Beyond Pesticides Daily News is taking a holiday break and will return on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 with restored energy and vision to keeping charging ahead. In the meantime, we would like you to tell us your wishes and vision for change in the new year as we seek to protect health and the environment. Please contribute your holiday wish(es) by commenting on this blog entry. Also, please consider a contribution to Beyond Pesticides this year. If you have already donated to the Beyond Pesticides’ program, we thank you deeply because you make it possible for us to continue our important work. We look forward to working with you to make 2008 a happy, healthy and pesticide-free year for you, your family, your community and those most threatened! We are thankful for all our members and supporters who enable Beyond Pesticides to be a strong voice that is working to protect our air, land, water and food at home, in the workplace and in the community.

While you are writing your wish list for the new year, consider Beyond Pesticides vision for the New Year.

1. People recognize that it is a human right not to be poisoned by pesticides.

2. There is a growing movement toward pesticide-free communities.

3. Individuals, institutions, corporations and governments routinely use alternative methods.

4. Organic and green food labels are a substantial market.

5. Medical, public health and health-impacted communities help lead the pesticide reform movement.

6. The connection between chronic health issues, such as cancer, and pesticide exposure is better understood by the general public and health care community.

7. Health care providers can readily identify illnesses that are related to pesticides, and affected people receive appropriate treatment.

8. Governments at all levels enact new appropriately restrictive laws and regulations prohibiting the use of toxic pesticides.

9. There is an improved legal recognition of cradle-to-grave impacts (from production to use) and responsibility and accountability.

10. Organic integrity is strengthened.

We look forward to hearing from and working with you in 2008.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2007) EPA is proposing a major overhaul of pesticide labels that will allow cause-related marketing (advertising) directly on products, a reversal of a long-standing policy that prohibited such representations. Beyond Pesticides urges the public to submit comments opposing such labeling and to support a request that EPA extend the deadline for comments (now set at December 31, 2007) to allow between 30 and 60 additional days for public comment on this proposed change. The change in law has serious safety implications, according to Beyond Pesticides, because the use of symbols, such as the Red Cross, implies that poisonous products are safe.

On February 7, 2007, numerous groups petitioned EPA to rescind and deny the pesticide product label for the Clorox Company, which allows the display of the Red Cross symbol and language on pesticide products. The groups signing the petition included Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, American Bird Conservancy, Pesticide Education Project, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, Environmental Health Fund, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Natural Resources Defense Council, Maryland Pesticide Network and Washington Toxics Coalition. Current label laws, defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), prohibit pesticide manufacturers from making misleading claims of safety on product labels. EPA’s proposal would allow wording and graphics of third-party endorsements or cause-marketing claims, such as the Red Cross symbol. The announcement of this proposal came nearly a year ago, but EPA’s public comment period on the new rules will close on December 31. At that time, Beyond Pesticides issued comments and releases challenging the proposal.

This week, the environmental group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) commented on a proposed change to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) labeling policy. PEER’s latest announcement of EPA’s plan includes their submitted comments, list eight compelling arguments against changing FIFRA’s current requirements. In summary, they are:

1. Placement of the Red Cross and Other Safety or Environmental Symbols on Commercial Poisons is Inherently Misleading (a. Violates Federal Trade Commission Guidelines; b. Violates EPA guidelines; c. State Laws)

2. EPA Plan Puts Vulnerable Populations at Risk

3. Extraneous Claims Distract Consumer from Concentrating on Safe Usage Label Instructions

4. EPA Plan Creates Conflicts with State Regulations

5. EPA Has Presented No Information Indicating Why its Label Policy Is Needed

6. EPA Proposed Policy Lacks Workable Standards (a. No Criteria for Conclusions; b. No Fixed Burden of Proof or Even Burden of Presentation on Applicant; c. Questionable Claims will be Approved; d. Vague Policy Invites Litigation)

7. Proposal Entangles EPA in Corporate Marketing Schemes 8. Proposal Results in a Needless Diversion of Scarce Regulatory Resources

EPA cites the case of Clorox, which, last spring, applied to display the American Red Cross symbol on its labels, as one basis for its proposal. Its approval by EPA was contested by seven state Attorneys General and directly violated the language of FIFRA, which prohibits use of “symbols implying safety or nontoxicity, such as a Red Cross or a medical seal of approval (caduceus).” Beyond Pesticides and other groups petitioned EPA to revoke its approval, full details of which you can view here.State governments, as PEER’s comments mention, have also voiced opposition to EPA’s stance. Minnesota’s Pesticide Management Unit Supervisor, Gregg Regimbal, informed Clorox in April that “The American Red Cross as an organization and the red cross as its symbol are well understood to mean (at least) safety, and it is the MDA’s opinion and position that inclusion of such a symbol and organization name on a pesticide label would constitute misbranding.” Public comments urging EPA to reject this policy of adding misleading third-party endorsements to pesticide labels are critical to ensuring that no one, especially vulnerable populations like children and the illiterate, falsely believe a toxic product to be safe. You can review the full draft document here, and submit your comments for Docket ID #EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1008 through December 31. In your comments, include a request for an extension, to give an opportunity to comment to as many people as possible. If submitting by mail, send to Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You can also submit comments online by following directions to search for Docket ID #EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1008. For additional submission instructions, see the Federal Register.Beyond Pesticides has requested an extension of the comment period from EPA.

If you have already commented, please send your own request to Administrator Stephen Johnson. You can reach him by email at [email protected] or by fax at (202) 501-1450. If you have not yet submitted your comments, please include a request for extension, in order to provide opportunity for as many people to be heard as possible.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2007) Responding to numerous requests from the public for more time to comment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has opened an additional 60-day public comment period on a draft mosquito management policy until February 17, 2008. The original press release on the proposal, issued on October 15, 2007, and the Federal Register Notice (72 FR 58321-58333) outlines guidance for determining the conditions under which national wildlife refuges will control mosquitoes. Notification of the public comment period was published in the Federal Register December 19, 2007.

The Service received 35 comments during the original 45-day comment period, which closed on November 29, 2007. Mosquito Control Districts in several states as well as members of the public asked for more time to respond.

The Service currently allows some form of mosquito control by state or local vector control agencies under Special Use Permits on approximately 40 national wildlife refuges, most of them in coastal areas. An interim Director’s Order, issued in May 2005, provided guidance for mosquito management on refuges while a permanent policy was being developed.

The draft policy states that the Refuge System will allow populations of native mosquito species to exist unimpeded unless they pose a specific wildlife or human health threat. The draft policy also establishes guidelines for determining when mosquito populations occurring on national wildlife refuges pose a significant enough health threat or health emergency to either humans or wildlife that pesticides may be used on Refuge System lands to control them. When practical, the Service may also reduce mosquito populations on refuges using management actions that do not involve pesticides. All mosquito management regimes on Refuge System lands must use effective means of control that pose the lowest risk to wildlife and habitat, according to the draft policy.

“Mosquitoes are a natural component of most wetlands. Therefore, the Service will control populations of native mosquitoes on refuge lands only when they pose a threat to animals or humans,” said Service Director H. Dale Hall. “Control measures on refuge lands must comply with Federal laws and be compatible with the purposes and mission of the refuge.”

The Service allows pesticide treatments for mosquito population control on National Wildlife Refuge System lands when local, current mosquito population monitoring data have been collected and indicate that refuge-based mosquito populations are contributing to a human or wildlife health threat. Before any pesticides are applied on refuge lands, an approved pesticide use proposal must be in place.

The draft policy requires that refuge-specific mosquito management plans be developed in coordination with federal, state and/or local public health authorities responsible for vector-borne diseases, vector control agencies, and state fish and wildlife agencies. The plans will identify the specific conditions under which mosquito populations would be managed on the refuge, taking into account the local environment as well as current and historical mosquito-associated health threats.

The Service would also, where appropriate, collaborate with federal, state and/or local wildlife agencies, public health authorities, agriculture departments and vector control agencies to conduct education and public outreach activities to protect human and animal health from threats associated with mosquitoes.

Comments on the draft policy can be submitted by mail to: Michael J. Higgins, Biologist, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax to 703-358-2248; or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the draft policy can be found at www.fws.gov/refuges/policyMakers/NWRpolicies.html.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 97-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 548 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 63 fish and wildlife management offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

For more information about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, visit http://www.fws.gov/.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2007) Maine Governor John Baldacci’s 2008 legislative packet is set to include recommendations made by the task force he commissioned to develop safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in consumer goods and services. The Task Force to Promote Safer Chemicals in Consumer Products, submitted its report on Monday after a 16 month study identifying chemicals that should be phased out of Maine households and businesses.

Governor Baldacci plans to submit a bill incorporating task force recommendations to develop a comprehensive chemicals policy focusing on the safety of consumer products. Among the findings of the 13-member task force, which was commissioned in February 2006, was a lack of federal regulation to ensure consumers have access to environmentally safe products, and health costs that have spiked in part to exposure to chemicals such as lead and pesticides, the use of which has tripled in Maine in the past 15 years. These chemicals, the report says present “significant risk of adverse health consequences ranging from subtle cognitive development to chronic disease and premature death.” Currently, there are more than 8,900 pesticidal products that can be legally applied in Maine, and about 431 confirmed cases of exposure to pesticides were reported in Maine in 2005.

“Maine families want assurances that consumer products are safe. We are here because there is nothing more important that protecting the health and welfare of our citizens, especially our children who are more susceptible to the dangers of chemicals in consumer products,” said Governor Baldacci. “Gone are the days that protecting our people and environment run counter to business interests. In fact, we can encourage the use of safer chemicals that provide increased protection to human health and the environment while supporting innovation and economic opportunity right here in Maine.”

The report also states that manufacturers that sell products in Maine should warn consumers if their products contain toxic chemicals. Other major recommendations are:

• publication of a list of chemicals of high and moderate concern
• a database available to consumers showing which chemicals are in consumer products
• restricting chemicals in consumer products when safer alternatives are available and
  affordable
• more funding for state pesticides regulators for chemical tracking and consumer safety outreach
• encouraging “green chemistry”

The state previously launched several initaitves to reduce its chemical burden. The administration started a “Green Seal” program in which environmentally friendly cleaning supplies are purchased and used in several state-owned buildings in an effort to cut back on purchases of toxic products and pesticides. Efforts are also underway to determine the viability of developing an in-state facility to extract potato starch and convert it to make a plastic-type material. Maine also signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, building on the commitment to lower emissions and fund new investments in cleaner technologies and energy efficiency and conservation.

Maine environmental and business officials said Monday they will continue to work with the federal government to promote the purchase and use of nontoxic chemicals. To read the entire report visit http://www.maine.gov/dep/oc/safechem/saferchemfinrpt.htm.

Sources: Associated Press, Kennebec Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2007) According to a study published December 11, 2007 in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, banning lindane is a viable solution to protecting health and the environment without resulting in increasing problems with head lice and scabies. In 2002, California banned pharmaceutical use of lindane due to concerns about water quality, when high levels of this treatment for head lice and scabies were found to be impacting wastewater quality.

The study, “Outcomes of the California Ban on Pharmaceutical Lindane: Clinical and Ecologic Impacts,” describes the effects the ban has had on wastewater quality, unintentional exposures, and clinical practice. This is the first time that a pharmaceutical has been outlawed to protect water quality. As such, this ban provides a rare opportunity to evaluate the possible or potential outcomes of future public health interventions aimed at reducing pharmaceutical water contamination.

The study authors compiled data on lindane in wastewater treatment plant effluent for several large plants in California and one outside of California. Data on exposures to lindane were obtained from records of the California Poison Control System. The impact on clinical practice was assessed via a survey of 400 pediatricians.

Wastewater treatment plant monitoring showed that lindane declined in California after the ban. Similarly, unintentional exposure calls declined. Most physicians were aware of the ban (81%) and had used lindane previously (61%), but did not notice any difficulties with the ban (78%).

According to the study’s authors, the California experience suggests elimination of pharmaceutical lindane produced environmental benefits, was associated with a reduction in reported unintentional exposures and did not adversely affect head lice and scabies treatment. This ban serves as a model for governing bodies considering limits on the use of lindane or other pharmaceuticals.

Depending on its use, lindane is considered a pesticide or a drug. As a lice or scabies product intended to be used on the human body, it is registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a drug. When it is applied in other ways, it is typically registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as a pesticide.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2007) People exposed to banned organochlorine pesticides and other toxic chemicals that persist in the environment are more likely to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to new research funded by the British Columbia Cancer Agency. The study, “Organochlorines and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma”, was published in the International Journal of Cancer on December 15, 2007 and is so far the largest to examine organochlorines in plasma and their link to illness. The researchers measured the levels of pesticides or pesticide metabolites and congeners of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the blood of 880 British Columbians, half with NHL and the other half control subjects. Several pesticide analytes and a number of congeners showed a significant association with NHL.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is the fifth most common cancer in Canada and the most common type of lymphoma. “We know that the incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma has been steadily rising for the past 30 years worldwide, but there hasn’t been clear evidence to explain the increase,” says Dr. John Spinelli, Ph.D., lead author and a senior scientist at the BC Cancer Agency. “Our study helps to provide answers to this puzzle by showing a strong link between these specific environmental contaminants and this particular type of cancer.” Participants with NHL showed much higher levels of environmental contaminants than the control group. Individuals who had the highest total exposure to PCBs showed almost twice the risk of NHL compared to those with the lowest exposure. The PCB congener with the strongest association had an odds ratio (OR) for the highest versus the lowest quartile of 1.83 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.18-2.84]. The strongest association among pesticides was observed for oxychlordane, a by-product of the pesticide chlordane. Individuals with the highest levels of oxychlordane had almost three times the risk of NHL [OR 2.68, 95% CI = 1.69-4.24) compared to those with the lowest exposure. Chlordane is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen. Other pesticide analytes that showed a significant association with NHL were β-hexachlorocyclohexane, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, trans-nonachlor and p,p’-DDE (a contaminant of DDT).

These pesticides are old-generation synthetic pesticides, which previously were used extensively for insect control but banned in Canada in the 1970s and ’80s. “We are also seeing incidence rates for NHL leveling off in recent years, and this provides further evidence that these contaminants are important because many of these chemicals are no longer in use or are being used at reduced and highly controlled levels,” adds Dr. Spinelli. Today in Canada, PCBs are restricted for use only as insulating fluid in existing electrical equipment. In the past they have been used as flame retardants, hydraulic fluid, lubricating and cutting oil, and additives in pesticides, paints, and carbonless paper. Environmental data collected by the Ministry of Environment State of the Environment reports shows that more stringent regulation reduced the quantity of PCBs in use in Canada by 54% between 1992 and 2003, but traces of PCBs and other organochlorine chemicals still linger today though. Exposure to residuals can occur through the diet, particularly by eating meat since the chemicals are stored in the cells of animals. “We can’t really avoid these contaminants,” Dr. Spinelli said. “In fact they are still going to be in organic foods because although farmers aren’t spraying these chemicals on crops any more, [residue] is still in the air and in the soil. There’s not much we can do to keep from being exposed to them,” he said, adding that environmental toxins are believed to be the cause of about 10 per cent of cancers.

“This study is very important because it adds to our understanding of how exposure to chemicals that have become very common in our environment increases our risk of developing lymphoma,” says Dr. Joseph Connors, M.D., Chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group at the BC Cancer Agency and co-investigator on the study. Dr. Spinelli cautioned that more work needs to be done before the etiology of lymphoma can be pinpointed. “Looking strictly at environmental factors won’t provide the full picture,” he said Dr. Spinelli. “Our next step is to identify genetic factors that make individuals more susceptible to these environmental contaminants. In this way, we may be able to determine the mechanism by which contaminants increase the risk for lymphoma, and this knowledge may help to identify environmental risk factors earlier.” Philip Branton, scientific director of CIHR’s Institute of Cancer Research, added that the findings represent only a correlation. “This kind of study is suggesting there might be a link,” he said. “What we really need is a much larger, more comprehensive population study on cancer and the environment, and we’re trying to organize that.”

Sources: The Windsor Star; The Canadian Press;  Medical News Today

(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2007) A study recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives has found concentrations of the antibacterial chemical triclosan in a high percentage of subjects tested. Used in common household products like plastics, personal care products, and textiles, exposure routes are becoming difficult to avoid. According to the report’s summary, “Concentrations differed by age and socioeconomic status but not by race/ethnicity and sex. Specifically, the concentrations of triclosan appeared to be highest during the third decade of life and among people with the highest household incomes.”

The study analyzed urine samples from 2,517 individuals, age 6 and over. Annual household income ranged from less than $5,000 to $75,000, and three major self-reported racial/ethnic groups were non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and Mexican American. Of the 2,517 urine samples, 74.6 percent contained triclosan. However, “the frequency of detection of triclosan varied by income group (63.7% [$20,000-$45,000]; 78.7% [<$20,000]; and 76.8% [>$45,000]).”

The report discussed the high levels of detection: “We detected concentrations of free plusconjugated species of triclosan in urine in 74.6% of the samples examined. This high frequency of detection is most likely associated with daily use by the US general population of consumer products that contain triclosan, including at least one toothpaste brand, skin-care products, and other household products . . . LSGM triclosan concentrations were significantly higher among people in the high household income category than among people in the medium (P=0.04) and low (P<0.01) income categories. These differences might reflect differences in lifestyle choices (e.g. use of personal care products) that affect exposure to triclosan."

As for the impact of age upon the study’s findings, “We observed a curvilinear-increased relation between age and triclosan LSGM concentration for ages 6 and older. For people 20 years and older, concentrations appeared to decline as age increases. These data suggest that the concentrations of urinary species of triclosan peak around the third decade of life and then slowly decrease. This relation between age and triclosan concentration is not clearly understood, and these differences might reflect differences in lifestyle choices affecting exposure and/or pharmacokinetic factors based on age.”

This study, conducted between 2003 and 2004, indicates high rates of exposure to triclosan, and show its ubiquitous nature in products many of us encounter on a daily basis. As the report concluded, “The reported high frequency of detection of triclosan and the differences in urinary concentrations based on age and socioeconomic status highlight the importance of additional research to identify the sources and potential pathways of human exposure to triclosan.”

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2007) New research shows that farmers and vineyard owners may be able to add another safe, environmentally-friendly weapon to their pest management arsenal. A commonly used parasitoid, or parasitic insect that kills its host, has proven to be quite effective in the control of fruit flies in vineyards. These tiny pest-devouring insects are considered to be powerful “biocontrol agents” since they reduce the dependency on chemical pest management applications.

Jean Pierre Kapongo, Ph.D., an entomologist specializing in environmental health at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, recently published the results of a research study that will aid vintners and fruit farmers in their ability to produce healthier crops. According to Kapongo, vineyard owners and farmers can now control fruit flies (Ceratitis capitata) with Muscidifurax raptor, a parasitic wasp currently used in the control of other types of pests, including other species of flies. The study investigated the use of Muscidifurax raptor to control fruit flies in vineyards. Until recently, fruit flies have usually been controlled with chemical insecticides, biopesticides and selected natural enemies. For instance, to control a recent Medfly infestation in California, local agencies used a pesticide derived from spinosad, a naturally occurring extract from bacteria. Earlier, in the 1980s and 1990s, authorities sprayed Southern California with the organophosphate Malathion to combat the fruit fly. (See the Daily News blog post from September 17, 2007 for more details on Medfly eradication programs in California.)

Kapongo explained that these conventional control methods were not popular with farmers because of the adverse effects of chemicals and the unreliability of using living parasites. “Now we have discovered a parasitoid that is easily produced and effective in controlling fruit flies,” Kapongo said. He added that insectaries, where parasitic insects are commercially produced and sold, are ready to increase production of the insects in response to market demands from vineyard owners. Kapongo noted that using the Muscidifurax raptor parasitoid to control flies benefits the environment and promotes agricultural sustainability because the method lessens the need for chemical pesticides that are harmful to the environment and human beings. Biological controls are a staple of pest management for organic agriculture, and many are approved for use by the Organic Materials Review Institute. Researchers believe that the study results will have additional application for controlling flies that threaten animals in confined environments such as poultry houses, dairies and horse stables. The study, “Control of Mediterranean Fruit Fly Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) with the Parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) in Vineyards”, is available in the October issue of HortScience.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2007) On December 5, 2007, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied the petition filed on June 2, 2006, by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to revoke pesticide tolerances for dichlorvos (DDVP) established under Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, finding the petition to be “without merit.” According to the petition filed, the NRDC asserted that DDVP tolerances are unsafe and should be revoked for numerous reasons, including: (1) EPA has improperly assessed the toxicity of DDVP; (2) EPA has erred in estimating dietary and residential exposure to DDVP; and (3) EPA has unlawfully removed the additional safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The EPA, in its response says that the toxicity of DDVP is not a sufficient ground for seeking revocation of tolerances. NRDC’s petition argued that DDVP should not have been downgraded from “probable human carcinogen” to “possible human carcinogen.” But EPA found the studies cited to be inadequate to support an amendment in classification, and as such the petition to revoke tolerances to the extent based on the alleged cancer misclassification of DDVP was rejected.

The petition also challenged that various exposure studies used to evaluate chronic end points such as neurotoxicity and mutagenicity were inadequate for assessing risk in humans. However, the EPA contended that its assessment of the studies used, outlined in the registration documents for DDVP, utilized acceptable scientific techniques for evaluating exposure. The EPA also upheld DDVP tolerances and safety factors, which were cited by the NRDC as unsafe.

Despite this defeat, the NRDC’s petition prompted an update to the DDVP dietary exposure and risk assessment first incorporated in the 2006 Interim Regisitration Eligibility Decision (IRED), to include residues for drinking water, an updated monitoring and crop data program and the incorporation of estimated exposure from the use of naled as a wide area treatment for mosquitoes. The IRED was released after the petition was filed. A DDVP Special Review is currently open and will be formally concluded later in December, as risk concerns that prompted the review have since been mitigated or eliminated, according to the EPA.

In February 2007, the NRDC again filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to ban DDVP and carbaryl. NRDC has also contended that pesticide industry lobbyists llegally negotiated with the EPA for favorable pesticide regulation.

Currently used in pest strips, aerosol sprays and pet collars, DDVP is one of a class of the most dangerous pesticides, called organophosphates, which derive from World War II-era nerve agents. Studies have shown DDVP causes cancer in laboratory animals. California lists DDVP as a known carcinogen, while the World Health Organization lists it as a possible human carcinogen. According to NRDC, DDVP is already banned overseas, including the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden.

To read EPA’s decision, visit http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/December/Day-05/p23566.htm and http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/December/Day-05/p23571.htm. Objections to this decision and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 4, 2008. For more information, please contact Susan Bartow, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 603-0065; e-mail address: [email protected].

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2007) Arturo Rodriguez (UFW President), Devra Davis, Ph.D. (author and University of Pittsburgh professor of epidemiology) and Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. (UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology) will be speaking at the 2008 National Pesticide Forum. The conference, Reclaiming Our Healthy Future: Political change to protect the next generation, will be held March 14-16, 2008 at the University of California, Berkeley.

A native of Texas, Arturo S. Rodriguez has worked tirelessly to continue the legacy of Cesar Chavez since taking over the helm of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) upon the death of its legendary founder in 1993. Beyond winning fair contracts for its workers, the UFW continues to work to protect farmworkers from pesticides and other workplace hazards. Recent union victories are agreements with Gallo Vineyards Inc. and Coastal Berry Co., the largest winery and the largest strawberry employer in the U.S., as well as pacts protecting winery workers in Washington and mushroom workers in Florida.

Devra Davis, Ph.D., a renowned environmental health expert, is professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. Dr. Davis was designated a National Book Award Finalist for her book, When Smoke Ran Like Water. Her newest book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, details how we began fighting the wrong war, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies””a legacy that persists to this day. Dr. Davis has also held multiple advisory roles in national and international agencies, including the World Health Organization.

Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, is a specialist in the developmental endocrinology of amphibians. He was thrust into the limelight when Syngenta challenged him over his work showing the herbicide atrazine causes hermaphrodism (displaying both male and female characteristics) in frogs. His recent work highlights the hazards of pesticide mixtures, even when the levels of the individual pesticides are thought not to cause harm and were 10 to 100 times below EPA standards.

Forum topics include: Children’s health, Farmworker justice, Building just and healthy food systems, Power of local activism to influence political change, and much more. Also, Actress Kaiulani Lee will perform A Sense of Wonder, her one-woman play based on the life and works of Rachel Carson. Speaker bios, basic information and registration details are available online.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2007) In a global first, over 300 crop safety and pesticide management officials and other experts met last week to discuss challenges associated with pesticide use on “specialty crops” like garlic, ginger and chilies. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency organized the week-long Global Minor Use Summit, which took place at the FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. Unlike large-area, highly-traded crops such as corn, wheat, rice or cotton, specialty crops have traditionally been produced in relatively small amounts. As a result, studies on the use of pesticides in the cultivation of specialty crops have not been as systematic or widespread as they have been for major cash crops. Producers, many of them in the developing world, face barriers to export their goods to overseas markets with strong safety standards for imports.

International trade in specialty crops is booming, thanks in part to increased levels of human migration and modern preservation and transportation techniques. FAO data show that trade in non-traditional agricultural exports is worth more than US$30 billion a year. Developing countries have a 56 percent share of that trade. “For some countries and crops, like green beans in Kenya and exotic fruits in Malaysia, these ‘minor crops’ aren’t minor at all — national economies depend on them,” according to Gero Vaagt, a specialist with FAO’s Plant Production and Protection Division.

“There has been considerable interest in the opportunities which the fair trade and organic markets could offer to producers or exporters of non-traditional products, particularly those in developing countries,” according to the FAO technical paper, The market for non-traditional agricultural exports. “It is apparent, however, that the current market for fair trade and organic produce is still small relative to that for conventional produce and vulnerable to over-supply,” the FAO report continues, taking a cautious approach to organic agriculture.

The conference focused on how producers can more easily export non-traditional crops, as import standards aimed at protecting human health become increasingly strict, especially in developed countries. One major problem is that there are gaps at the international level in terms of registered uses for pesticides on specialty crops. Registration is the process through which national authorities evaluate which pesticides can be used by growers, and under what conditions. If a pesticide is permitted for use on certain crops, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are set that aim to quantify how much pesticide residue a product can safely contain. Prior to seeking approval, manufacturers typically conduct extensive field tests and other studies whose results are used by regulators when deciding to approve and register a pesticide. Since this involves a significant financial investment, they tend to focus on pesticides used on major crops only.

“There is little financial incentive for studies of pesticide use for minor crops, and as a result accepted MRLs are lacking, especially at the international level,” explained Shivaji Pandey, Director of FAO’s Plant Protection Division. “This means that when a specialty crop reaches an import market it can be rejected. The pesticide found on it might have been properly applied and existing in safe amounts, but because there’s no registered use for it on that crop, it fails the ‘zero tolerance’ litmus test.”

“What we’re trying to do is to look at ways to come up with more harmonized protection measures for these crops that are efficient, suit the needs of farmers, facilitate trade, ensure food and environmental safety, and benefit consumers,” Pandey said. In particular, he added, following the summit, FAO hopes to see more MRLs for pesticides used on specialty crops established at the international Codex Alimentarius level. Codex is a joint FAO-World Health Organization body that sets international standards for food safety, standards which are relied upon by the World Trade Organization when resolving trade disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.

Source: AllAfrica.com

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2007) According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s annual State of the Bay 2007 report, the health of the bay declined this year, and it received a failing “D” grade after dropping one point on the health index to 28 out of a total of 100 points. The aim of attaining 40 points by 2010 and removing the bay from the nation’s dirtiest waters list now seems to be unattainable.

The health of the bay has been evaluated every year since 1998, focusing on 13 indicators: oysters, shad, crabs, striped bass (rockfish), underwater grasses, wetlands, forested buffers, resource lands, toxics, water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and phosphorus and nitrogen pollution. Once examined, each indicator is assigned an index score and a letter grade, which when taken together gives an overall rating for the bay. This year phosphorus pollution and water clarity worsened and blue crab populations declined. Blue crab harvests are expected to be the lowest since the 1940s. There were no significant improvements in the other indicators.

The bay states: Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, as well as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the mayor of Washington D.C. pledged to reduce pollution in the bay after signing the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 2000. This includes reducing nitrogen pollution, which is mainly as a result of the use of agricultural and residential fertilizer that enters the bay system. As of 2006, only 19 million pounds of the target 110 million pounds of nitrogen have been reduced.

“For the last 20 years, the Bay restoration record has been littered with deadlines missed and actions not taken,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker. “Today, our elected leaders have a clear choice–accelerate their recent investments or revert to politics of postponement.”

The Foundation is calling for the public announcement of timetables for the programs that would help achieve the commitments outlined in the 2000 agreement. It is also suggested that the next priorities should be upgrading sewage treatment plants and completing targeted farm conservation plans, which would reduce approximately 37 million pounds more nitrogen pollution. Better control of stormwater is also recommended.

Between 2000 and 2004, little had been done by the states to meet their commitment to clean up the bay. However, in 2006-2007, Virginia committed significant amounts of money to upgrading its sewage plants, while Maryland passed its “flush tax,” which has generated millions of dollars to upgrade sewage treatment plants in 2004. Despite these achievements, power plants are still allowed to emit large amounts of mercury and nitrogen into the atmosphere, and along with rapid development, which includes more houses, lawns and cars; more nutrients are added to the bay. The much debated 2007 federal Farm Bill may have boosted restoration efforts by providing an unprecedented amount of funding critical for local bay farmers to implement conservation practices, and for water quality improvements in rivers, streams, and the Bay. However, this legislation has stalled in Congress.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation estimates that even with current programs and investments in place for reducing air pollution, upgrading sewage treatment plants, and controlling agricultural runoff, there are approximately 41 million additional pounds of nitrogen still to be reduced.

You can play a part in restoring the bay. Limiting the cosmetic use of chemicals on residential lawns can go a long way for reducing nitrogen runoff to the Chesapeake Bay. Beyond Pesticides has information about the growing movement in the U.S. to eliminate the cosmetic use of chemicals on lawns and landscapes. Please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/index.htm. Learn more about the importance of the Chesapeake Bay at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2007) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives this month 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 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The study, Household Exposure to Pesticides and Risk of Childhood Hematopoietic Malignancies: The ESCALE Study (SFCE), 115:1787—1793 (2007) , investigates the role of household exposure to pesticides in the etiology of childhood hematopoietic malignancies, using the national registry-based case—control study ESCALE (Etude sur les cancers de l’enfant) that was carried out in France over the period 2003—2004.

The researchers evaluated maternal household use of pesticides during pregnancy and paternal use during pregnancy or childhood which was reported by the mothers in a structured telephone questionnaire. Insecticides (used at home, on pets or for garden crops), herbicides and fungicides were distinguished. The researchers estimated odds ratios (ORs) using unconditional regression models closely adjusting for age, sex, degree of urbanization, and type of housing (flat or house).

The researchers included a total of 764 cases of acute leukemia (AL), 130 of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), 166 of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) , and 1,681 controls. Insecticide use during pregnancy was significantly associated with childhood AL [OR = 2.1 ; 95% confidence interval (CI) , 1.7—2.5], both lymphoblastic and myeloblastic, NHL (OR = 1.8 ; 95% CI, 1.3—2.6) , mainly for Burkitt lymphoma (OR = 2.7 ; 95% CI, 1.6—4.5) , and mixed-cell HL (OR = 4.1 ; 95% CI, 1.4—11.8).

The researchers conclude that the study findings strengthen the hypothesis that domestic use of pesticides may play a role in the etiology of childhood hematopoietic malignancies. The consistency of the findings with those of previous studies on AL raises the question of the advisability of preventing pesticide use by pregnant women.

Hematopoietic malignancies are the most common childhood cancers, with world age-standardized incidence rates of 43.1, 6.7, and 8.9 per million children in France for leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), respectively (Clavel et al. 2004). The etiology of those malignancies remains largely unknown. Some epidemiologic studies have suggested that pesticides might increase the risk of childhood hematopoietic malignancies (Daniels et al. 1997; Infante-Rivard and Scott Weichenthal 2007; Jurewicz and Hanke 2006; Nasterlack 2006, 2007; Zahm and Ward 1998). Furthermore, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the occupational spraying of insecticides as probably carcinogenic to humans (group 2A); adult lymphoma is one of the main cancers suspected (IARC 1991). Children can be exposed to pesticides in utero or during childhood through their parents’ work, domestic use, or the general environment (residues in food, water, air, and soil). It is not clear which sources of pesticide exposure are the most important for children, and household pesticide exposure may be a major exposure for children (Bradman and Whyatt 2005; Grossman 1995). No French survey on household pesticide use is available, but surveys conducted in North America and the United Kingdom reported high rates of household use or storage of pesticides (Adgate et al. 2000; Grey et al. 2006).

This study supports numerous other studies that have for years linked household use of pesticides with elevated rates of childhood cancers. See [viii] Gold, E. et al., “Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Children,” American Journal of Epidemiology 109(3): 309-319, 1979 and [ix] Lowengart, R. et al., “Childhood Leukemia and Parent’s Occupational and Home Exposures,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 79:39, 1987.

For more complete information, also see Beyond Pesticides’ Facts and Figures: Children, Pesticides and Schools.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2007) The state of Maryland, in an effort to stem the extensive pollution of the Chesapeake Bay, has developed a cost-share program that pays farmers to plant winter cover crops, beginning with a pilot program in 1992. Farmers plant a variety of crops, wheat being the most popular, which in turn absorb excess nutrients in the soil and reduce the amount that is washed into the bay. In spring, famers will harvest the cover crops (sometimes with an herbicide) and plant for the regular growing season.

According to a 2005 report by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), “Excess nutrients and sediments entering the Chesapeake Bay from urban, agricultural, and forested nonpoint sources [NPS] within the Bay region have been shown to cause degradation of both water quality and living resources.” The report continued by acknowledging, “Excess loading of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay region has been attributed to runoff and potential nitrate leaching from agricultural practices . . . agriculture has been its most frequent cause.”

Cropland in Maryland accounts for 1.7 million acres of 6.3 million total acres in the state. The MDA report states, “As in other agricultural areas nationwide, crop yields are linked to the amount of fertilizer applied to the soil.” So with a surplus of fertilizer applied under this theory, MDA argues, “the use of winter cover crops has been recognized as an efficient and cost effective practice to reduce NPS pollution.”

The current cover crop program is over-enrolled for MDA’s budget, which pays 1,529 farmers as much as $50 per acre to plant in winter. Participation demand has risen 54 percent in the last year, forcing Maryland to look for additional funding to continue the program. The $50 million Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund was passed this fall, but designates the money for he Department of Natural Resources and not the MDA, which cover crop advocates will try to change in the new year. The Environmental Defense, in a recent report, stated, “Farms are the largest and most indispensable part of the solution [to the Bay’s pollution]. We must help farmers, who already are taking steps to help the bay, deliver even greater benefits.”

Of course, part of the solution should be reducing dependence on synthetic fertilizers in the first place, eliminating the need to harvest cover crops with herbicides. State and federal incentives for organic farming would both protect the bay in the short term and the health of Maryland’s farmland in the long term. For more on organic farming, including the proposed amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill, click here.

Sources: The Baltimore Sun (November 13, November 23), Lancaster Farming

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2007) On November 29, 2007, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) reported 2006 pesticide use statistics that showed continued progress toward less pesticide use statewide. However, strawberry growers increased their reliance the highly toxic, ozone depleting fumigant methyl bromide.

Overall statewide pesticide use declined by nearly six million pounds from 2005 to 2006 (from 195.3 million to 189.6 million). While use increased in landscape maintenance, public health and other categories, production agriculture saw a 10 million pound drop.

Use of many high-toxicity chemicals, including carcinogens, neurotoxic pesticides and chemicals linked to reproductive effects dropped for the third consecutive year. “DPR works hard to promote least-toxic pest management, and our efforts are paying off,” said DPR director Mary-Ann Warmerdam. “At the same time, we will continue to strive for long-term success in pest management, and we have more work to do.”

On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times reports that state strawberry growers, primarily around Oxnard and in the Salinas and Watsonville areas, applied fumigants to 5,000 more acres, using 132 more tons of the chemicals than in the previous year. That is a 9% increase in acreage treated and a 3% increase in tonnage.

Methyl bromide is injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne organisms. Because of the high application rates and gaseous nature of these chemicals, they drift away from the application site to poison neighbors and farmworkers. EPA’s analysis evaluated possible buffer zones around fields and concluded that bystander exposure would not be significant. It said farmworkers could protect themselves sufficiently with respirators.

The Montreal Protocol, a 1992 commitment by the world’s nations that includes the phase out methyl bromide – one of the five deadly pesticides targeted by Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers – gave hope that farmworkers and others would finally stop being put at risk by this deadly pesticide. Unfortunately, EPA is not only backpedaling on this, but approved methyl iodide, a carcinogenic fumigant that may be even more hazardous to human health than methyl bromide, as its replacement. In EPA-reviewed lab studies, methyl iodide causes thyroid tumors, changes in thyroid hormone levels- which are closely tied to metabolic disorders, respiratory tract lesions, neurological effects, and miscarriages.

Fresno County applied the most pesticides, followed by Kern, Tulare, San Joaquin, and Madera.

DPR analysts note that pesticide use varies from year to year based on many factors, including types of crops, economics, acreage planted, and weather conditions. Even under similar conditions, pest problems may vary. For example, cool wet spring weather often prompts increased use of sulfur and other fungicides, as was the case in 2005. But similar weather conditions in 2006 did not produce as much vineyard disease in most areas, so wine grape growers actually used less sulfur. Total pesticide use in wine grapes dropped by about 8.5 million pounds.

Take Action: Contribute to a pesticide use reduction in your community by pledging your property pesticide-free and sign the Declaration on the Use of Toxic Lawn Chemicals. Learn more about organic land care on Beyond Pesticides’ lawns and landscapes page.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2007) Twelve states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday November 28 over a new regulation that exempts thousands of companies from disclosing to the public details about their use and emission of toxic chemicals. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York by Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Vermont, accuses the agency of jeopardizing public health and seeks to force it to return to more stringent requirements. EPA’s measure, which took effect in January, raised by 10 times the threshold for reporting most chemicals under its national Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.

For most toxic substances, the changes allow businesses that manage less than 5,000 pounds of a given chemical in a year, and release less than 2,000 pounds into the environment, to file a simplified, two-page form that provides only the names of the compounds. Previously, all companies that handled more than 500 pounds were required to file more detailed five-page forms, as were companies that handled any amount of substances considered the worst actors — those that accumulate in people or animals, are persistent in nature or are highly toxic. The EPA’s changes allow the latter companies to avoid detailed reporting if they emit none of the substances into the environment and manage less than 500 pounds. In joining the lawsuit, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said the EPA was “subverting a key public safety measure that helps communities protect themselves from toxic chemicals.”

“EPA’s rollbacks set a dangerous precedent that undermines two decades of public access to toxic pollution data,” said Emily Rusch, a California Public Interest Research Group advocate. For nearly 20 years, the national Toxics Release Inventory has allowed people to access data about hundreds of chemicals used and released in their communities. Congress established the toxic database in 1986 when it enacted the Right to Know Act after a 1984 leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, killed at least 20,000 people and left over 150,000 people injured. In about 9,000 communities, the annual reports provide details about the use of nearly 600 industrial chemicals. The reports identify which industrial plants emit the most toxic substances, whether their emissions are increasing and what compounds may be contaminating the air and water.

EPA spokeswoman Molly O’Neill said in a statement the TRI revisions included incentives to reduce emissions of PBT, persistent bioaccumulative and toxic, chemicals. O’Neill said companies “can only use the shorter TRI form for PBT reports if they can certify that they have zero release of PBTs to the environment.” EPA officials say they changed the regulation to cut companies’ costs of monitoring emissions and filing complex annual reports. The agency says the changes will save industry $6 million a year and affect about 6,700 facilities.

In its original proposal unveiled in 2005, the EPA had planned to grant even broader exemptions. But after an outpouring of opposition among the more than 100,000 comments received, the EPA dropped about 60% of the proposed exemptions. The goal, EPA officials said, is to cut costs for smaller facilities that contribute less than 1% of total emissions in the country. In all, industry spends about $650 million a year to comply with the reporting requirements.

But Brown said even small companies should be forced to provide the more detailed information because they pose a public threat. “A ton’s a lot of stuff, you know,” Brown said Wednesday in an interview. “As we swim in this chemical soup that modern society serves up, we certainly have a right to know what we are encountering. Number one, it makes the businessperson conscious that they’re trespassing on the public’s space, and secondly, neighbors and activists are alerted and can bring pressure to bear to reduce the emissions.”

Sources: LA Times, Ithaca Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2007) Seven years ago, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets, along with other crops like potatoes and rice, was shelved at fears that consumers would not support their use. Sugar beets, which produce about half of the United States sugar (almost all of which is used domestically), are used in foods like candy, cereal, and baking products. The failure of the GM beet’s initial introduction was based on unwillingness from companies like Hershey and Kellogg to provoke consumer protests.

Now, the marketplace seems to have changed enough that such big sugar-buying companies are less hesitant to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” beet (which are tolerant of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate). According to Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles, her company “would not have any issues” buying them because “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.”

“Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said American Crystal Sugar president David Berg of the switch. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.” Most other companies, including Hershey and Mars, are refusing to comment on the subject, which has kept these developments quiet until recently.

Despite the corporate perception of public opinion on GM crops, organic advocates are disappointed that GM sugar beets have again become a possibility. “When I first saw this I said, ‘No, it can’t be,'” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). “I thought we had already dealt with this.” OCA has already begun its consumer campaign to get sugar buyers to reject GM beets again. “I don’t think companies like Hershey are going to want any more hassles than they already have,” said Cummins.

Issues with the crop center around environmental impact, like herbicide-resistant weeds (which have begun to appear in Roundup Ready corn and soybean fields) and threats to wildlife (see Daily News from 10/24/03 and 1/21/05). While the sugar derived from GM beets does not contain DNA or proteins, in areas where the beets are left in the ground for a winter, like California, they can produce seed that might spread to other fields. “We have to make sure we don’t cause ourselves more problems than we’re curing,” said Ben Goodwin, executive manager of the California Beet Growers Association. For more background on GM crops, visit our program page.

Sources: New York Times, Wired Science

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2007) As a follow-up to a Congressional hearing in September 2007, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is planning to develop a unified program referred to as “Partnerships for Environmental Public Health” (PEPH). The intent of the program is to support a variety of research, outreach and educational activities to prevent, reduce, or eliminate environmental exposures that may lead to adverse health outcomes in communities, with the active engagement of those communities in all stages of the work.

To establish a vision for the PEPH Program, NIEHS is seeking input from the lay public, environmental health researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, policy makers and others with a vested interest in the effects of environmental exposures on public health. The NIEHS released a Request for Information (RFI) — available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-ES-08-002.html — with six open ended questions that will help the institute advance its commitment to environmental public health.

NIEHS requests that public input be sent to Mr. Liam O’Fallon ([email protected]) by January 19, 2008. The following are easy ways to submit your responses:

1. Download interactive Adobe Acrobat form [http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/docs/pephform.pdf] that can be completed and submitted electronically;
2. Copy and paste the questions from the RFI into the body of an e-mail message and send your responses to [email protected]; or
3. Mail or fax your responses in a letter to the attention of Mr. O’Fallon (address provided in the RFI).

If you have questions about this Request for Information (RFI), please contact Mr. Liam O’Fallon ([email protected]). Please reference the RFI in your subject line.

This effort grew out of Congressional hearings, September 25, 2007, held in the U.S. House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), to examine the impact on public health of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ (NIEHS) new research direction and priorities. A new emphasis on treating disease has come at the expense of preventive research, education and outreach, according to Rep. Kucinich. There was bipartisan agreement in the committee that this change in direction compromised public health, pointing the NIEHS’s 2006-2011 strategic plan and current budget priorities.

In March 2007, the Domestic Policy Subcommittee in conjunction with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee began an inquiry into former NIEHS director David Schwartz, M.D., amid allegations of conflicts of interest, financial misconduct, profiting from his title as director, and extremely low morale and lack of confidence among agency employees. In August 2007, Dr. Schwartz was asked to temporarily step down as director of NIEHS while the National Institute of Health (NIH) conducts its own internal investigation.

As reported on The Scientists.com, Samuel Wilson, acting director of NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, testified at the hearing that he intends to restore cuts to NIEHS programs that focus on disease prevention, long-term epidemiological research, education and outreach.

At the hearing, Rep. Kucinich pointed to several cuts in programs aimed at the prevention of environmental diseases, gave several examples of these cuts, including this year’s discontinuation the National Children’s Study program, which followed the health and development of more than U.S. 100,000 children from before birth to age 21, an almost one million dollar drop from the 2005 to the 2007 budget of NIEHS’s journal Environmental Health Perspectives, and the elimination of the community-based participatory research in environmental health program, which received $4.7 million in the 2004 budget.

Contact: Liam R. O’Fallon, Program Analyst, Division of Extramural Research and Training
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233 (MD EC-21), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; (T) 919.541.7733, (F) 919.316.4606, (E) [email protected]
(W) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/science-education/. Overnight Deliveries can be sent to: 79 TW Alexander Drive, Bldg 4401, Room 3457, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 28, 2007) Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. The CDC relies on the detection and analysis of only one of the twelve identified metabolites of atrazine measured in human urine samples to estimate exposure. However, after looking at multiple metabolites, researchers found that previous assessments missed most of the exposure. Atrazine mercapturate (AM), a metabolite of atrazine, was used as definitive evidence of direct atrazine exposure. General population data indicated that less than 5% of the population was exposed to atrazine-related chemicals. However, researchers at the CDC found that this research, which relied on AM detection, gives a low and misleading estimate of exposure to atrazine and atrazine- related metabolites.

Published in Environmental Health and Perspectives and entitled “Assessing Exposure to Atrazine and Its Metabolites Using Biomonitoring”, the small-scale study involving 24 individuals measured nine atrazine-related metabolites in urine. The sample was organized with respect to how likely the individuals were to be exposed to atrazine: (1) high exposure (turf pesticide applicators), (2) low exposure (non-occupationally exposed people in whom atrazine mercapturate was found during a prior study) and (3) environmental exposure (volunteers with no known exposure to atrazine).

Results indicated that the variation in proportion of total atrazine metabolites among persons was consistently large, suggesting that one metabolite alone could not be used to determine true atrazine exposure in humans. This means that most, if not all, metabolites of atrazine will need to be measured in order to get the most accurate picture of atrazine exposure. The researchers noted that exposure to atrazine or its metabolites appears more pervasive than previously believed.

Diaminochlorotriazine (DACT) was the most commonly measured metabolite, contributing 51% of atrazine-related metabolites in turf applicators, 28% to the low exposure group and 77% to the environmental exposure group. In contrast, AM contributed only 12%, 6% and 2% to samples from those groups, respectively.

These results are important because they demonstrate the importance of indirect environmental exposure, which for atrazine, would most likely be through food and drinking water. Most of the metabolites of atrazine, like DACT, are formed via environmental degradation.

They are detected in water and can even be bound in the tissue of plants, which may be miles away from the initial site of application. This also explains why AM, which is an indication of direct exposure, was more prevalent in turf applicators than in the other groups. The other common metabolites include: desethylatrazine (DEA), desisopropyl atrazine (DIA) and hydroxydesethylatrazine (DEA-OH). DACT and DEA appear to be the most important metabolites to measure to evaluate exposures to atrazine. The researchers emphasize that further evaluation is necessary because of the small sample size used and of other variables not considered.

Atrazine — which as been linked to cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and a variety of other health effects such as increased prostate cancer, decreased sperm count and high risk of breast cancer; and has been banned by the European Union — is the most widely used agricultural pesticide in the U.S. Its effect on amphibians has been well documented, and similarly serious health effects have been found in larger mammals.

It is also widely applied in the Mid-western states to control weeds in field crops, especially corn and sorghum and has been found in the drinking water supplies in the Midwest at high levels. Chronically contaminated drinking water puts humans at the risk of exposure to long-term health effects.

For more information on the safety of your drinking water contact your local health department or call EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline: (800) 426-4791.

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2007) While there is a trend towards less pesticide use in Christmas tree production, most trees are still treated with one pesticide or another — many of which are prohibited for residential use. In it’s 2007 survey results, North Carolina State University’s Mountain Horticultural Research and Extension Center, reports that glyphosate was the pesticide applied most commonly. The Center found that almost 90 percent of the state’s tree growers had applied glyphosate last season. The following tables summarize the state’s results, listing the pesticides that are used on at least 5% of the Christmas tree acreage.

Nearly 40 different active ingredients are registered for tree production nationwide. Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, and Virginia are the nation’s top Christmas tree producing states. Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture, which published a list of insecticides for Christmas tree production in February 2007, recommends carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, imidacloprid, malathion, permethrin and many more.

Many of these pesticides have been “banned” or have always been prohibited in residential settings, however EPA’s registration process and phase-out deals with manufacturers allows continued use on Christmas trees and other agricultural products. For information on the toxicity of these and other pesticides, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Alternatives (Internet Explorer preferred).

But hope is not lost. Organic Christmas trees and wreaths are available. Debra’s List, a website dedicated to “Green Living” has compiled a list of organic trees, wreaths and local organic tree farms. The Pesticide Education Project in Raleigh posts an online list of organic and sustainable tree producers in North Carolina.

This year, protect your family’s health and the environment by purchasing an organic Christmas tree or wreath. And while you’re at it, let your guests know you care by serving organic food at your holiday dinners and parties, and buy local, organic and fair trade gifts for your loved ones. The following are links to sites selling organic and fair trade gifts this holiday season: Global Exchange, Organic Bouquet, The Green Guide, Organic Gift Shop, Taraluna and World of Good. Happy Holidays!

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2007) Minnesota’s Department of Health (MDH) plans to measure arsenic levels in 100 children who live near a former pesticide production site in south Minneapolis. Pesticides containing arsenic, a known human carcinogen, were made and stored at the CMC Heartland site between 1938 and 1963. The pilot project follows the passage of health tracking and biomonitoring legislation and would help to determine whether children in south Minneapolis have elevated levels of arsenic in their bodies. Children who are found to have elevated levels would be advised to seek medical attention. Also, health officials would give families information to help them determine how they might be exposed to arsenic (including the soil, green-treated lumber, foods, dietary supplements and cigarette smoke) and to take steps to reduce the exposure in the future. Health Department staff members aim to begin the project in the summer of 2008 and will present preliminary plans and accept feedback on the proposal at a public meeting at December 6 at 7 p.m. at the Midtown YWCA, 2121 E. Lake St.

Health officials have said that the risk from the contaminated soil is low, particularly since much of the contaminated soil is under grass or other vegetation. “It’s our hope that this public meeting will help us design the best project possible for the community,” said Mary Manning, Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Division Director. “In addition, results from the pilot project will help us make recommendations about further public health actions, including the possibility of developing an ongoing biomonitoring program at MDH.”

This pilot project stems from state legislation that was passed in 2007, directing MDH to develop and implement a statewide Environmental Health Tracking and Biomonitoring (EHTB) program. Environmental health tracking is the ongoing collection, integration, analysis and dissemination of data on human exposures to chemicals in the environment and on diseases potentially caused or aggravated by those chemicals. Data for environmental health tracking are generally gathered from existing sources, such as statewide surveys and assessments. When tracked over time, environmental health data helps researchers, policy makers and public health authorities to recognize patterns, identify populations that are most affected and identify actions to protect public health.

Biomonitoring directly measures the amount of a chemical (or products that the chemical breaks down into) in people’s bodies. An increasingly popular science, it can be used to track hundreds of potentially harmful contaminants, such as lead, mercury, DDT and other pesticides, PCBs and flame retardants. Monitoring results will provide more information about toxics’ health risks by measuring how much, and in whom, they accumulate. In order to measure the chemical, a sample of a person’s urine, hair, blood, or some other body tissue or fluid is tested.

“Biomonitoring measurements can be a good way to determine exposure to a chemical — especially for chemicals that linger in the body — because they indicate the amount of the chemical that actually gets into people, rather than the amount that could potentially get into them,” said Jean Johnson, Environmental Health Tracking & Biomonitoring (EHTB) program director. Biomonitoring data have the potential to show changes in exposures to chemicals over time, to identify and assess groups of people who are at high risk for exposure, and to help decision makers target interventions to reduce exposure to chemicals in the environment. Biomonitoring projects measure only the exposure to chemicals and are not able to determine whether specific illnesses or health conditions are caused by exposure to those chemicals.

The legislation that created the EHTB program directed MDH to implement four biomonitoring pilot projects, including one in a community likely to have been exposed to arsenic. South Minneapolis was chosen as the site for the arsenic project because of the levels of contamination in the soil in many yards in the area and the concerns among community members. MDH made the selection in consultation with an EHTB scientific advisory panel. The south Minneapolis biomonitoring project will be the first of the four pilot projects. A second pilot project is being developed to measure perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in people’s bodies in the east metro area. The focus of the other two pilot projects has not yet been determined. Participation in the project is voluntary, however, participants will be chosen based on a number of demographic and exposure factors, in order to yield the most meaningful data for the projects, Johnson said.

In October 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed a bill to create the first statewide biomonitoring program. California state health officers will use blood, urine, tissue, hair and breast milk samples collected voluntarily from a cross-section of California residents, taking into account ethnic, age, income and geographic differences, in an effort to gauge levels of exposure to toxic chemicals from common use products. “We monitor the air, the water and land for chemical contaminants, but we don’t measure the chemical contaminants in people,” Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund said. “By doing that, we can provide the kind of data we need to better understand links between chemical exposure and rates of disease, and communities that are disproportionately affected.”

Sources: Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2007) The US Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its final plan to clean up a former fertilizer and insecticide plant that leaked numerous pesticides from its storage facility in Arvin, California. Among the chemicals released were dinoseb, ethylene dibromide, as well as other fumigants that have since contaminated the soil and potentially the groundwater.

Brown and Bryant, the company that manufactured and stored the chemical, was shut down 18 years ago. Since then residents have feared that the chemicals leaked would eventually get to the drinking water. The EPA confirmed that people who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk.

The plan for the site is three-fold. The first component is to relocate the nearest water well to another location yet to be determined. The second component is to design and implement a system of large water arbor wells to pump and treat contamination in the shallow groundwater that is contained below the site. The third component is to develop a monitored “natural attenuation” plan. This is the natural decomposition process of contaminants in the middle aquifer.

Residents were hoping that the plan would also include the removal of contaminants in the deeper water level. However, the EPA said the contaminants have not reached the drinking water below the site and that there is not enough water in the deeper zone to pump and treat.

“I’m cautiously optimistic, we didn’t get everything we wanted. But we did get improvements, which is key,” said Ingrid Brostrom, an attorney with Committee for a Better Arvin.

Under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, corrective action, such as the plan unveiled for Arvin, addresses the clean up of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into soil, ground water, surface water, or air. The owners or operators of facilities responsible for the contamination are held responsible for clean up. The EPA is currently in litigation with the Santa Fe Railway and Shell companies over who must pay to clean up the site.

Sources: The Bakersfield Californian, CBS Eyewitness News, Bakersfield

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2007) According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, as of January 1, 2008, dairy products with labels such as “growth-hormone free” will be illegal in the state. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff announced the decision last month after convening a 22-member Food Labeling Advisory Committee to look into false or misleading claims in “absence labeling.”The ruling covers all dairy products sold in the state, forcing some out-of-state manufacturers, in effect, to make Pennsylvania-only packaging. So far, the state Department of Agriculture has notified 19 companies that their labels must change. Of the three principal types of labeling affected by the ruling, getting rid of “growth-hormone free” milk labels has proven most controversial.The PA Department of Agriculture explained its decision in a statement on its website, “[S]ome milk labels contain statements such as ”˜hormone-free,’ but all milk contains hormones. Some labels also claim the absence of synthetic hormones, but there is no scientific test that can determine the truth of this claim.” Organic labeling, Mr. Wolff said, involves a certification process that includes surprise audits, so the department does not currently intend to interfere with it.

Some food safety advocates believe that Monsanto, the company that produces recombinant bovine growth hormone- rBGH or rBST- heavily influenced the state’s decision. Rick North, of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a leading critic of the artificial growth hormone, told the Associated Press that the Pennsylvania rules amounted to censorship. “This is a clear example of Monsanto’s influence,” he said.

Recombinant bovine growth hormone increases milk production by 15 percent, but causes an increase in udder infections in cows, and some studies have shown a correlation between certain types of cancer in humans and elevated levels of insulin growth factor, which is present in rBST-fueled milk. Canada, Japan, Australia and the European Union, have not approved the use of rBST because of health concerns.

Chuck Turner Jr., of Turner Dairy Farms in Penn Hills, PA told the Post-Gazette that rBST-free milk makes good business sense. Consumers pay an average of 25 percent more for milk labeled rBST-free. “There’s a certain customer segment out there that is interested in cows not being injected with this Monsanto stuff,” Mr. Turner said. “There’s nobody saying, ‘Give me milk with growth hormones.’ That’s the way we saw it.”

Environmentalists encourage consumers to buy organic milk and for local diaries to convert to organic methods. Organic certification ensures that consumers are drinking milk free of synthetic hormones and pesticides. The Pennsylvania ban only applies to milk labels. Advertisements may still make hormone-free claims.