The movie reveals how a handful of corporations control our nation’s food supply. Though the companies try to maintain the myth that our food still comes from farms with red barns and white picket fences, our food is actually raised on massive “factory farms” and processed in mega industrial plants. The animals grow fatter faster and are designed to fit the machines that slaughter them. Tomatoes are bred to be shipped without bruising and to stay edible for months. The system is highly productive, and Americans are spending less on food than ever before. But, the film asks, at what cost?

Cattle are given feed that their bodies are not biologically designed to digest, resulting in new strains of E. coli bacteria, which sickens roughly 73,000 Americans annually. And because of the high proliferation of processed foods derived from corn, Americans are facing epidemic levels of diabetes among adults and alarming increases in obesity, especially among children. All of this is happening right under the noses of our government’s regulatory agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Adminnistration (FDA). The film exposes a “revolving door” of executives from giant food corporations in and out of Washington D.C. that has resulted in a lack of oversight and illuminates how this dysfunctional political system often operates at the expense of the American consumer.

In the nation’s heartland, farmers are afraid to talk about what’s happening to the nation’s food supply for fear of retaliation and lawsuits from giant corporations. Our laws today are such that corporations are allowed to patent seeds for crops. As a result, Monsanto, the chemical company that was one of the major manufacturers of Agent Orange and DDT — in a span of 10 years — has landed its patented gene in 90% of the nation’s soybean seeds. Farmers are now forbidden to save and reuse these seeds and must instead buy new seed from Monsanto each season. (These “Roundup Ready” soybeans are genetically engineered (GE) to resist Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, and the resulting increased pesticide use has led to weed resistance.)

Armed with a team of employees dedicated to enforcing their seed patents, Monsanto spends millions every year to investigate and sue farmers – many of whom are financially unable to fight the corporation. Such legal actions have led the state of California to pass a law protecting farmers whose fields are unknowingly contaminated by GE crops.

Food, Inc. also introduces us to courageous people who refuse to helplessly stand by and do nothing. Some, like Stonyfield Farm’s Gary Hirshberg and Polyface Farm’s Joel Salatin, are finding ways to work inside and outside the system to improve the quality of our food. Others are brave men and women who have chosen to speak out, such as chicken farmer Carole Morison, seed cleaner Moe Parr and food safety advocate Barbara Kowalcyk. Their stories, both heartbreaking and heroic, serve to demonstrate the level of humanity and commitment it takes to fight the corporations that control the food industry.

The emphasis of Food Inc. does not center on pesticide use, but it is easy to see how pesticides fit into industrial food production and the problems this film documents. The implications created by a mass-production system seem infinite: increased reliance on glyphosate to control weeds in monocultural GE corn and soybean fields; insecticides to control insects around densely packed feedlots; exposure to farmworkers who lack legal protection; and dietary exposure to a public that does not know the extent to which pesticides are used on much of their food.

It’s important to note that the filmmakers attempted to interview representatives from Monsanto, Tyson, Perdue and Smithfield, but they all declined. Food, Inc. illustrates the dangers of a food system controlled by powerful corporations that don’t want you to see, to think about or to criticize how our food is made. The film reveals how complicated and compromised the once simple process of growing crops and raising livestock to feed ourselves and our families has become. But, it also emphasizes that despite what appears to be at times a hopeless situation, each of us still has the ability to vote on this issue every day — at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Producer Elise Pearlstein said, “I hope people will want to be more engaged in the process of eating and shopping for food. We have learned that there are a lot of different fronts to fight on this one, and people can see what most resonates with them. Maybe it’s really just “voting with their forks” — eating less meat, buying different food, buying from companies they feel good about, going to farmers markets. People can try to find a CSA — community supported agriculture — where you buy a share in a farm and get local food all year. That really helps support farmers and you get fresh, seasonal food. On the local political level, people can work on food access issues, like getting more markets into low income communities, getting better lunch programs in schools, trying to get sodas out of schools. And on a national level, we’ve learned that reforming the Farm Bill would have a huge influence on our food system. It requires some education, but it is something we should care about.”

Although the suit was brought against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In September 2008 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, but the Intervenors continued to press the appeal alone, requesting the appellate court to rehear the case. Last weeks decision denied that request and re-affirmed the earlier decision in full.

“This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the court rightly dismissed Monsanto’s claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America’s farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.”

Today’s decision again upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. The Ninth Circuit decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full EIS.

In response to a government report that cited problems with the USDA’s oversight of GE crops, the Center for Food Safety along with co-plaintiff’s Beyond Pesticides, Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms, filed the lawsuit in 2006 calling the department’s approval of GE alfalfa a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and a risk to the environment. The suit contended that the USDA improperly allowed the commercial release of GE alfalfa, the first commercial release of a GE perennial crop, and failed to analyze the public health, environmental, and economic consequences of the release. It also asserted that the GE alfalfa will likely contaminate natural alfalfa and ultimately prevent farmers from producing natural, non-GE alfalfa for markets that demand it. The suit cites the concerns of farmers with export markets. Buyers in Japan and South Korea, America’s major alfalfa export customers, have strongly stated that concerns about genetic contamination. U.S. alfalfa exports total nearly $480 million per year, with about 75% of exports going to Japan, according to 2006 data.

The GE alfalfa is designed to tolerate high doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. However, 83% of U.S. alfalfa is grown without any herbicides, and many experts note that GE alfalfa could lead to massive increases in herbicide use on alfalfa and more chemical pollution in the environment. A study of GE soy has already shown that farmers growing the GE variety use two to five times more herbicides than farmers who plant natural soy varieties.

Scientific findings link the advent of GE crops to weeds developing resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. In turn, this weed resistance has led to increased herbicide use and forced farmers to turn to more toxic herbicides. According to the suit, USDA failed to address the potential impacts of the increased use of Roundup on alfalfa and failed to address issues relating to cross-pollination of wild relatives of alfalfa.

Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy products), making it the country’s third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and it also greatly contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production. Consumers also eat alfalfa as sprouts in salads and other foods.

The amendment takes oversight of the programs away from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a move considered a major defeat to environmental groups. Environmentalists worry that because the role of the USDA is to promote U.S. agriculture – not to protect the environment or human health, it may fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of a carbon offset program.

But, regardless of who administers the program, many are concerned that at least one of the strategies, herbicide-based no-till farming, just doesn’t work and instead should be replaced in the bill by organic practices, which have been shown to successfully sequester carbon. A 2006 study, “Tillage and soil carbon sequestration what do we really know?,” led by a USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) soil scientist, concludes, “Though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes carbon sequestration is not compelling.” On the other hand, a long-term ARS study finds that organic farming practices build soil better than chemical no-till and have more soil carbon, as well as better crop yields.

While the amendment does not specifically make payments to certified organic farmers or for organic conversion, some of the eligible practices are used by organic farmers and others are problematic, according to an analysis by the National Organic Coalition. The bill explicitly names a number of practices which are “a minimum list of what should be eligible for offsets.” These include:

* altered tillage practices
* winter cover copping, continuous cropping and other means to increase biomass returned to soil
* reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency
* reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding of rice paddies
* reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils
* reduction in green house gasses from manure and effluent
* reduction in green house gasses to animal management practices including dietary modifications
* manure management disposal specific:
o waste aeration (in practice, this actually could likely mean grass raised animals)
o biogas capture and combustion (manure digesters)
o field application instead of commercial fertilizer

In addition, the amendment would exempt the agricultural sector from greenhouse gas reductions and sidetrack for five years a proposed EPA regulation that requires U.S. ethanol makers responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from conversion of forests and grasslands overseas to cropland.

Aside from the Peterson compromise, there is disagreement in the environmental community over the bill as a whole. Friends of the Earth released a statement saying that Congress is squandering an historic opportunity and points out the big oil and chemical companies like Shell Oil, Dow Chemical and DuPont helped craft the bill. The Center for Biological Diversity released an analysis with the following concerns: greenhouse gas reduction target falls far short of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million; essential Clean Air Act protections are repealed; construction of coal-fired power plants will continue; and, offsets could result in increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Twenty-two other organizations, including Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife and League of Conservation Voters sent a letter to every member of the House of Representatives urging them to support the bill. The groups said, “There are rare moments in American history when the urgency to act is clear, the stakes are high, the costs of inaction are untenable, and the need for courageous leadership is paramount. Now is one of those moments.” Twenty U.S. companies and electric utilities published full-page ads in newspapers calling for the bill’s passage as well.

Background on Agriculture and Climate Change
In general, conventional agricultural practices have contributed to climate change through heavy use of fossil fuels–both directly on the farm and in the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers–and through degradation of the soil, which releases carbon. The herbicide use that conventional no-till depend on, is no exception. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture.

Research from the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST) has revealed that organic, regenerative agriculture actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change. This occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage to produce the crops (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) and the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil (approximately 1000 lbs. of carbon per acre). The no-till organic methods they have developed produce comparable yields to conventional systems on average, and higher yields in drought years because of the greater water holding capacity of the organic soils.

The Rodale Institute report, Regenerative Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming, calls for federal ag policy to “replace the system of commodity payments with a program that rewards farmers for conservation and other carbon-enhancing farm practices. Farmers should be paid on the basis of how much carbon they can put into and keep in their soil, not only how many bushels of grain they can produce.”

“Current EPA standards of exposure for some pesticides assume children are three to five times more susceptible than adults, and for other pesticides the standards assume no difference,” said Nina Holland, Ph.D., UC Berkeley adjunct professor of environmental health sciences and senior author of the paper. “Our study is the first to show quantitatively that young children may be more susceptible to certain organophosphate pesticides up to age seven. Our results suggest that the EPA standards need to be re-examined to determine if they are adequately protecting the most vulnerable members of the population.”

The study, conducted by UC Berkeley’s Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), involves 458 children from an agricultural region who were followed from birth through age seven. Cord blood samples were collected from all children to determine their PON1 genotype and to obtain baseline measures of the enzyme’s activity level.

For more than 100 of the children in the study, researchers were able to obtain at least four additional measurements – at ages one, two, five and seven – of PON1 activity. Almost all the children in the study had 2 to 3 time points assessed, for a total of 1,143 measurements of three types of PON1 enzyme activity.

One’s PON1 genotypic profile determines how effectively the enzyme can metabolize toxic chemicals. For example, people with two copies of the Q form of the gene – known as a QQ genotype – produce a PON1 enzyme that is less efficient at detoxifying chlorpyrifos oxon, a metabolite of chlorpyrifos, than the enzyme produced by people with two R forms of the gene. Similarly, individuals with two T forms of the PON1 gene on a different part of the chromosome generally have a lower quantity of the enzyme than do those with two C forms of the gene.

Previous research led by Dr. Holland found that some of the QQ newborns may be 50 times more susceptible to chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon than RR newborns with high PON1 levels, and 130 to 164 times more susceptible than some of the RR adults.

Of the children in this latest study, 24 percent had the QQ genotype, and 18 percent had the TT genotype, both of which are associated with lower activity of the PON1 enzyme. Moreover, 7.5 percent of the children had both QQ and TT genotypes, which is considered an even more vulnerable profile. On average, the quantity of enzyme quadrupled between birth and age 7. The greatest rise in enzyme activity was among children with the RR and CC variants of the PON1 gene, which quickly outpaced the increase in children with the QQ and TT genotypes.

The fact that enzyme activity remained low for certain kids with vulnerable genotypes well past age 2 was surprising for the study authors. The researchers are continuing to collect data for these children as they grow older to see if the pesticide susceptibility continues.

“In addition to its involvement in the metabolism of pesticides, many studies are now finding that PON1 may play an important role in protecting against oxidative stress, which is linked to diseases from asthma to obesity and cardiovascular disease,” said study lead author Karen Huen, a UC Berkeley Ph.D. student in environmental health sciences. “The children in our study whose genotypes are related to lower PON1 activity may not only be more susceptible to pesticides throughout much of their childhood, they may also be more vulnerable to other common diseases related to oxidative stress.”

Notably, other studies have found that PON1 genotypes vary by race and ethnicity, with the Q variants more common among Caucasians, less common among Latinos, and least common among African Americans. The majority of the subjects in this study were Mexican-American.

“What’s important about this study is that it shows that young children are potentially susceptible to certain organophosphates for a longer period of time than previously thought,” said Brenda Eskenazi, Ph.D., UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and director of CHAMACOS and the Center for Children’s Environmental Health Research. “Policymakers need to consider these vulnerable populations when establishing acceptable levels of exposure to different pesticides.”

The study, entitled “Effectiveness of an Integrated Pest Management Intervention in Controlling Cockroaches, Mice and Allergens in New York City Public Housing,” finds that apartments utilizing integrated pest management (IPM) measures have significantly lower counts of cockroaches at three months and greater success in reducing or sustaining low counts of cockroaches at three (75 percent decline) and six months (88 percent decline). IPM was associated with a more than 50 percent drop in cockroach allergen levels in kitchens at three months, and in beds and kitchens at six months. In contrast, the number of cockroaches in buildings receiving professional exterminator visits every three to six months increased slightly. Pesticide use was reduced in apartments using IPM relative to apartments with chemical practices in place. Residents of IPM apartments also rated building services more positively. The researchers also found that that an easily replicable single IPM visit was more effective than the regular application of pesticides alone in managing pests.

According to the researchers, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is the largest public housing owner in North America with more than 405,000 low-income residents. A successful implementation of IPM in an institution of this size is thought to offer many potential benefits such as pesticide use reduction, improved pest management and reduced pest and allergen burdens in housing populated by largely Black and Hispanic families with disproportionately high prevalence of asthma- which is mostly attributed to pest allergens.

In the study, 323 apartments were evaluated. The practices include mechanical and steam cleaning using soap on kitchen cabinets, stoves, refrigerators, floors and countertops, and bathroom floors and fixtures. Practices also include the use of latex caulk to seal cracks and crevices, gaps within kitchen cabinets and between the cabinets and wall, gaps and cracks in baseboards, plumbing joints, and other potential ports of entry for pests; and boric acid and cockroach baits were applied. Apartment residents were instructed to store open food in sealed containers, cover garbage containers with a tight-fitting lid, and dispose of garbage frequently. Residents were also provided with a covered garbage container, food storage containers and cleaning supplies, including sponges, soap, powdered cleanser, and degreasing solution. Residents were also instructed not to use aerosol/spray pesticides for the duration of the study. No repeat IPM visits were scheduled. Cockroach populations were monitored with pheromone glue traps, three and six months later.

This study is the first to show that a single, short, low-cost visit by housing authority workers to address the underlying source of pests can be more effective at controlling cockroaches and their allergens in buildings than repeated professional pesticide applications. However, other studies also found that IPM techniques are effective, especially in the long-term, against pests.

According to a synopsis by Environmental Health News, the study examined dolphins from rivers, an estuary, a harbor and a lagoon in South Carolina and Florida. In this study, wild bottlenose dolphins were live captured from several sites within an estuary in Charleston, SC and in the Indian River Lagoon, FL in 2005. Blood samples taken from 13 animals in each area revealed triclosan in 31 and 23 percent of the animals from the two sites, respectively, at levels ranging from 0.025 to 0.27 parts per billion. These levels are similar to what has been measured in the blood of humans.

When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Since then triclosan has exploded onto the market place in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan to a range of health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistant, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

Triclosan’s impact on the consumer market has been aided by the public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, an article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” (2007), concludes that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps. This follows an 11-1 vote of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee on October 20, 2005 on a statement that antibacterial soaps and washes are no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections.

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

The letter, signed by 28 groups from across the country, says that the new fumigants policy “continues an outdated EPA approach to pesticide regulation that adopts unrealistic and unenforceable standards as risk mitigation measures, in an age of safer, greener approaches to agricultural pest management.”

EPA announced its decision May 27, 2009 to allow continued use of toxic soil fumigants with modified safety measures, falling far short of safety advocate efforts to adopt more stringent use restrictions and chemical bans. The rule was first proposed in July 2008, but weakened as it was finalized by EPA under industry pressure. Advocates believe that the country can do better to phase out the uses of highly hazardous chemicals that have devastating impact on exposed workers and communities in which they are used, and advance green technologies and organic practices.

Pesticides affected by the decision include chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/potassium (including methyl isothiocyanate or MITC), and methyl bromide. Fumigants are associated with a range of acute respiratory and central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, tremors and incoordination, muscle weakness, and skin irritation. Long term effects can include brain damage and seizures.

In releasing the decision in May, Administrator Jackson said, “With new restrictions, we’re allowing the continued use of fumigant pesticides without risking human health and the environment.”

Key to the EPA’s policy is a “buffer zone” requirement that is intended to establish restricted areas that are subject to chemical drift and therefore should be unoccupied. Advocates criticize the agency’s buffer zone provision as severely limited and question its enforceability. Of specific concern, is the provision that allows residential areas (including housing, commercial buildings, and other indoor and outdoor areas that people occupy) in the buffer zone if, “The occupants provide written agreement that they will voluntarily vacate the buffer zone during the entire buffer zone period.” Advocates believe workers will (i) feel pressured to sign such waivers for fear of loss of employment, (ii) not have adequate information with which to make informed choices, and (iii) be subject to evacuations during chemical releases. The groups cite the evacuation waiver as a dangerous chemicals policy precedent that would for the first time be used only in farmworker and underserved communities.

Since it was first proposed in July 2008, EPA has weakened the proposed rule by: eliminating home testing priority to reentry except for high concentrations of methyl bromide; reducing reentry times for workers removing fumigant tarps from 24 to 2 hours after perforation; allowing buffer zones to overlap, affecting the people who live closest to the fields; and, no longer requiring air monitoring (except for methyl bromide), instead allowing workers to experience exposure symptoms before triggering additional protections.

See the letter at www.beyondpesticides.org/watchdog/fumigants/letter-6-18-09.pdf.

“This kind of public visibility around pesticides is particularly needed in the U.S., since regulators base their decisions on toxicology studies that are almost all done by industry,” explains Brian Hill, PhD, senior PANNA scientist and the primary developer of the database. “Nearly 900 million pounds of pesticides [excluding wood preservatives, chlorine and specialty biocide pesticides] are used in the U.S. every year, yet regulations depend on studies that are not peer-reviewed and are kept hidden behind the veil of ”˜confidential business information.’” Dr. Hill notes that the 900 million figure is long overdue for updating, as the most recent pesticide use figures from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are for 2001.

In addition to highlighting the potential direct health effects of pesticide residues, What’s on My Food points to the many problems associated with pesticide use before food reaches the kitchen table. Widespread use of agricultural chemicals threatens the health of workers and those in nearby communities and schools, as well as harming wildlife and contaminating ecosystems, according to the site.

In the “Take Action” section of the site, Pesticide Action Network calls on consumers not only to vote with their dollars by choosing organic foods whenever possible, but also to become involved as “food citizens” and sign a petition that asks the Obama Administration to support conversion to organic agriculture; ensure environmental justice for farmworkers communities; protect future generations from persistent pollutants; and, reduce overall exposure to pesticides.

Published in Environmental Science and Technology, the study, entitled “American Healthy Homes Survey: A National Study of Residential Pesticides Measured from Floor Wipes,” was conducted as a collaboration between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Five hundred randomly selected homes were sampled using alcohol wipes to collect dust from hard surface floors, mostly kitchen floor surfaces. The swipes were analyzed for 24 currently and previously use residential insecticides in the organochlorine, organophosphate, pyrethroid and phenylpyrazole classes, and the insecticide synergist piperonyl butoxide.

Researchers found that currently used pyrethroid pesticides were, not surprisingly, at the highest levels with varied concentrations. Fipronil and permethrin, both currently used, were found in 40 percent and 89 percent of homes respectively. However, the researchers found that long discontinued pesticides like DDT and chlordane were found in 42 percent and 74 percent of homes respectively, with DDE, the breakdown product of DDT, also found in 33 percent of homes. Even chemicals no longer permitted for residential use, such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon, were detected in 78 percent and 35 percent of homes. The results, according to most commonly detected, are arranged as follows: permethrin (89%), chlorpyrifos (78%), chlordane (64%), piperonyl butoxide (52%), cypermethrin (46%), and fipronil (40%).

The authors point out that the “high detection frequencies observed for chlordane, chlorpyrifos, and permethrin suggest these compounds are essentially ubiquitous in our living areas and that popular use, both past and present, has a major influence on their occurrence in homes.” Children are at particular health risk given their more frequent contact with flooring, as well as hand to mouth activity. Concerning is the fact that DDT was found in a higher percentage of homes than its breakdown product, DDE. This could mean that DDT is not degraded well in homes, due to a lack of sunlight or microbes, and that residents are being exposed to current sources of DDT.

This is not the first study to document the prevalence of pesticide residues in households. In 2008, a study found significant amounts of pyrethroid pesticides in indoor dust of homes and childcare centers. Other studies throughout the years have also documented the occurrence of pesticide residues in indoor dusts and air samples, including a sampling of homes of pregnant women which found that 75% of their homes were contaminated with pesticides. A 1998 study (Gurunathan, S. et al) found that chlorpyrifos accumulated on furniture, toys and other sorbant surfaces up to two weeks after application, while another 1996 study (Nishioka, M., et al) found that the herbicide 2,4-D can be tracked from lawns into homes, leaving residues of the herbicide in carpets.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin as a possible human carcinogen, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. Many synthetic pyrethroids have been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system, and increase chances of breast cancer. Children are especially sensitive to the effects of permethrin and other synthetic pyrethroids. A study found that permethrin is almost five times more toxic to eight-day-old rats than to adult rats due to incomplete development of the enzymes that break down pyrethroids in the liver.

For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, Common Pesticide Poison Homes and Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

“Our study is the first to show an association between pesticide exposure and an excess prevalence of MGUS,” said lead author Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “This finding is particularly important given that we recently found in a large prospective cancer screening study that virtually all multiple myeloma patients experienced a MGUS state prior to developing myeloma.”

“As several million Americans use pesticides, it’s important that the risks of developing MGUS from the use of pesticides is known,” added senior study author and NCI investigator Michael Alavanja, DrPH.

The blood of study participants, who were individuals licensed to apply restricted-use pesticides, was assessed for MGUS prevalence. The median age of participants was 60 years (range 30-94 years), and all lived in either Iowa or North Carolina. Participants also completed questionnaires providing comprehensive occupational exposure information for a wide range of pesticides, including information such as the average number of days of pesticide use per year, years of use, use of protective gear while applying pesticides, and pesticide application methods. Information on smoking and alcohol use, cancer histories of the participants’ first-degree relatives, and other basic demographic and health data were also obtained. Individuals with prior histories of lymphoproliferative malignancies (such as multiple myeloma or lymphoma) were excluded. Cancer incidence and mortality were monitored annually, and, after five years, follow-up interviews were conducted to update the information about participants’ occupational exposures, medical histories, and lifestyle factors.

For comparison, data were obtained from a large MGUS-screening study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, and the results from the pesticide-exposed group were compared with the assessments of 9,469 men from the general population of Olmsted County, Minnesota. The two groups were similar in terms of age, race, and educational attainment. Because of the low prevalence of women among workers who apply pesticides, women were excluded from the study.

In the pesticide-exposed group, no MGUS cases were observed among those who were less than 50 years of age, but the prevalence of MGUS in those older than 50 was 6.8 percent, which is 1.9 times higher than the general population study group of men in Minnesota.

The researchers also evaluated the potential association between MGUS prevalence and 50 specific pesticides for which usage data were known. Of the chemicals studied, a significantly increased risk of MGUS was observed among users of dieldrin (an insecticide), carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide (a fumigant mixture), and chlorothalonil (a fungicide). The MGUS risk for these agents increased 5.6-fold, 3.9-fold, and 2.4-fold, respectively. Several other insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides were associated with MGUS, but not significantly.

“There is great concern regarding the increase in frequency in mature B-cell malignancies in the Western world and what may be the cause of this. A number of reports in the past have linked exposure to pesticides with increased risk of these types of cancers, but the present study is the first to link agricultural work to a pre-malignant condition,” said John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine at Barts and the London School of Medicine, who is not affiliated with the study. “It is vital to assess the risk of workplace exposure and disease, and the results lend further support to providing safe workplace practices to limit exposure to potential carcinogens.”

“Our findings are intriguing,” stated Dr. Landgren. If replicated in a larger sample from our study and other large studies, further work should focus on gaining a better understanding of the molecular basis of MGUS and multiple myeloma. Ultimately, this will result in the identification of novel molecular targets involved in the progression from MGUS to multiple myeloma and in the development of targeted therapies.”

According to Beyond Pesticides’ research on multiple myeloma’s link to pesticide exposure, several previous studies show an increased risk. For example:
* A 2008 historical cohort study of occupation exposure in Sweden found an excess risk among male agricultural, horticultural and forestry workers use of pesticides multiple myeloma.
* A 2007 meta-analysis of 13 case-control studies on hematopoietic cancers (leukemia, NHL, and multiple myeloma) published between 1990 and 2005 found a significant positive association for occupational pesticide exposure of more than 10 years and all hematopoietic cancers (OR 2.18).
* A 1998 study of cancer mortality among Iowa farmers showed an excess of deaths for multiple myeloma.
* A 1996 Norwegian study found that agricultural exposure to pesticides for those cultivating potatoes is linked to multiple myeloma in males and females.
* A 1992 study looking at farmers’ cancer risks found significant excesses for multiple myeloma.
* A 1985 study found that farmers, although tend to be health in many regards due to their physical activity and other attributes of living rurally and generally have fewer health problems, certain types of cancers are frequently found in excess in this group including multiple myeloma.
* A 1985 case-control study of New Zealand agriculture and forestry workers found a significant excess of patients with multiple myeloma (OR 2.22).
* A 1983 mortality study of Iowan farmers who died between 1964 and 1978 found an elevated mortality from multiple myeloma in association with herbicide and insecticide use.

“The use of integrated pest management can help reduce pesticide exposures and also provide additional benefits by reducing pests and their associated allergens, possibly reducing asthma triggers. Many schools practicing integrated pest management have documented improved pest management, cost savings, and reductions in pesticide applications by as much as 90 percent,” said Senator Suzanne Bonamici. “Senate Bill 637 improves student health and achievement with cost-effective pest management policies for schools.”

The bill states: “‘Integrated pest management plan’ means a proactive strategy that: (a) Focuses on the long-term prevention or suppression of pest problems through economically sound measures that: Protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty; Protect the integrity of campus buildings and grounds; Maintain a productive learning environment; and Protect local ecosystem health; (b) Focuses on the prevention of pest problems by working to reduce or eliminate conditions of property construction, operation and maintenance that promote or allow for the establishment, feeding, breeding and proliferation of pest populations or other conditions that are conducive to pests or that create harborage for pests; (c) Incorporates the use of sanitation, structural remediation or habitat manipulation or of mechanical, biological and chemical pest control measures that present a reduced risk or have a low impact; (d) Includes regular monitoring and inspections to detect pests, pest damage and unsanctioned pesticide usage; (e) Evaluates the need for pest control by identifying acceptable pest population density levels; (f) Monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of pest control measures; (g) Excludes the application of pesticides on a routine schedule for purely preventive purposes, other than applications of pesticides designed to attract or be consumed by pests; (h) Excludes the application of pesticides for purely aesthetic purposes; (i) Includes school staff education about sanitation, monitoring and inspection and about pest control measures; (j) Gives preference to the use of nonchemical pest control measures; and (k) Allows the use of low-impact pesticides if nonchemical pest control measures have proven ineffective.

It continues: “‘Low-impact pesticide’ means a pesticide product or active ingredient that: (a) Does not have the signal words ‘warning’ or ‘danger ‘ on the label; and (b) Is not on the list adopted by the State Department of Agriculture under section 9 (4) of this 2009 Act.”

Beyond Pesticides’ definition of IPM includes a clear delineation of steps to prevent the “need” for pesticides: monitoring; record-keeping; action levels; prevention; tactics criteria; and evaluation. For more on how least-toxic pesticides are defined, see our factsheet.

Other stipulations of the bill require at least 24 hours notice and clear posting of pesticide applications and allow “a pesticide other than a low-impact pesticide” to be applied in a declared “pest emergency.”

In addition to requiring IPM policies, the bill also allows governing bodies to pass more protective measures than this baseline.

“We applaud both chambers for recognizing the importance of the issue and supporting common-sense strategies to protect the health of the school children in our state,” said Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis MPH, PhD, program director at the Oregon Environmental Council.

SB 637 comes six months after a report by the Oregon Toxics Alliance (OTA) showed extensive records of incidents where children were exposed to pesticides at school. OTA recommended that the state take immediate action to reduce circumstances where children’s health may be harmed. At the time, OTA Executive Director Lisa Arkin said, “Oregon lacks a statewide policy to ensure safe pest management practices at schools. That is incomprehensible, because twenty-five percent of the states have already taken such action.”

IPM and other pesticide-reduction plans are critical to protecting children’s health, due to the amplified effect pesticides have on their growth. Learn more about children and pesticides in Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix” and the brochure “Asthma, Children, and Pesticides.” You can find additional information including model policies, resources, and publications on the Children & School program page. You can help protect children in all 50 states by supporting the School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). You representatives need to hear of its importance from you!

The county law states that no department may use “any ingredient classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a human carcinogen, probable human carcinogen, possible human carcinogen, reproductive toxin, or developmental toxin.” According to a report by Corte Madera resident Paul Apfel, county employees violated that law at least 92 times between 1999 and 2007, using thousands of gallons of chemicals.

“We have verified that the county has used a class of chemicals that the IPM [Integrated Pest Management] ordinance identifies should only be used under the exemption process,” said County Administrator Matthew Hymel. “Part of the confusion is that these chemicals were not on the state list but they were on the EPA list of possible carcinogens.” Fred Crowder, the county’s deputy agricultural commissioner, said he recommended pesticides based on the California Proposition 65 list, rather than EPA’s larger list of carcinogens. While Mr. Crowder admitted his mistake, he also tried to justify it by saying they are “also available at the local garden store and there is nothing there that is not available to the public.” (To see which pesticides have been linked to carcinogenic, reproductive, and developmental effects, visit the Pesticide Gateway.)

“It shouldn’t have been done and the citizens of Marin are entitled to a public hearing on this,” Mr. Apfel said. “It can’t be swept under the rug. It was the citizens who were wronged.”

“I want to find out what happened with the misreporting to us about what was used and why the process wasn’t followed,” Supervisor Susan Adams said. “The error was not because we sprayed illegal pesticides but we didn’t follow the process in the ordinance to allow that use.”

Local environmental and health activists disagreed with the county’s assessment of the violation. “The county law states that a limited use exemption is granted on an emergency basis,” said Carolyn Cohen of Mothers of Marin Against the Spray. “That Does not mean every month, except for the rainy season, for 10 years. That’s completely inappropriate.”

A review of the updated IPM ordinance is tentatively scheduled for June 23. For more information on organizing in your community to reduce pesticide use, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change page.

The researchers, including senior author MIT Professor Ram Sasisekharan, Ph.D., found that the proteins, known as gram-negative bacteria binding proteins (GNBPs), act as a first line of defense against pathogenic bacteria and fungus. Once the researchers discovered this function, they decided to try inhibiting the proteins, with an eye toward new methods of pest control.

The researchers gauged the effectiveness of GDL in laboratory tests using termites. A few days after being exposed to GDL, all of the insects died from opportunistic pathogenic infections. A control group of termites not exposed to GDL lived twice as long. Since this defense mechanism is only employed by certain insect species such as termites, locusts and cockroaches, GDL is harmless to beneficial insects such as ants, as well as other animals and plants, according to the researchers. The same cannot be said for chemical pesticides now commonly used.

“When you look at the chemical pesticides now used, they’re harmful not only for insects but also for humans too,” said Dr. Sasisekharan, who is the Edward Hood Taplin Professor and director of the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST).

According to Dr. Sasisekharan, “The GDL compound could be incorporated into building materials or paint to protect buildings from termites, or could be made into a spray for use in fields where pests need to be controlled. It could also be used in food processing and storage facilities. This research also lays the groundwork for possible development of similar agents to target pest insects.”

“Dr. Sasisekharan’s basic studies on innate immunity in insects have enabled him to devise a strategy to defeat them,” said Pamela Marino of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially supported the work. “The findings may lead to the development of new pesticides that pose a far lesser threat to human health than the chemical pesticides commonly used now.”

See Beyond Pesticides’ non- and least-toxic pest control methods fact sheets for more information on alternatives to chemical pesticides.

Currently 80 percent of rivers draining to the Reef breach water quality guidelines due to farm fertilizer, pesticide and sediment runoff. The Queensland Government introduced the bill, entitled the Great Barrier Reef Protection Act, into Parliament to regulate farm practices and pesticide use. More specifically, the bill targets water pollution control at its agricultural origin. Failure to comply could trigger a $30,000 fine. Activists, while welcoming the new measure, say such legislation should have been introduced years ago. Environmental groups: WWF-Australia, Queensland Conservation, Australian Marine Conservation Society and Wildlife Queensland are united in their support for the new laws.

Premier Anna Bligh says the Great Barrier Reef Protection Act will decrease sediment, nutrients and pesticides entering the reef.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) spokesman Nick Heath says the legislation will help the environment and farmers. “The Government’s just released a new estimate that there’s over $30 million worth of fertilizer and pesticide going onto the reef every year,” he said. “It’s a turning point for the Reef — welcome news after years of concern.”

“This is also a turning point for Australian agriculture — for too long there has been too little change in environmentally risky and outdated farm practices,” said Mr. Heath.

Many hope that once made law, clear prohibitions of unacceptable high risk practices are set, and that $175m, which has been promised as a commitment to reef protection, is properly allocated between new on-ground enforcement, education and extension capacity. Activists say that the Federal and State governments must unite investments ($200m from the Commonwealth and $175m from the State) to ensure the deepest pollution cuts in the shortest time. Activists are hoping for a 50 per cent cut in pollution over 4 years, as well as an annual review of progress. The legislation would also indirectly help protect 60,000 jobs dependent on the reef’s health.

However, farm industry groups find this new measure to be unnecessary and that farmers are being unfairly persecuted. Grant Maudsley, from Agforce, said monitoring runoff and recording the use of chemicals was already in place and that the amendments would not produce any real environmental outcomes. Secretary of the Proserpine Milling Co-operative (an association for the sugar mill industry) Ian McBean, says the government is over-regulating and that the sugar industry is already implementing environmentally friendly practices. “We really seem to be heading down a nanny state path here,” said Mr. McBean. “The sugar industry has made a very concerted effort to improve its environmental performance and yet it seems to me that the state government is claiming that those very practices that the industry has implemented will only work if they’re under government control.”
But Col McKenzie from the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators notes that 5 years ago, when the reef rescue plan was first put out, asking for voluntary changes would not have been enough. Inevitably, according to Mr. McKenzie, any voluntary measure would have to be followed up with legislation.

The Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral reef system on earth and home to thousands of species of fish, coral, birds, turtles and other sea mammals, is under threat from overfishing, land-based pollution and coral bleaching exacerbated by increased sea temperatures due to global warming. The herbicides atrazine and diuron have been detected at river mouths, inshore reefs and intertidal seagrass monitoring locations. Most runoff comes from pastoral and sugar cane plantation activities. Phased out organochlorine pesticides such as dieldrin and the breakdown products of DDT, are still being detected in mud crabs collected along the reef coast as well.

Previously only 4.6 percent of the reef was fully protected, but after public campaigning and pressure from WWF, the Australian Government committed to a plan to protect 33 percent of the reef. For more information on the Great Barrier Reef visit WWF-Australia.

While Beyond Pesticides encourages community leaders, scientists, policy makers and activists to attend its annual National Pesticide Forum to get together, share information, and elevate the pesticide reform movement, the new online videos of much of the Forum’s educational sessions make a similar contribution. Beyond Pesticides believes that sharing this information beyond the Forum as an educational and organizing tool will prove extremely valuable, and encourages readers of the Daily News blog to share the presentations with friends, community organizations, networks and state and local decision makers. New presentations will continue to be added to the website in the upcoming weeks.

Also this month, Beyond Pesticides expanded its online social network with a page on Facebook and a Twitter account and encourages members, activists, concerned individuals, organizations and others to become a Facebook “fan” and follow our “tweets” on Twitter. By joining us on these social networking websites, you’ll get the latest news on pesticide science and regulation, action alerts on breaking issues, as well as videos, podcasts and other links that we think will interest you sent directly to your computer or mobile phone.

Facebook was launched in 2004 and made available to the general public in 2006. Its mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. People create accounts to keep up and connect with friends and issues they care about. Twitter, launched in 2006, is a free social networking and “micro-blogging” service that enables its users to send and read other users’ updates known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the user’s profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them. Learn more about Facebook here and Twitter here.

The study, “Professional Exposure to Pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease,” published in Annals of Neurology, involved individuals affiliated with the French health insurance organization for agricultural workers who were frequently exposed to pesticides in the course of their work. Occupational health physicians constructed a detailed lifetime exposure history to pesticides by interviewing participants, visiting farms, and collecting a large amount of data on pesticide exposure. These included farm size, type of crops, animal breeding, which pesticides were used, time period of use, frequency and duration of exposure per year, and spraying method.

“Our findings support the hypothesis that environmental risk factors such as professional pesticide exposure may lead to neurodegeneration,” notes lead study author Alexis Elbaz M.D., Ph.D., of Inserm, the national French institute for health research in Paris, and the University Pierre et Marie Curie.

The second most common neurodegenerative disease affecting more than one million people in the U.S., Parkinson’s disease occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region of the brain are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nerve-signaling molecule that helps control muscle movement.

In the past year several studies have been published that make the connection that Parkinson’s disease is caused by a combination of environmental risk factors such as pesticide exposure and genetic susceptibility. For example, residential exposure to an agriculture application of the fungicide maneb and the herbicide paraquat significantly increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, according to a University of California, Berkeley study. A study by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) researchers found pesticide exposure and genetic variability in the dopamine transporter (DAT), a protein that plays a central role in dopaminergic neurotransmission of the brain, interact to significantly increase the risk factor for Parkinson’s disease. Another study by UCLA researchers found chronic exposure to commonly used dithiocarbamate fungicides, such as ziram, contribute to the development of Parkinson’s disease. A University of Texas study found a strong correlation between Parkinson’s disease patients and the use of the pesticide rotenone. In addition, Duke University and University of Miami researchers studying related individuals who share environmental and genetic backgrounds found a significant association between Parkinson’s disease and use of herbicides and insecticides, such as organochlorines and organophosphates.

The statement, “Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Engineered Wheat,” was released to counter the May 14 “Wheat Commercialization Statement,” released by industry lobby groups in the three countries. The industry pledged to “work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops.” The joint statement was released by 15 groups in Australia, Canada and the U.S., including the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. and the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia, and counters the six stated industry arguments in favour of GE wheat.

“GE wheat is a potential disaster of huge proportions,” said Terry Bohem, Vice President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. “We refuse to allow Monsanto and industry groups to restart any campaign to commercialize GE wheat.”

The group statement centers on the pledge: “In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops.”

“Genetic engineering for wheat would be a calamity for all wheat farmers. Consumers across the world have already rejected the idea of GE wheat but corporations are intent on controlling this crop through their gene patents,” said Julie Newman, wheat grower and member of the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia.

In 2004, Monsanto withdrew its applications for approval for GE wheat in Canada and the U.S. due to intensive consumer and farmer protest. The wheat is engineered to be tolerant to Monsanto’s brand-name herbicide Roundup (glyphosate). Genetically engineered crops have been linked to increased pesticide use, insect and weed resistance, and have been banned in large parts of the developed world. In addition, genetic drift can hurt farmers who choose not to plant GE crops. Beyond Pesticides and other groups have successfully sued to prevent GE threats to organic and conventional farming.

“Monsanto needs to accept defeat,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, a coalition of 18 groups. “The industry groups in our three countries are promising to force this product on all of us but today we reiterate our pledge to stop them.”

“Monsanto and industry groups in our countries need to abandon their agenda of forcing GE wheat onto a market that doesn’t want or need it,” said Katherine Ozer, Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S.

The sanctions levied in this case are as a result of the use of the new authority granted to the ODA by the 2007 Legislature in fining Oregon growers $10,000 per violation. The department must determine a violation was willful and negligent to issue the $10,000 maximum fine. The previous maximum fine in Oregon was $1,000 for a first violation and $2,000 for a repeat violation. The Oregon growers were fined the maximum in 18 infractions. ODA tested 86 samples of soil, weeds, onion foliage and bulbs from 60 fields in uncovering 18 positive tests. The investigations were initiated based on a tip.

The pesticides, bentazon (trade name Basagran) and carbofuran (trade name Furadan), were illegally used on 18 fields during the 2008 growing season, and were found to have levels of pesticide residue for either one of the products, two with levels of carbofuran and 16 fields with levels of bentazon. Two fields worth of onions were destroyed voluntarily by the farmers. The pesticides are not registered for use on onions.

A 2006 investigation uncovered evidence that more than a dozen Oregon growers misused Furadan on onions. A pesticide dealer was also fined $89,910 for selling Furadan to an unlicensed applicator 81 times over a 30-month period. Following those incidents, the state legislature granted the ODA authority to increase the dollar amount it can fine growers for off-label pesticide application. Onion shippers are also considering imposing mandatory testing on all onions at the growers’ expense to ensure no illegal materials are present.

Carbofuran is a toxic insecticide that does not meet current U.S. food safety standards. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked regulations that permit residues of the pesticide carbofuran in food. EPA’s action will eliminate residues of carbofuran in food, including all imports, in a move to protect people, especially children, from dietary hazards. The action will also force the removal this pesticide from the market.

Bentazon is a selective herbicide associated with human and environmental health impacts including some developmental toxicity effects as seen in rats and rabbits, and poses a chronic reproductive health risk to birds.

The survey shows Oregonians give the highest ratings for irrigation and soil conservation practices. However, 77 percent of Oregonians say they are either very or somewhat concerned about the impact of agricultural use of pesticides and fertilizers on water quality and human health. Respondents are also very or somewhat concerned about the impact of pesticides and fertilizers on food safety (74 percent), wildlife habitat (71 percent), air quality (68 percent), and soil conservation (60 percent). Women and Portland metro area residents are consistently more concerned than other groups.

One survey question asked if farmers could still feed the world using only organic practices. About 44 percent believe that is possible. Interestingly, the Oregon Department of Agriculture believes that this finding characterizes a disconnect between public opinion and agriculture’s need for pesticides.

Many respondents are uncertain about government regulation of agriculture. The survey shows 53 percent believe regulations are about right or too strong, but a third are not sure. Many want stronger regulations for food processing – not surprising considering recent high profile food safety issues. The highest percentage of respondents (42 percent) believes regulations protecting drinking water quality and protecting streams and rivers are not strong enough.

In 2008, a similar survey gauged Oregonians’ opinions of production agriculture on a wider scale. That led to a focused follow-up survey conducted this spring in two areas of concern and opportunity- water and pesticides. The latest snapshot is the result of a statewide telephone survey of 500 Oregonians completed on behalf of the Agri-Business Council of Oregon with the financial support of numerous agriculture organizations.

The draft language is largely based on the food provisions of H.R. 759, the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009, introduced in January by Reps. Dingell, Stupak, and Pallone. The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 incorporates technical assistance from the Obama Administration as well as other stakeholders. According to Rep. Waxman, the legislation grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authorities and resources it needs to better ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply.

“The current state of our food safety system is dangerous not just for the American public, but also for the food industry itself,” said Rep. Waxman, Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “This bill recognizes that the hallmark of strong food safety legislation must be a shared responsibility for food safety oversight between FDA and industry. This legislation will go a long way toward restoring Americans’ confidence in our food supply.”

Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 summary:

Ӣ Creates an up-to-date registry of all food facilities serving American consumers, requiring all facilities operating within the U.S. or importing food to the U.S. to register with the FDA annually.
”¢ Generates resources to support FDA oversight of food safety through an annual registration fee of $1,000 as well as requiring facilities to pay for FDA’s costs associated with reinspections and food recalls.
Ӣ Requires all facilities operating within the U.S. or importing food to the U.S. to implement safety plans that identify and protect against food hazards.
Ӣ Requires safety plans for fresh produce.
Ӣ Increases inspections of food facilities from six to 18 months for high risk facilities to three to four years for low risk facilities.
”¢ Enhances FDA’s ability to trace the origin of tainted food in the event of an outbreak of foodborne illness through electronic record-keeping.
Ӣ Allows FDA to require food to be certified as meeting all U.S. food safety requirements by the government of the country from which the article originated or by certain qualified third parties.
Ӣ Expands laboratory testing capacity.
Ӣ Provides FDA new authority to issue mandatory recalls of tainted foods, strengthens criminal penalties and establishes civil monetary penalties that FDA may impose on food facilities that fail to comply with safety requirements.
Ӣ Permits FDA to develop voluntary security guidelines for imported foods.
”¢ Enhances FDA’s ability to assure the safety of new infant formulas before they go on the market.
Ӣ Directs the Secretary to include food in an active surveillance system to assess more accurately the frequency and sources of human illness.
”¢ Enhances FDA’s ability to block unsafe food from entering the food supply.
Ӣ Requires FDA to conduct a safety review of the use of carbon monoxide in meat, poultry, and seafood products.
”¢ Requires posting on FDA’s website of documentation submitted to FDA in support of a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) notification.
Ӣ Requires country-of-origin labeling and disclosure.

While supporting steps to ensure a safe food system, the public health and sustainable agriculture communities point out a handful of problems with the draft language. In terms of protecting public health, advocates are disappointed that the bill does not require companies to conduct microbial testing for pathogens and report positive results to FDA. Others point out that that the greatest public health threats come from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and that society could benefit most from CAFO-specific regulations.

Others oppose the flat $1,000 fee, which will have a far greater impact on a small local processor that only distributes locally than a multinational company with millions in sales. Mark Schonbeck from the Virginia Association for Biological Farming suggests a small $50 flat fee plus a percentage of annual total dollar value of product above $100,000 per year. He points out that even the large scale growers and packers were advocating a fee for Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) certification audit based on volume. “They suggested 1.5 cents per case, so that a small farmer selling 1,000 cases of greens would only pay $15, and a large farm selling 1,000,000 cases would pay $15,000, which they could afford.”

Elizabeth Henderson of Peacework Organic Farm believes that the regulations should be voluntary for family-scale farmers. “Each farm should develop its own food safety plan based on its own risks,” Ms. Henderson explains. “For certified organic producers part of this has already been completed in our organic farm plans. An excellent public program for food safety would provide assistance to farms in creating these plans, and then support the implementation of the plans with payment or cost-share for making the improvements that would make the farm safer”¦Farms that sell direct and are not certified could invite their customers to come and see for themselves, as is offered in the NOFA-NY Farmers Pledge. Let’s find a way to make it clear to the public that we support food safety, but hold off the mandatory programs.”

Maryland Department of Transportation
The Maryland Department of Transportation’s State Highway Administration (SHA) had a major dilemma — how to mow the turf amid the meadows and bogs that protect the threatened Bog Turtle around a major highway bypass in the state. The best solution — use goats as lawn mowers. In late May, SHA enlisted a herd of 40 goats from a local farmer to begin a conservation grazing project on approximately eight acres of meadows and bogs in Carroll County.

“Avoiding and minimizing environmental impacts is a challenging part of highway maintenance and construction,” said Neil J. Pedersen, SHA Administrator. “Using goats to maintain turf in an environmentally sensitive area is not only an innovative idea, it clearly demonstrates our vision of a greener highway system.”

Using traditional mowing methods could have led to a major disruption of the Bog Turtle habitat and could injure or kill the turtles. Goats are light weighted animals and pose no significant hazard to the Bog Turtle or their habitat along the Bypass.

SHA is using goat grazing as a two-year, $10,000 pilot, which will be evaluated after one year to measure the success of the project and to determine if the project should be expanded to other environmentally sensitive regions across the state. The cost of the goats includes delivery to and from the project, supplemental feed, and routine veterinary care. The goats will graze the fields from mid-May until the beginning of September, which is the end of the mowing season.

The goat grazing project is in sync with Governor Martin O’Malley’s Smart, Green and Growing Initiative, introduced in October 2008. The Initiative was created to strengthen the state’s leadership role in fostering smarter, more sustainable growth, and inspire action among all Marylanders to achieve a more sustainable future, to create more livable communities, improve transportation options, reduce the state’s carbon footprint, support resource based industry, invest in green technologies, preserve valuable resource lands and restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

Hempstead, New York Nature Preserve
Five Nigerian dwarf goats are being used as an environmentally responsible method of eradicating brush, weeds and other vegetation overgrowth at the Norman J. Levy Park and Preserve in Hempstead, New York.

“We were looking for a way to control vegetation overgrowth that was in keeping with our nature preserve’s mission,” said Town Supervisor Kate Murray. “Lawn mowers and line trimmers emit greenhouse gases, and herbicides can pollute nearby waterways. Adding these goats to the town’s workforce is an effective way to control weeds and it’s environmentally responsible.”

The goats, which cost just over $1,000, complement a flock of insect eating fowl known as Guinea Hens. The birds, which are indigenous to North Africa, have been a resounding success in the control of ticks at the preserve. In fact, there has not been a single tick incident reported at the facility in the four years since the fowl were employed as a nature-friendly insecticide. Visitors who tour the park will be given a presentation on all of the park’s features, including the new livestock.

Google Corporate Campus, Mountain View, California
Google hired 200 goats instead of hiring a mowing crew to manage the weeds and brush growing on their corporate campus in Mountain View, California in order to reduce fire hazard, according to Dan Hoffman, Google’s Director Real Estate and Workplace Services. The company’s hiring of the goats costs about the same mowing.

Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, Mesa, Arizona
The City of Mesa, Arizona Utilities Department has employed 80 goats to manage 30 acres of brush and weeds at one of their water reclamation plants as an alternative to mechanical mowing. The goats are finishing up a six-month contract to clear the slopes of three water retention ponds on the site.

“The traditional use of machines and manpower is difficult due to the design of the retention ponds and the amount of vegetation at the site,” said Utilities Department Water Division Director Bill Haney. “Using goats allows us to use a more sustainable and environmentally responsible form of weed control.”

The Utilities Department website states, “While using goats is a non-polluting form of vegetation control, they also produce better results than the use of machinery. Goats possess a unique characteristic that separates them from almost all other types of livestock; they will eat just about anything resembling a plant. They can clear vegetation from hard-to-reach places, and they’ll eat the seeds that pesticides and mowing leave behind, preventing vegetation from coming back next year. Environmentally, goats reduce the use of motorized vehicles, which in turn reduces air pollution and usage of fossil fuels, involve no toxic chemicals or pesticides and they produce biodegradable waste material that naturally breaks down into the soil. Goats also make better economic sense than utilizing mechanical means which are more costly.”

According to an Arizona Republic article, with a savings of $10,000 for this project alone, “the city will consider other places the goats can be used.”

City of Cheyenne, Wyoming
The city of Cheyenne, Wyoming has hired Ecological Services, to provide weed control, flood control and stream bank restoration along two creeks that go through the city with about 700 goats. Ecological Services, owned by Lani Malmberg, a Beyond Pesticides’ board member, is a a goat based weed control business that provides up to 1,500 cashmere goats to naturally remove weeds and return any land to a healthy, natural ecosystem. She has worked extensively in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah for federal, state, county, and city governments, homeowners associations, corporations and private landowners for noxious weed control, fire fuel load abatement, re-seeding, watershed management, and land restoration.

Goats are being put to work worldwide for ecological land management. In what it says is a drive to help the rural community stave off the recession, Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand (MMNZ) is offering a free goat with every new Triton sold before August. (Triton is the brand name of truck, and is not sold in the U.S.)

“We firmly believe that New Zealand’s recovery is in the hands of the rural sector and they’re the people who are buying our [Triton],” said MMNZ general manager of sales and marketing Peter Wilkins. “Goats improve farm productivity by providing an environmentally friendly defense against noxious weeds and they’re a lot cheaper than toxic sprays”.

Fumigants, which are among the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture, are gases or liquids that are injected or dripped into the soil to sterilize a field before planting. Even with plastic tarps on the soil, fumigants escape from the soil and drift through the air into schools, homes, parks and playgrounds. Strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, carrots and potatoes are some of the major crops for which fumigant use is high.

The agency says these measures will reduce fumigant exposures to bystanders: people who live, work, attend school, or spend time near agricultural fields that are fumigated, and increase overall safety of fumigant use by requiring greater planning and compliance. Some of EPA’s new measures include creating or altering buffer zones, enforcing posting requirements, adding measures to protect agricultural workers, and strengthening training programs. Changes will begin to take effect in 2010 and 2011.

However, advocates criticize the agency’s buffer zone (an established non-treatment area in which it is known that chemical from the treated area drifts) provision, which can incorporate residential areas, as severely limited and question the enforceability of the standard. First, buffer zones can be a little as 25 feet. Second, the provision allows residential areas (including employee housing, private property, buildings, commercial, industrial, and other areas that people may occupy or outdoor residential areas, such as lawns, gardens, or play areas) to actually be in the buffer zone if, “The occupants provide written agreement that they will voluntarily vacate the buffer zone during the entire buffer zone period, and reentry by occupants and other non-handlers does not occur until the buffer zone period has ended.” The provision continues, “For formulations with greater than 80% methyl bromide, air monitoring with direct-read instruments shows concentrations are below action levels before reentry is permitted.”

N4vertheless, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in a press release concludes that, “With new restrictions, we’re allowing the continued use of fumigant pesticides without risking human health and the environment.” She continues, “Full transparency and the best science shaped a plan to protect the economic interests of agricultural communities and the public health of farm workers and consumers.”

EPA’s proposed rule was released for public comment in July 2008, prompting criticism from environmental and farmworker activists for the minimal progress achieved by these changes. For example, Jeannie Economos, pesticide health and safety coordinator with the Farmworker Association of Florida, said at the time, “We appreciate the mitigation measures that EPA has taken. However, we foresee that enforcement could still be problematic. Any exposure of a worker or a farmworker community is a risk that we shouldn’t take. The best solution is to ban fumigants altogether.” Rather than ban these toxic chemicals, EPA chose to tinker with buffer zones and monitoring (including, in the case of chloropicrin, to reduce required buffer zones). For a summary of EPA’s complete changes, click here.