During the congress, it became known that in the former Kalush factory in the west of Ukraine there is a stockpile of no less than 10,000 ton of superfluous Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). The factory location along the Dniester River makes the situation extremely hazardous: a single flood and the high concentrations of poison would pollute the natural habitat of some seven million people in the west of Ukraine and Moldavia.

Pesticides are threatening tens of millions of people living throughout Europe, Central Asia, and the former Soviet Union, accordding to the statement. There is an estimated 178,000 to 289,000 tons of obsolete pesticides stockpiled throughout the European Union, Southeast Europe, and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine alone has 4,500 storage locations with over 30,000 tons of old pesticides. These pesticides have been prohibited since 2001. The packaging only lasts between five and ten years, so if nothing is done in that time, the pesticides could end up in the water or the soil.

The IHPA reports that it is the rural population which is in danger. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that by 2050 50 percent of people will die from cancer due to the contamination in food, water and the environment. A major portion will be caused by pesticides. There’s also the threat of major financial losses. The relatively minor Nitrofen scandal (2002) in the former East Germany alone cost a total of 500 million euro.

The IHPA estimates that the stabilization or destruction of all current stocks of superfluous pesticides amounts to one billion euros. In the final statement, the IHPA calls on the European Commission to make haste in developing a solid plan of action, in close cooperation with the EU member states, the non-EU countries covered by the European Neighborhood Policy and the relevant countries in Central Asia.

Hexachlorobenzene (HBC) is a pesticide in the organochlorine family. Most organochlorine pesticides have been banned due to their toxicity, environmental persistence, and tendency to bioaccumulate. Other harmful organochlorine pesticides are endosulfan, DDT and lindane. Some highly reactive organochlorides such as phosgene have even been used as chemical warfare agents.

Organochlorine contaminants bioacummulate and remain preferentially in fat, and concerns about theri long-term effects are well-documented. The use of organochlorines has been controversial for decades because of its cancer causing and neurotoxic properties. Organochlorines interfere with the flux of cations across nerve cell membranes, and the adverse health effects include apprehension, agitation, mental/motor impairment, excitation vomiting, stomach upset, abdominal pain, central nervous system depression, convulsions, muscle weakness and spasm, loss of balance, grinding of the teeth, hyperirritability, violent seizures, increased respiratory rate and/or failure, dermatitis, immunotoxicity, and fetotoxicity.

Exposure to organochlorines is associated with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The study, “Organochlorines and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” was published in the International Journal of Cancer on December 15, 2007 with new research funded by the British Columbia Cancer Agency and is so far the largest to examine organochlorines in plasma and their link to illness. “Our study helps to provide answers to this puzzle by showing a strong link between these specific environmental contaminants and this particular type of cancer.” Participants with NHL showed much higher levels of environmental contaminants than the control group. Individuals who had the highest total exposure to PCBs showed almost twice the risk of NHL compared to those with the lowest exposure.

While many countries have phased out the use of some types of organochlorines such as the U.S. ban on DDT, persistent DDT, PCBs, and other organochloride residues continue to be found in humans and mammals across the planet many years after production and use have been limited.

With the availability of the assays and test guidelines, EPA will move forward with issuing test orders to manufacturers to compel the generation of the needed data. However, acquisition of new, relevant data may be limited. This is because after EPA submitted the request for additional information for OMB approval, the Office issued a directive that approved EPA’s request to collect additional data for the 67 chemicals but warned the agency that it should “to the greatest extent possible” accept existing data to satisfy test requirements.

The OMB directive, which observers say contains unusually strong language, is being hailed by industry groups that had been concerned about the prospects for expensive testing mandates. But many environmental groups and scientists say OMB’s directive will undermine the endocrine program which has already been plagued with short-comings, including a thirteen year delay after the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 ordered EPA to develop a screening process for endocrine disrupting chemicals.

The tests are to help EPA identify whether chemicals have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, and/or thyroid hormone systems, which regulate growth, metabolism, development, and reproduction. The program, Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), which according to EPA, has been developed through a multi-year research program and validated through a transparent technical review process, will eventually screen all pesticide chemicals. The data generated from the screens will provide scientific information that will help EPA identify and regulate, as appropriate, potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

CropLife, a trade association for the pesticide industry, petitioned EPA earlier this year and expressed concern that “unnecessary and redundant testing” could occur if the agency does not review data already submitted by pesticide registrants. EPA rejected the petition, saying it would ensure that each chemical is tested just once. The agency said it also plans to review all information on chemicals submitted by manufacturers, including submissions that cite existing data, and would develop standard evaluating procedures for chemicals.

OMB’s directive would impact the integrity of EPA’s program. Critics of EDSP say that EPA’s testing protocol is already outdated, not being updated since 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. According to prominent endocrinologist, founder and president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, and Co-author of Stolen Future, Theo Colborn, PhD, the agency has ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers. 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 Peter deFur, PhD, a scientist who has served on three federal advisory committees for the program, “This is really short-sighted of OMB, and it indicated to me they don’t understand the science or the toxicology. The language I’ve seen is just shocking for its failure to understand the basic biology behind the endocrine disruptor discussion that’s been going on for 20 years now.”

OMB is also requiring that EPA estimate again the burden of collecting chemical information based on responses it gets to the Tier 1 requirements, which must include cases in which EPA has determined that existing data do not satisfy the testing requirements, before the agency can require data from more chemicals. The test guidelines can be found on EPA website and the schedule of EDSP screening here.

A wide variety of pesticides has been found to affect both human and animal hormone systems at low levels. For an overview of endocrine disruptors, view Beyond Pesticides’ article, “Pesticides that Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.”

Coal ash spill in Tennessee, December 2008

This month, USDA enters the final year of a three-year partnership with EPA as part of a larger effort by the American Coal Ash Association, the Electric Power Research Institute and others to “promote appropriate increased use of” coal ash in agriculture. The implementing Memorandum of Understanding obliges USDA to generate “documentation of the effectiveness, safety and environmental benefits, including bioavailability of trace elements such as mercury, arsenic and selenium”¦to satisfy the concerns of producers, generators, regulators and the public.”

According to EPA, agriculture annually uses more than 180,000 tons of coal ash and other coal combustion byproducts. There are no federal standards governing agricultural applications of coal ash. EPA has publicly vowed to promulgate hazardous waste rules by the end of 2009 for coal ash, one year after last December’s disastrous coal ash spills from Tennessee Valley Authority sludge ponds.

“USDA should pull out of the coal ash business tomorrow morning,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. “USDA does American agriculture no favors by duping farmers into spreading hazardous wastes across their fields.”

In an April 2, 2009 letter to EPA, USDA Agricultural Research Service Deputy Administrator Steven Shafer expressed “ARS interest” in exploring greater use of coal combustion wastes in crop production as a fertilizer treatment and soil amendment. His letter cites current application of coal ash in growing corn, tomatoes, alfalfa, peanuts, and other crops. While generally sanguine about coal ash use, Mr. Shafer concedes that the “long-term effects”¦remain a subject of research.” See USDA talking points.

Nonetheless, EPA promotional materials state that EPA and “USDA support the use of” coal combustion byproducts “in appropriate soil and hydrogeologic conditions as an effective method of soil conservation and industrial material recycling.”

“The public does not want its food to come from ”˜industrial material recycling’ any more than it wants coal-flavored cauliflower,” Mr. Ruch added. “This coal ash re-use campaign is really just a multi-billion dollar backdoor subsidy to the coal industry to relieve it of the true costs of handling its toxic wastes.”

The policy establishes Pesticide Free Zones for 50 feet surrounding township playgrounds, picnic grounds, pavilions and rest areas, dog parks and ballfields, as well as 300 feet from any stream bank, pond, lake or natural wetland. It also requires the implementation of an IPM program for all township buildings and grounds.

Hamilton Mayor John F. Bencivengo endorsed the policy, stating that it is a great way to educate the public about pesticide use, and ensure that the township continues on its path of “pesticide free zones” in its parks, municipal building and library. Schools in New Jersey are already required by law to follow IPM plans using non-toxic methods first and conventional pesticides only if the non-toxic methods are ineffective.

“It is easy to manage a lawn without harmful chemical pesticides,” said Jane Nogaki, program coordinator for the Federation. Cost-effective and environmental friendly alternatives to pesticides include mechanical pulling of weeds, mulching areas properly to prevent weeds, planting native plants that do not attract insects, and reducing or eliminating lawns to cut down on the need for watering, fertilizing, and mowing.

“[The] Township’s IPM Policy incorporates focusing on long-term prevention and will give non-chemical methods first consideration when selecting appropriate pest control techniques. The Township will strive to ultimately eliminate the use of all chemical controls,” states the policy. “Integrated Pest Management activities will consist principally of using native plant species and biological controls to encourage natural land management. Manual/mechanical controls, such as pulling weeds by hand or mowing, will be the first choice for management of invasive or undesirable plant species when and where most feasible. Other low impact pest management tools are also available for use when manual or mechanical controls are impractical. The use of pesticides should be reviewed and limited so that they are not applied unnecessarily or as a matter of routine. Where plant, fungal or insect pests become otherwise unmanageable by the various low impact pest management methods, pesticides may be used as a control method of “last resort.” When pesticide use is required, public notification shall be made.” In addition, pesticides may not be used for aesthetic/cosmetic purposes.

According to the policy, low impact management tools include native plantings, hand weeding, cutting and mulching, and products containing vinegar or citric acid, corn gluten, neem, horticultural oil, potassium soaps of fatty acids, boric acid, diatomaceous earth, microbe based insecticides (Bt), non-pesticide pest traps and biological controls (predator species).

Many scientific studies indicate that pesticides threaten the public’s health by increasing the risk of cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, kidney disease and other ailments. These chemicals can also poison animals, pollute local streams and rivers and seep through the ground into our underground aquifers. Every body of water tested in New Jersey exhibits evidence of pesticide contamination, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. Children are especially sensitive and vulnerable because of their rapid development and behavior patterns.

Currently, New Jersey uses about four million pounds of pesticides annually for lawn care, mosquito control, agricultural production, and golf course maintenance.

Hamilton Township joins 31 other communities in New Jersey that have designated Pesticide Free Zones in parks including Burlington and Cape May Counties, and the townships of Bernards, Chatham, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Asbury Park, East and West Windsor, Hightstown, Montclair, Ocean City, Dennis, Colts Neck, Hazlet, Neptune, Red Bank, Pine Beach and Wall Townships.

“We also need residents to do their part in reducing pesticides in our environment and keeping our air, water and land safe from toxic chemicals,” said Ms. Nogaki. “Residents can participate by making their own property a “Pesticide Free Zone.”

The passage of pesticide-free and pesticide reduction policies are taking place around the country. For example, the New York State Parks recently passed a similar policy that also establishes pesticide-free zones. In addition, Chicago City Parks has reduced pesticide use by 80 percent in their parks, many of which are pesticide-free; in the Northwest U.S. there are more than 50 parks; as well as in communities throughout Massachusetts, Maine, New York and Connecticut. 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. For a fuller list of examples see Beyond Pesticides activists tools pages.

For more information, see resources available through the New Jersey Environmental Federation and Beyond Pesticides Lawn and Landscape program page.

The petition was filed by the public interest law firms on behalf of farmworker groups: United Farm Workers, Oregon-based Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noreste, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO as well as Physicians for social Responsibility, Washington-based Sea Mar Community Health Center, Pesticide Action Network North America, and MomsRising.org.

Specifically, the petition states that the EPA has failed to address the facts that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides according findings by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1993. Congress took recommendations from NAS and passed the Food Quality Protection Act in1996, requiring EPA to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure” to pesticides.

However, while EPA has made some progress in canceling numerous home uses of pesticides because of excessive risks to children, the harmful effects of pesticide drift from agricultural areas was ultimately ignored. According to the petition, EPA’s failure comes despite its acknowledgment of its obligation to protect children from drift, which can cause acute poisonings as well as cancer, long-term reproductive and developmental disorders, and other chronic adverse effects.

There are many documented cases of the harmful effects of agricultural pesticide drift on children. Among the many examples, one new study shows that children exposed to agricultural pesticides applied near their home have up to twice the risk of developing the most common form of childhood leukemia. Also, recent air monitoring conducted near an elementary school in Florida detected pesticides in every sample, sometimes at levels that may pose serious health risks to young children.

“We traditionally think of farms as healthy places,” said MomsRising.org President Joan Blades. “But children and families across the country are being poisoned by pesticides that travel from the fields into their houses and bedrooms, causing serious and long-lasting damage to their health. We already have standards barring the use of such pesticides for homes and lawns to protect children. But all children deserve such protection. You shouldn’t have to live in the suburbs to be safe from deadly pesticides.”

According to Beyond Pesticides’ report Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities, pesticides can volatilize into the gaseous state and be transported over long distances fairly rapidly through wind and rain. Documented exposure patterns resulting from drift, causes particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups, as adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions.

“In farming communities throughout the country, children have been abandoned by federal pesticide protections,” said Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer. “We’re asking EPA to finish the job it started so children who live, go to school, or play near farms and orchards are kept safe from poisonous pesticides.”

EPA has acknowledged the risk of pesticide drift, but still chose to protect urban and suburban areas, while leaving the children of farm workers and other rural kids vulnerable. The petition asks EPA to take immediate steps to comply with its legal duty to protect all children from pesticide drift.

“It’s time the EPA put an end to this double-standard for farm workers. EPA’s policies must protect farm workers and their children from unnecessary poisoning,” said Farmworker Justice attorney Virginia Ruiz.

A study by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension “Reducing Pesticide Drift,” estimates that up to 40% of a pesticide applied in aerial spraying is lost to drift. (Klein, B. 2002) Another study, Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: Environmental impacts and ethics found that an estimated less than 0.1% of an insecticide actually reached target pests. Therefore, more than 99% of the applied pesticide is released and left to impact the surrounding environment.

“It’s outrageous that our own government isn’t protecting our children from being poisoned by pesticides drifting on their homes and schools,” said Julie Montgomery, Project Director and Attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. “How can parents possibly protect their children from these dangers on their own?”

The petition focuses on the toxic drift of organophosphates, particularly: endosulfan, oxydemeton-methyl, ethoprop, methyl parathion, and chlorpyrifos. Short term exposures of chlorypyrifos has been likened to a chemically-induced flu with even short term exposure: chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Studies have also shown that young children are potentially susceptible to certain organophosphates for a longer period of time than previously thought.

“Children are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposures both because their smaller bodies cannot break down toxins as well as adults, and because their developmental processes are prone to being derailed — even by very low-level exposure,” explains Dr. Margaret Reeves, Senior Scientist for Pesticide Action Network. “The particular pesticides we’re finding in our drift catching and biomonitoring results are some of the worst: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan…these are associated with serious short- and long-term health effects. They are also entirely unnecessary.”

For more information on how pesticides impact children’s health, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools page.

The study, “The Behavior of Silver Nanotextiles during Washing” published in Environmental Science and Technology, found that the total amount and form of silver (dissolved or particulate) that leaches during washing varies significantly depending on the product and the conditions. The goal was to determine the amount and the form of silver released during washing from nine fabrics with different ways of silver incorporation into or onto the fibers. The effect of pH, surfactants, and oxidizing agents was also evaluated. In the washing machine the majority of the nanosilver (at least 50% but mostly >75%) was released in the size fraction more than 450 nm, indicating the dominant role of mechanical stress. The researchers found that under typical washing conditions (pH 10—11, with high levels of surfactants), dissolved concentrations of silver were 10 times lower than at pH 7. However, when bleaching agents such as hydrogen peroxide or peracetic acid (a mixture of acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide) were added, the dissolution of nanosilver particles was greatly accelerated.

The results do not contradict the previous Arizona State study, which found that socks impregnated with nanosilver release these particles when washed. This new study goes one step further to show that washing conditions matter in the leaching of silver nanomaterials from fabric. The study “gives us a much better idea of how silver might be released into the environment from the new wave of silver-nanoparticle-containing fabrics,” says Andrew D. Maynard, chief science adviser at the nonprofit Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Nanosilver has been touted for its antibacterial properties and is used in many products such as sporting goods, band-aids, clothing, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, very little is known about where these particles end up when such products are put to use. Nanosilver that leaches out of fabrics is released into wastewater treatment systems and into nearby aquatic environments. The environmental risks are not clear however. Many particles may aggregate or associate with other ions or materials in the environment and deposit into sediments and soils. Some however, can remain in surface waters, where they can be absorbed and/or ingested by aquatic organisms. Microbial populations especially those in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are vulnerable to silver nanoparticles contamination.

Many consider silver to be more toxic than other metals when in nanoscale form and that these particles have a different toxicity mechanism compared to dissolved silver. Scientists have concluded that nanoparticles can pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that silver nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells or tissue) by accumulating in the brain over a long period of time.

For more information on nanosilver, visit the Nanosilver section at our Antibacterial Program Page.

The Hazardous Chemicals in Health Care report offers preliminary indicators of what the broader health care community may be experiencing. The project tested for 62 distinct chemicals in six categories: bisphenol A, mercury, perflourinated compounds, phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and triclosan. The chemicals tested in the investigation are used in products common to the health care setting, from baby bottles, hand sanitizer, and medical gauges, to industrial paints, IV bags and tubes and stain-resistant clothing. Twelve doctors and eight nurses, two in each of 10 states were tested for the presence of six major chemical types used in the health care setting that are associated with health problems and are pervasive in our environment.

Study participant George Lundgren, M.D., a family practice physician from Minneapolis Minnesota said upon learning his results “When you do find out some of the specific unnatural chemicals in your body it is hard to deny, minimize, rationalize or justify their presence. It is disturbing to know the only body I have is permanently contaminated.”

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Biomonitoring Project has found that synthetic chemicals linked to health problems are present in every American. Overall, PSR’s test results were consistent with the findings by the CDC, with the exception of a specific type of toxic chemical, dimethyl phthalate, which was found at levels above the CDC’s 95th percentile. Future biomonitoring may illuminate a work source of exposure to dimethyl phthalate, which is used in hair spray and other personal care items, rocket fuel and more. Dimethyl phthalate was also registered for use by the US EPA as an insect repellent, but the 32 different insecticide products containing this chemical, often along with DEET, were cancelled back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

According to the report, 15 of the 20 study participants had triclosan in their bodies, mirroring CDC’s finding that 74.6% of 2003-2004 samples contained triclosan. PSR’s new biomonitoring study also found three times more triclosan in participants urine than in CDC’s study, although the study’s maximum was below CDC’s 95th percentile.

Other findings include:
Ӣ Eighteen of the same chemicals were detected in every single participant;
Ӣ All 20 participants had at least five of the six major types of chemicals tested;
Ӣ Thirteen participants tested positive for all six of these major chemical types; and,
Ӣ All participants had bisphenol A, phthalates, PBDEs and PFCs, priority chemicals for regulation by the EPA and associated with chronic illness such as cancer and endocrine malfunction.

“Simply put, we are being ”˜polluted’ by exposure to chemicals used in health care. This study demonstrates the urgent need to find safer alternatives to toxic chemicals whenever possible; to demand adequate information on the health effects of chemicals; and to require manufacturers to fully disclose the potential risks of their products and their components, for the safety of both health care professionals and the communities we serve,” added ANA President Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR.

“Stronger laws are necessary to keep us safe from toxic chemicals. In 33 years, the EPA has tested for safety only 200 and banned only five of the more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce. We need to do better to protect public health,” says Charlotte Brody, RN, Health Care Without Harm Board Member, registered nurse, and National Field Director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Regulated by both the FDA and US EPA, triclosan is an antibacterial used in hundreds of common consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics, deodorants, toys, and even clothing. Such widespread use in everyday consumer products can contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria, lessening their effectiveness, and they can affect the environment in runoff and wastewater. A U.S Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and at some of the highest concentrations, because it is so frequently used in households and washed down the drains.

Scientific studies indicate that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems. Among these issues is the resistance to antibiotic medications and bacterial cleansers, a problem for all people, but especially vulnerable populations such as infants and the elderly. Triclosan is also a known endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which could potentially increase risk for breast cancer. A recent study found that triclosan alters thyroid function in male rats. Other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in fish, human milk, serum, urine, and foods. Further, the pesticide can also interact with other chemicals to form dioxin and chloroform, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals.

Washing with soap and water is essential. An FDA panel concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than washing with soap and water. For more information, including tips on how to get triclosan out of your school, office or community, or visit Beyond Pesticides’ Triclosan program page.

“When the fungal spores are applied to the sheep, they stick to the surface of lice as they move around in the fleece,” explains QPIF Senior Scientist Diana Leemon, PhD. “The lice also consume spores as they feed on wool grease and the spores germinate inside the insect, killing it.”

Tim Mulherin, Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland, stated, “Livestock industries, including sheep, are extremely important to our economy. Parasites such as sheep lice damage wool and reduce yields, leading to significant losses for the producer. Lice cost the Australian wool industry $123 million annually through lost production and control costs.”

QPIF and Australian Wool Innovation Limited (AWI) have signed an agreement with commercial partner Becker Underwood Australia to develop the biopesticide to help the lice problem. AWI CEO Brenda McGahan said the research was timely as sheep lice are building resistance to some current treatments. “Producers are reporting sheep lice are becoming a major problem, particularly following a recent ban on the use of the effective insecticide diazinon in a wet dip.”

Fungal biopesticides have shown potential as insecticides of other bugs as well. Recently, researches worked with fungus as an insecticide for crickets and grasshoppers. The research team, led by USU insect pathologist Donald Roberts, PhD, is analyzing 10,000 soil samples gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 17 states. After isolating the various fungi, each is grown in the lab and tested individually.

Some fungi are more effective than others as pesticides. Paul Stamets, a mushroom expert who spoke at the 2006 Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum in Washington, DC on how fungus can play a part in insect control, has provided much research to the field of fungal pesticides, providing invaluable information on breeding fungus and fungus’ pesticidal usages. The green mold fungus Metarhizium anisopliae seems to be one effective fungal pesticide during certain phases of its life. One problem is that insects are sensitive to the spores and avoid them, and soldier insects guarding nests sense and intercept most spore-contaminated foragers to prevent them from entering and infecting the colony. Strains of the fungus produce chemical attractants in the mycelial state, the stage of the life cycle when a fuzzy mat of mycelium protrudes from a dead carpenter ant, making the mycelium an effective biopesticide.

Fungi found in soil are a less toxic solution to certain insect problems. Beneficial fungus pathogens, Beauveria spp., is a fungus that is used as a pesticide for controlling many kinds of insects. Many strains of this fungus are found worldwide in the soil. They control insects by growing on them, secreting enzymes that weaken the insect’s outer coat, and then getting inside the insect and continuing to grow, eventually killing the infected pest. Available EPA information indicates that use of Beauveria spp. as a pesticide is not expected to adversely affect people or the environment and tests show that the fungus is not toxic to mammals, birds or plants. There is a potential for pesticide products containing the fungus to harm bees, so the products must not be applied near beehives or where bees are actively hunting for food.

As the demand for organic products (including raw textile materials such as cotton and wool) grows, producers are looking for organic pest control options. As Richard Waterworth, Director of Becker Underwood Australia says, “Given the increasing demand for low residue and organic wool, we believe this form of lice management will become mainstream.” Many consumers now want to buy organic, chemical free materials; not just food. With advancements of this sort, the accessibility of organic products will increase.

Mr. Stamets and his colleagues have been working with fungi that feed on insects, and he has figured out a way to grow fungi that delay their spore formation and actually attract the insect to the fungus, thus breaking through an obstacle in using fungi to protect homes from carpenter ants and termites. However, in doing so, he says his philosophy “is not to wage war against the insect kingdom but to enlist fungal allies for the intelligent, natural, and localized control of targeted insects”¦ We seek balance, not extinction.” Beyond Pesticides offers a video of Mr. Stamets’ speech and the article, “Fungi to the Rescue: Biopesticide derived from mold has promise as a greener method for eradicating unwanted insects,” in the Winter 2007 issue of Pesticides and You.

This announcement follows recent scrutiny and findings that the current EPA regulation of atrazine in water is inadequate. In August this year, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published a report, Poisoning the Well which found that the commonly used herbicide atrazine can spike at extremely high levels which go undetected by regular monitoring. Concurrently, The New York Times published an investigative piece based on the NRDC findings and confirmed that the public is not informed when reports of these spikes of atrazine in drinking water occur.

One of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the U.S., atrazine can currently legally be applied before and after planting to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. Its increased use to manicure home lawns and gardens has become a serious environmental concern as runoff has had severe health and environmental consequences.

Even at low levels that are considered “safe” by EPA standards, atrazine is known to harm fish, and has been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion, turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

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

According to the EPA, agency staff will evaluate the pesticide’s potential cancer and non-cancer effects on humans. Included in this new evaluation will be the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births.

“One of Administrator Jackson’s top priorities is to improve the way EPA manages and assesses the risk of chemicals, including pesticides, and as part of that effort, we are taking a hard look at the decision made by the previous administration on atrazine,” said Steve Owens, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate.”

During the new evaluation, EPA will consider the potential for atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects, and will include data generated since 2003 from laboratory and population studies. To be certain that the best science possible is used in its atrazine human health risk assessment and ensure transparency, EPA will seek advice from the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

EPA will engage the SAP to evaluate the human health effects of atrazine over the coming year. Below is the timeline:

Ӣ November 2009: EPA will present SAP its plan for the new atrazine evaluation.
Ӣ February 2010: EPA will present and seek scientific peer review of its proposed plan for incorporating population studies into the atrazine risk assessment.
Ӣ April 2010: EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of atrazine non-cancer effects based on animal laboratory toxicology studies, selection of safety factors in the risk assessment, and the sampling design currently used to monitor drinking water in community water systems.
”¢ September 2010: EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects based on animal toxicology studies and epidemiology studies. This review is intended to include the most recent results from the National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study, anticipated for publication in 2010.

At the conclusion of this process, EPA will ask the SAP to review atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems. The SAP meetings will be open to the public.
In addition to the scientific review of the effects of atrazine, EPA plans to meet with interested groups to explore better ways to inform the public more quickly about results of atrazine drinking water monitoring.

For more information on the chemical atrazine, please see our fact sheet on our pesticide gateway. Beyond Pesticides is working to halt the senseless use and exposure to lawn pesticides and herbicides, such as atrazine, that are so pervasively used in the U.S. Avoid using these pesticides by following organic and least-toxic management strategies for your lawn and gardens, such as composting, rain gardens, habitat protection, and natural predators. For more ideas, look at our Lawns and Landscape Page, Invasive Weed Management Page, or contact us at [email protected].

TAKE ACTION! (LOCAL): If you’re in the area, attend the informational meeting held on November 3, 2009 from 9am to 12pm at the EPA Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bld.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

TAKE ACTIOION! (NATIONAL): Tell the EPA to revise the current risk assessment of atrazine and to impose greater restrictions. Comments can be submitted to the EPA in writing by October 23 2009, or orally by October 27 2009. Submit your comments identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0759 to either: online at Federal eRulemaking Portal; by mail to Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-011; or delivered to OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bld.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is 703-305-5805.

Starting October 1, 2009, the public will be able to review and comment on the risk assessments and proposed registration decisions for certain pesticide registration actions. Upon receiving a complete application for registration for a new pesticide active ingredient or a new use of an already registered active ingredient, EPA will publish a Federal Register Notice of Receipt, establish a case docket in regulations.gov, and open an initial 30-day public comment. Following the comment period, EPA will publish its decision and a response-to-comment document. Once the agency’s risk assessments and proposed decision for the registration application are added to the docket, EPA will open another 30-day public comment period. After the final comment period closes, EPA will publish its decision and response-to-comment document. By focusing public access on new pesticide ingredients and first food, outdoor, and residential uses, the public will have the opportunity to comment on all major new exposure patterns for pesticide registration.

“This new process will give the public greater opportunity to participate and understand decisions about new pesticides,” said Steve Owens, EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “The Obama Administration’s emphasis on providing unparalleled transparency at EPA will increase credibility and strengthen the reputation of our pesticide registration program while improving the public dialogue surrounding controversial pesticide registration decisions.”

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that before selling or distributing a pesticide in the United States, a person or company must obtain registration, or license, from EPA. Before registering a new pesticide or new use for a registered pesticide, EPA must first ensure that the pesticide, when used according to label directions, can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and without posing unreasonable risks to the environment. However, EPA’s assessment process is plagued with many deficiencies that allow a certain amount of harm and a high degree of uncertainty. Many pesticides that go through this process are in fact harmful to human health and the environment.

This new level of public participation in the registration process will allow the public, for the first time, to access and comment on pesticide registration applications and assessments before a chemical or product is placed on the market. Stakeholders will now also get information sooner on reduced-risk pesticides being registered that can replace some of the older and often more toxic pesticides. EPA hopes that the user community and the public will benefit from a broader understanding of the risk assessment and risk management processes associated with pesticide registration.

Simultaneously, EPA announced that it was also moving forward with a plan to disclose the identities of all so-called “inert’ ingredients in pesticides, including those that are potentially hazardous. Beyond Pesticides believes this increased transparency will assist consumers and users of pesticides in making informed decisions and will better protect public health and the environment.

For more on EPA’s public participation process and pesticide regulation, visit EPA’s Regulation Pesticides. Also read Beyond Pesticide’s “What is a Pesticide?”

According to the Harvard Yard Soils Restoration Project Summary Report, the pilot project was modeled after New York City’s Battery Park City Parks’ 37-acre organic landscape program that began back in 1989. The goal of the project was simply to improve soil health, develop knowledge base on how to run such programs as well as educate the campus community about the many benefits or organic lawn care.

For eight months, the one-acre test plot was extensively compared to a control plot of conventional management techniques. That one-acre underwent a process that included eliminating all toxic pesticides, testing for soil nutrients and organic material content, and adding compost teas to balance soil nutrients and reduce irrigation and nitrogen applications. The compost tea, a liquid biological amendment from the brewing vat located nearby, is made up of liquid humic acid and North Atlantic kelp as well as granular humate. In the tea are living organisms that will control pests and nourish the soil. In the spring, the turf area is core aerated, over-seeded and ½ inch layer of compost is added. A slow-release organic fertilizer is also added in late spring.

Root measurements, taken bi-weekly, were compared to the control plot. The results show that the organic plot lead to greater vitality of the turf and trees and greater soil nutrients and soil microorganism, improved root growth to five inches, and a reduced need for irrigation.

The success of the one-acre plot showing that halting synthetic toxic pesticide and fertilizer use and using only natural, organic approaches to reinvigorate soil health drew the attention of Harvard’s president, Drew Gilpin Faust, Ph.D. The one-acre blossomed to 16 acres last year and this past spring about 10 more acres were added. The pilot project and its expansion over the past months has demonstrated that the campus grounds grown organically are self sustaining, lush, and beautiful, despite heavy foot traffic. Now Harvard is calling for a phase-in of the entire campus over the next few years. Part of the campus-wide project success is in Harvard’s own composting facility, which is currently being expanded.

The September 24, 2009 New York Times article, “The Grass Is Greener at Harvard,” states that managing the grounds with an organic management approach saves the school two million gallons of water a year as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent. It cost Harvard $35,000 a year to get rid of “landscape waste” from its campus grounds. Now that cost is gone, now the school keeps all grass clippings, leaves and branches it can for composting and making compost teas, which in turn saves the university an additional $10,000 from having to purchase fertilizers elsewhere.

As a kind of “soil lab,” the brainchild of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design (GSD) Professor of Landscape Architecture Michael Van Valkenburgh, these pristine plots are managed by GSD Loeb Fellow Eric T. Fleisher and carefully tended by Wayne Carbone, Manager of Harvard’s Landscape Services, and his crew.

“Unlike conventional soil improvement, we are taking a very different approach,” explains Mr. Fleisher. “Instead of applying a topical, chemical fertilizer, our biological approach is to create a chemical change by infusing the soil with biological organisms from the bottom up.”

It all started with a conversation Mr. Van Valkenburgh had with Harvard University President Drew Faust as they walked through the Yard. Asked what one thing he would do to protect the Yard, Mr. Van Valkenburgh recommended soil remediation, pointing to the loss of trees in the Yard due to soil degradation and compaction. Two rows of tulip trees that once graced the area outside Massachusetts Hall died some years ago, and others have also taken the count only 12 years after they were planted due to soil degradation around the root systems. With that, a pilot study was launched.

“Michael has been working for many years on correcting the plant palette and planting conditions at Harvard Yard,” said Mr. Fleisher. “I have been working on building a program at Battery Park City for the past 19 years focusing on managing public space through completely organic means, my main focus being on soil. One of my goals as a Loeb Fellow was to prove the transferability of my program at Battery Park City to another organization.”

Unlike creating a new lawn from scratch, the challenge of remediating established soil is that it cannot be aggressively removed. Instead, the lawn is fed periodically with an “organic tea” that promotes beneficial microbial activity in the soil and promotes growth.

“The lawn takes longer to green up,” said Mr. Fleisher, “but it’s more enduring and resilient with our properly executed organic approach.”

He is often quoted as saying, “It’s not product-based. It’s knowledge-based.” In a Harvard Gazatte article he talks about the fact that “adding chemicals denies the biological, chemical, and structural complexity of soils”¦ and that healthy plants begin with healthy soils.”

You don’t have to go to Harvard to start an organic lawn program at home or in your community. Harvard has developed materials on starting your own organic landscaping program and a calendar of when to do what to your lawn.

The New York Times article also does a good job of explaining the how’s and why’s to managing lawns and landscapes organically.

While atrazine typically does not kill amphibians and freshwater fish, the USF report says it did:
Ӣ Reduce the size of amphibians at or near metamorphosis in 19 of 19 studies.
Ӣ Make amphibians and fish more active in 12 of 14 studies but reduced behaviors used to evade predators in six of seven studies.
”¢ Alter at least one aspect of male frogs’ reproductive development in eight of 10 studies.
”¢ Reduce the functioning of animals’ immune systems and often put them at risk of infection.

Atrazine, a common herbicide used in agriculture and on lawns, is already linked to sexual abnormalities in fish. The condition of intersex fish, male fish producing eggs, was most commonly found in smallmouth and largemouth bass. One third of male smallmouth bass and one fifth of the male largemouth bass were intersex. This phenomenon has been linked to atrazine and other chemicals.

Atrazine has been linked to sexual abnormalities in frogs as well as fish. A 2002 study found that when dosed with >.1 part per billion (ppb) of atrazine in water, male Leopard Frogs developed dramatic female sexual characteristics, including retarded gonadal development (gonadal dysgenesis) and testicular oogenesis (hermaphroditism). Joseph Kiesecker of Pennsylvania State University found that exposure to atrazine and other pesticides severely weaken the immune system, making frogs much more susceptible to parasitic infection and deformities.

Richard Levey, a biologist with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, said two common farm chemicals, atrazine and metolachlor, had been found in trace amounts in water from wetlands where deformed frogs had been found. He told the AP that the concentrations were far below those thought to have any effect on aquatic life.

Research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, has found pesticides, including atrazine, to cause serious deformities at levels well below EPA drinking water standards. Dr. Hayes has shown that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion – a level permitted in drinking water by EPA – turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics. Dr. Hayes’ team found that up to 20 percent of frogs exposed during their early development produced multiple sex organs or had both male and female organs. Many also had small, feminized larynxes.

Recent reports find EPA’s regulations of atrazine in water to be insufficient. The analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Poisoning the Well, discovered that in the 139 municipal water systems from which EPA collected data on a biweekly basis in 2003 and 2004, atrazine is found 90% of the time. 54 of these water systems have at least one spike above 3 parts per billion (the supposed acceptable level for human consumption).

Furthermore, studies from 2007, done by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. With the growing proof of the negative effects of atrazine, levels of exposure need to be properly monitored and accounted for. Ideally, public health advocates have argued that exposure to atrazine should be eliminated entirely through its cancellation.

This comprehensive review demonstrates the urgent need for EPA to cancel atrazine uses. Atrazine was banned in Europe in 2004, and with good reason. Atrazine is an endocrine disruptor, and can lead to neuropathy and cancer. Atrazine stays in the environment for long periods of time; it can stay in soil for longer than one year under dry or cold conditions. There is no need to continue with the use of atrazine, especially with so many alternatives for pest management. For examples, see our Lawns and Landscapes page and our Organic Food page.

For further information on this issue, please see our Threatened Waters page.

On September 30, 2009, EPA responded to two petitions, one by led by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and joined by Beyond Pesticides and 20 other organizations, and a second by certain State Attorneys General, that identified over 350 inert pesticide ingredients as hazardous. The petitioners asked EPA to require these inert ingredients be identified on the labels of products that include them in their formulations.

In its response to petitioners, the agency said, “EPA agrees with the petitioners that the public should have a means to learn the identities of hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide product formulations. The agency believes that increased transparency could lead to better informed decision making and better informed pesticide use.” It continues, “EPA will also be discussing ideas to increase disclosure of all inert ingredients identities to an even greater degree than requested by the petitions.”

The agency anticipates publishing its proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register within the next few months. In it, EPA will discuss ideas for greater disclosure of inert ingredient identities, including inerts associated with various hazards, as well as inerts in general. EPA believes one way of discouraging the use of the more hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide formulations is by making their identities public. In addition to pursuing regulatory action for inert disclosure, EPA is considering encouraging voluntary initiatives to achieve this broader disclosure.

Currently, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pesticide manufacturers are only required to list the active ingredients in a pesticide, leaving consumers and applicators unaware of the possible toxics present in the inert ingredients of pesticide products they are using, unless the EPA administrator determines that the chemical poses a public health threat. Pesticide manufacturers argue they cannot release information on inert ingredients because they are trade secrets, and if released, their products could be duplicated. Quite often inert ingredients constitute over 95% of the pesticide product. Inert ingredients are mixed into pesticides products as a carrier or sticking agent, and are often as toxic as the active ingredient.

Despite their name, these ingredients are neither chemically, biologically or toxicologically inert. In general, inert ingredients are minimally tested, however, many are known to state, federal and international agencies to be hazardous to human health. For example, the U.S. government lists creosols as a “Hazardous Waste” under Superfund regulations, yet allows these chemicals to be listed as inert ingredients in pesticide products. Creosols are known to produce skin and eye irritations, burns, inflammation, blindness, pneumonia, pancreatitis, central nervous system depression and kidney failure. The pesticide naphthalene is an inert ingredient in some products and listed as an active ingredient in others.

A 2009 study finds that an inert ingredient in the popular herbicide RoundUp, polyethoxylated tallowamine or POEA, is more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself — a finding the researchers call “astonishing.” POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to help them penetrate plants’ surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.

According a 2000 report produced by the New York State Attorney General, The Secret Ingredients in Pesticides: Reducing the Risk, 72 percent of pesticide products available to consumers contain over 95 percent inert ingredients; fewer than 10 percent of pesticide products list any inert ingredients on their labels; more than 200 chemicals used as inert ingredients are hazardous pollutants in federal environmental statutes governing air and water quality; and, of a 1995 list of inert ingredients, 394 chemicals were listed as active ingredients in other pesticide products.

While touted as a green energy source, most corn ethanol is made with genetically modified corn that is routinely sprayed with pesticides and chemical fertilizers. To makes matters worse, it’s usually planted year after year, rather than using crop rotation, a basic strategy to reduce pest pressure and soil erosion. Corn ethanol is also inefficient, producing only 1.34 joules of energy for each joule used in production (compared to 8 joules for sugarcane). Furthermore, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (House Climate Bill) sidetracks a proposed EPA regulation that requires U.S. ethanol makers responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from conversion of forests and grasslands overseas to cropland. Big Agribusiness is lobbying for a similar provision in the Senate version, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Results of the new study, “Water Quality Impacts of Corn Production to Meet Biofuel Demands,” by Indrajeet Chaubey, PhD, an associate professor of agricultural and biological engineering, and Bernard Engel, PhD, a professor and head of agricultural and biological engineering, were published in the online version of The Journal of Environmental Engineering. U.S. Department of Agriculture data has shown that corn acreage has increased with the demand for ethanol, with 93 million acres in 2007, an increase of 12.1 million acres that year.

“When you move from corn-soybean rotations to continuous corn, the sediment losses will be much greater,” Dr. Chaubey said. “Increased sediment losses allow more fungicide and phosphorous to get into the water because they move with sediment.”

Nitrogen and fungicides are more heavily used in corn crops than soybeans, increasing the amounts found in the soil of continuous-corn fields. Sediment losses become more prevalent because tilling is often required in continuous-corn fields, whereas corn-soybean rotations can more easily be no-till fields, Dr. Engel said.

“The common practice is there is a lot of tillage to put corn back on top of corn,” Dr. Engel said. “Any time we see changes in the landscape, there is a potential to see changes in water quality.”

Beyond Pesticides points out that pesticide runoff and soil loss can be best eliminated using an organic no-till system. Organic no-till farming is also an effective tool in combating climate change. Read more about the climate benefits of organic no-till farming.

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.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat.

According to USDA, in 2009, 85% of corn planted in the U.S. was genetically modified. Cornell University researchers estimate that meeting the lifetime fuel requirements of just one year’s worth of U.S. population growth with straight ethanol (assuming each baby lived 70 years), would cost 52,000 tons of insecticides, 735,000 tons of herbicides, 93 million tons of fertilizer, and the loss of 2 inches of soil from the 12.3 billion acres on which the corn was grown. Growing food for fuel will almost certainly raise global food prices as well.

The petition, submitted last Wednesday, cites that the distribution of contaminated compost will spread toxic sludge to homeowners’ backyards, increasing the risk of health problems to children and the community. The SFPUC’s compost giveaway program distributes free compost as part of the commission’s recycling efforts to community gardens, school gardens and local residents. The compost is made of sewage sludge, derived as a by-product of wastewater and sewage treatment, and contains heavy metals, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, PCB’s, flame retardants and endocrine disruptors, such as the antibacterial triclosan.

“San Franciscans may think they’re getting a gift from the city, but this is no gift. City residents could be at serious risk of poisoning from the application of sewage sludge to local crops and gardens,” said Paige Tomaselli, staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety. “With this petition, we’re strongly urging the Mayor to put an immediate end to the toxic giveaways, which carry the risk of dangerous and far-reaching impacts on the health of our most vulnerable citizens.”

Studies show that sewage sludge can pose severe threats to human health, especially for children who are more developmentally vulnerable to toxic chemicals than adults. The SFPUC claims that sewage sludge treated with heat, anaerobic digestion, and then composted is “non-hazardous and nontoxic” and can be “safely used for growing edible vegetables and fruits.” However, no toxic analysis has actually been conducted by SFPUC.

A recent Sewage Sludge Survey from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified high concentrations of toxic contaminants like heavy metals, steroids and pharmaceuticals, including the antibacterials, triclocarban and triclosan, in sewage sludge from across the country. EPA finds that nearly all sewage sludge samples collected contain 27 metals, 10 different flame retardants, 12 pharmaceuticals, and high levels of known endocrine disruptors. This data confirms a host of independent scientific research which finds that widely used chemicals are finding their way into the environment, contaminating surface and drinking waters, as well as potentially impacting human and environmental health. This EPA report also correlates with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies that have found that the antimicrobial chemical triclosan is among the most detected in U.S. surface waters.

Serious health problems have been directly linked to the land application of sewage sludge. Toxiic chemicals found in sewage sludge become food safety hazards when the compost is used on gardens, farms, or rangelands. Organic pollutants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, DDT degradation products, chlordane, synthetic musk products and tributytin, all known to have serious health impacts, have been found to be present in U.S. sludge. Compost made from lawn clippings, straw, leaves and other vegetation treated with herbicides have been responsible for many incidences of contamination of organic and greenhouse crops. School gardens using contaminated compost where children will be involved in planting, growing and eating food grown with the compost are of the most concern since children are very vulnerable to chemical exposures due to their still developing young bodies.

Composting is still a great way to improve the health of soil by adding much-needed organic content to soil. However, it is best to utilize organic compost, free of synthetic chemicals and avoid compost consisting of sewage sludge and other synthetic chemicals. Luckily, compost is relatively easy to make at home. For more information on organic compost, read our factsheet, “Compost Is the Key to Successful Plant Management”

The study, led by Rudolph Rull, Ph.D., shows an elevated risk of ALL associated with moderate exposure, but not high exposure, to pesticides classified as organophosphates (odds ratio (OR) 1.6), chlorophenoxy herbicides (OR 2.0), and triazines (OR 1.9), and with agricultural pesticides used as insecticides (OR 1.5) or fumigants (OR 1.7).

California is one of the few states in the country that requires active reporting of pesticide applications, including time, place, and the type and amount of pesticide used. For this study, researchers were able to link children’s entire residential histories from birth to the time of case diagnosis to this pesticide-use reporting database and identify agricultural pesticides that were applied within one-half mile of each residence.

The innovative use of residential histories allowed the researchers to look at different time periods of exposure, such as the child’s lifetime or first year of life, while accounting for changing addresses during childhood. The University of California, Berkeley, collected the residential histories from 213 children diagnosed with ALL and 268 children without leukemia enrolled in the Northern California Childhood Leukemia Study. The scientists selected over 100 of the most commonly used pesticide active ingredients to examine from over 600 used on crops between 1990 and 2002, the time period of the study. The children’s lifetime exposure to these ingredients is ranked into three levels: low, moderate, and high.

The researchers identified over 600 different pesticide active ingredients applied near residences during the study period. A total of 118 of those were selected for the study due to their frequent use and if the chemical is listed as one of the following:
”¢ Probable or possible carcinogen identified on US EPA’s List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), or the US National Toxicology Program (NTP);
Ӣ Developmental or reproductive toxicant as defined by the State of California Proposition 65 Chemicals Known to Cause Developmental or Reproductive Harm;
Ӣ Neurologic cholinesterase inhibitors as designated by California Department of Pesticide Regulation;
Ӣ Suspected genotoxins on the basis of at least two positive results in genetic toxicity assays; or,
Ӣ Suspected endocrine disruptors listed by Dr. Colborn, Illinois EPA or the Keith List (1997).

Organophosphates are a family of insecticides that are derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning that they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Examples of the 22 organophosphate pesticides the study identified include chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and trichlorfon.

The four chlorophenoxy herbicides linked to ALL in the study include 2,4-D, diclofop-methyl, MCPA and MCPP. These herbicides are also commonly used in lawn pesticides.

The five triazine pesticides in the study include the commonly used agricultural pesticide atrazine, as well as simazine, cyanazine, prometryn, and pyrmetrozine.

“These initial findings suggest that there may be a specific agent or set of agents that can increase the risk of this disease among children,” said Dr. Rull.

A recent study, published in the August 2009 issue of the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, “Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Exposure to Pesticides,” by researchers at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University, also found an association between organophosphate pesticide exposure and development of childhood ALL, a cancer that develops most commonly between three and seven years of age.

In addition, according to Beyond Pesticides’ research on childhood ALL link to pesticide exposure, several previous studies show an increased risk. A partial list of such studies follows.
Ӣ Looking at residential proximity to agricultural pesticides, a population-based case-control study of early childhood cancer, ages 0-4 years, in California finds an elevated risk for leukemia associated with probable and possible carcinogen use and with nearby agricultural applications of organochlorines and organophosphates during pregnancy (metam sodium OR 2.05 and dicofol OR 1.83).
Ӣ A study of household pesticide exposure and childhood acute leukemia finds an increased risk for maternal home insecticide use during pregnancy (OR 1.8) and during childhood (OR 1.7), and with garden insecticide use (OR 2.4) and fungicide use (OR 2.25) during childhood. Pyrethroid and lindane lice shampoo treatment is also associated with childhood acute leukemia (OR 1.9). The majority of the childhood cancers were acute lymphocytic leukemia.
”¢ A California study shows children’s exposure to insecticide use is associated with a five-fold increase in childhood ALL (OR 5.0).
Ӣ A population-based case-control study of childhood ALL finds an increased risk for homeowner use of indoor insecticides and garden and interior plant pesticides, in particular with use during pregnancy and among carriers of the CYP1A1m1 and CYP1a1m2 gene mutations.
”¢ Children with Down’s syndrome have about a 20-fold increased risk for developing leukemia. A case-control study of acute leukemia in children with Down’s syndrome finds a positive association for acute lymphoblastic leukemia and maternal exposure to professional pest exterminations (OR 2.25) and to any pesticide (OR 2.18).
Ӣ A hospital-based case-control study in Italy finds a positive association with paternal work as a farmer and childhood ALL.
Ӣ A population based case-control study in China of childhood leukemia cases finds an association between ALL and maternal occupational exposure to pesticides (OR 3.5).

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. 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.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before deregulating sugar beets that have been genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to glyphosate herbicide, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup. Plaintiffs CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds, represented by Earthjustice and CFS, filed suit against APHIS in January 2008, charging that it failed to adequately assess the environmental, health, and associated economic impacts of allowing “Roundup Ready” sugar beets to be commercially grown without restriction.

“This court decision is a wakeup call for the Obama USDA that they will not be allowed to ignore the biological pollution and economic impacts of gene altered crops,” stated Andrew Kimbrell Executive Director of CFS. “The Courts have made it clear that USDA’s job is to protect America’s farmers and consumers, not the interests of Monsanto.”

While industry asserts that the adoption rates of GE sugar beets has been high, food producers have shown reluctance in accepting GE beet sugar. Over 100 companies have joined the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry opposing the introduction of GE sugar beets, and pledging to seek wherever possible to avoid using GM beet sugar in their products.

Sugar beet seed is grown primarily in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, which is also an important seed growing area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. GE sugar beets are wind pollinated and will inevitably cross-pollinate the related crops being grown in the same area. Such biological contamination would be devastating to organic farmers, who face debilitating market losses if their crops are contaminated by a GE variety. Contamination also reduces the ability of conventional farmers to decide what to grow, and limits consumer choice of the foods they can eat. In his September 21, 2009 order requiring APHIS to prepare an EIS, Judge Jeffrey S. White emphasized that, “The potential elimination of a farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food, is an action that potentially eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant has a significant effect on the human environment.”

The court concluded that there was “no support in the record” for APHIS’ conclusion that conventional sugar beets would remain available for farmers and consumers and held that the agency’s decision that there would be no impacts from the GE beets “unreasonable.”

The court also held that APHIS failed to analyze the impacts of biological contamination on the related crops of red table beets and Swiss chard. “Organic seed is the foundation of organic farming and organic food integrity, said Mathew Dillion, Director of Advocacy of the Organic Seed Alliance. “We must continue to protect this natural resource, along with the rights of organic farmers to be protected from negative economic impact from GE crops, and consumers rights’ to choose to eat food free of GE components.”

“The ruling is a major consumer victory for preserving the right to grow and eat organic foods in the United States,” stated Neil Carman of the Sierra Club. “Environmental impacts of Roundup Ready sugar beets were also not considered by APHIS, and they need to be fully evaluated.”

According to an independent analysis of USDA data by former Board of Agriculture Director of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Charles Benbrook, GE crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 122 million pounds – a 15-fold increase – between 1994 (when GE herbicide-tolerant crops were introduced) to 2004. A 2008 scientific study revealed that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. Other recent studies suggest Roundup is an endocrine disrupter, and that some amphibians and other organisms may be at risk from glyphosate. Beyond Pesticides and over thirty public health and environmental groups and individuals submitted comments to EPA showing new and emerging science which supports that glyphosate should not be considered eligible for continued registration.

In addition, Judge Jeffrey S. White, in his ruling, has scheduled a meeting in his courtroom on October 30, 2009 to discuss the remedies phase of the case, including potential injunctive relief.

Meanwhile, there is increasing speculation that the Department of Justice’s antitrust division may be scrutinizing Monsanto’s control of the markets for GE crops, and for commodities such as corn, soy and cotton.