David Hackenberg, the beekeeper who first discovered a mysterious disappearance of honeybees now known as colony collapse disorder (CCD), is the most recent addition to the program. Mr. Hackenberg believes that pesticides contribute to CCD and that honeybees are a barometer of the environment. Featured in several films and news investigations, he has been front and center in this important fight to protect our pollinators. Read about Mr. Hackenberg and the other Forum speakers in the highlights below.

The Forum will begin Friday afternoon with a tour of the Cleveland Botanical Garden. Founded in 1930, Cleveland Botanical Garden, which is now made up of 20 specialty gardens and exotic indoor biomes, has evolved into a community treasure. The Garden’s community involvement extends beyond its 10 acres into city neighborhoods through its Green Corps program, which has enlightened area youth with the opportunities of urban farming. Although the tour is included in the cost of registration, space is limited. Please RSVP to Beyond Pesticides if you plan to attend the tour.

Registration is $65 for members, $75 for non-members and $35 for students, and includes all speakers, sessions and organic food and drink. A limited number of scholarships are available. Register by March 9 to avoid late registration fee.

Forum highlights:

Organic Gardening and Farming
— Rodale Institute’s organic farm and garden expert Jeff Moyer. Mr. Moyer and Rodale have helped countless farmers make the transition to organic methods, and have also shown that organic methods combat climate change.
— Local farmers market and community garden organizers.

Thinking Beyond Your Plate
— Registered dietitian, investigative nutritionist and award-winning “Food Sleuth” journalist Melinda Hemmelgarn.

Cutting Edge Health Science
— Top university researchers in endocrine disruption, genetics, cancer, learning disabilities, birth defects and much more. Presenters include: Paul Winchester, PhD; Shuk-mei Ho, PhD; Michael Skinner, PhD; and Warren Porter, PhD.

Lawn Pesticide Bans and Organic Landscapes
— Jan Kasperski of the Ontario College of Family Physicians and Theresa McClenaghan of the Canadian Environmental Law Association who played a key roles in successfully banning lawn pesticides in Canada.
— National experts in organic, pesticide-free lawn care.

Protecting Pollinators
— David Hackenberg, the beekeeper who first discovered a mysterious disappearance of honeybees now known as colony collapse disorder. Mr. Hackenberg, who is featured in the films Vanishing of the Bees and Nicotine Bees, has served as president of the American Beekeeping Federation and sits on the National Honey Board.

The Forum is convened by Beyond Pesticides, CWRU School of Medicine’s Swetland Center for Environmental Health and Beyond Pesticides Ohio; and co-sponsored by Bioneers Cleveland, Cleveland Botanical Garden, Cleveland Food Co-Op, Earth Day Coalition, EcoWatch, Environmental Health Watch, GreenCityBlueLake Institute, Nature Center at Shaker Lakes, Neighborhood Progress, North Union Farmers Market, Northeast OH Sierra Club, Northern OH Wellness Connection, and OH Environmental Council.

Take a close look at the fine print on a can of Raid, a bottle of Cutters, a jug of RoundUp, or virtually any pesticide on the market today, and you’ll see these words: “Inert ingredients.” Inert ingredients are the pesticide industry’s best-kept secret.

The Bad News
There are thousands of chemicals used as inerts in pesticides, and over the years we’ve discovered what some of them are. The truth is that many inert ingredients are neither chemically nor toxicologically inert. Some cause cancer, some cause genetic damage, some cause reproductive harm, and others cause a wide variety of other health problems.

For decades, EPA has routinely accepted the pesticide industry’s line that these ingredients are “confidential business information.” That’s a red herring. Pesticide companies can easily test their competitors’ products to find out what’s inside them. The reason that pesticide companies use the inert ingredient loophole is that they want to keep doctors, independent researchers, and you in the dark.

The Good News
The new, improved EPA recently announced that it is considering requiring pesticide companies to disclose inert ingredients. After years of advocacy by CEH and other organizations, the agency has decided that “revealing inert ingredients will help consumers make informed decisions and will better protect public health and the environment.”

This is the opportunity that health advocates have been awaiting for over 20 years.

The next step: until February 22, EPA is accepting public comments on the proposal, and you can play a vital role in this process.

Almost certainly, the pesticide industry will shout (and whine) from the rooftops that disclosing secret ingredients will hurt their business, stop innovation in the pesticide industry, make pesticides less effective, raise the price of lettuce to twenty bucks a head, and turn your house into a cockroach haven.

What You Can Do
To do the right thing, EPA needs your support. It’s crucial that the agency hear from you now to counter the self-serving and misleading pressure they’re getting from the pesticide industry. Please click here to read the letter organized by the Center for Environmental Health to EPA and add your name to it. We need to gather thousands of signatures, so please share this with all of your friends and family who care about health and the environment.

With your help, we can close the pesticide industry’s inert ingredient loophole. It’s an opportunity we can’t afford to miss!

Beyond Pesticides has advocated for the disclosure of pesticide products’ inert ingredients for decades. For more information about pesticide ingredients, see Beyond Pesticides “What Is a Pesticide?” webpage. For background on EPA’s latest proposal, read Beyond Pesticides Daily News post, “Public Comment Needed for Inert Ingredient Disclosure Guidelines” (December 23, 2009) and “EPA Seeks to Disclose Hazardous Pesticide Inert Ingredients” (October 2, 2009).

Last week, Beyond Pesticides reported that in the ongoing battle to stop the use of GE alfalfa seeds, Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The seed is modified to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. In 2006 the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other farming and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit on behalf of Geerston Seed Farms. The suit led to a U.S. District Court ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by approving the sale of GE alfalfa without requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS). Monstanto was forced to stop selling the seed until a comprehensive EIS is prepared. This was the first ever moratorium in the U.S. on a genetically engineered, or modified, crop.

The draft EIS was then published in December 2009. Brushing aside the concerns of organic alfalfa growers, consumers, and environmentalists, USDA argues for non-regulated status of GE alfalfa. According to this document, the economic gains of ending the ban far outweigh any possible losses, going so far as to say USDA could find no opposition to GE products among organic consumers. According to the EIS, the USDA:

Ӣ Claims consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the GE material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product;
”¢ Claims it supports “coexistence” of all types of agriculture; yet, USDA refuses to even consider any future for alfalfa that would include protections from contamination for organic and conventional farmers and exporters;
”¢ Claims Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent GE contamination, and there is no evidence to the contrary. USDA is ignoring evidence from widespread GE contamination of canola, soy, and corn;
”¢ Admits, correctly, that introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa will increase Roundup use. However, USDA’s claims that the increase is not significant and that Roundup will replace other, more toxic herbicides are inaccurate; and,
Ӣ Concludes that GE alfalfa will cause production to shift to larger farms (that can afford built-in isolation distances) and conventional growers who are not threatened by GE contamination, but that these economic shifts are not significant.

Beyond Pesticides, along with Food and Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, and National Organic Coalition, are urging the public to submit written comments telling the USDA:

”¢ You won’t buy GE contaminated alfalfa and alfalfa-derived meat & dairy products;
Ӣ To protect all farmers, organic included, who wish to choose to grow non-GE crops;
”¢ That protecting organic farmers is its job and that relying solely on Monsanto’s business as usual “best practices” ensures widespread GE contamination;
Ӣ That GE alfalfa would significantly increase pesticide use and increase harm to human health and the environment; and,
Ӣ That harm to small and organic farmers from GE contamination would be significant.

How to comment: Comments are due March 3, 2010. Comments can be written and submitted online at http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS, or at regulations.gov. For mailed comments, send two copies to: Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044.

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

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because of the dangers they pose to human health and the environment. The widescale adoption of genetically modified crops has lead to a marked increase in the use of pesticides, and emerging research has linked genetically modified crops to organ damage. All the while, these crops have failed in their promise to deliver a marked increase in yield.

Previous Daily News Coverage
GE Alfalfa Case To Be Heard Before The U.S. Supreme Court, 1/25/10
Comments Needed: USDA To Allow Deregulation of GE Alfalfa Again, 12/17/09
Federal Court Upholds Ban on Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, 9/4/08
Federal Judge Orders Injunction, Complete Review of Alfalfa, 5/9/07
Following the GE Crop Debate, 5/1/07
Federal Judge Orders Historic First Moratorium on GE Seeds, 3/14/07
Federal Judge Rules USDA Violated Law Regarding GE Seeds, 2/15/07

India has already approved the commercial cultivation of GE cotton, but this would be the first genetically engineered food crop. Produced by Monsanto, the Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal is engineered to kill insects. Bt is a soil bacteria that produces compounds toxic to certain larval insects. In Bt crops, part of the bacteria’s genome has been incorporated into the plant’s genome, causing the plant to produce these same compounds. An estimated 80% of India’s cotton crop is currently grown from Bt seeds.

Concerns about the approval of Bt brinjal has lead to heated protests. While India’s central government is holding a series of public meetings this month to discuss the issue, the first of these meetings ended in a shouting match between protestors and Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. The Chief Ministers of several states have also written to Mr. Ramesh urging him not to rush approval of the crop, and the states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, three major brinjal producers, have already banned the crop.

Farming groups oppose the use of Bt brinjal over concerns that the crop is less tolerant than other varieties to severe climate conditions, and its cultivation could cause a loss in soil fertility. The crop may also have a lower caloric content than conventional varieties; a major concern in a nation where, according to the Global Hunger Index, 300 million people go hungry. In addition, much of the vegetables grown in India are on small farms, where measures to prevent the spread to the Bt brinjal pollen would be too expensive.

Medical groups have also voiced concern. A network of groups called Doctors for Food and Biosafety said in a statement that, “obsolete technology used in Bt Brinjal incorporating antibiotic resistant markers is likely to have disastrous implications for developing countries like India, which are struggling with communicable diseases burden.” They worry that the widespread use of a Bt food crop will endanger national programs for the control of tuberculosis, diarrhoeal and sexually transmitted diseases.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of genetic engineering in agriculture because of the dangers it poses to human health and the environment. The widescale adoption of GE crops has lead to a marked increase in the use of pesticides, and emerging research has linked genetically modified crops to organ damage. All the while, these crops have failed in their promise to deliver a marked increase in yield.

For more information on genetic engineering, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

Source: India GM Info.org

One of the scientists in attendance at the recent conference who offered some of the most dire outlooks on the use of glyphosate, according to The Delta Farm Press, was Stephen Powles, a professor of plant biology at the University of Western Australia, and director of the WA Herbicide Resistance Initiative (WAHRI). In some circles, he is known as an authority on herbicide resistance, and says that glyphosate “will be driven to redundancy in the cotton, corn and soybean belt.” Mr. Powles often refers to this area reaching northward into the Corn Belt down through Alabama and Mississippi as the “Glyphosate Belt.”

A report that Beyond Pesticides published twelve years ago, “The Environmental Risks of Transgenic Crops: An Agroecological Assessment is the failed pesticide paradigm being genetically engineered?” argued that as the industry pressures to increase herbicide sales, it will increase the acreage treated with these broad-spectrum herbicides, thus exacerbating the resistance problem.

While it was projected then that the acreage treated with glyphosate will increase to nearly 150 million acres, reports from a year ago show that there were at least 280 million acres of cropland in 23 countries. As long as transgenic crops follow closely the pesticide paradigm, such biotechnological products will do nothing but reinforce the pesticide treadmill in agroecosystems, legitimizing the concerns that many scientists have expressed regarding the possible environmental risks of genetically engineered organisms.

The current massive reliance on glyphosate, which has been promoted by the rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybeans and cotton, is a key factor in this epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds. A report released in November of 2009, for instance, found that since the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops, they have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. (1996-2008).

In Southern states, horseweed, ryegrass and pigweed are a concern for soybean farmers, while horseweed and volunteer Roundup Ready soybeans have become problem weeds for Mississippi rice. In Australia, weed scientists have now documented cases of glyphosate resistance in rigid ryegrass across large areas and are encountering it in other weed species in different parts of the world.

“In the U.S., when you have 70% Roundup Ready corn, 95% Roundup Ready soybeans and 95% Roundup Ready cotton in this area, this (weed resistance) is what happens,” Mr. Powles says.

Glyphosate is a known carcinogen, neurotoxin, irritant, and has been found to kill human embryonic cells, and can cause kidney and liver damage. Glyphosate is also harmful to the environment, particularly aquatic life and water quality and has been linked to intersex frogs, and is lethal to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment.

Despite these unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, Mr. Powles is still a staunch supporter of the use of glyphosate, and believes the resistance of glyphosate to weeds would be “lamentable.” However, farmers all over the world who employ the use of organic methods paint a different picture; that the use of the herbicide glyphosate is not necessary.

A growing number of researchers, development experts, farming groups and environmentalists are calling for new emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices that make a sharp break from current policies. Rodale Institute released a research paper last year, for instance, that shows that organic agriculture offers affordable, usable and universally accessible ways to improve yields and worldwide food security.

A study from the University of Berkeley, “Can Organic Farming Feed the World,” shows that organic farming systems have proven that they can prevent crop loss to pests without the use of any synthetic pesticides. In fact, they are able to maintain high yields that are comparable to conventional agriculture while continually increasing soil fertility and prevent loss of topsoil to erosion, while conventional methods have the opposite effect.

Another study that was produced by the University of Michigan predicts that organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land, which refutes the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

For a better understanding of how to survive without the use of toxic herbicidal chemicals like glyphosate, read Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheets on understanding how to control weeds and understanding how to build healthy soil. For more information on organic food, you can also check out Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Program page for details on health and environmental benefits, resources, publications, and even details on how to start growing your own food.

H&M, a major European clothing store chain with scores of stores in the U.S., were named in a report last week in the German edition of the Financial Times, which claims there was major ”˜fraud’ taking place in the organic cotton sector. The Financial Times said that an independent testing laboratory found that organic cotton samples certified as “organic” were contaminated with genetically modified (GM) cotton material. According to the lab results, “30% of the tested samples” of organic cotton fabric contained GM cotton. Growing cotton from GM seeds is prohibited according to organic standards and the third-party certification bodies.

This fallout comes at a time when scrutiny of the use of “organic” labels on various consumer goods has elevated. Last week, Organic Consumers Association (OCA), along with certified organic personal care brands, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP), seeking action to stop some personal care manufacturers from, according to the petitioners, mislabeling their products as “organic.” The petition calls for an investigation into what it believes is widespread and blatantly deceptive labeling practices of leading “organic” consumer brands.

Almost half of the world’s organic cotton comes from India, with an output of nearly 107,000 tons of fiber in 2009 alone. According to Sanjay Dave, head of the Indian agricultural authority, the level of fraud in India is on “a gigantic scale.” In April 2009, Indian authorities discovered the alleged fraud and third-party certification agencies were fined. It is still unclear whether the certifiers had knowingly and falsely labeled the cotton as “organic.” A spokeswoman for H&M stated the company became aware of the incident last year, admitting that “GM cotton could have made it into H&M’s organic range.”

Although H&M is not entirely at fault, as the chain has not actually commissioned this cotton, Monika Buening of the German Federal Consumer Affairs Agency, has said H&M should have monitored their supply carefully. Ms. Buening demanded the clothing chain must now “disclose their supply chain” and “inspect their certifiers better, at least by conducting random checks.”

Environmental organization Greenpeace called for a legal investigation into the matter. The organization’s agricultural expert, Martin Hofstetter, said that some products which had not been organically produced were being sold as such. “This is a major malpractice. It’s consumer fraud, which must be punished,” Mr. Hofstetter said. He pointed out that many small fields in India were often clustered together in close proximity to each other, cultivating a variety of different crops — organic, conventional and GM. GM pollen drift results in crop contamination from one field to the other.

DPR Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam emphasized that pesticide use varies from year to year depending on a number of factors, including weather, pest problems, economics and types of crops planted. Increases and decreases in pesticide use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years do not necessarily indicate a general trend.

“California experienced another dry winter and spring in 2008, which helps explain why fungicides showed the greatest decrease in use by both pounds and acres treated,” Ms. Warmerdam said. “Herbicide use also fell by pounds and acres treated, indicating fewer weeds.”

Sulfur was again the most highly used pesticide in 2008 both in pounds applied and acres treated. It is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers used primarily to control powdery mildew on grapes and processing tomatoes. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 25 percent of all reported pesticide use. Its use decreased by 5.7 million pounds – or 12 percent – from 2007 to 2008 and accounted for most of the reduction in reported pesticides.

Metam sodium and methyl bromide, highly toxic fumigants, top the list behind sulfur for highest amount of fumigants used throughout the state. The pesticide with the greatest rise in pounds applied was the fumigant potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate, also called metam-potassium, which increased by 1.7 million pounds, or 45 percent, used to treat soil for growing tomatoes and carrots.

Insecticide use dropped by pounds applied, but grew slightly by acres treated, a change DPR scientists said reflected more growers shifting from broad-based insecticides to newer products more specific to the pest and lower in toxicity to people and the environment.

Major crops or uses that show an overall increase in pounds of pesticides applied included carrots, processing tomatoes, fresh market tomatoes, tangerines and public health purposes such as mosquito control. The data shows a decrease in pounds applied to wine grapes, table and raisin grapes, cotton, lumber and oranges.

The top five counties in order of most pesticide pounds applied in 2008 are Fresno, Kern, Tulare, Monterey and Madera. All are major producers of agricultural products.

Other details from DPR’s 2008 pesticide report that compares 2007 and 2008 data:

• Use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides – most of which are older compounds of high regulatory concern because of their toxicity and detection in surface water – continued to decline. In 2008, their use dropped by 720,000 pounds and 590,000 acres treated, or 12 percent.
• Use of chemicals classified as reproductive toxins declined by 1.7 million pounds and 182,000 acres treated, or 10 percent. These chemicals are used on a variety crops.
• Use of chemicals classified as probable or known carcinogens declined by 1.7 million pounds and 600,000 acres treated, or 7 percent and 17 percent, respectively. These chemicals are used on a variety crops.
• Use of chemicals classified as toxic air contaminants, another category of regulatory concern, declined by 50,000 pounds and 370,000 acres treated, or 0.13 percent and 12 percent, respectively. These chemicals are used on a variety crops.
• Use of most chemicals classified as ground water contaminants declined by 270,000 pounds and 300,000 acres treated, or 17 percent and 25 percent, respectively. These chemicals are used on a variety crops.
• Use of oil pesticides declined by 214,000 pounds, or less than 1 percent, but increased by 100,000 acres treated, or 3 percent. Most oils serve as an alternative to highly toxic pesticides and are used by organic farmers.
• Pounds of fumigants applied increased slightly by 228,000 pounds, or 0.6 percent, but decreased by 3,100 acres treated, or 0.9 percent. Fumigants are gaseous pesticides that farmers mostly use before planting to control disease, weeds and pests in the soil. They are primarily used on strawberry, carrot and processing tomato fields. Fumigants are also used for structural pest control.

Although any decline in toxic pesticide use is noteworthy, it should be noted that millions of pounds of highly toxic pesticides continue to be used throughout the state. Besides the pesticide highlighted above, pesticides like glyphosate (herbicide), sulfuryl fluoride, pendimethalin, chlorpyrifos, maneb, and paraquat-dichloride are some of the top 25 pesticides used in the state. These pesticides are linked to a myriad of adverse health effects including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption and reproductive effects.

DPR has the most extensive pesticide use reporting system in the United States. For more information on California’s 2008 pesticide use statistics, see http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur08rep/08_pur.htm.

Take Action: Contact your state pesticide-regulatory agency and ask them to produce a report like California’s for your state. Contact the elected officials of your state and ask that this information be collected and readily available to the public.

There are alternatives to toxic pesticides available for a wide range of pests whether in agriculture, or throughout the urban environment including structural and landscape pest problems.

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

The USDA completed its first draft of the EIS in December 2009. Brushing aside the concerns of organic alfalfa growers, consumers, and environmentalists, USDA argues for non-regulated status of GE alfalfa. According to this document, the economic gains of ending the ban far outweigh any possible losses, going so far as to say USDA could find no opposition to GE products among organic consumers.

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

Despite this, USDA and Monsanto have appealed several times claiming that the court did not consider the severe economic losses brought on by the ban, and that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) already had adequate mitigation measures in place. Judge Mary M. Schroeder noted that similar mitigation measures had already failed to prevent cross pollination. In addition, repealing the ban could actually lead to greater economic damage. Japan, the largest importer of U.S. grown alfalfa, as well as South Korea, have threatened to stop importing the crop if the GE variety is grown in the U.S., because of fears of cross contamination.

So far, the ruling has been upheld in two appeals. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of CFS said he believes further hearings unnecessary, and is confident of success. He also is optimistic that this case will provide a platform to increase awareness among policy makers, the media, and the public about the risks associated with GM crops. Precedence set in this case is expected to affect other cases involving GE crops, including a case where a federal court ruled that the Bush Administration’s approval of “Roundup Ready” sugar beets was illegal.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because of the dangers they pose to human health and the environment. The widescale adoption of genetically modified crops has lead to a marked increase in the use of pesticides, and emerging research has linked genetically modified crops to organ damage. All the while, these crops have failed in their promise to deliver a marked increase in yield.

Additional info can be found at Law360 and JournalStar.com.

Previous Daily News Coverage

Comments Needed: USDA To Allow Deregulation of GE Alfalfa Again, 12/17/09
Federal Court Upholds Ban on Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, 9/4/08
Federal Judge Orders Injunction, Complete Review of Alfalfa, 5/9/07
Following the GE Crop Debate, 5/1/07
Federal Judge Orders Historic First Moratorium on GE Seeds, 3/14/07
Federal Judge Rules USDA Violated Law Regarding GE Seeds, 2/15/07

TAKE ACTION! Tell the USDA you care about GE contamination of organic food.

APHIS is seeking public comment on the draft EIS and will consider all public comments submitted during the 60-day public comment period that started December 18, 2009, before finalizing the EIS or making any decisions regarding the regulatory status of RR alfalfa. Comments may be submitted to regulations.gov on or before February 16, 2010.

Already, many of these parasitoid wasps are hard at work, but because they are so small, most people are unaware of their existence. “Parasitic wasps attack and kill pest insects, but many of them are smaller than the head of a pin, so people don’t even notice them or know of their important role in keeping pest numbers down,” says Dr. Werren. “There are over 600,000 species of these amazing critters, and we owe them a lot. If it weren’t for parasitoids and other natural enemies, we would be knee-deep in pest insects.”

According to Dr. Werren, parasitoid wasps are like “smart bombs” that seek out and kill only specific kinds of insects. “Therefore, if we can harness their full potential, they would be vastly preferable to chemical pesticides, which broadly kill or poison many organisms in the environment, including us.”

In addition to being useful for controlling insects and offering promising venoms, the wasps could act as a new genetic system with a number of unique advantages. According to researchers, their long term goal is to genetically modify parasitoids through selective breeding to improve their utility in pest control. The genome sequences provide tools and baseline information to advance toward this goal.

Three wasp genomes were sequenced for this study, all of which are in the wasp genus Nasonia. While fruit flies have been the standard model for genetic studies for decades, largely because they are small, can be grown easily in a laboratory, and reproduce quickly. Nasonia share these traits, but male Nasonia have only one set of chromosomes, instead of two sets like fruit flies and people. “A single set of chromosomes, which is more commonly found in lower single-celled organisms such as yeast, is a handy genetic tool, particularly for studying how genes interact with each other,” says Dr. Werren. Unlike fruit flies, these wasps also modify their DNA in ways similar to humans and other vertebrates””a process called “methylation,” which plays an important role in regulating how genes are turned on and off during development.

Among the future applications of the Nasonia genomes that scientists are hoping could be of use in pest control is identification of genes that determine which insects a parasitoid will attack, identification of dietary needs of parasitoids to assist in economical, large-scale rearing of parasitoids, and identification of parasitoid venoms that could be used in pest control. Because parasitoid venoms manipulate cell physiology in diverse ways, researchers are hoping they also may provide an unexpected source for new drug development.

While the prospect of utilizing parasitic wasps as a natural alternative to toxic pesticides is exciting, it is important that scientists proceed with caution. In some cases, introducing a new species to combat another can take a devastating toll on an ecosystem, especially if the beneficial insect itself has no predators. The article, “When Good Bugs Go Bad,” by Doug Stewart of the National Wildlife Federation explains that introduction of beneficial insects can essentially turn invasive in the absence of the enemies and competitors that kept it in check back home.

In Hawaii, for instance, parasitic wasps from China and the U.S. mainland were released at least 100 times before 1950 by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association to fight sugar-cane insects. In 1999 and 2000, ecologists collected more than 2,000 caterpillars of native moths and found exotic wasps developing from eggs in one in five native swamp caterpillars. And most of these, they discovered, were from just three species of parasitic wasps that were deliberately released in the cane fields. Without the native caterpillars that the wasps were using as hosts, insect-eating birds would starve.

Still, though, Mr. Stewart explains in his article that in classical biological control using exotic natural enemies to counter invasive insects examples of biocontrol insects that have themselves gone out of control are relatively few. When it does work, this method is far more benign, efficient, and precisely targeted than the usual method of controlling insect species: spraying their general whereabouts with toxic chemicals.

This has happened in the case of the Asian lady beetle, which was imported as early as 1916 in an attempt to naturally control certain insect pests aphids, scale and other soft-bodied arthropods. While they are sometimes considered a nuisance in the absence of predators, they are still considered to be a beneficial insect.

To attract parasitic wasps naturally, Gardeners.com recommends supplying food and moisture; adult wasps feed on nectar and pollen. Plant alyssum, herbs from the dill family, and flowers from the daisy family, because small and shallow-faced flowers provide easy access to these tiny beneficial insects. If you have a bird bath or pond in your garden, place stones in the water so wasps have a place to land and drink safely.

Many beneficial insects are also available through garden centers. The most available are ladybugs, preying mantises, trichogramma for gypsy moth control, lacewings, insect parasitic nematodes, and fly parasites for control of breeding flies in stables and kennels. Some of the less common but still available insects include predatory mites to control mite pests, aphid midge for woolly adelgid control, leaf miner parasites and many, many more. Ask your garden center manager if they can get what you want since many beneficial insects have a short shelf life and must be ordered when needed.

The study, “Childhood Brain Tumors, Residential Insecticide Exposure, and Pesticide Metabolism Genes,” examines whether childhood brain tumors (CBT) are associated with the functional genetic variations. The study provides evidence that exposure to insecticides, paired with specific metabolism gene variants, may increase the risk of CBT. DNA was extracted from archival screening samples for 201 cases ≤ 10 years of age and born in California or Washington State between 1978 and 1990. Insecticide exposures during pregnancy and childhood were classified based on interviews with participants’ mothers. The children’s mothers reported whether they or anyone else had chemically treated the child’s home for insects including termites, fleas, ants, cockroaches, silverfish, or “other” pests.

The results are consistent with the possibility that children with a reduced ability to metabolize organophosphate and carbamate insecticides might be at increased risk of CBT when sufficiently exposed. The researchers observed multiplicative interactions between insecticide exposure during childhood and variant genes relevant to insecticide metabolism. Among exposed children, CBT risk increased with PON1—108T allele – a gene which reduces the activity of paraoxonase (PON1), a key enzyme in the metabolism and neutralization of acetylcholinesterase (AChE ) inhibitors: notably OPs such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon. In other words, children with brain tumors were more likely to carry the enzyme-inhibiting gene variant PON1—108T than other children.

The authors state that even though certain OPs have been phased out of residential use in the U.S., children remain exposed to these and other AChE inhibitors not only via the diet but also potentially via drift from use in agricultural areas, on golf courses, and for mosquito control. In the home, OP and carbamate insecticides remain, for example, in topical treatments for lice (malathion) and flea collars (tetrachlorvinphos, carbaryl, propoxur). Even though previous studies have also shown that farmworkers and persons exposed to high levels of pesticides have an increased risk of developing brain tumors, this study’s result most strongly indicate the importance of exposures during early childhood and interaction with genotypes and enzyme levels. However, other periods are important, notably prenatal development, and need to be further explored. Larger studies are needed to confirm the findings, and environmental and biological measurements of specific pesticides and the inclusion of more gene interactions.

The complaint, filed collectively on behalf of 50 million consumers of organic products, argues that products such as liquid soaps, body washes, facial cleansers, shampoos, conditioners, moisturizing lotions, lip balms, make-up and other cosmetic products produced by 12 different corporations have been advertised, labeled and marketed as “organic” or “organics” when, in fact, the petitioners say the products are not “organic” as understood by reasonable consumers.

“Unfortunately, the hands-off regulatory approach by the USDA’s National Organic Program during the Bush years failed to protect consumers from deceptive labeling in the personal care marketplace,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association. While the USDA enforces strict standards for the labeling of organic food, the NOP has not enforced organic regulations for personal care products. “Given the increased resources and staffing at the National Organic Program under Obama, we’re optimistic that the situation will be rectified before too much more damage is done.” added Mr. Cummins.

“Consumers who pay a premium for high-end organic products expect the main cleansing and moisturizing ingredients of a product labeled “organic” to be made from certified organic agricultural material produced on organic farms, and not from petrochemicals or pesticide and herbicide-intensive conventional farming,” explains Horst Rechelbacher, founder of Intelligent Nutrients (and founder and previous owner of Aveda Corp.)

The corporations named in the complaint are The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Kiss My Face Corporation; YSL Beauté, Inc. (“YSL”); Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (“Giovanni”); Cosway Company, Inc. (“Cosway”); Country Life, LLC (“Country Life”); Szep Elet LLC (makers of Ilike Organic Skin Care); Eminence Organic Skin Care, Inc.; Physicians’ Formula Holdings, Inc. (makers of Organic Wear); Surya Nature, Inc.; Organic Bath Company, Freeman Beauty Division of pH Beauty Labs, Inc. (makers of Freeman Goodstuff Organics).

David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, stated, “Yesterday we re-filed our lawsuit in federal court against culprit companies under the Lanham Act for false advertising. One way or another, the era of ripping off organic consumers in personal care will soon come to an end.”

Ellery West, founder and owner of Organic Essence adds, “The predatory marketing practices of companies that take advantage of consumer trust in the organic label are cheating not only organic consumers but also small certified companies like ourselves.”

On November 5, 2009, the USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) formally recommended that the National Organic Program regulate personal care to ensure that any use of the word “organic” on a personal care product is backed up by third-party certification to USDA organic standards. Immediately following the recommendation, OCA launched a consumer boycott of those brands it has identified as mislabeled “organic,” and has produced a list of USDA certified organic brands that it says are true to their claims.

Beyond Pesticides is a member of the National Organic Coalition (NOC), and recently, Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, was appointed to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). 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. For more information on organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Program.

For more information on the Organic Consumers’ Association’s Coming Clean campaign, go to: www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare.

Researchers were assisted by Greenpeace in acquiring the data analyzed. Under a European Union directive, Monsanto should have made their raw data publicly available, but Greenpeace lawyers had to obtain some of the data through court action.

The study sharply criticizes Monsanto’s data analysis and conclusions, and calls for additional long term studies in at least three different mammals. Monsanto only gathered data for 90 days. This period is not long enough to examine chronic problems. Monsanto dismissed differences seen in male and female rats, while the CRIIGEN study concluded that males are significantly more susceptible to the adverse effects of NK 603. A similar study in 2007 published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology, also concludes that MON 863 is linked to liver and kidney problems in rats. Monsanto’s response is that both studies used faulty analytical methods.

Monsanto introduced the first GM crops in 1996, and has always maintained that GMOs are safe for humans and the environment. Beyond Pesticides believes whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of a herbicide resistant crop, the approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous.

“Given its widespread environmental contamination and public health risk, EPA has a responsibility to ban household triclosan use in a marketplace where safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

“Scientific studies indicate that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “EPA needs to ban its use in non-medical settings and stop allowing companies that market triclosan to exploit consumer fears regarding bacterial-borne illnesses.”

Research indicates that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems. Chief among these issues is 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 the risk for cancer. Further, the pesticide can interact with other chemicals to form chloroform and breakdown to dioxin, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals.

Exposure to triclosan is widespread and now found in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, according to the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, published by the CDC. Due to the fact that many products containing triclosan are washed down the drain, triclosan shows up in water systems and sewage sludge. Accumulation of the pesticide in waterways and soil has been shown to threaten ecosystems and produce hazardous residues in fish.

Regulated by both EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, triclosan is commonly found in hand soaps, toothpastes, deodorants, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, facial tissues, antiseptics, fabrics, toys, and medical devices. The petition to EPA seeks expedited action by the agency to ban household triclosan use, challenging serious deficiencies in EPA’s September 2008 reregistration of triclosan and its failure to comply with environmental statutes.

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

Seving as attorney for the petitioners is Perry Wallace, Professor of Law at the Washington College of Law of the American University, and a litigator with the firm of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, with offices in Washington, D.C.

The Center for Biological Diversity formally requested that the EPA publish water quality criteria and information taking into account overwhelming science about the effects of EDC pollution on January 11. It says that under the Clean Water Act, EPA has a duty to periodically update water quality criteria to reflect the latest scientific knowledge. The petition presents scientific information on endocrine disrupting chemical pollution found in our waters and requests that the EPA promptly update water quality criteria reflecting this scientific information.

Last month, legislation was introduced into Congress to explore linkages between hormone disrupting chemicals in the environment and everyday products and the dramatic increase of autism, hyperactivity, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer and other hormone related disorders. After the identification of endocrine disruptors, the bill, The Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 [H.R. 4190] requires federal agencies with regulatory authority to report to Congress on the action it plans to take.

Endocrine systems are found in most animals, including mammals, non-mammalian vertebrates and invertebrates. They consist of a set of glands, such as the thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary glands, and the hormones that they produce, such as thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone and adrenaline. These glands and hormones help guide the development, growth reproduction, and behavior of animals, including human beings. Hormones are the signaling molecules which travel through the bloodstream and elicit responses in other parts of the body.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that alter the structure or function of the body’s endocrine system, which uses hormones to regulate growth, metabolism, and tissue function. Endocrine disruptors can mimic naturally occurring hormones like estrogens and androgens, causing overstimulation, and can interfere with natural hormone functions, thereby compromising normal reproduction, development, and growth. They have been shown to damage reproductive functions and offspring, and cause developmental, neurological, and immune problems in wildlife and humans.

“Our drinking water and aquatic habitat for wildlife is being increasingly and unnecessarily contaminated by endocrine disruptors such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We should be very concerned when we see chemically castrated frogs and frankenfish resulting from these chemicals ¬ it’s time to get these poisons out of our waterways and ecosystems.”

A wide variety of substances, including pharmaceuticals, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT and other pesticides, solvents, and plasticizers cause endocrine disruption. Pesticides have long been present in our environment, and now additional endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in cosmetics, detergents, deodorants, antibiotics, antihistamines, oral contraceptives, veterinary and illicit drugs, analgesics, sunscreen, insect repellant, synthetic musks, disinfectants, surfactants, plasticides, and caffeine are being introduced to ecosytems and waterways.

“As we start looking at this problem, we’re seeing disturbing hormonal responses in fish and wildlife from pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal-care products that are contaminating aquatic ecosystems,” said Mr. Miller. “The impacts of endocrine disruptors on aquatic wildlife are our canary in the coal mine, since these contaminated waters are often our drinking-water supply. The implications for human health are not good.”

Despite its authority to do so, EPA currently regulates some, but not all, of the endocrine disruptors in the petition. For those it does regulate, advocates say that standards are not stringent enough to protect against endocrine-disrupting harm. It is now known that infinitesimally small levels of exposure may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, and current regulatory levels are insufficient to protect against water quality impairment. Among some of the pollutants that are named for revision include: chlordane, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dieldrin, DDT and its metabolites, endosulfan (alpha, beta, sulfate), naphthalene, 2,4-D, atrazine and desethyl atrazine and triclosan.

“There is currently a regulatory void for controlling endocrine disruptors, and our petition aims to start the process of protecting human health and wildlife from these dangerous chemicals,” said Mr. Miller. “We call on the Environmental Protection Agency and states to adopt sensible criteria for endocrine disruptors that will completely eliminate or dramatically reduce the ”˜acceptable’ levels of these pollutants in waterways.”

For more information on Endocrine Disruptors, please see Beyond Pesticides Fact Sheet: Pesticides That Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.

Speaker Highlights

Ӣ Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Organizers: In 2009, Ontario, Canada banned the use of over 250 pesticide products for cosmetic (lawn care) purposes. Forum participants will hear from Jan Kasperski, CEO of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, and Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, who fought to make this vision a reality.

”¢ “Food Sleuth” journalist: Registered dietitian, investigative nutritionist, and award-winning journalist Melinda Hemmelgarn will be addressing the benefits of eating organic and encouraging conference participants “think beyond their plates.”

Ӣ Pesticide Researchers: The Forum will feature talks by several renowned pesticide researchers including Paul Winchester, MD, professor of clinical pediatrics Indiana University School of Medicine who authored the April 2009 study linking birth defects, pesticides and season of conception; Shuk-mei Ho, PhD, chair of the Department of Environmental Health at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine whose research focuses on the role endocrine disruptors play in developing cancer; and, Warren Porter, PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of Zoology who recently published a study linking prenatal pesticide exposure to behavioral and hormonal changes.

Learn more about the speakers and see the latest additions on the National Pesticide Forum speaker page.

Registration

Registration is $65 for members, $75 for non-members and $35 for students. Avoid the $25 late fee by registering before March 9th. Registration includes: keynote speakers and panel discussions; interactive, discussion-based workshops; tour and hands-on demonstrations; networking opportunities; organic food and drink (breakfast, lunch and two receptions with hors d’oeuvres, beer and wine); Forum packets, printed materials and more. Register online or call 202-543-5450 to register by phone.

Information on lodging is available on the Forum lodging page.

Forum Co-Sponsors

Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) School of Medicine’s Swetland Center for Environmental Health brings a new emphasis to environmental health at CWRU and affiliated hospitals throughout Greater Cleveland. The current major focus of the Center is on the environmental health problems of the Cleveland community especially related to toxic exposures of children and their families.

Beyond Pesticides Ohio is the only organization in Ohio that focuses exclusively on pesticide issues and fights pesticide pollution in Ohio by advocating for common sense alternatives that protect our health and environment.