The National Agricultural Statistics Service has tracked chemical usage in agriculture since 1990. The program conducts surveys on pesticide usage on agricultural commodities, with surveys for fruits and vegetables conducted on alternating cycles. The fruit chemical use surveys are conducted in the odd numbered years. Apples, cherries, citrus, figs and peaches are just some of the fruits monitored.

In May 2008, USDA abruptly halted NASS citing an $8 million program shortfall. Environmental groups wanted the survey reinstated because it contains valuable information about which pesticides are used in sensitive watersheds and which affected public and environmental health. The information was also widely used by universities and food industry researchers to help farmers monitor and reduce the amount of pesticides they use. A coalition of 44 environmental, sustainable farming, and health advocacy organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, urged the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reverse the decision.

In July 2008, the U.S. Senate put the program back in the 2009 Senate budget bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee adopted language that reinstated USDA’s chemical usage reports in the 2009 budget and directed the department not to disrupt ongoing market analysis reporting and to notify the committee in advance of any termination of other programs. “It was found very quickly to be the only source of unbiased information,” said Joe Reilly, associate administrator of NASS. “It usually doesn’t happen that way, that you get support from all sides,” he continued.

Aimee Code, water quality specialist for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), said the survey results are versatile. “It is good for almost everyone. It gives baseline information,” she said.

The reinstatement of the fruit survey is positive news, but Ms. Code said she is disappointed that the program is solely focused on agriculture. The survey would be more helpful if it included urban uses of pesticides as well, she said. Results from the 2009 fruit survey will be published in July 2010.

Tell EPA to stop its foot-dragging and protect salmon and steelhead from toxic pesticides.

The six pesticides that scientists have reviewed so far are some of the most dangerous chemicals used today. All six””chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl””are neurotoxic and pose serious risks to both humans and wildlife. While many of these pesticides have been phased out for residential use, they continue to expose wildlife and farmworkers through their use in agriculture. Thirty-one more chemicals will undergo review by scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the next three years.

The new restrictions require EPA to prohibit application of the six pesticides in or near salmon and steelhead habitat. They also require EPA to prohibit application when the weather may cause the pesticides to drift or run off into streams.

EPA has one year to fully implement these restrictions or face liability under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While it has been over six months since fisheries biologists released the first set of directions, EPA has yet to take even the first step toward implementing the necessary protections. Take a few moments and tell EPA to get moving.

Talking Points:

— Even at low levels, these toxic pesticides harm salmon and steelhead by causing abnormal sexual development, impairing swimming ability, reducing growth rates, and killing salmon prey.

— These pesticides pose serious risks to public health””especially the health of young children. All six chemicals are potent neurotoxins, and some are listed as likely carcinogens.

— The states and other federal agencies have invested hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to protect endangered salmon runs. EPA is undermining that investment by not immediately taking steps to keep dangerous pesticides out of salmon habitat.

Background:

The survey, conducted by Lieberman Research Group on behalf of OTA, measured the growth of U.S. sales of organic foods and beverages as well as non-food categories such as organic fibers, personal care products and pet foods during 2008. Results show organic food sales grew in 2008 by 15.8 percent to reach $22.9 billion, while organic non-food sales grew by an astounding 39.4 percent to reach $1.648 billion.

“This marks another milestone for the organic food market,” said Christine Bushway, OTA’s Executive Director. “Organic products represent value to consumers, who have shown continued resilience in seeking out these products.”

With tough economic times, consumers have used various strategies in continuing to buy organic products. Because most venues now offer organic products, consumers have the opportunity to shop around. Increased use of coupons, the proliferation of private label brands, and value-positioned products offered by major organic brands all have contributed to increased sales.

Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting to produce healthy soil, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber. Organic farming also protects 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. Research shows that organic farming eliminates a significant source of toxic chemical contamination in the environment from groundwater pollution and runoff to drift.

Organic agriculture can increase world food security as it offers affordable, immediately usable, and universally accessible ways to improve yields and access to nutritional food in developing countries. A 2008 report cited in the paper from the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) notes that not only can organic agriculture feed the world but it may be the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in developing countries. UNEP states that its extensive study “challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.” In an analysis of 114 farming projects in 24 African countries, UNEP reports that organic or near-organic practices result in a yield increase of more than 100 percent.

Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. A study published in 2008 finds that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. Another study finds that converting the nation’s eight million acres of produce farms to organic would reduce pesticide dietary risks significantly.

There are numerous health benefits to eating organic, besides a reduction in pesticide exposure. According to research from the University of California, a ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce finds that they have almost double the quantity of disease-fighting antioxidants called flavonoids. A study out of the University of Texas finds organically grown fruits and vegetables have higher levels of antioxidants as well as vitamins and minerals than their conventionally grown counterparts. A comprehensive review of 97 published studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and conventional foods shows that organic plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, grains) contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients studied, including significantly greater concentrations of the health-promoting polyphenols and antioxidants. The team of scientists from the University of Florida and Washington State University concludes that organically grown plant-based foods are 25 percent more nutrient dense, on average, and hence deliver more essential nutrients per serving or calorie consumed. A study by Newcastle University, published in the Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, finds that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk.

In addition, the adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture. Good organic practices can both reduce fossil fuel use and provide carbon sequestration in the soil through increased soil organic carbon. Higher soil organic carbon levels then increase fertility and the soil’s ability to endure extreme weather years.

Last week, Beyond Pesticides reported that the Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced $50 million for a new initiative to meet the Obama Administration’s promise to encourage more organic agriculture production.

“Assisting organic producers is a priority of the 2008 Farm Bill as well as for Secretary Vilsack and the Obama Administration,” said Dr. Merrigan. “The objective of this initiative is to make organic food producers eligible to compete for EQIP financial assistance.”

The 2009 Organic Initiative is a nationwide special initiative to provide financial assistance to National Organic Program (NOP) certified organic producers as well as producers in the process of transitioning to organic production. Organic producers may also apply for assistance under general EQIP.

Under the Organic Initiative required minimum core conservation practices will be determined by specific resource concerns. The practices are: Conservation Crop Rotation; Cover Crop; Nutrient Management; Pest Management; Prescribed Grazing; and Forage Harvest Management. States must consider using any appropriate practice that meets the resource concern on a particular operation.

Applications received from organic producers or producers in transition to organic farming will be accepted under this initiative between May 11 and May 29. Applications will be ranked at that time.

To assist with eligibility questions, there are two separate National Screening Tools for applicants (one for producers transitioning for the first time and one for certified organic producers transitioning additional land or adding additional conservation practices). Ranking criteria has been established based on resource concerns that link to the NOP objectives and the core conservation practices.

The 2009 Organic Initiative will be administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Interested producers should visit their nearest USDA Service Center to determine eligibility. Additional information on the 2009 EQIP Organic Initiative is available here.

The Executive Council confirmed at a 2007 meeting that the Bay Program would not meet its commitment to clean up the Bay by 2010 as per the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. At that meeting, short-term two-year deadlines were set. However, since measures to improve the Bay’s heath have not been successful in the nine years since stakeholders were tasked with its clean-up, it is unclear how these milestones will be met by the two-year deadline in 2011. Chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine, stated at the 2007 meeting that shorter term goals create the pressure to produce results. Many states are now tasked to significantly increase the pace of cleanup. For example, Maryland must increase progress to reduce nitrogen entering the Bay by 138 percent and Virginia by 86 percent.

The federal committee will be chaired by EPA and will manage new plans by a team of seven federal agencies to strengthen and bring accountability to efforts to protect and restore the bay. In addition to the executive order, Administrator Jackson announced that EPA’s renewed commitment to bay restoration will include a bay-wide set of strict pollution caps backed by state action plans and federal consequences to assure progress; sharp reductions in air pollutants that impact the bay; robust use of existing authorities; key funding support, and scientific and technical assistance.

“This executive order is a strong signal of the President’s commitment to restoring this national treasure, which is so vital to the environment, the local economies, and the way of life for millions of people,” said Administrator Jackson. “We are bringing the full weight of this partnership to bear on this challenge, and I am extraordinarily hopeful about what we can accomplish working together.”

Federal agencies will create action reports that will be integrated into a draft federal strategy within 180 days of the signing of the executive order. The federal strategy will include annual commitments and progress reports and periodic reviews by an independent evaluator. For its part, EPA’s plan will identify actions to make full use of Clean Water Act tools, including strengthening existing permit programs and extending coverage where necessary. The agency also will implement a compliance and enforcement strategy to ensure that regulated entities follow the rule of law.

EPA is also set to work with its state partners to develop a bay-wide total maximum daily load (TMDL) by December 2010 that will assign strict pollution caps to meet the state’s existing Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. The TMDL will identify the total pollution caps necessary to meet clean water standards and allocate pollution budgets to the states. Those allocations will be used to develop detailed state action plans that will be supported by two-year commitments and accountability provisions with federal consequences for lagging performance. According to the EPA, the TMDL process will involve strong public participation, including a first round of public meetings this summer. By meeting these and future milestones, the Bay states must put in place all pollution control measures necessary for a restored Bay no later than 2025.

“We have charted a new course for the Chesapeake Bay’s recovery that will succeed because it includes the short-term goals necessary to make steady progress and is backed by federal and state leaders who share a profound conviction to protect our environment,” said Governor Kaine. The Executive Order also includes: reducing water pollution from federal property; developing a Bay climate change strategy; improving agricultural conservation practices; and expanding public access to the Bay.

The widespread cosmetic use of chemicals on residential lawns and agricultural pesticide applications are significant contributors to the high loads of nitrogen and other chemical runoff to the Chesapeake Bay. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that “synthetic organic pesticides and their degradation products have been widely detected at low levels in the watershed, including emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and hormones.” Pesticides such as glyphosate (Round-up), atrazine, carbofuran, lindane and others have been detected in headwater streams that feed into the Bay. The annual report, “State of the Bay“, published by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation consistently reports that the health of the Bay is declining.

Beyond Pesticides has information about the growing movement in the U.S. to eliminate the cosmetic use of chemicals on lawns and landscapes. Please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/index.htm. Learn more about the importance of the Chesapeake Bay at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

More than 160 governments (including those countries that have ratified the Stockholm Converntion) agreed last Saturday to include the nine pesticides and industrial chemicals to the list of 12 other persistent organic pollutants (POPS) in order to strengthen a global effort to eradicate some of the most toxic chemicals known to humankind. The nine chemicals are:

Ӣ alpha hexachlorocyclohexane Рproduced as an unintended byproduct of lindane;
Ӣ beta hexachlorocyclohexane -produced as an unintended byproduct of lindane;
Ӣ hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether- used in flame retardants;
Ӣ tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether- used in flame retardants;
Ӣ chlordecone -an agricultural pesticide;
Ӣ hexabromobiphenyl, or HBB Рa flame retardant;
Ӣ lindane Рused in creams for treatment head lice; also has been used in other insecticides;
Ӣ pentachlorobenzene Рused in PCB products, dyestuff carriers, as a fungicide, a flame retardant
Ӣ PFOS, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride Рappears in a wide range of products from electronics components to fire-fighting foam (listed for elimination or restriction)

The Stockholm Convention, which was adopted in 2001 and entered into force 2004, requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment.

“Just five years after this convention came into force, we will have nine new chemicals added to the list of those that the world community agrees we need to control and ultimately get rid of,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), which hosted the conference.

Donald Cooper, executive secretary of the Stockholm Convention, set out why the banned substances were exceptionally dangerous: They cross boundaries and are found everywhere, from the Tropics to Polar Regions; they persist for long periods in the atmosphere, soil and water, and take years to degrade; they accumulate in bodies; they accumulate in food chains. The chemicals can also damage reproduction, mental capacity and growth and cause cancer, Mr. Cooper said.

Countries that have ratified the treaty also enact national legislation to enforce the bans and restrictions it imposes. Participating countries have one year to say whether they will ban or restrict the chemicals or whether they will need more time or an exemption. The additions to the list make it possible for developing countries to receive international help in containing and destroying stockpiles of the chemicals which might otherwise seep into the soil and water supply.

Last month, groups in the U.S. called for the international ban of lindane and its inclusion onto the Stockholm Convention. The coalition of groups called on the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Joshua Sharfstein M.D., to support listing of lindane under the international treaty without exemption for lotions and shampoos (“pharmaceutical uses”). It is unclear whether the listing of lindane as a POP to be banned would have any impact in the U.S. since the U.S. has not ratified the Stockholm Convention.

Lindane is a neurotoxic, organochlorine pesticide which has been linked to seizures, developmental disabilities and hormone disruption. It is known to be particularly hazardous to children. Lindane and associated isomers are among the most ubiquitous chemicals in the Arctic environment, contaminating traditional foods of Indigenous communities in the region. Lindane is banned in the state of California and has also been restricted in Michigan for use on head lice and scabies.

In the document, “Transforming Government’s Approach to Regulating Pesticides to Protect Public Health and the Environment,” which identifies what the Obama administration can/should take on under existing authority/statutory responsibility, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America and other coalition groups urge Congress to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in a way that gives the U.S. EPA the authority to take prompt action on pesticides and other chemicals identified as POPs by the international community, and to protect children from dangerous pharmaceutical pesticide products like lindane.

The final carbofuran tolerance rule becomes effective December 31, 2009, a time frame that EPA says growers need to use up existing stocks and transition to alternatives. Phase out periods of known hazards (without notice to the public at point of sale) have long been criticized by adocates who argue that recalls be adopted in similar fashion to other consumer products that are pulled off the market at the time a danger is defined.

EPA is proceeding to cancel the remaining carbofuran registrations, or licenses, which will address risks to pesticide applicators and birds in treated fields. In 2006, EPA identified significant dietary, ecological and worker risks from the use of carbofuran and Began negotiating cancellation with FMC. While the company voluntarily withdrew 22 uses of this pesticide, it was insufficient for the agency to conclude that dietary exposures to carbofuran are safe. Safety advocates have long maintained that EPA’s regulation by negotiation with pesticide manufacturers has created an agency culture of unprotective compromises and delays.

EPA released the draft rule for public comment last summer, an announcement which was greeted positively by activistsl. Carbofuran has been recognized as a danger to humans and wildlife, particularly migratory birds, since the 1980s. Most recently, the National Marine Fisheries Service has released a Biological Opinion finding that carbofuran harms endangered salmon and steelhead.

For more information on the tolerance revocation and further actions, visit EPA’s cancellation process page.

Citizens for a Green Camden’s first milestone victory provided information which led to the passage of its policy to eliminate the use of pesticides in parks and on playing fields, which led to a similar policy in neighboring Rockport. They also compare notes with ofher citizen groups.

The organization continues to work to educate homeowners about the dangers of using poisons on their lawns, running programs and providing written educational materials for residents at the town office. It was able to convince the town Bed and Breakfasts to join their efforts by not using pesticides on their properties, advertising those partners at the local Chamber of Commerce for visitors to see. “The organization continues its education outreach through various other community-based methods to eventually eliminate poisons being used on lawns in the entire Camden community,” continues the EPA press release.

Camden’s pesticide policy states, “All pesticides are toxic to some degree and the widespread use of pesticides is both a major environmental problem and a public health issue. Federal regulation of pesticides is no guarantee of safety. Camden recognizes that the use of pesticides may have profound effects upon indigenous plants, surface water and ground water, as well as unintended effects upon people, birds and other animals in the vicinity of treated areas. Camden recognizes that all citizens, particularly children, have a right to protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals and pesticides.”

Given out by EPA since 1970, the merit awards honor individuals and groups who have shown particular ingenuity and commitment in their efforts to preserve the region’s environment. This year’s competition drew approximately 49 nominations from across New England. Besides Citizens for a Green Camden, three other awards were given in Maine. The winners were among 31 from across New England. Awards were given in the categories of individual; business (including professional organizations); local, state or federal government; and environmental, community, academia or nonprofit organization.

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management, considering that of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (RoundUp) have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomena.

The easiest and safest solution is to avoid chemical use and exposure by using alternative, non-toxic management methods for species that can cause economic and health problems, being more tolerant of species that are solely a nuisance or aesthetically displeasing, and using organic products.

The passage of pesticide-free and pesticide reduction policies are very promising. Other examples include: New York State Parks; Chicago City Parks; 29 communities and townships in New Jersey; at least 17 cities in the Northwest covering more than 50 parks; and, numerous communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as new policies and programs are continually being implemented by local and state government entities as well as schools and homeowner associations.

As recently as two years ago, WHO was criticized for promoting DDT as the answer for malaria control in Africa, leading activists to call for increased use of alternatives. DDT has been recognized as a significant human and environmental health risk, including increased risk of breast cancer a wealth of other health concerns, and have built up in waterways and, in particular, the arctic.

Now, ten projects, all part of the global program “Demonstrating and Scaling-up of sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management,” involving some 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, are set to test non-chemical methods ranging from eliminating potential mosquito breeding sites and securing homes with mesh screens to deploying mosquito-repellent trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae.

The new projects follow a successful demonstration of alternatives to DDT in Mexico and Central America. There, pesticide-free techniques and management regimes have helped cut cases of malaria by over 60 percent.

The success of the five year-long pilot indicates that sustainable alternatives to DDT are emerging as cost effective solutions that may be applicable regionally and globally. The Integrated Vector Management (IVM) strategy promoted by the World Health Organization provides the framework to include these measures in combinations of interventions adapted to differing local circumstances. The initiatives come amid long-standing and growing concern over the use of DDT and evidence that in many countries there is increasing mosquito resistance to the pesticide.

However, concern over DDT is matched by concern over the global malaria burden in which close to 250 million cases a year result in over 880,000 deaths. Thus any reduction in the use of DDT or other residual pesticides must ensure the level of transmission interruption is, at least, maintained.

The international community has, under the Stockholm Convention, agreed to ban a ‘dirty dozen’ of persistent organic pollutants including, ultimately, DDT on environmental and health grounds. However, a specific and limited exemption was made for the use of DDT to control malaria, because it was recognized that in some situations adequate alternative control methods were not currently available.

The aim of the new projects, a major initiative of the Global Environment Facility with close to $40 million funding, being spearheaded by WHO and the UNEP, is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner, while staying on track to meet the malaria targets set by WHO.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director which hosts the secretariat of the Stockholm Convention, said, “The new projects underline the determination of the international community to combat malaria while realizing a low, indeed zero DDT world.”

“Today we are calling time on a chemical rooted in the scientific knowledge and simplistic options of a previous age. In doing so, innovative solutions are being catalyzed and sustainable choices brought forward that meet the genuine health and environmental aspirations of a 21st century society”.

“WHO faces a double challenge – a commitment to the goal of drastically and sustainably reducing the burden of vector-borne diseases, in particular malaria, and at the same time a commitment to the goal of reducing reliance on DDT in disease vector control”, said Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General.

WHO sees these projects in the context of IVM which it promotes as the approach of choice to control transmission of malaria and other vector-borne diseases. A key element of IVM is a solid evidence base for the effectiveness of combinations of locally-adapted, cost-effective and sustainable vector-control methods. This approach will facilitate sustainable transition away from DDT.

WSDA completed investigations across the state, including incidents involving Adams, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, King, Snohomish, Spokane, Whitman and Yakima counties. The agency issued fines or license suspensions in the following cases:

Ӣ Timothy Bjarnason, an employee of CHS Inc. in Mead, was fined $450 and his license was suspended for seven days. In May 2008, Bjarnason applied a herbicide to a wheat field near Mead. The spray tank had not been properly cleaned from a previous application of a different herbicide. Residues damaged part of the wheat field he was treating.

Ӣ Cameron Calaway, CK Agri LLC, Mattawa, was fined $850 and his license was suspended for six days. In March 2008, Calaway fumigated a field near Warden without posting all of the required information about the fumigation. Calaway also failed to provide WSDA with pesticide application records that were requested during the investigation.

Ӣ Chris Corigliano, C&C Yard Care, Inc., Spokane, had his license suspended for three days. In June 2008, an employee of C&C Yard Care, Inc. applied pesticides in Spokane to a property that was next door to an individual that was sensitive to pesticides. The company failed to notify the pesticide-sensitive person before making the application. State law allows pesticide-sensitive individuals to be on a WSDA registry that is used by industry to alert such persons prior to a pesticide job about to be conducted adjacent to their principal place of residence. This is a state requirement found in about a dozen states but rejected by the U.S. Environmental Protection as a safety measure.

”¢ Larry Einig, Total Landscape Corp., Woodinville. WSDA alleged that in October 2008 an employee of Total Landscape made a pesticide application to the landscape of an apartment complex in Snohomish where a person on WSDA’s pesticide sensitive registry resides. Total Landscape failed to notify the person before making the application. And, the employee who made the application was not licensed with WSDA as required. Additionally, WSDA found apparent violations in the way pesticides were stored and handled at Total Landscape Corp.’s facility. The matter was resolved when Einig agreed to pay $600 and accept a nine-day license suspension.

Ӣ Randy Ferguson, Ferguson Flying Service, Inc., Quincy, was fined $450 and his license was suspended for seven days. In May 2008, Ferguson made an herbicide aerial application to a wheat field in Grant County. The application drifted onto a nearby pea field damaging the crop.

”¢ Jack Jackson, Triple J Fruit Co., Rock Island. WSDA alleged that in May 2008 an employee of Jackson was using an airblast sprayer to apply a pesticide mix to Jackson’s cherry orchard when the pesticide mix drifted onto a neighboring residence. The matter was resolved when Jackson agreed to pay $350 and accept a seven-day license suspension.

Ӣ Richard Jaeger and Simplot Grower Solutions, Othello. WSDA alleged that in October 2007 two employees of Simplot applied a soil fumigant through irrigation systems to three fields near Pasco. High winds were occurring at times during the application. In one field the irrigation water carrying the soil fumigant drifted onto a vehicle driving on a nearby road. A business was also affected with pesticide drift due to an application to one of the other fields. Additionally, none of the irrigation systems had adequate backflow protection to prevent source water contamination. The matter was resolved when Jaeger and Simplot Grower Solutions agreed to pay $5,200 and accept a two-day license suspension. The two employees, Victor Murillo and Elais Tovar, had their licenses suspended for 22 days each.

Ӣ NuChem, Pullman. WSDA alleged that in April 2008, the NuChem store in Lind was storing a large quantity of pesticides outside of the store that were unsecured and left unattended. The store also sold restricted-use pesticides to persons who were not licensed, and offered for sale a pesticide that was not registered with WSDA. The matter was resolved when NuChem agreed to pay $1,400.

Ӣ Charles Resendez, Yakima, an employee of Senske Lawn and Tree Care, had his license suspended for two days. In September 2008, Resendez supervised an unlicensed employee of Senske who made a pesticide application in Union Gap without wearing required protective protection equipment.

WASA levies fines based on a matrix that takes into account the seriousness of the violation, whether it is a first or a repeat offense, and whether there are any aggravating or mitigating factors involved. Larger penalties often reflect repeat offenses or multiple violations within the same incident. WSDA enforces state and federal laws to protect people, property and the environment against the improper use of pesticides. Staff also provides technical assistance to the pesticide industry and consumers, and enforces the rules on structural inspections for wood destroying organisms, such as wood rot, carpenter ants or termites.

Laws vary depending on which state the incident occurred. Beyond Pesticides’ state pages can help you with information regarding different state regulations. Inconsistency throughout states and federal laws has, and is, a problem regarding law enforcement on pesticide label compliance. Over the past three decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued numerous reports and testimonies examining limitations with respect to various federal government efforts to regulate pesticides in several areas: (1) pesticide registration and reregistration; (2) pesticide warnings; (3) groundwater and watershed contamination; (4) pesticide residue monitoring; (5) banned and unregistered exported pesticides; (6) protection of farmworkers; (7) pesticide data management; (8) setting pesticide residue tolerances; (9) international pesticide standards; and (10) nonagricultural and lawn care pesticides. GAO, which was highly critical of conflicts of interest in the state enforcement of pesticide use violations, poisonings and contamination (finding that the same agencies promoting and advancing pesticide-intensive management practices are charged with enforcing against users) in the 1981 report Stronger Enforcement Needed Against the Misuse of Pesticides, has not comprehensively revisited the issue for decades. GAO concluded that,

“EPA and the States have not developed adequate management information to document the results of the pesticide enforcement program. Program records and reports lack data on the quality of enforcement activities and are plagued with inaccurate, incomplete, and inconsistent information. EPA has recognized the need for better management information and has recently implemented new reporting requirements. EPA’s monitoring of State programs to measure accomplishments has been limited. Finally, EPA, the States, and FDA have not established adequate management controls over pesticide enforcement cases referred between the agencies. As a result, EPA cannot readily evaluate the effectiveness of the program in meeting its main goal of protecting the public and the environment from improper pesticide use.”

In order to be effective or to have any relevance, environmental laws, like other laws, must be enforced. Pesticides are regulated primarily under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which authorizes EPA to oversee the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. States are authorized to regulate pesticides under FIFRA and under state pesticide laws, which differ from state to state. Pesticide application must be consistent with both federal and state laws. When it comes to enforcement, states have primary authority for compliance monitoring and enforcing against use of pesticides in violation of the law, efforts that are supported with a grant from the federal government. Generally, many pesticide complaints arise because the pesticide was used in violation of labeling requirements, applied at the wrong location, or because of pesticide drift.

The limitations for methoxyfenozide are contained in a series of county-specific Endangered Species Protection Bulletins (Bulletins) as part of EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP). EPA entered into consultation with USFWS after determining that use of methoxyfenozide on cranberries in Wisconsin may affect the listed Karner Blue butterfly. USFWS recommended a number of use limitations that, when implemented, should result in use that is not likely to adversely affect the Karner Blue butterfly, according to the bulletin. Limitations include not applying the pesticide within the designated pesticide use limitation area, ground applications- only which must be made using a drift retardant and nozzles, and when the wind speed is between 2-10 mph. These limitations are effective within specific areas of several Wisconsin counties: Adams; Burnett; Chippewa; Clark; Eau Claire; Green Lake; Jackson; Juneau; Marquette; Monroe; Polk; Portage; Waupaca; Waushara; and Wood.

In addition to the bulletins that contain instructions for protection of the Karner blue in Wisconsin, EPA also released bulletins for six counties in Michigan (Allegan, Monroe, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Oceana) for protection of the Karner Blue butterfly, and for Door County, WI, for protection of the endangered Hines emerald dragonfly. These additional bulletins however, were not the result of consultation with USFWS; rather they simply implement current methoxyfenozide label restrictions. More information on the limitations is contained in a series of county-specific Endangered Species Protection Bulletins – Bulletins Live! online system that are available on EPA’s Web site at: www.epa.gov/espp/bulletins.htm or by calling 1-800-447-3813. The bulletin system became available for use beginning May 2009. The limitations for the Karner Blue butterfly are contained in the first enforceable endangered species protection bulletin.

In April, the Karner Blue butterfly hatches from eggs that were laid the previous year. About mid-May, caterpillars pupate and adult butterflies emerge from their cocoon-like chrysalis by the end of May or in early June. These adults mate and lay eggs which develop into a second generation of adult butterflies in July. This second generation of adults lay eggs that will hatch the following spring. The butterfly is most widespread in Wisconsin, and can be found in portions of Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Ohio.

Habitat loss and degradation is a major threat to the butterfly, but the widespread use of pesticides during the spring and summer also impacts their populations. Most insecticides like commonly used pyrethroids (eg permethrin), tubefenozide and diflubenzuron kill many non-target species of moth and butterflies. Genetically engineered plants, including those incorporated with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have adversely affected the Karner Blue butterfly and others like the Monarch butterfly.

Methoxyfenozide is a diacylhydrazine insecticide that mimics the action of the molting hormone of lepidopterous (moths, butterflies) larvae. When ingested, larvae undergo an incomplete and premature molt, which ultimately results in their death. It is used on various agricultural commodities including fruits, vegetables and cotton. It is also associated with hematological effects, liver toxicity and impacts on the thyroid and adrenal glands (endocrine disruption) in laboratory studies. It is very persistent in the environment (half-life ranged from 336 to 1100 days) and can leach to groundwater.

Endangered species continue to be threatened over the continued use of pesticides. However, advocates argue that limitations do not go far enough to protect endangered species. EPA’s lack of enforcement capability, along with a flawed assessment process and pesticide exemption provisions ensure that these vulnerable species continue to be at risk. In 2008, Beyond Pesticides, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)and other environmental and farmworker groups, filed a lawsuit with EPA asking the agency to take immediate action to remedy continuing violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with its continued registration of the pesticides methamidophos, methidathion, oxydemeton-methyl, and ethoprop, which affect threatened and endangered species. Separate lawsuits have also been filed with the USFWS over pesticide use on National Wildlife Refuges, as well as against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) over the failure to protect salmon and steelhead from pesticides in the Pacific Northwest. In this case, the NMFS found that three pesticides — carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl – jeopardize the existence of protected salmon and steelhead, and mitigation measures, including buffer zones for aerial spraying and prohibition of spraying when wind speeds are greater than 10mph, were recommended. The pesticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion were previously identified as being a threat to salmon and steelhead as well.

“As a pediatrician and a mother, I believe we should be avoiding the use of toxic chemicals in children’s environments,” says Katherine Shea, M.D., M.P.H. “Child care centers, where our youngest and most vulnerable children spend time eating and sleeping, playing and learning, should be safe and free from known chemical hazards like pesticides.”

Babies and young children are among the most likely age groups to suffer long-term harm to their health from exposure to pesticides. Numerous scientific studies have connected pesticide exposure in early life to an increased risk of asthma, harm to growing brains, and some childhood cancers.

The report’s authors recommend the creation of a training and certification programs in non-chemical and least toxic methods of pest control, also called Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for pest control companies and child care providers. An IPM program utilizes pest prevention and management strategies such as improved sanitation, structural repairs and pest population monitoring, with the least-toxic pesticide application only as a last resort. One out of four child care providers surveyed reported using least-toxic or IPM pest control methods; those same centers also reported fewer serious pest problems.

Public schools in North Carolina are now required to switch to IPM under the 2006 School Children’s Health Act, but no such requirement exists for child care centers. Schools from across the country document a growing trend to adopt safer pest management strategies that dramatically reduce pesticides in the schools, providing children with a healthier learning environment. A comprehensive IPM program is proven to be cost effective and yield better pest control results.

Pest control professional Philip Maready agrees with the report’s recommendation for IPM, “Having worked with public school systems in implementing IPM programs, I believe it is important to use those same IPM strategies in sensitive environments such as day care facilities.”

The report also finds that child care providers that employ professional pest control contractors, or pest control operators (PCOs), are more likely to report that high-risk methods are used in their facilities than those who handle pest control in-house. The survey results also show that the most common pest problems faced by child care providers include ants, mosquitoes, fire ants, weeds, and flies. Some of these pest problems are more serious than others, but all can be managed safely and effectively with least-toxic IPM methods.

“It is troubling to find that high-risk pesticide applications are used in so many child care facilities in our state. Most child care providers don’t have the information they need to make knowledgeable decisions about pest control,” said Billie Karel, Toxic Free NC’s program director and report author. “We must do a better job of protecting North Carolina’s youngest and most vulnerable children.” Toxic Free NC has developed several resources for parents and child care providers to get safer pest management practices in their facility.

The pesticide reduction policy is an outgrowth of Governor Paterson’s Executive Order No. 4, adopted in April 2008, which established procurement specifications to minimize State pesticide use by State agencies. The State Parks policy goes further than the Executive Order requirements by eliminating pesticide use to the maximum extent possible. The goal is to keep parks pesticide-free. The approach is outlined in the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation’s Sustainability Plan, an agency-wide strategy to improve energy conservation, improve the sustainability of parks and historic sites, improve waste reduction and recycling efforts, enhance green procurement, and incorporate sustainability in education, training and interpretation efforts.

“Now that the snow has melted, people in every community across this State will begin visiting our parks, and for good reason””they are safe and affordable. The use of some pesticides can compromise that safety because nearly every time a pesticide is sprayed, something other than the target is hit,” said Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. “Limiting their use is a very smart move and will help us avoid any potential health concerns they may cause.”

The policy asserts in the introduction that, “[T]he use of pesticides can cause potential environmental and human health risks, even when pesticides are used in compliance with regulatory requirements and manufacturer recommendations.” The goal of the policy “is to eliminate pesticide uses wherever possible. In special instances where pesticide use is required, we will limit our use to least toxic alternatives.” The policy covers all New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) agency facilities and operations, including concessions and contracted services.

The new policy requires implementation of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for the design and maintenance of buildings, grounds, landscapes and water bodies under OPRHP’s jurisdiction. IPM is described in the policy as a decision making process, a program for long-term pest suppression or elimination based on inspection, pest population monitoring and establishing action thresholds. The IPM program will “predominantly include structural and procedural modifications that establish physical barriers to pests, and reduce the food, water, and harborage available to them.” Pests will be managed “using mechanical, sanitary, cultural, or biological means with the use of chemicals as a last resort.” After non-chemical means have been exhausted, the use of allowed least toxic pesticides include those exempt from US EPA registration due to their low toxicity; rodent control in tamper-resistant bait stations or placed in areas inaccessible to children, pets, or wildlife; U.S. EPA registered biopesticides; antimicrobial pesticides; and, boric acid and disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, silica gels, diatomaceous earth, and other non-volatile insecticidal gels and baits. Specific pesticides are banned from use including: foggers; dusts or sprays in concession or food areas; and, carbamate and organophosphate insecticides.

On February 10, 2009, Executive Order 4 Turf and Ornamental Management specifications were adopted and compels OPRHP to strive to adhere to the land care specifications and practices prepared by the Northeast Organic Farmers Associations: NOFA Standards for Organic Land Care, NOFA Organic Landcare Committee, March 2008.

Policy exceptions allow the use of pesticides (with the lowest toxicity and least persistent product to be used first) for imminent health and safety threats such as human disease outbreaks, bees, wasps, deer ticks and poison ivy situations where immediate action is required. Although attempts will be made to follow IPM practices to the maximum extent possible, when pest problems cannot be controlled through non-chemical means pesticides are allowed for use on golf courses and arboretums, utility and transportation right-of-ways, and invasive species control.

“Patrons should be confident that the beaches, playgrounds, picnic areas and campgrounds where they go to relax and enjoy the great outdoors have not been treated with potentially harmful chemicals, said New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Commissioner Carol Ash. “Our efforts to significantly reduce pesticide use will help ensure the well-being of park visitors, especially young children, and will safeguard the long-term health of our parks and the plants and wildlife within them.”

In addition to this State park policy, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recommends residents to stop using lawn chemicals, listing suggestions and resources to having a green lawn without toxic pesticides on their website. Highlighting the problem with lawn chemicals, the website states, “The chemically dependent lawn is more prone to disease and less able to handle stresses from drought, heat and insects. In addition, lawn chemicals and toxins can build up in soils, leach into our water, and pose potential hazards to people, pets and non-target species such as bees and birds.”

“It is important to remember that our natural environment is not a special interest. Pollution and waste raise costs and kill jobs. Sustaining a healthy environment is central to creating jobs and rebuilding our economy for the future,” said Governor Paterson at an Earth Day event announcing the pesticide reduction park policy. “Today, we should not have to fight to keep the air we breathe clean. But we do. We should not have to fight to keep the water we drink clean. But we do. We should not have to fight to preserve the integrity of our land. But we do have to. So we fight on”¦”

“In case of an emergency, it is critical that our health care professionals can easily access a complete list of pesticide ingredients so they can properly treat anyone who was exposed to them,” said Senator Leno. “Current law keeps emergency responders in the dark by permitting pesticide manufacturers to shield many of the ingredients they use from public disclosure,” he said.

Federal regulation requires pesticide manufacturers to disclose the ingredients of industrial chemicals only if they are classified as “active” ingredients. More than 99 percent of the ingredients in certain pesticides are designated as inert or inactive, so they are never disclosed to the public. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many consumers have a misleading impression of the term “inert ingredient,” believing it to be water or other harmless ingredients, when in fact the ingredient may have biological activity of its own, be toxic to humans and be chemically active. Scientists have been calling for disclosure of inerts on a national level for years.

In the fall of 2007, the California Department of Food and Agriculture sprayed aerial pesticides in coordination with the federal government as part of a campaign to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth. In the communities where these chemicals were applied, hundreds of Californians reported falling ill with everything from headaches and rashes to chest pains and asthma attacks.

“I am concerned that we, as citizens and health care providers, don’t know what is in the environmental chemicals we are exposed to,” said Dr. Ann Haiden, a Bay Area physician and internist who testified before the committee. “We need and deserve to have this information to be able to prevent harm and better help people who develop symptoms after exposure.”

SB 759 is co-sponsored by Pesticide Watch and the Center for Environmental Health. It also has the support of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which adopted a resolution on April 21 that urges the California Legislature to pass the measure.

“Pesticide manufacturers have a special responsibility to provide emergency responders with the full list of their products’ ingredients when pesticides are sprayed around California communities.” said Paul Schramski, State Director of Pesticide Watch. “A trip to the hospital shouldn’t turn into a guessing game for health care providers.”

SB 759 will be heard next in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

The need for disclosure of inert ingredients extends far beyond aerial spraying or California. Most pesticides, including those registered for residential use and which require no training to apply, contain any number of inerts. Poisonings happen to people in all types of settings, from farmworkers to children, and can be due to even the newest generations of pesticides. For people to fully evaluate the risk a product could be and for medical professionals to properly treat poisonings, it is critical for EPA to require all inert ingredients to be listed on pesticide products. For more information on inerts and how to get more information from EPA, visit our page, “What’s in a Pesticide?”

“These pesticides are designed to kill insects on agricultural crops, but when they get into the water system, they also kill aquatic insects that salmon feed on.” said Angela Somma, who heads the NMFS endangered species division.

Under the terms of settlement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must implement measures within a year-long timeframe to prevent further exposure of the pesticides to the water that cultivate these species. The measures recommended by NMFS include: a ban on application of the three pesticides in windy conditions and buffer zones near water resources and require that land applications must be at least 50-600 feet from the water resource and aerial spraying requires a 600-1,000 foot buffer zone.

Many of the mitigation measures required in the new BiOp mirror those NMFS mandated in a previous BiOp for three organophosphate pesticides. However, in that prior decision, as well as in a draft of the new decision, NMFS required 20-foot non-crop vegetative buffers to be left along all waterways impacting salmon. NMFS deleted that requirement from the final decision.

“We’re excited by the progress that this decision represents,” said Aimee Code, the Water Quality Coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). “But we’re concerned that NMFS backslid on an essential element needed to protect salmon. The science indicates that healthy vegetation next to rivers and streams filters out pollutants.”

NMFS has now determined that current uses of all six of the pesticides it has reviewed so far are jeopardizing the existence of west coast salmon and steelhead. EPA — the federal agency charged with regulating pesticide use — had earlier determined that many salmon runs were not at risk from these six pesticides. NMFS’s review found serious flaws with EPA’s analytical methods and conclusions, and determined that EPA underestimated the risk that the pesticides pose to salmon.

“The findings are an example of why it’s so important for the fish and wildlife scientists at NMFS to provide an independent check on other agencies’ findings about endangered species,” said Earthjustice’s Joshua Osborne-Klein. But in the final days of the Bush administration, the federal government significantly weakened the protections provided by the consultation process between EPA and NMFS that produced today’s decision. “The Bush administration’s warped interpretation of the law removed the voices of scientific experts responsible for protecting salmon,” continued Mr. Osborne-Klein. Those last-minute regulations are currently being reconsidered by the Obama administration.

The three pesticides reviewed in the BiOp include:

Carbaryl
Carbaryl, also known by the trade name Sevin, is an NMC insecticide which was first registered in 1959 for use on cotton. EPA estimated over 1.4 million pounds (lbs) of carbaryl are applied each year on agricultural crops and over 200,000 lbs are applied annually for turf, landscape, and horticultural uses in the U.S. (EPA 2008).

Carbofuran
Carbofuran is a NMC systemic pesticide first registered in the U.S. in 1969. The BE for carbofuran indicates it is registered as a restricted use broad spectrum insecticide, nematicide, and miticide for use on a wide variety of agricultural and non-agricultural crops (EPA 2004). Carbofuran is classified as a restricted use pesticide and is formulated into flowable, wettable powder, and granular forms. Several regulatory documents concerning carbofuran were issued after EPA’s BE of the analysis of risk of carbofuran to threatened and endangered salmonids (EPA 2004).

Methomyl
Methomyl was first registered for use in the U.S. in 1968. Methomyl is currently registered for use on a wide variety of sites including field, vegetable, and orchard crops; turf (sod farms only); livestock quarters; commercial premises; and refuse containers (EPA 2007). All methomyl products, except the 1% bait formulations, are classified as restricted use pesticides (EPA 2007). EPA’s BE of the analysis of risks of methomyl to threatened and endangered salmonids indicated there were 10 end-use products registered under Section 3 of FIFRA (EPA 2003). Methomyl was previously registered as a molluscicide to control snails and slugs and as a fungicide for control of blights, rots, mildews and other fungal diseases. Those uses, as well as uses on ornamentals and in greenhouses, have been cancelled (EPA 2003).

The area in concern includes salmon waters throughout Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho. Numerous jobs and industries in this region depend largely on the salmon population. Request to the EPA for these regulations stem from a recent biological opinion made by the NMFS. However, a demand for a minimum 20 foot non-crop land strip between the water and agricultural crop in the previous opinion was dropped. There is evidence that the 20 foot non-crop vegetative strip would aid in filtering pollutants before they reach the water.

In 2002, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, NCAP, and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, obtained a federal court order declaring that EPA had violated ESA by failing to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. As a result of that lawsuit, EPA began consultations, but NMFS never issued biological opinions or identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. In 2007, the salmon advocates filed a second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with NMFS that establishes a schedule for issuing the required biological opinions. Thirty-one more pesticides will undergo review by the National Marine Fisheries Service over the next three years. The next opinion, reviewing 12 pesticides, is due on June 30, 2010.

In an eye-opening opinion-editorial published in Environmental Health News, Dr. Colborn, founder and president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, and Co-author of Stolen Future, says that EPA’s testing protocol is “a pitiful skeleton” of what it needs to be. The tests to be used by EPA were first recommended in 1998. Since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated. Current research is based on different assumptions than the toxicological assumptions that first drove the EPA test designs. However, EPA has not updated its protocol. Each of EPA’s tests and assays was designed under the surveillance of corporate lawyers who had bottom lines to protect and assorted toxicologists who were not trained in endocrinology and developmental biology. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia. Most important, because of the limited scope of its test battery, EPA is not in a position to address endocrine-related disorders that pose a threat to every child born today, according to Dr. Colborn.

The methodology undertaken to develop EPA’s endocrine disruption screening and test protocols also illustrate political and corporate interference that continue to plague the agency’s decision making process. After being tasked to screen chemicals for endocrine disruptive activity under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA set up the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program including a committee with members representing the industries to be regulated, toxicologists, and a few token representatives from non-profit organizations. According to Dr. Colborn, the scientists who discovered endocrine disruption and the hundreds of others, most of whom were not toxicologists and had shifted their research focus to the connections between a mother and her embryo and fetus, were not invited to participate. EPA tried to use traditional toxicology protocols, ignoring that these had failed miserably and allowed endocrine disruptors to get through the government’s programs to protect public health. EPA ignored and continues to ignore the growing knowledge about endocrine disruption, and trade associations representing corporations with deep pockets denied it. Consequently, EPA continues to struggle along under the false assumptions that ”˜the dose makes the poison’ and that high dose testing is sufficient to detect any chemical that can interfere with endocrine control of development and function.

Hundreds of scientific articles have been published across the globe demonstrating how a broad selection of chemicals can interfere with the normal development of a baby at extremely low levels of exposure. Scientists discovered effects for some widely used chemicals at concentrations thousands of times less than federal “safe” levels of exposure derived through traditional toxicological tests. One example, cites Dr. Colborn, is that of atrazine. Atrazine is a herbicide most frequently found in surface and drinking waters in the U.S. It is linked to a host of adverse health effects including endocrine disruption, which has been well documented in frogs and other laboratory animals. Atrazine is already listed on the Colborn List as an endocrine disruptor and has been recognized in the European Union (EU) as a category 1 (evidence of endocrine disrupting activity in at least one species) endocrine disruptor. (The Colborn List and the EU have already tested many chemicals for endocrine disruption, while the U.S. has yet to finalize a protocol for screening.)

Dr. Colborn is concerned that under EPA’s protocol atrazine will likely pass the battery of tests with flying colors even though it has been shown to feminize male organisms by turning on the enzyme that converts testosterone to estrogen. Dr. Colborn states that EPA is proposing an assay to detect chemicals that can block that enzyme, but it cannot detect chemicals that turn it on. EPA’s protocol will also not detect chemicals that can alter development and function of the pancreas, and its hormone, insulin, which could lead to diabetes and obesity. It also will not detect chemicals that alter how the brain is constructed and programmed that can undermine intelligence and behavior.

Dr. Colborn recommends that scientists, who have proven that they can think outside the box and inside the womb, be given the opportunity and wherewithal to design comprehensive, multi-organ assays to detect the most sensitive alterations in embryonic and fetal development and function, especially in light of the new administration’s willingness to put science first.

For an overview of endocrine disruptors, view Beyond Pesticides’ article, “Pesticides that Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.” Also visit Dr. Colborn’s Our Stolen Future and the EU’s endocrine disrupters website for more on endocrine disruptive chemicals.

“Just because a product is sold in stores does not mean it is safe,” said Gina Solomon, MD, NRDC senior scientist and physician. “Under California law, consumers have a right to know if a flea control product exposes them to health risks before they buy it.”

NRDC filed its lawsuit in California Superior Court in Alameda County against 16 retailers and manufacturers including Petsmart, PetCo, and Petstore.com, for failing to comply with California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65, which prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing consumers without proper warning to any chemical “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm.” These companies have failed to caution consumers about exposure to propoxur from the use of their products, which should have been labeled with a warning as of August 11, 2007. Proposition 65 provides for penalties of up to $2,500 for every violation.

NRDC’s new report, Poison on Pets II, found flea collars containing TCVP and propoxur pose serious neurological and cancer risks. These chemical-laden flea collars expose humans to highly hazardous chemicals that can damage the brain and nervous system and cause cancer. Children are particularly at risk from these pesticides because their neurological and metabolic systems are still developing. They are also more likely than adults to put their hands in their mouths after petting an animal, leading to the ingestion of hazardous residues.

Poison on Pets II tested the fur of dogs and cats wearing flea collars to measure the invisible pesticide residues left on the pets from these collars. This analysis, which was the first study of propoxur residues on pet’s fur, found that propoxur levels are so high in some products that they pose a cancer risk in children that is up to 1,000 times higher than the EPA’s acceptable levels, and up to 500 times higher for adults. The study also showed that after three days, 100 percent of the pets wearing collars containing propoxur and 50 percent of the pets wearing collars with TCVP posed a significant neurological risk to toddlers. Testing also revealed that unsafe levels of pesticide residue remain on a dog’s or cat’s fur two weeks after a collar is put on an animal. Families with multiple pets that wear flea collars have even greater exposure risks.

EPA has never compiled data on pesticide levels found on a pet’s fur after use of flea collars. NRDC’s testing and careful calculations reveal that the EPA’s decision to leave these products on the market may create a significant health risk to pet owners, most notably young children.

The availability of many effective and safer alternatives for flea and tick control makes the continued use of these pesticides an unnecessary risk. NRDC’s 2000 report “Poison on Pets” led to the ban of six other pesticides in pet products, but products containing TCVP and propoxur are still on store shelves.

“The EPA’s evaluation of these chemicals was dangerously flawed and underestimates the risks to children,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, NRDC scientist. “There is no reason to use carcinogens and neurotoxins to fight fleas and ticks when there are other safer and effective treatments available. The EPA should not allow these toxic chemicals in pet products.”

Safe flea and tick control include the frequent use of a flea comb, regular bathing of pets, as well as vacuuming and washing of their bedding regularly.

“We’re proud to join so many dedicated partners in sponsoring National Healthy Schools Day,” said Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA Administrator. “EPA’s mission is to protect the American public where they live, work and play — and that certainly includes protecting children where they learn. Our nation’s children, parents, and educators deserve to know that their schools provide a safe and healthy environment. We encourage everyone concerned about healthy schools to use National Healthy Schools Day as a spring board to improve our school environment both indoors and out.”

The vulnerability of infants and children to the harmful effects of pesticides has attracted national attention over the last decade. Schools from across the country document a growing trend to adopt safer pest management strategies that dramatically reduce pesticides in the schools, providing children with a healthier learning environment. Schools that have chosen to adopt such strategies, such as an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, use alternatives to the prevailing chemical-intensive practices because of the health risk such practices pose to children and other school users. A comprehensive IPM program is proven to be cost effective and yield better pest control results.

“There is no reason to expose our children to hazardous pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, in the Safer Schools report. “The tools and experience are available to ensure a safe school environment for children.”

In absence of a federal law, such as the proposed School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), some states and local school districts have attempted to provide children the protection they need from hazardous chemical exposure while at school, yet the level of protection is uneven and inadequate across the country, with the majority of children left unprotected. SEPA would provide basic levels of protection for children and school staff from the use of pesticides in public school buildings and on school grounds by requiring schools implement an IPM program, establishing a list of least-toxic pesticides to be used as a last resort, and requiring notification provisions when pesticides are used.

According to Beyond Pesticides research on state pesticide laws:
* 21 states recommend or require schools to use IPM;
* 15 states restrict when or what pesticide may be applied in schools;
* 17 states require posting of signs for indoor school pesticide applications;
* 26 states require posting of signs for pesticide application made on school grounds;
* 23 states require prior written notification to students, parents, or staff before a pesticide application is made to schools; and
* 7 states recognize the importance of controlling drift by restricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school.

Although these laws are instrumental in improving protections, for a state to truly protect children from pests and toxic pesticide exposure, schools must adopt a comprehensive IPM program that includes organic land management, bans the use of toxic pesticides for aesthetic purposes, and prohibits the use of hazardous pesticides, such as probable, possible or known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxins, developmental toxins, neurotoxins, and toxicity category I and II pesticides. The least toxic pesticide should only be used as a last resort after non-chemical strategies have been tried.

In the U.S., there are approximately 54 million children and seven million adults in the nation’s 120,000 public and private schools. Recent peer-reviewed, published reports have found that healthy environments can reduce asthma and upper respiratory infections among school children, as well as promote personnel health, safety and productivity, and improve achievement. Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness and a leading occupational disease of custodians and teachers. Healthy indoor environments are also associated with improvements in children’s learning and behavior, and therefore can yield even greater benefits and savings than energy efficiencies alone. EPA has estimated that up to half of all schools may have problems with indoor air quality.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, “Acute Illnesses Associated with Pesticide Exposure at Schools,” finds that students and school employees are being poisoned by pesticide use at schools and from drift off of neighboring farmlands. The study, which analyzes 2593 poisonings from 1998 to 2002, finds incident rates overall of 7.4 cases per million children and 27.3 cases per million employees, while the authors conclude, “[T]hese results should be considered low estimates of the magnitude of the problem because many cases of pesticide poisoning are likely not reported to surveillance systems or poisoning control centers.” The authors recommend that strategies be adopted to reduce the use of pesticides at school and reduce drift.

This regulatory action revises the total pesticide emission benchmarks in the Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast Desert, and Ventura areas. The ruling is a victory for chemical-intensive farmers, who fear that stricter limits would force some growers to stop using pesticides. Pesticides, especially soil fumigants, which are injected into soil to kill pests by releasing toxic gases, contribute to about 6% of the smog problem in the Valley, according to state figures. According to the state’s Department of Pesticides Regulation, the looser limit will still “meet our obligation to reduce pesticide emissions, but do so in a way that avoids placing an unreasonable or disproportionate burden on fumigant pesticide users.” For the San Joaquin Valley for example, the rule sets the emissions limit at 18.1 tons per day, 2.1 tons higher than what activists wanted. The regulations cover the prime growing season of May 1 though October 31 and cover smog-making gases, called volatile organic compounds, emitted by many pesticides, especially fumigants.

However, Alegría De La Cruz, an attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment said that the department “claims that this is not a big deal because it’s such a small amount, but this, from our perspective, is not making good on a promise that they made to Valley residents to protect [their] health.” The center is considering filing a lawsuit to change the rules.

In 2006, a federal judge ruled that the pesticide department ignored clean-air laws and ordered regulations that would cut pesticide emissions in the valley by 20% from 1991 levels. But in August, the department won an appeal to overturn the ruling. The new regulations call for a smaller decrease — a 12% cut from 1990 levels. Other regions still face a 20% cutback, the department said. The rules became an issue during state budget negotiations earlier this year when Republican lawmakers sought to write the looser rules into law, which would have made it harder for environmentalists to pursue a change. However, these lawmakers backed off. The department is now turning its attention to nonfumigant pesticides. Those regulations must be in place by 2014, according to law.

According to state reports, pesticide use declined in California for the period 2006-2007. The use of fumigants decreased by 0.8 percent, but acres treated increased by 1,235 acres, or 0.3 percent. Researchers have found that fumigants, such as sulfuryl fluoride, stay in the atmosphere at least 30-40 years and perhaps as long as 100 years and is about 4,000 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat. Others like methyl bromide, deplete ozone and is under an international phase-out under the Montreal Protocol, which the U.S. continues to ignore. Last July, EPA proposed new rules for soil fumigants which fell short of protecting people, workers and the environment.

To gain a better understanding of why this is happening, some of the UK’s major research funders have joined together to launch an important new research program. The biggest challenge will be to develop a better understanding of the complex relationships between biological and environmental factors which affect the health and lifespan of pollinators.

The funding will be made available to research teams across the UK under the Living With Environmental Change (LWEC) partnership, the major initiative by UK funders to help the UK respond effectively to changes to our environment. This is a joint initiative from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Wellcome Trust and the Scottish Government.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said, “Aristotle identified bees as the most hard working of insects, and with one in three mouthfuls coming from insect-pollinated crops, we need to support bees and other pollinators. I announced in January that Defra would put an extra £2M into research funding, and I am delighted our partners have agreed to boost this to up to £10M. This funding will give some of Britain’s world-class researchers the chance to identify the causes of the decline we’re seeing in bee numbers, and that will help us to take the right action to help.”

Professor Douglas Kell, BBSRC Chief Executive said, “We are facing a fundamental problem with the decline of bees and other pollinators. They have an absolutely crucial role in pollinating many of our important crops. Without effective pollination we will face higher food costs and potential shortages. This program will help us to understand why numbers have decreased and the steps we could take to reverse this. Complex problems such as this require a modern systems biology approach, a strategy at the core of BBSRC’s vision. This will also feed into BBSRC’s wider food security research program which aims to deliver the science necessary to provide the nutritious and affordable food we need for the future.”

Professor Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive of NERC, “Through the Pollinator Initiative, the LWEC partners will address what is a complex multidisciplinary problem. We need to conduct research that will help us to understand the links between bees and other pollinators and the range of environmental factors that affect them in various ways. This research will provide vital insights into why there has been a steep decline in these insect populations in recent years and help us to find solutions to the problem.”

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust said, “It is extremely important that we move swiftly to understand and try to reverse the decline in the populations of bees and other pollinating insects. The devastating effect that this decline may have on our environment would almost certainly have a serious impact on our health and well being. Without pollinating insects, many important crops and native plants would be severely harmed.”

Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary of the Scottish Government said, “It is vital that we increase our understanding of the issues affecting populations of bees and other pollinators such as wasps, butterflies and beetles and in particular whether these are due to climate change. The impact these insects have on our rural industries, such as the soft fruit sector, and on plant biodiversity across Scotland cannot be under-estimated. Any reduction in numbers could have catastrophic consequences not just for our environment but also for our economy. I welcome this initiative and am confident the results of the program will enhance our knowledge and help prevent further declines in bee numbers.”

Elin Jones, Minister for Rural Affairs of the Welsh Assembly Government said, “Honeybees and other pollinators are vital for local food production, which is the key to environmentally sustainable farming. By working with the other partners in this initiative Defra have shown their commitment to safeguarding the population of the honeybee in the UK.”

The funding program will be administered through BBSRC. The NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology will provide post-award coordination for the program and contribute special expertise in long-term and large-scale ecology that will strengthen the research effort.

“Disinfectants, mold and mildew cleaners, weed killers and pool chemicals are just a few of the many over-the-counter pesticide products available for home use,” DPR Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam said. “As people begin their spring cleaning and gardening, they should select products that best target the problem and then follow the label instructions carefully to prevent accidents.” Beyond Pesticides adds that people should consider non-chemical approaches that manage unwanted insects and plants with prevention-oriented practices.

Ms. Warmerdam suggests the following precautions to prevent pesticide exposure in and around the home:

*Select products that pose the least risk to your health and the environment — do you really need a pesticide for the task?
*Never put pesticides in food or drink containers. Keep pesticides in their original containers so they are not mistaken for food or drink.
*Store pesticides properly to keep them away from children and adults who are unable to recognize pesticide containers.
*Do not mix bleach with ammonia or other cleansers because a toxic gas may be formed.

The Butte County incident and blunders below were drawn from 2007 illnesses and injuries reported to DPR. State privacy law protects their identities.

In San Diego County, a resident attempting to fix his home pool filter forgot which hose had the check-valve. He blew into one hose thinking he could tell which one had the valve and inhaled chlorine gas. He sought medical care after coughing and vomiting.

In Sacramento County, a teenage girl saw a mouse in her home and decided to use gopher bait to control the problem because she had seen her parents use it effectively against gophers in the yard. She said she read the label, but did not understand it. She poured about a handful of pellets into a corner of two bedrooms and waited in another room. Within two hours, she experienced a sharp pain behind her eyes, and tightness in her chest when she breathed in. She was taken to an emergency room for evaluation.

A Butte County man used a salt shaker to apply insecticidal dust on his dog for flea control. Later, he thought the salt shaker contained garlic salt and sprinkled the insecticidal dust on a bowl of chili. The man realized his mistake because the chili tasted strange and the beans were a gray color. He experienced some stomach discomfort and went to a hospital for treatment.

In Los Angeles County, an elderly woman spilled insecticidal powder on herself as she tried to open the container to use for roach control in her house. She apparently held the container over her head. She experienced “burning” and was taken to her doctor.

In Sacramento County, pest control company employees returned to air a house that had been fumigated three days earlier. They found a man asleep on the couch who had broken into and ransacked the house. He was taken to the hospital by paramedics and admitted in serious condition.

In Riverside County, a homeowner found a small plastic bottle of malathion leaking in his garage. He threw the bottle into his dumpster, where it spilled. A resident across the street experienced chest tightness and lightheadedness after smelling the pesticide and went for medical care. Two other neighbors reported symptoms, but declined care. The homeowner was found in violation for improperly disposing of a pesticide.

The NYC Housing Authority is the largest public housing owner in North America with more than 405,000 low-income residents. The successful implementation of IPM in an institution of this size was thought to offer many potential benefits; pesticide use reduction, improved pest management and reduced pest and allergen burdens in housing populated by largely African American and Latino families with a disproportionately high prevalence of asthma. Following a successful pilot program in public housing, the NYC Department of Health and Housing Authority developed an IPM intervention designed to be simple, low-cost and relatively easily scaled.

In buildings participating in the study, Housing Authority IPM teams spent 8-12 person-hours in each apartment unit. The teams employed mechanical and steam cleaning using soap in kitchens and bathrooms, used caulk to seal cracks and crevices, and applied boric acid and cockroach baits (gels or containerized solids containing fipronil or hydramethylnon) to kill remaining cockroaches. The IPM supervisor instructed apartment residents to store open food in sealed containers, cover garbage containers with a tight-fitting lid, and dispose of garbage frequently. Residents were provided with a covered garbage container, food storage containers and cleaning supplies, and were specifically asked not to use pesticides. The control buildings received usual care from the Housing Authority’s licensed pesticide applicators. Usual care consists of the offer of conventional, calendar-based extermination visits every three to six months.

Previous studies have shown that IPM is more successful and economical than traditional pesticide applications. The researchers from the city government believe that two features of the earlier studies limit their instructiveness for significant institutional replication and expansion. First, they have typically recruited from, and analyzed impact of IPM on individual rental apartments without building level interventions. Second, the studies, some of which involved goals beyond just pest control, have involved repeated visits by pest control professionals, cleaning services, or educators. The new study, in contrast, involves a single visit by pest control professionals with the intervention at the building level.

Compared to controls, apartments receiving IPM had significantly lower counts of cockroaches at three months, and greater success in reducing or sustaining low counts of cockroaches at three and six months. IPM was associated with lower cockroach allergen levels in kitchens at three months, and in beds and kitchens at six months. Pesticide use was reduced in IPM relative to control, apartments. Residents of IPM apartments also rated building services more positively.

“The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven’t enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the UCS Food and Environment Program and author of the report. “In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results.”

The report, “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops,” is the first to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn have not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for these crops over the last 13 years, the report found, is largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield””the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds ”¦ significantly increase crop yields”¦.” The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but “Failure to Yield” documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

“After more than 3,000 field trials, only two types of engineered genes are in widespread use, and they haven’t helped raise the ceiling on potential yields,” said Margaret Mellon, a microbiologist and director of UCS’s Food and Environment Program. “This record does not inspire confidence in the future of the technology.”

“Failure to Yield” makes a critical distinction between potential””or intrinsic””yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors. The study reviews the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects). Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

Meanwhile, the report finds that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of three to four percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides, and focuses on building the soil—minimizing its effect on climate change. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE program page.