Page 174 – Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog

16
Jul

New Study Investigates Symptoms of Pesticide Poisonings

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2008) People exposed to pesticides are more likely to suffer changes in nerve responses and severe weakness in their neck and limb muscles in the days before they succumb to their symptoms. This is according to a new study, which found that the major cause of death was as a result of respiratory failure following acute organophosphate poisoning.

The study entitled, “The Spectrum of Intermediate Syndrome Following Acute Organophosphate Poisoning: A Prospective Cohort Study from Sri Lanka” published in the open-access journal Public Llibrary of Science (PloS) Medicine was a collaboration between researchers from Sri Lanka, Australia, and the UK. These researchers examined and assessed 78 consenting symptomatic patients with organophosphate poisoning and found that 10 suffered severe weakness in their neck and limb muscles and five of these eventually developed respiratory failure. Respiratory failure is the major cause of death after poisoning by organophosphates.

Lead author Pradeepa Jayawardane, clinical pharmacology lecturer at the University of Sri Jayawardenepura in Sri Lanka, and colleagues realized that there are changes in nerve transmission that are presented before individuals with organophosphate poisoning develop muscle weakness, also known as intermediate syndrome (IMS). IMS results in muscle weakness in the limbs, neck, and throat, and develops in some patients 24—96 hours after poisoning. Long-term nerve damage sometimes develops 2—3 weeks after poisoning. The functional changes that are associated with IMS (its pathophysiology) are poorly understood however.

Electric shocks were applied to certain muscles of the patients, using a technique called repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS). This technique allows researchers to trace changes in nerve transmissions during the course of poisoning. About 12.8% of patients (10 of 78) were diagnosed with IMS and the researchers saw specific changes in their neuromuscular transmission patterns – often before a physician could make in IMS diagnosis from clinical signs.

“In all 10 patients we demonstrated that the neuromuscular junction progressively fails, leading to muscle weakness,” said Pradeepa Jayawardane. About 38% of patients (30 of 78) presented muscle weakness that was not severe enough for an IMS diagnosis. In these patients, the researchers also found defined changes in their neuromuscular transmission patterns.

The findings reveal that IMS is a “spectrum” disorder in which the weakness and neuromuscular problems, caused by organophosphate poisoning, gradually progress over time through a series of electrophysiological changes that can sometimes resolve quickly and, only in the most severe cases, result in respiratory failure. Changes in nerve transmission that evolve during the development of IMS can be objectively monitored using RNS. Since the clinical signs of IMS come after changes in nerve transmission, the researchers suggest using these changes as an indicator of future outcome.

RNS tests might also be useful in the clinical management of patients with organophosphate poisoning, particularly since such tests could provide an early warning of impending respiratory failure. However, the researchers note that these findings need to be validated in further studies, particularly since most of the patients in this study had been exposed to a single organophosphate (chlorpyrifos). This would improve diagnostic and prognostic tools for clinical use in organophosphate-poisoned patients

Organophosphates, derived from World War II nerve agents, are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. Organophosphates are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission- acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Symptoms include tingling sensations, headaches, tremors, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever, severe forgetfulness, convulsions and movement disorders. Repeated or prolonged exposure to organophosphates may result in the same effects as acute exposure, including delayed symptoms.

Most pesticide poisonings in developing countries result from deliberate ingestion of pesticides. About half the people in developing countries in Asia who kill themselves do it using pesticides, and aid agencies have been lobbying to ban their use.

Source: Medical News Today

Posted in Disease/Health Effects, International by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

15
Jul

EPA Fumigant Rules Leave Communities and Workers At Risk

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2008) After three years of deliberation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new rules for five highly toxic fumigant pesticides on July 10, 2008. Environmental health, community and farmworker groups say the rules, while substantially better than the past, still fall short of protecting people, workers and the environment. The rules will be published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2008.The fumigant review, mandated by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, was conducted as a combined evaluation of five commonly used fumigants, called the “Fumigant Cluster Assessment.” The five fumigants included in the assessment are methyl bromide, metam sodium, metam potassium, dazomet, and chloropicrin. Methyl bromide was slated for phaseout by January 2005 under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent ozone depletor, but the Bush Administration has sought annual “critical use exemptions,” keeping it on the market.

Fumigants, which are among the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture, are gases or liquids that are injected or dripped into the soil to sterilize a field before planting. Even with plastic tarps on the soil, fumigants escape from the soil and drift through the air into schools, homes, parks and playgrounds. Strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, carrots and potatoes are some of the major crops for which fumigant use is high.“So many people, including my family and friends, have been poisoned by these pesticides. I was hoping EPA would do more to protect farmworkers and rural communities,” says Teresa DeAnda, a resident of Earlimart, CA from Californians for Pesticide Reform.

Rural communities, farmworkers and environmentalists had hoped that EPA would use this opportunity to help move American agriculture to safe, secure and sustainable pest management technologies, and completely phase out the use of these outdated pesticides. “Fumigants such as methyl bromide should not be used under any circumstances,” says Shelley Davis deputy director of Farmworker Justice and Beyond Pesticides board member. “This product has been linked to high risk of birth defects and nervous system damage.”

While EPA did not ban the use of any of the fumigants reviewed, the most significant mitigation measure is the introduction of buffer zones, meaning farmers must leave from 25 feet to half a mile between the fumigated field and homes, schools, and other places where people might be. The buffer zones are an improvement over current use patterns that — except for Telone, another fumigant — require no buffer zones to protect people. However, the sizes of EPA’s buffers are “scenario based” and, under certain conditions, can be waived. Thus the protection of EPA’s new buffer zones may be too little to prevent acute poisonings. In September 2007, 121 workers in Nevada more than ¼ mile from a fumigation site were rushed to the hospital because of fumigant drift. Lesser drift incidents often go unnoticed because people don’t know why they are feeling sick.

Other mitigation measures include:

Posting requirements: signs must include a “do not walk” symbol, date and time of the fumigation, date and time the buffer restrictions expire, fumigant product name, and contact information for the fumigator.
Agricultural worker protections: workers who cut open tarps after fumigation will now be considered “handlers” and required to wear protective breathing masks; reentry intervals will be extended (but vary based on application); and, air monitoring will be required to determine if respirator action levels have been reached.
Applicator and handler training programs: requiring fumigant registrants (pesticide manufacturers) to develop and implement training programs for applicators in charge of soil fumigations.
Good agricultural practices: require, rather than recommend practices that help reduce off gassing.
Application method, practice, and rate restrictions: restricting certain fumigant application methods and practices for which data are not currently available to determine appropriate protections, or that lead to risks that are otherwise difficult to address.
Restricted use pesticide classification: all metam sodium/potassium and dazomet products will now be restricted use.
Site-specific fumigant management plans: requiring that fumigant users prepare a written, site-specific fumigant management plan before fumigation.
Emergency preparedness and response requirements: requiring registrants to provide, through their community outreach programs, training and information to first responders in high fumigant use areas and areas with significant interface between communities and fumigated fields.
Notice to state and tribal lead agencies: fumigators must notify State and Tribal Lead Agencies for pesticide enforcement about applications they plan to conduct
Community outreach and education programs: requiring fumigant registrants to develop and implement community outreach programs, including programs for first responders, to ensure that information about fumigants and safety is available within communities where soil fumigation occurs.

While these steps will likely reduce the number of poisoning incidents involving fumigant pesticides, environmentalists are disappointed that EPA is continuing to register outdated and unnecessary pest management chemicals.“Fumigation is an antiquated technology that relies on killing everything in the soil,” said Susan Kegley, Ph.D., senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). “EPA has made some real progress with buffer zones, notification, posting and monitoring – they actually heard some of what we’ve been telling them. And they’ve put the burden back on manufacturers for responsible handling of these highly toxic chemicals. But it’s time to help farmers move beyond this ”˜scorched earth’ approach. The new rules are a small start.”

Jeannie Economos, pesticide health and safety coordinator with the Farmworker Association of Florida, adds, “We appreciate the mitigation measures that EPA has taken. However, we foresee that enforcement could still be problematic. Any exposure of a worker or a farmworker community is a risk that we shouldn’t take. The best solution is to ban fumigants altogether.”

Many advocates do believe, however, that the combination of posting, advance notification of state agencies, and buffer zones around fields will reduce the number of fumigant poisonings, and when something does go wrong, communities and emergency personnel will be better prepared to respond.

“Clearly major accidents, continued exposure, and technical critiques are not enough to get rid of fumigation,” said Dr. Kegley. “During the entire three years of this fumigant assessment process, there’s been a tendency in EPA’s analyses to whittle away at established ‘safety factors’ designed to protect communities. We’re guardedly optimistic that the new rules are a step toward protecting public health, but the final result represents a continued failure to take agriculture off the pesticide treadmill.”

The Fumigant Cluster Assessment is a “final” EPA decision, but they will collect public comments for 60 days following publication in the federal register. They acknowledge the possibility of fine-tuning resulting in an amended decision.

Read the about EPA’s final fumigant rule.

Posted in Chemicals, chloropicrin, Dazomet, Disease/Health Effects, Environmental Justice, Metam Sodium, methyl bromide by: Beyond Pesticides
2 Comments

14
Jul

EPA Says a Human Life Is Worth Less Today

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2008) According to calculations by the Associated Press (AP), the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “value of a statistical life” is $6.9 million in today’s dollars, a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago. The AP discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.According to the federal government, the statistical value of a human life is calculated in the following manner. Suppose a new pesticide regulation reduces the annual risk of dying from cancer by 0.00001. In a population of 100 million, the regulation is expected, in a statistical sense, to result in 1000 fewer deaths from that cancer risk each year. If each person in that population of 1 million is willing to pay 7 cents a year for the reduction in mortality risks, $7 million is said to be the value of a statistical life (VSL).

While the $1 million devaluation of a statistical human life may seem like just another bureaucratic recalculation, it has serious consequences.

The AP proposes the following example: a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

Many environmentalists and public health advocates believe the Bush administration has changed the figure to avoid tougher rules.

“It appears that they’re cooking the books in regards to the value of life,” S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators, told the AP. “Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death.”

Dan Esty, a senior EPA policy official in the administration of the first President Bush and now director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said, “It’s hard to imagine that it has other than a political motivation.”

EPA denies wrongdoing, and says the new figures reflect consumer preferences. Al McGartland, director of EPA’s office of policy, economics and innovation, told the AP, “It’s our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to reduce similar risks to their own lives.”

Many economists, including Vanderbilt University’s Kip Viscusi, Ph.D., disagree. “As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go up as well. It has to.” Dr. Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans are less willing to pay to reduce risks. EPA partly based its reduction on his work.

The second study EPA used to assign the new value of a human life, conducted by Laura Taylor, Ph.D. of North Carolina State University, values a statistical human life between $2 million and $3.3 million. Dr. Taylor’s figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole. EPA took portions of each study and essentially split the difference.

Beyond Pesticides believes it is difficult to place a value on human life and favors a precautionary approach, rather than a cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, those who pay the costs and those that benefit under the current system are often different populations. For example, in the case of an EPA registration of a pesticide used on tomatoes, the beneficiary of lower crop losses may be a large agribusiness, such as Ag-Mart. However, farmworkers and their families who may suffer health impacts, as well as residents whose air or water may be contaminated, pay the costs.

The public interest organization Redefining Pprogress believes that if policymakers measure what really matters to people””health care, safety, a clean environment, and other indicators of well-being””economic policy would naturally shift towards sustainability.

Redefining Progress created the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) in 1995 as an alternative to the gross domestic product (GDP). The GPI enables policymakers at the national, state, regional, or local level to measure how well their citizens are doing both economically and socially. The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data that the GDP is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It adjusts for factors such as income distribution, adds factors such as the value of household and volunteer work, and subtracts factors such as the costs of crime and pollution. For more information, visit the Redefining Progress website.

Posted in Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

11
Jul

Clean Water Act Enforcement Compromised

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2008) According to an internal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum, a Supreme Court decision is undermining the agency’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA). Two House Committee Chairmen have sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for more information regarding EPA’s enforcement efforts in the wake of the 2006 decision Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States. The Rapanos decision was split 4-1-4 over the question of Federal protections for waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the Clean Water Act.

In the letter, Chairman James L. Oberstar of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Chairman Henry A. Waxman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, explain that information has come to them indicating that enforcement of key clean water programs is faltering.

The memo, obtained by Greenpeace and released by the Congressmen, was sent by EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Granta Y. Nakayama and cites enforcement problems created by the Rapanos case and the subsequent guidance.

In the memorandum, Mr. Nakayama states, “Data collected from the regions shows that a significant portion of the CWA docket has been adversely affected.”

The letter from Congressmen Waxman and Oberstar goes on to quote the Nakayama memo as reporting that some 500 clean water enforcement cases were negatively affected in just nine months as a result of the Rapanos decision and agencies’ guidance, and that EPA dropped enforcement in 300 more cases between July 2006 and December 2007.

“The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held three oversight hearings on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rapanos and SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001),” Rep. Oberstar said. “The Bush Administration has twice testified how it was responding to the uncertainty created by these decisions, but it never once revealed the full extent to which Federal attempts to protect clean water have been undermined. It took the release of an internal EPA document to bring that fact to light.”

“We need vigorous enforcement to protect our nation’s waters,” said Rep. Waxman. “But instead, hundreds of potential violations are being ignored.”

The letter requests that the Administrator provide complete and unredacted copies of all communications relating to the charges presented in the Nakayama memo. The letter further requests answers to a number of questions about EPA’s enforcement processes. It sets a July 21 deadline for the agency’s response.

The Clean Water Act has been an important tool in fighting pesticide poisoning and pollution in the U.S. It has played a roll in a variety of cases, from aerial spraying to mosquito prevention to oyster beds. More recently, EPA has exempted pesticides from CWA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, a decision which was later challenged in a lawsuit.

Source: Washington Post

Posted in Litigation, National Politics, Pesticide Regulation, Water by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

10
Jul

Pesticide Poisonings Show Toxicity of Common Pesticides

*July 14, 2008 Update: Officials have reported that the cause for poisoning of these Maryland residents was jimsonweed, not pesticides. Jimsonweed was found in the garden of the home where the stew had been prepared. Symptoms are similar to organophosphate pesticide poisonings. (Source: NBC4)

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2008) Showing just how toxic common pesticides can be, six people in Gaithersburg, Maryland who ate potentially contaminated stew have been hospitalized with probable pesticide poisoning. Reports say that mint leaves from a backyard garden that were in a potato stew are suspected to have contained organophosphate pesticide residues.

Unfortunately, the media is reporting this as a case of failing to wash produce properly, which does not address the root of the pesticide poisoning problem””that pesticides are hazardous and their uses cause harm. In fact, when EPA registers pesticides for use in food production, whether in the garden or commercial agriculture, it does not disclose or warn the public about pesticide residues or require the washing of treated food commodities, and it does not point to the availability of nontoxic alternatives.

The Washington Post reports, “In a textbook illustration of the importance of thoroughly washing plants and vegetables before eating them, authorities said the people who ate the potato stew became nauseous and dizzy, in some cases suffering hallucinations and convulsions.” Washing produce may reduce residues and potential exposure to pesticides, however, pesticides are often systemic, either taken up into the plant through the root system or absorbed into the plant tissue after surface treatments. Organic gardening and eating organically grown food are the best solutions for stopping pesticide poisoning and contamination.

Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They act as cholinesterase inhibitors by binding irreversibly to the active site of acetylcholine esterase (AchE), an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission, thus inactivating the enzyme. Poisoning symptoms include numbness, tingling sensations, headache, dizziness, tremor, nausea, abdominal cramps, sweating, lack of coordination, blurred vision, difficulty breathing or respiratory depression, and slow heartbeat. Very high doses may result in unconsciousness, incontinence, and convulsions or fatality.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain. The cancellation of household uses does not restrict, however, the use of remaining stocks. That is to say, homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase out, may still use this product.

Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to the EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion is applied annually for residential uses.

Advocates argue that pesticide poisonings of this sort would not occur if the uses of these highly toxic pesticides were banned completely. Pesticide labels are ineffective in communicating the true toxic nature of products consumers falsely assume are safe. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the nontoxic care of lawns and gardens.

Source: Washington Post

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Disease/Health Effects, Lawns/Landscapes, Maryland by: Beyond Pesticides
2 Comments

09
Jul

Global Food Crisis Leading to Increased Interest in GM Food

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2008) High food prices, climate change and increasing concern over fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest in new genetically modified (GM) technology in the European Union (EU), which has long been wary of foods derived from tinkering with the genetic make-up of plants. The European Commission has said it believes GM crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply, although it added in June that expediency should not overrule strict scientific scrutiny of the use of GM technology.

A European Commission-sponsored Eurobarometer opinion poll last month showed a slight increase in knowledge and acceptance of the technology. New consumer interests in GM seed varieties, which are likely to be more resistant to drought and able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water, have increased. In a similar opinion poll conducted in March, the number of EU respondents saying they lacked information on GMs fell to 26 percent, compared with 40 percent in the previous, 2005 survey. Fifty-eight percent were apprehensive about GM use and just 21 percent in favor, down from 26 percent in favor in a 2006.

The European Union has not approved any GM crops for a decade and the 27 member countries often clash on the issue. France has banned certain GM crops pending review of the scientific evidence on their safety. Outside the EU, Switzerland has a moratorium on growing GM crops, though authorities have granted permission for three GM crop trials between 2008 and 2010 for research. Agrochemcial companies are already riding wave of high food prices and roaring demand for farm goods. Monsanto, DuPont Co and Syngenta AG have all raised 2008 earnings forecasts already this year. However, this new shift in attitudes to GM technology is seen as a substantial opportunity for these companies. The European seeds market is worth $7.9 billion from a global total of $32.7 billion. The global GM seeds market was worth $6.9 billion in 2007 and is set to grow further.

The chairman of Nestle, the world’s largest food group, has said it is impossible to feed the world without genetically modified organisms and the British government’s former chief adviser Sir David King said this week GM crops hold the key to solving the world’s food crisis.

However, GM technology still has many opponents who fear GM crops can create health problems for animals and humans, wreak havoc on the environment, and will give far-reaching control over the world’s food to a few giant corporate organizations. Critics charge that the technology does not bring its promised benefits. A recent report by organic group the Soil Association, concluded that yields of all major GM varieties are equivalent to, or less than those from conventional crops. Earlier this year, this group also became the first to formally reject nanoparticles in food (See Daily News Blog).

“GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failure,” said Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director.

Geert Ritsema, a genetic engineering campaigner at Greenpeace International, said proponents of GM crop technology are using high prices to scare consumers that their food will become too expensive. Currently high prices benefit large agrochemical companies and farm suppliers, with much of the cost being passed on to consumers. Food prices are up more than 50 percent since May 2006, sparking protests in many countries including Argentina, Indonesia and Mexico. Many call for more consumer awareness of the technology, which could also reinforce wariness.

“I think that if consumers become really educated, that’s the point they’ll end up at and say ‘why should I mess around with this technology when it has no benefits to me?” said Jean Halloran, head of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union.

Studies have shown that GM crops can lead to a large increase in pesticide use, due to increased insect resistance. GM crops have also been found to harm aquatic ecosystems and contaminate organic and non-GM crops.

Source: Reuters

Posted in Genetic Engineering, International, Monsanto, Syngenta by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

08
Jul

Widespread Uses of Anti-Bacterial Consumer Chemical Challenged

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2008) In comments filed July 7, 2008 with the Environmental Protection Agency on its new risk assessment and evaluation of the widely used anti-bacterial chemical triclosan, found in a wide range of products including soaps, toothpastes and personal care products, plastics, paints and clothing, public interest health and environmental groups point to health effects, environmental contamination and wildlife impacts and call for consumer uses to be halted.

The comments, submitted by Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch, Greenpeace US, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and dozens of public health and environmental groups from the U.S. and Canada, urge the agency to use its authority to cancel the non-medical uses of the antibacterial chemical triclosan, widely found in consumer products and shown to threaten health and the environment.

Triclosan and its degradation products bioaccumulate in humans, are widely found in the nations waterways, fish and other aquatic organisms, and because of triclosan’s proliferating uses, are linked to bacterial resistance, rendering triclosan and antibiotics ineffective for critical medical uses. The chemical and its degradates are also linked to endocrine disruption, cancer and dermal sensitization.

“The nonmedical uses of triclosan are frivolous and dangerous, creating serious direct health and environmental hazards and long-term health problems associated with the creation of resistant strains of bacteria,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. The American Medical Association (AMA) is on record questioning the efficacy of triclosan in consumer products, raising the questions of whether the consumer uses are necessary and if they are doing more harm than good.

The coalition of groups commenting yesterday, in addition to the hazards cited, criticizes EPA for not completing an analysis of the impact of triclosan on endangered species and other deficiencies in its review.

The EPA’s public comment period for the reevaluation of triclosan, known as the reregistration eligibility decision (RED), closed yesterday. The document releases EPA’s risk assessment and its decision to allow uses of triclosan to continue and expand. EPA shares responsibility for regulating triclosan with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EPA has jurisdiction over treated textiles, paints and plastics and FDA is responsible for soaps, toothpaste, deordorants and antiseptics. The RED, however, is intended to assess the potential adverse effects across all uses.

In separate comments, water utilities commented that triclosan and its degradation products are not removed during the water treatment process and end up in sewage sludge, often referred to as biosolids. Research shows that earthworms take in triclosan residues, as do fish and other aquatic organisms. Concerns have also been raised about residues in drinking water.

See comments at: https://www.beyondpesticides.org/documents/triclosanEPAcomments.pdf.

Posted in Pesticide Regulation, Triclosan, Water by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

07
Jul

Capsized Ferry in Philippines Holds Ten Tons of Toxic Pesticide

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2008) Officials have halted recovery efforts in the Philippines for bodies on the partially sunken ship MV Princess of the Stars after it was revealed that the ship’s cargo hull contains ten tons of the highly toxic pesticide endosulfan. The ship capsized and partially sank on June 21 in a typhoon, killing nearly 800 people onboard. Although the Philippines banned the use of endosulfan in 1993 because of its serious health effects, multi-national food companies Dole and Del Monte have maintained exemptions to the ban and continue to use endosulfan. In the wake of this tragedy, the potential for toxic contamination looms large and has raised frustrations for leaders in the government who are calling for an end to these exemptions, which benefit only foreign companies and threaten the health of the Philippine people.

Globally, endosulfan has received substantial attention for its severe health and environmental effects. The European Union has submitted a petition that endosulfan be included in the Stockholm Convention, the international treaty regulating highly toxic, persistent organic pollutants. Endosulfan is banned in over 20 countries, including those of the European Union. Despite its known toxicity, endosulfan remains a commonly used insecticide and acaricide (mite-killer) in many countries on vegetables, cotton, tea, cereals and ornamentals for the control of such insects as aphids, Colorado potato beetles, leafhoppers, cabbage worms, and tsetse flies.In the U.S., endosulfan is currently a restricted use pesticide and is under consideration for reregistration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (read our daily news blog on the reregistration eligibility documents for endosulfan).

According to EPA, annual usage of endosulfan in the U.S. is approximately 1.4 million lbs. Current top uses by volume in the U.S. include cotton, cantaloupe, tomatoes, and potatoes. Endosulfan is registered as an acute toxicity class I (the most toxic) pesticide, and must bear the label “Danger.”

Endosulfan affects the nervous system and has been one of the most frequently reported causes of farmworker poisoning. In addition to nervous system affects, farmworkers and their children exposed to endosulfan have experienced congenital physical disorders, mental retardation, and death. While farmworkers are the population group most susceptible to the deleterious effects of endosulfan because of their close contact with the toxic chemical, endosulfan also poses a risk to the population at large because of common food, air, and water contamination.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine pesticide, in the same family as DDT and lindane, and like DDT and lindane, it bioaccumulates and has been found in places as far from point of use as the arctic. It is also a suspected endocrine disruptor, affecting hormones and reproduction in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Because of these compelling reasons and in light of the fact that less-toxic alternatives are available, scientists and advocates petitioned the EPA in May to ban endosulfan (read the daily news blogs and access the petition).

The manufacturer of this endosulfan is Makhteshim Agan, an Israeli company that purchased the registration of endosulfan from FMC, which manufactured endosulfan under the brand name Thiodan. Bayer is also currently a registrant of endosulfan, but rumors have circulated that it plans to cancel its registration in the U.S. Makhteshim Agan is known as a bad actor company that purchases registrations of hazardous chemicals that other companies plan to cancel. Pesticide Action Network North America has been following the global use and registration of endosulfan, its health effects, and the most recent news stories on the MV Princess of the Stars. Its reporting on endosulfan is available here.

This tragic event reminds us that toxic pesticides create public health and environmental risks in every aspect of their existence from production to transport, storage, and use. In an expression of frustration with the all too common practice of putting profits over people, Deputy Minority Leader Satur Ocampo said succinctly, “There is a compelling basis for the ban. Health hazards versus the profits of the foreign firm using it.” The only way to prevent contamination and the effects that ensue is to ban the production and use of toxic chemicals such as endosulfan.

Sources: Pesticide Action Network North America, The Guardian, Inquirer.net, Philippines, Jennifer Sass

Posted in Endosulfan, International by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

03
Jul

Pesticides and Degradation Products Detected in Ground Water

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2008) The results of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study investigating the occurrence of selected pesticides and their degradation products in groundwater shows that these chemicals can persist for years, depending upon the chemical structure of the compounds and the environmental conditions. The study, funded by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program and published in the May-June issue of Journal of Environmental Quality, specifically examines several of the factors that can influence the likelihood of pesticides and their degradation products being detected in shallow ground water, including oxidation-reduction (redox) conditions and ground water residence times, at four study sites across the United States.

Numerous studies over the past four decades have established that pesticides, which are typically applied at the land surface, can move downward through the unsaturated zone to reach the water table at detectable concentrations. The downward movement of pesticide degradation products, formed in situ, can also contribute to the contamination of ground water.The study reveals that the pesticides and degradation products detected most frequently in shallow ground water samples from all four areas are predominantly from two classes of herbicides””triazines and chloroacetanilides. None of the insecticides or fungicides examined are detected in ground water samples in this study. In most samples, the concentrations of the pesticide degradation products greatly exceed those of their parent compounds.

Pesticides or their degradation products are detected most commonly in ground water that recharged between 1949 and 2004, and in monitoring wells spanning the full depth range (about 2 to 52 m) examined””from the shallowest to the deepest wells””in all four study areas. Comparisons of pesticide concentrations with a variety of environmental variables indicate that redox conditions, ground water residence times, and the concentrations of dissolved oxygen and excess nitrogen gas from denitrification (the breaking down of nitrogen compounds such as nitrate) are all important factors affecting the concentrations of pesticides and their degradation products in all four ground water systems.

The four sites selected for this study are located in agricultural landscapes in Maryland, Nebraska, California, and Washington. They were selected for variability in overall land use, crops grown, climate, agricultural practices, irrigation, geohydrologic settings, and redox conditions. During the spring of 2004, water samples were collected from a network of 59 shallow single or clustered monitoring wells and analyzed for the occurrence of 45 pesticides and 40 pesticide degradation products, including herbicide, insecticides, and fungicides.

“Atrazine and its degradation product deethylatrazine both persisted in similar amounts at the Nebraska site, but in water samples from the other three study sites, there was little change with apparent age of water as the fraction as deethylatrazine generally exceeded 80% of the sum of atrazine and deethylatrazine,” states Greg Steele, senior study author. “On the other hand, in three of the four areas studied (Washington excluded because it did not have any detections of metolachlor or its degradation products), the proportion of metolachlor in ground water was far less than that for its degradation products.”

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

A 1989 study found residues of 39 pesticides and their degradation products in the ground water of 34 states and Canadian provinces. The pesticides were mainly herbicides used for agriculture and insecticides and nematicides used in soil treatments.

For more information about pesticide contaminated water, see Beyond Pesticide Daily News Blogs on water.

Posted in Atrazine, Chemicals, Water by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

02
Jul

Herbicide Contaminates Home Gardens

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2008) Gardeners in the United Kingdom (UK) have been warned not to eat home-grown vegetables that have been exposed to the new and persistent herbicide, aminopyralid. Domestic gardens and allotments have been contaminated by manure originating from farms where the herbicide aminopyralid was sprayed on fields.

All across the UK harvests of withered and rotten potatoes, beans, peas, carrots, salad vegetables and deformed tomatoes have been reported by confused and angry gardeners. It is believed that contamination of manure arose after grass was treated with aminopyralid 12 months ago. Experts say the grass was probably made into silage, and then fed to cattle during the winter months. The herbicide remained present in the silage, passed through the animal and into manure that was later sold.

Aminopyralid is gaining popularity with farmers, who spray it on grassland to control weeds such as docks, thistles and nettles without affecting the grass around them. Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures aminopyralid, has made a statement on their website saying: ‘As a general rule, we suggest damaged produce (however this is caused) should not be consumed.’ Those who have already used contaminated manure are advised not to replant on the affected soil for at least a year. Aminopyralid, however, is not licensed to be used on food crops and carries a label warning farmers using it not to sell manure that might contain residue to gardeners. Problems with aminopyralid are not new. Damage to potato crops emerged last year and at that time Dow launched a campaign within the agriculture industry to reassure farmers and to ensure that they were aware of how the products should be used. Since the chemical has now entered the food chain, many are demanding an investigation and a ban of the product. Affected farmers and gardeners say they have been given no definitive answer as to whether other produce on their gardens and allotments is safe to eat.

Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to trace the exact origins of each contaminated batch of manure and thus, claims by farmers seeking financial compensation will be difficult to prove. “I am absolutely incensed at what has happened and find it scandalous that a weed killer sprayed more than one year ago, that has passed through an animal’s gut, was kicked around on a stable floor, stored in a muck heap in a field, then on an allotment site and was finally dug into or mulched on to beds last winter is still killing “sensitive” crops and will continue to do so for the next year,” said gardener Shirley Murray of Hampton, south-west London. Dow insists that trace levels of aminopyralid that are likely to be in these crops are of such low levels that they are unlikely to cause a problem to human health. The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) has advised, however, that vegetables grown with contaminated manure should not be eaten because the safety of the chemical is in question. Dow is already planning a major publicity campaign to reiterate warnings to farmers over usage, and to encourage gardeners and allotment holders to check the provenance of manure that they put down in an effort to prevent the problem escalating. On compensation, Dow was less forthcoming.

Aminopyralid was given a conditional registration as a “reduced risk herbicide” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2005 and is marketed under the trade name Milestoneâ„¢. It is used on rangeland, permanent grass pastures, non-cropland areas, and grazed areas as well as on wheat. EPA’s factsheet concludes, “[T]here is reasonable certainty that no harm will come from aggregate exposure to aminopyralid residues.” The agency has also determined aminopyralid to be practically non-toxic to non-target animals and is less likely to impact both terrestrial and aquatic plants. Aminopyralid persists in soil and half-lives range from 31.5 to 533.2 days. Label precautions for Milestone state that aminopyralid treated plant residues or manure from animals that have grazed on treated forage (within the previous 3 days) should not be used in compost or mulch to be used on susceptible broadleaf plants.

Manure contamination is not new to the U.S. Residential turf uses of the herbicide clopyralid were discontinued after reports from several states identified that the herbicide had contaminated composts. The herbicide, which does not break down during the composting process, was found in compost made from recycled grass, straw, and manure. (See Daily News: 12/14/01 and 7/31/07). Clopyraild is also manufactured by Dow AgroSciences.

Source: The Guardian UK

Posted in aminopyralid, Chemicals, clopyralid, Lawns/Landscapes by: Beyond Pesticides
3 Comments

01
Jul

Human Rights Petition Challenges U.S. Environmental Racism

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2008) On behalf of the African American residents of Mossville, Louisiana, the non-profit, public interest law firm Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (AEHR) on June 23, 2008 filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) a detailed account of the human rights abuses suffered by residents as a consequence of governmental approvals that allow industrial facilities to dump millions of pounds of toxic chemicals every year.

The filing is an amended petition (Petition No. P-242-05), which includes a response to the U.S. Government’s arguments that attempt to defend its flawed environmental regulatory system that perpetuates environmental racism and denies basic human rights in Mossville and other similarly situated communities of color, according to AEHR.

The petition states:

“[The residents of] Mossville suffer from severe health problems, elevated levels of cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals, a devastated environment, and a deteriorated quality of life, all of which arise from governmental approvals of highly toxic industrial development in and around Mossville.

The United States government and its political subdivisions have authorized fourteen industrial facilities to manufacture, process, store, and discharge toxic and hazardous substances in close geographic proximity to Mossville residents. Three of these facilities — an oil refinery, a vinyl manufacturer, and a petrochemical facility — are located within the recognized historic boundaries of Mossville, and eleven other facilities — three vinyl manufacturers, one coal-fired power plant, and eight petrochemical facilities — are located within 0.8 kilometers (one-half mile) of the community. Each of the facilities in the Mossville area has received from governmental agencies the requisite permits to pollute the air, water, and land.

In recent years, industries have acknowledged that their facilities surrounding Mossville, on average annually, have polluted the air, water, and land with a combined total of approximately two million kilograms (over four million pounds) of toxic chemicals that are scientifically known to cause cancer and damage the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous, and reproductive systems”¦

Although the environmental and health agencies of the United States have documented the massive industrial pollution burdens on the Mossville community, as well as residents’ exposure to health-damaging levels of toxic chemicals, these agencies have failed to adequately address this environmental health crisis that denies Mossville residents their fundamental human rights to life, health, and privacy. Furthermore, although the United States government has acknowledged the pervasive pattern of discrimination that subjects Mossville, as well as other African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American communities throughout the nation, to racially disproportionate toxic pollution burdens, the United States government has failed to protect the human right to freedom from racial discrimination.”The petitioners believe the disproportionate permitting of polluting facilities in the African American community of Mossville reflects a nationwide pattern in the U.S. of environmental racism.

The federal government responded to the petition stating that “a clear showing of intentional discrimination based on factors such as race . . .” is required of Mossville petitioners. The petitioners countered stating the mandate of IACHR is the defense of inviolable human rights. In the case Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States, IACHR has determined that a violation occurs when “a government’s treatment of a group is distinct from that of another group without a reasonable justification or legitimate objective, and uses means that are disproportionate to the end sought.”

The petitioners are demanding that the federal government:

Provide medical services to Mossville residents suffering from diseases and health problems associated with environmental toxic exposures, including health monitoring services;

Offer appropriate relocation to consenting Mossville residents that allows them to live in healthier environs, away from toxic industrial facilities and contaminated sites;

Refrain from issuing environmental permits and other approvals that would allow any increase in pollution by existing industrial facilities located in close proximity to the Mossville community, and refrain from issuing any environmental permits and other approvals that would allow the introduction of any new industrial facility in the Mossville area; and,

Reform its existing environmental regulatory system to:

establish in all regulatory programs pollution limits that protect against the multiple, cumulative, and synergistic health impacts of numerous toxic and hazardous substances released into the air, water, and land by one or more industrial facilities;

require a safe distance between a residential population and a hazardous industrial facility so that the population is not located within the area where deaths or serious injury would result in the event that a toxic or flammable substance stored, processed, or generated by the facility would be released to the environment through explosion, fire, or spill; and

remedy past practices and prevent future actions that intentionally or inadvertently impose racially disproportionate pollution burdens.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a division of the Organization of American States, founded in 1948 to investigate human rights complaints in the United States and 33 other countries in the Western Hemisphere. It is headquartered in Washington, DC.

Beyond Pesticides supports AEHR’s efforts and believes that the risk-benefit policy used by the U.S. EPA to allow chemical pesticides in our society is disproportionately failing communities of color. Pesticide exposure harms certain population groups more than others, a fact that is not accounted for in the registration and reregistration of pesticides. The risks inherent in the mathematical risk calculations fail to take into account the numerous circumstances and realities that make some populations more vulnerable to pesticides than others. Beyond Pesticides believes the current risk assessment system is not working, and should be replaced with a precautionary approach.

You may view AEHR’s petition at: http://www.ehumanrights.org/docs/Mossville_Amended_Petition_and_Observations_on_US_2008.pdf.

Posted in Chemicals, Corporations, Disease/Health Effects, Environmental Justice, Louisiana, State/Local by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

30
Jun

EU Ag Ministers Approve Stricter Pesticide Rules

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2008) The European Union’s (EU) agricultural ministers have agreed to revise pesticide restrictions across the 27-member state. The draft proposals ban pesticides that are known to cause cancer, endocrine disruption, or reproductive harm in humans, affecting up to 15 percent of currently used products. However, in “exceptional cases, when available products do not offer sufficiently effective plant protection, other hazardous substances may be used, but only under strictly regulated conditions.” The agreement’s next step is parliamentary approval, where lawmakers could make the final rule even stricter.The proposal would push farmers and chemical companies to replace the most toxic products with alternatives, remove provisional licenses for pesticides not yet registered with the EU, restrict the use of crop-dusters, and ban pesticides near sensitive areas.“One of the main aims of the proposal is to maintain a high level of protection for humans, animals and the environment. This is essential for our citizens,” said EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou, who advocated for this ban in May. “We will not authorize what is known to be harmful for public health.”

Hungary, the Irish Republic, Romania, and the UK abstained from voting, citing risk of crop yields and lack of research on the alternative pest control options available. “We cannot support measures that would have significant adverse impacts on crop protection,” said UK Environmental Secretary Hilary Benn.

The industry representative European Crop Protection Association argued that a ban on hazardous products is unnecessary. “Proper risk evaluations of products are required to determine this, taking the dose and actual use into consideration – just as coffee and alcohol are hazardous at high doses, normal use poses no risk to health,” said the group’s head, Friedhelm Schmider.

Not only does Schmider’s statement misrepresent some of the most toxic pesticides as safe, he makes no mention of human exposure to low levels of chemicals. (For recent research on health effects of low-dose pesticide exposure, see “Facing Scientific Realities.”) As Slovenian Agriculture Minister Iztok Jarc said, the new rules would ensure “the high standards needed to prevent harmful effects of plant protection products on human and animal health or the environment.”

Sources: Associated Press, BBC News, CNN Money, AFP

Posted in International, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

27
Jun

New Paltz, NY Goes Organic, Hopes to Set Example for Residents

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2008) New Paltz, NY parks and green spaces are going organic with the hope that residents will follow suit and stop treating their lawns with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Final approval of the legislation that would prohibit pesticides on town property is “just a lawyerly tweak away from becoming law,” according to Alice Andrews, a member of the village environmental commission and organizer of an organics task force.

Ms. Andrews was motivated to work on the issue when she learned about the health and environmental hazards of commonly used lawn pesticides. Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogencity, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system. Of those same 30 lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees, and 16 are toxic to birds.

Ms. Andrews originally planned to propose legislation that would have banned or limited pesticide use for all village properties, private and public. However, state pesticide preemption laws prohibit communities from passing laws that are more protective than state laws. “What we’ve decided is to try every other angle, especially education,” Ms. Andrews told the Times Herald-Record. To that end, the task force has created posters that urge residents to sign a myspace.com petition urging Ulster County to ban pesticides.

Ms. Andrews hopes the New Paltz town website will soon have a page devoted to lawn pesticides and organic alternatives. With the passage of time, she hopes “social pressure” will do what formal legislation cannot.

This move follows policies passed in recent months by local officials in Camden, ME, Voorhees, NJ, and Rockport, ME, which ban pesticides in community parks and playing fields.

Source: The Times Herald-Record

For more information on organic turf management, please visit our Lawns and Landscapes program page. To find a service provider that practices least- or non-toxic methods, visit the Safety Source for Pest Management.

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Lawns/Landscapes, New York, State/Local by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

26
Jun

Wheat Embargo in Kansas Raises Concerns About Pesticide Residues

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2008) Over 7,500 acres of winter wheat in 15 Kansas counties were sprayed improperly with the fungicide Quilt, forcing the Kansas Department of Agriculture to put an embargo on harvestable wheat from these fields pending further tests. Farmers are legally required to wait 45 days between spraying Quilt and harvesting wheat, but this spring’s wet weather encouraged many to ignore the rules. The problem was discovered during a paperwork check of custom applicators, which revealed that some fields had been sprayed as recently as early June.

Quilt, manufactured by Syngenta and registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003, is a combination of the two active ingredients azoxystrobin and propiconazole. Propinconazole is a fungicide and antimicrobial with registered uses on food and feed crops, turf and ornamentals, as well as wood and material preservation. It is estimated that 1.7 million acres of wheat alone is treated with propinconazole each year. Azoxystrobin was first conditionally registered with the EPA in 1997 for use on turf. Information on the usage of the combination of these two fungicides is unavailable because of the recent registrations. Unfortunately, the USDA has cut funding for pesticide reporting (see Daily News of May 22, 2008), which means usage data will not be available unless funding for this program is reinstated.

Kansas Agriculture Secretary Adrian Polansky has said, “This is a very safe fungicide and its active ingredients have low toxicity for humans, and the residues from those ingredients break down fairly quickly within the 45-day time frame.” However, the metabolites of propinconazole (the chemicals made when the pesticide breaks down) are suspected of having endocrine-disrupting effects, contradicting the statement that this fungicide is safe, and also illuminating the fact that pesticides often remain toxic even after they have broken down. (For more on endocrine effects and the EPA, read our article in Pesticides And You).

The wheat is undergoing testing for residue levels, and if it passes the EPA’s guidelines for allowable levels, it will be harvested and sold for human consumption. Although these residue levels may be allowable under federal law, promoting them as “safe” is misleading when low (allowable) levels of various pesticides have been shown to have negative health and environmental effects (see the example of atrazine). If the residue levels in the wheat are determined to be too high for human consumption, Mr. Polansky has said it will be used for animal feed.

This improper spraying raises questions about label compliance for pesticide use””not only in residential settings where users are often unfamiliar with regulations and the dangers of using pesticides, but for professional applicators and farmers who should be well-informed about the regulations pertaining to the chemicals they are using.

TAKE ACTION: Organic agriculture presents and alternative to growing methods that can produce food laden with toxic pesticides. In organic wheat production, synthetic fungicides and herbicides are not allowed, and certifying agents inspect farms to ensure compliance with the regulations. Consumers can encourage more farmers to go organic by buying organic wheat and refusing to purchase potentially contaminated conventional products.

Sources: The Wichita Eagle, The Hays Daily News

Posted in Azoxystrobin, Kansas, Propiconazole by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

25
Jun

Pesticide Industry Ranked on Its Damage to Health and Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2008) Pesticides manufactured by Bayer (Germany), Syngenta (Switzerland), Monsanto (USA), BASF (Germany) and Dow Chemical (USA) pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to a new Greenpeace Germany report, “The Dirty Portfolios of the Pesticides Industry.” The report provides the first-ever ranking of the world’s leading agrochemical companies based on the hazards and risks of their pesticides on human health and the environment. These five companies together account for 75 percent of the world market and 46 percent of the pesticides they sell worldwide are particularly hazardous substances.

Monsanto has the portfolio with the highest proportion, 60 percent, of pesticides that are particularly toxic to humans and the environment. However, Monsanto only ends up in the middle of the overall ranking due to its small share of the market. The overall ranking not only takes into account the hazardous properties of the various pesticides, but also the quantities that are sold worldwide. Pesticides manufactured by Bayer pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to the report.

“Our ranking shows how toxic the business of the leading agrochemical companies still is,” said Greenpeace chemicals expert Manfred Krautter. “Politicians must now tighten up pesticide laws to protect our health and to preserve biodiversity. Pesticides that can cause cancer, alter genes, and damage the reproductive, endocrine or nervous system must no longer be authorized. Pesticides that harm bees or life in aquatic environments must be banned from the market. The chemical industry is now using its significant lobbying power to try to secure authorization even for toxins like these.”

Last fall, the European Parliament voted in favor of tighter legislation to be enacted by 2013. However, member states would be given the discretion as to how the plan would be implemented in their countries. In May, the European Union Health Commissioner called on European governments to adopt tougher guidelines on pesticides and to ban the use of all potentially dangerous pesticides that can cause cancer, reproductive effects and hormone disruption. The chemical industry has also been lobbying governments and law makers. EU agriculture ministers are due to meet on today to attempt to reach a common position on the proposal.

The Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area (Greensboro, North Carolina) reported that regulatory filings show that Syngenta spent $1.2 million on lobbying the U.S. federal government in 2007, while Monsanto spent $4.5 million. This is small change considering Monsanto posted record profits in 2007 of nearly $1 billion, up from just over $700 million the year before. Syngenta also posted record profits in 2007 of $1.1 billion, up over 60% from 2006.

TAKE ACTION: Don’t let corporations continue to gain control over agriculture, spreading the use of toxic chemicals and genetically engineered seeds. Vote with your dollars and buy organic, fair trade items that support better farming practices and sustainable livelihoods.

Posted in BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, International, Monsanto, Syngenta by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

24
Jun

Ontario’s Pesticide Law Passes, Weakens Protections in Some Municipalities

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2008) On June 18, 2008, Ontario joined Quebec in restricting the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides, but critics say the move will actually weaken existing anti-pesticide rules across the province. The ban was the last government-backed bill to be rammed through before the legislature adjourned for the summer, passing 56-17 over the objections of health groups and municipalities.

Environmental and public health advocates, including Ontario’s nurses, are dismayed that the province’s new pesticide law doesn’t go far enough to protect public health. “When the premier announced a ban on the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides on Earth Day, we stood side by side with him and applauded what we thought was a step forward to protect people from these poisonous chemicals,” says Wendy Fucile, President of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO). “But today, we see what the province’s legislation actually means is that municipalities will be stripped of their tough municipal bylaws to protect people, and the provincial legislation will serve as a ceiling, not as a floor upon which stronger local regulations can build.”

Because the new law preempts local by-laws, it actually weakens protections in some municipalities with strong local protections. Since Ontario’s ban exempts substances like glyphosate, a herbicide that is currently banned in Toronto and many other municipalities, these communities will have their municipal laws weakened. It also exempts golf courses and allows pesticide use to control weeds, both of which are currently prohibited in Toronto.

Ms. Fucile says while nurses recognize that the new law provides many benefits because it does ban the use and sale of most cosmetic pesticides province-wide, the alarms health and environmental groups are sounding about the legislation must not be ignored. She says over the last few weeks, these groups have been continuously urging the government to amend the bill so that municipalities are allowed to have tougher bylaws governing pesticide use.

“Community action to protect pubic health mobilizes best at the municipal level. It is a grave mistake to demobilize that capacity, as this legislation will do,” Ms. Fucile says, adding that RNAO is calling on the government to correct this mistake by restoring this essential municipal power as quickly as possible and treating municipalities as full partners in public health.

RNAO Executive Director Doris Grinspun says nurses are also concerned about an open-ended exemption clause that could, in the future, allow extensive non-essential use of chemical pesticides. “This undermines the intent of the legislation, which is to protect people’s health, especially the health of children who love to play. They can’t read signs warning them that the grass has been sprayed with harmful toxins,” she says, adding that the chorus of public opinion is also calling for a tough pesticide ban. “People want to know their neighbors’ lawns are safe. Nurses needed the government to show strong leadership on this, but they have let us down.”

Ms. Grinspun says as Bill 64 becomes law, the association will hold the government accountable to make sure the legislation works to protect and enhance public health despite its flaws. That means RNAO will closely watch as regulations are developed, and bring any risks to the public’s attention.

In the U.S., 41 state have preemption laws that prevent localities from passing more protective pesticide laws than the state. In general terms, preemption refers to the ability of one level of government to override laws of a lower level. While local governments once had the ability to restrict the use, sales and distribution of pesticides, pressure from the chemical industry led many states to pass legislation prohibiting municipalities from passing local pesticide ordinances that are stricter than state policy. Preemption laws effectively deny local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better protection when the community decides that minimum standards set by state law are insufficient to protect local public and environmental health.

As pesticide pollution and concerns over human and environmental health mount, states and municipalities are fighting to overturn preemption laws and return the power back to localities. For more information on state preemption laws, see Beyond Pesticides Preemption factsheet.

Posted in International, Lawns/Landscapes by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

23
Jun

California Officials Cancel Aerial Spraying

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2008) California state officials abruptly cancelled the program to spray pesticides to combat the light brown apple moth (LBAM). This move came after months of protests by residents over concerns that the chemicals in the pheromone-based pesticide may adversely impact their health and the environment.California’s Agriculture Secretary, A.G. Kawamura, announced on Thursday that the state has abandoned its plan for aerial spraying of the light brown apple moth in urban areas of several counties, including the San Francisco Bay area. However, sprayings may still proceed on farmland in rural areas. Officials also stated that they would not spray over communities near farms.

“I know there’s concern out there, and we want to be able to address that,” Secretary Kawamura told reporters. “Our focus is to use the technology that has moved progressively forward.”

Instead of spraying, the state said that it would keep moth populations under control by releasing sterile moths to halt reproduction by rendering eggs useless. Apparently the use of sterile moth as a means of population control has been a part of the state’s plans for more than a year. It is not clear therefore why aerial spraying was so heavily advocated by state officials, but Secretary Kawamura noted that the state’s change of plans comes about because of “new science” and not over concerns about the environment.

This decision is viewed as a victory for many environmental activists and communities of Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, Solano and Santa Barbara. Protests over the spraying began after about 487 people reported feeling symptoms ranging from itchy eyes to breathing trouble after planes dusted a fine chemical mist over the area surrounding Monterey and Santa Cruz last fall.

State environmental health experts insisted that the illnesses reported could not conclusively be linked to the initial round of aerial sprayings. Despite this, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to delay continued aerial spraying, vowing to prove that the chemical was safe.

A lawsuit against the state was filed, citing that Secretary Kawamura broke state law by authorizing the aerial campaign without the benefit of an environmental review to determine the spray’s effect on people and the environment. In April, a California Court ruled that the light brown apple moth was not an immediate threat and delayed aerial spraying so that an environmental impact report was completed (See Daily News of April 28 and May 14, 2008).

“Wahoo! This is a landmark victory for the public,” said David Dilworth, executive director of Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE). “People had to spend thousands and thousands of hours of high-level work to get a bureaucracy to do the obviously moral choice.”

The light brown apple moth, which federal officials say threatens more than 2,000 varieties of California plants and crops, was first spotted in the state in March 2007 and has infested ten counties stretching from north of San Francisco to Santa Barbara. Officials planned to use the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F which works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Uncertainties about so-called inert or undisclosed ingredients, included in many pesticide formulations, were a serious concern.

Source: Associated Press

Posted in Announcements, California, LBAM by: Beyond Pesticides
2 Comments

20
Jun

Study Finds Plants Remove Golf Course Pesticides From Soil

(Beyond Pesticides, June 20, 2008) University of Massachusetts (UMass) researchers have identified certain plants that can absorb excess pesticides from soil and prevent their runoff into adjacent waterways. Golf courses typically use considerable amounts of herbicides and fungicides to maintain perfectly manicured greens, much of which ends up polluting water and harming aquatic organisms. This study found that plants like blue flag iris can act as “living filters” on the edge of greens.“

Studies from golf greens have shown that five percent to ten percent of the total pesticides applied are lost in runoff. In worst case conditions, this figure can be as high as 30 percent,” says John Clark, Ph.D., a professor of veterinary and animal science and a principal investigator on the grant. “We have identified plant species that can reduce the amount of certain pesticides in soil by up to 94 percent in the greenhouse.” Blue flag iris reduced chlorpyrifos by 76 percent and levels of chlorothalonil by 94 percent after three months of growth.

The study was funded by the UMass Amherst Environmental Institute, the Massachusetts Pesticide Analysis Laboratory, and the U.S. Golf Association. Interest in “greener” turf management practices have risen lately along with golf’s expansion into developing countries and U.S. land investment in turf. The land covered by U.S. residential lawns, playing fields, and more than 16,000 golf courses could combine to cover a region larger than New England. The pervasiveness of lawn care causes concern over chemical methods.

“Turfgrass chemicals are routinely found in rivers, lakes and reservoirs as well as groundwater supplies,” said professor Guy Lanza, Ph.D., a principal investigator on the grant. “Once in the water, these chemicals affect the health of a wide variety of aquatic organisms, everything from bacteria and algae to fish and frogs. They may also pose a health risk to humans, but this is less certain.”

Professors Clark and Lanza identified 10 plants for a greenhouse study based on aesthetic value, a documented history of removing pesticides from soils and their value as a wildlife habitat. “Plants used in vegetative filter strips (VFS) have to add to the beauty of their surroundings, since they will be viewed by the public, and they also have to be practical for the sites where they will be planted,” says Lanza. “We couldn’t use trees, which are some of the best candidates for removing contaminants, since they can interfere with golfers.”

Additional work will be done this summer to determine the best combination of plants for filtering chemicals, as well as how individual plants handle pesticides. Researchers plan to expand the study to include other contaminants in addition to pesticides.

Lawn care, including golf courses, can be managed using less- and non-toxic and organic practices. For more information on golf visit our program page, and for do-it-yourself advice, see our alternatives fact sheets.

Source: UMass Amherst

Posted in Chlorothalonil, Chlorpyrifos, Golf, Lawns/Landscapes, Water by: Beyond Pesticides
3 Comments

19
Jun

Rockland Co. NY Legislature Passes Non-Toxic Landscape Act

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2008) Rockland County, NY legislators passed a bill on June 17, 2008 to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides on all county-owned or leased land. Rose Marie Raccioppi, the community organizer behind the bill, is a member of Beyond Pesticides, the National Pesticide-Free Lawn Coalition, and Orangetown’s Environmental Committee. She brought her concerns about pesticide exposure to the Rockland County Legislature last year, and advocated strongly for the passage of the Rockland County Non-Toxic Landscape Maintenance Act.

“This is the beginning of what is hoped to be a continuing campaign,” Ms. Raccioppi said. “We hope it moves from county to towns to school districts and eventually, the consciousness of the individual homeowner.” As the law currently stands in New York, and most other states, municipalities may not pass legislation regulating the use of pesticides on private land and buildings, reserving governance of such matters to the state government. However, towns and counties throughout the U.S. (See Daily News of April 15, May 12, May 13, and June 16, 2008) are passing regulations restricting the use of pesticides on publicly-owned land. For a list of these local policies, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change site.

The bill embraces what they have called non-toxic pest management (NPM) practices, characterized as “a problem-solving strategy that prioritizes a natural, non-toxic approach to turfgrass and landscape management without the use of toxic and synthetic pesticides. It mandates the use of natural, non-toxic, or, as a last resort with EMC approval, least toxic cultural practices that promote healthy soil and plant life as a preventative measure against the onset of turf and landscape pest problems.” The bill, however, does allow for exemptions to these laws in the case of tick control, poisy ivy and poison oak control (when it poses a health hazard), and rodent control in the form of baits.

In Canada, provincial governments are taking action to ban cosmetic use of pesticides completely (for examples, click here). This has caused Home Depot in Canada to announce the stoppage of sales of toxic pesticides in its Canadian stores.

While towns, cities, and counties in the U.S. currently lack the legal ability to regulate homeowners’ decisions about lawn care, legislation such as the Rockland County bill provides an important opportunity to educate homeowners and encourage them to adopt least-toxic alternatives on their own.

Source: The Journal News

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Lawns/Landscapes, New York, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
5 Comments

18
Jun

EU To Limit Chemicals in Surface Waters

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2008) On June 17, 2008, the European Union (EU) voted and approved limits for chemical contaminants in surface waters. This measure would expand the EU’s campaign to protect the environment and also reduce the cost of producing drinking water.This new measure will set limits for 33 chemicals, including pesticides and heavy metals, in lakes, rivers and coastal waters that may endanger the survival of ecosystems and, via the food chain, human health. EU member states, which approved this legislation, will have until 2018 to meet these water standards. States will have to reduce pollution from “priority substances,” cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of “priority hazardous substances” in order to achieve good surface water chemical status and to be in compliance with the objectives set by the water quality standards.“This directive will guarantee a higher level of the protection of water by principally applying the principal of polluter-pays and corrects,” said rapporteur Anne Laperrouze of France, after the vote.

Member states will have to establish an inventory, including maps, if available, of emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and pollutants for each river basin district or part of a river basin district lying within their territory, including their concentrations in sediment and biota. States sharing bodies of surface water will coordinate their monitoring activities and the compilation of inventories.

This proposed directive on water quality is the final piece of legislation needed to support the Water Framework Directive introduced eight years ago. Thirteen of the 33 pollutants covered by the directive are already identified as “priority hazardous substances,” including heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. In its first-reading, the Parliament wanted to phase out a wider range of substances, but the Council decided to take on board the list of 33. The majority of states are willing to accept this as a first step, since some action is seen as better than none, with a further review already scheduled. In 2011, 13 new substances, including dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol, will be classified as “priority” or “hazardous” substances and added to the list of chemicals to be discontinued or phased out under the Water Framework Directive.

Two years ago, the EU endorsed laws to control chemicals in ground water and to force manufacturers and importers to provide more safety information on substances in Europe’s $800 billion chemicals market. On June 1, 2007, the EU regulation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances) took effect, triggering action that removes from the market toxic chemicals when less toxic alternatives are available.

Protecting the health of surface waters also translates into healthier drinking water. “With less pollution, water companies will have to do less treatment to meet drinking-water requirements,” Barbara Helfferich, environment spokeswoman for the European Commission. “It’s not only a health issue. It’s a cost factor, too,” she added.

Pesticide run-off from agricultural lands is a major source of surface water pollution. According to EU directive, it will not be possible to comply quickly with environmental quality standards close to pollution sources. In these areas, pollutant concentrations may exceed the limits, provided that they do not prevent the rest of the body of surface water from meeting the standards. However, measures to reduce the chemical concentrations in these areas will be included in future management plans.

Previous steps have been taken by the EU to reduce pesticide pollution that include limitations on aerial spraying, the use of buffer zones around agricultural lands and restrictions on the use of pesticides of high concern. (See Daily News of October 29 and July 13, 2007.)

Pesticide contamination of rivers, streams and waterbeds used as sources of drinking water is an acute problem for Europe.

Sources: European Parliament News, Bloomberg.com

Posted in International, Water by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

17
Jun

Antibacterial Wipes Spread, Rather Than Kill, Bacteria

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2008) A recent study at Cardiff University in Wales shows that antimicrobial wipes, including those containing triclosan, may be spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria, rather than killing it. Researchers from the Welsh School of Pharmacy studied the bacteria methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, and the ability of different types of wipes to remove or kill it. They found that in “normal use” conditions, or how hospitals in Wales have been using the wipes, bacteria is only moved from surface to surface, increasing potential exposure.

According to the university, “The research involved a surveillance programme observing hospital staff using surface wipes to decontaminate surfaces near patients, such as bed rails, and other surfaces commonly touched by staff and patients, such as monitors, tables and keypads. It was found that the wipes were being applied to the same surface several times and used on consecutive surfaces before being discarded.”

Furthermore, in laboratory replications, the team found “that although some wipes can remove higher numbers of bacteria from surfaces than others, the wipes tested were unable to kill the bacteria removed. As a result, high numbers of bacteria were transferred to other surfaces when reused.”

The findings raise concern from others in the field. Professor Mark Enright, an expert in hospital acquired infections at Imperial College in London, said, “Many cleaners use cleaning products more than just once, and if they are not using fresh disinfectant every time then they are effectively just spreading the infection.”

Professor Donna Duberg, of St. Louis University, concurred. “Our bodies are designed to handle a certain number of bacteria,” she said. “We use way too many antibacterial agents,” which can lead to resistant bacteria. “I personally believe there isn’t anything that good, hot soapy water can’t clean.”

Antibacterials, particularly triclosan, have been linked to a host of hazards, from bacteria resistance to endocrine disruption and environmental persistence. To learn more about these increasingly common products, visit our antibacterials program page.

Sources: Cardiff University, ABC News, Reuters, The Telegraph

Posted in Antibacterial, Resistance, Triclosan by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

16
Jun

Rockport, Maine Passes Pesticide-Free Policy

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2008) Due to concerns of children being exposed to pesticides on the town’s fields, Rockport, Maine has adopted a new pest management policy that prohibits the use of toxic pesticides on town-owned property, according to the Knox County Times Reporter. The Rockport select board passed the policy unanimously. The policy mirrors that of Camden with a few slight changes concerning the pest management advisory committee. Alex Arau, the board member who introduced the policy, became concerned after realizing that pesticides were sprayed on the towns’ fields where children played in the grass and dirt.

Steve McAllister, Rockport commission member, told the Knox County Times Reporter, “Sixteen years ago, the conservation commission asked the selectmen not to use [chemicals]. We were assured that it was OK and told it was more important to rid the town of dandelions than worry about chemicals.”

“Times have changed and it is time for us to look at how we manage our fields differently,” Mr. Arau told the paper.

The growth of the pesticide-free zone movement around the country and the passage of pesticide-free public land policies are very promising. Most recently, the General Services Administration has begun implementing an organic lawn pest management program, using organic fertilizer on the grounds of all its federal buildings in the National Capital Region. Over four acres of Washington, DC’s National Mall has been maintained organically by the National Park Service (NPS) over the past year. Voorhees, New Jersey parks are pesticide-free and posted with “Pesticide Free Zone” ladybug signs.

For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, please visit our Lawns & Landscapes program page. To find a service provider that practices least- or non-toxic methods, visit the Safety Source for Pest Management.

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Lawns/Landscapes, Maine, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
2 Comments

13
Jun

Study Finds Organic Milk Healthier

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2008) A recent study by Newcastle University, published in the Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, finds that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk. The Nafferton Ecological Farming Group study finds that grazing cows on organic farms in the UK produce milk which contains significantly higher beneficial fatty acids, antioxidants and vitamins than their conventional ”˜high input’ counterparts. During the summer months, one of the beneficial fats in particular — conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA9 — is found to be 60% higher.”We have known for some time that what cows are fed has a big influence on milk quality,” explained Gillian Butler, livestock project manager for the Nafferton Ecological Farming Group at Newcastle University, who led the study. “What is different about this research is it clearly shows that on organic farms, letting cows graze naturally, using forage-based diet, is the most important reason for the differences in the composition between organic and conventional milk.“We’ve shown that significant seasonal differences exist, with nutritionally desirable fatty acids and antioxidants being highest during the summer, when the cows are eating fresh grass and clover.”

“As a result, our future research is focusing on how to improve the nutritional composition of milk during the winter, when cows are kept indoors and fed mainly on conserved forage.”

The study, which involved Newcastle scientists working with the Danish Institute for Agricultural Science, is part of the ongoing cross-European Quality Low Input Food project into animal health and welfare, milk quality and working towards minimizing the use of antibiotics in dairy production.

“This paper is a major milestone in the project and clearly shows that if you manage livestock naturally then it’s a win-win situation for both us and them,” said Professor Carlo Leifert, project coordinator.

The scientists also discovered interesting results from a group of low-input farms in Wales, which are not certified organic but use very similar production methods to organic farms (the main difference is the use of some mineral fertilizer and shorter withdrawal periods after antibiotic use). To reduce costs, these farmers calved all their cows in spring and grazed them throughout lactation, from March until November, resulting in milk being produced on an almost 100% fresh grass diet. Milk from these non-organic farms also have significantly higher levels of nutritionally desirable fatty acids and antioxidants, which is a direct result of the extensive outdoor rearing and fresh forage intake.

“These New-Zealand type dairy systems are not common in the UK, as weather conditions in many areas of the country make it unworkable,” explained Mrs Butler. “Therefore, milk from these farms is not available to the public as it’s mixed in with milk from conventional systems during processing.

“However, including these extremely extensive systems allowed us to clearly link the difference in milk quality to the dairy cows’ diets.”

Gordon Tweddle, of Acorn Dairy in County Durham, is a local supplier of organic milk. “We have believed for some time that organic milk is better for us and our customers tell us it tastes better,” he said. “It is satisfying to have the scientific explanation as to why it is also nutritionally better.”

Organic farmers Kevin and Lisa Engelbert from Nichols, NY are among the hundreds of family farmers in the United States who supply organic milk from pastured cows. “We’re glad to know that there is now a growing body of scientific evidence to support what we’ve always believed, which is that allowing our cows to eat their natural diet and exhibit their natural behavior on pasture has real benefits for consumers as well,” says Lisa Engelbert.

This current research confirms previous studies in the UK, which reported higher concentrations of omega 3 fatty acids in milk from organic production systems than conventional ones.

CLA, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E and carotenoids have all been linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. CLA is hugely popular in the U.S., where it is marketed as a nutritional supplement. However, synthetic supplements often contain compounds with a different chemical composition (isomer balance) than those occurring naturally in milk, resulting in an equal dose of both ”˜good’ (i.e. CLA9, omega-3 fatty acid, vitamin E and carotenoids) and ”˜less desirable’ fatty acids (i.e. omega-6 fatty acids and CLA10).

“Switching to organic milk provides an alternative, natural way to increase our intake of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, vitamins and antioxidants without increasing our intake of less desirable fatty acids and synthetic forms of vitamin E,” said Mrs. Butler. “In organic milk, the omega-3 levels increase but the omega-6 does not, which helps to improve the crucial ratio between the two.”

The study involved 25 farms across the UK in two contrasting areas of the UK — South Wales and the North East. The scientists looked at three different farming systems: conventional high input, organically certified, and non-organic sustainable (low-input).

The Nafferton Ecological Farming Group at Newcastle University collected 109 milk samples from 25 commercial farms categorised into the three different production systems: conventional high input; organically certified low input; and non-organic, low input. These samples were taken in August and October in 2004 and January, March and May the following year.

The group investigated the effects of seasonal and indoor/outdoor feeding differences on the milk’s fatty acid profile, and also compared individual carotenoids, stereo-isomers of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) or isomers of CLA. The higher levels of nutritionally desirable fatty acids found in the organic milk are CLA9, omega-3 and linolenic acid and the antioxidants/vitamins are vitamin E and carotenoids. The lower levels of undesirable fatty acids are omega-6 and CLA10.

The study is part of the ongoing Cross-European Quality Low Input Food project, which looks into animal health and welfare, milk quality, and working toward minimizing the use of antibiotics in dairy production. “This paper clearly shows that if you manage livestock naturally then it’s a win-win situation for both us and them,” says Professor Carlo Leifert, the project coordinator.

Michael Pollen, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food, said, “This study joins a growing body of science indicating strong links between what we feed our farm animals and the nutritional quality of what they feed us. Not only are you what you eat, but you are what what you eat eats too.”

The Cornucopia Institute, which has led investigations into violations by large-scale Aurora Organic Dairy, has published a scorecard and report on organic dairies in the U.S. For additional information on the organic movement, visit our program page.

Sources: Newcastle University, The Times, The Telegraph, Health News Digest

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, International by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

Archives

Categories

Most Viewed Posts

Using the Blog

Recent Comments

Admin / Feeds