Public health and environmental advocates have raised concerns that companies are using NAFTA to prevent governments from taking actions to regulate pollution and health threats, and they also warn that the companies’ actions may have a serious public backlash. Chapter 11 of NAFTA is just one of the legal avenues pesticide manufacturers have to make stricter pesticide regulation cumbersome, expensive, and in some cases impossible. For example, 41 states in the U.S. have preemption laws that prohibit municipal authorities from creating pesticide regulation that is more restrictive than the state’s. In a statement that could equally apply to preemption laws, Kathleen Cooper, a senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says she is troubled that chemical producers can invoke NAFTA in an effort to “undermine the decisions of democratically-elected governments.”

Dow’s legal brief accuses the Quebec government of implementing a pesticide ban that “is not based on science.” Like many pesticide cases, it boils down to a battle over which scientific studies should be used in assessing pesticide risk, and how much risk is acceptable, especially in a situation in which the use in question is purely cosmetic. Quebec and Ontario’s bans do not restrict golf course and agricultural uses.

There is a large body of scientific literature that outlines numerous risks of 2,4-D. It has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, kidney and liver damage, is neurotoxic and toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2,4-D than those who don’t; dogs whose owners use 2,4-D on their lawns are more likely to develop canine malignant lymphoma than those whose owners do not. Despite the known health and environmental effects of 2,4-D, it is the top selling herbicide for non-agricultural use, such as lawns, in the United States. It is also the fifth most commonly used herbicide in the agricultural sector and total annual usage in the U.S. tops 40 million pounds.

The action by Dow is not the first time a company has taken action under Chapter 11 of NAFTA regarding pesticide regulation. Arbitration is ongoing in a case over which U.S.-based Chemtura Corporation sued the Canadian government for $100 million in damaging because it moved to ban the use of lindane as a seed treatment. Lindane has since been banned as a seed treatment in the U.S., and Mexico (the third country in NAFTA) has proposed to list lindane under the Stockholm Convention as a persistant organic pollutant (POP).

Whether Dow pursues legal action following its notice remains to be seen, but Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defense says Dow is “quite transparently” trying to put a halt to pesticide bans that are spreading throughout Canada. However, he predicts that Dow will face a backlash from the Canadian public, which is responsible for paying the legal fees of any arbitration and has overwhelmingly been supportive of stricter pesticide controls.

The Philippines is one of the few countries that still allow the use of endosulfan, though on a restricted basis. Endosulfan is used on pineapple plantations to kill pineapple mites that cause pink disease, a discoloration of canned fruits. This measure to stop the use of endosulfan has been attributed to the recent sinking of the ship MV Princess of the Stars, whose cargo hull contained ten tons of endosulfan. The ship capsized and partially sank on June 21 in a typhoon, killing nearly 800 people onboard. In the wake of that tragedy, leaders in the Philippine government called for an end to endosulfan exemptions granted to foreign companies. Frustrations were raised over the potential for toxic contamination which threatens the health of the Philippine people.

400 packs of endosulfan, each pack weighing 25 kilograms, or a total of 10 metric tons, have since been recovered from the MV Princess of the Stars. Approximately 10 metric tons of endosulfan has been imported yearly since 1995 by Dole and Del Monte.

“Because of the over-publicity of the hazards of endosulfan due to the mishap of the MV Princess of the Stars, Dole Philippines, Inc. and Del Monte Philippines, Inc. are saying that they would stop using the chemical,” Dario C. Sabularse, deputy director of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) in the Philippines, said in an interview.

Endosulfan is banned in Europe and many other countries around the world due to the serious toxic effects attributed to its use. However, multi-national food companies Dole and Del Monte have maintained exemptions to the ban and continued to use endosulfan, even though the Philippines banned the use of endosulfan in 1993. The Dole and Del Monte were the only companies permitted to use endosulfan in the Philippines.

This week, ministers and officials from 120 member-countries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations will meet in Rome to decide whether to add endosulfan, along with pesticide tributyl tin compounds and industrial chemical chrysotile asbestos, to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure under the Rotterdam Convention. The PIC is a trade watch list that requires that harmful pesticides and chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in at least two countries, not be exported unless explicitly agreed by the importing country. The list already names 39 hazardous substances including DDT, chlordane and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).

The U.S. EPA is currently considering action on endosulfan in response to petitions submitted in February 2008 followed by a legal brief from the Natural Resources Defense Council, technical letters, and some 13,000 individual signatures on petitions. Last May, concerned scientists and public health professionals issued an open letter calling on the EPA to cancel all uses of endosulfan on the grounds that it is a highly toxic, bioaccumulative, and persistent chemical. In July a broad coalition of groups represented by Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the EPA to protect children, farmworkers, and endangered species from endosulfan’s long tail of lingering effects. The coalition also called on EPA to revoke all tolerances for endosulfan even though the agency will not address cancellation until early 2009.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine pesticide, in the same family as DDT and lindane, and like DDT and lindane, it bioaccumulates and has been found in places as far from point of use as the arctic. It is also a suspected endocrine disruptor, affecting hormones and reproduction in aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

“We are pleased that the USDA has finally addressed the concerns of the organic dairy community, ” said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at the non-profit Cornucopia Institute, “but it appears that the department has once again monkey wrenched this process by incorporating a number of red herrings — major policy proposals that have never been reviewed by the industry or the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).”

The USDA’s proposed rule clarifies requirements for organic livestock producers, principally dairy farmers, requiring their animals to graze on pasture and consume a significant percentage of their feed intake during the growing season. The new proposed regulations are intended to make the current rules more understandable for all dairy producers and organic certification agents.

“While I appreciate the fact that the USDA has issued proposed rules to clarify pasture requirements, based on NOSB recommendations, I am very concerned about the proposed language on dairy replacement animals,” said Jim Riddle, a past chair and member of the National Organic Standards Board and member of Beyond Pesticides board of directors. “The proposed change, contrary to language recommended by the NOSB, would institutionalize the current two-track system, which allows certain operations to continually bring in conventional heifers, while other operations are required to use only replacement heifers that have been raised organically from the last third of gestation. There should be one standard for all organic dairy farms, once they have converted to organic production. ”

In addition to addressing the pasture and dairy animal replacement issue the USDA rule proposes expanding the definition of livestock to include bees and aquatic animals.

“We ask that the USDA separate the organic dairy rulemaking, agreed-upon by the majority of the industry, from the other new provisions they have put forward and immediately adopt it into law,” Mr. Kastel said. “Although many of the USDA’s new proposals are meritorious, by packaging these new initiatives together with the long debated dairy provisions it may guarantee years of additional delays to the widespread calls to ramp-up enforcement on the bad actors.”

The Cornucopia Institute stated, “We highly recommend that farmers and consumers carefully scrutinize the proposed rules and ask the USDA to incorporate the well-vetted proposals that crackdown on corporate dairy while tabling other provisions until they have adequate public scrutiny.”

Highlights of the proposed rule include:

–A definition of “growing season,” and the requirement that all animals over the age of six months must be on pasture throughout the growing season.
–Animals must receive 30 percent of their dry matter intake (DMI) from pasture.
–A definition of “temporary confinement,” and clarification of periods of temporary confinement.
–A pasture practice standard that addresses the management of pasture as a crop.

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. The USDA organic standards must remain strong to protect the integrity of this important solution to the pesticide problem. For more information see Beyond Pesticides Organic Food program page.

Original samples were taken from the wells from 1993-1995, and compared with samples taken from 2001-2003. Laboratory analysis was performed using methods that allowed detection of pesticide compounds at concentrations as small as 1,000 times below U.S. EPA drinking-water standards. Of the 80 compounds studied, six were detected in ground water from at least 10 wells during both of those sample periods. The six pesticide compounds detected are the triazine herbicides atrazine, simazine, and prometon; the acetanilide herbicide metolachlor; the urea herbicide tebuthiuron; and an atrazine degradate, deethylatrazine (DEA). Concentrations of these compounds generally were less than 0.12 parts per billion, or over 10 times lower than U.S. EPA drinking-water standards.

This is not reassuring considering the fact that many of the developmental impacts linked to atrazine are seen at very low levels, sometimes at just a fraction of a part per billion. It is the ubiquitous nature of the contamination rather than the concentration of these pesticide compounds that worries public health scientist and environmentalist. Research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, has found pesticides, including atrazine, to cause serious deformities at levels well below U.S. EPA drinking water standards. His research shows that 0.1 parts per billion of atrazine in the water where a frog develops can hermaphrodize the animal (having both male and female gonads). Even concentrations of a few parts per trillion can seriously impact the way an animal develops. A recent study links atrazine with endocrine disruption in both fish and human cells. The University of Califonia, San Francisco (UCSF) research examines the reaction of zebrafish to environmentally relevant levels of atrazine, and mirrors the study in human placental cells.

Atrazine is the second most commonly used agricultural pesticide in the U.S., and the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells. It is linked to endocrine disruption, neuropathy and cancer and has been banned by the European Union. An estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine are applied in the U.S. annually. Atrazine has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a very common water contaminant. Chronically contaminated drinking water puts humans at the risk of exposure to long-term health effects.

According to the study authors, characterization of trends in pesticide occurrence and concentrations through time is important in determining how quickly ground-water systems respond to changes in chemical use and in identifying compounds that may pose a threat to water quality before large-scale problems occur. Continuing research is planned to track and understand changes in both ground and surface-water quality across the United States. The study is a part of USGS’ federally-funded National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, which provides an understanding of water-quality conditions and how those conditions may vary locally, regionally, and nationally; whether conditions are getting better or worse over time; and how natural features and human activities affect those conditions.

This new study builds on the existing body of evidence that pesticides are contaminating our nation’s water resources. In July 2008, the results of another USGS study investigating the occurrence of selected pesticides and their degradation products in groundwater shows that pesticides can persist for years, depending upon the chemical structure of the compounds and the environmental conditions. The study reveals that the pesticides and degradation products detected most frequently in shallow ground water samples are predominantly from two classes of herbicides: triazines and chloroacetanilides. According to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s 2007 Water Quality Monitoring Report, released in August 2008, atrazine and metolachlor are detected in pristine lakes in northern Minnesota far from the agricultural fields where it is applied. In 2006, USGS released Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001, a ten-year survey of the contamination caused by pesticide use in agricultural and urbanized areas. Every year, nearly one billion pounds of pesticides, many of which are linked to cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, and environmental impacts, are used in the U.S, much of it ending up in our nation’s waterways. Two years earlier, according to Water Quality in the Nation’s Streams and Aquifers-Overview of Selected Findings, 1991-2001, released in 2004 as a compendium of 51 USGS reports on the health of major river basins across the country, insecticides such as diazinon and malathion were found in nearly all of the streams that were sampled in urban areas. Streams in agricultural areas were more likely to contain herbicides, especially atrazine, metolachlor, alachlor, and cyanazine. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program annual summary detailing pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply, reveals that among many pesticides detected, atrazine, metolachlor, and prometon were found in over half of the treated drinking water samples.

Looking for a positive spin, the study results show that the contamination levels of the nation’s groundwater supply is not increasing, even though more than one billion pounds of pesticide active ingredients are used annually in the U.S. “The results of this study are encouraging for the future state of the nation’s ground-water quality with respect to pesticides,” said Laura Bexfield, who conducted the data analysis. “Despite sustained use of many popular pesticides and the introduction of new ones, results as a whole did not indicate increasing detection rates or concentrations in shallow or drinking-water resources over the 10 years studied.”

Water is the most basic building block of life. Clean water is essential for human health, wildlife, and a balanced environment. According to a Beyond Pesticides report, Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination, over 50% of the U.S. population draws its drinking water supply from ground water, which includes sources below the earth’s surface, including springs, wells, and aquifers. Once groundwater has been contaminated, it takes many years or even decades to recover, while streams and shallow water sources can recover much more rapidly. Herbicides are found more often in ground water than insecticides, but insecticides in ground water exceed drinking water standards more often than herbicides.

A growing body of scientific research links pesticides to Parkinson’s disease, asthma, cancer and other illnesses.

“The Maryland health care institutions in the report are to be commended for showing national leadership in adopting non-toxic pest management techniques that protect the health of patients, visitors and staff,” said Jay Feldman, the report’s co-author and executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The report, “Taking Toxics out of Maryland’s Health Care Sector: Transition to Green Pest Management Practices to Protect Health and the Environment,” was co-written by the Maryland Pesticide Network, a statewide coalition advocating safe pest management practices, and Beyond Pesticides, a national environmental and public health group, under their joint “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Health Care Facilities Project,” and in collaboration with Maryland Hospitals for a Healthy Environment at the University of Maryland School of Nursing.

IPM is an approach to pest management that evaluates the causes of pest problems and adopts measures that seek to prevent pests through non-chemical means. The approach introduces defined least-toxic pesticides only as a last resort.

The report includes a survey of Maryland health and elder care facilities that reveals a general reliance on toxic pesticides for pest control. Of the 25 pesticides identified by survey participants as being used at facilities, 11 are linked to cancer, 12 are associated with neurological effects, 10 are associated with reproductive effects, 5 cause birth defects or developmental effects, 12 are sensitizers or irritants, 10 cause liver or kidney damage and 6 are suspected endocrine disruptors.

“In contrast to these findings, the involvement of Maryland’s leading health care facilities in this ”˜greening’ effort shows a commitment to putting our state in the forefront of a growing nationwide movement,” said Ruth Berlin, MPN executive director.

The facilities adopting broad policies to eliminate toxic chemical use in pest management include: Erickson Retirement Communities, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital and Springfield Hospital Center. Additionally, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, the University of Maryland Medical Center and Broadmead Retirement Community are working toward adopting official IPM policies.

Herbicide resistant crops were first introduced in 1996 with Roundup Ready soybeans, which were engineered to enable the spraying of Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) without harming the soybean plants. Since then other Roundup Ready varieties, such as corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have been introduced and are grown in the U.S. and abroad. In a victory for Beyond Pesticides and other environmental groups who see the proliferation of genetically engineered crops as a threat to health, the environment and organic farmers’ livelihoods, a federal court upheld a ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa in September.

The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops has led to increased glyphosate use, propelling it to 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, skin irritation, is neurotoxic and toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Increased herbicide usage has also led to resistant varieties of “superweeds.”

2,4-D, the herbicide to which this new variety of grapes is resistant, is a highly toxic herbicide that was first registered for use in the 1940s, and has remained one of the highest volume herbicides used in the U.S. since then, despite its notoriety as one of the primary ingredients in Agent Orange, an herbicide used in Vietnam that has had devastating effects on soldiers and Vietnamese residents exposed to it. It is used commonly on lawns as well as in agriculture and targets broadleaf weeds. Over 40 million pounds of the active ingredient are used each year in the U.S.

Traditional varieties of grapes are very sensitive to 2,4-D, and widespread use of the herbicide on grain in the Midwest has incurred grape losses because of drift and contamination. The new variety is intended to protect the grapes from 2,4-D drift from other farms. While the losses suffered by grape growers is significant and unacceptable, the introduction of a resistant variety does nothing to solve the root problem.

The continued high use of herbicides like 2,4-D and glyphosate poses an unacceptable threat to public health and the environment in light of the viability and availability of alternatives. Organic, no-till agriculture provides weed suppression through the use of cover crops as mulch, which adds organic matter and nitrogen to the soil, eliminating the perceived need for herbicides and Nitrogen fertilizers. Large scale adoption of such environmentally friendly farming practices is the answer to eliminating pesticide use and therefore pesticide drift. The development of herbicide resistant genetically engineered plant varieties will only serve to further the pesticide contamination problem.

Five of the pesticides most common in the food chain are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or disruptive to the hormonal system. The findings come just days before politicians in Brussels are set to debate new EU pesticide legislation —-including a proposal to eliminate the most hazardous pesticides from use in food production. But despite evidence of widespread food contamination, efforts to reduce dietary exposure to hazardous pesticides are being fiercely contested by the pesticides industry.

“These are the worst pesticide results we’ve ever seen,” said Elliott Cannell, Coordinator of PAN Europe. “A record proportion of fruits and vegetables are contaminated, while 23 pesticides were detected at levels high enough to present an acute risk to public health, according to the EU’s own risk calculations. The need to reduce exposure to hazardous pesticides is more urgent now than ever. Politicians in Brussels must back the removal of the worst pesticides from the food chain, and ensure that hazardous pesticides are replaced with safer alternatives wherever possible.”

According to the report, 49 percent of fruits, vegetables and cereals contain pesticides –the highest level of pesticide contamination recorded in the EU and represents an increase of around 20 percent over the past five year period. In total, 4.7 percent of fruits, vegetables and cereals contain pesticides at concentrations above maximum legal limits, while over 10 percent contain four or more different pesticide residues. Five of the pesticides found most in food products sold in the EU are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction, or disruptive to the hormonal system and include: maneb, procymidone, iprodione, carbendazim and deltamethrin.

354 different pesticides, the highest total ever recorded, have been found in products sold in the EU. For the first time, imidacloprid, a controversial pesticide banned in France due to links with mass bee deaths, has been listed among the most common pesticide residues in foods.

But the European Crop Protection Association accused PAN Europe of “escalating a climate of fear,” adding that EU agriculture was highly successful and safe. Recently, an organization representing Scottish farmers said its members must be allowed to use pesticides to overcome the country’s wet climate. The group said it plans to step up its lobbying to Ministers who are due to vote on the proposed restrictions later this year. In the Netherlands, dutch farmers have also entered the debate saying that wide restrictions on pesticides could lead to the demise of the country’s iconic tulip industry. Tulip farmers have said that tulips and other bulbs would be particularly hard-hit because pesticides are used to prevent diseases that can prevent bulbs from flowering.

Total release foggers have caused numerous explosions and acute illnesses due to pesticide exposure. According to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 123 cases of bug bomb-related illness or injury in New York State (58 in New York City alone) from 2001-06. Information on New York’s incidents are part of a larger study published October 17, 2008 in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which illuminates the hazards of total release foggers using data from several states. The most commonly reported acute health effects from bug bombs are respiratory problems and gastrointestinal reactions, such as nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In editorial comments accompanying the study, the CDC notes that these figures are most likely underestimated.

The CDC study, which pulls data from eight states, identifies a total of 466 cases of acute, pesticide-related illness or injury associated with exposure to foggers between 2001 and 2006. Median age of affected persons is 35 years (range: 0–90 years); 255 (57%) are female, and 55 (13%) were exposed while at work. Race information is available for 137 patients, of whom 101 (74%) are white, 17 (12%) are black, and 19 (14%) are of other races. Ethnicity information is available for 158 patients, of whom 31 (20%) is Hispanic. Three cases occurred among pregnant women, and approximately 44 cases occurred among persons with asthma.

“The CDC study makes it clear that we cannot wait for the federal government to restrict the use of foggers,” said New York State Department of Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines. “We must act to protect the health of New Yorkers. Pest control should be accomplished without harming people.”

In each of the past several years, total release foggers have caused at least four to eight serious explosions in apartments in New York City, according to Fire Department data. Just last month, an apartment building in Manhattan was evacuated after a fogger caused an explosion. Ten people were treated at the scene, including six who were brought to the hospital.

Aside from fire dangers, most foggers contain synthetic pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, respiratory problems, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity and other health and environmental issues.

“We commend the Department of Environmental Conservation for taking action on this issue,” said New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas R. Frieden. “By getting these products off the shelves, we will prevent avoidable illness and injury. There are far safer and more effective methods of controlling pests that do not put people’s health at risk.”

The research is part of the Generation R Study, which includes 9778 participants in the Netherlands and focuses on growth and physical development, behavioral and cognitive development, childhood diseases and health, and health care for pregnant women and children. The Generation R Study allows the researchers to follow-up with the study participants and “provides an opportunity to efficiently address questions regarding the reproductive and development effects of prenatal exposures.”

Besides finding high levels of OP pesticides, the researchers find some suspected endocrine disrupting compounds including bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. Animal studies show that these chemicals can affect brain and reproductive development. According to the researchers, exposure to OP pesticides and some phthalates were significantly higher for the subjects from the Generation R study when compared to similar populations in other studies. The scientists agree that it may be necessary to obtain and analyze data throughout the entire pregnancy in order to identify critical time periods of exposure.

The study’s lead author, Xibiao Ye, Ph.D., is a member of the NIEHS Biomarker-based Epidemiology Group, which is headed by co-author and Principal Investigator Matthew Longnecker, M.D., Sc.D. The Biomarker-based Epidemiology Group focuses on health effects of early exposure to background levels of environmental contaminants. This study is the first report of biological monitoring of these specific pollutants in a general population in the Netherlands.

Levels of 6 dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites of OP pesticides, a specific metabolite of the widely used pesticide chloropyrifos, TCPy, BPA and fourteen phthalate metabolites were analyzed by the research team. BPA is used in the manufacturing of plastics and epoxy resins. Phthalates are commonly included in cosmetics and polyvinyl chloride plastics.

Organophosphates, derived from World War II nerve agents, are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission- acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Researchers show that animal studies and residual effects in humans following acute intoxication suggest that organophosphates can be toxic to the developing brain at exposure levels below those inducing overt signs.

Earlier this year, a team of University of Michigan scientists discovered that interactions between genes and organophosphate exposure can cause some forms of motor neuron disease (MND). The scientists also find the mutations caused changes in a protein already known to be involved when people develop neurologic disorders as a result of exposure to toxic organophosphate chemicals.

Many U.S. residents carry toxic pesticides in their bodies above government assessed “acceptable” levels, the highest being children and women, according to several biomonitoring studies and reports published over the several years. A study published in February 2008 finds 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. In 1997 a study conducted in a Central Valley farming community in California found that residents have significant levels of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos in their bodies during the spraying season. The levels topped what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers acceptable for pregnant and nursing women.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain. The cancellation of household uses does not restrict, however, the use of remaining stocks. That is to say, homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase out, may still use this product. Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to the EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion are applied annually for residential uses.

Entitled “Statewide Investigation of the Role of Pyrethroid Pesticides in Sediment Toxicity in California’s Urban Waterways,” the research included California’s most urbanized regions, as well as the less developed North Coast and Lake Tahoe areas. Thirty creeks in eight regions were selected from 90 screened sites, and bioassays were conducted at two temperatures, 23 and 15 degrees Celsius. Researchers found 25 samples to be toxic at the higher temperature and all 30 at the lower, which is where pyrethroids are more toxic. “Bifenthrin was the pyrethroid of greatest toxicological concern, occurring in all 30 samples,” wrote the team, and the Los Angeles, Central Valley, and San Diego regions showed the most severe contamination. The sampling included analysis for 8 pyrethroids, 30 organochlorine pesticides, and piperonyl butoxide, which helps to make pyrethroids toxic at lower levels.

“It was really good that they did the temperature study,” said Kathryn Kuivila of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The analysis confirmed that pyrethroids were the substance toxic to Hyalella azteca, the small shrimp used in the study. Kuivila and other researchers from USGS will present similar data from seven cities around the United States at a November meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

A similar study found pyrethroid toxicity in sediments in urban Texas streams. Co-author Jason Belden, Ph.D. said conditions between Texas and California are “different enough to indicate problems [with pyrethroids] across the country.”

Toxicologist Michael J. Lydy, Ph.D., said results like these could occur “any time you find a manicured yard, across the U.S.” This is just one of many reasons to convert public and private lawns and landscapes to organic management, which eliminates synthetic pesticides like pyrethroids. Visit our Lawns and Landscapes program page or our Alternatives fact sheets for tips on organic, Integrated Pest Management, and policy information.

The extent of marijuana growing on federal lands is unknown, but seven hundred grow sites were discovered in California in 2007-2008. Many of these operations are run by Mexican marijuana growing cartels and the chemicals used are illegally imported from Mexico. It is estimated that 1.5 lbs of fertilizers and pesticides is used for every 11.5 plants. For the five million plants uprooted in California in 2007, this amounts to over 650,000 lbs of fertilizers and pesticides. Agent Patrick Foy of the California Department of Fish and Game said “I’ve seen the pesticide residue on the plants”¦you ain’t just smoking pot, bud. You’re smoking some heavy-duty pesticides from Mexico.”

Scott Wanek, the western regional chief ranger for the National Park Service, said he believes the environmental impact is far greater than anyone knows. “Think about Sequoia,” Mr. Wanek said. “The impact goes well beyond the acreage planted. They create huge networks of trail systems, and the chemicals that get into watersheds are potentially very far-reaching — all the way to drinking water for the downstream communities. We are trying to study that now.” In addition to these impacts, large wildlife such as deer and bear have been found shot and killed by the armed guards at the growing sites. Cicely Muldoon, deputy regional director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service said “People light up a joint, and they have no idea the amount of environmental damage associated with it.”

Forest Service Agent Ron Pugh said “These are America’s most precious resources, and they are being devastated by an unprecedented commercial enterprise conducted by armed foreign nationals. It is a huge mess.” In addition to the toxic growing practices, drug eradication programs by the U.S. government have employed toxic methods, adding another level to the huge mess. In the so-called war on drugs, the U.S. government has used large amounts of toxic herbicides in the U.S. and abroad in an attempt to eradicate plants grown for drug use, such coca in Colombia, poppies in Afghanistan and marijuana in the U.S.

In the early 1980s, Beyond Pesticides (then the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides) was a plaintiff with the Sierra Club in a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) over its use of aerial herbicide spraying for marijuana eradication. At the time, DEA was employing paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide, in its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. While the lawsuit resulted in the requirement of an environmental impact assessment for spraying paraquat, the impact assessment relied on false assumptions of exposure””in fact, the DEA uses were similar to those which the EPA cancelled because of unreasonable risks. Despite this, the lawsuit was unsuccessful in eliminating the use of paraquat. The herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate have also been used extensively in marijuana eradication efforts. Both the harmful practices employed by some marijuana growers and the dangerous DEA practice of eliminating some plants with chemicals contribute to pesticide contamination.

This new method involves dipping seeds in jasmonic acid, a plant derived chemical that provides a natural defense against pests. When threatened by plant-eating insects, plants release jasmonic acid as a chemical signal to warn other parts of the plant to mobilize their pest defenses in order to make the plant difficult to digest. Jasmonic acid has long been used as a repellent for pests like mites, caterpillars and aphids when sprayed onto crops. Jasmonic acid however, also acts as a growth inhibitor and sprayed plants do not grow very well, but scientists at Lancaster University’s Environment Centre have found that plants grown from seeds first dipped in jasmonic acid are also more pest resistant without any loss of growth.

The best results were on tomato plants, where attacks by red spider mites were reduced by 80%, aphid attack was reduced by 60% and caterpillar damage was down by a third. Promising results were also obtained on sweet pepper where aphid attacks were reduced by 70 per cent, and caterpillar damage to wheat was reduced by 65 per cent. Meanwhile on maize, caterpillar damage was reduced by 38 per cent.

“We were investigating the mechanisms by which wild plants defend themselves against pest attack to get a better understanding of what works in nature. We were spraying the leaves of our plants with jasmonic acid and wondered what would happen if we treated the seeds instead. It seemed unlikely that it would work but we were amazed to discover that it did – tomato plants were protected for about two months after they germinated,” said lead researcher Nigel Paul, PhD, of Lancaster University.

Large-scale trials of this new technology are expected this year and by the end of the year, the researchers should know whether or not a commercial product will go into development. In the meantime, work is being put into developing new applications for the technology, including investigating its value in disease control.

Until now attempts at creating pest resistant crops involved genetically modified (GM) technology. Many proponents of GM technology believe GM crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply. However studies have shown that GM crops can lead to a large increase in pesticide use, due to increased insect resistance. GM crops have also been found to harm aquatic ecosystems and contaminate organic and non-GM crops.

NHL is a cancer of the immune system. There are several different types of NHL, which are differentiated by the type of immune cell that is cancerous, the characteristics of the cancerous cell, and different genetic mutations of the cancerous cells. Treatment for NHL varies depending on NHL type, patient age, and other existing medical conditions. The incidence of NHL has been increasing over the past several decades.

The link between pesticides and cancer has long been a concern. While agriculture has traditionally been tied to pesticide-related illnesses, 19 of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides and 24 of 48 commonly used school pesticides are probable or possible carcinogens. The consistency of the scientific findings linking pesticide exposure to cancer raises serious questions about their allowed use.

In 2002, the same researchers published a study that shows an increased risk to NHL from exposure to certain pesticides: a 1.75 OR for herbicides, a 3.11 OR for fungicides, a 3.04 OR for glyphosate, and a 2.62 OR for MCPA. And even earlier, in 1999, another study by these researchers, published by the American Cancer Society, finds an increased risk of NHL for people exposed to common herbicides and fungicides, particularly MCPP. People exposed to glyphosate are 2.7 times more likely to develop NHL.

NHL has been linked to pesticides in other studies as well, including 2,4-D, the most commonly used nonagricultural herbicide. A 2007 case-control study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that children born to mothers living in households with pesticide use during pregnancy have over twice as much risk of getting cancer, specifically acute leukemia (AL) or NHL. A study published in a 2001 issue of Cancer also correlates an increased risk of NHL with exposure to household pesticides. The study examined pesticide exposure routes to children either through the mother while she was pregnant, or directly to the child. Exposed children showed a three to seven time greater likelihood of developing NHL, as compared to unexposed children. In studying different types of NHL, the researchers found that household insecticide use was correlated to a greater risk of lymphoblastic lymphoma by 12.5 times. Researchers at the Northwestern University, University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the National Cancer Institute find that agricultural exposure to insecticides, herbicides, and fumigants are associated with a 2.6 to 5.0 fold increase in the incidence of t(14;18)-positive NHL (refers to a specific genetic alteration in a type of NHL).

The authors examined the risk of two types of brain cancer, glioma and meningioma, associated with occupational exposure to insecticides and herbicides in a hospital-based, case-control study of brain cancer. Cases were 462 glioma and 195 meningioma patients diagnosed between 1994 and 1998 in three U.S. hospitals. Controls were 765 patients admitted to the same hospitals for nonmalignant conditions. Occupational histories were collected during personal interviews. Exposure to pesticides was estimated by use of a questionnaire, combined with pesticide measurement data abstracted from published sources.

The researchers found no overall link between brain cancer and on-the-job exposure to pesticides or herbicides. However, looking closer at the data, the researchers noticed that women who reported using herbicides had a more than doubled risk for meningioma compared with women who never used herbicides, and there were significant trends of increasing risk with increasing years of herbicide exposure and increasing cumulative. There is no association between meningioma and herbicide or insecticide exposure among men. Unfortunately, the studies used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register pesticides are conducted on male rats.

Of the women with the highest herbicide exposure, most worked in restaurants or grocery stores, and were likely exposed by routinely handling produce treated with herbicides.

Tumors of the brain, cranial nerves, and meninges account for 95 percent of tumors of the central nervous system and include some of the most rapidly fatal types of cancer. An estimated 20,500 new cases of brain and other nervous system cancers were diagnosed during 2007 in the United States. The two most common histologic types of brain tumors are gliomas and meningiomas, and data suggest that gliomas are more common in men, while meningiomas occur more often in women.

Another study, published in 2007 in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine indicates that farmworkers and persons exposed to high levels of pesticides have an increased risk of developing brain tumors, especially gliomas – a tumor of the nervous system. The study, “Brain tumours and exposure to pesticides: a case-control study in southwestern France,” suggests that not only are occupational pesticide exposure risks high, but indoor domestic uses of pesticides also increase the risk of developing brain tumors.

Among the many concerns about genetically engineered foods is the impact they may have on insect and weed resistance to pesticides. Crops engineered to contain the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) threaten the long-term efficacy of Bt, which is an approved insecticide in organic farming. Crops engineered to be herbicide tolerant, such as Roundup Ready soy, contribute to the increased use of toxic herbicides, leading to resistance.

“The USDA has missed a golden opportunity to improve its oversight of genetically engineered crops,” said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “This USDA proposal has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well.”

According to the Center, the biggest concern is that the proposed rules remove established criteria vital in determining the very scope of regulation. Previously, regulation of GE crops was based on the presence of genetic elements from a list of “plant pests” codified under Section 340.2 (Part 340, Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced, Title 7). This fairly comprehensive list covers almost all of the genetic elements companies use to engineer crops. However, under the new policy, the USDA proposes “deleting the list of organisms which are or contain plant pests,” effectively removing triggers to regulation and leaving the decision to the discretion of USDA or even biotech companies themselves.

“Whether a GE crop falls within the scope of regulation or not will now be much more open to interpretation,” continued Mr. Freese. “We can expect the range of GE organisms subject to oversight to decrease over time, allowing for future food safety regulatory failures.”

USDA also failed to address the epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds associated with ubiquitous herbicide-tolerant GE crops. Resistant weeds have led to increased use of chemical weed killers, rising production costs for growers, and in some cases accelerated soil erosion caused by the additional mechanical tillage required to remove resistant weeds.

Another overlooked key area is the use of food crops for biopharming. The USDA proposal will continue to allow the controversial practice of growing food crops engineered as “biofactories” for pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds. Over the last several years, these crops have come dangerously close to being comingled with those destined for the human food supply, raising the possibility of untested pharmaceutical proteins ending up in our food.

The Center also believes that USDA has failed to properly address the issue of conventional and organic crop contamination by GE varieties. This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits. The new policy incorporates the USDA’s Low Level Presence Policy, which states that “low level contamination” is no longer actionable. Given this, USDA can choose to allow contamination of conventional or organic crops by untested GE experimental crops to occur without the need to stop interstate shipments of the contaminated crops.

“The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here,” added Mr. Freese. “While they appear at first glance to be tightening regulation of an industry that desperately needs better oversight, the structure of the new proposal actually opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.”

The Agricultural Chemical Usage Reports, launched in 1990 and administered by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), issues pesticide usage data on crops, having been initiated in response to public concerns over the contamination of apples by the pesticide Alar.The information was also widely used by universities and food industry researchers to help farmers monitor and reduce the amount of pesticides they use.

“We looked at the budget and said, “We can’t do everything we have been doing, and what are we going to get rid of?” said Mark Miller of NASS.

However, a coalition of public interest groups which included Beyond Pesticides, NRDC, the Center for Food Safety, and the Union of Concerned Scientists argued that the Agricultural Chemical Usage data are the only reliable, publicly available source of data on pesticide and fertilizer use outside of California. Elimination of the program would have severely hampered efforts to make informed policy decisions on pesticide use, and also made it difficult to track progress in meeting policy commitments to reduce the use of hazardous pesticides through adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and to support IPM research.

“Elimination of this program will severely hamper the efforts of the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), land grant scientists, and state officials to perform pesticide risk assessments and make informed policy decisions on pesticide use,” wrote the coalition of environmental and health groups, in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer.

On July 21, in a surprising turn of events, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted language that reinstates USDA’s chemical usage reports in the 2009 budget and directed the department not to disrupt ongoing market analysis reporting and to notify the committee in advance of any termination of other programs. It remains unclear however, whether the Senate and the House of Representatives will agree to keep this language in the bill before it is passed into law.

The program has included tests on about 120 different kinds of fruits, vegetables and field crops, such as almonds, olives, spinach, wheat, corn and apples. However, due to annual funding cuts, USDA had been scaling back the program over the last several years, alternating which fruits and vegetables are tested. In 2007, USDA tested only cotton and apples, according to Mr. Miller. The decision to pull the program also came as a shock to researchers at EPA and elsewhere who have come to rely on the data. Termination of these tests would have had implications impacting pesticide regulation. Using this data, EPA regulates pesticide residues in food by setting tolerance levels assigned for certain pesticides, as part of its responsibility mandated under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Although pesticide residues are deemed “allowable,” they still pose potential health risks.

“We’re pleased to see that this bill will give farmers new protections from legal implications related to GE crops,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director for Center for Food Safety. “While it is a compromise, it’s still an important step in the right direction.”

AB 541 protects California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of non-GE crops. Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, most notably Monsanto. Further, if their contaminated crops cause harm to other farmers, the environment or consumers, farmers have not been protected from that liability. AB 541 provides protections for farmers from such liability. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to level the playing field when biotech companies investigate alleged patent or contract violations.

A similar bill was signed into law by Maine’s Governor Baldacci on April 14, 2008. According to the non-profit organization Protect Maine Farmers, the bill prevents lawsuits for patent infringement against farmers who unintentionally end up with GE material in their crops; ensures lawsuits that do occur will be held in the state of Maine; and, directs the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources to develop and implement specific practices, or Best Management Practices, for growing GE crops.

Concern about contamination by GE crops was recently addressed at the national level by the U.S. Court of Appeals. On September 2, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of GE Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers. Although the suit (Geertson Seed Farms, et al. v. Johanns) was brought against U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forage Genetics and Monsanto entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. Beyond Pesticides is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit.

More and more GE crops are being grown around the world. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications reports that biotech crops grew by 30 million acres, or 12 percent, in 2007 for a total of 282.4 million acres worldwide. Also astounding is the fact that 2 million more farmers planted biotech crops last year to total 12 million farmers globally. Notably, 9 out of 10, or 11 million of these farmers, are resource-poor farmers. In fact, the number of developing countries (12) planting biotech crops surpassed the number of industrialized countries (11), and the growth rate in the developing world was three times that of industrialized nations (21 percent compared to 6 percent.)

There are many problems with GE crops as they are known to lead to insect resistance, create superweeds, contaminate other plants from the same species through pollen drift, harm human health, wildlife and other non-target organisms, contaminate soil, contain hidden allergens, negate religious and moral considerations, lead to antibiotic resistance, and unreasonable business contracts with farmers.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), malathion is the most commonly used insecticide in U.S. agriculture and the third most commonly used insecticide in the U.S. home and garden sector. It has been detected in the wetlands where frogs and other amphibians live.

The researchers created simulated ponds from 300-gallon outdoor tanks containing wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles. They exposed the ponds to no malathion, moderate concentrations in a single dose, or low concentrations in weekly doses that mirror the levels tadpoles experience in nature. The doses of malathion in the simulated ponds were too low to directly kill the amphibians, but instead wiped out tiny animals known as zooplankton that eat algae that float in the water. With few zooplankton remaining, the algae, known as phytoplankton, grew rapidly and prevented sunlight from reaching the bottom-dwelling algae, or periphyton, which tadpoles eat. This chain of events occurred over a period of several weeks. The wood frog tadpoles, which mature quickly, were largely unaffected.

Leopard frog tadpoles, on the other hand, require more time to develop into frogs and experienced slower growth as a result of the reduced amount of periphyton. Ultimately, 43 percent of the leopard frog tadpoles did not mature as a result of the repeated application of malathion at very low concentrations. Study author Rick Relyea, Ph.D., an associate professor of biological sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Arts and Sciences, reported that the multiple low doses are a greater detriment than the single dose, with a concentration 25-times higher than the multiple applications combined. The single doses also wipe out the zooplankton, but they eventually recovere and the pond reverts back to its original state. The repeated doses prevents the zooplankton from recovering.

“The chain of events caused by malathion deprived a large fraction of the leopard frog tadpoles of the nutrients they needed to metamorphose into adult frogs,” Dr. Relyea said. “Repeated applications sustained that disruption of the tadpoles’ food supply. So, even concentrations that cannot directly kill tadpoles can indirectly kill them in large numbers.”

The research results should apply to several other insecticides that are highly lethal to zooplankton, including carbaryl, diazinon, endosulfan, esfenvalerate, and pyridaben, Dr. Relyea said. All of these chemicals are toxic to humans as well and are commonly used in the United States, although some are banned in other countries. The effect of insecticides and other pesticides on amphibians are not widely known because current regulations from EPA do not require amphibian testing. The EPA also relies on single-species tests to assess a pesticide’s risk and does not account for potential indirect repercussions.

“The indirect impacts on the amphibians observed in this study could not be observed in traditional, single-species tests,” Dr. Relyea said. “These results demonstrate that we need to take a much broader view of the consequences pesticides might have in our world.”

A U.S. Geological Survey study in 2007 found that the breakdown products of chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon are ten to 100 times more toxic to amphibians than their parent compounds, which are already highly toxic to amphibians.

Leopard and wood frogs naturally range across North America, including Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Once plentiful, leopard frogs have declined in recent years.

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 ® is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment.

In its notice, EPA writes, “The Agency agrees that cause marketing claims and third-party endorsements as outlined in the draft PR Notice generally would not contribute meaningfully to improving protection of human health and the environment. The addition of such statements is not likely to enhance users’ ability to understand the labeling required to inform the user about how to use the product safely and effectively. In fact, the addition of such statements could interfere with that goal. In addition, EPA recognizes that its resources are limited and should be targeted towards activities that will enhance the level of protection of human health and environment from pesticides.”

In 2006, 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. In November 2006, EPA approved Clorox’s request, allowing cause marketing on pesticide labels. This led to overwhelmingly negative feedback from Beyond Pesticides and other groups, including six state attorneys general and pesticide regulators. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture refused to allow such branded Clorox products for distribution in the state.

The controversy led to a discussion at the May 2007 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), at which Beyond Pesticides presented. After receiving what EPA termed “divided” feedback there, the agency proposed evaluation guidelines for future cause marketing claims and third-party endorsements in October, 2007. Beyond Pesticides submitted comments and requested that EPA extend the comment period, which it did, through March 27, 2008.

EPA received a total of 119 comments on the draft notice, under public docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1008. 108 comments opposed the action and 11 supported it. While EPA agreed with the majority that most cause labeling does not enhance the consumer’s understanding of safety or efficacy, it did conclude “that FIFRA and its implementing regulations do not explicitly prohibit the inclusion of cause marketing claims or third-party endorsements in labeling, nor do they differentiate between the two types of claims . . . If EPA receives applications to add such labeling to product labeling . . . EPA will also review and decide on a case-by-case basis whether to approve such applications.”

While EPA thinks it will be difficult for a company to prove the value of cause marketing labeling in the future, it “agrees with public comments that comparative safety statements [e.g. OMRI, Green Seal, Energy Star], or ‘green labeling,’ on pesticide labels should be further considered as a tool.” Therefore, EPA will organize a work group under the PPDC to address development of such safety standards, which will then present to the full PPDC.

For now, however, 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. After the potential of a precedent set by Clorox, this action is a great affirmation of FIFRA and labeling rules. As for Clorox’s previously approved label bearing the Red Cross symbol, its status is unknown. According to an email to Beyond Pesticides from EPA Press Officer Dale Kemery, “The effect on Clorox/Red Cross cause marketing is unknown at this time. EPA are talking with the registrant about the status of their claim. No decision has been made.”

After a long fought battle by organic advocates to maintain organic integrity under a national standard, organic agriculture has emerged not only as the most stringent standard for ensuring environmental and human health, it has also gained widespread consumer acceptance in the market place. The NOC letter states: “With a sustainable standard, whether intentional or unintentional, consumers will undoubtedly be led to believe that, in supporting the standard, they are contributing to improved practices. In fact, they are slowing the growth of standards [organic] that are critical to our future health and environmental protection. There is no good reason to lower the standards at a time when consumers are increasingly drawn to organic.”

Under discussion in the sustainable agriculture draft standards are the use of genetically engineered crops and the role of conventional agriculture, which utilizes synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. While many of the members of the committee are friends of and advocates for organic agriculture, the committee also includes representatives of businesses and organizations that are heavily invested in using genetically engineered seeds, synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers. NOC puts forth in its letter that “lengthy negotiations on acceptable synthetic inputs based on standard but flawed risk assessments undercuts the precautionary approach embraced by organic standards.” Hence, any “compromise” reached in negotiations of the draft standards that would allow these synthetic inputs automatically makes the standards less than organic, and therefore not protective of human health and the environment.

An example of a practice surely to be up for discussion is the widespread use of herbicides in no-till conventional agriculture. Although some applaud no-till conventional agriculture because it reduces soil erosion and sequesters more carbon when compared to conventional tillage, it contributes to an enormous increase in herbicide usage and contamination and is far less effective at carbon sequestration than organic, no-till agriculture. Were the standards to allow no-till conventional agriculture, they would legitimize a practice that does not protect the environment or human health.

Other individuals and organizations wrote to members of the standards committee requesting them to withdraw their support of the process because of concerns over whether such a standard is necessary in light of other labels such as organic, whether the standards-setting procedure is suitable for sustainable agriculture, and whether the committee was truly representative and inclusive of important stakeholders.

Overarching in the criticisms of the sustainable standard is the idea, as NOC puts it, that the “word sustainable should continue to characterize the broad concept of a livable future, and not be undermined by a standard with practices that belie that outcome.”

The organic farm, Jacobs Farm Del Cabo, filed a lawsuit against the pesticide application company Western Farm Service, Inc. in May 2007. The suit sought an order to stop Western Farm Service from spraying pesticides that contaminate crops at Wilder Ranch State Park, where Jacobs Farm leases 120 acres. Compensation for losses, in the sum of $1 million, which resulted from pesticide contamination, was also sought. The court ruled that pesticide applications by Western Farm Service resulted in trespass of the pesticides onto Jacobs Farm and were legally determined to be a nuisance depriving Jacobs Farm of the right to use and enjoy the land, caused by negligence on the part of Western Farm Services. The jury found that Jacobs Farm was damaged in the sum of $1 million and Judge Robert Atack ordered judgment in that amount against Western Farm Service.

The organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and dimethoate, were applied to Brussels sprouts and then evaporated and drifted onto organically cultivated culinary herbs including sage, rosemary and dill at Jacob Farm. The farm first discovered trace residues of chlorpyrifos and diazinon in October 2006 and management immediately stopped harvesting the affected crops. The use of organophosphates and other pesticide chemicals are prohibited in organic farming. The farm notified the County Agriculture Commissioner and the state Department of Pesticide Regulation, which said they found no violations. It also contacted Western Farm Service, which promised to take precautions against windblown contamination.

Western Farm Services said it is likely to appeal the verdict, saying they followed standards on the product labels and county agricultural permits when applying the pesticides. The company argues that Jacobs Farm should not have come into an area where conventional farming was taking place with its “incompatible crops.” In their statement, Western Farm Services said that assessing the uses and risks of pesticides should be the job of federal, state and county regulators, not local juries. It also said the verdict “raises concerns about future use of organophosphates in California.”

“The scientific community’s growing knowledge of how these chemicals move in the environment after application was not considered by pesticide applicators or government regulators. Regulations prohibiting the continued application of pesticides that damage crops on other farms are in place. But until now, these prohibitions did not apply to damage from pesticides when they evaporate after they are applied,“ said Larry Jacobs, president of Jacobs Farm Del Cabo.

According to Nathan Benjamin, an attorney for the organic farm, neither federal nor state regulations account for the environmental characteristic of organophosphates or provide any protection for organic farmers. The jury verdict signaled the need for regulations to protect growers against volatile pesticides that can drift after they are applied.

In the letter, SA Policy Director Peter Melchett wrote, “I fear it is typical of the current extraordinarily lax approach to pesticide regulation in the UK that we look like being one of the last of the major farming countries in the EU to wake up to the threat to our honeybees.” He also stated that the UK’s current pesticide regulation “is too dominated by scientists from one side of the debate about pesticide safety, fails to take adequate account of the public interest as against the interest of the chemical industry and some farmers, and fails adequately to apply the precautionary principal to the use of these chemicals.”

There is worldwide concern at widespread and devastating deaths of honey bees over the last two years. Beekeepers have reported potentially catastrophic loss of bees from their hives ranging anywhere from 30-90 percent. Britain’s beekeepers have reported that close to one in three hives have failed to make it through last winter and spring. This “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD) is not just a problem for beekeepers and farmers, but for consumers as well, since bee pollination is essential for crop production. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) says that one out of every three mouthfuls of food is dependent on bee pollination, and globally up to two-thirds of all major crops rely on pollination, mainly by bees.

The products implicated in bee deaths, clothianidin, imidacloprid, fipronil, and thiamethoxam, are approved to kill insects on a wide range of crops in the UK including very widely grown oilseed rape (canola), barley, and sugar beet. They are also cleared for use in ornamental plant and hop production. The use of these chemicals on oilseed rape is of particular concern, as the crop’s yellow flowers are very attractive to honey bees, and the crop has become popular with bee keepers.

Mr. Melchett said, “We want the Government to act today to remove this threat to Britain’s honey bees. The UK Government is almost alone in the EU in fighting against proposed new, tighter European controls on farm sprays, and in the light of what has happened to honey bees, we are calling on Hilary Benn to back European proposals for tighter controls on farm sprays.”

Since their introduction by Bayer CropScience in the USA in 2003, these neonicotinoid sprays have been linked to the devastating loss of millions of honey bees in a number of countries. Germany banned the pesticides after beekeepers in the Baden-Wurttenberg region reported that two thirds of their bees died in May following the application of clothianidin. In 1995 bee keepers in North Dakota took Bayer to court when a third of their bees were killed by imacloprid. In France, a third of the honey bee population was killed after widespread use of imidacloprid.

The new test results show that in October, November and December 2007 the air in Hastings was contaminated with the pesticides endosulfan, diazinon https://www.beyondpesticides.org/gateway/pesticide/diazinon.htm, trifluralin and chlorothalonil. Of these, two are neurotoxins, two are suspected carcinogens, and three are or will soon be banned in Europe. Endosulfan, the pesticide of greatest concern, was found in 87% of the samples, and, on several days, exceeded levels of concern.

The air monitoring was conducted by concerned area residents using a “Drift Catcher” device, a simple air sampling system that sucks air into tubes, where the pesticides are absorbed and captured. The tubes are then sent to a laboratory, where the chemicals can be identified and the concentrations measured.

“I would hope that any parent that has children attending South Woods Elementary will not look the other way,” says James B. Hunt, who owns the land adjacent to the school where the air monitoring was conducted. “I don’t think school officials can deny or discredit anyone over this issue anymore. This problem is not going to just go away, and it simply can’t be ignored any longer.” Mr. Hunt lives next to South Woods Elementary School, and authorized use of his property for the first round of air monitoring in 2006, which was conducted by high school students as a science project. He decided to continue the drift catching when he saw the lack of response from the school board when the original data was released.

Authors of the report and members of the community around the school are calling for action at the national, state and local level to protect children from exposure to these pesticides. National recommendations include a call for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow the lead of other countries and ban the pesticides endosulfan and diazinon, and require no-spray zones around schools. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is called on to invest in research and promotion of organic agriculture. At the state level, the report’s authors recommend that farmers be provided with funding and training to transition to organic production, laws should require that residents be informed whenever pesticides are applied, and pesticide-free zones should be put in place around schools and other sensitive sites. Locally, they suggest that school and local officials should work with farmers to reduce pesticide exposure of schoolchildren, including support for ecological pest management and application of pesticides only on days when school is not in session.

“The school district chose to purchase this property in an intensive farming area and therefore has the responsibility to address this issue with solutions that will have real impacts,” says community member Jordan Whitmire. “Everyday that these children are exposed to the chemicals is one more day of harm done to them.”

Pesticide drift is an inevitable problem in pest management strategies that rely on spray and dust pesticide formulations. Although of greatest concern is the aerial application of pesticides, where up to 40% of the pesticide is lost to drift, pesticides can also drift when applied from a truck or hand held application.

Reports in Hawaii of pesticides drifting onto school property and poisoning students have lead state lawmakers to consider legislation that would establish buffer zones around elementary schools.

This past February, California’s Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner adopted new pesticide buffer zone rules that prohibit aerial applications of restricted use pesticides within one-quarter mile of schools in session or due to be in session within 24 hours, occupied farm labor camps and residential areas. Two other counties in the state have similar requirements.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ report Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities, seven states have recognized the importance of controlling drift by restricting pesticide applications around school properties, residential areas and other sensitive sites. State required buffer zones range from 100 feet to 2 1/2 miles, depending on the application method, pesticide type and site to be protected from potential drift.

For more information on how pesticides impact children’s health and strategies for getting pesticides out of your school, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools webpage https://www.beyondpesticides.org/schools/.