Jennifer Hopwood, PhD, the author of “The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation,” performed the research in Kansas, where a very small amount of unplowed prairie remains. The intensification and spread of agriculture has reduced the availability of suitable nesting sites, particularly for ground-nesting bees, and has limited food sources as a result of reduced floral diversity. Dr. Hopwood found more than twice the bee abundance in roadsides with native plants and increased bee diversity. The restored roadsides have 79 species of bees, whereas the conventionally managed roadsides only have 53. Roadsides in Kansas account for more than 650,000 acres of continuous corridors, which, if restored to native plants, could add significantly to viable bee habitat.

In addition to struggling as a result of reduced floral resources/food sources due to herbicide use, the introduction of non-native grasses and agricultural intensification, bees are extremely sensitive to insecticides in numerous chemical classes. The use of insecticides and herbicides has been implicated in global pollinator decline.

Bees are the most significant taxon of pollinators, and there are over 4,000 species of native bees in North America. Although honeybees are often given the bulk of the credit for pollination of agricultural crops, recent research has shown the significance of wild bees’ contribution to pollinating the food we eat. A study in New Jersey and Pennsylvania reports that the majority of flower visitation in watermelon and tomato is from wild bees, despite the fact that 64% of farmers in the study rented honeybees.

The management of rights-of-way such as roadsides, railroad lines and power lines often involves herbicide use, even though alternatives exist. The restoration of roadsides with plants native to the region is one way to reduce herbicide use, save fossil fuels (less mowing required) and help support a diverse and abundant pollinator community.

The study, entiltled “Cryptorchidism at birth in Nice area (France) is associated with higher prenatal exposure to PCBs and DDE, as assessed by colostrum concentrations,” and published in the journal Human Reproduction, compared prebirth exposure to chemicals, as measured through their mother’s milk, and the risk of undescended testicles or cryptorchidism, during a three-year period. 164 mother/infant pairs were used and within 3-5 days of delivery, the researchers collected samples of colostrums, or “first milk” from the mother. Colostrum is a form of breast milk that is produced late in pregnancy and immediately after birth before the more creamy milk comes in. It is used as a proxy for what was circulating in the mother’s body and in her fetus during pregnancy. The colostrum was analyzed for three different chemical pollutants including seven polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethylene (DDE) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP). Umbilical cord blood was also measured.

While all subjects in the study had detectable levels of these chemicals in either their blood or breast milk, the researchers found that mothers in the highest exposure group for PCBs and DDE in breast milk had two-fold greater odds of giving birth to a boy baby with cryptorchidism, as compared to moms with low to medium exposure. DBP did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cryptorchidism, but four boys whose mothers had high exposures to DBP in their jobs were born with the defect. While this number is too small to be significant statistically, researchers found it to be an interesting observation.

These findings complement a host of other studies which have associated prenatal chemical exposures to a series of birth defects. The occurrence of cryptorchidism indicates that testosterone production and/or hormone signaling conditions in the womb have gone awry. Both of these conditions are related to sperm production and the risk of testicular cancer later in life. Cryptorchidism is seen in about 3% of male full-term births, 30% of premature births and is one cause of male infertility.

Results like these emphasize the long term and destructive effects persistent chemicals can have on human populations. DDT (the precursor to DDE) and PCBs have been banned is much of the world for several decades. However, like other POPs, they continue to circulate in the environment, accumulate in the food chain and contribute to health problems, such as the reproductive abnormalities observed in this study. These chemicals accumulate in fatty tissue and humans are exposed via meat, fish and dairy products. These persistent pollutants have also been linked to childhood obesity, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and cancer, among others.

Although exposures to these chemicals can be correlated to adverse health effects, they are also indicators of a much wider problem; exposures to mixtures of chemicals are negatively influencing hormones and fetal development in humans.

“The project’s goal is to provide intensive in-home and community-based education designed to change individual and community practices regarding pest control and the use of pesticides,” explains John Kane, IPM coordinator and planner for the Boston Housing Authority (BHA). Mr. Kane says that there has been up to a 75 percent reduction in work orders dealing with pests and a huge increase in the quality of life for the residents.

Over 1,000 BHA households in eight developments have received in-home and community-based support and education to encourage integrated pest management practices that focus on prevention and use “least toxic” pesticides only as a last resort. BHA hopes to make the project sustainable and expand their efforts into additional developments. “People are beginning to see they no longer have to live with their pest problems. They feel empowered by being able to take control of their pest problems and their health,” says Mr. Kane.

The HPFHI project has moved the standard pest management practice from routinely spraying pesticides in an entire complex to inspections and an integrated management plan. Prevention is emphasized, and tactics such as sealing up cracks and crevices, cutting off water supply, and removing habitat are all steps that are taken once unit is vacated and during yearly unit inspections. Insecticide gels are used as a last resort. While environmentalists note that the plan is a vast improvement, Beyond Pesticides cautions that not all baits and gels are created equal. To learn more about the volatility of commonly used pesticides, see the article, “How Safe Is Your Bait?” from the Winter 2007-08 issue of Pesticides and You.

According to BHA, at the beginning of the project every home tested showed evidence of at least one pesticide that has either been banned or restricted to non-residential use. Nearly 50 percent had cockroach allergen levels in excess of asthma sensitivity exposure.

Teams of IPM health advocates are providing outreach and in-home education in eight BHA developments involved in the project. “Our team trains the residents in IPM, and we also utilize a train-the-trainer approach in which people are trained to provide education about IPM to newly arriving residents during their orientation,” said Mr. Kane. The Boston Public Health Commission has also developed informational brochures and posters in multiple languages that can be used in public housing situations and beyond.

To enhance their educational efforts, a “pesticide buyback” occurs twice a year and gives residents an opportunity to trade unused pesticides for safer products and provides another opportunity for health advocates to connect with residents. “Buybacks are scheduled to coincide with Boston’s biannual residential hazardous waste collection. So far, this project has collected a wide array of pesticides including over the counter sprays and bombs, as well as restricted use pesticides that by law can only be applied by a licensed professional,” Mr. Kane explains.

HPFHI is also working towards translating project findings into proposed policies. At the state level, the Massachusetts Public Health Association will educate its members about IPM, support IPM advocacy and provide training for community health workers. In addition, the Asthma Regional Council is developing a handbook and kit on IPM for building managers and promoting it to the 375 housing authorities in New England. A similar tool will be aimed at health plans interested in home environmental assessments, education and supplies.

Although programs like Boston’s HPFHI are seeing some success, asthma and other respiratory illnesses remain a huge problem in the U.S. Since the mid-1980s, asthma rates have skyrocketed to epidemic levels, particularly in young children. In the U.S. alone, around 16 million people suffer from asthma. Asthma is a serious chronic disorder of the lungs characterized by recurrent attacks of bronchial constriction, which cause breathlessness, wheezing, and coughing. Asthma is a dangerous, and in some cases life-threatening disease. Researchers have found that pesticide exposure can induce a poisoning effect linked to asthma. For more information see Beyond Pesticides’ Asthma, Children and Pesticides brochure.

“The USDA’s raw almond treatment mandate has been economically devastating to many family-scale and organic almond farmers in California,” said Will Fantle, the research director for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. Cornucopia has been working with almond farmers and handlers to address the negative impacts of the USDA rule, including the loss of markets to foreign nuts. They also contend that the USDA requirement lacks scientific justification, does not address the unsustainable methods used on the industrial-scale almond orchards where the only two documented Salmonella outbreaks have occurred, and is misleading as the treated almonds can still be deceptively labeled as “raw.”

The USDA, in consultation with the Almond Board of California, invoked its treatment plan on September 1, 2007 alleging that it was a necessary food safety requirement. Salmonella-tainted almonds twice this decade caused outbreaks of food related illnesses. USDA investigators were never able to determine how salmonella bacteria somehow contaminated the raw almonds that caused the food illnesses but they were able to trace back one of the contaminations, in part, to the largest “factory farm,” growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.

The lawsuit contends that the USDA exceeded its authority, which is narrowly limited to regulating quality concerns in almonds such as dirt, appearance and mold. “The fact that almond growers were not permitted to fully participate in developing and approving this rule undermines its legitimacy,” said Ryan Miltner, the attorney representing the almond grower lawsuit plaintiffs. And even if the USDA sought to regulate bacterial contamination, Mr. Miltner argues that the questionable expansion of USDA authority demanded a full evidentiary hearing and a producer referendum, to garner public input -neither of which were undertaken by the USDA.

“For those of us who are interested in eating fresh and wholesome food, the USDA’s plan, to protect the largest corporate agribusinesses against liability, amounts to the adulteration of our food supply,” said Jill Richardson, a consumer activist.

Besides being a human carcinogen, propylene oxide is also believed to be a developmental, neuro- and reproductive toxicant. According to a propylene oxide document listed on the NIEHS website, “Consumer exposure may occur through ingestion of propylene oxide residues in foods from its use as an indirect food additive.” Yet it is not registered for use as a food processing agent in many parts of the world, including most of Europe, Africa, Asia, and Canada due to its toxicity.

Propylene oxide can also be an inert, or other, ingredient in commonly used pesticide products. “Inert” refers to ingredients in a pesticide formulation that have been added to the active ingredient to serve a variety of functions, such as acting as solvents, surfactants, or preservatives. However, the common misconception is that “inert” ingredients are physically, chemically, or biologically inactive substances. EPA has stated that “many consumers have a misleading impression of the term ”˜inert ingredient,’ believing it to mean water or other harmless ingredients.” Because inerts are not “active” ingredients, they do not have to appear on label and are considered proprietary information on the part of the manufacturers. However, their supposed inactivity or inertness belies the fact that these ingredients frequently pose serious health risks of their own, and commonly make up the majority of the volume of a pesticide. The continued exemption on these inert ingredients highlights a flaw with the regulatory process for both active and inactive ingredients in pesticides.

The Cornucopia Institute suggests some alternatives to the rule, such as: (1) allowing for and clearly labeling unpasteurized almonds, effectively warning consumers of potential risk for food contamination while at the same time protecting consumer choice, and (2) exempting small-scale and organic almond growers and handlers — since they have never been a documented source of Salmonella or other contamination.

The issue of assessing the risks posed by nanoscale silver was highlighted after the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) San Francisco office earlier this year imposed a landmark fine of over $200,000 on a California company selling computer keyboards and mouses coated with nanosilver. EPA issued the fine on the grounds that the products should have been registered under federal pesticide law because of the company’s germ-killing claims. In May, a coalition of groups also petitioned that EPA regulate nano products as pesticides.

Similar fines have not been imposed since, but the action is increasing attention on the potential risks posed by nanoscale silver and oversight of nanotechnology as a whole. There currently are more than 200 manufacturer-identified nanosilver products on the market and contained in the online nanotechnology consumer products inventory maintained by PEN – everything from baby carriages and air filters to athletic socks and coin-operated washing machines.

Silver itself is classified as an environmental hazard by EPA because it is more toxic to aquatic plants and animals than any metal except mercury. Even if a nanoparticle itself is not especially toxic, silver nanoparticles increase the effectiveness of delivering toxic silver ions to locations where they can cause toxicity.

“We need not assume that because nano is new, we have no scientific basis for managing risks,” says Dr. Samuel N. Luoma, the author of the PEN report, which also offers a dozen lessons concerning silver in general that can be followed for managing the potential environmental risks posed by nanosilver. “Our existing knowledge of silver in the environment provides a starting point for some assessments, and points toward some of the new questions raised by the unique properties for nanoparticles that need to be addressed through new research.”

The mass of silver dispersed to the environment from new products could be substantial if one product, or a combination of such products, becomes widespread. Some products, when washed, readily release nanoparticles into water, providing an easy outlet to the environment.

“The silver that went into wastewaters when millions of people had their photographs developed taught us that small additions of silver to the environment make a big difference,” says Dr. Luoma, a former senior researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey who now leads science policy coordination for the John Muir Institute of the Environment at the University of California, Davis. “Perhaps more significant, we have no means of detecting nanosilver in the environment once it is released, even if concentrations rise to levels that are toxic to aquatic ecosystems.”

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 earlier this year by PEN, further highlighting the need for more research on the potential risks posed by nanomaterials.

“Silver is an old problem, and nanosilver is a new challenge. The scope of the new challenge is not yet clear because it is uncertain how much nanosilver is now used as an antimicrobial in commercial and consumer products, and because new uses are likely to be discovered in the future,” says J. Clarence Davies, a PEN senior adviser and a former EPA policy official. “Regardless of the scope of the nanosilver problem, it underscores the need for more risk research and new approaches to oversight to deal with new technologies and problems of the new century.”

The hearing is significant because the company insists that adequate practices are and have been in place to ensure workers are not exposed to pesticides, even though the testimony of Ag-Mart employees runs counter to this claim. This hearing could do a great deal to elucidate the truth about farmworker pesticide exposure, an important issue for the thousands of workers who plant and harvest our food and their families throughout the country. As detailed in the report Fields of Poison 2002, about California’s farmworkers, pesticide poisonings are drastically underreported and farmworkers and their families are the most at-risk group for exposure to a variety of toxic chemicals used in agriculture. More protections for farmworkers are necessary, and a case such as this has the potential to illuminate the severity of the issue.

In August, prompted by this case, North Carolina adopted a new law intended to protect workers from retaliation if they report pesticide violations. The new law also requires more detailed record keeping of pesticide applications. Ag-Mart claims that the charges against the company are a matter of the Pesticide Board’s misreading of their records. They have since stopped using five pesticides known to cause birth defects. This case has already brought about important changes in the law, but up until now, Ag-Mart has not been held accountable for what appear to be flagrant pesticide violations. This hearing could be an important step forward for farmworker protection and toward holding corporations accountable for their practices. Ultimately, however, in order to eliminate toxic pesticide exposure for farmworkers and consumers, toxic pesticides themselves must be eliminated.

A team from the Oregon Water Quality Pesticide Management Program identified seven priority hazardous pesticides: azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, dacthal, diazinon, endosulfan, simazine and ethoprop, based on water-quality monitoring in five Oregon watersheds, including the Pudding River near Salem, as well as the Clackamas, Yamhill, Hood and Walla Walla watersheds. Three pesticides, azinphos-methyl, diazinon and chlorpyrifos have been detected at concentrations that exceed federal aquatic criteria in the Clackamas River Basin (See report here). Chlorpyrifos was detected at maximum levels more than twice the federal standard.

The National Marine Fisheries Service report on the ecological damage associated with pesticide use reveals “overwhelming evidence” to suggest that 37 pesticides, including these seven, increase the chance of extinction for protected salmon and steelhead.

The state is now turning to its own team of experts to set stringent benchmarks based on existing research on these chemicals of concern. Generally the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with developing water quality standards as part of its registration process, however a significant time lag exists between the time the product goes on the market and the setting of final in-stream standards.

According to Kevin Masterson, the agency toxics coordinator with the State’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), a pesticide might be on the market for 20 or 30 years before the EPA’s water division finishes reviewing its effect. For example, the final in-stream standard for diazinon- one of the seven pesticides detected- was not set until it was already banned for household use because of risks to humans, birds and fish. Diazinon is still cleared for agricultural use but could still face restrictions.

“The EPA and the states around the country don’t have standards for the majority of current-use pesticides. More standards exist for drinking water, but there still are more pesticides without standards than those with them,” Mr. Masterson said.

Despite the time gap for water quality standards, states are encouraged to develop benchmarks from a list of pesticides of concern. Unlike EPA standards, benchmarks do not have the enforcement power or require public review. These benchmarks will be designed to help state agencies better understand and explain to the public and pesticide applicators when there is a problem with pesticide concentrations in surface and ground waters. An example of a benchmark can include: 10 parts per billion concentration [of named pesticide] in waters can lead to salmon decline or increase the risk of cancer.

“You can do all the monitoring in the world, but without benchmarks, it doesn’t mean much,” said Steve Riley, an Oregon Department of Agriculture water issues specialist and team member.

Once benchmarks are established, the team of officials will begin working with farmers, nursery growers and other pesticide users to reduce pesticide runoff starting with a pilot project in the Clackamas River Sub-Basin near Portland, Oregon. The program is also evaluating a list of seven relatively newer pesticides such as 2,4-D and glyphosate for possible inclusion in the list as part of an ongoing evaluation of pesticides. The state’s DEQ is also increasing the number of pesticides it tests for in Oregon waters and lowering the level at which they register to give an even clearer picture of what pesticides are showing up at potentially risky levels.

Beyond Pesticides has long criticized EPA’s flawed risk assessment process that does not consider all aspects of potential harm to human health and the environment and that allow dangerous pesticides to be registered without having met all of their data requirements.

Aimee Code with the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides applauds the team’s approach to educate pesticide users to reduce runoff rather than replacing one pesticide with another. “There have been wonderful collaborative efforts around the state to solve these problems,” she said. “It’s a wonderful step in the right direction.”

Beyond Pesticides has long supported organic methods as the solution to pesticide pollution, with organic agriculture being the centerpiece of the conversion necessary to protect human health and the environment, including slowing global warming. Data shows that organic agriculture sequesters atmospheric carbon while chemical-intensive practices are a major contributor to carbon loading. In addition, the reduced pressure on global warming associated with organic agriculture occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) as well as the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil (approximately 1000 lbs. of carbon per acre). See Beyond Pesticides’ organic page.

Let the Appropriations Committees Congress know that it is essential to expedite the transition to organic agriculture in the U.S. and research funds are an essential tool. Tell members of the committees to keep funding for OREI at the level mandated in the Farm Bill — $18 million for 2009.

The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative funds highly critical research important to the improvement of organic farming systems. While the organic share of the retail food market is currently about 4%, total USDA spending for organic agriculture research and education was just over 1% of all of the department’s research and education spending in FY2007. The increase in the 2008 Farm Bill still falls short of a fair share for organic research and education, but it is a strong down payment towards achieving that goal.

Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic, synthetic 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.

Organic agriculture research is crucial in giving farmers the tools and information they need to address production challenges, improve farming systems, and ultimately meet the growing consumer demand for organic products.

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.

Ensure that the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative remains fully funded in the FY09 Budget. Ask Congress to keep funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative at the level mandated in the Farm Bill – $18 million for 2009.

Take Action
It is helpful for you to send a unique message to your member of Congress (House and Senate Appropriations Committee members) even if it is short and precisely explains that you would like to see full funding for organic research to assist in the broader transition to organic agriculture. Longer messages can rely on talking points provided by Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF).

1) Call or fax the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee who come from your State. The members are listed at: http://appropriations.senate.gov/members.cfm. If you click on the Senators website link, you will find on their homepage a link to email them directly.

2) Call or fax the members of the House Appropriations Committee who come from your State. The members are listed at: http://appropriations.house.gov/members110th.shtml. If you click on the U.S. Representative’s website link, you will find on his/her homepage a link to email them directly.

3) If you prefer, after identifying your Member of Congress, you can call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 866-340-9281, ask to be transferred and leave a voice message.

With each person, ask to speak to the staffer who handles appropriations. If you get their voice mail, leave the following message, or something in your own words that makes the same points:

MESSAGE: My name is ____. I am a constituent [or live in your state]. I would like to see full funding for organic research to assist in the broader transition to organic agriculture. This funding is critical to farmers’ livelihood, consumer access to organic food, farming methods that are protective of the environment and those who work on the farm. Please support full funding ($18 million for 2009) for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, as authorized by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill.

“Our findings suggest that low levels of exposure to inorganic arsenic may play a role in diabetes,” said Ana Navas-Acien, MD, PhD, lead author of the study and assistant professor with the Bloomberg School’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences. “While prospective studies are needed to establish whether this association is causal, these findings add to the existing concerns about the long-term health consequences of low and moderate exposure to inorganic arsenic.”

Dietary intake of inorganic arsenic in the U.S. ranges from 8.4 to 14 micrograms per day for various age groups. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), approximately 34,000 metric tons of arsenic were consumed in the U.S. in 2000. A 2004 study by researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), found a high concentration of arsenic in young factory-farmed chicken. Small amounts of arsenic are added to chicken feed as a USDA approved supplement that controls intestinal parasites and is consequently transferred into the meat of the animals. (USDA-certified organic chicken it does not contain arsenic.) Foods, such as flour and rice, can also provide small quantities of inorganic arsenic, particularly if grown or cooked in areas with arsenic contamination in soil or water.

In the U.S., approximately 13 million people live in areas where the concentration of inorganic arsenic in the public water supply exceeds standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), primarily in the West, Midwest and Northeast regions. The authors concluded that given widespread exposure to inorganic arsenic from drinking water worldwide, clarifying the contribution of arsenic to the diabetes epidemic is a public health research priority with potential implications for the prevention and control of diabetes.

EPA began investigating pesticides containing inorganic arsenicals back in 1978 because of concerns that this family of chemicals presented risks of cancer, genetic mutation, and birth defects. In that review, EPA separated the use of inorganic arsenicals as wood preservatives from all other uses. In 1988, the agency banned almost all uses of nonwood-preservative pesticide products containing inorganic arsenicals because EPA determined that arsenic posed an unacceptable risk to workers and others exposed to arsenic. Yet, according to the Pesticide Action Network Pesticides Database http://www.pesticideinfo.org, there are five nonwood-preservative pesticide products containing the active ingredient arsenical acid and two products containing the active ingredient arsenic trioxide that are still registered for use by EPA today.

The inorganic arsenical wood preservative chromated copper arsenate (CCA) is still in use. Although, as of January 2004, most residential uses of this arsenic-based wood preservative can no longer be manufactured for decks and patios, picnic tables, playground equipment, walkways/boardwalks, landscaping timbers, or fencing- already existing residential CCA-treated wood and structures may continue to be sold and used. Industrial uses, such as utility poles, continue to be manufactured and put workers and the public at risk. The major source of contamination in surface waters and groundwater is wastewater from wood preserving facilities. Individuals living or working near wood preserving facilities are exceptionally susceptible to being exposed to surface water or groundwater, increasing their exposure and risk. These preservatives are also known to leach from previously treated wood. Children are also at risk if they put their unwashed hands in their mouths after touching soil or wood that is contaminated with these preservatives. As a result, public and environmental health continues to be compromised.

Arsenic has been linked to other health effects for decades. For example, arsenic is a known human carcinogen. Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of lung, skin, bladder, liver, kidney, and prostate cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and EPA have determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from human data. High levels of arsenic in the body can also cause vomiting, diarrhea, blood vessel change, or death and can damage many tissues including nerves, stomach and intestines.

This is not the first time pesticides have also been link to an increased risk of diabetes. A 2008 study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), finds pesticide applicators with regular exposure to pesticides to be at a greater risk of type-2 diabetes. The study shows specific pesticides produce between a 20 and 200 percent increase in risk. Researchers looked at data from 31,787 pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa over a period of five years. In that period, 1,171, or 3.7 percent, had developed diabetes, particularly for applicators in the highest category of lifetime days of use of any pesticide. The greatest risk was associated with the chlorinated compounds aldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, dichlorvos, trichlorfon, alachlor, and cyanazine. Another study from this year from University of Cambridge scientists studied the role that persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including pesticides, play in the risk of adult onset diabetes, as did a study in 2007 that looked at diabetic individuals who live close to hazardous waste sites containing POPs.

The tank involved in the explosion contained waste products from the production of Bayer’s insecticide, thiodicarb, which is banned in the European Union. Included in those were methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), hexane, methomyl, and dimethyl disulfide, all of which are acutely toxic to humans. According to chief of homeland security and emergency response for the state Department of Environmental Protection, Mike Dorsey, “The thing that blew up was the least dangerous of the stuff that’s there.”

Jeannie Young, who lives near the plant, said that following the blast, “My daughter and I have headaches.” When taking her dogs outside half an hour following the explosion, “They acted really funny. They wanted to come right back in the house.” In spite of a noticeable odor and reactions like Ms. Young’s, Mr. Dorsey said, “People should not be concerned about coming outside.”

In response to the explosion, officials closed Interstate 64, U.S. 60, and state Route 25 and ordered a shelter in place, but a conflicting rumor of an evacuation also circulated. Complicating the issuance of emergency instructions was an initial lack of information from the plant. Kanawha County Commission president Kent Carper said, “We are getting such poor information from the plant, it’s worthless,” and County Commissioner Henry Shores said the county relies on advice on chemicals to come from the companies themselves. “We follow their lead really,” he said.

The Institute plant, formerly owned by Union Carbide, also produces methyl isocyanate (MIC), the chemical involved in the sister plant’s deadly leak in Bhopal, India that killed at least 3500 people in December 1984 and is linked to the death and maiming of tens of thousands of people since then. MIC is an intermediate chemical in the production of the insecticide carbaryl (Sevin). The Institute plant currently stores more than four times the amount of MIC than that which leaked in Bhopal. In 1994, then-owner of the plant, Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., estimated that a worst-case leak of the MIC stockpile could kill people in a 10-mile radius of the plant. Today, almost 26,000 people live within just three miles of the plant.

In the wake of this explosion, teams of inspectors from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the federal Chemical Safety Board have arrived to reevaluate Bayer’s safety measures. In OSHA’s latest examination, “We found serious issues related to process safety,” said assistant area director Prentice Clay. “There were some significant deficiencies.” Since 2005, OSHA has issued eight serious and two willful citations to Bayer following a plant inspection.

Philipp Mimkes, spokesman for the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers (CBG), said, “Bayer managers have often enough downplayed the risks of the Institute plant. Bayer has to make clear which amounts of which substances escaped into the air. We repeat our demand that MIC and phosgene stockpiles at Institute have to be dismantled. The explosion once more shows that the neighborhood of the plant is constantly endangered.” CBG has posted a partial list of accidents at the Institute plant, including a small MIC leak in 1997.

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. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that, “Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.”

“This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, lead plaintiff and counsel in the lawsuit. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the judge rightly dismissed Monsanto’s claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America’s farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.”

The decision upholds U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s May 2007 ruling, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. Judge Breyer specifically noted that Monsanto’s fear of lost sales “does not outweigh the potential irreparable damage to the environment.” Judge Schroeder’s decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. It also affirms that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant “superweeds” that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa.

In addition to Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Food Safety represented the following co-plaintiffs and itself in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms. For more information on the lawsuit, please visit the Center for Food Safety website.

The new MRLs aim to remove the confusion associated with dealing with 27 lists of national MRLs. Previously, different MRLs could apply to the same pesticide for the same crop in different member states, which led to confusion, especially in cases where food residues exceeding defined MRLs in one member state were acceptable in another. Traders of produce will now be able to do business smoothly as the confusion surrounding various MRLs is eliminated. The regulation covers approximately 1100 pesticides and lists MRLs for about 315 agricultural products. The MRLs also apply to processed products.

“The new rules apply the principle that food produced or imported in one member state must be safe for consumers in all of them,” says EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou. “They ensure that pesticide residues in food are as low as possible and have no harmful effects.”

However, environmental groups claim that the new rules violate food safety by exposing consumers to unacceptable levels of contamination. Many groups have even threatened legal action- two groups, Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, have already lodged an appeal at the Court of First Instance. The groups are united in their condemnation of the rules and cite that the methodologies by which the new limits were devised are questionable and urge that further consideration of cumulative effects of pesticides on human health be studied.

Elliot Cannell, Coordinator, PAN Europe, said that the European Commission has failed to deliver on its obligation to set legal limits at the lowest achievable level as agreed in the Regulation. “For each pesticide, the [European] Commission identified the country with the worst safety limit and then sought to adopt this level as the new EU-wide standard. European consumers will now receive a much lower level of protection from dietary exposure to over 200 different pesticides,” Mr. Cannell said.

A joint analysis*, published last week by Greenpeace and Global 2000, found that almost 700 of the MRLs in fruit and vegetables were too high. 94 EU limits exceed the acceptable daily intake (ADI). When the ADI is exceeded there can be chronic damage to health such as cancer, disruption to the reproduction system or hormones. The study singled out apples, pears, grapes, tomatoes and sweet peppers as those with an unacceptable level of contamination and pose risks, especially to children.

Food items sold in Europe contain 349 different pesticides. Approximately half of all food items are contaminated, while over 5% of fruits, cereals and vegetables contain 5 or more pesticides.
To avoid pesticide contaminated foods, organic produce should be bought whenever possible.

For more information of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

* Report published in German and English

This case started in October 2007 when EPA filed a complaint against four Puerto Rico farms for being in violation of the worker protection standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the settlement, each farm has agreed to pay a civil penalty, and to display information on pesticide applications, information on pesticide safety and emergency medical care, as well as to provide decontamination supplies for workers and handlers, personal protective equipment, and pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. The farms have agreed to meet specific deadlines set by the EPA to report on progress that has been made under the settlement agreements. Owners of Finca Roman Farm, Anthuriums de Puerto Rico and the Javier Quiles Farm, all in Adjuntas, as well as the owner of Finca Los Tres Picachos in Jayuya, failed to display specific pesticide application information for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. Several of the farm owners also failed to provide workers with training, protective equipment or ways to wash off residual pesticides before leaving the work sites. Additionally, some of the farm owners failed to provide medical care information to workers and pesticide handlers and did not follow the pesticide label instructions for proper pesticide use and disposal.

Earlier on January 19, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessed the second highest penalty for violating worker protection provisions of U.S. pesticide laws to an agricultural company based in Puerto Rico. According to the EPA, Martex Farms has been ordered to pay a total penalty of $92,620 by EPA’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (See Daily News of February 7, 2007.)

On an historical note, farmworkers were originally “protected” under a 1974 standard in EPA regulations that only instructed growers to keep workers out of pesticide-treated fields until the dusts had settled or sprays had dried. That standard was developed after field hearings in which EPA heard from growers but not farmworkers. With the threat of litigation from the National Association of Farmworker Organizations and Migrant Legal Action Program in the late 1970s, the Carter Administration funded an effort to reach out to workers and collect data on their experiences with pesticide exposure and poisoning in the fields. Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director, involved in that effort, points out that, “Chemical-intensive growers viewed the discussion about worker protection as a threat to agricultural production and their livelihood and resisted calls for new standards.” So, it was not until nearly 15 years after the Carter Administration began the review that EPA in 1992 upgraded the 1974 “standard.”

GAO, in its 2000 analysis Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children (GAO-GAO/RCED-00-40), describes the background on the WPS:

EPA established the Standard in 1974, but in 1980, the agency reviewed the Standard and found it inadequate to protect agricultural workers from exposure to pesticides. In 1992, EPA made major revisions to the Standard that the agency began enforcing in January 1995. The revised Standard contains general protections applicable to farmworkers and others, including prohibiting the spraying of pesticides while anyone is in a field or allowing the exposure of people to pesticide spray drift. The Standard also contains provisions that specifically apply to farmworkers, including restricting entry into treated areas for specified periods and requiring employers to provide workers with, among other things, (1) information about when and where pesticides were applied, (2) basic pesticide safety training, and (3) supplies (soap, water water, and towels) for workers to use to decontaminate themselves. (p7 GAO/RCED-00-40)

GAO is extremely critical of the enforcement apparatus that EPA has established to carry out the WPS. According to Farmworker Justice http://www.fwjustice.org/health&safety/Pesticides.htm, “Most violations merely result in a letter of warning, and few monetary penalties are issued.” GAO, in its reports cites limited inspections that could lead to enforcement actions. The enforcement system relies heavily on states under cooperative agreements with EPA, which provides funding for state enforcement activities.

According to GAO:

In fiscal year 1998, 5 states reported to EPA that they had conducted no routine worker protection inspections, and 11 other states each reported conducting fewer than 10 routine inspections under the cooperative agreements with EPA.6 In addition to the inspections conducted under the cooperative agreements, states can conduct additional worker protection inspections using state resources. However, EPA regional officials told us that they generally do not receive information on the number of inspections conducted with state resources. Moreover, officials from several EPA regions told us that worker protection enforcement is in its infancy in some states and that the states had conducted few, if any, routine worker protection inspections on their own. (p21)

We also found inconsistency among EPA’s regions in whether they negotiated goals for the number of routine worker protection inspections that the states should conduct under the cooperative agreements. Specifically, while three of EPA’s regions had established goals for the number of routine worker protection inspections that states in their regions should conduct, the remaining seven regions had not. Within the three regions, the goals have established at least a minimum number of routine worker protection inspections to be conducted under the cooperative agIn reements. For example, beginning in fiscal year 1999, EPA’s Atlanta region reached agreement that each of the eight states in the region would conduct between 60 and 100 routine worker protection inspections annually. These goals call for several of the states in the region to do many more inspections than they have done in the past. In fiscal year 1998, Alabama reported that it had conducted only five routine inspections under its cooperative agreement, and Tennessee reported it had conducted four such inspections. The remaining seven EPA regions had not negotiated routine worker protection inspection goals, and according to officials from several regions, it is up to the states to decide how to spend their federal pesticide resources.

Besides the inconsistency in setting inspection goals, EPA was also inconsistent in establishing minimum requirements for what constitutes a worker protection inspection for reporting purposes under the cooperative agreements. Officials from six regions told us that states have varying interpretations of what constitutes a worker protection inspection for reporting purposes. For example, as part of our analysis of the number of worker protection inspections conducted under the cooperative agreements during fiscal year 1998, we noted that Oklahoma had reported conducting 174 such inspections, while New Mexico reported conducting 1 inspection.

We also found that EPA’s regions were inconsistent in the extent to which they oversaw and monitored the states’ implementation and enforcement of the Standard. During fiscal year 1998, three of EPA’s regional offices limited their oversight of the states’ worker protection enforcement programs to file reviews, meetings and discussions with state officials, and mid- and end-of-year reports. No one from these regional offices accompanied state officials on any worker protection inspections during the year.

We found that the regions did not know how many and what types of actions the states had taken in response to worker protection violations. Although the states report to EPA on the number and types of actions (such as fines or warning letters) taken under their pesticide enforcement programs, these statistics do not isolate the number and types of actions that involved worker protection as opposed to other pesticide requirements such as the proper labeling of pesticide products. EPA’s Atlanta region, however, has developed a tracking system that is intended to provide the region with statistics on actions states have taken in response to worker protection violations. (p 22)

In 2005, EPA developed a new WPS How to Comply (HTC) Manual which supersedes the 1993 version. EPA maintains that changes to the WPS since 1993 have made the earlier version obsolete, and its continued use may lead an employer to be out of compliance. The 2005 HTC Manual revision was coordinated by EPA’s National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center and a workgroup consisting of representatives from EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional Offices, and several state agencies, with input solicited from USDA and other state and tribal pesticide agencies.

In May, Germany suspended the approval of eight pesticides linked to a massive bee die-off. Six of the eight suspended are manufactured by Bayer, the other two by Syngenta. Two of the primary active ingredients of concern are clothianidin and imidacloprid, both in the neonicotinoid family of chemicals. They are systemic pesticides, meaning the chemical is incorporated into plant tissue and can therefore be present in pollen and nectar, which is of particular importance to bees. They also have long persistence in the soil and can be absorbed by multiple generations of crops, increasing the likelihood of exposure for bees.

Attorney Harro Schultze, who represents the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers said, “The public prosecutor [in Germany] needs to clarify which efforts Bayer undertook to prevent a ban of imidacloprid and clothianidin . . . We’re suspecting that Bayer submitted flawed studies to play down the risks of pesticide residues in treated plants.” Bayer continues to defend its products, claiming that when properly used they pose no threat to bees. Richard Schmuck, an ecologist at Bayer CropScience, said in June, “All studies available to us confirm that our product is safe to bees if the recommended dressing quality is maintained. This is also shown by the product safety assessments which we have submitted to the registration authorities.”

In France, concern over the effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees led to severe restrictions on imidacloprid beginning in the 1990s and a rejection of Bayer’s application for approval of clothianidin in 2003. These actions followed contentious debates over the science between Bayer scientists, independent researchers and beekeepers. A 2007 examination of the French debate over imidacloprid in the journal Science of the Total Environment reveals that Bayer used outdated and disproved methods (not meeting state of the art detection limits) for its “scientific” studies assessing the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees, actions that call into question all of the scientific studies Bayer has produced regarding its products, in which it has a clear, vested economic interest.

The U.S. and German lawsuits both stress the importance of transparency in pesticide registration, and the importance of valid science when making registration decisions. The NRDC lawsuit against EPA prompted a letter from EPA’s Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, Debra Edwards, PhD, stating that “EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs ”˜sets the bar’ for its exceptional public participation processes and transparency.” NRDC refutes this claim by pointing to several cases in which federal judges rebuked EPA for just the opposite””a lack of transparency and public participation on pesticide regulatory issues. Despite NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act request, EPA still does not have a complete public record of the agency’s decision to approve clothianidin.

Source: Environment News Service