 2011. The settlement still requires court action to become effective.

The lawsuit was brought by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Migrant Clinicians Network, NRDC, Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United) and the San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility. Attorneys with NRDC, Earthjustice, and Farmworker Justice served as legal counsel for the coalition.

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances. EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”

Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here.

The U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin released the report calling for an estimated $30 million annually for the next 10 years. Since 2007, the U.S. has spent only $9 million on dioxin remediation and assisting disabled Vietnamese.

The report lays out a plan with three phases. The first phase, lasting three years and estimated to cost $100 million, would focus on completing remediation in Da Nang, one of the largest contaminated sites. This effort would then be replicated at other contaminated sites. The U.S. and Vietnam would also work together to research the extent to which forests were damaged, leading to greater U.S. support for Vietnamese efforts to reforest damaged areas. The final phase would be to create a nationwide survey of disabled people and a birth defects registry. It would also involve training health care workers, screening expectant mothers, and monitoring child development. This would improve the nation’s health care system without the need to debate whether each disability was caused by Agent Orange. The Vietnam Red Cross estimates 3 million Vietnamese children and adults are victims of dioxin exposure, but the U.S. disagrees. It attributes many birth defects to issues such as malnutrition.

The U.S. military dumped 20 million gallons of herbicides including Agent Orange on the former South Vietnam between 1962 and 1971, in order to defoliate forests shielding guerrilla fighters. The report estimates the herbicides destroyed 5 million acres of forest and 500,000 acres of crops. Heavily sprayed areas include inland forests near the demarcation zone as well as North and Northwest of Saigon, and along the borders of South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Mangrove forests along major shipping routes and on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam were also heavily sprayed.

Agent Orange was given its name because it was stored in orange striped drums and contained the active ingredients 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. 2,4,5-T contained minute traces of highly toxic 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (also called TCDD or simply dioxin) and is now banned. However, 2,4-D is still one of the most widely used herbicides on lawns, school grounds and parks today. It has been linked to cancer, liver damage and endocrine disruption in humans in addition to being toxic to wildlife, pets and beneficial insects. In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned to ban the chemical, citing that among other things, extensive scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of 2,4-D have been ignored by EPA during its risk assessment process. The highly toxic chemical can be replaced by cost-competitive and effective management practices widely used in organic agriculture and lawn care.

The Dialogue Group is hoping the U.S. will pay at least half of the $300 million, with the rest coming from corporations, foundations, and other donors. According to a Chicago Tribune watchdog report, this is merely a small sum when compared to the nearly $2 billion paid by the U.S. government each year in disability compensation to US veterans exposed to agent orange.