Although most studies of organophosphates focus on their neurotoxicity, there is increasing evidence that these agents may also have a lasting impact on metabolic function. According to authors, obesity and consequent type II diabetes are rising at epidemic rates in the U.S. and many other countries around the world. Two of three U.S. adults are now classified as overweight. There are epidemiologic links between pesticide exposure and diabetes, and the same subpopulations that have the highest rates of obesity””inner-city, low-socioeconomic-status, agricultural populations””are also those that have greater exposure to organophosphates and other pesticides.

The researchers chose parathion as a representative organophosphate. Neonatal rats were given the insecticide parathion on postnatal days 1—4 using doses (0.1 or 0.2 mg/kg/day) that straddle the threshold for barely detectable cholinesterase inhibition and the first signs of systemic toxicity. In adulthood, animals were either maintained on standard lab diet or switched to a high-fat diet for 7 weeks.

While both doses affected the rats’ metabolism, the researchers observed different effects in the males and females throughout the study. Male rats exposed to the low-dose of parathion outweighed contol rats on the same diet and also evoked signs of a prediabetic state, with elevated fasting serum glucose and impaired fat metabolism. The males exposed to the higher dose of parathion weighed similar to the control, but ate less.

Exposed females, on the other hand, weighed less than the control group with higher food consumption in the low dose group and normal food consumption in the high-dose group. This indicates a “wasting” condition, which was confirmed by the disruption of both glucose and lipid metabolism at both doses.

After reaching adulthood, half the rats were switched to a high-fat diet. While the change in diet did not impact males, the females showed dramatically different results, based on the exposure dose. The low dose group gained significantly more weight than the control after switching to the high-fat diet, whereas the high dose group reduced the dietary effect. Food consumption also showed major sex differences. High dose males showed less of a decrease in food consumption on the high-fat diet than did controls. In contrast, high dose females showed exactly the same pattern of decreased food intake as controls when placed on a high-fat diet.

Triclosan accumulates in fatty tissue and has been found in breast milk and urine. It has also been linked to hormone disruption and has contaminated most of the nation’s waterways. Its degradates are also known to be persistent, to bioaccumulate and interfere with the hormone system. Triclosan has also been implicated in antibacterial and antibiotic resistance, which has severe consequences in medical settings. In spite of these serious effects, EPA continues to allow triclosan uses in a wide range of products under its jurusdiction including toys, clothing, countertops and plastics.

In the RED document, EPA acknowledges that triclosan interacts with androgen and estrogen receptors and has effects on thyroid homeostasis in rat studies. The agency also mentions that it is aware of research looking at triclosan’s link to antibacterial and antibiotic resistance. However, the agency continues to be complacent on these serious impacts on public health by stating that it will continue to “monitor the science.” EPA also continues to ignore triclosan’s degradates and has once again failed to conduct any risk assessments for these hazardous chemicals. Methyl triclosan, a degradation product of triclosan, has been found to accumulate in fish, while DCP (2,4-dichlorophenol), another degradation product, is listed as a potential endocrine disruptor by the European Union and is an EPA priority pollutant. EPA also continues to ignore triclosan residues in fish and drinking water.

In addition, much of the triclosan RED is based on cumulative exposure estimates based on biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). While it might prove useful, this model estimates population exposures solely on NHANES data, a process that has not been subject to public review. Furthermore, EPA abandons its established methodology in favor of the new model, rather than supplement it.

In comments submitted to EPA in July by Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch, Greenpeace US, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and dozens of public health and environmental groups from the U.S. and Canada, the agency was urged to use its authority to cancel the non-medical uses of the antibacterial chemical triclosan in order to protect human health and the environment.

EPA has conceded however, that based on the ongoing research on triclosan, it would review the chemical again in 2013, 10 years earlier than scheduled.

TAKE ACTION: Let the EPA know that it is not doing all it could to protect public health and the environment from the serious and long-lasting impacts of the continued and unnecessary use of triclosan. Submit your comments at www. regulation.gov using docket number ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513 no later than December 29, 2008. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

You can also send your comments via mail to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

One adopted regulation will cause a list of approved “active substances” to be drawn up, according to which pesticides will be registered at a national level. It also allows EU states to be stricter than the allowable list. One amendment says, “Member states may establish any pesticide-free zones they deem necessary in order to safeguard drinking water resources. Such pesticide-free zones may cover the entire Member State.”

The second approved measure, passed on to Parliament by EU agricultural ministers in June, bans “certain highly toxic chemicals,” those being endocrine disrupting, genotoxic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction. Neurotoxic and immunotoxic chemicals may also be banned where they pose a significant risk. Provisional approval may be given to any of these chemicals if it “is needed to combat a serious danger to plant health.” This resolution states that “Member states should monitor and collect data on impacts of pesticide use, including poisoning incidents, and promote long-term research programmes on the effects of pesticide use.”

It also argues that, “In other places such as residential areas, public parks, sports and recreation grounds, school grounds and children’s playgrounds, and in the vicinity of public healthcare facilities . . . the risks from exposure to pesticides of the general public are high. Use of pesticides in those areas should, therefore, be prohibited.” It urged member states to promote alternatives, even saying, “A levy on pesticide products should be considered as one of the measures to finance the implementation of general and crop-specific methods and practices of Integrated Pest Management and the increase of land under organic farming.”

The report, by Christa Klass, passed 58-3, with two absentions. It also set quantitative targets. “Active substances of very high concern” and “toxic or very toxic” pesticides will be subject to “a minimum 50% reduction.” It also bans aerial spraying in general, allowing exceptions by approval, and restored a demand for buffer zones to the text.

While industry interest groups protested the restrictions, claiming yields will fall and prices will rise, MEPs and public health advocates dismissed them. “Human health must be given better protection,” said British MEP Caroline Lucas. “With today’s vote, MEPs have rejected industry scaremongering, and sent a clear message that they want to see a reduction in the use of dangerous chemicals.”

“We think these proposals are a step in the right direction,” said the Soil Association’s Lord Peter Melchett. “They could go further and the British government should be pushing for them – not opposing them.” According to the BBC, a final vote could come in December or January.

Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate https://www.beyondpesticides.org/gateway/pesticide/glyphosate.htm) 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.”

Although GE crops have encountered resistance from advocates throughout the world with concerns for health, organic farmers’ livelihoods, environmental contamination, and intellectual property, they have been widely adopted in Brazil as in the United States. The long-term environmental effects of GE crops are largely unknown, and this was the premise of a recent successful lawsuit for Beyond Pesticides and other environmental and consumer groups. In September, a federal court upheld a ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Brazil did not legalize GE crops until 2005, but prior to this, a considerable percentage of the country’s soy and cotton acreage was illegally grown GE crops. One of Monsanto’s reasons for investing in Brazil, in addition to what it views as the “untapped acres” available for production, is the country’s “improving support for intellectual property.” Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have been especially profitable for them because farmers are not legally allowed to save seeds; instead they are required each year to buy the patented seed from Monsanto.

According to Monsanto, over 17 million acres of sugarcane is grown in Brazil, and the company expects this number to jump 75% by 2017. Currently, sugarcane in Brazil is used to make both ethanol and processed sugar. While ethanol from sugarcane takes considerably less energy to produce than ethanol from corn, clearing land for agriculture removes biomass and degrades soils, releasing carbon into the atmosphere. The massive growth in production of biofuels in response to the energy crisis therefore contributes to climate change through the reduced carbon-storing capacity of the soil.

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 https://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/environment/index.htm.

In the Federal Register last month, EPA, trying to play catch-up with the science while products continue in larger and larger numbers to incorporate the controversial antimicrobials, issues new and amended data requirements that will eventually address their down the drain fate. Environmental fate data for antimicrobials dominate these new requirements, especially pertaining to the discharge of these chemicals into waste water treatment plants from household sources. Antimicrobial chemicals are regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
There are nine new data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides and include: photo-degradation soil studies (for wood preservatives); 2 new exposures data requirements -soil residue dissipations and non-dietary ingestion exposure; activated sludge sorption isotherm study; ready biodegradability study; porous pot study; modified activated sludge; and respiration inhibition test.

These new rules are to now be required, once accepted, along with existing requirements, some of which have been updated or now explicitly required. Four of the new data requirements will inform a screening-level assessment on the fate of antimicrobials that reach a wastewater treatment plant, according to the proposal. “Since many antimicrobial pesticides are typically rinsed down the drain, EPA has considered the potential impacts of pesticides that are discharged into wastewater treatment plants,” it states. Along with these requirements EPA also proposes to use modeling tools such as the Down the Drain Model with the Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM) to assist in its environmental fate screening and assessment.

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), a trade group for wastewater treatment plants, has long supported added scrutiny of the approval process for products regulated under FIFRA, particularly of emerging contaminants. The group is particularly concerned that the amount of antimicrobials in the wastewater stream could harm the microbes in activated sludge, which is a biological process that treatment plants use to cleanup wastewater.

“There are a lot of secondary contaminations that should be looked at with regard to antimicrobials in the wastewater stream.” says Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides, who is supportive of the new studies in the proposed rule. but believes that the public should be warned about the data deficiencies until the chemicals are more thoroughly studied. “If the agency is looking at sludge, it should also look at earthworms,” which show the effects of antimicrobials on wildlife, according to Mr. Feldman.

In recent comments to the EPA for triclosan , an antimicrobial chemical, Beyond Pesticides and several other environmental and health groups criticized the EPA for not completing an analysis of the impact of triclosan on the environment, especially in the aquatic environment and endangered species, as well as other deficiencies in its review. In separate comments, waste water treatment utilities commented that triclosan and its degradation products are not cleaned out of the water treatment process and end up in sewage sludge. Research shows that earthworms take in triclosan residues, as do fish and aquatic organisms. Concerns were also been raised about residues in drinking water. A recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study found that triclosan was the most detected chemical in U.S. waterways.

TAKE ACTION: EPA is currently taking public comment on the proposed antimicrobials rule. The comment period ends on January 6, 2009. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov or mail to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Contact: Kathryn Boyle, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, mail code 7506P; telephone number: 703-305-6304; fax number: 703-305-5884; e-mail address: [email protected].

Obama EPA
With climate change a top priority, an Obama Administration EPA Administrator would most likely have a background in carbon emissions and global warming. Organic advocates will be pushing to include organic agriculture and carbon sequestration in any new cap and trade emissions program. The online environmental magazine Daily Grist predicts Mary Nichols, a former Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer and senior official in the Clinton EPA who currently chairs the California Air Resources Board; Kathleen McGinty, former Al Gore aide and first chair of the Clinton Administration’s Center for Environmental Quality who currently serves as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and, Dan Esty, a current top energy advisor to the Obama campaign and former George H.W. Bush EPA official; as candidates for the top EPA position. Others in the blogosphere have pointed to Robert Kennedy Jr., professor of environmental law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic (who has represented Beyond Pesticides in a mosquito-spraying lawsuit against New York City) and founder and chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance; Robert Sussman, Deputy EPA Administrator under the Clinton Administration and currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; and, Bradley Campbell, environmental lawyer and former Commissioner of the New Jersey (DEP).

McCain EPA
The Daily Grist is predicting Sherwood Boehlert, moderate Republican and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York who served on the House Science Committee; Joe Lieberman, former Democratic, now Independent Senator who has supported the McCain campaign, has co-authored climate change legislation and supported the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA); Chris Shays, moderate Republican and member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Connecticut who co-authored fuel efficiency bill; William Reilly, longtime director at the DuPont chemical company (a pesticide manufacturer) and former president of the World Wildlife Fund; Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey governor and later EPA administrator during much of George W. Bush’s first term; Mary Gade, former EPA administrator in the Midwest who says she was forced to resign after tangling with Dow Chemical Company over dioxin contamination; and, David McIntosh, past executive director of former vice president Dan Quayle’s Council for Competitiveness, where Grist reports he worked to roll back environmental regulations; as possibilities for the top EPA spot.

Obama USDA
Top Secretary of Agriculture predictions are: Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor and presidential candidate who supports corn ethanol, but says sustainable rural development means more than just commodity farming; Tom Buis, president of the National Farmer’s Union and past advisor to former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle; and, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota’s representative in the U.S. House and former South Dakota Farmers Union Foundation director.

According to the study findings published in the November issue of the journal Environmental Research, the median concentration of permethrin in the samples is 1454ng/g of dust. Excluding permethrin, pyrethroid conectrations are less than or equal to 100ng/g of dust. The majority of the metabolites are present in more than half of the dust samples.

This is not the first time researchers have found pesticides in dust in homes. A study published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (208: 193-199) also found that synthetic pyrethroids persist in house dust and air in significant concentrations for months after they are applied, disproving the popular myth that they are not long lasting. The researchers collected dust and airborne particles in 19 houses and buildings one day before treatments by pest control operators. They compared these baseline levels of synthetic pyrethroids to levels one day after the treatment, 4-6 months after, and 10-12 months after. One day after application, all of the pyrethroids were detected in significantly increased concentrations in the houses. Over the course of the following months, the concentrations all decreased. However, after 4-6 months, all four chemicals (cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, and permethrin) could still be detected. As long as one year after treatment, both permethrin and cyfluthrin levels remained elevated in house dust, in what the authors called “general background level[s],” indicating that these two pyrethroids especially have very slow degradation times.

A 2003 study published in Environmental Science & Technology also found pesticides in the homes tested. The study authors measured concentrations of 89 different chemicals identified as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in indoor air and house dust samples from 120 homes on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. EDCs are chemicals that can mimic or interfere with human hormones. The study, “Phthalates, Alkylphenol, Pesticides, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and Other Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Indoor Air and Dust,” detected 52 different compounds in air and 66 in dust. The number of chemicals detected in a home ranged from 13-28 for indoor air and from 6-42 for dust. Pesticides detected included DDT, carbaryl, chlordane, methoxychlor, propoxur, pentachlorophenol, diazinon, permethrin, and chlorpyrifos.

A 1998 study found that chlorpyrifos accumulated on furniture, toys and other sorbant surfaces up to two weeks after application. A separate study involving chlorpyrifos found substantially higher concentrations in the infant breathing zone. Airborne concentrations of seven insecticides were tested 3 days following their application in separate rooms. Six of the seven pesticides left residues behind through the third day. A 1996 study found that 2,4-D can be tracked from lawns into homes, leaving residues of the herbicide in carpets. EPA’s Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) found that tested households had at least five pesticides in indoor air, at levels often ten times greater than levels measured in outdoor air. Another EPA study found 23 pesticides in indoor household dust and air that was recently applied or used in the home. The study also found residues of pesticides in and around the home even when there had been no known use of them on the premises.

Synthetic pyrethroids are chemically formulated versions of the natural-based pesticide pyrethrum, made from extracts from plants in the chrysanthemum family. A widely used class of insecticides, synthetic pyrethroids, are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore are more potent to insects and pose more risks to humans.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin as a possible human carcinogen, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. Many synthetic pyrethroids have been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system, and increase chances of breast cancer. EPA lists permethrin as suspected endocrine disruptors. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks. Material Safety Data Sheets, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for pyrethroid products often warn, “Persons with history of asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory tract disorders may experience symptoms at low exposures.” In view of the fact that asthma is the most common long-term childhood illness today, persistent residues of pyrethroids in house dust and air need to be taken very seriously.

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. Additionally, studies on newborn mice have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development.

“We are excited about this because we are the first in the county to take part,” said Mayor Peter Voros. “We hope that others follow because this is a great project.”

Two township volunteers proposed the policy last summer, presenting information on pesticides an alternatives at a committee meeting. They and a local environmental group collaborated to create the adopted resolution. “Pittsgrove now has a written Integrated Pest Management policy which means that least-toxic methods are used, only when needed,” said Committeewoman Linda DuBois. The IPM policy targets toxic pesticides for elimination, as many have been linked to health risks like asthma, learning disabilities, and birth defects. “We especially want to protect children because they are closer to pesticide applications on the ground and they are still developing and absorb more pesticides than adults,” said Jane Nogaki, program coordinator for the New Jersey Environmental Federation. (for more information on children and pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet, “Children and Chemicals Don’t Mix.”) Committeeman Jeff Ridgway added that the policy also “protects ground water and the aquatic life in the stream that runs through the park.”

Pittsgrove is the latest municipality in New Jersey to convert public park areas to pesticide-free management. Earlier this year, Vorhees adopted indoor IPM and pesticide-free parks and a year ago, Fairlawn created a similar policy. In all, 21 communities in New Jersey have adopted pesticide-free park policies, as have towns in other states. For some examples of successfully adopted policies, click here.

Community activism is the best way to get your town to adopt a pesticide-free policy. You can maintain your lawn and garden organically (see our Lawns and Landscapes page for tips), and let your neighbors know by displaying a Pesticide Free Zone sign. For assistance in proposing a policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

Public health and environmental advocates have raised concerns that companies are using NAFTA to prevent governments from taking actions to regulate pollution and health threats, and they also warn that the companies’ actions may have a serious public backlash. Chapter 11 of NAFTA is just one of the legal avenues pesticide manufacturers have to make stricter pesticide regulation cumbersome, expensive, and in some cases impossible. For example, 41 states in the U.S. have preemption laws that prohibit municipal authorities from creating pesticide regulation that is more restrictive than the state’s. In a statement that could equally apply to preemption laws, Kathleen Cooper, a senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says she is troubled that chemical producers can invoke NAFTA in an effort to “undermine the decisions of democratically-elected governments.”

Dow’s legal brief accuses the Quebec government of implementing a pesticide ban that “is not based on science.” Like many pesticide cases, it boils down to a battle over which scientific studies should be used in assessing pesticide risk, and how much risk is acceptable, especially in a situation in which the use in question is purely cosmetic. Quebec and Ontario’s bans do not restrict golf course and agricultural uses.

There is a large body of scientific literature that outlines numerous risks of 2,4-D. It has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, kidney and liver damage, is neurotoxic and toxic to beneficial insects (such as bees), earthworms, birds, and fish. Scientific studies have confirmed significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for farmers who use 2,4-D than those who don’t; dogs whose owners use 2,4-D on their lawns are more likely to develop canine malignant lymphoma than those whose owners do not. Despite the known health and environmental effects of 2,4-D, it is the top selling herbicide for non-agricultural use, such as lawns, in the United States. It is also the fifth most commonly used herbicide in the agricultural sector and total annual usage in the U.S. tops 40 million pounds.

The action by Dow is not the first time a company has taken action under Chapter 11 of NAFTA regarding pesticide regulation. Arbitration is ongoing in a case over which U.S.-based Chemtura Corporation sued the Canadian government for $100 million in damaging because it moved to ban the use of lindane as a seed treatment. Lindane has since been banned as a seed treatment in the U.S., and Mexico (the third country in NAFTA) has proposed to list lindane under the Stockholm Convention as a persistant organic pollutant (POP).

Whether Dow pursues legal action following its notice remains to be seen, but Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defense says Dow is “quite transparently” trying to put a halt to pesticide bans that are spreading throughout Canada. However, he predicts that Dow will face a backlash from the Canadian public, which is responsible for paying the legal fees of any arbitration and has overwhelmingly been supportive of stricter pesticide controls.

The Philippines is one of the few countries that still allow the use of endosulfan, though on a restricted basis. Endosulfan is used on pineapple plantations to kill pineapple mites that cause pink disease, a discoloration of canned fruits. This measure to stop the use of endosulfan has been attributed to the recent sinking of the ship MV Princess of the Stars, whose cargo hull contained ten tons of endosulfan. The ship capsized and partially sank on June 21 in a typhoon, killing nearly 800 people onboard. In the wake of that tragedy, leaders in the Philippine government called for an end to endosulfan exemptions granted to foreign companies. Frustrations were raised over the potential for toxic contamination which threatens the health of the Philippine people.

400 packs of endosulfan, each pack weighing 25 kilograms, or a total of 10 metric tons, have since been recovered from the MV Princess of the Stars. Approximately 10 metric tons of endosulfan has been imported yearly since 1995 by Dole and Del Monte.

“Because of the over-publicity of the hazards of endosulfan due to the mishap of the MV Princess of the Stars, Dole Philippines, Inc. and Del Monte Philippines, Inc. are saying that they would stop using the chemical,” Dario C. Sabularse, deputy director of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) in the Philippines, said in an interview.

Endosulfan is banned in Europe and many other countries around the world due to the serious toxic effects attributed to its use. However, multi-national food companies Dole and Del Monte have maintained exemptions to the ban and continued to use endosulfan, even though the Philippines banned the use of endosulfan in 1993. The Dole and Del Monte were the only companies permitted to use endosulfan in the Philippines.

This week, ministers and officials from 120 member-countries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations will meet in Rome to decide whether to add endosulfan, along with pesticide tributyl tin compounds and industrial chemical chrysotile asbestos, to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure under the Rotterdam Convention. The PIC is a trade watch list that requires that harmful pesticides and chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in at least two countries, not be exported unless explicitly agreed by the importing country. The list already names 39 hazardous substances including DDT, chlordane and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).

The U.S. EPA is currently considering action on endosulfan in response to petitions submitted in February 2008 followed by a legal brief from the Natural Resources Defense Council, technical letters, and some 13,000 individual signatures on petitions. Last May, concerned scientists and public health professionals issued an open letter calling on the EPA to cancel all uses of endosulfan on the grounds that it is a highly toxic, bioaccumulative, and persistent chemical. In July a broad coalition of groups represented by Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the EPA to protect children, farmworkers, and endangered species from endosulfan’s long tail of lingering effects. The coalition also called on EPA to revoke all tolerances for endosulfan even though the agency will not address cancellation until early 2009.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine pesticide, in the same family as DDT and lindane, and like DDT and lindane, it bioaccumulates and has been found in places as far from point of use as the arctic. It is also a suspected endocrine disruptor, affecting hormones and reproduction in aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

“We are pleased that the USDA has finally addressed the concerns of the organic dairy community, ” said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at the non-profit Cornucopia Institute, “but it appears that the department has once again monkey wrenched this process by incorporating a number of red herrings — major policy proposals that have never been reviewed by the industry or the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).”

The USDA’s proposed rule clarifies requirements for organic livestock producers, principally dairy farmers, requiring their animals to graze on pasture and consume a significant percentage of their feed intake during the growing season. The new proposed regulations are intended to make the current rules more understandable for all dairy producers and organic certification agents.

“While I appreciate the fact that the USDA has issued proposed rules to clarify pasture requirements, based on NOSB recommendations, I am very concerned about the proposed language on dairy replacement animals,” said Jim Riddle, a past chair and member of the National Organic Standards Board and member of Beyond Pesticides board of directors. “The proposed change, contrary to language recommended by the NOSB, would institutionalize the current two-track system, which allows certain operations to continually bring in conventional heifers, while other operations are required to use only replacement heifers that have been raised organically from the last third of gestation. There should be one standard for all organic dairy farms, once they have converted to organic production. ”

In addition to addressing the pasture and dairy animal replacement issue the USDA rule proposes expanding the definition of livestock to include bees and aquatic animals.

“We ask that the USDA separate the organic dairy rulemaking, agreed-upon by the majority of the industry, from the other new provisions they have put forward and immediately adopt it into law,” Mr. Kastel said. “Although many of the USDA’s new proposals are meritorious, by packaging these new initiatives together with the long debated dairy provisions it may guarantee years of additional delays to the widespread calls to ramp-up enforcement on the bad actors.”

The Cornucopia Institute stated, “We highly recommend that farmers and consumers carefully scrutinize the proposed rules and ask the USDA to incorporate the well-vetted proposals that crackdown on corporate dairy while tabling other provisions until they have adequate public scrutiny.”

Highlights of the proposed rule include:

–A definition of “growing season,” and the requirement that all animals over the age of six months must be on pasture throughout the growing season.
–Animals must receive 30 percent of their dry matter intake (DMI) from pasture.
–A definition of “temporary confinement,” and clarification of periods of temporary confinement.
–A pasture practice standard that addresses the management of pasture as a crop.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. The USDA organic standards must remain strong to protect the integrity of this important solution to the pesticide problem. For more information see Beyond Pesticides Organic Food program page.

Original samples were taken from the wells from 1993-1995, and compared with samples taken from 2001-2003. Laboratory analysis was performed using methods that allowed detection of pesticide compounds at concentrations as small as 1,000 times below U.S. EPA drinking-water standards. Of the 80 compounds studied, six were detected in ground water from at least 10 wells during both of those sample periods. The six pesticide compounds detected are the triazine herbicides atrazine, simazine, and prometon; the acetanilide herbicide metolachlor; the urea herbicide tebuthiuron; and an atrazine degradate, deethylatrazine (DEA). Concentrations of these compounds generally were less than 0.12 parts per billion, or over 10 times lower than U.S. EPA drinking-water standards.

This is not reassuring considering the fact that many of the developmental impacts linked to atrazine are seen at very low levels, sometimes at just a fraction of a part per billion. It is the ubiquitous nature of the contamination rather than the concentration of these pesticide compounds that worries public health scientist and environmentalist. Research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, has found pesticides, including atrazine, to cause serious deformities at levels well below U.S. EPA drinking water standards. His research shows that 0.1 parts per billion of atrazine in the water where a frog develops can hermaphrodize the animal (having both male and female gonads). Even concentrations of a few parts per trillion can seriously impact the way an animal develops. A recent study links atrazine with endocrine disruption in both fish and human cells. The University of Califonia, San Francisco (UCSF) research examines the reaction of zebrafish to environmentally relevant levels of atrazine, and mirrors the study in human placental cells.

Atrazine is the second most commonly used agricultural pesticide in the U.S., and the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells. It is linked to endocrine disruption, neuropathy and cancer and has been banned by the European Union. An estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine are applied in the U.S. annually. Atrazine has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a very common water contaminant. Chronically contaminated drinking water puts humans at the risk of exposure to long-term health effects.

According to the study authors, characterization of trends in pesticide occurrence and concentrations through time is important in determining how quickly ground-water systems respond to changes in chemical use and in identifying compounds that may pose a threat to water quality before large-scale problems occur. Continuing research is planned to track and understand changes in both ground and surface-water quality across the United States. The study is a part of USGS’ federally-funded National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, which provides an understanding of water-quality conditions and how those conditions may vary locally, regionally, and nationally; whether conditions are getting better or worse over time; and how natural features and human activities affect those conditions.

This new study builds on the existing body of evidence that pesticides are contaminating our nation’s water resources. In July 2008, the results of another USGS study investigating the occurrence of selected pesticides and their degradation products in groundwater shows that pesticides can persist for years, depending upon the chemical structure of the compounds and the environmental conditions. The study reveals that the pesticides and degradation products detected most frequently in shallow ground water samples are predominantly from two classes of herbicides: triazines and chloroacetanilides. According to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s 2007 Water Quality Monitoring Report, released in August 2008, atrazine and metolachlor are detected in pristine lakes in northern Minnesota far from the agricultural fields where it is applied. In 2006, USGS released Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001, a ten-year survey of the contamination caused by pesticide use in agricultural and urbanized areas. Every year, nearly one billion pounds of pesticides, many of which are linked to cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, and environmental impacts, are used in the U.S, much of it ending up in our nation’s waterways. Two years earlier, according to Water Quality in the Nation’s Streams and Aquifers-Overview of Selected Findings, 1991-2001, released in 2004 as a compendium of 51 USGS reports on the health of major river basins across the country, insecticides such as diazinon and malathion were found in nearly all of the streams that were sampled in urban areas. Streams in agricultural areas were more likely to contain herbicides, especially atrazine, metolachlor, alachlor, and cyanazine. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program annual summary detailing pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply, reveals that among many pesticides detected, atrazine, metolachlor, and prometon were found in over half of the treated drinking water samples.

Looking for a positive spin, the study results show that the contamination levels of the nation’s groundwater supply is not increasing, even though more than one billion pounds of pesticide active ingredients are used annually in the U.S. “The results of this study are encouraging for the future state of the nation’s ground-water quality with respect to pesticides,” said Laura Bexfield, who conducted the data analysis. “Despite sustained use of many popular pesticides and the introduction of new ones, results as a whole did not indicate increasing detection rates or concentrations in shallow or drinking-water resources over the 10 years studied.”

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

A growing body of scientific research links pesticides to Parkinson’s disease, asthma, cancer and other illnesses.

“The Maryland health care institutions in the report are to be commended for showing national leadership in adopting non-toxic pest management techniques that protect the health of patients, visitors and staff,” said Jay Feldman, the report’s co-author and executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The report, “Taking Toxics out of Maryland’s Health Care Sector: Transition to Green Pest Management Practices to Protect Health and the Environment,” was co-written by the Maryland Pesticide Network, a statewide coalition advocating safe pest management practices, and Beyond Pesticides, a national environmental and public health group, under their joint “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Health Care Facilities Project,” and in collaboration with Maryland Hospitals for a Healthy Environment at the University of Maryland School of Nursing.

IPM is an approach to pest management that evaluates the causes of pest problems and adopts measures that seek to prevent pests through non-chemical means. The approach introduces defined least-toxic pesticides only as a last resort.

The report includes a survey of Maryland health and elder care facilities that reveals a general reliance on toxic pesticides for pest control. Of the 25 pesticides identified by survey participants as being used at facilities, 11 are linked to cancer, 12 are associated with neurological effects, 10 are associated with reproductive effects, 5 cause birth defects or developmental effects, 12 are sensitizers or irritants, 10 cause liver or kidney damage and 6 are suspected endocrine disruptors.

“In contrast to these findings, the involvement of Maryland’s leading health care facilities in this ”˜greening’ effort shows a commitment to putting our state in the forefront of a growing nationwide movement,” said Ruth Berlin, MPN executive director.

The facilities adopting broad policies to eliminate toxic chemical use in pest management include: Erickson Retirement Communities, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital and Springfield Hospital Center. Additionally, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, the University of Maryland Medical Center and Broadmead Retirement Community are working toward adopting official IPM policies.

Herbicide resistant crops were first introduced in 1996 with Roundup Ready soybeans, which were engineered to enable the spraying of Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) without harming the soybean plants. Since then other Roundup Ready varieties, such as corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have been introduced and are grown in the U.S. and abroad. In a victory for Beyond Pesticides and other environmental groups who see the proliferation of genetically engineered crops as a threat to health, the environment and organic farmers’ livelihoods, a federal court upheld a ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa in September.

The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops has led to increased glyphosate use, propelling it to 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, skin irritation, is neurotoxic and toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Increased herbicide usage has also led to resistant varieties of “superweeds.”

2,4-D, the herbicide to which this new variety of grapes is resistant, is a highly toxic herbicide that was first registered for use in the 1940s, and has remained one of the highest volume herbicides used in the U.S. since then, despite its notoriety as one of the primary ingredients in Agent Orange, an herbicide used in Vietnam that has had devastating effects on soldiers and Vietnamese residents exposed to it. It is used commonly on lawns as well as in agriculture and targets broadleaf weeds. Over 40 million pounds of the active ingredient are used each year in the U.S.

Traditional varieties of grapes are very sensitive to 2,4-D, and widespread use of the herbicide on grain in the Midwest has incurred grape losses because of drift and contamination. The new variety is intended to protect the grapes from 2,4-D drift from other farms. While the losses suffered by grape growers is significant and unacceptable, the introduction of a resistant variety does nothing to solve the root problem.

The continued high use of herbicides like 2,4-D and glyphosate poses an unacceptable threat to public health and the environment in light of the viability and availability of alternatives. Organic, no-till agriculture provides weed suppression through the use of cover crops as mulch, which adds organic matter and nitrogen to the soil, eliminating the perceived need for herbicides and Nitrogen fertilizers. Large scale adoption of such environmentally friendly farming practices is the answer to eliminating pesticide use and therefore pesticide drift. The development of herbicide resistant genetically engineered plant varieties will only serve to further the pesticide contamination problem.

Five of the pesticides most common in the food chain are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or disruptive to the hormonal system. The findings come just days before politicians in Brussels are set to debate new EU pesticide legislation —-including a proposal to eliminate the most hazardous pesticides from use in food production. But despite evidence of widespread food contamination, efforts to reduce dietary exposure to hazardous pesticides are being fiercely contested by the pesticides industry.

“These are the worst pesticide results we’ve ever seen,” said Elliott Cannell, Coordinator of PAN Europe. “A record proportion of fruits and vegetables are contaminated, while 23 pesticides were detected at levels high enough to present an acute risk to public health, according to the EU’s own risk calculations. The need to reduce exposure to hazardous pesticides is more urgent now than ever. Politicians in Brussels must back the removal of the worst pesticides from the food chain, and ensure that hazardous pesticides are replaced with safer alternatives wherever possible.”

According to the report, 49 percent of fruits, vegetables and cereals contain pesticides –the highest level of pesticide contamination recorded in the EU and represents an increase of around 20 percent over the past five year period. In total, 4.7 percent of fruits, vegetables and cereals contain pesticides at concentrations above maximum legal limits, while over 10 percent contain four or more different pesticide residues. Five of the pesticides found most in food products sold in the EU are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction, or disruptive to the hormonal system and include: maneb, procymidone, iprodione, carbendazim and deltamethrin.

354 different pesticides, the highest total ever recorded, have been found in products sold in the EU. For the first time, imidacloprid, a controversial pesticide banned in France due to links with mass bee deaths, has been listed among the most common pesticide residues in foods.

But the European Crop Protection Association accused PAN Europe of “escalating a climate of fear,” adding that EU agriculture was highly successful and safe. Recently, an organization representing Scottish farmers said its members must be allowed to use pesticides to overcome the country’s wet climate. The group said it plans to step up its lobbying to Ministers who are due to vote on the proposed restrictions later this year. In the Netherlands, dutch farmers have also entered the debate saying that wide restrictions on pesticides could lead to the demise of the country’s iconic tulip industry. Tulip farmers have said that tulips and other bulbs would be particularly hard-hit because pesticides are used to prevent diseases that can prevent bulbs from flowering.

Total release foggers have caused numerous explosions and acute illnesses due to pesticide exposure. According to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 123 cases of bug bomb-related illness or injury in New York State (58 in New York City alone) from 2001-06. Information on New York’s incidents are part of a larger study published October 17, 2008 in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which illuminates the hazards of total release foggers using data from several states. The most commonly reported acute health effects from bug bombs are respiratory problems and gastrointestinal reactions, such as nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In editorial comments accompanying the study, the CDC notes that these figures are most likely underestimated.

The CDC study, which pulls data from eight states, identifies a total of 466 cases of acute, pesticide-related illness or injury associated with exposure to foggers between 2001 and 2006. Median age of affected persons is 35 years (range: 0–90 years); 255 (57%) are female, and 55 (13%) were exposed while at work. Race information is available for 137 patients, of whom 101 (74%) are white, 17 (12%) are black, and 19 (14%) are of other races. Ethnicity information is available for 158 patients, of whom 31 (20%) is Hispanic. Three cases occurred among pregnant women, and approximately 44 cases occurred among persons with asthma.

“The CDC study makes it clear that we cannot wait for the federal government to restrict the use of foggers,” said New York State Department of Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines. “We must act to protect the health of New Yorkers. Pest control should be accomplished without harming people.”

In each of the past several years, total release foggers have caused at least four to eight serious explosions in apartments in New York City, according to Fire Department data. Just last month, an apartment building in Manhattan was evacuated after a fogger caused an explosion. Ten people were treated at the scene, including six who were brought to the hospital.

Aside from fire dangers, most foggers contain synthetic pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, respiratory problems, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity and other health and environmental issues.

“We commend the Department of Environmental Conservation for taking action on this issue,” said New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas R. Frieden. “By getting these products off the shelves, we will prevent avoidable illness and injury. There are far safer and more effective methods of controlling pests that do not put people’s health at risk.”

The research is part of the Generation R Study, which includes 9778 participants in the Netherlands and focuses on growth and physical development, behavioral and cognitive development, childhood diseases and health, and health care for pregnant women and children. The Generation R Study allows the researchers to follow-up with the study participants and “provides an opportunity to efficiently address questions regarding the reproductive and development effects of prenatal exposures.”

Besides finding high levels of OP pesticides, the researchers find some suspected endocrine disrupting compounds including bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. Animal studies show that these chemicals can affect brain and reproductive development. According to the researchers, exposure to OP pesticides and some phthalates were significantly higher for the subjects from the Generation R study when compared to similar populations in other studies. The scientists agree that it may be necessary to obtain and analyze data throughout the entire pregnancy in order to identify critical time periods of exposure.

The study’s lead author, Xibiao Ye, Ph.D., is a member of the NIEHS Biomarker-based Epidemiology Group, which is headed by co-author and Principal Investigator Matthew Longnecker, M.D., Sc.D. The Biomarker-based Epidemiology Group focuses on health effects of early exposure to background levels of environmental contaminants. This study is the first report of biological monitoring of these specific pollutants in a general population in the Netherlands.

Levels of 6 dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites of OP pesticides, a specific metabolite of the widely used pesticide chloropyrifos, TCPy, BPA and fourteen phthalate metabolites were analyzed by the research team. BPA is used in the manufacturing of plastics and epoxy resins. Phthalates are commonly included in cosmetics and polyvinyl chloride plastics.

Organophosphates, derived from World War II nerve agents, are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission- acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Researchers show that animal studies and residual effects in humans following acute intoxication suggest that organophosphates can be toxic to the developing brain at exposure levels below those inducing overt signs.

Earlier this year, a team of University of Michigan scientists discovered that interactions between genes and organophosphate exposure can cause some forms of motor neuron disease (MND). The scientists also find the mutations caused changes in a protein already known to be involved when people develop neurologic disorders as a result of exposure to toxic organophosphate chemicals.

Many U.S. residents carry toxic pesticides in their bodies above government assessed “acceptable” levels, the highest being children and women, according to several biomonitoring studies and reports published over the several years. A study published in February 2008 finds that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. In 1997 a study conducted in a Central Valley farming community in California found that residents have significant levels of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos in their bodies during the spraying season. The levels topped what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers acceptable for pregnant and nursing women.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain. The cancellation of household uses does not restrict, however, the use of remaining stocks. That is to say, homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase out, may still use this product. Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to the EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion are applied annually for residential uses.

Entitled “Statewide Investigation of the Role of Pyrethroid Pesticides in Sediment Toxicity in California’s Urban Waterways,” the research included California’s most urbanized regions, as well as the less developed North Coast and Lake Tahoe areas. Thirty creeks in eight regions were selected from 90 screened sites, and bioassays were conducted at two temperatures, 23 and 15 degrees Celsius. Researchers found 25 samples to be toxic at the higher temperature and all 30 at the lower, which is where pyrethroids are more toxic. “Bifenthrin was the pyrethroid of greatest toxicological concern, occurring in all 30 samples,” wrote the team, and the Los Angeles, Central Valley, and San Diego regions showed the most severe contamination. The sampling included analysis for 8 pyrethroids, 30 organochlorine pesticides, and piperonyl butoxide, which helps to make pyrethroids toxic at lower levels.

“It was really good that they did the temperature study,” said Kathryn Kuivila of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The analysis confirmed that pyrethroids were the substance toxic to Hyalella azteca, the small shrimp used in the study. Kuivila and other researchers from USGS will present similar data from seven cities around the United States at a November meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

A similar study found pyrethroid toxicity in sediments in urban Texas streams. Co-author Jason Belden, Ph.D. said conditions between Texas and California are “different enough to indicate problems [with pyrethroids] across the country.”

Toxicologist Michael J. Lydy, Ph.D., said results like these could occur “any time you find a manicured yard, across the U.S.” This is just one of many reasons to convert public and private lawns and landscapes to organic management, which eliminates synthetic pesticides like pyrethroids. Visit our Lawns and Landscapes program page or our Alternatives fact sheets for tips on organic, Integrated Pest Management, and policy information.

The extent of marijuana growing on federal lands is unknown, but seven hundred grow sites were discovered in California in 2007-2008. Many of these operations are run by Mexican marijuana growing cartels and the chemicals used are illegally imported from Mexico. It is estimated that 1.5 lbs of fertilizers and pesticides is used for every 11.5 plants. For the five million plants uprooted in California in 2007, this amounts to over 650,000 lbs of fertilizers and pesticides. Agent Patrick Foy of the California Department of Fish and Game said “I’ve seen the pesticide residue on the plants”¦you ain’t just smoking pot, bud. You’re smoking some heavy-duty pesticides from Mexico.”

Scott Wanek, the western regional chief ranger for the National Park Service, said he believes the environmental impact is far greater than anyone knows. “Think about Sequoia,” Mr. Wanek said. “The impact goes well beyond the acreage planted. They create huge networks of trail systems, and the chemicals that get into watersheds are potentially very far-reaching — all the way to drinking water for the downstream communities. We are trying to study that now.” In addition to these impacts, large wildlife such as deer and bear have been found shot and killed by the armed guards at the growing sites. Cicely Muldoon, deputy regional director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service said “People light up a joint, and they have no idea the amount of environmental damage associated with it.”

Forest Service Agent Ron Pugh said “These are America’s most precious resources, and they are being devastated by an unprecedented commercial enterprise conducted by armed foreign nationals. It is a huge mess.” In addition to the toxic growing practices, drug eradication programs by the U.S. government have employed toxic methods, adding another level to the huge mess. In the so-called war on drugs, the U.S. government has used large amounts of toxic herbicides in the U.S. and abroad in an attempt to eradicate plants grown for drug use, such coca in Colombia, poppies in Afghanistan and marijuana in the U.S.

In the early 1980s, Beyond Pesticides (then the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides) was a plaintiff with the Sierra Club in a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) over its use of aerial herbicide spraying for marijuana eradication. At the time, DEA was employing paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide, in its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. While the lawsuit resulted in the requirement of an environmental impact assessment for spraying paraquat, the impact assessment relied on false assumptions of exposure””in fact, the DEA uses were similar to those which the EPA cancelled because of unreasonable risks. Despite this, the lawsuit was unsuccessful in eliminating the use of paraquat. The herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate have also been used extensively in marijuana eradication efforts. Both the harmful practices employed by some marijuana growers and the dangerous DEA practice of eliminating some plants with chemicals contribute to pesticide contamination.

This new method involves dipping seeds in jasmonic acid, a plant derived chemical that provides a natural defense against pests. When threatened by plant-eating insects, plants release jasmonic acid as a chemical signal to warn other parts of the plant to mobilize their pest defenses in order to make the plant difficult to digest. Jasmonic acid has long been used as a repellent for pests like mites, caterpillars and aphids when sprayed onto crops. Jasmonic acid however, also acts as a growth inhibitor and sprayed plants do not grow very well, but scientists at Lancaster University’s Environment Centre have found that plants grown from seeds first dipped in jasmonic acid are also more pest resistant without any loss of growth.

The best results were on tomato plants, where attacks by red spider mites were reduced by 80%, aphid attack was reduced by 60% and caterpillar damage was down by a third. Promising results were also obtained on sweet pepper where aphid attacks were reduced by 70 per cent, and caterpillar damage to wheat was reduced by 65 per cent. Meanwhile on maize, caterpillar damage was reduced by 38 per cent.

“We were investigating the mechanisms by which wild plants defend themselves against pest attack to get a better understanding of what works in nature. We were spraying the leaves of our plants with jasmonic acid and wondered what would happen if we treated the seeds instead. It seemed unlikely that it would work but we were amazed to discover that it did – tomato plants were protected for about two months after they germinated,” said lead researcher Nigel Paul, PhD, of Lancaster University.

Large-scale trials of this new technology are expected this year and by the end of the year, the researchers should know whether or not a commercial product will go into development. In the meantime, work is being put into developing new applications for the technology, including investigating its value in disease control.

Until now attempts at creating pest resistant crops involved genetically modified (GM) technology. Many proponents of GM technology believe GM crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply. However studies have shown that GM crops can lead to a large increase in pesticide use, due to increased insect resistance. GM crops have also been found to harm aquatic ecosystems and contaminate organic and non-GM crops.

NHL is a cancer of the immune system. There are several different types of NHL, which are differentiated by the type of immune cell that is cancerous, the characteristics of the cancerous cell, and different genetic mutations of the cancerous cells. Treatment for NHL varies depending on NHL type, patient age, and other existing medical conditions. The incidence of NHL has been increasing over the past several decades.

The link between pesticides and cancer has long been a concern. While agriculture has traditionally been tied to pesticide-related illnesses, 19 of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides and 24 of 48 commonly used school pesticides are probable or possible carcinogens. The consistency of the scientific findings linking pesticide exposure to cancer raises serious questions about their allowed use.

In 2002, the same researchers published a study that shows an increased risk to NHL from exposure to certain pesticides: a 1.75 OR for herbicides, a 3.11 OR for fungicides, a 3.04 OR for glyphosate, and a 2.62 OR for MCPA. And even earlier, in 1999, another study by these researchers, published by the American Cancer Society, finds an increased risk of NHL for people exposed to common herbicides and fungicides, particularly MCPP. People exposed to glyphosate are 2.7 times more likely to develop NHL.

NHL has been linked to pesticides in other studies as well, including 2,4-D, the most commonly used nonagricultural herbicide. A 2007 case-control study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that children born to mothers living in households with pesticide use during pregnancy have over twice as much risk of getting cancer, specifically acute leukemia (AL) or NHL. A study published in a 2001 issue of Cancer also correlates an increased risk of NHL with exposure to household pesticides. The study examined pesticide exposure routes to children either through the mother while she was pregnant, or directly to the child. Exposed children showed a three to seven time greater likelihood of developing NHL, as compared to unexposed children. In studying different types of NHL, the researchers found that household insecticide use was correlated to a greater risk of lymphoblastic lymphoma by 12.5 times. Researchers at the Northwestern University, University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the National Cancer Institute find that agricultural exposure to insecticides, herbicides, and fumigants are associated with a 2.6 to 5.0 fold increase in the incidence of t(14;18)-positive NHL (refers to a specific genetic alteration in a type of NHL).

The authors examined the risk of two types of brain cancer, glioma and meningioma, associated with occupational exposure to insecticides and herbicides in a hospital-based, case-control study of brain cancer. Cases were 462 glioma and 195 meningioma patients diagnosed between 1994 and 1998 in three U.S. hospitals. Controls were 765 patients admitted to the same hospitals for nonmalignant conditions. Occupational histories were collected during personal interviews. Exposure to pesticides was estimated by use of a questionnaire, combined with pesticide measurement data abstracted from published sources.

The researchers found no overall link between brain cancer and on-the-job exposure to pesticides or herbicides. However, looking closer at the data, the researchers noticed that women who reported using herbicides had a more than doubled risk for meningioma compared with women who never used herbicides, and there were significant trends of increasing risk with increasing years of herbicide exposure and increasing cumulative. There is no association between meningioma and herbicide or insecticide exposure among men. Unfortunately, the studies used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register pesticides are conducted on male rats.

Of the women with the highest herbicide exposure, most worked in restaurants or grocery stores, and were likely exposed by routinely handling produce treated with herbicides.

Tumors of the brain, cranial nerves, and meninges account for 95 percent of tumors of the central nervous system and include some of the most rapidly fatal types of cancer. An estimated 20,500 new cases of brain and other nervous system cancers were diagnosed during 2007 in the United States. The two most common histologic types of brain tumors are gliomas and meningiomas, and data suggest that gliomas are more common in men, while meningiomas occur more often in women.

Another study, published in 2007 in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine indicates that farmworkers and persons exposed to high levels of pesticides have an increased risk of developing brain tumors, especially gliomas – a tumor of the nervous system. The study, “Brain tumours and exposure to pesticides: a case-control study in southwestern France,” suggests that not only are occupational pesticide exposure risks high, but indoor domestic uses of pesticides also increase the risk of developing brain tumors.

Among the many concerns about genetically engineered foods is the impact they may have on insect and weed resistance to pesticides. Crops engineered to contain the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) threaten the long-term efficacy of Bt, which is an approved insecticide in organic farming. Crops engineered to be herbicide tolerant, such as Roundup Ready soy, contribute to the increased use of toxic herbicides, leading to resistance.

“The USDA has missed a golden opportunity to improve its oversight of genetically engineered crops,” said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “This USDA proposal has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well.”

According to the Center, the biggest concern is that the proposed rules remove established criteria vital in determining the very scope of regulation. Previously, regulation of GE crops was based on the presence of genetic elements from a list of “plant pests” codified under Section 340.2 (Part 340, Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced, Title 7). This fairly comprehensive list covers almost all of the genetic elements companies use to engineer crops. However, under the new policy, the USDA proposes “deleting the list of organisms which are or contain plant pests,” effectively removing triggers to regulation and leaving the decision to the discretion of USDA or even biotech companies themselves.

“Whether a GE crop falls within the scope of regulation or not will now be much more open to interpretation,” continued Mr. Freese. “We can expect the range of GE organisms subject to oversight to decrease over time, allowing for future food safety regulatory failures.”

USDA also failed to address the epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds associated with ubiquitous herbicide-tolerant GE crops. Resistant weeds have led to increased use of chemical weed killers, rising production costs for growers, and in some cases accelerated soil erosion caused by the additional mechanical tillage required to remove resistant weeds.

Another overlooked key area is the use of food crops for biopharming. The USDA proposal will continue to allow the controversial practice of growing food crops engineered as “biofactories” for pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds. Over the last several years, these crops have come dangerously close to being comingled with those destined for the human food supply, raising the possibility of untested pharmaceutical proteins ending up in our food.

The Center also believes that USDA has failed to properly address the issue of conventional and organic crop contamination by GE varieties. This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits. The new policy incorporates the USDA’s Low Level Presence Policy, which states that “low level contamination” is no longer actionable. Given this, USDA can choose to allow contamination of conventional or organic crops by untested GE experimental crops to occur without the need to stop interstate shipments of the contaminated crops.

“The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here,” added Mr. Freese. “While they appear at first glance to be tightening regulation of an industry that desperately needs better oversight, the structure of the new proposal actually opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.”