The groups, Alaska Survival and Alaska Community Action on Toxics, allege that FWS sprayed hundreds of gallons of herbicide in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge over the past several years. In the complaint to the U.S. District Court of Alaska, the groups say FWS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to conduct adequate investigations on the environmental impacts of pesticide use and by failing to inform the public of the practice. The lawsuit states, “(Fish and Wildlife) failed to consider the potential harm to aquatic organisms, fish, birds, insects and other non-target species, as well as the potential for adverse effects to humans visiting the area,” and that the “defendants failed to consider the effect of herbicide use on the commercial salmon fishing industry and on subsistence users.”

Under NEPA, all federal agencies are required to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) before undertaking any action that could affect the environment. If the assessment concludes no significant environmental impact would result from the action, the agency must provide evidence for this conclusion. Otherwise, it must commission a more in-depth Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, according to the complaint, FWS has been spraying herbicides without assessment. The groups are asking the court to order FWS to cease using herbicides until the agency produces a full EIS.

However, refuge manager Gary Wheeler claimed the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) satisfies NEPA requirements. A CCP is a document that provides a framework for guiding refuge management decisions which all national wildlife refuges are required to develop. The groups counter that the plan barely mentions the use of chemicals.

“They’ve been doing this without any kind of EIS or EA for six years or so,” said Judy Price, director of Alaska Survival, a Talkeetna-based pesticide advocacy nonprofit. “I talked to everybody about trying to get some kinds of environmental document that the public would be able to see, and talked to them about telling the public about (the use of pesticides), they didn’t seem to be inclined to that.” The herbicides were used to combat hawkweed, ox-eye daisy and Canada thistle on Camp Island, Garden Island and areas around the refuge headquarters.

“These chemicals are toxic to natural life forms and have the potential to adversely affect the health and the survival of creatures that inhabit the Refuges and the humans who visit the Refuges,” the lawsuit says.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and numerous security experts have repeatedly warned that terrorists could use industrial chemicals as improvised weapons of mass destruction. However, according to CAP, current chemical security efforts are inadequate to protect workplaces and communities.

“Indeed, temporary standards enacted two years ago (and set to expire in 2009) focus almost entirely on physical security measures, such as adding gates and guards,” say report authors Paul Orum and Reece Rushing. “These measures, however worthy, cannot assure protection against a concerted attack, insider sabotage, or catastrophic release. Nor do they protect communities along chemical delivery routes. More than 90 percent of the 101 most dangerous facilities ship or receive their highest-hazard chemical by railcar or truck.”

On October 10, 2008, Greenpeace and 35 labor and environmental groups called on Congress to pass legislation on chemical plant security before the “interim” law expires on October 4, 2009. In March the House Homeland Security Committee adopted the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008 (H.R. 5577) in a bipartisan vote. H.R. 5577 addresses many of the flaws in the interim law. However, according to the letter, the chemical manufacturers lobby opposed it and favors making the interim law permanent. A jurisdictional dispute over whether the DHS or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be the lead agency regulating chemical facilities also helped derail legislation in 2008. When Congress returns in January 2009 they will have only nine months to complete this legislation.

The report authors recommend protecting communities by removing the possibility of a toxic gas release by converting facilities to safer, more secure alternative technologies. While many of the products produced at the facilities are necessary, such as the safe drinking water produced at water treatment facilities that use dangerous chlorine gas, the report stops short of evaluating the necessity of products like pesticides, which could be eliminated.

The report focuses on conversion to safer and more secure chemicals or processes already being used by similar facilities that do not endanger large numbers of people. In particular:

• Thirty bleach plants could remove danger to some 50 million Americans by generating chlorine on-site without rail shipment and bulk storage. This includes the Clorox Company in Los Angeles, which puts over 5.5 million people in danger.
• Fifteen water utilities could remove danger to 17 million people by converting from chlorine gas (and sometimes sulfur dioxide gas) to alternatives that include liquid bleach or ultraviolet light. This includes the Howard F. Curren wastewater plant in Tampa, Fla., which puts more than a million people in danger.
• Eight petroleum refineries could remove danger to 11 million Americans by substituting toxic hydrofluoric acid, used in refining crude oil, with sulfuric acid or emerging solid acid catalysts. This includes the ExxonMobil Corp. refinery in Chalmette, La., which puts over 1 million people in danger.
• A variety of safer, more secure alternatives are available to 21 facilities that receive chemicals by rail or truck for use in making such diverse products as oil additives, water treatment chemicals, and materials for bulletproof vests. This includes Stepan Company in Elwood, Ill., which puts 1.2 million people in danger in producing industrial and household cleaners with sulfur trioxide. Using on-site sulfur burning equipment would eliminate this danger.

.
In the case of the pesticide manufacturing, which uses chlorine to produce pentachloronitrobenzene and chlorthalonil, the report recommends that the plants generate chlorine as needed without bulk storage or co-locate with an as-needed source of chlorine.

According to CAP, chemical facility conversions are possible and many have already switched to safer, more secure alternatives, and some have saved money. “While gates and guards always cost money, facilities that remove hazardous chemicals reduce their need for costly physical security. They also may reduce regulatory burdens, improve efficiency, upgrade production, and better protect workers,” say the report authors.

They continue, “Despite this opportunity, the federal government currently has no plan, program, or authority to spur removal of unnecessary catastrophic chemical hazards””or even to require chemical facilities to examine safer and more secure alternatives. To address these deficiencies, Congress should establish a comprehensive chemical security program rooted in identifying, developing, and leveraging the use of safer and more secure technologies.”

CAP recommends:

• Require chemical facilities to assess and use feasible alternatives that reduce the potential harm of a terrorist attack
• Create financial incentives for facilities to convert by requiring liability insurance and targeting conversion funding to publicly owned facilities and first-adopters of innovative technologies
  Invest in collaborative research to identify safer, more secure alternatives
• Utilize the experience and knowledge of facility employees in security assessments, plans, and inspections
• Build the oversight capacity of government agencies and require administrative transparency to hold those agencies accountable
• Ensure equal enforcement of standards without special treatment for facilities in voluntary industry security programs
• Include all relevant industries, in particular currently exempted water utilities
• Respect the right of states to set more protective standards if federal actions won’t protect communities

In the Federal Registry notice released Wednesday, EPA determined that ICTA’s petition “raises serious issues that potentially affect private and public sector stakeholders” and is instituting a 60-day period for public comment. EPA will review the petition and any comments received “before deciding how best to respond to the petition.”

ICTA filed a legal petition in May 2008 challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanomaterials in pesticides. The 100-page petition addresses the serious human health concerns raised by these unique substances, as well as their potential to be highly destructive to natural environments, and calls on the EPA to fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, regulate nano products as new pesticides, and require labeling of all products.

“It’s unfortunate that it has taken seven months, but the agency has taken the first step towards potential regulation of these products and protection of the environment,” said George Kimbrell, ICTA staff attorney. “We are confident the agency will do the right thing and properly classify these products as pesticides.”

Nanotechnology is a powerful new platform technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. The same size and chemical characteristics that give manufactured nanoparticles unique properties – tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity – can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks.

Increasingly, manufacturers are infusing many and diverse consumer products with nanoparticle silver (nano-silver) for its enhanced “germ killing” abilities. Nano-silver is now the most common commercialized nanomaterial. There are more than 260 nano-silver products currently on the market, ranging from household appliances and cleaners to clothing, cutlery, and children’s toys to personal care products and electronics.

“Nano-silver is an unknown threat not only to the environment but also to human health,” Kimbrell said. “The public has no idea that consumer products contain potentially dangerous nanoparticles because no labeling is currently required.”

Silver is known to be toxic to fish, aquatic organisms and microorganisms and recent scientific studies have shown that nano-silver is much more toxic and can cause damage in new ways. A 2008 study showed that washing nano-silver socks released substantial amounts of the nano-silver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. Another 2008 study found that releases of nano-silver destroy benign bacteria used in wastewater treatment. The human health impacts of nano-silver are still largely unknown, but some studies and cases indicate that the nanomaterial has the potential to increase antibiotic resistance and potentially cause kidney and other internal problems.

Many of the nano-silver infused products are for children (baby bottles, toys, stuffed animals, and clothing) or otherwise create high human exposures (cutlery, food containers, paints, bedding and personal care products) despite little research on nano-silver’s potential human health impacts. Studies have questioned whether traditional assumptions about silver’s safety are sufficient in light of the unique properties of nano-scale materials.

In the biological opinion, federal wildlife scientists comprehensively reviewed the science regarding the impacts of pesticides on salmon and ultimately concluded that current uses of the insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion jeopardize the existence of these imperiled fish. The biological opinion prescribes measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.

The new mitigation measures must be implemented within one year. They include:

* Prohibiting aerial applications of the three pesticides within 1,000 feet of salmon waters
* Prohibiting ground applications of the three pesticides within 500 feet of salmon waters
* Requiring a 20 foot non-crop vegetative buffer around salmon waters and ditches that drain into salmon habitat
* Prohibiting applications of the three pesticides when wind speeds are greater than or equal to 10 mph

“Keeping these pesticides out of the water is a major step toward protecting our salmon stocks and revitalizing the fishing industry, which can generate hundreds of million of dollars in the region,” said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA).

The three pesticides at issue in the biological opinion are known to contaminate rivers and streams throughout California and the Pacific Northwest and poison salmon and steelhead (see background below).

“The federal government has a duty to protect imperiled salmon from these deadly pesticides,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental law firm that represented the salmon advocates. “We are very pleased that the government has finally taken these steps to protect salmon, the icon of the Pacific Northwest’s natural heritage.”

In addition to jeopardizing salmon, these pesticides pose serious risks to public heath — especially the health of young children. A number of recent studies have linked prenatal exposure to organophosphate insecticides with behavioral problems including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A 2006 study published in Pediatrics, compared the risks of chlorpyrifos to prenatal cocaine exposure.

“This decision will have a lasting impact that benefits our grandchildren. Their rivers will provide cleaner drinking water, be safer for swimming and more habitable for thriving runs of salmon,” said Aimee Code, the Water Quality Coordinator at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP).

In 2002, PCFFA, NCAP, and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, obtained a federal court order declaring that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. As a result of that lawsuit, EPA began consultations, but NMFS never issued biological opinions or identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. In 2007, the salmon advocates filed a second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with NMFS that establishes a schedule for issuing the required biological opinions. The biological opinion released This is the first of several decisions that will be released over the next three-and-a-half years and will assess a total of 37 pesticides.

NMFS determined that accepted uses of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 27 species of endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead. NMFS’s biological opinion of the three pesticides, released Tuesday, stated that current uses were likely reducing the number of salmon returning to spawn (BiOp at 292). These three pesticides are all organophosphates (a class of neurotoxic chemicals). They are used in both agricultural and/or urban insect control. Recent research has found that in combination they can have “synergistic effects” on salmon. In other words, the effect of organophosphate mixtures is greater than the effect of each of the chemicals’ effects when added together. These chemicals are often found together. The recent publicity of the salmon’s plight has put protective efforts in the news, such as Washington’s “Salmon-Safe” certification program and Oregon’s pesticide reduction plan.

Chlorpyrifos contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where chlorpyrifos was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin. It is “very highly toxic” to fish (according to U.S. EPA’s toxicity classification system). (BiOp at 269), impairs fish reproduction by reducing egg production in fish. (BiOp at 270), inhibits juvenile coho salmon feeding behavior and swimming speed. (BiOp at 281-822), and harms the survival and reproduction of salmon food sources. (BiOp at 271-72)

Diazinon contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where diazinon was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, the Central Columbia Basin and Puget Sound. It was also detected in King County, Washington streams. It impairs feeding, predator avoidance, spawning, homing and migration capabilities by impeding salmon sense of smell. (BiOp at 275), leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout. (BiOp at 282-83), and is acutely toxic to salmon food sources. (BiOp at 275-76)

This victory comes after a long-running legal battle over the use of pesticides in rural communities. Ms. Downs, who lives on the edge of farmland, launched her campaign in 2001 and documented that she was first exposed to pesticide spraying in the early 1980s at the age of 11 and has since suffered from ill health, flu-like symptoms, sore throat, blistering and other problems. She created a DVD portraying collected evidence from other rural residents reporting health problems including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and asthma believed to be linked to crop spraying. Ms. Downs said the government had failed to address the concerns of people living in the countryside. She added that these people “are repeatedly exposed to mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals throughout every year, and in many cases, like mine, for decades.” She also noted that people were not given prior notification about what was to be sprayed near their homes and gardens.

“The fact that there has never been any assessment of the risk to health for the long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school near pesticide-sprayed fields is an absolute scandal, considering that crop-spraying has been a predominant feature of agriculture for over 50 years,” Ms. Downs said.

The judge, Justice Collins, said: “I recognize that it is not easy to attribute a particular cause to many chronic illnesses, and a view that a cause has been identified may be wrong. But there is evidence that some long-term illnesses may be attributable to exposure. The DVD (from Ms. Downs) makes it clear that those effects do in many cases amount to more than merely transient and trifling harm.” The judge added: “There is in my judgment solid evidence produced by Ms. Downs that residents have suffered harm to their health – her own health is an example – or, at the very least, doubts have reasonably been raised as to the safety of pesticides under the regime which presently exists.”

The judge said Hilary Benn, Secretary of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), must now rethink and reassess the risks and how to safeguard the public against them. He ruled DEFRA’s current approach to assessing safety, which involved considering the impact of spraying on “a bystander” who might be close to crops, was “defective and inadequate” as it did not take into account the real impact on rural residents. Justice Collins highlighted that the 1986 Control of Pesticides Regulations states that beekeepers must be given 48 hours notice if pesticides harmful to bees are to be used. The judge said: “It is difficult to see why residents should be in a worse position.”

A DEFRA spokesman said: “The protection of human health is paramount. Pesticides used in this country are rigorously assessed to the same standards as the rest of the EU and use is only ever authorized after internationally approved tests … We will look at this judgment in detail to see whether there are ways in which we can strengthen our system further and also to consider whether it could put us out of step with the rest of Europe and have implications for other member states.”
Speaking after the ruling, Downs said her seven-year battle was over “one of the biggest public health scandals of our time.” She called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to block any DEFRA appeal. “The government should now just admit that it got it wrong, apologize and actually get on with protecting the health and citizens of this country.”

The Congressionally-mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses presented the report to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake at Veterans Administration (VA) headquarters in Washington, DC. Scientific staff support to the Committee is provided by the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH).

“The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is the result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time,” the report says. The 450-page report brings together for the first time the full range of scientific research and government investigations on Gulf War illness and officially resolves many questions about the condition.

The report found that Gulf War illness fundamentally differs from stress-related syndromes described after other wars. “Studies consistently indicate that Gulf War illness is not the result of combat or other stressors, and that Gulf War veterans have lower rates of posttraumatic stress disorder than veterans of other wars,” the Committee wrote.

Gulf War illness is typically characterized by a combination of memory and concentration problems, persistent headaches, unexplained fatigue and widespread pain, and may also include chronic digestive problems, respiratory symptoms and skin rashes.

“Veterans of the first Gulf War have been plagued by ill health since their return 17 years ago. Although the evidence for this health phenomenon is overwhelming, veterans repeatedly find that their complaints are met with cynicism and a ‘blame the victim’ mentality that attributes their health problems to mental illness or non-physical factors,” said committee scientific director Roberta White, PhD, associate dean for research at Boston University’s School of Public Health. She said the Committee’s findings “clearly substantiate veterans’ beliefs that their health problems are related to exposures experienced in the Gulf theatre. It provides a state-of-the-art review of knowledge about Gulf War veterans’ health concerns that can guide clinicians and researchers, and offers a scientific rationale for the new Administration to further our understanding of these health problems — most importantly, by funding treatment trials to develop effective treatments of the veterans’ symptoms.”

The Committee evaluated evidence related to a broad spectrum of Gulf War-related exposures. Its review included hundreds of studies of Gulf War veterans, extensive research in other human populations, studies on toxic exposures in animal models, and government investigations related to events and exposures in the Gulf War.

The Department of Defense reports that U.S. personnel serving in the Gulf War used or had available for use, at least 64 pesticides and related products, containing 37 active ingredients. Of these, 15 were identified as “pesticides of potential concern” based on what was known about the use and toxic effects of these compounds. The pesticide products include organophosphates (azamethiphos, dichlorvos, chlorpyrifos, diazonon and malation), carbamates (propoxur, bendiocarb, methomyl), pyrethroids (d-phenothrin, permethrin), organochlorine (lindane), and the insect repellant DEET.

According to the report, the most commonly used personal repellants were DEET, which was primarily to be used on the skin, and permethrin, which was to be sprayed onto uniforms. Some personnel are known to have acquired personal use pesticides in addition to those supplied by the military, including the commercial product OFF, citronella products, and flea collars. Military environmental pesticide control measures included surface spraying and environmental fogging using the organophosphates chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion, in varying concentrations, as well as the carbamates propoxur and bendiocarb. The organochlorine lindane powder was used by military police and other personnel for delousing in the processing of the more than 87,000 enemy prisoners captured in the war. Lindane was also issued to troops for their personal use, primarily to Army personnel.

The new report says that scientific evidence “leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition,” and it cites dozens of research studies that have identified “objective biological measures” that distinguish veterans with the illness from healthy controls. Those measures relate to structure and functioning of the brain, functioning of the autonomic nervous system, neuroendocrine and immune alterations, and variability in enzymes that protect the body from neurotoxic chemicals.

The Committee found that an association between Gulf War illness and several other exposures could not be ruled out. These included low-level exposures to nerve agents, extended exposure to smoke from oil well fires, receipt of large numbers of vaccines, and combinations of neurotoxic exposures.

The report concludes, “A renewed federal research commitment is needed ”¦ to achieve the critical objectives of improving the health of Gulf War veterans and preventing similar problems in future deployments. This is a national obligation, made especially urgent by the many years that Gulf War veterans have waited for answers and assistance.”

The results of this study build on a nine-year effort to understand potential links between the global decline in amphibians, routine pesticide use, and the possible threat to humans in the future. Amphibians are considered an environmental indicator species because of their unique sensitivity to pollutants. Their demise from pesticide exposure could foreshadow the fate of less sensitive animals, according to study author Dr. Rick Relyea, Ph.D., an associate professor of biological sciences in the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Arts and Sciences. Leopard frogs, in particular, are vulnerable to contamination; once plentiful across North America, their population has declined in recent years as pollution and deforestation has increased.

Dr. Relyea exposed gray tree frog and leopard frog tadpoles to small amounts of the ten pesticides that are widely used throughout the world. Dr. Relyea selected five insecticides: carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, and malathion; and five herbicides: acetochlor, atrazine, glyphosate, metolachlor, and 2,4-D. He administered the following doses: each of the pesticides alone, the insecticides combined, a mix of the five herbicides, or all 10 of the poisons.

Dr. Relyea found that a mixture of all 10 chemicals killed 99 percent of leopard frog tadpoles as did the insecticide-only mixture; the herbicide mixture had no effect on the tadpoles. While leopard frogs perished, gray tree frogs did not succumb to the poisons and instead flourished in the absence of leopard frog competitors. Dr. Relyea also discovered that endosulfan, a neurotoxin banned in several nations but still used extensively in U.S. agriculture, is inordinately deadly to leopard frog tadpoles. By itself, the chemical caused 84 percent of the leopard frogs to die. This lethality was previously unknown because current regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do not require amphibian testing. His results show that endosulfan was not only highly toxic to leopard frogs, but also that it served as the key ingredient of the pesticide mixture that eliminated the bulk of leopard frog tadpoles.

“Endosulfan appears to be about 1,000-times more lethal to amphibians than other pesticides that we have examined,” Dr. Relyea said. “Unfortunately, pesticide regulations do not require amphibian testing, so very little is known about endosulfan’s impact on amphibians, despite being sprayed in the environment for more than five decades.”

For most of the pesticides, the concentration administered (2 to 16 parts per billion) was far below the human-lifetime-exposure levels set by the EPA and also falls short of the maximum concentrations detected in natural bodies of water. But the research suggests that these low concentrations, which can travel easily by water and wind, can combine into one toxic mixture. The study points out that declining amphibian populations have been recorded in pristine areas far downwind from areas of active pesticide use, and he suggests that the chemical cocktail he describes could be a culprit.

Dr. Relyea published a study in the Oct. 1, 2008 edition of Ecological Applications reporting that gradual amounts of malathion, the most popular insecticide in the United States, that were too small to directly kill developing leopard frog tadpoles instead sparked a biological chain of events that deprived them of their primary food source. As a result, nearly half the tadpoles in the experiment did not reach maturity and would have died in nature. Dr. Relyea has published a number of papers on the effects of pesticides on amphibians and aquatic communities, including a 2005 study suggesting that the popular weed-killer Roundup ® (active ingredient glyphosate) is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment.

The review of the State’s pesticide complaint records was conducted by Oregon Toxics Alliance, a statewide organization working to protect human and environmental health. The report uses data from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Oregon Department of Human Services and the Oregon Department of Forestry to develop a better understanding of how and why Oregon school children are being exposed to pesticides during their school activities. The report was presented to Governor Kulongoski’s Natural Resource Advisor Michael Carrier and State School Superintendent Susan Castillo on November 10, as well as other officials and state agencies.

The data collected for the report reveals an on-going pattern of pesticide exposure to school children in classrooms, on playgrounds, on ball fields and at school bus stops. 56 separate cases of Oregon school children experiencing pesticide exposure were reported in Oregon since 1990 – 43 of them filed in the past ten years. In 14 cases, the risk from pesticide exposure was severe enough to result in school evacuations, trips to emergency rooms, and citations from a violation of state pesticide law.

Oregon Toxics Alliance undertook the study because the organization receives numerous calls from parents and teachers who express concern for children’s safety and health. Reviewing pesticide complaint logs, Oregon Toxics Alliance found that highly toxic pesticides linked to cancer, reproductive effects, and nervous system damage are routinely used in Oregon’s schools for pest control.

“This is only the tip of the iceberg,” said Lisa Arkin, Executive Director of the Alliance and author of the report. “The records under represent the actual number of pesticide poisonings at school activities because children may not know why they are feeling ill, or adults may not report an exposure to a state agency.”

A case at one elementary school illustrates this point. Teachers and young students suffered adverse health effects, including sore throats and headaches up to six days after an insecticide was sprayed in the attic and building exterior near classrooms. When schools are sprayed, the vapors and residues can linger for hours or days in an indoor environment.

According the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet, “Pesticides and Their Impact on Children,” a child’s developing organs are less capable of detoxifying and excreting harmful chemicals than adults. This means that children experience subtle neurological effects from low-level exposures to environmental agents where adults may not.

“Oregon lacks a statewide policy to ensure safe pest management practices at schools,” said Arkin. “That is incomprehensible, because twenty-five percent of the states have already taken such action.”

Many of the same chemicals that Canadian provinces have banned for cosmetic use, such as the herbicide 2,4-D, are used in much higher volumes in agriculture than on lawns. Since the Cancer Society is a strong voice in favor of the cosmetic pesticide bans because of the dangers of pesticides, it is logical that they would also be concerned about agricultural pesticide use. In other words, “It’s very hard to argue that the cosmetic use of pesticides poses a public-health risk, including cancer risk, and not examine what is going on in the rural and agricultural communities,” said James Brophy, an adjunct professor at the University of Windsor.

While the health effects of cosmetic pesticide use and agricultural pesticide use may be the same, the risk-benefit analysis for agricultural pesticides is more complex. Heather Logan, the director of the Cancer Society’s cancer-control policy, said the cosmetic bans were needed because “there is some potential for increased cancer” with the use of these products around homes and “no health benefit whatsoever. The only benefit that you get is looking at your lawn without any weeds. The issue of non-cosmetic exposure is very different.”

This highlights the highly contentious nature of risk assessment””in a risk analysis, how are the costs and benefits measured? It could easily be argued that given the viability of organic agriculture, which does not pollute the air, soil, food and water with toxic pesticides, there is no health benefit to using pesticides in agriculture. It is, in fact, a health risk. However, in risk assessment, the analysis does not address only environmental and health risks and benefits; economic concerns are also considered. If it is perceived that the use of a pesticide provides an economic benefit, health and environmental risks are accepted. Even being a likely carcinogen does not exclude a pesticide from registration.

Provincial restrictions on cosmetic pesticides brought the ire of Dow Agrosciences because the company claims the restrictions are not based on scientific studies. It uses the conclusions of Health Canada to say its products are safe, and has threatened to sue Canada under NAFTA for lost profits. One of the difficulties in looking at pesticide risks is that epidemiological studies, while strongly suggesting links between pesticides and health effects, are not generally viewed as conclusive evidence of risk. As the Globe and Mail put it, “Regulators view it much like circumstantial evidence in court. It is able to suggest associations between a pesticide and an illness, but doesn’t provide proof the chemical caused the disease. On the other hand, these types of studies were the first to show the link between smoking and lung cancer.”

“There is no evidence that the apple moth has damaged crops or native plants in California,” said Caroline Cox, research director at the Center for Environmental Health and Beyond Pesticides board member, “or that eradication of the moth can actually be achieved. It is never appropriate to expose large numbers of people to incompletely tested chemicals, especially in an eradication program based on faulty assumptions.”

The toxicology studies on which the new analysis is based are designed to measure acute (short-term) toxicity. The studies ignore questions about significant health hazards, including the potential that the pesticide could cause cancer or birth defects, reduce fertility or harm our immune systems. These questions are of enormous concern to those who have been or will be exposed to these chemicals.

Even short-term (acute) health problems are omitted from the tests used in the new analysis. The tests do not answer, for example, whether or not the pesticides cause headaches, breathing problems, disruption of menstrual cycles, or a host of other problems that were reported following last year’s spray applications in Monterey and Santa Cruz.

Many of the people who were exposed to apple moth pesticides during last year’s spraying were exposed to the pesticides by breathing in small droplets. The toxicology tests used for the new analysis include only one test that looks at the effects of being exposed to apple moth pesticides through breathing and that test is designed only to measure how much of the pesticide is required to cause death.

All of the toxicology tests used in the new analysis test a small number of laboratory animals and are not adequate to understand how the pesticides impact the enormous variety of people who are exposed in an aerial spray program over urban areas. Potential Impacts on the very young, the sick, and the elderly are all omitted from the tests.

The pesticide through its application within microcapsules is designed to remain active in the environment for an extended period of time yet none of the studies of health effects considered chronic (long-term) exposures.

“This conclusion is not based on comprehensive testing,” said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. “It ignores important issues that have been repeatedly raised by the residents of eradication areas.”

The California Department of Food and Agriculture also released a study showing that an apple moth pesticide used last year drifted for over three miles from the application site. This is further indication that the impact of the pesticide is poorly understood.

Back in June, California state officials abruptly cancelled the program to spray pesticides to combat the light brown apple moth. This move came after months of protests by residents over concerns that the chemicals in the pheromone-based pesticide may adversely impact their health and the environment. Instead of spraying, the state said that it would keep moth populations under control by releasing sterile moths to halt reproduction by rendering eggs useless. Apparently the use of sterile moth as a means of population control has been a part of the state’s plans for more than a year. Protests over the spraying began after about 487 people reported feeling symptoms ranging from itchy eyes to breathing trouble after planes dusted a fine chemical mist over the area surrounding Monterey and Santa Cruz last fall.

For additional background information on the brown apple moth, see Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog pages.

Although most studies of organophosphates focus on their neurotoxicity, there is increasing evidence that these agents may also have a lasting impact on metabolic function. According to authors, obesity and consequent type II diabetes are rising at epidemic rates in the U.S. and many other countries around the world. Two of three U.S. adults are now classified as overweight. There are epidemiologic links between pesticide exposure and diabetes, and the same subpopulations that have the highest rates of obesity””inner-city, low-socioeconomic-status, agricultural populations””are also those that have greater exposure to organophosphates and other pesticides.

The researchers chose parathion as a representative organophosphate. Neonatal rats were given the insecticide parathion on postnatal days 1—4 using doses (0.1 or 0.2 mg/kg/day) that straddle the threshold for barely detectable cholinesterase inhibition and the first signs of systemic toxicity. In adulthood, animals were either maintained on standard lab diet or switched to a high-fat diet for 7 weeks.

While both doses affected the rats’ metabolism, the researchers observed different effects in the males and females throughout the study. Male rats exposed to the low-dose of parathion outweighed contol rats on the same diet and also evoked signs of a prediabetic state, with elevated fasting serum glucose and impaired fat metabolism. The males exposed to the higher dose of parathion weighed similar to the control, but ate less.

Exposed females, on the other hand, weighed less than the control group with higher food consumption in the low dose group and normal food consumption in the high-dose group. This indicates a “wasting” condition, which was confirmed by the disruption of both glucose and lipid metabolism at both doses.

After reaching adulthood, half the rats were switched to a high-fat diet. While the change in diet did not impact males, the females showed dramatically different results, based on the exposure dose. The low dose group gained significantly more weight than the control after switching to the high-fat diet, whereas the high dose group reduced the dietary effect. Food consumption also showed major sex differences. High dose males showed less of a decrease in food consumption on the high-fat diet than did controls. In contrast, high dose females showed exactly the same pattern of decreased food intake as controls when placed on a high-fat diet.

Triclosan accumulates in fatty tissue and has been found in breast milk and urine. It has also been linked to hormone disruption and has contaminated most of the nation’s waterways. Its degradates are also known to be persistent, to bioaccumulate and interfere with the hormone system. Triclosan has also been implicated in antibacterial and antibiotic resistance, which has severe consequences in medical settings. In spite of these serious effects, EPA continues to allow triclosan uses in a wide range of products under its jurusdiction including toys, clothing, countertops and plastics.

In the RED document, EPA acknowledges that triclosan interacts with androgen and estrogen receptors and has effects on thyroid homeostasis in rat studies. The agency also mentions that it is aware of research looking at triclosan’s link to antibacterial and antibiotic resistance. However, the agency continues to be complacent on these serious impacts on public health by stating that it will continue to “monitor the science.” EPA also continues to ignore triclosan’s degradates and has once again failed to conduct any risk assessments for these hazardous chemicals. Methyl triclosan, a degradation product of triclosan, has been found to accumulate in fish, while DCP (2,4-dichlorophenol), another degradation product, is listed as a potential endocrine disruptor by the European Union and is an EPA priority pollutant. EPA also continues to ignore triclosan residues in fish and drinking water.

In addition, much of the triclosan RED is based on cumulative exposure estimates based on biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). While it might prove useful, this model estimates population exposures solely on NHANES data, a process that has not been subject to public review. Furthermore, EPA abandons its established methodology in favor of the new model, rather than supplement it.

In comments submitted to EPA in July by Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch, Greenpeace US, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and dozens of public health and environmental groups from the U.S. and Canada, the agency was urged to use its authority to cancel the non-medical uses of the antibacterial chemical triclosan in order to protect human health and the environment.

EPA has conceded however, that based on the ongoing research on triclosan, it would review the chemical again in 2013, 10 years earlier than scheduled.

TAKE ACTION: Let the EPA know that it is not doing all it could to protect public health and the environment from the serious and long-lasting impacts of the continued and unnecessary use of triclosan. Submit your comments at www. regulation.gov using docket number ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513 no later than December 29, 2008. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

You can also send your comments via mail to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

One adopted regulation will cause a list of approved “active substances” to be drawn up, according to which pesticides will be registered at a national level. It also allows EU states to be stricter than the allowable list. One amendment says, “Member states may establish any pesticide-free zones they deem necessary in order to safeguard drinking water resources. Such pesticide-free zones may cover the entire Member State.”

The second approved measure, passed on to Parliament by EU agricultural ministers in June, bans “certain highly toxic chemicals,” those being endocrine disrupting, genotoxic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction. Neurotoxic and immunotoxic chemicals may also be banned where they pose a significant risk. Provisional approval may be given to any of these chemicals if it “is needed to combat a serious danger to plant health.” This resolution states that “Member states should monitor and collect data on impacts of pesticide use, including poisoning incidents, and promote long-term research programmes on the effects of pesticide use.”

It also argues that, “In other places such as residential areas, public parks, sports and recreation grounds, school grounds and children’s playgrounds, and in the vicinity of public healthcare facilities . . . the risks from exposure to pesticides of the general public are high. Use of pesticides in those areas should, therefore, be prohibited.” It urged member states to promote alternatives, even saying, “A levy on pesticide products should be considered as one of the measures to finance the implementation of general and crop-specific methods and practices of Integrated Pest Management and the increase of land under organic farming.”

The report, by Christa Klass, passed 58-3, with two absentions. It also set quantitative targets. “Active substances of very high concern” and “toxic or very toxic” pesticides will be subject to “a minimum 50% reduction.” It also bans aerial spraying in general, allowing exceptions by approval, and restored a demand for buffer zones to the text.

While industry interest groups protested the restrictions, claiming yields will fall and prices will rise, MEPs and public health advocates dismissed them. “Human health must be given better protection,” said British MEP Caroline Lucas. “With today’s vote, MEPs have rejected industry scaremongering, and sent a clear message that they want to see a reduction in the use of dangerous chemicals.”

“We think these proposals are a step in the right direction,” said the Soil Association’s Lord Peter Melchett. “They could go further and the British government should be pushing for them – not opposing them.” According to the BBC, a final vote could come in December or January.

Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate https://www.beyondpesticides.org/gateway/pesticide/glyphosate.htm) have been a boon to Monsanto’s profits, but not without environmental costs. Currently grown Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets. The crops’ resistance to glyphosate enables the use of the herbicide during the growing season without harming the crop itself. Glyphosate is now the number one herbicide in the United States. This has serious implications for public health and the environment, as glyphosate has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, kidney and liver damage, and skin irritation; it is neurotoxic and toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Increased herbicide usage has also led to resistant varieties of “superweeds.”

Although GE crops have encountered resistance from advocates throughout the world with concerns for health, organic farmers’ livelihoods, environmental contamination, and intellectual property, they have been widely adopted in Brazil as in the United States. The long-term environmental effects of GE crops are largely unknown, and this was the premise of a recent successful lawsuit for Beyond Pesticides and other environmental and consumer groups. In September, a federal court upheld a ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Brazil did not legalize GE crops until 2005, but prior to this, a considerable percentage of the country’s soy and cotton acreage was illegally grown GE crops. One of Monsanto’s reasons for investing in Brazil, in addition to what it views as the “untapped acres” available for production, is the country’s “improving support for intellectual property.” Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have been especially profitable for them because farmers are not legally allowed to save seeds; instead they are required each year to buy the patented seed from Monsanto.

According to Monsanto, over 17 million acres of sugarcane is grown in Brazil, and the company expects this number to jump 75% by 2017. Currently, sugarcane in Brazil is used to make both ethanol and processed sugar. While ethanol from sugarcane takes considerably less energy to produce than ethanol from corn, clearing land for agriculture removes biomass and degrades soils, releasing carbon into the atmosphere. The massive growth in production of biofuels in response to the energy crisis therefore contributes to climate change through the reduced carbon-storing capacity of the soil.

Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides, and focuses on building the soil–minimizing its effect on climate change https://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/environment/index.htm.

In the Federal Register last month, EPA, trying to play catch-up with the science while products continue in larger and larger numbers to incorporate the controversial antimicrobials, issues new and amended data requirements that will eventually address their down the drain fate. Environmental fate data for antimicrobials dominate these new requirements, especially pertaining to the discharge of these chemicals into waste water treatment plants from household sources. Antimicrobial chemicals are regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
There are nine new data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides and include: photo-degradation soil studies (for wood preservatives); 2 new exposures data requirements -soil residue dissipations and non-dietary ingestion exposure; activated sludge sorption isotherm study; ready biodegradability study; porous pot study; modified activated sludge; and respiration inhibition test.

These new rules are to now be required, once accepted, along with existing requirements, some of which have been updated or now explicitly required. Four of the new data requirements will inform a screening-level assessment on the fate of antimicrobials that reach a wastewater treatment plant, according to the proposal. “Since many antimicrobial pesticides are typically rinsed down the drain, EPA has considered the potential impacts of pesticides that are discharged into wastewater treatment plants,” it states. Along with these requirements EPA also proposes to use modeling tools such as the Down the Drain Model with the Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM) to assist in its environmental fate screening and assessment.

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), a trade group for wastewater treatment plants, has long supported added scrutiny of the approval process for products regulated under FIFRA, particularly of emerging contaminants. The group is particularly concerned that the amount of antimicrobials in the wastewater stream could harm the microbes in activated sludge, which is a biological process that treatment plants use to cleanup wastewater.

“There are a lot of secondary contaminations that should be looked at with regard to antimicrobials in the wastewater stream.” says Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides, who is supportive of the new studies in the proposed rule. but believes that the public should be warned about the data deficiencies until the chemicals are more thoroughly studied. “If the agency is looking at sludge, it should also look at earthworms,” which show the effects of antimicrobials on wildlife, according to Mr. Feldman.

In recent comments to the EPA for triclosan , an antimicrobial chemical, Beyond Pesticides and several other environmental and health groups criticized the EPA for not completing an analysis of the impact of triclosan on the environment, especially in the aquatic environment and endangered species, as well as other deficiencies in its review. In separate comments, waste water treatment utilities commented that triclosan and its degradation products are not cleaned out of the water treatment process and end up in sewage sludge. Research shows that earthworms take in triclosan residues, as do fish and aquatic organisms. Concerns were also been raised about residues in drinking water. A recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan was the most detected chemical in U.S. waterways.

TAKE ACTION: EPA is currently taking public comment on the proposed antimicrobials rule. The comment period ends on January 6, 2009. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov or mail to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Contact: Kathryn Boyle, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, mail code 7506P; telephone number: 703-305-6304; fax number: 703-305-5884; e-mail address: [email protected].

Obama EPA
With climate change a top priority, an Obama Administration EPA Administrator would most likely have a background in carbon emissions and global warming. Organic advocates will be pushing to include organic agriculture and carbon sequestration in any new cap and trade emissions program. The online environmental magazine Daily Grist predicts Mary Nichols, a former Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer and senior official in the Clinton EPA who currently chairs the California Air Resources Board; Kathleen McGinty, former Al Gore aide and first chair of the Clinton Administration’s Center for Environmental Quality who currently serves as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and, Dan Esty, a current top energy advisor to the Obama campaign and former George H.W. Bush EPA official; as candidates for the top EPA position. Others in the blogosphere have pointed to Robert Kennedy Jr., professor of environmental law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic (who has represented Beyond Pesticides in a mosquito-spraying lawsuit against New York City) and founder and chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance; Robert Sussman, Deputy EPA Administrator under the Clinton Administration and currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; and, Bradley Campbell, environmental lawyer and former Commissioner of the New Jersey (DEP).

McCain EPA
The Daily Grist is predicting Sherwood Boehlert, moderate Republican and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York who served on the House Science Committee; Joe Lieberman, former Democratic, now Independent Senator who has supported the McCain campaign, has co-authored climate change legislation and supported the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA); Chris Shays, moderate Republican and member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Connecticut who co-authored fuel efficiency bill; William Reilly, longtime director at the DuPont chemical company (a pesticide manufacturer) and former president of the World Wildlife Fund; Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey governor and later EPA administrator during much of George W. Bush’s first term; Mary Gade, former EPA administrator in the Midwest who says she was forced to resign after tangling with Dow Chemical Company over dioxin contamination; and, David McIntosh, past executive director of former vice president Dan Quayle’s Council for Competitiveness, where Grist reports he worked to roll back environmental regulations; as possibilities for the top EPA spot.

Obama USDA
Top Secretary of Agriculture predictions are: Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor and presidential candidate who supports corn ethanol, but says sustainable rural development means more than just commodity farming; Tom Buis, president of the National Farmer’s Union and past advisor to former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle; and, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota’s representative in the U.S. House and former South Dakota Farmers Union Foundation director.

According to the study findings published in the November issue of the journal Environmental Research, the median concentration of permethrin in the samples is 1454ng/g of dust. Excluding permethrin, pyrethroid conectrations are less than or equal to 100ng/g of dust. The majority of the metabolites are present in more than half of the dust samples.

This is not the first time researchers have found pesticides in dust in homes. A study published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (208: 193-199) also found that synthetic pyrethroids persist in house dust and air in significant concentrations for months after they are applied, disproving the popular myth that they are not long lasting. The researchers collected dust and airborne particles in 19 houses and buildings one day before treatments by pest control operators. They compared these baseline levels of synthetic pyrethroids to levels one day after the treatment, 4-6 months after, and 10-12 months after. One day after application, all of the pyrethroids were detected in significantly increased concentrations in the houses. Over the course of the following months, the concentrations all decreased. However, after 4-6 months, all four chemicals (cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, and permethrin) could still be detected. As long as one year after treatment, both permethrin and cyfluthrin levels remained elevated in house dust, in what the authors called “general background level[s],” indicating that these two pyrethroids especially have very slow degradation times.

A 2003 study published in Environmental Science & Technology also found pesticides in the homes tested. The study authors measured concentrations of 89 different chemicals identified as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in indoor air and house dust samples from 120 homes on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. EDCs are chemicals that can mimic or interfere with human hormones. The study, “Phthalates, Alkylphenol, Pesticides, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and Other Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Indoor Air and Dust,” detected 52 different compounds in air and 66 in dust. The number of chemicals detected in a home ranged from 13-28 for indoor air and from 6-42 for dust. Pesticides detected included DDT, carbaryl, chlordane, methoxychlor, propoxur, pentachlorophenol, diazinon, permethrin, and chlorpyrifos.

A 1998 study found that chlorpyrifos accumulated on furniture, toys and other sorbant surfaces up to two weeks after application. A separate study involving chlorpyrifos found substantially higher concentrations in the infant breathing zone. Airborne concentrations of seven insecticides were tested 3 days following their application in separate rooms. Six of the seven pesticides left residues behind through the third day. A 1996 study found that 2,4-D can be tracked from lawns into homes, leaving residues of the herbicide in carpets. EPA’s Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) found that tested households had at least five pesticides in indoor air, at levels often ten times greater than levels measured in outdoor air. Another EPA study found 23 pesticides in indoor household dust and air that was recently applied or used in the home. The study also found residues of pesticides in and around the home even when there had been no known use of them on the premises.

Synthetic pyrethroids are chemically formulated versions of the natural-based pesticide pyrethrum, made from extracts from plants in the chrysanthemum family. A widely used class of insecticides, synthetic pyrethroids, are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore are more potent to insects and pose more risks to humans.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin as a possible human carcinogen, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. Many synthetic pyrethroids have been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system, and increase chances of breast cancer. EPA lists permethrin as suspected endocrine disruptors. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks. Material Safety Data Sheets, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for pyrethroid products often warn, “Persons with history of asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory tract disorders may experience symptoms at low exposures.” In view of the fact that asthma is the most common long-term childhood illness today, persistent residues of pyrethroids in house dust and air need to be taken very seriously.

Children are especially sensitive to the effects of permethrin and other synthetic pyrethroids. A study found that permethrin is almost five times more toxic to eight-day-old rats than to adult rats due to incomplete development of the enzymes that break down pyrethroids in the liver. Additionally, studies on newborn mice have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development.

“We are excited about this because we are the first in the county to take part,” said Mayor Peter Voros. “We hope that others follow because this is a great project.”

Two township volunteers proposed the policy last summer, presenting information on pesticides an alternatives at a committee meeting. They and a local environmental group collaborated to create the adopted resolution. “Pittsgrove now has a written Integrated Pest Management policy which means that least-toxic methods are used, only when needed,” said Committeewoman Linda DuBois. The IPM policy targets toxic pesticides for elimination, as many have been linked to health risks like asthma, learning disabilities, and birth defects. “We especially want to protect children because they are closer to pesticide applications on the ground and they are still developing and absorb more pesticides than adults,” said Jane Nogaki, program coordinator for the New Jersey Environmental Federation. (for more information on children and pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet, “Children and Chemicals Don’t Mix.”) Committeeman Jeff Ridgway added that the policy also “protects ground water and the aquatic life in the stream that runs through the park.”

Pittsgrove is the latest municipality in New Jersey to convert public park areas to pesticide-free management. Earlier this year, Vorhees adopted indoor IPM and pesticide-free parks and a year ago, Fairlawn created a similar policy. In all, 21 communities in New Jersey have adopted pesticide-free park policies, as have towns in other states. For some examples of successfully adopted policies, click here.

Community activism is the best way to get your town to adopt a pesticide-free policy. You can maintain your lawn and garden organically (see our Lawns and Landscapes page for tips), and let your neighbors know by displaying a Pesticide Free Zone sign. For assistance in proposing a policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].