On November 7, 2008, the Ontario government released a proposed new regulation containing the specifics of the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act, passed last June. Then, Ontario joined Quebec in restricting the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides but environmental and public health advocates said then that the new law preempted local by-laws and actually weakens protections in some municipalities with stronger local protections. There are over 55 municipalities in Canada where the residential use, but not sale, of pesticides is banned. The prohibition of these 85 substances is the latest step in this Act. The proposal contains:

Ӣ List of pesticides (ingredients in pesticide products) to be banned for cosmetic use
Ӣ List of pesticide products to be banned for sale
”¢ List of domestic pesticide products to be restricted for sale. Restricted sale products include those with cosmetic and non-cosmetic uses (i.e., a product that’s allowed to be used inside the house but not for exterior cosmetic use), and would not be available self-serve.

The 85 chemicals to be prohibited are listed under “Proposed Class 9 Pesticides” of the Act. Among the 85 pesticides banned for cosmetic use include commonly used lawn chemicals: 2,4-D (Later’s Weed-Stop Lawn Weedkiller), clopyralid, glyphosate (Roundup Lawn & Weed Control Concentrate), imidacloprid, permethrin (Later’s Multi-Purpose Yard & Garden Insect Control), pyrethrins (Raid Caterpillar & Gypsy Moth Killer), and triclopyr.

However, golf courses and sports fields remain exempt. The use of pesticides for public health safety (e.g. mosquito control) is also exempt. The proposed regulation would also allow for the use of new ”˜notice’ signs to make the public aware when low risk alternatives to conventional pesticides are used by licensed exterminators, such as the use of corn gluten meal to suppress weed germination in lawns.

The prohibition, once passed, would likely take effect in mid-April. Stores would be forced to remove banned products from their shelves or inform customers that the use of others is restricted to certain purposes. Residents must then dispose of banned products through municipal hazardous waste collection, and use restricted products for only prescribed purposes. Errant users would first receive a warning, but fines would later be introduced. By 2011, stores will be required to limit access to the pesticides, keeping them locked behind glass or cages and ensuring that customers are aware of limitations on use before taking them home.

In light on impeding legislation to restrict pesticide use, the Canadian division of Home Depot announced on April 22, 2008 that it will stop selling traditional pesticides in its stores across Canada by the end of 2008 and will increase its selection of environmentally friendly alternatives. Other garden supply and grocery stores have already stopped selling certain pesticides in Ontario.

This proposed prohibition would have the most impact on 2,4-D, the most popular and widely used lawn chemical. 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. A recent petition filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and supported by Beyond Pesticides calls for the cancellation of 2,4-D, its products and its tolerances in the U.S.

Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (Round-up) and permethrin have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomena. The health effects of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides show that: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 24 with neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants.

In his latest book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, America’s most irascible and hilarious curmudgeon turns a kind and benevolent eye toward brave, hardy, and hardworking souls around the country who have found ways to break free from corporate tentacles; redefine success in business, politics, and life in general; and blaze new pathways toward a richer and happier way of life, from the farmers’ cooperative that said “NO!” to Wal-Mart and thrived to the economists who got into the coffee business by accident and turned the entire industry on its ear.

Jim Hightower was raised in Denison, Texas, in a family of small business people, tenant farmers, and working folks. A graduate of the University of North Texas, he worked in Washington as legislative aide to Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas; he then co-founded the Agribusiness Accountability Project, a public interest project that focused on corporate power in the food economy; and he was national coordinator of the 1976 “Fred Harris for President” campaign. Mr. Hightower then returned to his home state, where he became editor of the feisty biweekly, The Texas Observer. He served as director of the Texas Consumer Association before running for statewide office and being elected to two terms as Texas Agriculture Commissioner (1983-1991).

During the 90’s, Jim Hightower became known as “America’s most popular populist,” developing his radio commentaries, hosting two radio talk shows, writing books, launching his newsletter, giving fiery speeches coast to coast, and otherwise speaking out for the American majority that’s being locked out economically and politically by the elites.

As political columnist Molly Ivins said, “If Will Rogers and Mother Jones had a baby, Jim Hightower would be that rambunctious child — mad as hell, with a sense of humor.”

Each month, he publishes a populist political newsletter, “The Hightower Lowdown,” which has received both the Alternative Press Award and the Independent Press Association Award for best national newsletter. He also broadcasts daily radio commentaries that are carried in more than 150 commercial and public stations, on the web, and on Radio for Peace International.

Mr. Hightower is a New York Times best-selling author, and has written seven books including, Thieves In High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country And It’s Time To Take It Back; If the Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates; and There’s Nothing In the Middle Of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.

Jim has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be – consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks. He is a modern-day Johnny Appleseed, spreading the message of progressive populism all across the American grassroots.

Attending the Forum
Beyond Pesticides’ 27th National Pesticide Forum, Bridge to an Organic Future: Opportunities for health and the environment, will be held April 3-4, 2009 at the Century Center in Carrboro, NC. Jim Hightower’s talk will take place on Saturday, April 4 at 7:00pm at the Community Church in Chapel Hill, about two miles from the Century Center. Shuttle service for Forum participants will be provided.

This national environmental conference, co-sponsored by Toxic Free North Carolina, will also feature panel discussions, workshops and talks by Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), AFL-CIO, and Philip and Alice Shabecoff, authors of the new book Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault on Our Children. Register online, members $65, non-members $75, students $35.

The second most common neurodegenerative disease affecting more than one million people in the U.S., Parkinson’s disease occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region of the brain are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nerve-signaling molecule that helps control muscle movement.

The new UCLA study is based on 324 cases and 334 control subjects that contributed risk factor and genetic data and genotyped for the DAT variants. For residential exposures, the researchers used a GIS computer model based on California state required Pesticide Use Reporting data, land use maps, and residential histories, estimating both maneb and paraquat exposure near study subjects’ homes. Estimates were also calculated for agricultural occupational maneb and paraquat exposure. Fifteen percent of the study subjects are considered both occupationally and residentially highly exposed to maneb and paraquat.

According to the study, an individual can have up to four DAT susceptibility alleles, two copies of the A clade 5’ region and two copies of the 9-repeat 3’VNTR. After assessing the interactions between exposure to both pesticide measures and the number of DAT susceptibility alleles, the researchers find that Parkinson’s patients are more likely to have been exposed to pesticides. High residential exposure to both paraquat and maneb between 1974 and 1999 more than doubled the risk of the disease, while occupational exposure increased the risk around 50 percent. When assessing the cumulative effect of susceptibility alleles, the researchers find a 50 percent increase in risk for carriers of more than two DAT susceptibility alleles as well as an allele dosage effect with increasing number of susceptibility alleles. High residential exposure to maneb and paraquat increased risk almost 3-fold in individuals who have one DAT susceptibility allele and 4.5 fold in those with two or more susceptibility alleles. Researchers do not believe that DAT susceptibility allele(s) are impacting risk for those not exposed to maneb and paraquat.

Paraquat and maneb have previously been linked to Parkinson’s disease. University of Rochester scientists discovered that the synergistic effects of paraquat and maneb target the nigrostriatal dopamine system and indicate progressive neurotoxicity with continuing exposure. Their findings show that while there are no or only marginal effects when these chemicals are administered individually, together they produce synergistic effects when given in combination. In another study, these researchers again chronically expose mice to a low-level combination of paraquat and maneb, resulting in significant reductions in locomotor activity, levels of striatal dopamine and dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra, more so than when exposed individually.

A laboratory study finds that “prenatal exposure to the pesticide maneb produces selective, permanent alterations of the nigrostriatal dopaminergic system and enhances adult susceptibility to paraquat exposure.” Additional studies show that exposure to maneb and paraquat during the post-natal and juvenile period causes Parkinson-like declines in dopaminergic neurons and makes the substantia nigra more susceptible to additional exposures in adulthood, “suggesting that developmental exposure to neurtoxicants may be involved in the induction of neurodegenerative disorders and/or alter the normal aging process.”

“Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”

The names of the 26 scientists were withheld from the public docket “because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research.” The stewardship agreements, which are intended to ensure that farmers honor the companies’ patent rights, do not allow planting GE crops for research. These have been in place for years, but according to the New York Times, scientists have now spoken out about them due to growing frustration.

“If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that come out of any research,” said Ken Ostlie, of the University of Minnesota, who was one of the 26 to sign the comment. Furthermore, Cornell University’s Dr. Elson J. Shields told the Times, the companies “have the potential to launder the data, the information that is submitted to EPA.”

Pressure from biotech companies, via these stewardship agreements, endangers the integrity of independent research, as well as the quality of GE research that can be produced. Fewer researchers may want to take on GE studies because of limitations and legal difficulties that may result. Those who do are unable to fight the corporations. “People are afraid of being blacklisted,” said Dr. Shields. “If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can’t do your job.”

GE crops raise controversy on a variety of issues, from health effects to insect resistance to legal and financial restrictions on growers. For more information, visit our Genetic Engineering program page, or past Daily News articles.

Venquest Trading, imported unregistered naphthalene mothballs from Taiwan and distributed them to retailers in California and the Pacific Northwest on 241 separate occasions. EPA’s Pacific Northwest region first discovered the company’s violations during a marketplace initiative to uncover illegal pesticide products. The agency’s Pacific Southwest office later conducted an inspection and uncovered violations at Venquest’s Oakland warehouse.

“Without proper labeling and registration, these illegal pesticides pose a serious threat to human health, particularly children’s health, who can mistake the mothballs for candy,” said Katherine Taylor, associate director of the EPA’s Communities and Ecosystems Division for the Pacific Southwest region. “Importing unregistered pesticides is a serious violation, as the registration process ensures we know what the pesticide contains, and that it is properly labeled with precautionary statements and directions for use.”

EPA has fined more than a dozen companies over the last several years for selling illegally imported mothballs. Importers, dealers and retailers can be fined up to $7,500 for each sale of illegal pesticide products. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticide products, like mothballs, must pass EPA’s risk assessment process to be registered. Although this process is often criticized for not being stringent enough and is plagued with many deficiencies and data gaps, only registered products can be sold and distributed in the U.S. EPA must also ensure that pesticide labels provide consumers with necessary information to use the products safely. Pesticides registered with the agency will have an EPA registration number on the label.

However, mothballs, which are made with either naphthalene or p-dichlorobenzene, both hazardous fumigants, can cause a range of short and long-term health effects, including cancer, blood, kidney, and liver effects. Mothballs, used to protect clothing and other fibers from moths, release harmful vapors which, when inhaled or absorbed through the skin, can cause headaches, dizziness, irritation on to the nose and throat, nausea, and vomiting. Mothballs can also be easily mistaken for candy and can tempt young children to touch, play and put them in their mouths. If ingested, mothballs can be fatal. However, there are many alternative to mothballs including the use of cloves, fresh rosemary, eucalyptus, lavender, and bay leaves to repel moths from clothing.

For more information on alternatives to mothballs, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Alternatives webpage.

Investigators in North Carolina, Florida and New Jersey, the three states where the international company grows its tomatoes, scrutinized the company’s records and charged it with ignoring laws intended to keep workers safe from toxic pesticide residue. The investigators alleged workers were sent into the fields too soon after dangerous chemicals had been sprayed. The case started three years ago when some workers gave birth to babies with severe birth defects. One mother gave birth to a baby with no arms or legs.The North Carolina Pesticide Board made its decision in closed session, and its members declined to comment on their reasons for dismissing most of the violations.

During testimony, some workers, including the mother of the limbless boy, said that they were frequently exposed to pesticides. They said the sprayers often came so close to them while they were working in the fields that chemical mists landed on their skin, making them sick and giving them rashes. However, Ag-Mart attorney Mark Ash says the company is not guilty of any of the worker safety charges. The remaining charges, he said, are based on the state’s misreading of Ag-Mart’s documents.

Officials with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, which investigated Ag-Mart and brought the charges, released only a brief statement. “We’re pleased that the board agreed with the department that willful violations of the law were committed,” spokesman Brian Long said. Some of the violations listed with the fine include: spraying fields with workers present; ordering workers to reenter recently sprayed fields before the required airing out (or reentry) period had passed; failing to provide protective equipment to workers; burning used pesticide containers next to fields and workers; applying pesticides up to three times as often as allowed by law; negligently using up to 18 different chemicals on their crops; and, intentionally ignoring state regulations pertaining to pesticides because “it felt that paying fines to the State was economically less expensive.”

On January 30, 2009, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) penalized Ag-Mart almost $1 million for similar violations, citing the company with hundreds of violations also cited in North Carolina that include denying state environmental inspectors access to facilities, applying pesticides more frequently than allowed by law and failing to provide proper ventilation for chlorine vapors in the tomato packing house- an incident which affected three DEP inspectors during a site visit.

Worker advocates called Thursday’s decision a sad ending to a case they once thought would protect farm workers from dangerous conditions in the fields. Fawn Pattison, head of the anti-pesticide group Toxic Free North Carolina, said the case exposes a need for a complete overhaul of state pesticide regulations. “It is really telling that this is the state’s most egregious case in history, the biggest case they’ve ever investigated, and they’ve only been able to uphold a tiny fraction of the charges,” Ms. Pattison said. “We just don’t have the kinds of laws and regulations that let us enforce in these kinds of cases, particularly if you get some high-paid lawyers involved.”

Ag-Mart has a history of state pesticide violations and use of extremely toxic pesticides, although in 2005 the company agreed to discontinue use of chemicals linked to reproductive risks, excepting methyl bromide, which is still in use. The company grows “UglyRipe” heirloom tomatoes and Santa Sweets grape tomatoes in a chemical-intensive operation.

This case highlights the dangers farmworkers face working in fields saturated with hazardous toxic chemicals and the lack of protection and redress they face. Farmworkers and their families are the most at-risk group for exposure to a variety of toxic chemicals used in agriculture, however pesticide poisonings are drastically underreported mainly because most are migrant workers. In August 2008, in light of this case, North Carolina adopted a new law intended to protect workers from retaliation if they report pesticide violations. The new law also requires more detailed record keeping of pesticide applications.

Fortunately, the baby born without arms or legs, Carlos Candelario, won a lawsuit against Ag-mart last March and the settlement will provide for Carlos and his medical needs for the rest of his life. Studies have since been published on the plight of these workers and the impacts on their children.

Freya Kamel, Ph.D.
Freya Kamel’s research interests focus on environmental determinants of neurologic dysfunction and disease, in particular, neurodegenerative disease. Dr. Kamel and her colleagues at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) examined the relationship of farm work-related exposures to subclinical neurobehavioral deficits in farmworkers. Deficits in neurobehavioral performance reflecting cognitive and psychomotor function related to the duration of work experience were seen in former as well as current farmworkers, and decreased performance was related to chronic exposure even in the absence of a history of pesticide poisoning. Thus, long-term experience of farm work is associated with measurable deficits in cognitive and psychomotor function.

Dr. Kamel participated in work on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large cohort study of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses in Iowa and North Carolina. Using data from the AHS, Kamel found that use of fungicides and organochlorine insecticides was associated with increased risk of retinal degeneration, the leading cause of blindness in adults. Another analysis found that prevalence of neurologic symptoms was related to moderate levels of exposure to organophosphate and organochlorine insecticides and fumigants.

The AHS is the setting for a nested case-control study of pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease called the Farming and Movement Evaluation or FAME Study. In collaboration with Caroline Tanner, M.D., Ph.D., at The Parkinson’s Institute, FAME investigated the relationship of Parkinson’s disease to pesticides and other farm-related exposures in a population with a well-documented history of pesticide exposure. The study also evaluated the role of other environmental neurotoxicants, lifestyle variables and genetic susceptibility.

Chensheng (Alex) Lu, Ph.D.
Alex Lu is an assistant professor of Environmental Exposure Biology at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health. His interests focus on the assessment of pesticide exposure resulting from indoor applications, agricultural spray drift, parental occupation, or from dietary intake. He would like to incorporate novel methods analyze the samples or to measure the exposure. His current research project includes using saliva samples as an alternative for biological monitoring, using Global Position Systems to assess children’s time-and-location in relation to their pesticide exposure, and assessing urban/suburban children’s long-term exposure to pesticides.

Dr. Lu co-authored, “Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides.” This study, published in a 2006 issue of Environmental Heath Perspectives, finds that switching children to an organic diet provides a “dramatic and immediate protective effect” against exposures to two organophosphate pesticides commonly used in U.S. agricultural production. “Immediately after substituting organic food items for the children’s normal diets, the concentration of the organophosphorus pesticides found in their bodies decreased substantially to non-detectable levels until the conventional diets were re-introduced,” says Dr. Lu.

Dr. Lu currently serves as an ad hoc member on the USEPA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel, and an ad hoc member on the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) grant peer-review panel.

Thomas Arcury, Ph.D.
Thomas Arcury is professor and research director in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, with cross-appointments in the Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, and the Maya Angelou Research Center on Minority Health. He is also Adjunct Professor of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, and Adjunct Professor of Health Education and Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Arcury is also the director of the newly created Center for Worker Health at Wake Forest University. He describes the Center as a “way to facilitate the interactions of people interested in occupational health.” Among other things the center will focus on materials and circumstances that have the potential of causing illness and disease.

Dr. Arcury is a medical anthropologist and public health scientists with a research program focused on improving the health of rural and minority populations. Since 1996, he has directed a program of research on occupational and environmental health and justice among the families of immigrant workers in rural communities. This research program, funded by grants from NIEHS and NIOSH, as well as state agencies, has examined pesticide exposure, green tobacco sickness, skin disease, injuries, and food security among migrant and seasonal farmworkers. He is also involved in a study of the occupational health of immigrant poultry workers. These projects have been undertaken within the framework of community-based participatory research. In addition to empirical studies, this program has developed and implemented educational programs for immigrant workers and health care providers to prevent exposures and improve treatment. Finally, he has worked with advocacy groups to use the results of this research to change occupational and environmental health regulations.

The researchers collected baseline urine samples from 78 enrolled children between the ages of six to ten years of age. About one-third of those children were diagnosed with head lice and subsequently treated with at least one over-the-counter permethrin lice treatment, a prescription lindane treatment, or both. Within seven days of the insecticide application, urine samples were again collected. The permethrin exposed children had significantly higher urinary pryrethoid metabolite levels in their post-exposure urine samples. Lindane metabolites were also elevated in urine samples after treatment. Interestingly, the study states, “Exposed participants appeared to have higher pre-exposure metabolite levels — likely from multiple treatments before enrollment — than unexposed participants.” Pentachlorophenol, a metabolite of lindane, was significantly higher in the urine of those children who used a lice treatment regardless of whether it was lindane-based. When looking at the children’s urinary pentachlorophenol and the three permethrin metabolite levels, the study authors unexpectedly found age-related differences. The middle age group of children, between the eight and eleven years old, had lower metabolite levels than the older or younger children. In addition, “For those participants whose urine samples were collected more than one day following exposure, a larger percentage of the pesticide metabolites would have been eliminated from the body before sample collection making it more difficult to ascertain if an exposure had occurred,” and thus possibly weakening the study results.

Permethrin is a possible human carcinogen and exposure is linked to possible endocrine disruption, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity and reproductive effects. Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids such as permethrin has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. Children are especially sensitive to the effects of permethrin and other synthetic pyrethroids. A study found that permethrin is almost five times more toxic to eight-day-old rats than to adult rats due to incomplete development of the enzymes that break down pyrethroids in the liver. Studies on newborn mice have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development. Additionally, researchers have documented low-dose effects permethrin, doses below one-one thousandth of a lethal dose for a mouse, on those brain pathways involved in PD. The effects are consistent with a pre-Parkinsonsian condition, but not yet full-blown Parkinsonism.

Lindane has long been used in the treatment of head lice, yet is widely known for its neurotoxic properties, causing seizures, damage to the nervous system, and weakening of the immune system. It is also a probable carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. Lindane is particularly toxic and is also bioaccumulative. When used on people, lindane is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Despite the fact that it has been banned in 52 countries and restricted in over 30 more, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to allow its use in the U.S., albeit with a Public Health Advisory issued in 2003 that states, “Lindane should be used with caution in infants, children, the elderly, patients with skin conditions, and patients with low body weight (less than 110 lbs).” The last remaining agricultural uses of lindane were cancelled in 2006. It was banned in California in 2000 because of high levels of water contamination. Following the ban, water contamination drastically declined, and an increase in head lice cases was not reported.

Head lice affect an estimated 12 million people in the U.S. each year, and are rapidly becoming resistant to over-the-counter and prescription medications. According to researchers on alternative lice treatments, one method for eliminating head lice that will not lead to resistant strains of lice is the use of hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, thus killing them.

“EPA’s announcement of the internal pilot is a positive step forward in developing an Agency policy that meshes with the demands of today’s green marketplace,” said Bill Balek, Director of Legislative Affairs of the Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association (ISSA).

According to Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, “Comparative claims and “green” standards can help consumers avoid poisonous pesticide products. EPA should through this program embrace its mission to provide the public with full disclosure of all pesticide product ingredients, potential hazards, inluding those known and untested, and information on product efficacy. Additionally, to maximize positive outcomes, this program should also assist the public with information on unnecessary and ineffective antimicrobial pesticide use, bacterial resistance, and “green” practices, such as cultural practices that can eliminate the conditions that invite harmful microbial activity without harmful pesticides.”

The purpose of the internal pilot program is to increase the understanding between EPA’s DfE scientists and the pesticide registration review staff as to what a review for environmental preferability entails and how that might interface with the pesticide registration process.

“The internal pilot announced by EPA is a prudent and necessary step in developing a ”˜green’ claims policy that ensures both the continued efficacy (performance) of disinfectants, and which allows purchasers to make informed decisions when selecting products with a preferred environmental, safety and health profile,” said Stephen Ashkin, President of The Ashkin Group.

The Work Group includes representatives from environmental, public health, education, user, and green cleaning groups, but the largest subgroup includes representatives from industry interests like Clorox, the Scott’s Company, and CropLife America. It was established for the purpose of making a policy recommendation in regard to allowing claims of environmental preferability for pesticide products including disinfectants. Current EPA policy prohibits such claims.

Under the internal pilot, both DfE and Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) staff will conduct concurrent evaluations of products previously recognized under the DfE program which mimic antimicrobial pesticide formulations. Upon completion of the evaluation, DfE and OPP scientists will discuss the results and consider modifications to the criteria and/or process of the review for environmental attributes. If, at that time, EPA sees benefit in continuation of a pilot program, the agency anticipates launching an “external pilot” that would presumably involve the participation of industry.

EPA also decided to evaluate a parallel approach by which “factual claims” could be made about a product’s ”˜green’ attributes and established a work group to develop options for further consideration.

Examples of conclusions from the prenatal exposure research include: BPA affects development of the male and female reproductive systems, increases susceptibility to breast cancer and alters behavior in adult animals; Phthalates decrease sperm production and increase body weight; and, dioxin affects male reproduction and the immune system.

Before a baby is born it is exposed to a myriad of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs interfere with the delicate system of vital hormones, glands and organs that control how a baby develops and functions throughout life. EDCs such as BPA, dioxin and phthalates can penetrate the womb and cause adverse effects at extremely low exposure levels. These chemicals are found in water bottles, food cans, dental resins, cleaning products, cosmetics, fragrances, packaging and construction material, cars, planes, recreational and electronic equipment, baby bottles, toys, and many other products that we come into contact with daily.

According to Dr. Theo Colborn, TEDX President and originator of the database, “The unprecedented global increases in endocrine-related disorders such as autism, other learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive problems, diabetes, obesity, thyroid problems, breast, prostate, and testicular cancer and more, signal the need for a crash program in ”˜inner-space’ research. The roles of contaminants in the womb must be addressed before it is too late.”

Chemical and product manufacturers state that we need more research to “prove” that chemicals cause harm. Researchers at TEDX say that for many chemicals, that is not true. They have reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on BPA, dioxin, and phthalates, and condensed their findings into an easy-to-use interactive website program. More chemicals will be added to the database in 2009.

Carol F. Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Executive Director of TEDX says, “The Critical Windows of Development presents the big picture of how endocrine disrupting chemicals affect numerous developing systems. It is an invaluable tool for scientists to guide future research, for medical professionals to promote reduced exposure, for the media to better inform the public, and to assure legislators of the need to create protective regulations.”

Beyond Pesticides fully supports the cancellation of this dangerous pesticide which has been associated with a host of adverse human impacts, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as water contamination and toxicity to aquatic organisms. The highly toxic chemical can be replaced by cost-competitive and effective management practices widely used in organic agriculture and lawn care.

As long as 2,4-D remains on the market, the public will continue to be exposed to, and suffer the effects of this chemical whose health impacts have long been ignored by EPA. Public health and environmental advocates believe it is time that EPA put science and the health of the public and the environment first and ban this dangerous chemical.

2,4-D is one of the most widely used herbicide for the control of broadleaf weeds in commercial agriculture and residential landscapes in the U.S. About 46 million pounds of 2,4-D are used annually, with 16 million pounds used in non-agricultural settings, such as golf courses, playing fields, and residential lawns. 2,4-D was considered eligible for reregistration by the EPA in 2005 with the publication of its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document. However, according to advocates, extensive important scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of 2,4-D have been ignored by the agency during its risk assessment process. These include scientific observations that 2,4-D is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. EPA has yet to finalize a screening program to assess endocrine disruption for pesticides. According to EPA’s RED document for 2,4-D, current data “demonstrate effects on the thyroid and gonads following exposure to 2,4-D, there is concern regarding its endocrine disruption potential.” Despite this finding, the agency found 2,4-D eligible for reregistration, a fact that advocates say illustrates EPA’s flawed risk assessment process.

Along with numerous health effects that continue to be ignored, EPA removed the additional (10X) safety factor instituted to protect children from pesticide exposure. The removal of this extra safeguard for children means that children playing on lawns and fields continue to be exposed to a chemical that has known and uncertain toxicological effects from which they are not adequately protected. In fact, there are several data gaps and uncertainties in the toxicological database for 2,4-D such as, according to the RED, concern for developmental and neurotoxic effects. 2,4-D is also commonly formulated with other toxic herbicides such as dicamba and mecoprop-p (MCPP). The agency has not evaluated the cumulative effects of these chemicals, even though they are growth regulators and have the same mode of action. As such, exposures and risks posed from this combination(s) of chemicals have gone unchecked.

2,4-D is one of the oldest registered herbicides in the US. Its association with a host of human effects, including cancer, promoted a Special Review of the chemical in 1986. A few years later in a unique move, several large pesticides companies with a common interest in keeping 2,4-D on the market formed the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data. In 2007, EPA decided not to initate a special review after all. 2,4-D, once part of the deadly duo of chemicals that made up Agent Orange, can also be contaminated with several forms of dioxin, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, a known carcinogen. Studies have also documented that once tracked indoors from lawns, 2,4-D can stay indoors (on carpets) for up to a year. 2,4-D is also absorbed by the body more easily in the presence of sunscreen, DEET and in the consumption of alcohol.

In 1984, Union Carbide was responsible for the 1984 gas leak in Bhopal, India. Forty tons of deadly gas was released. Seven thousand people died in the next few days and 15,000 have died since from illnesses related to the accident. Over 100,000 victims still suffer from illnesses because of this event. In a 1989 settlement, Union Carbide agreed to pay $470 million to victims. However, $330 million still has not been paid to the victims. In addition, the site is still heavily contaminated and residents are continuously being poisoned without access to clean drinking water.

Beyond Pesticides, with groups around the world, is part of an international campaign working to expose and hold Dow Chemical accountable for its wrongdoings. Aside from its liabilities in Bhopal, Vietnam and around the world, Dow AgroSciences, a division of Dow Chemical, produces many of the most hazardous pesticides on the market, which contaminate our bodies and the environment through a variety of exposure routes. Dow has also been a leader in obscuring the science and weakening the regulation of these and other deadly chemicals, according to activists.

Some worry that what happened in Bhopal could happen in the U.S. On the night of August 28, 2008 a pesticide waste tank exploded at Bayer’s Institute, West Virginia plant. One worker was killed, another injured, and the blast was heard in Mink Shoals, more than 10 miles away. Despite individual accounts of the resulting air pollution, Bayer officials assured the public that no chemicals had escaped the plant. An investigation of Bayer’s safety history and the area’s emergency response reveals a shaky safety record. The Institute plant, formerly owned by Union Carbide, also produces MIC, like the sister plant in Bhopal, India.

The Institute plant currently stores more than four times the amount of MIC than that which leaked in Bhopal. In 1994, then-owner of the plant, Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., estimated that a worst-case leak of the MIC stockpile could kill people in a 10-mile radius of the plant. Today, almost 26,000 people live within just three miles of the plant.

As of January 29, UDAF’s website carried a message from Clair Allen, director of UDAF’s Plant Industry department, saying, “The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food’s Organic Certification Program is in a state of flux at this time. Its future is dependent on action by the Utah Legislature as they consider which programs to continue funding during out economic downturn. Please do not download or send in documents relating to our Organic Certification Program until the issue is resolved. We expect to have this issue resolved by the end of the 2009 Legislative Session.”

Since the shuttering of the program, organic farmers have had to pay up to 10 times as much for private certification, often from California. UDAF typically charged between $50 and $2,500, and the tenfold difference is making a significant difference in farmers’ budgets. Mr. Allen showed little sympathy for affected growers, saying, “If all farmers went back to organic farming, we’d be starving by now, and that’s the reality. As far as organic certification is concerned, I’d rather cut programs than people.”

The loss of the organic certification program also ends the state’s law enforcement of its organic standards, which insured the integrity of UDAF certified products. “Utah’s program is a complete package,” said Miles McEnvoy, president of the National Association of State Organic Programs. “The difference with Utah’s program and that of other states is that only Utah has the authority to enforce national organic standards, providing more oversight to protect the integrity of the organic product.”

These developments may be a sign of the times at UDAF. Last year, it proposed making it illegal to list milk as free from artificial hormones, which was backed by rbST-manufacturer, Monsanto. Consumer input to UDAF is important in preserving policies and programs that protect human health and the environment. To comment, contact Larry Lewis, Utah Agriculture Department, at [email protected], or write Mr. Lewis at 350 N. Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT, 84114. You can also contact your state representatives and senators.

The findings of the report support a comprehensive United Nations’ assessment of world agriculture in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which in 2008 concluded that GM crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world. IAASTD experts recommended instead low-cost, low-input agroecological farming methods.

“U.S. farmers are facing dramatic increases in the price of GM seeds and the chemicals used with them,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the US-based Center for Food Safety and co-author of the report. “Farmers in any developing country that welcomes Monsanto and other biotech companies can expect the same fate – sharply rising seed and pesticide costs, and a radical decline in the availability of conventional seeds.”

According to the report, GM seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional, non-GM seeds, and the price disparity is increasing. From 80% to over 90% of the soybean, corn and cotton seeds planted in the U.S. are GM varieties. Thanks to GM trait fee increases, average U.S. seed prices for these crops have risen by over 50% in just the past two to three years. Exploitation of the food crisis has been extremely profitable for Monsanto, by far the dominant player in GM seeds. Goldman Sachs recently projected that Monsanto’s net income (after taxes) would triple from $984 million to $2.96 billion from 2007 to 2010.

The exorbitant cost of GM seeds is not the only problem. The vast majority of GM crops are not grown by or destined for the world’s poor, but instead are soybeans and corn used to feed animals, generate biofuels, or produce highly processed food products consumed mostly in rich countries. The report documents that nearly 90% of the global area planted GM crops in 2008 was found in just 6 countries with highly industrialized, export-oriented agricultural sectors in North and South America, with the U.S., Argentina and Brazil responsible for 80% of GM crops. The United States alone produced 50% of the world’s GM crops in 2008.

Despite more than a decade of hype, the biotechnology industry has not introduced a single GM crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance. In fact, the biotechnology industry’s own figures show that 85% of all GM crop acreage worldwide in 2008 was planted with herbicide-tolerant crops. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops – chiefly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready varieties used with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (active ingredient glyphosate), have increased overall use of chemical weed killers. Roundup prices in the U.S. have more than doubled in the past two years.

Meanwhile, biotech propaganda has obscured the huge potential of low-cost agroecological and organic techniques to increase food production and alleviate hunger in developing countries. The report mentions several such projects, such as push-pull maize farming, practiced by 10,000 farmers in east Africa. The enormously successful push-pull system controls weed and insect pests without chemicals, increases maize production, and raises the income of smallholder farmers.

“GM seeds and the pesticides used with them are much too expensive for Africa’s small farmers,” said Nnimmo Bassey, executive director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria and chair of Friends of the Earth International. “Those who promote this technology in developing countries are completely out of touch with reality.”

TAKE ACTION: Currently the U.S. Department of Agriculture is accepting comments until March 17, 2009 on new rules on GM and pharmaceutical crops that would significantly weaken oversight of all GM crops, and which continue to allow companies to grow feed crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals, according to the Center for Food Safety. For more information on these proposed rules and to sign a petition for stronger regulations, click here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also accepting comments on GM crops. Comments are being accepting until March 6, 2009 on Monsanto’s second application to extend its experimental use permit for GM soybeans engineered with the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

The huge die-off of lobsters began in 1999, days after towns in Fairfield County, Westchester County and Long Island, as well as New York City, sprayed malathion to kill mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus. Also at that time, remnants of hurricane Floyd drenched the state and washed the pesticide into Long Island Sound. The DEP, however, says the storm caused many other factors that led to the mass die-off. However, the lobster population has yet to recover. State lawmakers find DEP’s position on malathion puzzling. Rep. Richard Roy (D-Milford), chair of the House Environment Committee, and Senate Assistant Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwal) are questioning DEP about its efforts to restore the state’s lobster industry while ignoring industry experts on the effects of pesticides lobstermen say continue to kill the animals. To date, Connecticut has spent $1 million trying to restore the lobster fishery and could spend another $200,000 on the program.

“They’re trying to restore an industry, but they don’t listen to the industry about potential problems with pesticides. That’s odd,” Rep. Roy said. “It doesn’t make much sense to work to restore the lobster fishery if we’re allowing chemicals to keep killing the lobsters.”

“It’s time we stop looking at Long Island Sound like it’s just a recreational body of water and start looking at it like it’s a job site. We lost an entire industry on the Sound,” said Rep. Duff. “If we had a massive die-off on a farm in northern Connecticut, you can bet the DEP would still be conducting tests and would ban everything to find out why. I don’t understand why it’s different with the Sound.”

President of the Connecticut Lobstermen’s Association, Nick Crismale, says that restoration to the fishery would not succeed if the use of malathion were to continue. “We know. We were there. We saw what can only be the effects of pesticide poisoning. If the DEP doesn’t do something about the pesticides, there’s no way we can restore the lobsters,” says Mr. Crismale.

The DEP insists that water conditions, as well as a parasite killed the lobsters rather than a particular chemical. However, the School of Pathobiology and Veterinary Medicine at the University of Connecticut, in a test it conducted in 2003, found even minute traces of malathion can have lethal effects on lobsters. According to the UConn study, 0.55 parts per billion of malathion – equivalent to a teaspoon of chemical in an Olympic-sized swimming pool – either kills lobsters outright or severely degrades its immune system.

Mr. Crismale notes that attempts at the Lobster Institute of the University of Maine to infect healthy lobsters with the parasite the Stony Brook report cited failed. “A healthy lobster killed the parasite,” he said. “Lobsters affected by pesticides died. You be the judge.” To this he adds that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence for the DEP to act on the side of caution.

“We really don’t know what the killed the lobsters,” Mr. Crismale said. “But we are trying to bring them back, and we are spending money. I think the only way to find out is to begin to eliminate possible causes. We can’t do much to change the water temperatures. We can do something about pesticide use. If we eliminate the pesticide, and the lobsters get better, then we know we’re onto something.”

Malathion, used by many states as part of a mosquito control program, is an organophosphate (OP) insecticide that contaminates many water resources across the country. Malathion, like many other organophosphates, is linked to a host of adverse human and environmental. OPs are neurotoxic, disrupting normal nerve impulse transmission in organisms. Research shows that organophosphates are toxic to amphibians, birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey study found malathion’s breakdown product 10-100 times more toxic to amphibians than the parent product. Many OPs are already banned in England, Sweden and Denmark.

FLOC President Baldemar Velásquez was raised as a migrant farmworker. Since his childhood, he has worked in the fields and orchards of many states from Texas to the Midwest. He suffered the oppression and discrimination of migrant workers, and watched his parents humiliated many times from the injustices they experienced trying to support their family. Finally, after one incident when his father was cheated out of promised wages in front of the family, Baldemar began organizing migrant workers to stand up for their rights. Following the model of César Chávez, this protest led to the founding of FLOC.

As he struggled for justice for farmworkers, Baldemar realized that it was the agricultural corporations, rather than the growers, who control the conditions which affect farm laborers. The focus of FLOC became changing the structure of the agricultural industry through three-way negotiations among the major parties involved in agricultural production (farmworkers, growers, corporations). In 1978, Baldemar led over 2,000 FLOC workers on strike, the largest in agricultural history of Midwest, who demanded union recognition and a multi-party bargaining agreement. The following year, FLOC held its first constitutional convention as a labor union, and the workers voted to boycott Campbell Soup in their call for negotiations.

FLOC and their supporters struggled for eight years to win justice for farmworkers. In 1983, Baldemar led a 600-mile march of 100 farmworkers from Toledo, Ohio, to Campbell’s headquarters in Camden, N.J. Such actions and the pressure of supporters through the boycott eventually convinced Campbell Soup that the issue was not going away. In 1986, FLOC signed three-way contracts with Campbell Soup and its tomato and pickle grower associations in Ohio and Michigan.

These contracts changed the structure of agricultural industry, so that now farmworkers have an equal and direct voice in those conditions that affect their well-being. The FLOC movement has made labor history in bringing in different components of the industry into negotiated agreements. This victory was soon extended with Heinz and other major food-processing corporations in the Midwest, as well as fresh-market producers. Under union contracts, some 8,000 workers, many who had worked under an exploitive “share-cropping” arrangement, received employee status, and wages and benefits more than doubled. New housing in migrant camps and other conditions also significantly improved. Another important gain is that under grievance procedures, FLOC workers also have a direct voice in their day-to-day working conditions.

In 1998, FLOC began organizing farmworkers in North Carolina, the other major region in the U.S. where pickles are produced. After organizing thousands of farmworkers and a 5-year boycott of Mt. Olive Pickles, FLOC signed contracts in 2003 with the North Carolina Growers Association, which included workers involved with not only pickles, but also sweet potatoes, tobacco, Christmas trees, and other crops.

These contracts also set labor history, not only by changing the agricultural system but by also bringing in H2A “guest workers” under union contracts. Formerly, these workers had little say in who employed them or in the conditions of their work. Now through their union, they have their own direct voice, and are now directly involved in labor negotiations, grievance procedures, and building structures to address issues like transportation from their home areas in Mexico, health care, and immigration policies.

Baldemar’s vision and convictions continue to drive the efforts of FLOC in winning justice for migrant workers. He has become a recognized grass-roots leader and diplomat in the farm labor movement, immigrant rights movement, and social justice movements in the U.S. and around the world. His creativity and commitment to justice and human dignity have led to recognition by many labor, government, academic, and progressive organizations.

Monsanto’s permit on these GE soybeans was first granted by EPA in September 2007 and then extended in April 2008. Under the permit, plantings are permitted through July 31, 2009. Monsanto is requesting to extend the experimental program until December 31, 2010 and amend it by conducting tests with up to 0.466 pounds of Bt Cry1Ac protein in soybeans on 1,362 acres, according to the February 4th Federal Register notice. The testing trials will take place in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Virginia. Following the review of the application and any comments and data received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register. Comments must be submitted by March 6, 2009.

There is some debate on what President Obama’s new administration’s position will be on GE crops as there is no reference to this issue on the White House website, www.whitehouse.gov. There are, unfortunately, signs that make some worry. For instance, during the presidential election, Obama responded to ScienceDebate2008’s questions on a number of issues, including GE, in which he stated, “Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe that we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice. And, according to the article “Obama’s Team Includes Dangerous Biotech ”˜Yes Men,’” published in the Huffington Post, President Obama’s new Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was “co-creator and chair of the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.”

Yet, there is still a chance for the promised change with President Obama’s new EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. In her recent testimony at her Senate confirmation hearing and open letter to EPA employees, Ms. Jackson pledges a return to scientific integrity and agency transparency. Environmental groups, which have been frustrated by years of unresponsive regulators, hope that Ms. Jackson’s EPA will use this promise of scientific integrity and transparency to increase protections for human health and environment that have been ignored, removed, or spent years in the system waiting for action.

Many feel the incorporation into food crops of genes from the natural bacterium, Bt, or the development of a herbicide resistant crop, as an approach to pest management is short sighted and dangerous. GE crops have encountered resistance from advocates throughout the world with concerns of insect resistance, superweeds, contamination of other plants from the same species through pollen drift, impact on human health, wildlife and other non-target organisms, soil contamination, hidden allergens, religious and moral considerations, antibiotic resistance, and unreasonable business contracts with farmers. A recent report by organic group the Soil Association, concludes that yields of all major GM varieties are equivalent to, or less than, those from conventional crops.

On November 10, 2008, the Austrian government released a report of long term research showing GE corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. Similar effects were found in mice fed GE corn and bred over four generations. Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) have been a boon to Monsanto’s profits, but not without environmental costs. Currently grown Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets. The crops’ resistance to glyphosate enables the use of the herbicide during the growing season without harming the crop itself. Glyphosate is now the number one herbicide in the United States. This has serious implications for public health and the environment, as glyphosate has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, kidney and liver damage, and skin irritation; it is neurotoxic and toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Increased herbicide usage has also led to resistant varieties of “superweeds.” Over 70% of all GE crops are altered to be herbicide-resistant.

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

The long-term environmental effects of GE crops are largely unknown, and this was the premise of a recent successful lawsuit that Beyond Pesticides joined with other environmental and consumer groups. In September, a federal court upheld a ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa. The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers.

Environmental and public health groups believe that, at a very minimum, labeling as a means of identifying products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are critical and complete regulatory review of all GE crops, which is currently not the case. Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides, and focuses on building the soil—minimizing its effect on climate change.