In a nutshell, the researchers determined, by comparing the differences in gene expression in healthy and CCD colonies, the infected colonies had considerably more damage in their ribosomes. (Ribosomes function in the expression of the genetic code from nucleic acid into protein in all animal, plant and fungal cells.) The infected hives also had higher rates of picorna-like viruses, which damage the ribosome. The researchers believe the loss of ribosomal function leaves the bees susceptible to pesticides and other infections.

The honey bee genome project was launched in 2006 by University of Illinois researchers. The new study made use of the genome and a genome-based tool, the microarray, to look for differences in gene expression in the guts of healthy honey bees and in those from hives afflicted by CCD. The gut acts as a primary interface between the honey bee and its environment as a site of entry for pathogens and toxic chemicals.

Such microarray analyses normally identify only active genes — those that have been transcribed into messenger RNA in the first stage of building proteins. But researchers noticed that the microarrays were turning up large quantities of fragmented ribosomal RNA (rRNA) in the bees affected by CCD. Ribosomes are the factories in which proteins are made, but this rRNA contained adenosine-rich sequences not seen in normal ribosomes. Such “polyadenylation” is believed to be a sign of ribosome degradation. Comparisons of healthy bees and bees from hives afflicted with CCD showed that the fragments were present at a much higher frequency in the CCD bees.

When the team looked at the pathogens of healthy bees and bees from hives affected by CCD, they saw that the CCD bees suffered “more than their share” of infections with viruses that attack the ribosome, Berenbaum said. These so-called picorna-like viruses “hijack the ribosome,” she said, taking over the cellular machinery to manufacture only viral proteins. The list of picorna-like viruses that afflict honey bees is long and includes Israeli acute paralysis virus, which was once suspected of being the primary cause of CCD.

Numerous suspects have been identified in the hunt for a cause of CCD, from nutritional deficiencies to exposure to genetically modified plants tp pesticides.

“The loss of ribosomal function would explain many of the phenomena associated with CCD,” said May Berenbaum, head of the Department of Entomology. “If your ribosome is compromised, then you can’t respond to pesticides, you can’t respond to fungal infections or bacteria or inadequate nutrition because the ribosome is central to the survival of any organism. You need proteins to survive.”

The varroa mite, which is believed to have killed off a significant number of honey bees after it was accidentally introduced to the U.S. in 1986, is a carrier of picorna-like viruses, and is likely a significant contributor to the high viral pathogen load that afflicts U.S. bees. The mite may act as a tipping factor leading to ribosome breakdown, the researchers said.

All of these influences, along with the practice of carting bees around the country for pollination services, are significant stressors on the bees, a heavy burden that would be amplified by a loss of ribosomal function, Robinson said.

Research is ongoing as to the cause of the CCD phenomenon, but pesticides, especially neonictinoids such as imidacloprid, have been implicated. CCD can be especially devastating since honeybees are essential pollinators of crops that constitute over one third of the U.S. food supply or $15 billion worth of food. For more information on pollinators and CCD, read our factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action.

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

Genoa Tree Nursery misused the pesticide Diazinon AG500 during applications in May and June 2008. The company failed to comply with label directions that require it to minimize the risk of exposure by notifying workers and handlers of recent pesticide applications on particular fields, and failed to provide workers with nearest emergency medical care facility information in case of exposure. The applicator also did not receive safety training during the previous five years as required by law. EPA fined Genoa Tree Nursery a mere $5,440 for these violations.

“Notifying employees about potentially harmful pesticide exposure is not just a good idea, it’s the law,” said Katherine Taylor, EPA’s Communities and Ecosystems Division associate director for the Pacific Southwest region. “Employers of agricultural workers must ensure their employees are provided with information and protections that minimize the risk of potential exposure to pesticides””failure to do so is a serious violation.” The Nevada Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during a routine inspection in June 2008.

The pesticide, Diazinon AG500, a restricted use pesticide, is limited to agricultural use only and must be applied by a certified applicator or a person under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Linden Tree Nursery’s May 2008 application of Diazinon AG500 had neither a certified applicator nor a person under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

The Worker Protection Standard, part of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), when adhered to, is designed to protect workers from occupational exposure to pesticides through the enforcement of labeling requirements. The standard contains requirements for the provision of pesticide safety training, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance, as well as the notification of recent pesticide applications, the use of protective equipment, and restrictions on reentry into fields where pesticides have been applied.

Farmworkers in the U.S. work in some of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs, and suffer injuries and illnesses at high rates. They suffer from exposure to pesticides, extreme temperatures and are constantly stooping, bending, and lifting. A 2008 study by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher finds the pesticide poisoning incidence rate among U.S. agricultural workers is 31 times higher than the incidence rate found in all other industries combined.

EPA has long been criticized for its abysmal record of instituting and enforcing even the most basic human health protections from pesticides for those who are responsible for planting and harvesting much of the nation’s food. In May 2009, EPA announced its decision to allow continued use of toxic soil fumigants that poison farmworker communities with modified safety measures, falling far short of safety advocate efforts to adopt more stringent use restrictions and chemical bans. Beyond Pesticides, farmworker unions, support groups, and worker advocacy organizations wrote a letter strongly urging the Administrator to uphold environmental justice for farmworker communities.

“At home and in the classroom, parents are the first line of defense in protecting their children against pesticide exposure,” said DAR Commissioner Scott Soares. “Maintaining a school or day care IPM plan is not only required by law, but it is also crucial to insure children’s safety.”

According to DAR’s Division of Crop and Pest Services, the vast majority of schools and day care facilities have filed IPM plans with DAR, but roughly 200 schools and 400 day care facilities are not in compliance with the state IPM law. DAR periodically notifies schools without plans about the requirements throughout the year. Day care facilities can lose their operating licenses if they do not comply, and this year schools that do not file an IPM plan within 90 days face a $1,000 fine. In addition, DAR collaborates with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Department of Early Education and Care to engage school principals and superintendents as well as day care.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control which offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticides in schools, and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to any products which are used. Education, in the form of workshops, training sessions and written materials, is an essential component of an IPM program – for everyone from administrators, maintenance personnel, cafeteria staff and nurses to parents and students. If pesticides must be used, only least toxic pesticides are recommended, including garlic or mint oil and tamper resistant baits.

In 2000, Massachusetts passed legislation to prevent unnecessary exposure of children to chemical pesticides, promote safer alternatives to pesticides, ensure that clear and accurate notification concerning the use of pesticides in schools and day care centers is available to parents, and to promote the use of integrated pest management techniques to reduce schools’ reliance on chemical pesticides. The law requires that schools, day care centers and school-age child care programs adopt and implement IPM plans that cover both indoor and outdoor areas. Plans must be filed with DAR and at least one copy must be kept on school premises and made available to the public upon request.

Beyond Pesticides urges all parents to ask their school whether they have adopted and implemented an IPM policy. If your school does not have an IPM program, Beyond Pesticides can provide you with the resources necessary for developing, adopting, and implementing a school IPM program. Read our factsheet, “Alternatives to Using Pesticides in Schools. What is Integrated Pest Management?” for information on IPM and please visit our Children and Schools webpage for more information.

“The wrong type of bird ended up being targeted,” Quebec City police spokeswoman Catherine Viel said.

A similar event happened in Schenectady New York in 2006, when Rentokill, Inc., a local exterminator applied 4-aminopyridine in order to ward off pigeons from a hospital. This caused a “deadly rain” of pigeons to fall from the sky, closing the hospital emergency room.

One of the most prominent avicides, Avitrol –the trade name for 4-aminopyridine–i s available as grain baits or powder concentrate. It repels birds by poisoning a few members of a flock, causing them to become agitated, which signals other birds to leave the area. Only a small number of birds need to be affected to cause alarm in the rest of the flock, thus only a little bit of this chemical is needed.

Avitrol is listed as highly toxic to mammals according to its Pesticide Information Profile by the Extension Toxicology Network. Accidental ingestion of as little as 60 mg can cause severe poisoning in adult humans, as it is readily absorbed through digestion. This pesticide strongly stimulates the central nervous system, and individuals with a history of convulsive disorders may be at increased risk from exposure to 4-aminopyridine, resulting in death due to heart failure or respiratory arrest. Symptoms of poisonings include thirst, nausea, dizziness, weakness, and intense sweating, followed by impairment of normal mental functioning, lack of muscular coordination, tremors, labored breathing, and generalized seizures. It is also readily absorbed through the skin, and exposure to Avitrol may lead to systemic intoxication or general overall poisoning.

Migratory birds, finches, and other small seed-feeding birds may ingest lethal doses that are applied to corn and sunflower fields intended to ward of crows and pigeons. Endangered species may also be adversely affected by 4-aminopyridine. Because there is a large potential for exposure of non-target, particularly grain-feeding birds, 4-aminopyridine is one of the top ten pesticides in the Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS), which collects field data sub-lethal effects of pesticides on birds.

According to Tanya Drlik of the Bio-Integral Resource Center, in Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly, the most effective way to get rid of pigeons is to clean the nesting and roosting sites. All debris must be scraped up and removed, thoroughly cleaned with a detergent and then rinsed with a high pressure stream of hot water. The roof must then be made inaccessible to pigeons, which can be done in a number of ways through the use of mechanical barriers, such as bird netting, porcupine wire, and electric fencing. Landing sites may also be altered or retrofitted to include 45 degree ramps, as pigeons cannot physically land on surfaces that are steeper than this angle.

For more information on alternative ways to manage pests, please see our Alternatives Fact Sheet.

Advocates point out that even if Bayer follows through with its 80% reduction promise, it would still allow up to 50,000 pounds of MIC to be stored on site. This would be similar to the amount of the chemical present in the 1984 Union Carbide (now owned by Dow Chemical) explosion in Bhopal, India. Last summer, when a pesticide tank exploded in West Virginia, comparisons between the site’s potential risk and the Bhopal disaster, in which an explosion and leak killed thousands, were drawn. Currently, the U.S. plant has the capacity to store more up to 40,000 pounds of MIC above ground and 200,000 pounds below ground. Bayer says it will eliminate all above ground storage.

Bayer Cropscience has previously rejected calls to eliminate or reduce MIC production. Bill Buckner, Bayer CropScience’s president, said the decision isn’t an admission the plant’s MIC stockpile was unsafe, but is an effort to address continued concerns from the public and local government officials.

Bayer does not plan to rebuild its methomyl unit, where last August’s explosion occurred, however it will buy outside sources of methomyl manufactured in other communities to continue making its Larvin brand pesticide products.

Bayer says it will stop producing MIC by July 2010 for the FMC Corporation to use in making the pesticide carbofuran. Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked regulations that permit residues of the pesticide carbofuran in food (tolerances) because the insecticide does not meet current safety standards. The tolerance rule becomes effective December 31, 2009. Environmentalists believe that production beyond the cancellation date is a sign that the manufacturer is fighting the cancellation. It is also possible for FMC to manufacture carbofuran for export after use is banned in the U.S., a practice which is permitted under federal pesticide law. Approximately one-quarter of the pesticides exported by the U.S. are not registered for domestic use or sale.

Bayer will continue to manufacture MIC for production the production of aldicarb and carbaryl (Sevin) indefinitely.

“An 80 percent reduction is a decent good first step in addressing the dangers that exist in the facility and we look forward to seeing more progress,” Maya Nye, a spokeswoman for People Concerned About MIC, told the Charleston Gazette. “The 20 percent that remains will still be capable of causing the amount of damage as happened in Bhopal, so we need to remain vigilant about these dangers that still exist.”

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, a nonregulatory agency, is conducting an investigation into the cause of last year’s explosion, emergency response coordination, and future prevention measures. However, Bayer has invoked the 2002 federal Maritime Transportation Security Act because its campus is attached to a dock on the Kanawha River, claiming the Act exempts it from sharing “sensitive security information” due to potential terrorism. Read more about Bayer’s lack of cooperation.

“Any measures by Bayer to reduce the inventory of MIC at the facility are a positive development, provided that the safety and environmental risk is truly mitigated,” John Bresland, chairman of the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board said. “If implemented in a careful and conscientious manner, the steps Bayer has outlined will lessen the risk to the public and the workforce from an uncontrolled release of MIC.” The board plans to release its final report on the accident in 2010. Read the open letter sent by People Concerned About MIC to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

Photo gallery:

West Virginia

August 2008 explosion at the Bayer CropScience plant in WV

Photo of the gate closing off the Institute community's evacuation route. By Maya Nye, 11/08

Bhopal

Bhopal plant control room. (Photo by Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides)

Bhopal procedures for an emergency. (Photo by Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides)

Nationally renowned “Renegade Lunch Lady” Chef Ann Cooper is BVSD’s Interim Director of Nutrition Services as part of a one-year contract with the district. Although changing a school’s lunch program can’t happen overnight (Chef Cooper predicts that it will take several years for the full vision to be realized), cafeteria offerings can be quite healthier from the get-go. A key component to the BVSD change is professional development for more than 150 nutrition services personnel with five full days of training. Training includes everything from culinary skills to recipe development and safe food handling.

In addition, as a first step, every school cafeteria in the district will provide regionally produced organic milk, locally produced foods from fruits and vegetables to whole grain baked products and burritos, and fresh salad bars. BVSD has also eliminated trans fats, high fructose corn syrup and highly processed foods.

“Year one in Boulder Valley will be the most challenging but also the most exciting,” said Ms. Cooper. “We’re so fortunate to have such a bounty of local, healthy food in Boulder Valley that we can make accessible to the children of BVSD. This work won’t be easy but I know with local support, we will fulfill meaningful change here and beyond.”

“We believe Boulder Valley is fortunate to have a national leader in school nutrition now partnering with our food service staff and leading the BVSD Nutrition Services Department so that all of the BVSD’s children can have access to healthier food,” said Superintendent Chris King. “We hope that this will not only benefit the families of Boulder Valley, but also allow our model to serve as an open book for school districts across the country.”

Ms. Cooper and Lunch Lessons LLC were first hired by BVSD in 2008 to conduct a feasibility study of how best to get BVSD from the traditional school food service model of highly processed, high sugar and sodium frozen foods to a sustainable model of scratch-cooked, closer to the source, and fresh foods. Much of the work with Cooper and Lunch Lessons has been partially funded through a public-private partnership, the School Food Project (SFP), a unique task force of community businesses, nonprofits, activists, and district officials all dedicated to improving the quality of food served to children of the district. Local businesses and dozens of local Boulder Valley families have donated to the School Food Project raising almost $400,000 to date with a goal of $750,000 by the end of the 2009-10 school year.

Ms. Cooper, with the expertise of hundreds of school lunch reform advocates from across the country, has also created The Lunch Box: Healthy Tools To Help All Schools, a revolutionary web portal of tangible tools and practical solutions for school nutrition officials and children’s health advocates across the U.S. It is a first-of- its-kind school nutrition resource with a comprehensive set of “why” and “how to” online tools to transition the typical highly processed school meal program to healthier, wholesome and fresh food-based menus with no trans fats, high fructose corn syrup or unnecessary chemical additives and preservatives.

To make the transition easier, especially with today’s tight school district budgets, the Lunch Box provides: 80 scalable recipes; nutritional and cost analyses; menu plans; budget, inventory and procurement models and templates; “How to Get Started” tips and case studies; food safety, handling and hazard analysis and tools; and, training videos available at no charge.

According to the Food, Family, Farming Foundation, the time is ripe for 31 million schoolchildren. Congress is expected to take up the Child Nutrition Act, a bill that is designed to help meet the nutritional needs of children through the National School Lunch Program and other feeding programs, which comes up for review only every five years. Increased budgets and improved nutritional standards, which have not changed in 15 years, will be up for debate. Rates of childhood obesity are soaring. About 12 percent of children ages 2 to 5 are obese compared with 17 percent of kids 6 to 11, and 18 percent of kids ages 12 to 19.

Food & Water Watch, based in Washington, DC, has been working to get schools to provide organic milk or milk not treated with the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). A recently released report by Food & Water Watch, rBGH: How Artificial Hormones Damage the Dairy Industry and Endanger Public Health, describes how this genetically engineered artificial hormone has been linked to cancer in humans and numerous illnesses in dairy cows.

Approved in 1994 by the Food and Drug Administration, rBGH is injected into cows to make them produce more milk. Besides the documented increase of infections in dairy cows injected with rBGH, which necessitates increased use of antibiotics, there are ongoing questions about links to cancer in humans. Based on the number of dairies that use rBGH in the United States, it is possible that at least 84 million gallons of milk from rBGH-treated cows were distributed through the school nutrition programs in 2005-2006.

“Our children’s health should not be put at risk by their being made to consume rBGH milk at school,” said Ms. Cooper “Legislation must be put into effect that eliminates artificial hormones and antibiotics from all milk served in school cafeterias all across the country – our children’s health depends upon this.”

Some school districts, including Seattle public schools, and California school districts in Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Palo Alto, already have policies banning junk food and encouraging organic food in school cafeterias. The San Francisco Unified School District and the River Valley School District in Wisconsin, have passed school board resolutions to source only rBGH-free milk in their schools due to parents’ demands. And an organic salad bar started at Lincoln Elementary School in Olympia, Washington has proven so popular and economically feasible, all grade schools in Olympia now have one.

Children who eat a diet of organic food show a level of pesticides in their body that is six times lower than children who eat a diet of conventionally produced food. A study from Emory University found that an organic diet given to children provides a “dramatic and immediate protective effect” against exposures to two pesticides that are commonly used in U.S. agricultural production. A study published in the February 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives found that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet.

Organic farming and food systems are holistic, work with nature rather than relying on inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers, exhibit higher standards for the welfare of animals, and do not allow routine use of antibiotics. Organic farming also protects the farmworkers and their families from chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. For more information of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Health and fitness items continue to dominate the PEN inventory, representing 60 percent of products listed. More products are based on nanoscale silver””used for its antimicrobial properties””than any other nanomaterial; 259 products (26 percent of the inventory) use silver nanoparticles.

“The use of nanotechnology in consumer products continues to grow rapidly,” says PEN Director David Rejeski. “When we launched the inventory in March 2006 we only had 212 products. If the introduction of new products continues at the present rate, the number of products listed in the inventory will reach close to 1,600 within the next two years. This will provide significant oversight challenges for agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission, which often lack any mechanisms to identify nanotech products before they enter the marketplace.”

The widespread use of nanotechnology, such as the use of silver nanoparticles, can create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. This is because nanoparticles — usually sized between 1 and 100 nanometers (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter)- are so small they become extremely mobile; they are able to enter the lungs, pass through cell membranes, and possibly penetrate the skin. Once inside the body, they seem to have unlimited access to all tissues and organs, including the brain, and likely also the fetal circulation, and may cause cell damage that we don’t yet understand. Studies of ultrafine air pollution have shown that inhalation of nano-sized particles increases the risk of asthma attacks and of death from heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory disease.

While regular silver is known to be toxic to fish, aquatic organisms and microorganisms, recent scientific studies have shown that silver nanoparticles are much more toxic and can cause damage in new ways. A 2008 study showed that washing nano-silver socks released substantial amounts of the nanosilver into the laundry discharge water, which will ultimately reach natural waterways and potentially poison fish and other aquatic organisms. The human health impacts of nanosilver are still largely unknown. The U.S. federal government has invested only a small percentage of its overall nanotechnology research funding in understanding the risks posed by nanomaterials, according to an analysis conducted last year by PEN, further highlighting the need for more research on the potential risks posed by nanomaterials.

A legal petition was filed in May 2008 by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and others including Beyond Pesticides, challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide. 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, and require labeling of all products.

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 nanosilver’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.

For more information on silver nanoparticles, visit our antibacterial webpage

Strong scientific evidence suggests that pervasive use of triclosan poses imminent threats to human health and the environment, which is why Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch submitted an amended petition a month ago to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to ban the use of the controversial pesticide triclosan for non-medical applications. The petition establishes that FDA’s allowance of triclosan in the retail market violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.

The CMA resolution echoes concerns raised not only by Beyond Pesticides, but also by the American Medical Association (AMA) that date as far back as 2000, citing the lack of studies pertaining to the health and environmental effects of its widespread use. Because no data exists to support the need for such products or dispute scientific concerns about their contribution to bacterial resistance, the AMA decided that it would be “prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.”

“It’s about time that the problems with triclosan were addressed,” says Linda Duncan, a member of the Canadian Parliament for the New Democratic Party and long time environmentalist. “We must ensure that the medical community has all the tools it needs to control the spread of bacteria, and avoid abusing antibacterials to the detriment of health and the environment.”

Regulated by both the FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), triclosan is an antibacterial used in hundreds of common consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics, deodorants, toys, and even clothing. Such widespread use in everyday consumer products can contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria, lessening their effectiveness, and they can affect the environment in runoff and wastewater.

A U.S Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan is one of the most detected chemicals in U.S. waterways and at some of the highest concentrations, because it is so frequently used in households and washed down the drains. Triclosan has been found to be highly toxic to different types of algae, keystone organisms for complex aquatic ecosystems. A recent U.S. 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.

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

Handwashing with soap and water is essential. An FDA panel concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than washing hands with soap and water. The Center for Disease Control recommends that children wash their hands several times a day for 20 seconds or the time it takes to sing “Happy Birthday” twice.

“Really all you need is soap and water and the alcohol rubs that are available,” says Dr. Khatter. “There isn’t any benefit to going to these other products – there’s only potential harm.”

For more information, including the hazards of triclosan and tips on how to get it out of your school, office or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Triclosan program page.

“The data shows that EPA is unable to adequately regulate atrazine and protect the public from this hazardous herbicide in our drinking water,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “With studies showing hormonal and other adverse effects at extremely low levels, any level of atrazine in our drinking water is dangerous and spikes above EPA’s 3 ppb threshold are completely unacceptable. EPA must put public health first and ban this toxic chemical.”

Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, municipal water supplies are tested for chemicals about four times a year. Because this is done so infrequently, EPA mandates that companies manufacturing a chemical””in this case, Syngenta for atrazine””must monitor drinking water in a sample pool of towns as much as once a week. A New York Times investigation finds, however, that too often reports of these spikes of atrazine in the drinking water go unreported to residents or fail to reflect the higher concentrations.

The town of Piqua, Ohio was found to have concentrations of atrazine at 59.57 parts per billion in April of 2005 by Syngenta, with similar levels in 2004 and 2007. In a report sent to citizens in 2005, though, the highest level was said to be 11.6 parts per billion. Residents were also not told when or for how long these peaks occurred. Syngenta claims that they provided city officials in Piqua with results, yet city officials are unaware of this.

EPA asserts that it does not believe these one-time spikes are of concern to human health; however, plenty of evidence exists suggesting otherwise.

“Our biggest concern is early-life-stage development,” says Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at NRDC. “”¦These endocrine disruptors act in the body at extremely low levels. These spikes matter.”

Earlier this year, a study published in the medical journal Acta Paeditrica found that the highest rates of birth defects for U.S. babies occur when conception occurs in the spring and summer months, when the highest concentrations of pesticides are found in surface waters. The correlation between the month of the last menstrual period and higher rates of birth defects is statistically significant for half of the 22 categories of birth defects reported in the Centers for Disease Control database from 1996 to 2002, including spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot and Down’s syndrome.The study relies on findings by the U.S. Geological Survey, the EPA and other agencies on the seasonal variations in nitrates, atrazine and other pesticides in the surface water.

Even at levels considered “safe” by EPA drinking water standards, atrazine is linked to endocrine-disrupting effects. Research by UC Berkeley professor, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., demonstrates that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion, turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics.

Atrazine has also been implicated in a study as a possible cause for male infertility, blocking the action of the male sex-hormone testosterone and could impact the development of male reproductive organs in humans.

In yet another study last year by Dr. Rick Relyea, Ph.D., an associate professor of biological sciences in the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Arts and Sciences, a mixture of small amounts of ten of the most commonly used pesticides, including atrazine killed 99 percent of the leopard frog tadpoles that he was testing.

While EPA is aware of these new studies, the agency will not review the research until sometime next year, and in the meantime has not warned pregnant women about the risks of atrazine or to use a simple carbon water filter.

“The public believes that the EPA has carefully reviewed all the chemicals that are used and has the authority it needs to deal with risks, but that’s often not the case,” says Erik D. Olson, director of food and consumer product safety at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

While atrazine is one of the most common agricultural pesticides in the U.S., runoff from lawns and gardens is a serious concern. Dr. David Skelley, Ph.D. a professor of ecology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, discovered last year that intersex frogs are more common in suburban areas than agricultural areas. His research focused on specific chemicals, such as atrazine which is increasingly used to manicure home lawns and gardens.

Pesticides, such as atrazine, even at low levels, have been associated with reproductive and developmental effects as well as endocrine disruption. Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, with an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine applied in the U.S. annually. Atrazine has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant.

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

TAKE ACTION! Contact EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and tell her that any level of atrazine in our drinking water is unacceptable. If a pesticide cannot be used in a way that prevents the contamination of drinking water by that chemical, its use must be banned.

If your child’s quote is chosen, he/she will win: 1) A $500 U.S. Savings Bond for your child’s future education; 2) A $500 donation in your child’s name to an environmental group of your child’s choosing (we hope you’ll pick Beyond Pesticides!); and, 3) Winning quotes will appear on the back of Earthbound Farm’s salad labels and website. Earthbound Farm will select a new winner every month through the end of 2009. Submit a quotation.

A five year old winner from Scituate, MA, Schuyler, who chose to designate Beyond Pesticides, wrote, “…just like being 5, we only get to do it once! Take care of our Earth by going organic.”

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.

Learn more about why organic is better for consumers, kids and farmworkers, as well as the environment.

Other courses around the country are striving for ways to reduce the environmental impact of golf course management, some adopting integrated pest management (IPM) techniques that reduce pesticide use. The question, of course, is whether the continued use of poisons in sensitive ecosystems with techniques that are not adhering to organic turf management practices are adequate in protecting human health and the environment.

Golf courses can have fast greens and outstanding playing conditions without the massive load of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and the crew at Bethpage State Park’s world-renowned golf courses, the largest public golf complex in the country, is out to prove it. For their involvement in nearly a decade of groundbreaking research to develop, test, and fine-tune techniques that steeply cut chemical inputs, Dave Catalano, Andy Wilson, Craig Currier and Kathie Wegman have earned an Excellence in IPM award from the New York State Integrated Pest Management (NYS IPM) Program at Cornell University.

Golf courses are often faulted for heavy pesticide use. According to Cornell, the Bethpage project has cut environmental impact up to 96 percent over conventional practices — and this in a climate where weather conditions and heavy foot traffic from 250,000 golfers each year ensure constant disease pressure. Home of the 2009 US Open, Bethpage State Park comprises five separate golf courses on its 1,500 acres in the heart of densely populated Long Island, just 25 miles east of the New York City line.

“We can’t emphasize enough how important long-term, real-world research is,” says Jennifer Grant, assistant director of NYS IPM, who coordinates turf IPM research. “You don’t get truly useful results until you’ve tested your work over time, keeping what works and incorporating promising new practices and products.”

When Mr. Wilson is out on the green with his stimpmeter or moisture probe and a golfer asks what he’s up to, the conversation could easily cut to the new tactics and products the crews are testing to deliver quality conditions with lower inputs. Wilson supervises Bethpage’s aptly named Green Course, where core IPM practices are developed.

That stimpmeter, for example, measures how fast the ball rolls, something golfers care a lot about. It tells Wilson more–tells him whether IPM greens provide the same level of play.

But when Wilson talks to other golf-course superintendents, he cuts to the essential ingredient in high-level IPM — careful recordkeeping. “It keeps your mind sharp, helping you think through alternate solutions to typical problems instead of falling back on the tried and true,” Wilson says.

Just as essential is scouting — monitoring greens and fairways for insect, weed, and plant disease pests.

“Scouting can be as low-tech as flushing insects from the turf with a lemon soap solution, or as high tech as looking at root pieces through a microscope to precisely identify a disease,” says Ms. Wegman, Bethpage’s IPM specialist. “We find out where the hot spots are and treat them, which lessens or even eliminates the need to spray.”

But can steeply cutting pesticide use really produce satisfactory play? “Surveys consistently show high golfer satisfaction with IPM-managed greens at Bethpage,” says Frank Rossi, professor and turf specialist at Cornell University. “This has been a monumental project, both in scope and impact.”

IPM relies on non- and least-toxic ways of preventing and managing pest problems that minimizes the use of pesticides and the hazards to human health and the environment associated with pesticide applications. Such methods include site and pest inspections, pest population monitoring, an evaluation of the need for pest control, cultural, mechanical and biological control strategies, and, if non-toxic options are unreasonable and have been exhausted, the least-toxic pesticide.

In what it called the most important article it has ever published, Golf Digest in its May 2008 issue publishes an article, How Green is Golf?, which asked the hard questions about the environmental impact of golf in a series of in-depth interviews, including a builder, golf course superintendent, regulator and environmentalist. The article spans a range of opinions on water usage, pesticide contamination, and management practices, with general agreement that golfer expectations and management practices must move and are moving in an environmental direction, citing important ways in which attitudes and understanding must change.

For more information on issues surrounding pesticides and golf, see Beyond Pesticides Golf and the Environment program page. If you like to golf or live near a golf course, check out the Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, a set of principles jointly developed by a group of leading golf and environmental organizations that seeks to produce environmental excellence in golf course planning and siting, design, construction, maintenance and facility operations, and encourage your local golf course to adopt these principles.

In the study, Lorence Oki, from the Department of Environmental Horticulture at the University of California Davis, Darren Haver, with University of California Cooperative Extension, and their colleagues explain that runoff results from rainfall and watering of lawns and gardens, which winds up in municipal storm drains. The runoff washes fertilizers, pesticides and other contaminants into storm drains, and they eventually appear in rivers, lakes and other bodies of water.

“Results from our sampling and monitoring study revealed high detection frequencies of pollutants such as pesticides and pathogen indicators at all sites,” Mr. Oki said of their study of eight residential areas in Sacramento and Orange Counties in California.

Preliminary results of the study suggest that current models may underestimate the amount of pollution contributed by homes by up to 50 percent. That’s because past estimates focused on rain-based runoff during the wet season. “Use of pesticides, however, increases noticeably during the dry season due to gardening, and our data contains greater resolution than previous studies,” said Mr. Oki.

Organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides were found in all water samples taken over a two year period on a weekly, bi-weekly and monthly basis for the study, according to Scientific American. The majority of the pesticides detected in the runoff were for ant control, which is supported by data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation that has shown that the majority of pesticides purchased by homeowners are used to control ants.

Last month, the report “Pesticides and the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Watershed” was released, warning that pesticide pollution from households and farm fields is contributing to the Chesapeake Bay’s decline, and may well be linked to declines in frogs across the region and intersex fish seen in the Potomac River.

Another study reported by Beyond Pesticides last month found that insecticides used in highly populated agricultural areas of California’s Central Valley affect amphibians that breed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. This study adds to the increasing evidence that pesticides impact areas and wildlife species that are miles from sources of pesticide application.

Over the past decade, Dr. Isman and colleagues tested many plant essential oils and found that they have a broad range of insecticidal activity against agricultural pests. Some spiced-based commercial products now being used by farmers have already shown success in protecting organic strawberry, spinach, and tomato crops against destructive aphids and mites, the researcher says.

“These products expand the limited arsenal of organic growers to combat pests,” explains Isman. “They’re still only a small piece of the insecticide market, but they’re growing and gaining momentum.”

These natural pesticides have several advantages. First of all, Dr. Isman says that insects are less likely to evolve resistance to these oils like they can other once-effective toxins. They’re also safer for farm workers, who are at high risk for pesticide exposure. Essential oils also do not require extensive regulatory approval and are already widely available as inexpensive ingredients for food flavorings and in perfume.

Certain plant essential oils have different qualities. In his research, Dr. Isman found that mints, thyme, rosemary, clove, citrus, have a wide range of insecticidal activity that can be utilized for integrated pest management in organic food production. Rosemary and thyme are useful for preventing against plant pathogenic fungi such as powdery mildew, while others, like clove, and citrus are toxic to other plants at certain concentrations and can be used as herbicides.

According to his research, the oils may interfere with the insect nervous system of pests, making the muscles spasm. In some cases, essential oils can disrupt an insect’s cell membranes, causing the insect’s fluids to leak, thus killing it. His research also suggests that the plant oils are most effective against small, soft-bodied bugs that suck on plant juices, such as aphids, whiteflies, and spider mites. These bugs also have large surface areas relative to their internal volume, so more of the bug is likely to come into contact with the oil, he added.

“Small, soft-bodied insects are more vulnerable to having their membranes melted or smothered by the oils,” Isman said.

Since essential oils tend to evaporate quickly and degrade rapidly in sunlight, the spice-based pesticides needs to be applied to crops more frequently than conventional pesticides. Some last only a few hours, compared to days or even months for conventional pesticides. And, because these natural pesticides are much less toxic than conventional pesticides, they will likely be applied in higher concentrations. Due to these reasons, researchers are now seeking ways of making the natural pesticides longer-lasting and more potent.

“…At the end of the day, it comes down to what’s good for the environment and what’s good for human health,” explains Dr. Isman.

Beyond its use in agriculture, research is also being done to examine the effectiveness of essential oils for use in the home as a more eco-friendly and safer approach to combating pests such as mosquitoes, flies, and roaches. Conventional bug sprays that use DEET can cause numerous health problems. These chemicals can also have a harsh odor, while these natural pesticides tend to have a pleasant, spicy aroma since many contain the same oils that are used in aromatherapy products, including cinnamon and peppermint, Isman notes.

Spice-based products are also being developed to repel ticks and fleas on dogs and cats without harming the animals. And, researchers are currently exploring the use of other spice-based products to destroy microbes, such as E. coil and Salmonella, on fruits and vegetables.

Other scientists are currently exploring the insect-fighting potential of lavender, basil, bergamot, patchouli oil, and at least a dozen other oils from exotic plant sources in China. Funding for this study was provided by EcoSMART ®, a botanical pesticide company based in Alpharetta, Ga.

Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of non-toxic and least toxic pesticide alternatives. Essential oils are classified as a least-toxic method for pest management, because products that are designed to kill living organisms should be treated with caution.

The concern with essential oils is its volatility and ability to vaporize into the air. It is important to remember that there is still a potential to cause harm to human and environmental health and to read labels on all products before using to make sure it does not also include any toxic pesticides, synergists or non-disclosed inert ingredients. Also, if you are chemically sensitive, you will need to carefully evaluate the product to decide whether it makes sense for you to use.

For more information on alternative ways to manage pests, please see our Alternatives Fact Sheet.

Source: The American Chemical Society

Study: Plant Essential Oils as Green Pesticides for Pest and Disease Management, Agricultural Applications in Green Chemistry, Editor(s): William M. Nelson1, Volume 887, Publication Date (Print): July 07, 2004, Copyright © 2004, American Chemical Society

The factsheet, What’s the right answer to the germ question?, by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, pulls together information from various scientific studies documenting the adverse impacts of triclosan on health and the environment, as well as antibiotic and antibacterial resistance. It also provides alternatives, cites Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations for hand washing and disease prevention, and lists triclosan-free brands and retailers.

Triclosan is associated with skin irritation or eczema, has been shown to interfere with the body’s hormones, and has been linked to an increased risk of developing respiratory illness, or asthma, and cancer, as well as subtle effects on learning ability. Because the chemical goes down the drain, it also wreaks havoc with the environment, converting to highly toxic dioxins and contaminating waterways and wildlife. Furthermore, by killing some, but not all bacteria, widespread triclosan use has led to resistant strains and cross resistance with antibiotics. See Beyond Pesticides’ Triclosan program page for study citations.

Handwashing with soap and water is essential. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than washing hands with soap and water. The CDC recommends that children wash their hands several times a day for 20 seconds or the time it takes to sing “Happy Birthday” twice.

“Considering the health risks associated with triclosan use and increased bacterial resistance, consumers may actually be doing more harm than good,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Parents should follow CDC recommendations and protect their children by washing hands with warm soap and water.”

Ikea, The Body Shop and Whole Foods Markets sell only triclosan-free products. Other triclosan-free brands and products include: CleanWell, LUSH, Nature’s Gate, Vermont Country, Naked Soap Works, MiEssence, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Ivory, Paul’s Organic, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Tom’s of Maine, The Natural Dentist, Listerine Essential Care, Peelu, Weleda and Toxic Free Basics.

The letter, dated May 15, 2009 and posted on EPA’s website last week, addresses pesticide products that are sold and distributed and labeled “Professional” and “Professional Grade” among others, in product names and advertising. EPA finds that such statements are “inappropriate.”

According to the letter, “Section 12 (a) (1) (E) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states that it is unlawful to distribute or sell ”˜any pesticide which is”¦.misbranded.’ A pesticide is misbranded if ”˜its labeling bears any statement, design or graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular.’ FIFRA § 2(q)(1)(A) [emphasis added]. The following describes why EPA finds use of “Professional Grade” in these products’ labeling and marketing to be a false and misleading claim and therefore unacceptable.”

The letter continues, “”¦’Professional Grade’ implies a falsehood that pesticides are classified by grade, which they are not. This is a false and misleading comparison to other pesticides under 40 CFR § 156.10(a)(5)(ii). “Professional Grade” implies or could well imply that the products are more efficacious than competitors’ products. This is likely a false and misleading statement about the comparative effectiveness of the product under 40 CFR §156 (a)(5)(iv).”

The use of ”˜Professional’ is misleading, according to EPA, since not only does it not explain which professionals are being referenced, but the products labelled in this manner are not restricted use products (those only available to licensed pest control operators), and are legally available to average consumers. EPA also goes on to state these claims, which were not accepted at the time of the products’ registration, are in violation of 40 CFR § 152.132(d), and thus, both the distributor and the basic registrant are liable for the violations.

However, while EPA is aware of these misleading label claims and violations, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which oversees pesticide registration, has yet to take any definitive action on such misbranding. The letter states that OPP is “considering whether to refer this and similar matters to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for potential enforcement action.” In the past, EPA has maintained that pesticide labels should, on the whole, be free from any symbol or claim that might mislead consumers or give a false sense of a product’s safety. Crackdowns concerning the sale and distribution of unregistered, mislabeled pesticides have occurred in the past, with EPA maintaining that this is a serious violation that can result in harm to public health and the environment. However, EPA enforcement against non-compliance is generally very limited.

Last fall, EPA withdrew its draft notice on label statements regarding cause marketing and third-party endorsements. In this particular case, the Clorox Company submitted an application to EPA to add cause marketing language and the Red Cross symbol to some of its labels, specifically to display a philanthropic partnership between it and the American Red Cross. After a two-year process of EPA proposals and public comment periods, and a large public outcry by states, environmental and activists groups, including Beyond Pesticides denouncing this action, the agency determined that such label statements do nothing to promote “consumer understanding” of the risks and applications of pesticide products, and will not be encouraging further submissions.

The team exposed nine species of frog and toad tadpoles to endosulfan levels “expected and found in nature” for the EPA’s required four-day period, then moved the tadpoles to clean water for an additional four days, Jones reported. Although endosulfan was ultimately toxic to all species, three species of tadpole showed no significant sensitivity to the chemical until after they were transferred to fresh water. Within four days of being moved, up to 97 percent of leopard frog tadpoles perished along with up to 50 percent of spring peeper and American toad tadpoles.

Of most concern, explained Dr. Relyea, is that tadpoles and other amphibians are famously sensitive to pollutants and considered an environmental indicator species. The EPA does not require testing on amphibians to determine pesticide safety, but Dr. Relyea previously found that endosulfan is 1,000-times more lethal to amphibians than other pesticides. Yet, he said, if the powerful insecticide cannot kill one the world’s most susceptible species in four days, then the four-day test period may not adequately gauge the long-term effects on larger, less-sensitive species.

“When a pesticide’s toxic effect takes more than four days to appear, it raises serious concerns about making regulatory decisions based on standard four-day tests for any organism,” Dr. Relyea said. “For most pesticides, we assume that animals will die during the period of exposure, but we do not expect substantial death after the exposure has ended. Even if EPA regulations required testing on amphibians, our research demonstrates that the standard four-day toxicity test would have dramatically underestimated the lethal impact of endosulfan on even this notably sensitive species.”

Andrew Blaustein, a professor in Oregon State University’s nationally ranked Department of Zoology, who is familiar with the Pitt study, said the results raise concerns about standards for other chemicals and the delayed dangers that might be overlooked. Some of the frog eggs the Pitt team used had been collected by Blaustein’s students for an earlier unrelated experiment, but he had no direct role in the current research.

“The results are somewhat alarming because standards for assessing the impacts of contaminants are usually based on short-term studies that may be insufficient in revealing the true impact,” Blaustein said. “The implications of this study go beyond a single pesticide and its effect on amphibians. Many other animals and humans may indeed be affected similarly.”

Tadpoles in the Pitt project spent four days in 0.5 liters of water containing endosulfan concentrations of 2, 6, 7, 35, 60, and 296 parts-per-billion (ppb), levels consistent with those found in nature. The team cites estimates from Australia-where endosulfan is widely used-that the pesticide can reach 700 ppb when sprayed as close as 10 meters from the ponds amphibians typically call home and 4 ppb when sprayed within 200 meters. The EPA estimates that surface drinking water can have chronic endosulfan levels of 0.5 to 1.5 ppb and acute concentrations of 4.5 to 23.9 ppb.

Leopard frogs, spring peepers, and American toads fared well during the experiment’s first four days, but once they were in clean water, the death rate spiked for animals previously exposed to 35 and 60 ppb. Although the other six species did not experience the lag effect, the initial doses of endosulfan were still devastating at very low concentrations. Grey and Pacific tree frogs, Western toads, and Cascades frogs began dying in large numbers from doses as low as 7 ppb, while the same amount killed all green frog and bullfrog tadpoles.

A second paper by Dr. Relyea and Devin Jones, a recent Pitt biological sciences graduate, also in the current Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry expands on one of Dr. Relyea’s most notable investigations, a series of findings published in Ecological Applications in 2005 indicating that the popular weed-killer Roundup ®(active ingredient glyphosate is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. The latest work determined the toxicity of Roundup Original Max for a wider group of larval amphibians, including nine frog and toad species and four salamander species.

In November 2008, Dr. Relyea reported in Oecologia that the world’s 10 most popular pesticides-which have been detected in nature-combine to create “cocktails of contaminants” that can destroy amphibian populations, even if the concentration of each individual chemical is within levels considered safe to humans and animals. The mixture killed 99 percent of leopard frog tadpoles and endosulfan alone killed 84 percent.

A month earlier, Dr. Relyea published a paper in Ecological Applications reporting that gradual amounts of malathion, one of the most popular insecticides in the U.S., too small to directly kill developing leopard frog tadpoles instead sparked a biological chain reaction 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.

Last month, Beyond Pesticides reported on a new study that found that insecticides, such as endosulfan, used in highly populated agricultural areas of California’s Central Valley affect amphibians that breed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog for additional news stories on pesticides’ impact on frogs.