(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2010) Every day, children still die of malaria, a devastating disease that is both preventable and curable. In 2009, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a renewed international effort to combat malaria with an incremental reduction of the reliance on the synthetic pesticide DDT. However, efforts to invest in real solutions are often derailed by those promoting DDT as a “silver bullet” for malaria prevention.

Tell President Obama that the President’s Malaria Initiative must invest in safe solutions to malaria, not increase reliance on DDT. Sign by April 22nd and you will be included in the petition to mark World Malaria Day. Sign the petition here.

DDT, or dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, while highly persistent in the environment, was initially found to be effective against mosquitoes and the diseases they carry, such as malaria. However, insect resistance to the chemical has been documented since 1946. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972 after it was linked to the decline of the bald eagle and other raptors, and it continues to be linked to health problems. A 2007 study finds that women who were exposed to DDT before the age of 14 are five times more likely to develop breast cancer later in life.

The benefits of the use of DDT for mosquito control are still debated, especially in developing nations that are plagued with high infection rates of malaria. Beyond Pesticides believes advocating a reliance on pesticides, especially DDT, as a silver bullet solution for malaria protection is extremely dangerous. When the underlying causes of pest problems are not adequately addressed, then a sustained dependence on toxic pesticides like DDT causes greater long-term problems than those that are being addressed in the short-term.

Beyond Pesticides advocate the fighting of malaria without poisoning future generations of children in malaria hot spots. “We should be advocating for a just world where we no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids, but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease, because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone,” says Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. See previous Daily News Blog.

Sample Text

Dear President Obama,

To mark World Malaria Day this year, we urge you to direct the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) to invest in the safest and most effective solutions to this devastating disease.

Malaria is both preventable and curable, and the global community must build on the success of those countries that have successfully controlled it. From Mexico to Vietnam to Kenya, the most successful programs are those that rely on community participation and full commitment of the national government to combat the disease. Improved health care infrastructure along with environmental management, widespread use of bednets and other community-specific solutions are key to success.

While we congratulate the PMI on its increased commitment to battle malaria in recent years, we are very concerned that the program has shifted its focus from these proven solutions to increased reliance on Indoor Residual Spraying with long-lasting chemicals, including DDT. From 2008 to 2010, PMI’s budget for IRS in Africa more than doubled, while the budget for bednets grew much less.

Public health officials from around the world have expressed concerns about the harm to human health of the use of DDT for malaria control – see the attached “Pine River Statement.” The World Health Organization (WHO) has committed to helping countries shift away from reliance on DDT, as agreed under the global Stockholm Convention.

Please support WHO’s efforts, and direct the President’s Malaria Initiative to bring its spending in line with the malaria control goals of the global community. Families and communities in Africa and around the world deserve the best solutions to malaria. Thank you.

Sign the petition here.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2010) As part of its “Food with Integrity” mission, Chipotle Mexican Grill, a national chain of about 1,000 restaurants, is making the commitment to support sustainable agriculture by increasing the percentage of organic ingredients, such as organic black and pinto beans on its food menu, and eventually

transitioning to a completely organic menu. Chipotle’s efforts to use ingredients from more sustainable sources have led to a direct reduction of chemical pesticide use on its ingredients of nearly 100,000 pounds since 2005.

In its position paper entitled, “Position on Pesticide Use,” posted in January 2010, Chipotle outlined its efforts to expand its commitment to sustainable foods aimed at bringing ”˜more positive change in the nation’s food supply.’ To date, Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat (from animals that are raised in a humane way, never given antibiotics or added hormones, and fed a pure vegetarian diet) than any other restaurant company, making them the only national restaurant company with a significant commitment to local and organic produce. The restaurant currently serves more than 70 million pounds of naturally raised meat — including 100% pork, 100% chicken, and more than 60% beef. Chipotle also serves dairy products (cheese and sour cream) made with milk from cows that are not treated with the synthetic hormone rBGH. The company said it will continue to increase the use of organically grown beans, with over 40 percent of all its beans coming from organic sources this year. This translates to 7.2 million pounds of organic beans, and a 36,466-pound reduction in chemical pesticide use. Chipotle has also contracted to purchase organically grown cilantro for more than 50 percent of all of its restaurants in 2010.

Chipotle’s founder and co-CEO, Steve Ells, testified to the U.S. Senate in March to support the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) which, if passed, would require a re-review of seven classes of antibiotics that are important to human medicine, but are use for livestock. Chipotle hopes its “Food with Integrity” mission would serve as an example to industry which often claims that it is too difficult or too costly to change to sustainable practices, and changes the way people think about and eat fast food.

Beyond Pesticides applauds Chipotle’s efforts to transition to organic and support sustainable agricultural practices. Organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality, and according to Chipotle, is in fact, better tasting. Organic farming and food systems are holistic, work with nature rather than relying on inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers, exhibit higher standards for the welfare of animals, and do not allow routine use of antibiotics. Organic agriculture also protects the local environment, waterways, air quality, and farmworkers and their families from 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 of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2010) A new report shows that the large-scale cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) corn is causing the spread of a new pest in the US Corn Belt. The report, “The spread of the western bean cutworm causes massive damage in the US” published by Testbiotech for Greenpeace Germany finds that GE corn plants in the U.S. that have been genetically modified to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin classified as Cry1Ab are being infested by the larvae of the western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta).

For more information on GE crops please see Beyond Pesticides page on Genetic Engineering.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2010) While the number of Minnesota school districts purchasing fresh food from local farms has more than doubled in the last 15 months, according to a survey released last week by the Minnesota School Nutrition Association (MSNA) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), there is no mention of organically produced food as a priority to protect children, local health or the local environment from the pollution and contamination caused by pesticide use. Communities, such as Olympia, Washington have turned to local organic food in their school lunch program. According to the Rodale Institute, “[W]hile it’s true that food produced locally generally has a smaller carbon footprint than food transported across the country (or from another continent), the carbon emitted by transporting food is smaller than that released by growing it with chemical means. In fact, PepsiCo recently documented that, for its Tropicana orange juice, transporting the product accounted for only 22% of its carbon footprint.”

Rodale suggests local organic food as the gold standard because it eliminates petroleum-based fertilizers and reduces fossil fuel use in the farming operation. Rodale suggests the following priority for food purchasing: 1. Local certified organic food, 2. Local noncertified organic food, 3. Nonlocal certified organic food, 4. Local nonorganic, 5. Everything else.

Farm-to-school programs link school children with local farmers and farm products, including fruits and vegetables, meat, grains and other items. Farm-to-school provides fresh, healthy food choices, helps children develop healthy eating habits and supports small and mid-size farmers. According to the Farm-to-School website, forty four states have 2,111 farm-to-school programs impacting 8,944 schools nationwide.

The survey gathered input from MSNA’s membership, which includes foodservice professionals from nearly 100 public school districts serving approximately 550,000 K-12 students across the state. Sixty-nine districts reported purchasing Minnesota-grown products in 2009, more than double the figure from late 2008. Further, 77 percent of the districts now involved with farm to school initiatives expect to expand their activities in the upcoming school year, a sign that these programs are taking root and growing.

“Parents, students and educators know that good nutrition is essential if our kids are to be healthy and ready to learn. Small and mid-size farmers, whose products have largely been absent from America’s lunch trays, can offer our children fresh, less-processed choices and a chance to learn how and where their food is grown,” said IATP’s JoAnne Berkenkamp. “The momentum is rapidly building for farm to school programs and it’s great to see schools and farmers embracing this opportunity.”

Other key findings from the survey include:
 The most commonly used local foods were apples, potatoes, peppers, winter squash, sweet corn and tomatoes. A growing number of schools are also purchasing Minnesota-grown bison, wild rice, dried beans and grains.
 Nearly 43 percent of school districts purchasing Minnesota-grown food in 2009 did so by purchasing directly from a farmer or farmer co-op.
 While 84 percent of the survey respondents reported purchasing foods grown in Minnesota, 35 percent also purchased foods grown in neighboring areas of Wisconsin, Iowa and/or North or South Dakota.
 The biggest barriers to expanding farm to school purchases were the need for extra labor and preparation time in the cafeteria, pricing and tight food budgets, and difficulty finding nearby farmers to purchase from directly.
 In the future, schools are most interested in purchasing local vegetables and fruit, with growing interest in bread and grains, dairy and meat. The survey also showed strong interest in expanding student education about Farm-to-School and growing food in school gardens.

A study in the March/April issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior examines how farm-to-school programs have the potential to improve children’s diets by providing locally grown produce without burdening the school’s finances. The researchers found the farm-to-school programs benefited both the school and farmer. SFSP reported that the lower price for produce was attributed to a shortened supply chain. SFSP were able to buy produce that is not typically offered in school cafeterias such as asparagus, blue potatoes, Asian pears, etc. Schools are an attractive market for the farmer because “perfect” products are not always needed.

Congress has begun working on the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, the major federal legislation that determines school food policy and resources. According to the New York Times, the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2010 includes about $40 million for farm-to-school programs and school gardens and an additional $10 million toward adding organic food.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for organically grown local food. Organic farming and food systems are holistic, work with nature rather than relying on inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers, exhibit higher standards for the welfare of animals, and do not allow routine use of antibiotics. Organic farming protects the local environment, waterways, air quality, and the farmworkers and their families from 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 of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

TAKE ACTION: For more information on organic school lunches, school gardens, and getting organic food into your school, see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheets “School Lunches Go Organic” and “Organizing for Organic School Lunches,” as well as previous Daily News stories “School District Serves Healthier Choices with Organic, Locally Grown Foods.” For more information on pesticides impact on children and what can be done to protect this vulnerable population, see Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2010) Environmental, public health, labor and farmworker advocacy organizations from across the country have filed a petition asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind the Bush administration era approval of the highly toxic fumigant pesticide methyl iodide in light of troubling new findings uncovered in California studies. The petition was submitted on the birthday of famed farmworker rights advocate Cesar Chavez, who drew national attention to pesticide misuse on grapes in the 1980s.

“In 1988, Cesar Chavez again put his life on the line to draw attention to farmworker rights when he protested the use of pesticides with a 36-day, water-only fast,” said Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator at Farmworker Association of Florida. “Over 20 years later, we should not have to be fighting the same battles. Methyl iodide use takes us in the dead wrong direction for workers, public health and the future of agriculture.”

The movement to ban methyl iodide follows the legacy of Cesar Chavez: the pesticide poses significant, direct risks to farmworkers, their families and neighboring communities. 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.” The chemical can readily become a gas and drift away from its intended target, despite any efforts to contain it. Methyl iodide would be primarily used on tomato and strawberry fields at rates up to 175 lbs per acre.

“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 currently under scrutiny in California, as the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) considers it for registration in the state. In a report released in February, an external Scientific Review Committee convened by DPR noted that due to the high toxicity of methyl iodide, any agricultural use “would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on the public health” adding that, “adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

The panel also stated that, “in each and every instance where DPR findings differed from the USEPA risk assessment it was attributable to a more insightful and scientific approach having been undertaken by the DPR.”

“The science is in. An immediate withdrawal of methyl iodide from the market is the best strategy for preventing adverse effects from this highly toxic pesticide,” said Dr. Susan Kegley, PhD, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “Unless U.S. EPA wants to see more groundwater contamination, increased numbers of late-term miscarriages in women who live or work near methyl iodide applications, more thyroid disease, and more cancers, they must stop the use of this dangerous chemical.”

In light of the California findings, the non-profit environmental law firm Earthjustice filed a petition on behalf of eleven groups, asking EPA to cancel the registration of methyl iodide nationally.

“We are talking about a pesticide that’s been linked to cancer and miscarriages and that never should have been approved in the first place,” said Earthjustice Research Associate Sarah Jackson. “As it did with DDT and Agent Orange, EPA can and should ban methyl iodide. Especially when safe alternatives exist, there is no reason to be subjecting people to such serious health risks.”

The petitioners are United Farm Workers Union, Pesticide Action Network North America, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Association of Florida, Migrant Clinicians’ Network (TX), Oregon Toxics Alliance, Toxics Free North Carolina, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (OR), Pesticide Watch (CA) and Californians for Pesticide Reform.

The use of methyl iodide in agriculture has repeatedly raised significant concern from scientists and health professionals across the country, including five Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, who were “astonished” that a chemical posing such high risks to human health would be considered for use in agriculture.

Despite this, the Bush Administration’s EPA registered methyl iodide nationally in 2007, automatically registering it in a number of states that don’t conduct independent scientific reviews. However, New York, Washington state and California have their own review process for all new pesticides.

Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corporation, the largest privately held agrichemical company in the world and manufacturer of methyl iodide, is pushing to register the chemical in two states where decisions are still pending: Washington and California, the country’s most lucrative markets for the pesticide. In New York, Arysta already pulled the chemical, citing obstacles and lack of market opportunities. According to Arysta, the pesticide is being used in twelve states (Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Michigan, Maine, New Jersey and Oregon).

On the same day the petition was filed, President Obama met with members of the Chavez family, United Farmworkers (UFW) President Arturo S. Rodriguez, and UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta at the White House in which the President signed a proclamation honoring Cesar Chavez.

“We thank President Obama for honoring Cesar Chavez on this important day for millions of Americans. We thank the President for his concern for the farm workers who feed our nation every day, and for his strong support of immigration reform. No other change is more urgently needed, and would be more lasting. We shared with President Obama 10 letters written to him by farm workers from across the country, telling him about the realities and challenges of their lives,” said Mr. Rodriguez. “Cesar Chavez has been honored in hundreds of communities across the nation. His birthday is an official holiday in 11 states. But the best way to honor Cesar is by helping the farm workers to whom he dedicated his life, and by using our lives to serve others less fortunate than us.”

A native of Texas, Mr. Rodriguez has worked tirelessly to continue the legacy of Cesar Chavez since taking over the helm of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) upon the death of its legendary founder in 1993. Beyond winning fair contracts for its workers, the UFW continues to work to protect farmworkers from pesticides and other workplace hazards. Recent union victories are agreements with Gallo Vineyards Inc. and Coastal Berry Co., the largest winery and the largest strawberry employer in the U.S., as well as pacts protecting winery workers in Washington and mushroom workers in Florida.

To read more about UFW and the farmworker movement, see “Farmworker Justice and Our Health Future,” a transcription of Mr. Rodriguez’s inspiring speech at Beyond Pesticides’ 26th National Pesticide Forum in Berkley, California; and, “Social Justice and Food Production: Winning self-determination and justice for farmworkers,” a transcription of President and founder of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) Baldemar Velasquez delivered at the 27th National Pesticide Forum in Carrboro, North Carolina.

TAKE ACTION: 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 of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2010) U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, yesterday called for a ban on many applications of the antimicrobial chemical triclosan ””which is found in many consumer soaps and countless other products ranging from toys to lipstick. Rep. Markey called for the ban in conjunction with the release of correspondence from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that raise serious concerns regarding the use of the chemical triclosan. In response to the FDA and EPA letters, Chairman Markey also announced plans to introduce legislation that will accelerate the evaluation and regulation of substances such as triclosan that may harm the human endocrine system.

“Despite the fact that this chemical is found in everything from soaps to socks, there are many troubling questions about triclosan’s effectiveness and potentially harmful effects, especially for children,” said Chairman Markey. In January 2010, Chairman Markey sent letters of concern regarding triclosan to FDA and to EPA.

In FDA’s response letter to Chairman Markey, the FDA stated that, “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.” FDA further stated that it is “not aware of any evidence that antibacterial washes were superior to plain soap and water for reducing transmission of or preventing infection for consumers.” However, FDA has not finalized its rules that govern topical antiseptics including soaps, and has not announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products.

The EPA response letter noted that a review of the substance under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) provided evidence of its endocrine disrupting potential. However, the letter also noted that EPA does not currently plan to reevaluate its regulations surrounding the use of triclosan until 2013. Additionally, EPA acknowledged that it does not currently set drinking water standards for triclosan, and it does not consider antibiotic resistance as a factor when deciding which chemicals to monitor or regulate in drinking water.

“There is clear evidence that many consumer products that contain it are no more effective than those that do not. However, triclosan continues to be used in products that saturate the marketplace. Consumers, especially parents, need to know that many of these products are not only ineffective, they may also be dangerous,” said Chairman Markey.

A factsheet on triclosan prepared by Chairman Markey’s office, highlights some of the major problems with the chemical. For instance, scientific studies have shown that triclosan, which has been detected in drinking water and in 60 percent of U.S. streams, may damage the human endocrine system and can increase antibiotic resistance, which could lead to infections that are not treatable using today’s medications. However, most consumer products containing the chemical are no more effective in protecting against illness than products that do not. Given these findings, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs reported in 2000 that “there is little evidence to support the use of antimicrobials in consumer products such as topical hand lotions and soaps.”

Triclosan is also banned or restricted in several other countries, including the EU, which recently banned triclosan’s use in products that come into contact with food, stating that the chemical’s manufacturer “does not consider the use of the substance in plastics intended to come into contact with food appropriate any more.”

In response to the FDA and EPA letters, Chairman Markey announced that, “I plan to introduce legislation that will mandate that EPA more quickly test and regulate chemicals such as triclosan that have serious health implications, particularly for children.” Chairman Markey also made several recommendations for the immediate ban on some products containing triclosan as well as improvements to the manner in which other similar compounds are regulated:

1. FDA should quickly finalize its regulations in order to ban the use of triclosan in personal care products, particularly soaps and other cleansers, and determine whether any of these should contain any antimicrobial ingredients, which have not been shown to provide benefits over plain soap and water. FDA should also determine whether to regulate the use of triclosan in cosmetics.
2. EPA and FDA should ban the use of triclosan in any products that are intended to come into contact with food.
3. EPA and Consumer Product Satety Commission (CPSC) should ban the use of triclosan in products that are marketed for children aged 12 and under.
4. EPA should act more quickly — well before 2013 — to reevaluate its rules surrounding all uses of triclosan.
5. FDA should re-evaluate its approval of the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste, since this approval was granted before concerns about triclosan’s endocrine disrupting potential or possible contribution to antibacterial resistance were known.
6. EPA should take steps to evaluate the potential of drinking water contaminant candidates to contribute to antibiotic resistance when considering or taking regulatory actions under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

According to Beyond Pesticides research, triclosan was originally developed as an anti-bacterial agent for hospital settings and is a known endocrine disruptor, is linked to antibiotic resistance, and can affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for cancer. Due to its prevalence in so many products, triclosan is now showing up in many things, from human breast milk to earthworms and marine life. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that triclosan is found in the urine of about 75% of the U.S. population. When exposed to UV light, triclosan has also been shown to convert to dioxin, an environmental pollutant and known carcinogen. Because many products that contain triclosan wash down the drain, it is a common contaminant in rivers, streams and drinking water, and is often present in the sewage sludge used to fertilize food crops.

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 78 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and EPA requiring that they all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate several federal statutes.

“Non-medical uses of triclosan are totally unnecessary,” said Nichelle Harriot, research associate for Beyond Pesticides. “The constant exposure to triclosan becomes a health and environmental hazard, which is why Beyond Pesticides is actively working to get federal action for the removal of triclosan from the market place as well as continuing to work with retailers and manufacturers to remove triclosan from their products and store shelves.”

TAKE ACTION NATIONALLY: On February 22, 2010 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a federal notice requesting data and information regarding the potential environmental impact of triclosan’s use in acne and antiplaque/antigingivitis products. The agency, in order to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), must complete environmental assessments (EA) for active ingredients before they are included in the agency’s over-the-counter (OTC) drug regulation system. Tell FDA that triclosan use in acne, antigingivitis/antiplaque and other products poses and unreasonable harm to our environment. Submit electronic comments to the FDA at www.regulation.gov using docket number: FDA-1996-N-0006. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management HFA-305, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, and Rockville, MD 20852. Comments must be submitted by May 24, 2010.

TAKE ACTION LOCALLY: Get your municipality, institution, school or company to adopt the Triclosan Model Resolution to not buy products with triclosan and support broader elimination of non-medically prescribed uses.

For more information on triclosan and its impacts on human and environmental health, visit Beyond Pesticides’ antibacterial program page.

Source: The Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring new restrictions on aluminum and magnesium phosphide products in an attempt to better protect people, especially children, from dangerous exposures. The new restrictions prohibit all uses of the products around residential areas and increase buffer zones for treatment around non-residential buildings that could be occupied by people or animals from 15 feet to 100 feet. Human exposure to these toxic chemicals, though slightly minimized, would nevertheless continue because of their continued availability for use on athletic fields and playgrounds, around non-residential buildings, and in agricultural production.

Phosphide fumigants are known to be highly acutely toxic when ingested or inhaled. Symptoms of mild to moderate acute exposure include nausea, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, excitement, restlessness, agitation and chills. Symptoms of more severe exposure include diarrhea, cyanosis, difficulty breathing, pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, tachycardia (rapid pulse) and hypotension (low blood pressure), dizziness and/or death.

Aluminum and magnesium phosphide fumigants are used primarily to control insects in stored grain and other agricultural commodities. They also are used to control burrowing rodents in outdoor agricultural and other non-domestic areas. The fumigants are restricted to use by specially trained pesticide applicators.

Following are the provisions of EPA’s new restrictions:

Ӣ Use is prohibited around all residential areas, including single and multi-family residential properties, nursing homes, schools (except athletic fields, where use may continue), day care facilities, and hospitals;
Ӣ The products must only be used outdoors for control of burrowing pests, and are for use only on agricultural areas, orchards, non-crop areas (such as pasture and rangeland), golf courses, athletic fields, parks and recreational areas, cemeteries, airports, rights-of-way, earthen dams, and other non-residential institutional or industrial sites.
Ӣ Products must not be applied in a burrow system that is within 100 feet of a building that is or may be occupied by people or domestic animals;
Ӣ When this product is used in athletic fields or parks, the applicator must post a sign at entrances to the treated site containing the signal word DANGER/PELIGRO, skull and crossbones, the words: DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE, FIELD NOT FOR USE, the name and EPA registration number of the fumigant, and a 24-hour emergency response number. Signs may be removed 2 days after the final treatment;
Ӣ When this product is used out-of-doors in a site frequented by people, other than an athletic field or park, the applicator shall post a sign at the application site containing the signal word DANGER/PELIGRO, skull and crossbones, the name and EPA registration number of the fumigant, and a 24-hour emergency response number. Signs may be removed 2 days after the final treatment; and,
Ӣ Fumigant Management Plans must be written before all applications of phosphine products, including all burrowing pest fumigations. A Fumigant Management Plan is a written description of the steps designed to plan for a safe, legal and effective fumigation. The certified applicator and owner of the property to be fumigated must characterize the area to be treated and include all safety requirements in the plan before application.

EPA issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) in 1998 for aluminum and magnesium phosphide and plans to begin their registration review in 2013.

Earlier this year, investigators began investigating the deaths of two young sisters in Layton, Utah to a phosphide pesticide that was used to kill voles, small burrowing rodents, in their family’s front yard. The death of these children and the poisoning of the family raised serious issues about the adequacy of the pesticide’s label restrictions, approved by EPA, and their enforceability.

Beyond Pesticides believes that integrated pest management (IPM) is a vital tool that aids in the rediscovery of non-toxic methods to control rodents and facilitates the transition toward a pesticide-free (and healthier) world. It offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticide use and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to any products that are used. Sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and biological control, pest population monitoring are some IPM methods that can be undertaken to control rodents.

EPA, to its credit, recognizes that the use of toxic chemicals to control rodents is itself not effective rodent management. IPM practices are recommended by EPA for rodent control in and around households. EPA advises that effective rodent control requires sanitation, rodent proofing, and removal of rodent harborage; habitat modification to make an area less attractive to rodents, and discourage new populations from recolonizing the area. Non-chemical devices such as snap traps and other trapping systems are also affordable and quite effective as a method for rodent control.

However, while EPA recognizes that IPM practices are safe and effective methods for controlling rodents, the dependency on the rodenticides as a means of control continues. Given that EPA acknowledges that effective rodent management will not be achieved without the adoption of safer IPM techniques, it is imperative that these practices are promoted to the consumer so that efforts can work toward the elimination of public and environmental exposures to low levels of toxic rodenticides. To do this, rodenticide labels must require the users to establish IPM practices and only allow the introduction of poisons as a part of this approach as a last resort.

Beyond Pesticides and other organizations have raised concerns about chemicals that volatilize as gas and chemical fumigants that move through the air from the target site (be it an animal burrow or an agricultural crop). In June 2009, Beyond Pesticides and 27 groups from across the country sent Administrator Lisa Jackson indicating that the agency’s 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.”

For more information on rodenticides and the alternatives to managing rodents, see Beyond Pesticides fact sheet “Rodents Teach Lesson of Failed Chemical Controls: City officials gather to learn new approaches to rodent management less dependent on chemicals, more focused on habitat reduction.” For least toxic control of mice and other pests visit Beyhond Pesticides’ alternatives page.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2010) Although the city stopped using chemical pesticides in much of its public spaces nearly four decades ago, village officials expect to pass a resolution prohibiting their use on public property, including parks, fields and playgrounds. The hope is that the local law, once publicized, will have a trickle-down effect on private property owners.

“If we can do it, why can’t people do it on their own lawn?” the village president, Douglas Newman, asked last week. On April 1, at Meadowland Park, village officials and local and state environmentalists unveiled a sign featuring a ladybug that will soon be posted in the village’s 10 parks, fields and playgrounds. James McGowan, of the South Orange Environmental Commission, which is credited with spearheading the village’s initiative, said inorganic pesticides and their use still pose a danger.

“There is some serious effects from these things,” he said. “People have good alternatives,” such as integrated pest management, which uses biological controls, such as plants that are resistant to common pests.” The village’s program, he said, “brings together a lot of environmental initiatives.” Eric Benson, canvass director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said the benefit of announcing the plan right now is to get people to realize they have alternatives in their own homes and gardens, just as residents are tending to them anew.

But the parks initiative helps protect those most vulnerable to pesticide use and its side effects — children. Children’s body sizes, as well as their penchant to roll around in the grass, means they ingest chemicals at a greater concentration, Mr. Benson said. Similar initiatives are already in place in Newark, Montclair and about three dozen other New Jersey municipalities, Mr. Benson said. Many residents welcomed the initiative. One parent, called the village’s initiative “awesome.” “We won’t have to worry about our kids getting harmed.”

The village’s resolution is scheduled for a vote at the village trustees’ April 12 meeting.

Last fall, another New Jersey municipality, Hamilton Township, joined other communities in the state that have made their parks pesticide-free zones and have adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for managing town property by passing a resolution adopting a pesticide reduction policy. So far over 30 communities in New Jersey have designated Pesticide Free Zones in parks including Burlington and Cape May Counties, and the townships of Bernards, Chatham, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Asbury Park, East and West Windsor, Hightstown, Montclair, Ocean City, Dennis, Colts Neck, Hazlet, Neptune, Red Bank, Pine Beach and Wall Townships.

Other places around the country are also moving forward to protect their residents from harmful chemicals. New York State Parks recently passed a similar policy that also establishes pesticide-free zones. In addition, Chicago City Parks has reduced pesticide use by 80 percent in their parks, many of which are pesticide-free; in the Northwest U.S. there are more than 50 parks; as well as in communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine, New York and Connecticut. For information about getting your community to reduce pesticide use visit Beyond Pesticides’ activists tools page.

Other resources available through the New Jersey Environmental Federation and Beyond Pesticides Lawn and Landscape program page.

Source: The Star-Ledger- NJ.com

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2010) A new report analyzing regulations from California’s 25 top agricultural counties finds that many counties do more to protect crops than children from potentially harmful pesticide drift. The report, Pesticide Protection Zones: Keeping Kids Safe at School, finds that eleven counties have no protection zones around schools at all, while another six only limit spraying when school is in session. By contrast, the report notes that nearly 25% of the counties have larger pesticide buffer zones for crops than for schools.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2010) Baseball should be green, not sending a toxic green message to homeowners. The first pitch of the new baseball season will be thrown this week under a cloud created by Major League Baseball’s (MLB) new partnership with Scotts Miracle-Gro, which promotes seed and treatment products that are unnecessarily chemical-intensive and undermines sound environmental principles. The partnership sends the wrong message to homeowners.

For more information on the Major League Ball – Scotts campaign, including the petition letter to Mr. Brosnan, see the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns alert webpage. For more information on organic land care, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page or watch see the Organic Lawns and Landscapes videos from Beyond Pesticides 2009 conference in Carrboro, NC.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2010) On Monday, Tyrone Hayes PhD, researcher and professor at University of California Berkley gave a speech at Illinois State University urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban atrazine completely. Though atrazine has been the go to broad leaf weed killer for America’s corn growers since the 1950’s, evidence continues to build that atrazine is an unacceptable danger to humans and wildlife, and controversy continues as spring planting looms. In response to mounting scientific research, EPA announced last October it would review atrazine’s registration status, and last month announced plans to overhaul drinking water regulations regarding atrazine and numerous other chemicals known to harm human health.

Dr. Hayes is one of the preeminent researchers on the effects of atrazine on amphibians. He compares the current loss of amphibians to the bird die-offs in the 1960’s due to DDT. The Journal Star who covered the event called the atrazine issue “one of the most contested environmental debates since PCBs were banned in the 1970s.” The debate has pitted concerned farmers, environmentalists, and human health advocates against conventional corn growers and atrazine manufacturer Syngenta.

Syngenta, the Swiss chemical giant, is also facing litigation from several municipalities hoping to recoup the cost of reducing atrazine concentrations in drinking water. Syngenta has maintained that the herbicide is safe, calling the EPA review a waste of taxpayer money, and the litigation without merit. Ironically, Syngenta a former funder of Hayes’s research on atrazine’s effects on amphibians, is now seeking to discredit his findings.

Despite being banned in Europe, atrazine is used more than any other herbicide in U.S. corn production. Fifty percent of corn in the country is treated with atrazine, and in Illinois the herbicide is used on 80% of corn. Rob Elliot, an Illinois grower of corn and soy, calls it “a staple of crop protection.”

According to Dr. Hayes, 70% of Americans are exposed to atrazine daily. Atrazine can volatilize and travel up to 600 miles from the spray site where it can return to earth in rain water. It is commonly sprayed in Spring when heavy rains carry large amounts into nearby rivers and streams. Atrazine exposure can increase cancer risk in children, trigger the release of stress hormones, and cause certain birth defects. A developing fetus exposed to atrazine can be at greater risk for developing cancer later in life.

Atrazine is also persistent in the environment: “Our grandchildren will be exposed to atrazine being applied right now,” Dr. Hayes said in his speech. Male frogs exposed to atrazine can become female and even mate and lay viable eggs. Currently, EPA considers atrazine concentrations of 3 parts per billion acceptable, but 1 part per billion is enough to chemically castrate male frogs. A New York Times investigation found that atrazine concentrations in some municipalities can spike in the summer time to concentrations as high as 30 parts per billion, yet reports by the municipalities show they were unaware of large changes in concentration.

In response to rising concern about pollutants such as atrazine in U.S. drinking water, EPA announced it would issue new regulations. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson called the regulations, which are still being developed, “a new vision for providing clean, safe drinking water.” A New York Times investigation found more than 20% of water treatment systems in the country violated the Safe Drinking Water Act. The investigation also found more than half a million incidences where the Clean Water Act was violated, yet violators were rarely punished. The new regulations are intended to allow EPA to create stronger regulations and to move faster in correcting violations. Water systems will most likely be forced to adopt new technologies which would increase costs. EPA also intends to collect more state data, as there is currently no federal database of water tests by local systems. Currently, only 91 chemicals, out of 60,000 registered for use in the U.S., are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and no new chemicals have been added to the list since 2000.

However, some within EPA remain skeptical that the new regulations will have much effect. An agency regulator who was not authorized to speak to the media told the New York Times, “The real test will be to see how many new chemicals have been regulated six months from now.” EPA intends to consult with outside experts and other members of the general public to develop the new rules in the next six months.

Based on scientific evidence, Beyond Pesticides believes that there is no need to continue with the use of atrazine, especially with so many alternatives for pest management. For information on alternative solutions to using this toxic pesticide, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes and Organic Food pages. For further information on this issue, please see our Threatened Waters page.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2010) While most previous literature on melanoma has focused on host factors and sun exposure, new research shows a link between several pesticides and this deadly form of skin cancer. Epidemiologists from University of Iowa, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Cancer Institute found that agricultural workers who apply certain pesticides to farm fields are twice as likely to contract melanoma, providing support for the hypotheses that agricultural chemicals may be another important source of skin cancer risk.

Source: LA Times

The study, “Pesticide use and cutaneous melanoma in pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Heath Study” was published last month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. It examines cancer rates in 56,285 pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina as part of the federal government’s Agricultural Health Study, a large, long-term study of pesticide applicators and their spouses.

Researchers asked the pesticide applicators how often they were exposed to 50 pesticides and compared their cancer rates. Each person’s exposure was then approximated by adding up the total days that the workers had been exposed and using information from survey results on how the chemicals were applied and what protective equipment was being used.

The pesticides that are identified by researchers in the study include four that are registered for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencey (EPA): maneb, mancozeb, methylparathion, and carbaryl; and two that have been voluntarily canceled by their manufacturers: benomyl and ethyl-parathion.

The researchers found that those who were exposed to these certain pesticides had a higher risk of cutaneous melanoma than workers who handled other pesticides. Though melanoma is infrequent among the workers that were studied – of the 56,285 people studied, 271 developed melanoma – researchers found that it increased in frequency among those with the highest exposure to several of the pesticides. Risks of the disease increased 2.5 times for applicators that were exposed to maneb or mancozeb for more than 63 days in their lifetime. Likewise, applicators who are exposed carbaryl for more than 56 days were 1.7 times more likely, while exposure to either methyl or ethyl parathion for more than 56 days increases their melanoma risks by 2.4 times.

Vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, and one of the researchers for a 2006 study linking pesticide exposure to Parkinson’s Disease, Michael Thun, M.D., M.S., remarked that this study is “better equipped than most to tease out data” because it includes such a large number of people. However, he is not sure about the link to melanoma because of the difficulties in interpreting findings for specific pesticides, even with such a large amount of data.

Chief of epidemiology at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a co-investigator on the study, Dale Sandler, Ph.D., believes that the findings could have implications for the rest of the population. Some of the chemicals are also used in non-agricultural settings, such as carbaryl, which is also used extensively by homeowners, primarily for lawn care. One major difference, Dr. Sandler points out, is that the workers use protective equipment, potentially making relatively lower doses risky for residential users.

“The applicators receive continuing education to learn about safe handling of these chemicals, but you or I may go to the store and not read the label,” Dr. Sandler added. Surveys, including one published last month have shown that vague pesticide labels can cause consumers to misapply pesticides.

However, the risks also go beyond the workers or consumers who use the pesticides. Often the chemicals are in the environment near farms and can contaminate groundwater, Dr. Sandler said. Many of the active ingredients are used in combination, which makes it difficult to identify the risky ones. Studies show that many pesticides have dangerous synergistic effects when exposure is combined with other pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Other research has found that even if the concentration of the individual chemicals are within limits considered safe, when more than one pesticide is combined, it can create a toxic mixture that has adverse effects on wildlife and the environment.

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2010) Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was taking action aimed at improving residential safety and reducing risks associated with bug bombs, or total release foggers (TRFs). The agency is calling for significant changes to product labeling to address the most common causes of exposure incidents associated with TRFs. However, product labels do not adequately protect the public from toxic pesticide ingredients and calls to ban foggers and promote safer alternatives, action that has been urged for years both within and outside the agency, continue to go unheeded.

Prompted by concerns raised by a 2009 petition from the New York City Department of Health to reclassify TRFs as restricted use pesticides, EPA sent a letter of notification to manufacturers on March 23, 2010 stating that the agency is now requiring a number of labeling changes by September 30, 2011. In spite of New York’s recommendation, the agency concluded that reclassification is inappropriate and would unnecessarily remove these inexpensive pest control tools from the residential market. Since, according to the agency’s analysis, the largest proportion of incidents is attributable to failure to follow label instructions, the changes are targeted at minimizing those incidents. Future bug bomb labels should be written in plain language with clear headings. To further enhance “clarity and risk understanding,” the new labels will also incorporate pictograms, which can be more effective than text in communicating certain information, including explosion hazards and the amount of time that a residence must be vacated after releasing the fogger. The changes also aim to strengthen instructions to vacate upon use and air out upon return by requiring greater label prominence. EPA has long known that consumers do not typically read product labels fully, so that details such as “turn off ignition sources” (e.g. motors on refrigerators and other appliances, pilot lights) do not result in users disconnecting (i.e. pulling the pull) these sources of explosions.

One new provision is that door hang-tags must be provided to inform others to stay out of treated areas. Other label amendments include the following language:
-do not use multiple canisters in a room
-do not use in small confined areas
-turn off ignition sources
-remove or cover exposed food
-air out the room before entering

In addition to these new labeling amendments EPA states that it is continuing to work with registrants on developing non-labeling improvements, including transitioning to smaller foggers, time-delayed release and nonflammable propellants. While EPA says that this action to amend labels is consistent with recommendations from Washington state and a 2008 Center for Disease Control report entitled “Illnesses and Injuries Related to Total Release Foggers,” the agency ignores the most important recommendation made by these two reports – promote safer alternatives to bug bombs and aerosol insecticides, and integrated pest management (IPM) strategies which can, according to the CDC report, “reduce indoor insect populations and minimize the need for insecticides.”

Bug bombs have seriously injured people by exploding, and releasing toxic fumes that poison residents, which in some cases have lead to death. Last year a 10-month old baby died in Williamston, SC after his mother used several bug bombs inside their home. Last summer, an apartment building in Manhattan was evacuated after a bug bomb caused an explosion. Ten people were treated at the scene, including six who were taken to the hospital. A bug bomb also exploded in an apartment in Washington D.C., blowing out doors and windows. Beyond Pesticides submitted a letter to the Washington, D.C. Department of the Environment urging the suspension of bug bombs after an explosion on July first. As Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides states in the letter, “Aside from fire and explosive dangers, most foggers contain synthetic pyrethroids, such as permethrin, which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, respiratory problems, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity and other health and environmental issues. With a high incidence of illness, explosions and even death from the use of these products, their use must be suspended now and ultimately eliminated or highly restricted.”

In 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation moved to classify foggers as a restricted-use product in New York State, meaning that only licensed pesticide applicators, rather than the general public, will be able to obtain them. The department also said it will explore the need to further limit fogger use and encourage the adoption of better pest management strategies.

The 2008 CDC study, which pulled data from eight states, identified a total of 466 cases of acute, pesticide-related illness or injury associated with exposure to foggers between 2001 and 2006. Bug bombs can kill people and present a serious public health hazard, regardless of warnings on the product label, and can be replaced by safe alternative products and practices. Beyond Pesticides believes that every death and injury caused by bug bombs must be attributed to the failure of EPA’s regulatory system to take an unnecessary and ineffective product off the market. Most pest problems can be solved without toxic pesticides, through sanitation, proper storage of food and trash, exclusion (sealing entryways), traps and non-volatile baits. For detailed information on preventing and specific pests, see Beyond Pesticides’ Alternatives Factsheets.

Source: EPA News Release
Picture: Washington State Department of Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2010) Searching for clues to the mysterious disappearance of bees, known as “colony collapse disorder”(CCD), Penn State University researchers have identified widespread pesticide contamination of beehives. The study, “High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health,” was published March 19, 2010 in the scientific journal Public Library of Science (PLOS).

The study finds 121 different types of pesticides within 887 wax, pollen, bee and hive samples from 23 states. The top 10 most frequently detected pesticides are fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, amitraz, pendamethalin, endosulfan, fenpropathrin, esfenvalerate and atrazine. Miticides are the most common contaminant in the wax and bees, and fungicides are the most common contaminant of pollen. For the full results of the study, including several tables of wax, pollen and bee sample data, download the study from the PLOS website.

“The pollen is not in good shape,” Chris Mullin, PhD, lead author of the study, told Discovery News. The authors state that the 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 parts per million (ppm) in bee pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the brood and adult food of this primary pollinator. While none of the chemicals themselves were at high enough levels to kill bees, the combination and variety of pesticides is a primary concern to Dr. Mullin. On average, the samples had a combination of eight different pesticides.

First reported in 2006, CCD is unlike other ailments that have affected honeybees in the past because worker bees simply disappear rapidly, never returning to the hive where the queen still lives with a small cluster of bees amidst pollen and honey stores in the presence of immature bees (brood). It has been reported that losses of honeybee colonies across 21 states in the winter of 2007-8 averaged 35%, with a high degree of variability. Large declines of honeybee colonies were also experienced in select European countries, where average losses were 26%.

Many indications point to CCD potentially being induced by pesticides in the neonicotinoid family, including imidacloprid and clothianidin, in combination with other pesticides, pathogens, nutritional deficits and environmental stresses. Continued debate about the cause of CCD threatens to induce “paralysis by analysis” in a situation that necessitates action.

Beyond Pesticides believes that pesticides are likely to be a part of the CCD equation and a precautionary approach must be taken. Solutions to the loss of bees and human productivity are clearly within our reach if we engage our communities and governmental bodies. We know how to live in harmony with the ecosystem through the adoption of sustainable practices that simply do not allow toxic pesticide use. Because our survival depends on healthy pollinators, we must do everything in our power to solve this problem.

David Hackenberg, the beekeeper who first discovered a mysterious disappearance of honeybees now known as colony collapse disorder (CCD), is scheduled to speak at Beyond Pesticides’ 28th National Pesticide Forum, Greening the Community, April 9-10 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH. Mr. Hackenberg believes that pesticides contribute to CCD and that honeybees are a barometer of the environment. Featured in several films and news investigations, he has been front and center in this important fight to protect our pollinators. Register online.

For more information on pollinators and CCD, read our factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2010) Prenatal exposure to pesticides at levels that do not cause adverse health effects in the mother can lead to delayed brain developmental in the child, according to the new study, “Neurobehavioral Deficits and Increased Blood Pressure in School-Age Children Prenatally Exposed to Pesticides,” published last month in the early online edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Many pesticides are suspected of being capable of damaging the nervous system, in particular the development of a child’s brain during pregnancy and the early postnatal years of life. Now an international research team led by Philippe Grandjean, M.D., from the University of Southern Denmark and Harvard School of Public Health, has shown a delayed brain development up to two years in school children, whose mothers worked in a greenhouse during pregnancy. The exposed children also had increased blood pressure, while the mothers do not suffered adverse symptoms themselves.

For more information on children’s exposure to pesticides, including information on how you can protect your family from pesticides and the latest studies and news on this topic, see Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2010) A new study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health has linked exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos to early childhood developmental delays. Chlorpyrifos is a broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide that was banned for household use in 2001, but is still widely used in agriculture. The study, entitled “Chlorpyrifos Exposure and Urban Residential Environment Characteristics as Determinants of Early Childhood Neurodevelopment,” was published online and will be published in print in the may issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2010) A new study finds that the absence of a maximum dose on some household pesticides labels leave consumers with the impression that “if a little is good, more is better.” According to the study that was presented at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), label directions are written in a way that may result in consumers using excessive amounts of pesticides, subjecting their family and pets to increased exposures.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2010) Due to a significant increase in adverse incidents, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a series of actions aimed at increasing the safety of spot-on pesticide products for flea and tick control for cats and dogs. EPA will begin reviewing labels to determine which ones will require new instructions and labeling for on-spot flea products. EPA began investigating the products after discovering a sharp rise in the number of dogs and cats reported to be sick. Incidents reported by consumers rose from 28,895 in 2007 to 44,263 in 2008, an increase of 53 percent.

The products investigated, including the popular Frontline and Advantage brands, are small vials of liquid pesticides that pet owners apply monthly to the backs of dogs or cats to kill fleas and ticks. EPA began investigating the products after discovering a sharp rise in the number of pets reported to be sick after they were treated. The year long investigation, conducted by a team of veterinarians assembled by the agency, concluded that certain pets — small dogs between 10 and 20 pounds — are most susceptible to the problems, which include rashes, vomiting, diarrhea and seizures.

EPA plans to develop more stringent testing and evaluation requirements for both existing and new products. EPA expects these steps will help prevent adverse reactions. In dogs and cats that can include skin effects, such as irritation, redness, or gastrointestinal problems that include vomiting or diarrhea, or effects to the nervous system, such as trembling, appearing depressed or seizures from pet spot-on products. Pets are more vulnerable to pesticides for several reasons. They walk through chemically-treated areas unknowingly, absorb pesticides through their mouth, nose, and eyes, and can absorb through their skin any powder that sticks to their fur.

“EPA is committed to better protecting the health and safety of pets and families in all communities across our nation,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “New restrictions will be placed on these products, and pet owners need to carefully read and follow all labeling before exposing your pet to a pesticide.”

New instructions and warnings are expected on product labels within the next several months. If these steps don’t reduce the problems, “we will take more significant action. We will remove products from the market if we have to,” Mr. Owens said. The agency, as in other cases, continues to stress the importance of reading the product label, which is misleading in suggesting that compliance with the pesticide label instructions is fully protective of pets, while flaws in the pesticide regulatory process, such as little to no evaluation of endocrine disrupting effects, low level and aggregate exposures continue to allow toxic chemicals onto the consumer market.

Many pet owners who use the treatments think they are applying medication to their pet, but they actually are treating them with potent pesticides, including permethrin – a possible carcinogen and endocrine disruptor- which also is used to kill pests on agricultural crops and yards. While most problems were minor, such as skin rashes, but about 600 dogs and cats died in the incidents reported in 2008, EPA records show.

These are not new issues for EPA, which has focused on mitigating hazards for decades only to result in continued pet poisonings, as described in the 2002 Whole Dog Journal article “Are “Spot-On” Flea Killers Safe?” Beyond Pesticides had urged EPA to cancel and retailers to remove from their shelves Hartz products linked to animal deaths as far back as the 1980’s. In addition to pet exposure to synthetic pyrethroids, Beyond Pesticides has asked EPA to consider the exposure to people, especially children, petting treated pets. In the case of children, hand to mouth activity of children results in ingestion of the chemicals used to treat pets. EPA last issued a relabeling program and manufacturers agreed to a public education campaign on flea and tick products in 2002. In the past, Hartz has challenged efforts by Beyond Pesticides to warn consumers about hazards to pets and people.

Chihuahuas, shih tzus, miniature poodles, pomeranians and dachshunds had the most reported incidents, according to the EPA report. For products containing cyphenothrin, a synthetic pyrethroid and an endocrine disruptor, those breeds accounted for 33 percent of the reported problems. For products containing permethrin, shih tzus, bichon frise, chihuahuas, yorkshire terriers and maltese were involved in more than 25 percent of the incidents. K-9 Advantix for Dogs contains permethrin and some Sergeant’s products and Sentry’s Pro XFC contain cyphenothrin.

The problem might be the dose. The agency is telling manufacturers to narrow the range of weights identified for their products. In addition, the investigation found that cats were sickened when products intended for dogs were used on them. Permethrin is particularly dangerous for cats and is not used in any on-spot treatments for cats. EPA has reported the results of the evaluation, and has begun to take steps to address the spike in reported incidents. Among immediate actions that EPA will pursue are:
Ӣ Requiring manufacturers of spot-on pesticide products to improve labeling, making instructions clearer to prevent product misuse.
Ӣ Requiring more precise label instructions to ensure proper dosage per pet weight.
Ӣ Requiring clear markings to differentiate between dog and cat products, and disallowing similar brand names for dog and cat products. Similar names may have led to misuse.
Ӣ Requiring additional changes for specific products, as needed, based on product-specific evaluations.
Ӣ When new products are registered, granting only conditional, time-limited registrations to allow for post-marketing product surveillance. If there are incidents of concern associated with the product, EPA will take appropriate regulatory action.
Ӣ Restricting the use of certain inert ingredients that EPA finds may contribute to the incidents.
Ӣ Launching a consumer information campaign to explain new label directions and to help users avoid making medication errors.

EPA will also require more standardized post-market surveillance reporting on adverse effects, require submission of more sales information so the agency can better evaluate incident rates, and bring up-to-date the scientific data requirements on pre- and post-market testing so they are more in line with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s requirements. In addition, new on-spot products will be granted only conditional and time-limited approval so that side-effects can be investigated before the products are fully approved. Manufacturers also will have to disclose more information about the ”˜inert’ ingredients in their products, and some of those ingredients will be restricted.

EPA and Beyond Pesticides recommend that owners consult a veterinarian about the best way to protect their pets from fleas and ticks or whether pesticides are needed, especially before using any product on weak, aged, medicated, sick, pregnant or nursing pets, or on pets that have previously shown signs of sensitivity to pesticide products.

Take Action: The agency is inviting public comment on how best to implement these new measures. Tell EPA that hazardous chemicals that poison pets should NOT be in pet products! Submit comments by May 17, 2010 at www.regulation.gov; docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0229. More information on pet products and safety tips, read Beyond Pesticides’, “Pesticides and Pets-What You Should Know to Keep Your Pets Safe.”

Visit Green Paws: www.greenpaws.org — a flea and tick product guide for pet owners that ranks more than 125 products, categorizing products by the level of their potential health threat for information on safer alternatives.

Source: EPA News Release and Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2010) On March 22, 2010 the environmental health group Grassroots Environmental Education released a report comparing the relative costs of maintaining a typical high school football field using a chemical-intensive program and a natural (organic) program over a five-year period. The report, prepared for members of the New York State legislature, concludes that the annual cost of maintaining a field using natural products and techniques can be as much as 25% lower than the cost of conventional programs using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

For more information on organic lawns and landscapes, see the Beyond Pesticides program page.

Take action on a related lawn care issue: Sign the petition to stop Major League Baseball for promoting chemical-intensive lawn care management practices through a partnership with the Scotts Company. See background and petition.