(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2008) A recent study by Spanish researchers has found a connection between an ncreased risk of childhood obesity and exposure to the organochlorine pesticide and contaminant hexachlorobenzene (HCB) before birth. Entitled “Exposure to hexachlorobenzene during pregnancy increases the risk of overweight in children aged 6 years,” the article was published online by Acta Paediatrica at the end of July. Found as a contaminant in the wood preservative pentachlorophenol, widely used in the U.S., HCB is extremely persistent in the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it “has been listed as a pollutant of concern to EPA’s Great Waters Program due to its persistence in the environment, potential to bioaccumulate, and toxicity to humans and the environment.”

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2008) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting comments on letters sent from the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances for the toxic pesticide endosulfan. In addition, EPA is accepting information on endosulfan residues on commodities consumed by Alaskan natives.

EPA will not address the cancellation of endosulfan until early 2009; a separate comment period will be established for that possibility.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2008) As the debate over how to solve the global food crisis heats up, experts criticize many in the mainstream media for promoting pesticides and genetically engineered seeds as solutions to global hunger. In a recent critique, Francis Moore Lappe, author of the famous book Diet for a Small Planet and co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute, says the media, in this case NPR, are off the mark in identifying the underlying causes of the food crisis and fail to look at the hopeful stories of farming communities that are succeeding with agro-ecological methods.

Beyond Pesticides encourages sound organic practices as a viable, healthy alternative to agriculture that relies heavily on chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and as a valuable tool to slow climate change.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2008) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit on Monday to uncover critical information that the U.S. government is withholding about the risks posed by pesticides to honey bees. NRDC legal experts and a leading bee researcher are convinced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country. The phenomenon has come to be called “colony collapse disorder,” or CCD, and it is already proving to have disastrous consequences for American agriculture and the $15 billion worth of crops pollinated by bees every year.

Source: NRDC Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2008) Three toxic pesticides used heavily in the United States ”” chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion ”” harm children and farmworkers, poison wildlife, and taint food and drinking water, and despite well-documented hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows homeowners, farmers and others to use these poisons in ways that harm salmon and steelhead. Coupled with public pressure, a recent scientific analysis from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could force EPA to adopt new restrictions on the use of these pesticides in the Pacific Northwest and California.

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2008) North Carolina Governor Mike Easley last week signed into law Senate Bill 847, “An act to add agricultural workers to those protected against retaliation in the workplace and to direct the Pesticide Board to adopt rules requiring licensed pesticide applicators to record the specific time of day when each pesticide application is completed, as recommended by the Governor’s Task Force on Preventing Agricultural Pesticide Exposure”  headed by State Health Director Leah DevlinThis new law, along with funding approved by the legislature in the Governor’s budget, will help protect agricultural laborers, farmers and applicators who work with and around pesticides.

“This new law helps us move forward to protect the health of our farm workers,” said Gov. Easley. “Requiring employers to keep more detailed records of pesticides being used and forbidding retaliation against those who might complain about exposure to these chemicals are important steps toward safety in agricultural workplaces.”

The new law makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against farm workers who complain about unhealthy exposure to pesticides. It also directs the state Pesticide Board to require more detailed record keeping on the time of day and kinds of pesticides being used, and it requires those records to be kept for two years, instead of the current 30 days.

“This bill represents a significant step forward,” said Ms. Devlin, the task force chair. “There is more to be done and we will continue to develop new health protection measures and work to see they are implemented.”

Ms. Devlin noted that the task force’s work will be continuing through the recently-organized Interagency Pesticide Work Group that will operate out of the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

In the state budget, $350,000 was designated to replace federal funding that was cut to track pesticide poisoning cases. It also will pay for two state workers to train farm laborers on proper handling of pesticides.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Charles Albertson (D-Duplin). It passed the state Senate 48-0 and the House of Representatives 118-0. The law becomes effective upon the Governor’s signature.

Farmworkers are among the groups most at risk for pesticide poisoning. Some have been fighting for reparation for decades and are still exposed to some of the most toxic pesticides on the market. In addition to protecting farmworkers from retaliation, governments should ban these products to reduce and eliminate both direct and indirect exposure to them.

You can support less toxic agriculture by buying organic food and learning more about it here.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2008) With a public comment period that ends Monday, August 18, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division proposes rulemaking that fails to recognize chemical sensitivity (CS) and environmental illnesses as disabilities that may require specific access standards. In a public comment to be submitted next week, Beyond Pesticides urges the Justice Department to specifically include access requirements for those with CS and environmental illnesses in its rulemaking. The organization is urging the public to send comments as well, and invites sign-ons to the Beyond Pesticides’ comment.

The comment says, “The proposed rule errs in omitting environmental illness and chemical sensitivity with a justification that people with the illness may have a “sensitivity [that does] not rise to the level needed to constitute a disability.” This statement is false and out of step with environmental medicine which diagnoses CS as a chemical-induced illness from which patients suffer with debilitating effects. Similar to other disabilities, a diagnosis reflects a finding that patients cannot function as a result of exposure to neurotoxic chemicals. Eliminating the chemical exposure substantially increases their ability to function and lead normal lives.”

The comment continues, “As an organization whose primary focus is pesticides, Beyond Pesticides is in contact with people who are chemically sensitive and are exposed to pesticides, thus substantially limiting their life activities on a regular basis. These are people whose disability is not well understood or accepted by the general public, which is uninformed about the illness. In conveying their concerns to neighbors, employers or landlords they often receive ridicule instead of respect and accommodation. Without mentioning in the text of the accessibility standards of the ADA that those with chemical sensitivities are indeed protected when life activities are substantially limited and that they have specific access requirements, people with CS often cannot get their needs addressed without individual lawsuits to prove their disability. This becomes a burden and barrier to protection.”

The comment points to a 1992 memorandum issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that recognizes CS and environmental illness as a “handicap,” with all the protections afforded those disabled by this illness. The comment reads, “In a 1992 memorandum entitled “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder and Environmental Illness as Handicaps,” the Office of General Counsel in the Department of Housing and Urban Development clearly defines MCS and environmental illness as “handicaps” within the meaning of subsection 802(h) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3602(h), and the Department’s implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. Section 100.201 (1991).” Rather than equivocate on this debilitating condition, protection should be ensured under the proposed rulemaking beyond one’s place of residence.”

Beyond Pesticides’ comment includes the story and recommendation of a former physical education teacher and coach in Kansas who writes:

With proper accommodation, I would still be teaching and coaching today! Officially recognizing not only the life-changing severity of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, but also the value of “avoidance” in treating it would help building administrators understand how to keep employees with this disability on the job. I have many friends who are also disabled by MCS. Not one of them wanted to quit their job! But lack of accommodation caused their illness to progress to the point where they could no longer work. MCS takes a huge toll on individual lives and results in unnecessary loss of productivity. I urge you to officially recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/Environmental Illness as a disability requiring accommodation for accessibility. The chemical barriers that prevent those with MCS from entering buildings are every bit as limiting as lack of a ramp would be to someone in a wheelchair. Those with MCS deserve the same rights as other citizens. Recognizing MCS as a “qualified disability” would go a long way toward achieving equal access for everyone!

Beyond Pesticides suggests that the rulemaking include the following language: “Integrated pest management (IPM) practices to protect those disabled with chemical sensitivity (CS) or environmental illnesses and ensure access are required in public facilities or properties to include the following practices: identification of pests and conditions that attract pests; prevention techniques, such as sanitation, vacuuming, structural repair and sealing; monitoring; education and training; approved least toxic chemicals whose use does not, by virtue of its neurotoxic or other properties, impair the abilities of those with CS; and pre-notification and posting of chemical use.”

The full text of Beyond Pesticides’ comment can be seen here. Thanks to Mary Lamielle of the National Center for Environmental Health Strategies for alerting us to the comment period. Read her comments here.

TAKE ACTION: Access the Federal Register and submit comments electronically here. Click on the yellow dialogue bubble that says “add comments.” If you would like to sign on to Beyond Pesticides’ comment, please contact Natalie Lounsbury, [email protected], 202-543-5450, by 3:00pm (EDT) on Monday, August 18, 2008.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2008) The first report released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a result of a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) settlement reveal “overwhelming evidence” to suggest that the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon increase the chance of extinction for protected salmon and steelhead. The report on the three pesticides and their effects on threatened fish is the first in what is expected to be a four year review process of 37 pesticides.

“These are pesticides that EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] has swept under the rug for years. These are three that stood out as the nastiest of the (pesticides) that are still in widespread use,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice who represented the plaintiff, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). The 377-page report is clear in its conclusion that current use patterns of these three toxic pesticides threaten the salmon and steelhead protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it does not delineate the next steps to reduce the risk. A report on mitigation measures, which could include restrictions or bans, is expected in the next few months.

The timing of the report coincides with other important and related events in pesticide regulation and protection of endangered species. On August 11, 2008, the Bush administration announced new draft rules for the Endangered Species Act that will limit interagency assessments. Federal agencies, including EPA, which are now required to check in with the Fish and Wildlife Service about potential effects their actions may have on endangered species, will make their own determinations about effects without consultation from the corresponding agency overseeing the survival of the species.

Chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon are  organophosphate insecticides of concern  also because of their adverse effects on  human health and all wildlife. All three have undergone EPA’s reregistration review process, and their reregistration eligibility decisions (REDs) were signed in 2006. Although there were some restrictions put into place on their use, they are still very commonly used pesticides in agriculture and some other applications. Because of the extremely high risks associated with diazinon, at the end of July 2008, a coalition of farmworker, environmental and public health advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s decision to allow its continued use.

Mr. Osborne-Klein, who also represents the plaintiffs in the diazinon case, said of the NMFS report, “It seems to be a very thoughtful and fair opinion.” However, opposing, pro-pesticide groups disagree and say the report does not draw its conclusions from real world assumptions about pesticide exposure. Numerous reports have documented myriad effects of low levels of pesticides on salmon that limit their ability to swim, eat, reproduce, and avoid predators.

For more information on salmon and pesticides, please read our Daily News stories about real world pesticide mixtures and their effects on salmon as well as our article from Pesticides and You.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2008) Last month, King County, Washington discontinued a popular wallet-sized consumer guide in which fruits and vegetables containing the most and least pesticide residues were listed, after agricultural industry-sponsored groups claimed that the consumer guide was oversimplified, misleading and influencing consumers to not eat locally grown produce.

Industry groups repeatedly lobbied the county program to remove the information saying that the guide did not contribute to food safety but instead hurt local farmers, whose crops are among those that contain the most pesticides. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, a coalition of health and hazardous-materials agencies in King County, Seattle and 38 neighboring communities introduced the informational card about a year ago in printed form and soon after on the King County website.

“It is outrageous that the pesticide industry is trying to prevent people from getting information that will help them make healthier choices about their food. We urge King County to make the information available to the public,” said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, environmental health advocate for the Washington Toxics Coalition.

The consumer guide lists suggestions on “how to shop for the safest household products” on one side of the card, and on the other lists produce into one of two columns, “High pesticide risks” and “Low pesticide risks.” The high pesticide risk column included produce such as apples, carrots and celery, while produce like asparagus, avocados and bananas were in the low pesticide risk column. The rankings came from data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration in 51,000 analyses for pesticides in 44 fruits and vegetables.

Washington Friends of Farms and Forest, which lobbied the county program to remove the information, stated that the consumer guide was “misleading” and “harmed local farmers by saying you shouldn’t buy apples and pears and peaches and the cherries,” all leading crops in Washington, but which contain higher amounts of pesticides. In fact, Washington Friends of Farms and Forest argues that the guide tells consumers, “Don’t eat locally grown stuff. Eat mangos and bananas.”

The guide, however, does not say to avoid buying local produce, and even lists a website sponsored by King County that contains maps and directions to farms and farmers markets in 12 surrounding counties. When asked why the guide is misleading, the group states that it is the role of the USDA and the FDA to tell consumers to have a healthy diet and that the guide does not contribute to food safety.

Program administrator for the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, Jay Watson, said, “[T]he design of the card is flawed. The information was oversimplified. It doesn’t address the scientific uncertainly (of pesticides).” The USDA, however, stands behind the accuracy of its data which was collected after extensive testing and analysis, but cautioned it should not be taken as an indicator of what exists on all crops everywhere. Mr. Watson noted that no more guides would be printed or distributed until the issue has been studied and input solicited, including comments from the agriculture community.

Many farmers and growers are angered at the interpretation often made of government-collected data, which have sprouted similar consumer guides across the country. Washington growers of apples, pears, peaches and other crops have conceded that such data have greatly reduced the amount and types of pesticides they use.

TAKE ACTION: Buy organic foods for yourself and your family whenever possible. If organic foods are not easily accessible to you due to cost or distribution, consider buying organic for the foods you eat the most. To make sure your food is organic, look for the USDA Organic label.

See the consumer guide here.

Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2008) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) announced August 5, 2008 that 15 of the 30 accredited organic certifiers it recently inspected failed the USDA audit and will have 12 months to make corrections or lose their accreditation with NOP. The non-profit Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is calling for an NOP “Peer Review Panel” to evaluate its adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions. Show your support for strong organic certification procedures by signing the OCA petition  below.

A number of the violations noted in the several hundred page audit related to Chinese imports certified by the French-based organic certifier ECOCERT and other certifiers. However, OCA points out that Quality Assurance International (QAI), the largest organic certifier in the world, is not cited by the USDA, even though OCA recently reviewed documents that indicate that QAI is indeed under investigation by NOP.

QAI has recently been in the news for sourcing ginger, contaminated with the highly toxic and restricted insecticide, aldicarb, from its Chinese certification sub-contractors and then labeling it as “USDA Organic.” QAI is also under public fire, along with other certifiers, for certifying factory farm feedlot dairies supplying milk to Horizon and Aurora Organic Dairy, which in turn supply Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, and other organic private label organic milk.

Certifiers that failed a 2007 USDA audit and had to take corrective actions include: Marin County, Hawaii Organic Farmers Association, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Indiana Certified Organic, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Baystate Organic Certifiers, Minnesota Crop Improvement Association, International Certification Services, Global Organic Alliance, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Administration, OCPP/Pro-Cert Canada, BCS-Oeko Garantie GmbH, ECOCERT S.A., and IMO.

While consumers might consider some of USDA’s violations minor, such as a farmer not reporting changes in an organic farm plan (even if the changes did not violate organic farming practices), Beyond Pesticides believes it is still imperative that the organic law is followed so that organic standards remain meaningful and public confidence in the organic seal remains strong.

For six years, OCA and the organic community have called upon USDA to implement a Peer Review Panel system, as required by law in the National Organic Standards, so that respected members of the organic community can monitor and police violations of organic standards on the part of producers, importers, and certifiers. As the USDA has said, “The National Organic Standards call for the Administrator of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to appoint members of a Peer Review Panel to evaluate NOP’s adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions.”

For more information, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Food program page.

Petition to the National Organic Program
We, the undersigned, are calling on the National Organic Program (NOP) to implement the Peer Review Panel.

After 40 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a healthy, sustainable, and equitable multi-billion dollar alternative to energy and chemical-intensive industrial agriculture. Now a number of large so-called “organic” corporations and foreign importers, aided and abetted by unscrupulous certifiers and their sub-contractors, are violating the letter and the spirit of organic integrity, allowing factory farm production and bogus, at times toxic, “organic” imports from countries like China to degrade the “USDA Organic” label.

As you yourselves at the NOP have admitted on your website for the past six years, “The National Organic Standards call for the Administrator of AMS (USDA Agricultural Marketing Service) to appoint members of a Peer Review Panel to evaluate the NOP’s adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions.” It’s time for the USDA National Organic Program to stop dragging its heels and begin the legally required public process to set up an accountable and transparent organic community “Peer Review Panel.”

We obviously need this Safeguard Organic Standards Panel more than ever so that can we can start helping the NOP (obviously under funded and understaffed with a meager annual budget to police a giant industry) carry out its important task of monitoring and policing organic producers, importers, and certifiers.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2008) Its findings in disagreement with other studies,  University of Copenhagen research concludes that organic food may contain no more nutrients than food grown using harmful pesticides and chemicals, and is merely a “lifestyle choice.”  The study finds that no clear evidence of any difference in the vitamin and mineral content of crops grown organically and those using legally permitted levels of fertilizers and pesticides. However, many others – including organic farmer Elizabeth Henderson of Peacework Organic Farm in western New York – disagree. In a post-publication comment on this blog entry, Ms. Henderson calls the new study, “just another example of really poor research,” pointing out several potential flaws in its design. Additionally, other research has shown that organic farming does indeed yield more nutritious food (See Daily News Blog of April 21, 2008 and June 13, 2008) as well as eliminates a significant source of toxic chemical contamination in the environment.

The study, published in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture and entitled “Effect of plant cultivation methods on content of major and trace elements in foodstuffs and retention in rats,” investigated the effect of three different model cultivation systems on selected major and trace element contents of dried foodstuffs. Model 1 consists of growing the vegetables on soil, which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no pesticides. Model 2 involves applying a low input of nutrients using animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed by regulation, and model 3 comprises a combination of a high input of nutrients through mineral fertilizers and pesticides as legally allowed. The crops grown were carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes.

The researchers, led by Susanne Bügel, PhD, found that there is no evident trend towards differences in major and trace element content of the crops grown due to the use of different cultivation methods. The produce from the organically and conventionally grown crops was then fed to animals over a two-year period. Results here show there is no difference in retention of the elements regardless of how the crops are grown.

“No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs,” said Dr. Bügel.

However, this study overlooks the importance that organic farming in reducing toxic contamination of food by harmful pesticides and other chemicals used in conventional farming. In other words, organic food contributes to better human health through reduced pesticide exposure. The most vulnerable to pesticide exposures are children, and a study has shown that those who eat conventional diets of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophophate pesticides that  are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet (See study here).

Organic farming also protects the farmworkers and their families from chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. Beyond Pesticides supports organic farming as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm, as well as the general population.

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

Source: The Daily Green, The Daily Mail Online

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2008) University of California Davis Cancer Center physicians recently released results of research showing that Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange have greatly increased risks of prostate cancer and even greater risks of getting the most aggressive form of the disease as compared to those who were not exposed.

The findings, which appear online now and will be published in the September 15 issue of the journal Cancer, are the first to reliably link the herbicide with this form of cancer by studying a large population of men in their 60s and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for the disease.

“While others have linked Agent Orange to cancers such as soft-tissue sarcomas, Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, there is limited evidence so far associating it with prostate cancer,” said Karim Chamie, lead author of the study and resident physician with the UC Davis Department of Urology and the VA Northern California Health Care System. “Here we report on the largest study to date of Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange and the incidence of prostate cancer.”

Chamie also said that, unlike previous studies that were either too small or conducted on men who were too young, patients in the current study were entering their prime years for developing prostate cancer. There was also the added advantage that it was conducted entirely during the era of PSA screening, providing a powerful tool for early diagnosis and tracking of prostate cancer.

More than 13,000 Vietnam veterans enrolled in the VA Northern California Health Care System were stratified into two groups ”” exposed or not exposed to Agent Orange between 1962 and 1971. Based on medical evaluations conducted between 1998 and 2006, the study revealed that twice as many men exposed to Agent Orange were identified with prostate cancer. In addition, Agent Orange-exposed men were diagnosed two-and-a-half years younger and were nearly four times more likely to present with metastatic disease. Other prostate cancer risk factors ”” race, body-mass index and smoking ”” were not statistically different between the two groups.

“Our country’s veterans deserve the best possible health care, and this study clearly confirms that Agent Orange exposure during service in Vietnam is associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer later in life,” said Ralph deVere White, UC Davis Cancer Center director and a study co-author. “Just as those with a family history of prostate cancer or who are of African-American heritage are screened more frequently, so too should men with Agent Orange exposure be given priority consideration for all the screening and diagnostic tools we have at our disposal in the hopes of early detection and treatment of this disease.”

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in American men. It is estimated that there will be about 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States in 2008 and about 28,660 men will die of the disease this year.

Now a banned chemical, Agent Orange is a combination of two synthetic compounds known to be contaminated with the dioxin tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD) during the manufacturing process. Named for the color of the barrel in which it was stored, Agent Orange was one of many broad-leaf defoliants used in Vietnam to destroy dense forests in order to better visualize enemy activity.

It is estimated that more than 20 million gallons of the chemicals, also known as “rainbow herbicides,” were sprayed between 1962 and 1971, contaminating both ground cover and ground troops. Most of the rainbow herbicide used during this time was Agent Orange. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reclassified TCDD as a group 1 carcinogen, a classification that includes arsenic, asbestos and gamma radiation. TCDD has been found in common herbicide 2,4-D.

Agent Orange exposure has been linked to a variety of other health effects, including leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Vietnam continues to be affected by the contamination, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed veterans’ right to seek compensation for their exposure.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2008) In a move antithetical to the precautionary principle, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to extend the tolerance exemptions on certain inert ingredients in pesticides until further studies on their possible health effects have been performed. A decision in 2006 announced that tolerance exemptions on the listed inerts would be revoked as of August, 2008. However, pesticide producers put pressure on the agency to extend this deadline, and the agency complied, extending the date to August 2009.

Environmental and public health organizations advocate for stricter controls and more transparency regarding inert 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. One such example is that of the herbicide Roundup, for which the primary inert ingredient was found to be highly toxic to amphibians (for full story, read Daily News of September 12, 2005).

The announcement in the Federal Register states, “EPA developed voluntary guidance describing how interested parties [pesticide registrants] could support these revoked tolerance exemptions, including consultations with the Agency about how they can demonstrate support, identifying test materials, and providing evidence that a laboratory has been hired to conduct the study.” The studies produced by industry-hired scientists and labs are frequently not peer reviewed, and the financial incentive exists to produce results favorable for the registrant.

The continued exemption on these inert ingredients highlights the primary flaw with the regulatory process for both active and inactive ingredients in pesticides. Rather than adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to chemicals with unknown toxicity, the EPA appears to allow chemicals to remain innocent until proven guilty, and relies on a flawed risk assessment process that does not adequately address exposure and risk. Once proven guilty, these pesticides, both active ingredients and inerts, have already left a toxic trail on the environment and people’s well-being.

For more information on inert ingredients, visit the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides articles on inerts.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2008) On July 30, 2008, a coalition of fishing and environmental groups settled a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) that requires an impact analysis of 37 pesticides on protected salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the federal agency charged with protecting threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead, agreed to the settlement, which requires the design and adoption of permanent measures to help pesticide users minimize the harmful effects of those pesticides.

The lawsuit, filed last year in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, petitioned the court to order the NMFS to uphold a five-year-old rule that directs the agency to identify measures needed to protect salmon from the pesticides. The petitioners pointed out that NMFS failed to carry out these measures. (See Daily News Blog of November 7, 2007.)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the 37 toxic pesticides at issue in the settlement may harm protected salmon and steelhead. Most of the pesticides have been detected in major salmon and steelhead rivers in the Pacific Northwest and California. Scientists have found that, even at low levels, toxic pesticides can harm salmon and steelhead by causing abnormal sexual development, impairing swimming ability, and reducing growth rates.

In 2002, a federal court ordered EPA to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. EPA began submitting the required assessments to NMFS, but NMFS never identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. The federal Endangered Species Act requires NMFS to complete such actions within 90 days of receiving EPA’s assessments.

“This settlement starts the federal agencies down the path of honestly addressing a serious problem endangered salmon still face in our rivers ”” too many pesticides and other chemicals. It also brings more certainty to the agricultural community by ensuring that these issues will not be hanging over them indefinitely. Cleaning up our rivers is good for both fishermen and farmers, and will also help restore thousands of lost fishing jobs to the Northwest,” said Glenn Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Associations (PCFFA), a commercial fishing industry trade association that is a plaintiff in the suit.

NMFS has now agreed to complete the long overdue assessments over a four-year period, with the first decisions due by October 2008. These consultations are expected to culminate in on-the-ground measures designed to reduce the amount of pesticides that run into salmon-supporting rivers and streams. It is uncertain what protective measures the government will impose. This is the first time NMFS has evaluated large-scale impacts of pesticides to salmon.

“Today’s agreement is a victory for all of us,” says Aimee Code of Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, a plaintiff in the case. “Keeping pesticides out of the river also keeps pesticides out of drinking water and our bodies.”

“We’re extremely pleased with the settlement, but it is only the first step,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, one of the Earthjustice attorneys who represents the coalition. “We’ll continue to keep a close eye on this process to make sure that salmon and steelhead are protected from these dangerous poisons.”

Source: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP)

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2008) Under pressure from activists and shareholders to change its chemical dependent lawn care practices, TruGreen””the world’s largest lawn and landscape care company, has joined the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP). Although the voluntary move comes with a pledge to reduce pesticide use, the company’s reformed practices will still fall short of organic land care, which does not utilize toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic land care is effective, affordable and better for human health and the environment, but TruGreen has failed to commit to organic methods.

The PESP is a voluntary program started in 1994. According to the EPA, “By joining PESP, organizations pledge that environmental stewardship is an integral part of pest management, and they commit to working toward innovative practices that reduce risk to human health and the environment.” One of the benefits of joining the PESP for companies, according to the EPA website, is that “Membership may enhance public perception of your organization, constituent support, and employee morale.” Underneath this enticement to join is the clear potential for “greenwashing,” or the promotion of a product or service as environmentally friendly when the veracity of such claims is dubious.

The interpretation of “environmental stewardship” as incorporated in the pledge to join the PESP varies, and membership on the PESP is not limited to companies and organizations that have adopted environmentally sensitive practices. Among the PESP members is CropLife Foundation, which is part of CropLife America, an organization of pesticide producers whose members include notorious producers of toxic chemicals such as Dow Agrosciences, FMC Corporation, Monsanto, and Syngenta. CropLife Foundation’s pledge for the PESP amounts to educational programs regarding the proper storage and disposal of pesticide containers.

TruGreen’s PESP strategy is admittedly more focused on pesticide use reduction than that of the CropLife Foundation, but without taking the step to eliminate all toxic pesticides, the move cannot be applauded as truly “green,” but merely greener. TruGreen has pledged to select products that fit an “overall reduced risk strategy,” which includes “reduced risk products applied as basal drenches or with effective injection systems to reduce air-borne application of pesticides to landscapes.” However, their criteria for reduced risk products is undefined. The EPA’s list of reduced risk pesticides includes glyphosate and fipronil, two products with proven deleterious health and environmental effects.

With 3.4 million residential and commercial customers, TruGreen has the potential to transform the industry of land care, but until they pledge to adopt organic methods, Beyond Pesticides encourages consumers to find service providers that use less- and non-toxic chemicals.

Source: Market Watch

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2008) According to a new Center for Public Integrity investigation, Perils of the New Pesticides, pyrethrins and pyrethroids were responsible for more than 26 percent of all major and moderate human incidents involving pesticides in the United States in 2007, up from just 15 percent in 1998 ”” a 67 percent increase. This is based on an analysis of adverse reaction reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by pesticide manufacturers.

As a result of the Center’s investigation, the director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs said the agency would begin a broad study of the human health effects of these chemicals this year.

“The alarming rise of pesticide-related incidents attributed to pyrethrin and pyrethroid affiliated products is a serious concern for the millions of households that use them,” said Center Executive Director Bill Buzenberg. “The Center for Public Integrity uncovered this public safety issue through more than a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests and crunching the data. This should be basic public information if the EPA were doing its job.”

Data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers reveals a similar trend that supports the EPA data analyzed by the Center. The number of reported pyrethrin and pyrethroid incidents to poison centers across the country jumped from 16,000 in 1998 to more than 26,000 in 2006, a 63 percent rise.

Pyrethrins, naturally-occurring compounds with insecticidal properties derived from chrysanthemum flowers, are used in commonly available household products to control insects in the home, on pets, and on people. Their synthetic counterparts, pyrethroids, have similar properties to pyrethrins, and were created as safer alternatives to an earlier class of pesticides (organophosphates), originally derived from nerve gas. Manufacturers’ use of pyrethroids has grown widely to include thousands of household products, ranging from bug repellants, anti-lice shampoos, pet shampoos, and carpet cleaners.

While pyrethroids have been characterized as less toxic than organophosphates, the number of reported human health problems, including severe reactions and even deaths attributed to pesticides containing pyrethrins and pyrethroids, increased from 261 in 1998 to 1,030 in 2007, nearly a 300 percent increase. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids account for more incidents than any other class of pesticide over the last five years. EPA data shows at least 50 deaths attributed to this supposedly safer class of pesticides since 1992.

While organophosphates have been extensively studied and their impact on public health thoroughly documented, researchers and scientists are still unsure of the long-term neurotoxicity of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, particularly among children and those susceptible to allergies. Even so, the EPA does not require product warning labels cautioning consumers with allergies of the dangers associated with pyrethrins and pyrethroids products. However, the Food and Drug Administration does require warning labels on shampoos that contain pyrethrins and pyrethroids.

The Center’s investigation includes an online nationwide pesticide incident database that allows anyone to search by state, city, exposure type, chemical, and product.

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan independent Washington, D.C.-based organization that does investigative reporting and research on significant public issues.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2008) The Oregon Department of Agriculture has released the 2007 Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS) annual report, summarizing data collected last year -making it the first report to include information from a mandatory electronic reporting of pesticide use statewide. The requirement to report online applies to anyone using a registered pesticide or pest control product in the course of business, for a government entity, or in a public place. The 2007 annual report also includes data from a household pesticide use survey. The release comes nine years after being authorized by the state legislature, due to debate over funding and scope of the report. The required reporting is also set to expire in 2009, requiring activists to lobby for continuation of the program.

For 2007, there were 5,732 reporters who filed 284,984 reports of pesticide use into PURS. The reports identified 551 active ingredients used statewide last year. The most used active ingredient, by pounds, was the soil fumigant metam-sodium (42 percent of total pounds reported), which is often used before planting potatoes to kill most soil life. The next two most commonly used active ingredients were the herbicide glyphosate (9 percent), and copper naphthenate (7 percent), used as a wood preservative. The most common pesticide applied to homes is bifenthrin, a possible human carcinogen.

Among all site categories of pesticide use reported to PURS, agriculture reported the greatest percentage of active ingredients by pounds, at 84.7 percent. Because of licensing requirements for pesticide use on agricultural and forest crops, along with outreach efforts to agricultural and forestry pesticide applicators, it is likely that compliance with the requirement to report to PURS was greatest for these site categories. It is important to note that PURS data pertains to usage, with no determination of improper pesticide use.

“From what the statewide report tells us, there does not appear to be very many surprises regarding pesticide use in Oregon,” says ODA Director Katy Coba. “Oregon pesticide use shows similarities with what neighboring California has been finding through their reporting system. One year’s data is interesting, but we hope the reports collected this year and in the future will help provide a more clear picture of trends in Oregon’s pesticide use.” Unlike California, however, Oregon’s report does not list acres treated, detail pesticides used on specific crops, or note carcinogenic and reproductive effects of certain chemicals.

“I would like more detailed information, but politically that’s going to be a hard battle,” said Aimee Code, water-quality coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). “For me, it’s always just shocking to look at how many pounds of things that we know are poisons are being put on our land and water.”

The 2007 PURS report identifies a number of challenging issues that may have kept the data from being complete. Some reporters had varying skill levels and access regarding online reporting. Some did not understand the mandatory reporting deadline. Others had trouble identifying the product used. ODA will continue working to improve PURS and provide further outreach and education to those pesticide users required to report.

Although detailed information on 2007 non-household pesticide use was electronically collected, the law that created PURS protects confidentiality of individual users and requires ODA to prepare an annual report summarizing the data collected through PURS. That confidentiality also makes it impossible for the state to track pesticide use at specific parks and schools, something activists think would make the tracking more effective in reducing pesticide use.

The 2007 PURS report also contains the second year of household use data collected by a voluntary statewide survey. There is no requirement for households to report their pesticide usage online.

While 1,693 households agreed to complete pesticide use diaries last year, only 1,483 actually completed at least one month of reporting. The survey shows only 40 percent of the household reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients used. The greatest percentage of pesticide applications in a household setting was reported to have taken place outdoors. The major purpose listed for pesticide use was to control all types of “bugs” (fleas, insects, spiders, etc.), closely followed by weed control. Challenges included participants being unable to specify the amount of pesticide used, determine what products were actually pesticides, and provide correct product identification. Information collected from the 2007 household survey is considered insufficient to calculate total household use of pesticides in Oregon.

There are alternatives to toxic pesticides available for a wide range of household pests and weeds. For a list, visit our alternatives fact sheets.

Sources: The Oregonian, The Register-Guard

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2008) The Third International Biofumigation Symposium took place in Australia July 21-25, 2008, highlighting new scientific advancements in the age old practice of planting crops in the brassica family (radish, mustard, etc.) prior to growing other crops to control diseases, insects, and weeds. Research in this area reveals that in many cases, “biofumigation,” as it is called, provides disease and pest control comparable to that of pesticides commonly used as soil fumigants, and does not have the negative health and environmental effects associated with these fumigants.

Growing interest in biofumigation is spurred by the international phase-out of the toxic soil fumigant methyl bromide (for its role in ozone depletion) under the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, even though the environmental and health risks of methyl bromide and other soil fumigants have been documented, and non-toxic alternatives such as biofumigation exist, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has essentially ignored the Montreal Protocol and continued to allow the use of methyl bromide under “exemptions.”

In the most recent EPA action on the subject, the agency released proposed rules and risk mitigation measures for five toxic soil fumigants on July 10, 2008. These rules fall short of the hopes of farmworker and environmental advocacy groups because they fail to protect farmworkers, communities, and the environment adequately. The comment period for these proposed rules is open until September 15, 2008.

Biofumigation presents a natural alternative to chemical fumigation and is particularly effective for control of diseases and pests in solanaceous crops such as tomatoes and potatoes. John Kirkegaard, PhD, explains that, “Brassica plants naturally release compounds that suppress pests and pathogens, principally isothiocyanates (ITCs), which most people would recognise as the ‘hot’ flavour in mustard or horseradish. When ITCs are released in soil by green-manuring, soil-borne pests and pathogens can be suppressed and the yields of solanaceous vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes and eggplants can be increased by up to 40 per cent in some cases.” In addition to brassica plants, other crops have shown biofumigation potential. In one study, incorporation of sorghum was compared to use of methyl bromide in a peach orchard for nematode suppression, and the sorghum performed as a viable alternative to methyl bromide.

In California alone, one of the only states to require pesticide use reporting, over 1.5 million pounds of the five soil fumigants EPA addresses in its proposed rules were used in 2005 (an additional 2.9 million lbs. of methyl bromide was used in strawberry production post-planting). With alternatives such as biofumigation, advocates question the continued use of such toxic chemicals. Ecologically-based farming systems such as organic agriculture and practices such as biofumigation hold the key freeing our agricultural system of its chemical dependency.

For more information on biofumigation please see the Daily News Archive.  

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2008) After repeated calls from parents, consumer groups and health experts to protect children from toxic chemicals, congressional lawmakers have agreed on statutory language that would prohibit the use of a family of toxic chemicals found in many children’s products, according to the Washington Post. Legislators are proposing to include this language to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act (HR 4040 and S.2663). This new ban, set to take effect in six months, will have far reaching implications on the long-debated overhaul of U.S. consumer safety standards.

On Monday, House and Senate lawmakers agreed to prohibit three types of phthalates from children’s toys and to outlaw three other phthalates from products pending an extensive study of their health effects in children and pregnant women. This measure aims to improve product safety and is part of popular legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees more than 15,000 types of products.

Phthalates are used to soften plastic and are found in homes across the U.S. in a wide range of products including shower curtains, shampoos, perfumes, toys and pesticides, to name a few. They are associated with adverse developmental and reproductive health effects, including low sperm counts. Scientific research has indicated that phthalates act as hormones and children can ingest these toxins by acts as simple as chewing on their plastic toys. Earlier this year, the country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart; the biggest toy seller, Toys R Us; and Babies R Us told their suppliers that they will no longer carry products containing these chemicals as of Jan. 1, 2009.

This new act by Congress has long been opposed by the chemical industry, which criticized the move saying that it allows for less tested, more hazardous chemicals to be used as substitutes. Leading the charge was Exxon Mobile, which spent a $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent the ban. Exxon manufactures diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The American Chemical Council, which represents chemicals manufacturers, stated that there was no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products since they are among the most thoroughly studied products in the world.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the measure, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market. “Chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign,” she said.

The European Union (EU) has already banned six phthalates from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same. Last year the state of California prohibited their use in children’s products, while Washington and Vermont have since passed similar legislation on use of the chemicals. The EU and California currently prohibit di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), along with diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). Other consumer products, such as children’s jewelry, cribs and strollers, will also be affected by this new measure and stricter standards for testing will be imposed. These stricter standards have been prompted after a year of massive recalls of tainted toys and other consumer goods.

“This is by far the most robust reform in the agency’s history,” Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America told the Journal. “We’re happy.”

President George W. Bush opposes the ban, but many believe that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure. However, Keith Hennessey, director of President Bush’s Economic Policy Council, wrote to the Senate, reiterating industry stance, saying that a ban could hurt children. “Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children’s health,” he wrote.

Phthalates are a ubiquitous class of chemicals and are found in most of the population. Studies out of the University of Rochester Medical School found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited changes related to low sperm count, un-descended testicles and other reproductive problems. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer. Health experts argue that dangers may be more significant from cumulative exposure, because phthalates surround babies not only in toys and products but also in breast milk if the mother has been exposed to the chemicals. Several phthalates have also been listed as potential endocrine disruptors.

Over 1.4 billion dollars worth of phthalates are manufactured in the U.S. annually and many believe the industry has taken a major blow. This new measure may have further implications for the uses of phthalates. Most noteworthy, is that phthalates are among the many “inert ingredients” used in pesticides. Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, said industry viewed the ban as a benchmark that might signal a shift in Congress’s willingness to toughen restrictions on toxins.

“The great fear is that if a big, established chemical like this can be driven from the market, what’s next?” he said.

Source: The Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2008) On July 28, 2008, a coalition of farmworker, public health, and environmental groups -including Beyond Pesticides- filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to allow continued use of the toxic pesticide diazinon. “The lack of action on diazinon is yet another example of EPA’s failure to fully consider the risks to farmworkers, children, and the environment from pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The lawsuit is part of the coalition’s multi-year campaign to protect children, farmworkers, and wildlife from the most dangerous pesticides and to reform EPA’s lackadaisical regulation of public and environmental health. The coalition has filed a series of lawsuits targeted at the worst poisons on the market: diazinon is near the top of that list.

“EPA’s system for protecting the public from the dangers of pesticides like diazinon is broken,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the public interest law firm that represents the coalition. “The agency should be protecting farmworkers and children, not the profits of pesticide manufacturers.”

Diazinon is an organophosphate pesticide that originates from nerve gases the Nazis developed during World War II. Farmworkers who are exposed to diazinon can suffer muscle spasms, confusion, dizziness, seizures, vomiting, and diarrhea. Severe exposures can cause coma and death. Exposure is also associated with damage to the liver and pancreas, diabetes, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (a form of cancer).

“In the 21st century, we don’t need poisons like diazinon to grow our food,” said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist for Pesticide Action Network. “Americans increasingly are demanding pesticide-free food for their own health, their children’s health, their community’s health.”

After application, diazinon can become airborne. Monitoring has detected the poison in the air near schools at unsafe levels. Infants and children are especially vulnerable to diazinon, which can interfere with growth and development.

“Children and farmworkers are breathing diazinon in the air in their schools, homes, and workplaces,” said Mike Meuter, an attorney from California Rural Legal Assistance. “In failing to protect our children from diazinon exposures, EPA has failed us all.”

Diazinon is also notorious for contaminating water–it is the most common insecticide detected in surface waters and is implicated in numerous bird and fish kills. Almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that diazinon threatened the survival of numerous endangered species.

Diazinon is used on a wide variety of crops including apples, blueberries, broccoli, cherries, cranberries, pears, spinach, and tomatoes. In 2004, EPA cancelled home uses of diazinon due to the extreme risks that it poses to children, but EPA has continued to allow farm uses of the pesticide.

The lawsuit was brought by Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, and California Rural Legal Assistance on behalf of United Farm Workers, Pesticide Action Network North America, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), Beyond Pesticides, Teamsters Local 890, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), and Luis Garcia Lopez, an individual farmworker in California.

The complaint is available on the Earthjustice website. For more information, see the diazinon profile on Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards or download the Earthjustice factsheet.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 2008) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposed decision that residues of carbofuran, a toxic pesticide that is used on a variety of crops, will no longer be allowed on food. This effectively means that carbofuran will have to be removed from the U.S. market, benefiting consumers and farmworkers, as well as birds, which are frequently poisoned by the deadly chemical.

EPA has concluded that dietary, worker, and ecological risks are of concern for all uses of carbofuran. According to EPA’s website, all products containing carbofuran generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and do not meet safety standards, and therefore are ineligible for reregistration. The agency says the notice, which is available now online, will be published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment period on July 30, 2008.

“This is a huge victory for the environment. EPA is to be congratulated for taking such decisive action to eliminate the dangers posed by carbofuran,” said Dr. Michael Fry, American Bird Conservancy’s Director of Conservation Advocacy. “This decision is based on overwhelming scientific evidence and sends a clear signal to manufacturers that it doesn’t pay to fight the cancellation of products proven to be harmful.”

The move by EPA is the latest in a long battle to halt all uses of carbofuran (sold under the trade name Furadan). The chemical first came under fire in the 1980’s after EPA estimated that one to two million birds were killed each year by the granular formulation of carbofuran use. According to scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “There are no known conditions under which carbofuran can be used without killing migratory birds. Many of these die-off incidents followed applications of carbofuran that were made with extraordinary care.”

Then, in 1991 EPA issued what it described as a “total ban” on the use of granular carbofuran to take effect in 1994 and then extended the phase-out through the 1996 growing season. During this period Beyond Pesticides joined with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (now Earthjustice) and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides to put legal pressure on EPA to cancel both granular and liquid formulation uses that posed hazards to endangered Bald Eagles. Despite EPA’s granular phase-out, EPA continued to accept requests for emergency exemptions as recently as 2006, illustrating the further need for a complete cancellation and revocation of tolerances.

In August of 2006, EPA announced its intention to cancel carbofuran registration due to hazards to wildlife and people. However, carbofuran manufacturer FMC Corporation is pursuing a court battle so that it can keep selling the pesticide. This is the first time in twenty years that a pesticide manufacturer has fought cancellation of a registered pesticide.

In its recent announcement, EPA stated that in addition to the revocation of food tolerances, it will continue to pursue cancellation of the product, which it announced in February 2008. By revoking all food tolerances, it has the effect of speeding its removal from the market. In addition, the decision applies to imported food, which will help eliminate the use of carbofuran in countries that export rice, coffee and bananas to the United States. The decision will go into effect following a public comment period and the issuance of a final notice by the agency.

Carbofuran is one of the most deadly pesticides to birds left on the market. It is responsible for the deaths of millions of wild birds since its introduction in 1967, including Bald and Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, and migratory songbirds. In its 2005 ecological risk assessment on carbofuran, EPA stated that all legal uses of the pesticide were likely to kill wild birds.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposed tolerance revocation for 60 days. For additional information, visit EPA’s carbofuran webpage.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2008) San Francisco, California —  On July 24, 2008,  a broad coalition of farmworker, public health, and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of a hazardous pesticide called endosulfan. The coalition is demanding action from EPA to protect children, farmworkers, and endangered species.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine, part of the same family of chemicals as DDT, which EPA banned in 1972. Like other organochlorine pesticides, endosulfan is persistent in the environment and poisons humans and wildlife both in agricultural areas and in regions far from where it was applied.

“This dangerous and antiquated pesticide should have been off the market years ago,” said Karl Tupper, a staff scientist with Pesticide Action Network. “The fact that EPA is still allowing the use of a chemical this harmful shows just how broken our regulatory system is.”

Acute poisoning from endosulfan can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, and an increase in the risk of miscarriages.

One glaring omission in the EPA’s decision is its failure to consider risks to children. A 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

“EPA has failed to protect children and endangered species from endosulfan poisonings,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice who is representing the coalition. “We call on EPA to ban the use of endosulfan in the United States.”

Endosulfan is a potent environmental pollutant and is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. It also affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects. A recent federal study found that U.S. national parks from Texas to Alaska are contaminated with endosulfan in amounts that threaten ecosystems and wildlife in these protected environments.

Endosulfan travels such long distances that it has been found in Sierra Nevada lakes and on Mt. Everest. This persistent pesticide can also migrate to the Poles on wind and ocean currents where Arctic communities have documented contamination.

EPA’s own analysis of endosulfan confirmed that the pesticide poses severe risks to humans and only minimal benefits to growers.

“This dangerous pesticide puts farmworker communities at increased risk of severe health effects,” said Shelley Davis, deputy director of Farmworker Justice. “These risks are unacceptable since even EPA acknowledges that safer alternatives to endosulfan are already in widespread use.”

Earlier this year, more than 13,000 Americans concerned about these health and environmental risks signed a petition urging EPA to discontinue endosulfan use. More than 100 environmental and public health groups recently sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson outlining their concerns about endosulfan. Further, more than 50 international scientists, medical doctors, nurses, and other health professionals have urged EPA to take action, as have tribal governments and indigenous groups in the Arctic.

“When EPA doesn’t consider how a hazardous pesticide could impact the health of children, it is breaking the law,” said Mae Wu, health attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “EPA’s approach to reviewing the safety of this chemical is not only flawed and dangerous – but also illegal. The full scope of endosulfan’s health impacts needs to be a priority, not an afterthought.”

With little response from the EPA, a coalition of health and environmental groups today took the issue to federal court.

The European Union and more than 20 other countries including Cambodia, the Philippines, and Tonga have already banned endosulfan. In addition, it has been nominated for inclusion in the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty that bans persistent chemicals from global use.

“The U.S. has fallen far behind the rest of the world in protecting its children from harmful toxins,” said Pam Miller, Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “We must act now to reduce the toxic imprint that endosulfan will leave on future generations. We are particularly concerned that endosulfan is increasing in the Arctic and that northern ecosystems and Indigenous peoples are especially vulnerable.”

According to EPA, approximately 1.38 million pounds of endosulfan were used annually in the United States as of 2002, the most recent year for which national usage data are available. Crops commonly treated with endosulfan include cotton, tomatoes, melons, squash, and tobacco.

“The science clearly shows that the use of this chemical puts the health of exposed farmworkers and children in agricultural communities at risk,” said Erik Nicholson of United Farm Workers. “There’s plenty of evidence and no need for more studies – we’re demanding that EPA take action now.”

The lawsuit was brought by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice on behalf of: Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Action Network North America, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), United Farm Workers, and Teamsters Local 890.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2008) Although the text of the Department of Labor’s proposal on workplace safety standards has not been made public, the Washington Post reports that the proposal will likely weaken an already inadequate risk assessment process, thus putting workers at an even greater risk of health effects from toxic chemical exposure. This proposal follows on the heels of news that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently lowered its value of a human life, which will make it easier to avoid environmental regulations.

Peg Seminario, director of health and safety policy at the AFL-CIO, accused the Department of Labor of secrecy and said, “They are trying to essentially change the job safety and health laws and reduce required workplace protections through a midnight regulation.” According to the Post, changing the risk assessment process for workplace safety has become the priority for the Department of Labor. Undoubtedly, this prioritization came under pressure from industries, which claim that the risk assessment process overestimates worker risk. However, risk assessments, like those that the EPA employs in regulating pesticides, already allow for a 10-fold increase in risk of health effects for workers than they do for the general public. Risk assessments also often fail to account for long-term effects of toxic exposure because they frequently do not consider epidemiological studies to be sufficient evidence for drawing conclusions about health effects.

Examples of failed pesticide risk assessments for worker safety include the EPA’s recent release of fumigant regulations, and the revised risk assessment for heavy duty wood preservatives. In some of these risk assessments, the occupational cancer risks calculated by the EPA are higher than one in a thousand, which is much higher than the EPA’s own target of keeping increased cancer risks to less than one in a million. Often, these risk assessments are based on industry-funded science that is not peer-reviewed and does not adequately reflect real-world exposures to chemicals for workers and communities.

Toxic chemicals such as pesticides threaten workers’ health. Currently, worker protection standards in many areas are inadequate at reducing risks. Implementing stronger controls costs money, and rather than implementing controls to protect workers’ health, industries have been lobbying for years to change the risk assessments. Doing so will have long-term consequences on occupational safety and health, and regulation of toxic chemicals.

Source: Washington Post