(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rolled out proposed guidance for new pesticide labeling in an effort to reduce off-target spray and dust drift. According to EPA, the actions detailed in the draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice on Pesticide Drift Labeling, when implemented, are projected to help improve the clarity and consistency of pesticide labels and help prevent harm from spray drift. The agency is also requesting comment on a petition to evaluate children’s exposure to pesticide drift. Last month, a petition filed by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice asked EPA to set safety standards protecting children who grow up near farms from the harmful effects of pesticide drift. The groups also asked the agency to adopt an immediate no-spray buffer zone around homes, schools, parks and daycare centers for the most dangerous and drift-prone pesticides. According to the agency, the new instructions are said to prohibit drift that could cause “adverse health or environmental effects,” by evaluating scientific information on risk and exposure based on individual product use patterns on a pesticide-by-pesticide basis. These assessments will help the agency determine whether no-spray buffer zones or other measures, such as restrictions on droplet or particle […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2009) Environmental and farm groups are asking the Senate to reject the Obama Administration pick for chief agriculture trade representative because of positions that he has taken in support of genetically modified organisms as a spokesman for the agrichemical industry, his attack of the European Union (EU) moratorium on genetically engineered crops as lacking “sound science,” and his organization’s outright opposition to organic agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama’s efforts to advance organic gardening. Groups are calling for the rejection of the nomination of Islam Siddiqui, PhD, vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, to be the chief agricultural negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Dr. Siddiqui’s confirmation is scheduled for today in the Senate Finance Committee. The National Organic Coalition (NOC) sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance intending “to bring to the committee’s attention serious concerns and questions” surrounding the nomination of Dr. Siddiqui, including positions that promoted hazardous and unnecessary chemical dependency, as well as his advocacy of genetically modified organisms. NOC states in its letter that, “We have no reason to believe that, at this time, [Dr. Siddiqui’s] history of positions makes […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2009) Ireland has passed a policy banning the cultivation of all genetically modified (GM) crops and introducing a voluntary GM-free label for food — including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed as a way “[t]o optimize Ireland’s competitive advantage as a GM-Free country.” The policy is a part of the Renewed Programme for Government agreement that was adopted in October and is supported by many stakeholder groups, including the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association who have been working on this issue since 2004. The passage of the policy is at a time when the international market for GM-free animal produce is growing rapidly. Across Europe, hundreds of leading food brands and dozens of leading retailers now offer premium meat, fish, eggs, poultry eggs and dairy produce made without the use of GM feedstuffs. These are backed by GM-free labels and Government regulations in Austria, Italy, Germany, with France to follow later this year. Sales of GM-free milk have skyrocketed since the label came into effect in Germany. In the U.S., to which Ireland exports vast quantities of dairy produce (including milk powder and casein for cheese […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Samsung for violating the federal pesticide law when it publicized that its keyboards, produced with nanosilver, were antimicrobial and inhibited germs and bacteria without registering its products with EPA. The claims made on the company’s labels and promotional material for netbook and notebook computer laptops would render the products pesticides, requiring registration by EPA. Dell also has keyboards treated with nanosilver for antimicrobial purposes which are registered with EPA. Nanosilver has been promoted for its antibacterial properties and is used in many products such as sporting goods, band-aids, clothing, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. However, very little is known about where these particles end up when such products are put to use. Many consider silver to be more toxic than other metals when in nanoscale form and that these particles have a different toxicity mechanism compared to dissolved silver. Scientists have concluded that nanoparticles can pass easily into cells and affect cellular function, depending on their shape and size. Preliminary research with laboratory rats has found that silver nanoparticles can traverse into the brain, and can induce neuronal degeneration and necrosis (death of cells […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined a Minden, Nevada-based ornamental tree nursery for misusing pesticides contrary to labeling requirements and failing to comply with federal pesticide worker safety laws. Genoa Tree Nursery misused the pesticide Diazinon AG500 during applications in May and June 2008. The company failed to comply with label directions that require it to minimize the risk of exposure by notifying workers and handlers of recent pesticide applications on particular fields, and failed to provide workers with nearest emergency medical care facility information in case of exposure. The applicator also did not receive safety training during the previous five years as required by law. EPA fined Genoa Tree Nursery a mere $5,440 for these violations. “Notifying employees about potentially harmful pesticide exposure is not just a good idea, it’s the law,” said Katherine Taylor, EPA’s Communities and Ecosystems Division associate director for the Pacific Southwest region. “Employers of agricultural workers must ensure their employees are provided with information and protections that minimize the risk of potential exposure to pesticides””failure to do so is a serious violation.” The Nevada Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during a routine inspection in June 2008. The […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2009) Nanotech consumer products have now crossed the millennial threshold. Over 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled products have been made available to consumers around the world, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). The most recent update to the group’s three-and-a-half-year-old inventory reflects the increasing use of the tiny particles in everything from conventional products like non-stick cookware, to antibacterial clothing and sporting supplies. Health and fitness items continue to dominate the PEN inventory, representing 60 percent of products listed. More products are based on nanoscale silver””used for its antimicrobial properties””than any other nanomaterial; 259 products (26 percent of the inventory) use silver nanoparticles. “The use of nanotechnology in consumer products continues to grow rapidly,” says PEN Director David Rejeski. “When we launched the inventory in March 2006 we only had 212 products. If the introduction of new products continues at the present rate, the number of products listed in the inventory will reach close to 1,600 within the next two years. This will provide significant oversight challenges for agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission, which often lack any mechanisms to identify nanotech products before they enter the marketplace.” The widespread use […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2009) In a letter to Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), the national trade association representing producers and suppliers of specialty pesticides and fertilizers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clarifies for pesticide companies federal pesticide label regulations and the agency’s position on use of false and misleading claims like “Professional Strength.” The letter, dated May 15, 2009 and posted on EPA’s website last week, addresses pesticide products that are sold and distributed and labeled “Professional” and “Professional Grade” among others, in product names and advertising. EPA finds that such statements are “inappropriate.” According to the letter, “Section 12 (a) (1) (E) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states that it is unlawful to distribute or sell ”˜any pesticide which is”¦.misbranded.’ A pesticide is misbranded if ”˜its labeling bears any statement, design or graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular.’ FIFRA § 2(q)(1)(A) [emphasis added]. The following describes why EPA finds use of “Professional Grade” in these products’ labeling and marketing to be a false and misleading claim and therefore unacceptable.” The letter continues, “”¦’Professional Grade’ implies a falsehood that pesticides are classified […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2009) Whole Foods Market, a leading natural and organic grocery chain, recently announced a commitment to the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit collaboration of manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers, to use the Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program (PVP) in connection with Whole Foods Market’s private label products. The 365 Every Day Value and Whole Foods Market brands will be enrolled in the program, with the first products arriving on shelves this Fall. While Federal law requires organic producers to comply with certain non-genetically engineered (GE) requirements identified in the USDA organic standards, there is no standard for labeling them in non-organic products. The PVP is the first system in the U.S.designed to scientifically test whether a product has met a set of defined standards for the presence of GE organisms (also known as GMOs, or genetically modified organisms). “From the moment GMOs were approved for use in the U.S., we recognized the need for transparency, but there was no definitive standard by which to evaluate or label products,” said Margaret Wittenberg, Whole Foods Market global vice president of quality standards. “We searched high and low for years for a way to do this […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2009) Recent news that Dean Foods intends to launch a “natural milk” brand has organic consumers and retailers concerned. Horizon, a strictly organic brand up until now, is poised to sell products that are not certified organic. This new product category will offer conscientious consumers what appears to be a cheap alternative to organic, when in fact it is nothing more than a conventional product in a fancy package. Despite recent news that the organics industry as a whole continues to grow in this economy, encouraging consumers to steer away from the certified organic label with misleading product claims purports to devastate the organic movement and organic family farm. “This move by Dean Foods comes at a time when organic dairy farmers around the country are in financial crisis due to a glut of milk,” says Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. “Responsible participants in this industry are using their marketing strength to ramp up organic demand. Dean has instead chosen to profiteer at the expense of the hard-working family farmers who have built this industry.” The USDA Organic Label is intended to show consumers that the product adheres to uniform […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2009) In April 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is intensifying its evaluation of spot-on pesticide products for flea and tick control for pets due to recent increases in the number of reported incidents. Adverse reactions reported range from mild effects such as skin irritation to more serious effects such as seizures and, in some cases, the death of pets. Incidents with flea and tick products can involve the use of spot-on treatments, sprays, collars and shampoos. However, the majority of the incidents reported to EPA are related to flea and tick treatments with EPA-registered spot-on products. Spot-on products are generally sold in tubes or vials and are applied to one or more localized areas on the body of the pet, such as in between the shoulders or in a stripe along the back. This advisory pertains only to EPA-registered spot-on flea and tick products; these products have an EPA registration number on the label. EPA now is evaluating all available data on the pesticides, including reports of adverse reactions, clarity of product use directions and label warnings, product ingredients, market share, and pre-market safety data submitted to the Agency. EPA says […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2009) Farmers, consumers and civil society organizations in Australia, Canada and the U.S. released a joint statement confirming their collective commitment to stop commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) wheat. In 2004, global pressure prevented biotechnology company Monsanto from pushing GE wheat onto an unwilling market. The statement, “Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Engineered Wheat,” was released to counter the May 14 “Wheat Commercialization Statement,” released by industry lobby groups in the three countries. The industry pledged to “work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops.” The joint statement was released by 15 groups in Australia, Canada and the U.S., including the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. and the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia, and counters the six stated industry arguments in favour of GE wheat. “GE wheat is a potential disaster of huge proportions,” said Terry Bohem, Vice President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. “We refuse to allow Monsanto and industry groups to restart any campaign to commercialize GE wheat.” The group statement centers on the pledge: “In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2009) U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Chair Emeritus John D. Dingell (D-MI), and Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NY), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Betty Sutton (D-OH), released a “discussion draft” of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, which they say will improve food safety by making the food supply more transparent, inspections of food facilities more frequent and requiring manufacturers to take steps to prevent food-borne illnesses. Sustainable agriculture advocates warn that a one-size-fits-all approach would require expensive investments beyond the reach of most small farms and processors, and could potentially put some out of business. The Committee has scheduled a legislative hearing for June 3, 2009. The draft language is largely based on the food provisions of H.R. 759, the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009, introduced in January by Reps. Dingell, Stupak, and Pallone. The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 incorporates technical assistance from the Obama Administration as well as other stakeholders. According to Rep. Waxman, the legislation grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authorities and resources it needs to better ensure the safety of the nation’s […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2009) On May 19, 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) released a position paper on genetically engineered (GE) foods stating that, “Genetically engineered foods pose a serious health risk,” and calling for a moratorium on GE foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes “there is more than a casual association between genetically engineered foods and adverse health effects” and that “GE foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.” The AAEM’s position paper on genetically engineered foods can be found on its website. “Multiple animal studies have shown that GE foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body,” said Amy Dean, M.D., public relations chair and board member of AAEM. “With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GE foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.” The AAEM calls for: — A moratorium on GE food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GE food. — Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GE foods. — Physicians to consider […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2009) In a report of fines that safety advocates say are representative of typical and daily pesticide poisoning and contamination incidents nationwide, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) documents the application of pesticides through irrigation systems without properly safeguarding water sources from potential contamination, a failure to notify persons who are sensitive to pesticides of pending pesticide applications, and noncompliance with proper personal protective equipment requirements. The fines issued by the state for violations of state pesticide laws and rules range from $350 to $5,200. WSDA completed investigations across the state, including incidents involving Adams, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, King, Snohomish, Spokane, Whitman and Yakima counties. The agency issued fines or license suspensions in the following cases: ”¢ Timothy Bjarnason, an employee of CHS Inc. in Mead, was fined $450 and his license was suspended for seven days. In May 2008, Bjarnason applied a herbicide to a wheat field near Mead. The spray tank had not been properly cleaned from a previous application of a different herbicide. Residues damaged part of the wheat field he was treating. ”¢ Cameron Calaway, CK Agri LLC, Mattawa, was fined $850 and his license was suspended for six days. In […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2009) Stating that it represents a danger to the environment, Germany’s Federal Minister for Nourishment, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner, announced an immediate ban on Monsanto’s MON810 genetically engineered (GE) maize yesterday. Claiming the decision is based on science and is an individual case, not a broad banning of all GE crops, Ms. Aigner stated, “Genetic engineering must include a complete guarantee of the security for person, animal, plant and environment.” Environmentalists, scientists and farmers opposed to GE crops have argued that the corn, which confers resistance to pests, could pollute other crops and pose a threat to the environment and human health. The debate over the use of GE crops in Europe has been ongoing for at least a decade. MON810 maize, brand name YieldGard, is the only GE crop currently cultivated in the European Union (EU). Under EU laws, countries are allowed to ban individual GE crops for environmental and health reasons. Currently, Hungary, France, Austria, Greece and Luxembourg ban MON810 maize. In March, EU environment ministers overwhelmingly rejected a European Commission proposal to force Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on the controversial cultivation of varieties of genetically modified (GM) corn. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2009) Earlier this month, European Union environment ministers overwhelmingly rejected a European Commission proposal to force Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on the controversial cultivation of varieties of genetically modified (GM) corn. Over 20 member states voted against the Commission proposal. Hungary can maintain its ban on Monsanto’s GM maize MON810, and Austria on MON810 and Bayer’s T25. “This is a victory for the environment, farmers and consumers, and a major embarrassment for the Commission. For the fourth time, EU governments have rejected a Commission proposal to lift national bans on GM crops. What part of ‘no’ does the Commission not understand?” said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director. Austrian and Hungarian scientific authorities have recently supplied new evidence supporting their national bans showing that MON810 maize – the only GMO currently cultivated in the EU – is likely to have harmful environmental effects. Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said, “The European Commission has once again failed to force countries to lift their national GMO bans. Today’s vote is a clear message that European countries will not be bullied into taking unsound decisions regarding their environment, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2009) On February 24, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency settled with an Oakland, California, importer for $61,000 for allegedly selling and distributing illegal mothballs, a violation of federal pesticide laws. The importer is accused of distributing unregistered naphthalene mothballs from imported from Taiwan. 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 […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently soliciting comments on Monsanto’s second application to extend its experimental use permit for soybeans genetically engineered (GE) with the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This will be the new administration’s first test on how it handles the issues surrounding GE crops. Among a number of concerns regarding GE crops, crops engineered to contain Bt threaten the long-term efficacy of Bt, which is an approved insecticide in organic farming. 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, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 24, 2008) Acknowledging the critical need for in-depth review of products utilizing nanotechnology pesticides, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 60-day public comment period in response to a petition filed by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) which demands the agency stop the sale of numerous consumer products with nano-silver. In the Federal Registry notice released Wednesday, EPA determined that ICTA’s petition “raises serious issues that potentially affect private and public sector stakeholders” and is instituting a 60-day period for public comment. EPA will review the petition and any comments received “before deciding how best to respond to the petition.” ICTA filed a legal petition in May 2008 challenging EPA’s failure to regulate nanomaterials in pesticides. The 100-page petition addresses the serious human health concerns raised by these unique substances, as well as their potential to be highly destructive to natural environments, and calls on the EPA to fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, regulate nano products as new pesticides, and require labeling of all products. “It’s unfortunate that it has taken seven months, but the agency has taken the first step towards potential regulation of these products and protection of the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2008) Activists and individuals concerned about misleading claims on pesticide labeling scored a victory on Wednesday when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew its draft notice on label statements regarding cause marketing and third-party endorsements. After a two-year process of EPA proposals and public comment periods, the agency has determined that such label statements do nothing to promote “consumer understanding” of the risks and applications of pesticide products, and will not be encouraging further submissions. In its notice, EPA writes, “The Agency agrees that cause marketing claims and third-party endorsements as outlined in the draft PR Notice generally would not contribute meaningfully to improving protection of human health and the environment. The addition of such statements is not likely to enhance users’ ability to understand the labeling required to inform the user about how to use the product safely and effectively. In fact, the addition of such statements could interfere with that goal. In addition, EPA recognizes that its resources are limited and should be targeted towards activities that will enhance the level of protection of human health and environment from pesticides.” In 2006, The Clorox Company submitted an application to EPA to add cause marketing […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2008) Beyond Pesticides and the other members of the National Organic Coalition (NOC) recently sent a letter outlining their concerns over the development of “sustainable” agriculture labeling standards, which are currently under discussion and entering the first phase of draft standards-setting, overseen by the Leonardo Academy under the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines. The coalition, along with many other organic farming advocates, say they cannot support a “sustainable” label because of what appears the inevitability that it will be “less than organic,” thus reversing progress organic agriculture has made in recent decades and “effectively driving markets to lower standards” that do not protect human health and the environment. After a long fought battle by organic advocates to maintain organic integrity under a national standard, organic agriculture has emerged not only as the most stringent standard for ensuring environmental and human health, it has also gained widespread consumer acceptance in the market place. The NOC letter states: “With a sustainable standard, whether intentional or unintentional, consumers will undoubtedly be led to believe that, in supporting the standard, they are contributing to improved practices. In fact, they are slowing the growth of standards [organic] that are critical […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2008) One year after the USDA’s new regulation requiring raw almonds be treated with propylene oxide, a toxic fumigant recognized as a carcinogen by the U.S. EPA, went into effect, a group of fifteen American almond growers and wholesale nut handlers filed a lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. federal court on September 9th seeking to repeal the controversial USDA-mandated treatment program for California-grown raw almonds. The almond farmers and handlers contend that their businesses have been seriously damaged and their futures jeopardized by the requirement that raw almonds be treated with propylene oxide or steam-heated before they can be sold to American consumers. Foreign-grown almonds are exempt from treatment. They hope for a favorable decision in time to protect this year’s almond harvest. “The USDA’s raw almond treatment mandate has been economically devastating to many family-scale and organic almond farmers in California,” said Will Fantle, the research director for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. Cornucopia has been working with almond farmers and handlers to address the negative impacts of the USDA rule, including the loss of markets to foreign nuts. They also contend that the USDA requirement lacks scientific justification, does not address the unsustainable methods used […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2008) It was seen as a positive development when EPA this summer announced that, “Through recent settlements with four Puerto Rico farms, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending a message to farm owners that protecting their workers must be their first priority.” That is tough talk from an agency that has long been criticized for its abysmal record of instituting and enforcing even the most basic human health protections from pesticides for those who are responsible for planting and harvesting much of the nation’s food. And it turns attention to the larger question of whether the enforcement system that EPA has in place is adequate. This case started in October 2007 when EPA filed a complaint against four Puerto Rico farms for being in violation of the worker protection standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the settlement, each farm has agreed to pay a civil penalty, and to display information on pesticide applications, information on pesticide safety and emergency medical care, as well as to provide decontamination supplies for workers and handlers, personal protective equipment, and pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. The farms have agreed to […]