“There can be no good explanation for why Senator Hagan thinks it would be a good idea to exclude seasonal farmworkers from access to affordable health care coverage, other than that she is pandering to agricultural employers and upholding the long tradition of excluding some of America’s lowest paid and hardest working employees from the benefits that other workers receive,” said attorney Kate Woomer-Deters of the North Carolina Justice Center.

Farmworkers in the U.S. earn an average of $12,500 to $15,000 per year. They work in some of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs, and suffer injuries and illnesses at high rates. They suffer from exposure to pesticides, nicotine poisoning during the tobacco harvest, extreme temperatures and are constantly stooping, bending, and lifting. A 2008 study by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher finds the pesticide poisoning incidence rate among U.S. agricultural workers is 31 times higher than the incidence rate found in all other industries combined. The study, “Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Agricultural Workers in the United Sates, 1998-2005,” was published in the December issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

Take Action: Call the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask for Sen. Hagan’s office. Ask Sen. Hagan to withdraw her amendment number 200 to the health care reform bill because farmworkers and their family members need health care coverage and health care reform.

Please also call your Senators on the HELP Committee. Ask them to oppose the Hagan amendment in the Senate HELP Committee to the health care reform bill, amendment number 200 that would deny seasonal farmworkers coverage under the new health care system. It is unfair, immoral and economically counterproductive.

HELP Committee Members

Democrats by Rank
Edward Kennedy (MA), Christopher Dodd (CT), Tom Harkin (IA), Barbara A. Mikulski (MD), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Patty Murray (WA), Jack Reed (RI), Bernard Sanders (I) (VT), Sherrod Brown (OH),
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA), Kay Hagan (NC), Jeff Merkley (OR).

“Methyl iodide is so toxic that scientists working with it in the laboratory take extreme precautions when handling it, using a ventilation hood, gloves, and special equipment for transferring it so it does not escape to the air,” notes Susan Kegley, Ph.D., a chemist and consulting scientist for Pesticide Action Network North America. “This degree of protection is not possible in an agricultural setting where the pesticide would be applied at rates of 175 pounds per acre in the open air. Buffer zones of 400 feet (a distance most growers would say is unworkable) for a 40-acre fumigation would still result in a dose of methyl iodide to neighbors that is 375 times higher than DPR believes is acceptable. For workers, the numbers are much worse, with exposures estimated at 3,000 times higher than DPR’s acceptable dose for some tasks.”

Methyl iodide would primarily be used on strawberries in California, affecting people in the Coastal parts of the state from San Diego and Ventura to Watsonville. Communities and farmworker advocates across the state are urging Governor Schwarzenegger to consider the serious potential impacts this chemical will have on their lives if it is permitted for use. According to Anne Katten of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, “People who would suffer the highest exposure to methyl iodide are among the state’s least protected: farmworkers and their families, including especially vulnerable young children and pregnant and nursing women.”

According to unnamed sources, representatives from the pesticide manufacturers and agricultural industry have been meeting with the Governor’s office to demand faster registration of Midas, a fumigation product containing methyl iodide and chloropicrin, by the end of the summer. The same sources indicate that the Governor’s office has directed DPR to register methyl iodide by a certain date, apparently regardless of DPR’s toxicological assessment or the results of a scientific peer review.

DPR’s risk assessment is on track to be peer-reviewed by a Scientific Review Panel, comprised of highly respected university scientists. Industry interests (primarily the methyl iodide manufacturer, Arysta, and select grower organizations) are now pressuring the Governor to forego the scientific review and force DPR to allow the use of methyl iodide for California’s fall fumigation season. In 2007 the Bush administration bowed to similar pressures, doctoring the science used to assess the risks of methyl iodide, and allowing it to be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“California produces eighty percent of the nation’s strawberries and we lead the nation in sustainable and organic agricultural practices. CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers) has 127 certified organic strawberry producers who do not use harmful chemicals of this sort and are successful business operations,” states Peggy Miars, Executive Director of CCOF. “Registering methyl iodide would be a big step backwards, we need to hold the line here. It’s clear from the success of organic farming practices that a replacement chemical is not what is required, instead what is needed is a greater commitment to innovation and using alternative, more ecologically integrated pest and disease control methods.”

Highly toxic and with application rates of up to 175 pounds per acre, methyl iodide has been controversial from the time EPA announced its intent to register this chemical for legal use as a pesticide. In 2007, EPA fast-tracked the registration of methyl iodide (a Proposition 65 carcinogen) for use as a soil fumigant despite serious concerns raised by a group of over 50 eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates. These scientists sent a letter of concern to EPA explaining, “Because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of this chemical in agriculture will guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and groundwater, and will result in exposures for many people. In addition to the potential for increased cancer incidence, EPA’s own evaluation of the chemical also indicates that methyl iodide causes thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals.” The letter concludes, “It is astonishing that the Office of Pesticide Programs (of EPA) is working to legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.”

If registered as a soil fumigant, methyl iodide would be applied primarily in California’s strawberry fields, and as a gas it would drift away from the application site, and expose neighboring residents and farmworkers in nearby fields. Methyl iodide is a threat to air and water supplies and has been linked to very serious illnesses including cancer, miscarriages, thyroid toxicity, and neurological problems.

“Methyl iodide is even more toxic than what it is supposed to be replacing. More to the point, it is entirely unnecessary, as sustainable and organic farming systems are available now,” says Brett Melone of the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA) in Salinas, California. “ALBA has trained hundreds of farmers to grow food — including strawberries — without chemicals in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties. Most of the farmers ALBA works with are former farmworkers seeking a healthier work environment to grow food.”

A body of literature demonstrates the far-reaching effects of commonly used pesticides that are suspected endocrine disruptors and persistent organic pollutants, such as atrazine, 2,4-D, lindane, endosulfan, and permethrin, on global ecosystems. These pesticides, among others, and related contaminants have been linked to suppressed immune function, endocrine disruption, abnormalities in reproductive organs, hermaphroditism, and increased cub mortality in polar bears. Human subsistence hunters in the Arctic, who share the top spot on the food web with the polar bear, also face increased risks from exposure to these contaminants.

“The poisoning of the Arctic is a silent crisis that threatens not just the polar bear, but the entire Arctic ecosystem, as well as the people and communities that live within it,” said Rebecca Noblin with the Center for Biological Diversity in Anchorage. “Because the polar bear sits at the top of the food pyramid, if we do what is necessary to protect the bear from pesticides, we will also be protecting the Arctic ecosystem and the people that depend upon it.”

All pesticides in the U.S. must be registered by EPA before they can be lawfully used. Courts have held that the agency must examine the impacts of any pesticide it approves on species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008 following a petition and litigation by the Center for Biological Diversity, but EPA has yet to examine the impacts of any approved pesticide on the species.

“The United States has lagged far behind the international community in taking action to protect the species and people of the Arctic from contaminants,” said Brendan Cummings, a senior attorney at the Center. “But with the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA now has not just the opportunity but the legal obligation to take meaningful steps to address the poisoning of the Arctic.”

The IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group, comprised of the world’s leading polar bear scientists, met last week in Copenhagen and highlighted adverse health impacts from contaminants as one of the leading threats to the polar bear in its summary of the meeting. In addition to pesticide contamination and loss of sea-ice habitat from global warming, polar bears face threats from increased oil and gas development in their habitat and the proliferation of shipping routes in an increasingly ice-free Arctic. These activities bring heightened risk of oil spills and rising levels of noise pollution and other kinds of human disturbance.

The Center for Biological Diversity’s 60-day notice of intent to sue is a legally required precursor before a lawsuit can be filed under the Endangered Species Act to compel EPA to comply with the law.

While the action marks the first legal challenge to pesticide registrations due to their impacts on the Arctic, the Center has brought several successful lawsuits against EPA over the impacts of pesticides in the lower 48 states. In 2006 the Center reached a settlement with the agency over the use of 66 pesticides in the habitat of an imperiled amphibian in California, while last week, as a result of a settlement of another Center lawsuit, \EPA proposed restrictions on 74 pesticides due to their impacts on 11 threatened and endangered species in California.

“This move by Dean Foods comes at a time when organic dairy farmers around the country are in financial crisis due to a glut of milk,” says Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. “Responsible participants in this industry are using their marketing strength to ramp up organic demand. Dean has instead chosen to profiteer at the expense of the hard-working family farmers who have built this industry.”

The USDA Organic Label is intended to show consumers that the product adheres to uniform standard which meet the requirements of the Final National Organic Program Rule. An expose by The Washington Post this past week however, “Purity of Federal ‘Organic’ Label Is Questioned”, highlights some of the recent problems that the organic industry faces including the recent news by Dean Foods. Under the Organic Foods Production Act, 5% of a USDA certified organic product can consist of synthetic substances as long as the organic version is not commercially available and it is approved by the National Organic Standards Board. Instead of getting smaller, the original list of 77 substances in 2002 has grown to 245 due to lobbying efforts on the part of companies who want a piece of the organic market. You can read more about the history, standards and pesticide regulation of organic standards on our organic food program page. Provisions in the the new 2008 Farm Bill are intended to strengthen support for organic and organic transition.

It is absolutely crucial that we, as consumers, don’t play victim to this latest food-industry scam. In a national survey examining consumer perception on food labeling, Suzanne Shelton claims that people prefer ”˜natural’ to ”˜organic,’ believing that organic is an unregulated word used to increase the price of a product, even though the complete opposite is true. The marketing of ”˜natural’ dairy products under the Horizon brand umbrella by Dean is just a ploy to further confuse shoppers.
However, explains Mr. Kastel: “Dean Foods will not be able to mention that the products are produced without pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and other drugs, and genetically modified feed crops, or that the cows are required to graze in pastures rather than confined to factory farm feedlots. These are all factors that truly differentiate organic production from natural/conventional agricultural and livestock production.” It’s important that consumers know what the labels mean. Our publication, “Making Sure Green Consumer Claims are Truthful”, is a handy guide on how to read through these so-called “eco-labels.”

Georgina Downs, who lives on the edge of farmland, launched a campaign in 2001 against the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), documenting and collected evidence from other rural residents reporting health problems including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and asthma believed to be linked to crop spraying. Last November, Justice Collins said there was “a very strong case for a buffer zone” between spraying and human habitation. He ruled that the government had failed to comply with a European directive to protect people from the possible harmful effects of exposure to toxic chemicals. DEFRA challenged the ruling and yesterday the Court of Appeal overturned Justice Collins’ decision.

The three judges on the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling that the department was following guidance that gave priority to human health. One judge, Lord Justice Sullivan, said that although Ms. Downs is “a most effective campaigner” she has no formal scientific or medical qualifications. On the previous ruling, which favored Ms. Downs, Lord Justice Sullivan said that the judge’s reference to “solid evidence” was substituting his own evaluation for that of DEFRA.

Ms. Downs said the appeal judges ignored her evidence and used old official reports to reach their findings. Outside the court, Ms Downs remarked, “This judgment is a complete whitewash. I think it may well go down in history as being the most bizarre and inaccurate judgment to have ever come out of the Court of Appeal. The Government could not have wished for a better result than if it wrote the judgment itself. The fact remains that there has never been any assessment for the long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school near pesticide sprayed fields. I continue to maintain (that this) is an absolute scandal considering that crop-spraying has been a predominant feature of agriculture for over 50 years.”

Not surprisingly, the Crop Protection Association said the judgment was a victory for common sense.”Crop protection products are essential to maintain an adequate supply of high quality, affordable food,” said CPA chief executive Dominic Dyer.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said, “We welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment that the government has complied with its obligations under European law, and we also welcome the public debate on this matter.” However, in spite of the ruling, Secretary Benn also said that DEFRA is considering new measures to protect the public from crop spraying, and would consult on giving people access to farmers’ records of spraying activity near their properties and providiing residents with prior notification of spraying from farmers. The consultation, according to Secretary Benn, will also cover monitoring of pesticide use, new training requirements for operators, and other issues that should be included in DEFRA’s new National Action Plan for crop spraying.

But Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said, “Whatever the Court of Appeal says, the fact is UK regulation of pesticide spraying does not take into account the safety of schools or families living next to sprayed fields.” Advocates say the same holds true in the U.S. In aerial application of pesticides, over 40 percent of the pesticide is lost to drift, while estimates put aerially applied pesticides that miss the target insect at over 90 percent.. Pesticides also drift when applied from a truck or hand held application. According to Beyond Pesticides’ report Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities, only seven states have recognized the importance of controlling drift by restricting pesticide applications around school properties, residential areas and other sensitive sites. A recent EPA rule which includes creating or altering buffer zones, enforcing posting requirements, adding measures to protect agricultural workers, and strengthening training programs intended to reduce pesticide fumigant exposures to bystanders: people who live, work, attend school, or spend time near agricultural fields that are fumigated, fell short of adopting more stringent use restrictions and chemical bans, according to critics. Advocates, including Beyond Pesticides, criticize the agency’s buffer zone (an established non-treatment area in which it is known that chemical from the treated area drifts) provision, which can incorporate residential areas, as severely limited and question the enforceability of the standard.

Pesticides that migrate from their intended application sites can cause eye, nose, throat, or respiratory irritation, or more severe poisonings, depending on the chemical and level of exposure. Chronic exposure to some of these chemicals can also lead to lasting health effects, like cancer and developmental defects.

The research team, led by USU insect pathologist Donald Roberts, PhD, is analyzing 10,000 soil samples gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 17 states. After isolating the various fungi, each is grown in the lab and tested individually on Mormon crickets. Because the Mormon cricket is actually a katydid and more closely related to grasshoppers than crickets, it could be used as an organic control on other unwanted grasshopper species.

The research team warns that while they believe the fungus will not harm fish or mammals, it could harm non-target insects. They also question its effectiveness during huge swarms and admit the fungus’s potency is impacted by weather conditions.

The so-called Mormon cricket is actually a shieldbacked katydid, and not a cricket at all. They are large insects that can grow to almost three inches in length. They live throughout western North America in rangelands dominated by sagebrush and forbs. The Mormon cricket is flightless, but capable of traveling up to two kilometers a day in its swarming phase. It prefers to eat forbs, especially cultivated crops such as alfalfa, and vegetables. The most common chemical control is carbaryl. According to an April 2009 Wall Street Journal article, residents of some small towns have been effectively using boom boxes and sound systems playing loud rock music to divert the moving swarms away from crops and houses, although it is unknown if the result is due to the music or the heavy vibrations.

In 2006, mushroom expert Paul Stamets spoke at Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum in Washington, DC and discussed, among other things, the role fungi can play in controlling insects in the home. Mr. Stamets and his colleagues have been working with fungi that feed on insects, and he has figured out a way to grow fungi that delay their spore formation and actually attract the insect to the fungus, thus breaking through an obstacle in using fungi to protect homes from carpenter ants and termites. However, in doing so, he says his philosophy “is not to wage war against the insect kingdom but to enlist fungal allies for the intelligent, natural, and localized control of targeted insects… We seek balance, not extinction.”

“Tens of millions of pounds of toxic and poisonous chemicals, known to be deadly to endangered species and harmful to human health, including proven carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, are applied in the Bay Area each year, and many of those find their way through runoff or drift into our soil, creeks and rivers, San Francisco Bay, and sensitive wildlife habitats,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. “The toxic stew of pesticides in the Bay-Delta has played a major role in the collapse of native fish populations, and pesticides are a leading cause of the loss of native amphibians. This agreement is a positive step for protection of some of the Bay Area’s most endangered wildlife from pesticides.”

The 11 San Francisco Bay-area endangered species are the Alameda whipsnake, bay checkerspot butterfly, California clapper rail, California freshwater shrimp, California tiger salamander, delta smelt, salt marsh harvest mouse, San Francisco garter snake, San Joaquin kit fox, tidewater goby, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Similar protections were obtained by the Center for the California red-legged frog under a 2006 settlement that prohibited use of 66 pesticides in and adjacent to frog habitats statewide.

EPA is required under the Endangered Species Act to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on registration, re-registration and approved uses of pesticides that may endanger listed species or adversely affect their designated critical habitat. The consultation is designed to ensure that EPA avoids authorizing pesticide uses that jeopardize the existence of endangered species. EPA has consistently failed to evaluate or adequately regulate pesticides harmful to endangered species.

EPA today published a proposed settlement agreement with the Center and is taking public comment on a stipulated injunction that would establish a series of deadlines for EPA to conduct formal consultations with the Service and make “effects determinations” on 74 pesticides that may affect 11 Bay Area species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The injunction would set aside EPA’s authorization of use for each of the 74 pesticides in, and adjacent to, endangered species habitats within eight Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma) until formal consultation is completed. The consultations should result in cancellation of some pesticide uses and permanent use restrictions for harmful pesticides. EPA will make the determinations beginning October 20, 2009 and ending June 30, 2014.

The settlement includes interim pesticide-use restrictions in habitat for the 11 Bay Area species, in order to reduce the potential exposure of these species to harmful pesticides during the consultation period and Fish and Wildlife Service assessments of pesticide impacts.

Reported pesticide use in the Bay Area is about 10 million pounds annually, but actual pesticide use is estimated to be several times this amount since most home and commercial pesticide use is not reported to the state. Pesticides have been implicated in the recent collapse of Bay-Delta fish populations such as delta smelt, longfin smelt, and chinook salmon. Toxic pulses of pesticides have been documented in Bay Area streams and the Delta during critical stages in fish development, and many local water bodies are listed as “impaired” for not meeting water-quality standards due to high concentrations of extremely toxic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon.

Numerous studies have definitively linked pesticides with significant developmental, neurological, and reproductive damage to amphibians. Pesticide contamination can cause deformities, abnormal immune system functions, diseases, injury, and death of frogs and salamanders. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. at the University of California have strengthened the case for banning atrazine, a potent chemical that is the most common contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water nationwide. Dr. Hayes demonstrated that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that “assaults male sexual development,” interfering with reproduction by chemically castrating and feminizing male frogs. Atrazine has also been linked to increased prostate cancer, decreased sperm count, and high risk of breast cancer in humans. Thousands of pounds of atrazine are used each year in the Bay Area in proximity to amphibian habitats.

In 2006, the Center published Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife: San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides, a report analyzing the EPA’s dismal record in protecting endangered species and the agency’s ongoing refusal to reform pesticide registration and use in accordance with scientific findings. In 2004, the Center published Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered Species, detailing the decades-long failure of the EPA to regulate pesticides harmful to endangered species. EPA still has no meaningful plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

Concentrations of DDT and PCBs in fish continue to pose a threat to human health and the natural environment including the discovery of highly contaminated fish. In addition, a surge of additional problems with the lingering effects of DDT have risen in recent years, particularly with its buildup in our waterways. It has currently been identified as a threat to the Columbia River, as well as to the arctic. It has also been linked to a plethora of health concerns, including breast cancer, diabetes, non Hodgkin lymphoma, and autism.

Most of the contamination of the Palos Verdes Shelf is attributed to The Montrose Chemical Corporation of California. At one time this was the nation’s largest manufacturer of DDT, and it operated a plant near Torrance, California. Between the years of 1947 to 1971 the company has been charged of releasing over 1,700 tons of DDT into the LA sewer system which discharges into the Pacific Ocean from White Point. During this time, several other companies discharged PCBs into this sewer system leading to further chemical contamination of the sediment and causing serious environmental and health problems in the region.

In order to help combat this problem, the Montrose firm (which no longer operates) along with Aventis CropScience USA Inc., Chris-Craft Industries Inc., and Atkemix Thirty-Seven Inc., agreed to pay a total of $73 million towards restoration of the Palos Verdes Shelf in 2000 in a settlement with the US Department of Justice and the California Attorney General. Each of these companies either owned or operated DDT plants in LA County.

With this money, the EPA is proposing four different alternative plans and is urging the public to submit comments by July 15th 2009. The different plans are:
* Alternative 1: the “no action” alternative
* Alternative 2: institutional controls and monitored natural recovery
* Alternative 3: institutional controls, monitored natural recovery, and small cap
* Alternative 4: institutional controls, monitored natural recovery, and large cap

The EPA’s preferred plan is number 3, with institutional controls, monitored natural recovery and small cap. This cap would be an 18-inch layer of clean sand and coarse silt to cover about 320 acres of the shelf and approximately 36.5 metric tons of DDT. Alternative 4, on the other hand, would cap approximately 640 acres under an 18-inch layer of clean sand and silt, covering an estimated 54.4 metric tons of DDT. Under alternative 3, a surface water quality goal of 0.22 ng/L would be reached by 2023 while under alternative 4, it would be reached in 2019. A sediment cleanup level of 230 μg/kg DDT under alternative 3 would be reached by approximately 2039, whereas under alternative 4, it would be reached by 2031. Furthermore, under alternative 4, the PCB sediment cleanup level o f 7 mg/kg PCBs OC would be immediately met for the shelf, but not the slope of the Palos Verdes Shelf, according to the EPA, whereas PCB sediment level has not been determined for alternative 3.

The cap obviously does not clean the area, but would work by physically containing an area of the shelf in order to prevent erosion of the contaminated sediment, preventing dissolved contaminants from the sediments from flowing into the water, and by reducing the exposure of contaminants to benthic with a clean layer of sediment. Some of the reasons that the EPA states for favoring alternative 3 over 4, despite the fact that it would be more efficient and longer lasting, is because the smaller cap will cause less disruption of sediment and benthic organism habitat. It will also cost less and be less difficult to implement, overall.

If you’d like to express your opinions or concerns to the EPA regarding their cap plan, The EPA will accept written comments until July 15, 2009. These can be sent to: C.R. White (SFD-8-2) U.S. EPA, Region IX75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

The movie reveals how a handful of corporations control our nation’s food supply. Though the companies try to maintain the myth that our food still comes from farms with red barns and white picket fences, our food is actually raised on massive “factory farms” and processed in mega industrial plants. The animals grow fatter faster and are designed to fit the machines that slaughter them. Tomatoes are bred to be shipped without bruising and to stay edible for months. The system is highly productive, and Americans are spending less on food than ever before. But, the film asks, at what cost?

Cattle are given feed that their bodies are not biologically designed to digest, resulting in new strains of E. coli bacteria, which sickens roughly 73,000 Americans annually. And because of the high proliferation of processed foods derived from corn, Americans are facing epidemic levels of diabetes among adults and alarming increases in obesity, especially among children. All of this is happening right under the noses of our government’s regulatory agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Adminnistration (FDA). The film exposes a “revolving door” of executives from giant food corporations in and out of Washington D.C. that has resulted in a lack of oversight and illuminates how this dysfunctional political system often operates at the expense of the American consumer.

In the nation’s heartland, farmers are afraid to talk about what’s happening to the nation’s food supply for fear of retaliation and lawsuits from giant corporations. Our laws today are such that corporations are allowed to patent seeds for crops. As a result, Monsanto, the chemical company that was one of the major manufacturers of Agent Orange and DDT — in a span of 10 years — has landed its patented gene in 90% of the nation’s soybean seeds. Farmers are now forbidden to save and reuse these seeds and must instead buy new seed from Monsanto each season. (These “Roundup Ready” soybeans are genetically engineered (GE) to resist Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, and the resulting increased pesticide use has led to weed resistance.)

Armed with a team of employees dedicated to enforcing their seed patents, Monsanto spends millions every year to investigate and sue farmers – many of whom are financially unable to fight the corporation. Such legal actions have led the state of California to pass a law protecting farmers whose fields are unknowingly contaminated by GE crops.

Food, Inc. also introduces us to courageous people who refuse to helplessly stand by and do nothing. Some, like Stonyfield Farm’s Gary Hirshberg and Polyface Farm’s Joel Salatin, are finding ways to work inside and outside the system to improve the quality of our food. Others are brave men and women who have chosen to speak out, such as chicken farmer Carole Morison, seed cleaner Moe Parr and food safety advocate Barbara Kowalcyk. Their stories, both heartbreaking and heroic, serve to demonstrate the level of humanity and commitment it takes to fight the corporations that control the food industry.

The emphasis of Food Inc. does not center on pesticide use, but it is easy to see how pesticides fit into industrial food production and the problems this film documents. The implications created by a mass-production system seem infinite: increased reliance on glyphosate to control weeds in monocultural GE corn and soybean fields; insecticides to control insects around densely packed feedlots; exposure to farmworkers who lack legal protection; and dietary exposure to a public that does not know the extent to which pesticides are used on much of their food.

It’s important to note that the filmmakers attempted to interview representatives from Monsanto, Tyson, Perdue and Smithfield, but they all declined. Food, Inc. illustrates the dangers of a food system controlled by powerful corporations that don’t want you to see, to think about or to criticize how our food is made. The film reveals how complicated and compromised the once simple process of growing crops and raising livestock to feed ourselves and our families has become. But, it also emphasizes that despite what appears to be at times a hopeless situation, each of us still has the ability to vote on this issue every day — at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Producer Elise Pearlstein said, “I hope people will want to be more engaged in the process of eating and shopping for food. We have learned that there are a lot of different fronts to fight on this one, and people can see what most resonates with them. Maybe it’s really just “voting with their forks” — eating less meat, buying different food, buying from companies they feel good about, going to farmers markets. People can try to find a CSA — community supported agriculture — where you buy a share in a farm and get local food all year. That really helps support farmers and you get fresh, seasonal food. On the local political level, people can work on food access issues, like getting more markets into low income communities, getting better lunch programs in schools, trying to get sodas out of schools. And on a national level, we’ve learned that reforming the Farm Bill would have a huge influence on our food system. It requires some education, but it is something we should care about.”

Although the suit was brought against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In September 2008 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, but the Intervenors continued to press the appeal alone, requesting the appellate court to rehear the case. Last weeks decision denied that request and re-affirmed the earlier decision in full.

“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. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the court 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.”

Today’s decision again upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. The Ninth Circuit decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full EIS.

In response to a government report that cited problems with the USDA’s oversight of GE crops, the Center for Food Safety along with co-plaintiff’s Beyond Pesticides, Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms, filed the lawsuit in 2006 calling the department’s approval of GE alfalfa a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and a risk to the environment. The suit contended that the USDA improperly allowed the commercial release of GE alfalfa, the first commercial release of a GE perennial crop, and failed to analyze the public health, environmental, and economic consequences of the release. It also asserted that the GE alfalfa will likely contaminate natural alfalfa and ultimately prevent farmers from producing natural, non-GE alfalfa for markets that demand it. The suit cites the concerns of farmers with export markets. Buyers in Japan and South Korea, America’s major alfalfa export customers, have strongly stated that concerns about genetic contamination. U.S. alfalfa exports total nearly $480 million per year, with about 75% of exports going to Japan, according to 2006 data.

The GE alfalfa is designed to tolerate high doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. However, 83% of U.S. alfalfa is grown without any herbicides, and many experts note that GE alfalfa could lead to massive increases in herbicide use on alfalfa and more chemical pollution in the environment. A study of GE soy has already shown that farmers growing the GE variety use two to five times more herbicides than farmers who plant natural soy varieties.

Scientific findings link the advent of GE crops to weeds developing resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. In turn, this weed resistance has led to increased herbicide use and forced farmers to turn to more toxic herbicides. According to the suit, USDA failed to address the potential impacts of the increased use of Roundup on alfalfa and failed to address issues relating to cross-pollination of wild relatives of alfalfa.

Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy products), making it the country’s third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and it also greatly contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production. Consumers also eat alfalfa as sprouts in salads and other foods.

The amendment takes oversight of the programs away from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a move considered a major defeat to environmental groups. Environmentalists worry that because the role of the USDA is to promote U.S. agriculture – not to protect the environment or human health, it may fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of a carbon offset program.

But, regardless of who administers the program, many are concerned that at least one of the strategies, herbicide-based no-till farming, just doesn’t work and instead should be replaced in the bill by organic practices, which have been shown to successfully sequester carbon. A 2006 study, “Tillage and soil carbon sequestration what do we really know?,” led by a USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) soil scientist, concludes, “Though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes carbon sequestration is not compelling.” On the other hand, a long-term ARS study finds that organic farming practices build soil better than chemical no-till and have more soil carbon, as well as better crop yields.

While the amendment does not specifically make payments to certified organic farmers or for organic conversion, some of the eligible practices are used by organic farmers and others are problematic, according to an analysis by the National Organic Coalition. The bill explicitly names a number of practices which are “a minimum list of what should be eligible for offsets.” These include:

* altered tillage practices
* winter cover copping, continuous cropping and other means to increase biomass returned to soil
* reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency
* reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding of rice paddies
* reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils
* reduction in green house gasses from manure and effluent
* reduction in green house gasses to animal management practices including dietary modifications
* manure management disposal specific:
o waste aeration (in practice, this actually could likely mean grass raised animals)
o biogas capture and combustion (manure digesters)
o field application instead of commercial fertilizer

In addition, the amendment would exempt the agricultural sector from greenhouse gas reductions and sidetrack for five years a proposed EPA regulation that requires U.S. ethanol makers responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from conversion of forests and grasslands overseas to cropland.

Aside from the Peterson compromise, there is disagreement in the environmental community over the bill as a whole. Friends of the Earth released a statement saying that Congress is squandering an historic opportunity and points out the big oil and chemical companies like Shell Oil, Dow Chemical and DuPont helped craft the bill. The Center for Biological Diversity released an analysis with the following concerns: greenhouse gas reduction target falls far short of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million; essential Clean Air Act protections are repealed; construction of coal-fired power plants will continue; and, offsets could result in increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Twenty-two other organizations, including Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife and League of Conservation Voters sent a letter to every member of the House of Representatives urging them to support the bill. The groups said, “There are rare moments in American history when the urgency to act is clear, the stakes are high, the costs of inaction are untenable, and the need for courageous leadership is paramount. Now is one of those moments.” Twenty U.S. companies and electric utilities published full-page ads in newspapers calling for the bill’s passage as well.

Background on Agriculture and Climate Change
In general, conventional agricultural practices have contributed to climate change through heavy use of fossil fuels–both directly on the farm and in the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers–and through degradation of the soil, which releases carbon. The herbicide use that conventional no-till depend on, is no exception. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture.

Research from the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST) has revealed that organic, regenerative agriculture actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change. This occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage to produce the crops (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) and the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil (approximately 1000 lbs. of carbon per acre). The no-till organic methods they have developed produce comparable yields to conventional systems on average, and higher yields in drought years because of the greater water holding capacity of the organic soils.

The Rodale Institute report, Regenerative Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming, calls for federal ag policy to “replace the system of commodity payments with a program that rewards farmers for conservation and other carbon-enhancing farm practices. Farmers should be paid on the basis of how much carbon they can put into and keep in their soil, not only how many bushels of grain they can produce.”

“Current EPA standards of exposure for some pesticides assume children are three to five times more susceptible than adults, and for other pesticides the standards assume no difference,” said Nina Holland, Ph.D., UC Berkeley adjunct professor of environmental health sciences and senior author of the paper. “Our study is the first to show quantitatively that young children may be more susceptible to certain organophosphate pesticides up to age seven. Our results suggest that the EPA standards need to be re-examined to determine if they are adequately protecting the most vulnerable members of the population.”

The study, conducted by UC Berkeley’s Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), involves 458 children from an agricultural region who were followed from birth through age seven. Cord blood samples were collected from all children to determine their PON1 genotype and to obtain baseline measures of the enzyme’s activity level.

For more than 100 of the children in the study, researchers were able to obtain at least four additional measurements – at ages one, two, five and seven – of PON1 activity. Almost all the children in the study had 2 to 3 time points assessed, for a total of 1,143 measurements of three types of PON1 enzyme activity.

One’s PON1 genotypic profile determines how effectively the enzyme can metabolize toxic chemicals. For example, people with two copies of the Q form of the gene – known as a QQ genotype – produce a PON1 enzyme that is less efficient at detoxifying chlorpyrifos oxon, a metabolite of chlorpyrifos, than the enzyme produced by people with two R forms of the gene. Similarly, individuals with two T forms of the PON1 gene on a different part of the chromosome generally have a lower quantity of the enzyme than do those with two C forms of the gene.

Previous research led by Dr. Holland found that some of the QQ newborns may be 50 times more susceptible to chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon than RR newborns with high PON1 levels, and 130 to 164 times more susceptible than some of the RR adults.

Of the children in this latest study, 24 percent had the QQ genotype, and 18 percent had the TT genotype, both of which are associated with lower activity of the PON1 enzyme. Moreover, 7.5 percent of the children had both QQ and TT genotypes, which is considered an even more vulnerable profile. On average, the quantity of enzyme quadrupled between birth and age 7. The greatest rise in enzyme activity was among children with the RR and CC variants of the PON1 gene, which quickly outpaced the increase in children with the QQ and TT genotypes.

The fact that enzyme activity remained low for certain kids with vulnerable genotypes well past age 2 was surprising for the study authors. The researchers are continuing to collect data for these children as they grow older to see if the pesticide susceptibility continues.

“In addition to its involvement in the metabolism of pesticides, many studies are now finding that PON1 may play an important role in protecting against oxidative stress, which is linked to diseases from asthma to obesity and cardiovascular disease,” said study lead author Karen Huen, a UC Berkeley Ph.D. student in environmental health sciences. “The children in our study whose genotypes are related to lower PON1 activity may not only be more susceptible to pesticides throughout much of their childhood, they may also be more vulnerable to other common diseases related to oxidative stress.”

Notably, other studies have found that PON1 genotypes vary by race and ethnicity, with the Q variants more common among Caucasians, less common among Latinos, and least common among African Americans. The majority of the subjects in this study were Mexican-American.

“What’s important about this study is that it shows that young children are potentially susceptible to certain organophosphates for a longer period of time than previously thought,” said Brenda Eskenazi, Ph.D., UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and director of CHAMACOS and the Center for Children’s Environmental Health Research. “Policymakers need to consider these vulnerable populations when establishing acceptable levels of exposure to different pesticides.”

The study, entitled “Effectiveness of an Integrated Pest Management Intervention in Controlling Cockroaches, Mice and Allergens in New York City Public Housing,” finds that apartments utilizing integrated pest management (IPM) measures have significantly lower counts of cockroaches at three months and greater success in reducing or sustaining low counts of cockroaches at three (75 percent decline) and six months (88 percent decline). IPM was associated with a more than 50 percent drop in cockroach allergen levels in kitchens at three months, and in beds and kitchens at six months. In contrast, the number of cockroaches in buildings receiving professional exterminator visits every three to six months increased slightly. Pesticide use was reduced in apartments using IPM relative to apartments with chemical practices in place. Residents of IPM apartments also rated building services more positively. The researchers also found that that an easily replicable single IPM visit was more effective than the regular application of pesticides alone in managing pests.

According to the researchers, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is the largest public housing owner in North America with more than 405,000 low-income residents. A successful implementation of IPM in an institution of this size is thought to offer many potential benefits such as pesticide use reduction, improved pest management and reduced pest and allergen burdens in housing populated by largely Black and Hispanic families with disproportionately high prevalence of asthma- which is mostly attributed to pest allergens.

In the study, 323 apartments were evaluated. The practices include mechanical and steam cleaning using soap on kitchen cabinets, stoves, refrigerators, floors and countertops, and bathroom floors and fixtures. Practices also include the use of latex caulk to seal cracks and crevices, gaps within kitchen cabinets and between the cabinets and wall, gaps and cracks in baseboards, plumbing joints, and other potential ports of entry for pests; and boric acid and cockroach baits were applied. Apartment residents were instructed to store open food in sealed containers, cover garbage containers with a tight-fitting lid, and dispose of garbage frequently. Residents were also provided with a covered garbage container, food storage containers and cleaning supplies, including sponges, soap, powdered cleanser, and degreasing solution. Residents were also instructed not to use aerosol/spray pesticides for the duration of the study. No repeat IPM visits were scheduled. Cockroach populations were monitored with pheromone glue traps, three and six months later.

This study is the first to show that a single, short, low-cost visit by housing authority workers to address the underlying source of pests can be more effective at controlling cockroaches and their allergens in buildings than repeated professional pesticide applications. However, other studies also found that IPM techniques are effective, especially in the long-term, against pests.

According to a synopsis by Environmental Health News, the study examined dolphins from rivers, an estuary, a harbor and a lagoon in South Carolina and Florida. In this study, wild bottlenose dolphins were live captured from several sites within an estuary in Charleston, SC and in the Indian River Lagoon, FL in 2005. Blood samples taken from 13 animals in each area revealed triclosan in 31 and 23 percent of the animals from the two sites, respectively, at levels ranging from 0.025 to 0.27 parts per billion. These levels are similar to what has been measured in the blood of humans.

When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Since then triclosan has exploded onto the market place in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan to a range of health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistant, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

Triclosan’s impact on the consumer market has been aided by the public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, an article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” (2007), concludes that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps. This follows an 11-1 vote of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee on October 20, 2005 on a statement that antibacterial soaps and washes are no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections.

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

The letter, signed by 28 groups from across the country, says that the new fumigants policy “continues an outdated EPA approach to pesticide regulation that adopts unrealistic and unenforceable standards as risk mitigation measures, in an age of safer, greener approaches to agricultural pest management.”

EPA announced its decision May 27, 2009 to allow continued use of toxic soil fumigants with modified safety measures, falling far short of safety advocate efforts to adopt more stringent use restrictions and chemical bans. The rule was first proposed in July 2008, but weakened as it was finalized by EPA under industry pressure. Advocates believe that the country can do better to phase out the uses of highly hazardous chemicals that have devastating impact on exposed workers and communities in which they are used, and advance green technologies and organic practices.

Pesticides affected by the decision include chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/potassium (including methyl isothiocyanate or MITC), and methyl bromide. Fumigants are associated with a range of acute respiratory and central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, tremors and incoordination, muscle weakness, and skin irritation. Long term effects can include brain damage and seizures.

In releasing the decision in May, Administrator Jackson said, “With new restrictions, we’re allowing the continued use of fumigant pesticides without risking human health and the environment.”

Key to the EPA’s policy is a “buffer zone” requirement that is intended to establish restricted areas that are subject to chemical drift and therefore should be unoccupied. Advocates criticize the agency’s buffer zone provision as severely limited and question its enforceability. Of specific concern, is the provision that allows residential areas (including housing, commercial buildings, and other indoor and outdoor areas that people occupy) in the buffer zone if, “The occupants provide written agreement that they will voluntarily vacate the buffer zone during the entire buffer zone period.” Advocates believe workers will (i) feel pressured to sign such waivers for fear of loss of employment, (ii) not have adequate information with which to make informed choices, and (iii) be subject to evacuations during chemical releases. The groups cite the evacuation waiver as a dangerous chemicals policy precedent that would for the first time be used only in farmworker and underserved communities.

Since it was first proposed in July 2008, EPA has weakened the proposed rule by: eliminating home testing priority to reentry except for high concentrations of methyl bromide; reducing reentry times for workers removing fumigant tarps from 24 to 2 hours after perforation; allowing buffer zones to overlap, affecting the people who live closest to the fields; and, no longer requiring air monitoring (except for methyl bromide), instead allowing workers to experience exposure symptoms before triggering additional protections.

See the letter at www.beyondpesticides.org/watchdog/fumigants/letter-6-18-09.pdf.

“This kind of public visibility around pesticides is particularly needed in the U.S., since regulators base their decisions on toxicology studies that are almost all done by industry,” explains Brian Hill, PhD, senior PANNA scientist and the primary developer of the database. “Nearly 900 million pounds of pesticides [excluding wood preservatives, chlorine and specialty biocide pesticides] are used in the U.S. every year, yet regulations depend on studies that are not peer-reviewed and are kept hidden behind the veil of ”˜confidential business information.’” Dr. Hill notes that the 900 million figure is long overdue for updating, as the most recent pesticide use figures from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are for 2001.

In addition to highlighting the potential direct health effects of pesticide residues, What’s on My Food points to the many problems associated with pesticide use before food reaches the kitchen table. Widespread use of agricultural chemicals threatens the health of workers and those in nearby communities and schools, as well as harming wildlife and contaminating ecosystems, according to the site.

In the “Take Action” section of the site, Pesticide Action Network calls on consumers not only to vote with their dollars by choosing organic foods whenever possible, but also to become involved as “food citizens” and sign a petition that asks the Obama Administration to support conversion to organic agriculture; ensure environmental justice for farmworkers communities; protect future generations from persistent pollutants; and, reduce overall exposure to pesticides.

Published in Environmental Science and Technology, the study, entitled “American Healthy Homes Survey: A National Study of Residential Pesticides Measured from Floor Wipes,” was conducted as a collaboration between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Five hundred randomly selected homes were sampled using alcohol wipes to collect dust from hard surface floors, mostly kitchen floor surfaces. The swipes were analyzed for 24 currently and previously use residential insecticides in the organochlorine, organophosphate, pyrethroid and phenylpyrazole classes, and the insecticide synergist piperonyl butoxide.

Researchers found that currently used pyrethroid pesticides were, not surprisingly, at the highest levels with varied concentrations. Fipronil and permethrin, both currently used, were found in 40 percent and 89 percent of homes respectively. However, the researchers found that long discontinued pesticides like DDT and chlordane were found in 42 percent and 74 percent of homes respectively, with DDE, the breakdown product of DDT, also found in 33 percent of homes. Even chemicals no longer permitted for residential use, such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon, were detected in 78 percent and 35 percent of homes. The results, according to most commonly detected, are arranged as follows: permethrin (89%), chlorpyrifos (78%), chlordane (64%), piperonyl butoxide (52%), cypermethrin (46%), and fipronil (40%).

The authors point out that the “high detection frequencies observed for chlordane, chlorpyrifos, and permethrin suggest these compounds are essentially ubiquitous in our living areas and that popular use, both past and present, has a major influence on their occurrence in homes.” Children are at particular health risk given their more frequent contact with flooring, as well as hand to mouth activity. Concerning is the fact that DDT was found in a higher percentage of homes than its breakdown product, DDE. This could mean that DDT is not degraded well in homes, due to a lack of sunlight or microbes, and that residents are being exposed to current sources of DDT.

This is not the first study to document the prevalence of pesticide residues in households. In 2008, a study found significant amounts of pyrethroid pesticides in indoor dust of homes and childcare centers. Other studies throughout the years have also documented the occurrence of pesticide residues in indoor dusts and air samples, including a sampling of homes of pregnant women which found that 75% of their homes were contaminated with pesticides. A 1998 study (Gurunathan, S. et al) found that chlorpyrifos accumulated on furniture, toys and other sorbant surfaces up to two weeks after application, while another 1996 study (Nishioka, M., et al) found that the herbicide 2,4-D can be tracked from lawns into homes, leaving residues of the herbicide in carpets.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin as a possible human carcinogen, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. Many synthetic pyrethroids have been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system, and increase chances of breast cancer. Children are especially sensitive to the effects of permethrin and other synthetic pyrethroids. A study found that permethrin is almost five times more toxic to eight-day-old rats than to adult rats due to incomplete development of the enzymes that break down pyrethroids in the liver.

For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, Common Pesticide Poison Homes and Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

“Our study is the first to show an association between pesticide exposure and an excess prevalence of MGUS,” said lead author Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “This finding is particularly important given that we recently found in a large prospective cancer screening study that virtually all multiple myeloma patients experienced a MGUS state prior to developing myeloma.”

“As several million Americans use pesticides, it’s important that the risks of developing MGUS from the use of pesticides is known,” added senior study author and NCI investigator Michael Alavanja, DrPH.

The blood of study participants, who were individuals licensed to apply restricted-use pesticides, was assessed for MGUS prevalence. The median age of participants was 60 years (range 30-94 years), and all lived in either Iowa or North Carolina. Participants also completed questionnaires providing comprehensive occupational exposure information for a wide range of pesticides, including information such as the average number of days of pesticide use per year, years of use, use of protective gear while applying pesticides, and pesticide application methods. Information on smoking and alcohol use, cancer histories of the participants’ first-degree relatives, and other basic demographic and health data were also obtained. Individuals with prior histories of lymphoproliferative malignancies (such as multiple myeloma or lymphoma) were excluded. Cancer incidence and mortality were monitored annually, and, after five years, follow-up interviews were conducted to update the information about participants’ occupational exposures, medical histories, and lifestyle factors.

For comparison, data were obtained from a large MGUS-screening study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, and the results from the pesticide-exposed group were compared with the assessments of 9,469 men from the general population of Olmsted County, Minnesota. The two groups were similar in terms of age, race, and educational attainment. Because of the low prevalence of women among workers who apply pesticides, women were excluded from the study.

In the pesticide-exposed group, no MGUS cases were observed among those who were less than 50 years of age, but the prevalence of MGUS in those older than 50 was 6.8 percent, which is 1.9 times higher than the general population study group of men in Minnesota.

The researchers also evaluated the potential association between MGUS prevalence and 50 specific pesticides for which usage data were known. Of the chemicals studied, a significantly increased risk of MGUS was observed among users of dieldrin (an insecticide), carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide (a fumigant mixture), and chlorothalonil (a fungicide). The MGUS risk for these agents increased 5.6-fold, 3.9-fold, and 2.4-fold, respectively. Several other insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides were associated with MGUS, but not significantly.

“There is great concern regarding the increase in frequency in mature B-cell malignancies in the Western world and what may be the cause of this. A number of reports in the past have linked exposure to pesticides with increased risk of these types of cancers, but the present study is the first to link agricultural work to a pre-malignant condition,” said John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine at Barts and the London School of Medicine, who is not affiliated with the study. “It is vital to assess the risk of workplace exposure and disease, and the results lend further support to providing safe workplace practices to limit exposure to potential carcinogens.”

“Our findings are intriguing,” stated Dr. Landgren. If replicated in a larger sample from our study and other large studies, further work should focus on gaining a better understanding of the molecular basis of MGUS and multiple myeloma. Ultimately, this will result in the identification of novel molecular targets involved in the progression from MGUS to multiple myeloma and in the development of targeted therapies.”

According to Beyond Pesticides’ research on multiple myeloma’s link to pesticide exposure, several previous studies show an increased risk. For example:
* A 2008 historical cohort study of occupation exposure in Sweden found an excess risk among male agricultural, horticultural and forestry workers use of pesticides multiple myeloma.
* A 2007 meta-analysis of 13 case-control studies on hematopoietic cancers (leukemia, NHL, and multiple myeloma) published between 1990 and 2005 found a significant positive association for occupational pesticide exposure of more than 10 years and all hematopoietic cancers (OR 2.18).
* A 1998 study of cancer mortality among Iowa farmers showed an excess of deaths for multiple myeloma.
* A 1996 Norwegian study found that agricultural exposure to pesticides for those cultivating potatoes is linked to multiple myeloma in males and females.
* A 1992 study looking at farmers’ cancer risks found significant excesses for multiple myeloma.
* A 1985 study found that farmers, although tend to be health in many regards due to their physical activity and other attributes of living rurally and generally have fewer health problems, certain types of cancers are frequently found in excess in this group including multiple myeloma.
* A 1985 case-control study of New Zealand agriculture and forestry workers found a significant excess of patients with multiple myeloma (OR 2.22).
* A 1983 mortality study of Iowan farmers who died between 1964 and 1978 found an elevated mortality from multiple myeloma in association with herbicide and insecticide use.

“The use of integrated pest management can help reduce pesticide exposures and also provide additional benefits by reducing pests and their associated allergens, possibly reducing asthma triggers. Many schools practicing integrated pest management have documented improved pest management, cost savings, and reductions in pesticide applications by as much as 90 percent,” said Senator Suzanne Bonamici. “Senate Bill 637 improves student health and achievement with cost-effective pest management policies for schools.”

The bill states: “‘Integrated pest management plan’ means a proactive strategy that: (a) Focuses on the long-term prevention or suppression of pest problems through economically sound measures that: Protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty; Protect the integrity of campus buildings and grounds; Maintain a productive learning environment; and Protect local ecosystem health; (b) Focuses on the prevention of pest problems by working to reduce or eliminate conditions of property construction, operation and maintenance that promote or allow for the establishment, feeding, breeding and proliferation of pest populations or other conditions that are conducive to pests or that create harborage for pests; (c) Incorporates the use of sanitation, structural remediation or habitat manipulation or of mechanical, biological and chemical pest control measures that present a reduced risk or have a low impact; (d) Includes regular monitoring and inspections to detect pests, pest damage and unsanctioned pesticide usage; (e) Evaluates the need for pest control by identifying acceptable pest population density levels; (f) Monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of pest control measures; (g) Excludes the application of pesticides on a routine schedule for purely preventive purposes, other than applications of pesticides designed to attract or be consumed by pests; (h) Excludes the application of pesticides for purely aesthetic purposes; (i) Includes school staff education about sanitation, monitoring and inspection and about pest control measures; (j) Gives preference to the use of nonchemical pest control measures; and (k) Allows the use of low-impact pesticides if nonchemical pest control measures have proven ineffective.

It continues: “‘Low-impact pesticide’ means a pesticide product or active ingredient that: (a) Does not have the signal words ‘warning’ or ‘danger ‘ on the label; and (b) Is not on the list adopted by the State Department of Agriculture under section 9 (4) of this 2009 Act.”

Beyond Pesticides’ definition of IPM includes a clear delineation of steps to prevent the “need” for pesticides: monitoring; record-keeping; action levels; prevention; tactics criteria; and evaluation. For more on how least-toxic pesticides are defined, see our factsheet.

Other stipulations of the bill require at least 24 hours notice and clear posting of pesticide applications and allow “a pesticide other than a low-impact pesticide” to be applied in a declared “pest emergency.”

In addition to requiring IPM policies, the bill also allows governing bodies to pass more protective measures than this baseline.

“We applaud both chambers for recognizing the importance of the issue and supporting common-sense strategies to protect the health of the school children in our state,” said Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis MPH, PhD, program director at the Oregon Environmental Council.

SB 637 comes six months after a report by the Oregon Toxics Alliance (OTA) showed extensive records of incidents where children were exposed to pesticides at school. OTA recommended that the state take immediate action to reduce circumstances where children’s health may be harmed. At the time, OTA Executive Director Lisa Arkin said, “Oregon lacks a statewide policy to ensure safe pest management practices at schools. That is incomprehensible, because twenty-five percent of the states have already taken such action.”

IPM and other pesticide-reduction plans are critical to protecting children’s health, due to the amplified effect pesticides have on their growth. Learn more about children and pesticides in Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix” and the brochure “Asthma, Children, and Pesticides.” You can find additional information including model policies, resources, and publications on the Children & School program page. You can help protect children in all 50 states by supporting the School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). You representatives need to hear of its importance from you!

The county law states that no department may use “any ingredient classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a human carcinogen, probable human carcinogen, possible human carcinogen, reproductive toxin, or developmental toxin.” According to a report by Corte Madera resident Paul Apfel, county employees violated that law at least 92 times between 1999 and 2007, using thousands of gallons of chemicals.

“We have verified that the county has used a class of chemicals that the IPM [Integrated Pest Management] ordinance identifies should only be used under the exemption process,” said County Administrator Matthew Hymel. “Part of the confusion is that these chemicals were not on the state list but they were on the EPA list of possible carcinogens.” Fred Crowder, the county’s deputy agricultural commissioner, said he recommended pesticides based on the California Proposition 65 list, rather than EPA’s larger list of carcinogens. While Mr. Crowder admitted his mistake, he also tried to justify it by saying they are “also available at the local garden store and there is nothing there that is not available to the public.” (To see which pesticides have been linked to carcinogenic, reproductive, and developmental effects, visit the Pesticide Gateway.)

“It shouldn’t have been done and the citizens of Marin are entitled to a public hearing on this,” Mr. Apfel said. “It can’t be swept under the rug. It was the citizens who were wronged.”

“I want to find out what happened with the misreporting to us about what was used and why the process wasn’t followed,” Supervisor Susan Adams said. “The error was not because we sprayed illegal pesticides but we didn’t follow the process in the ordinance to allow that use.”

Local environmental and health activists disagreed with the county’s assessment of the violation. “The county law states that a limited use exemption is granted on an emergency basis,” said Carolyn Cohen of Mothers of Marin Against the Spray. “That Does not mean every month, except for the rainy season, for 10 years. That’s completely inappropriate.”

A review of the updated IPM ordinance is tentatively scheduled for June 23. For more information on organizing in your community to reduce pesticide use, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change page.

The researchers, including senior author MIT Professor Ram Sasisekharan, Ph.D., found that the proteins, known as gram-negative bacteria binding proteins (GNBPs), act as a first line of defense against pathogenic bacteria and fungus. Once the researchers discovered this function, they decided to try inhibiting the proteins, with an eye toward new methods of pest control.

The researchers gauged the effectiveness of GDL in laboratory tests using termites. A few days after being exposed to GDL, all of the insects died from opportunistic pathogenic infections. A control group of termites not exposed to GDL lived twice as long. Since this defense mechanism is only employed by certain insect species such as termites, locusts and cockroaches, GDL is harmless to beneficial insects such as ants, as well as other animals and plants, according to the researchers. The same cannot be said for chemical pesticides now commonly used.

“When you look at the chemical pesticides now used, they’re harmful not only for insects but also for humans too,” said Dr. Sasisekharan, who is the Edward Hood Taplin Professor and director of the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST).

According to Dr. Sasisekharan, “The GDL compound could be incorporated into building materials or paint to protect buildings from termites, or could be made into a spray for use in fields where pests need to be controlled. It could also be used in food processing and storage facilities. This research also lays the groundwork for possible development of similar agents to target pest insects.”

“Dr. Sasisekharan’s basic studies on innate immunity in insects have enabled him to devise a strategy to defeat them,” said Pamela Marino of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially supported the work. “The findings may lead to the development of new pesticides that pose a far lesser threat to human health than the chemical pesticides commonly used now.”

See Beyond Pesticides’ non- and least-toxic pest control methods fact sheets for more information on alternatives to chemical pesticides.