Page 182 – Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog

05
Sep

Bayer Pesticide Plant Explosion Reveals Shaky Safety Record

(Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2008) On the night of August 28, a pesticide waste tank exploded at Bayer’s Institute, West Virginia plant. One worker was killed, another injured, and the blast was heard in Mink Shoals, more than ten miles away. Despite individual accounts of the resulting air pollution, Bayer officials assured the public that no chemicals had escaped the plant. An investigation of Bayer’s safety history and the area’s emergency response reveals a shaky safety record..

The tank involved in the explosion contained waste products from the production of Bayer’s insecticide, thiodicarb, which is banned in the European Union. Included in those were methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), hexane, methomyl, and dimethyl disulfide, all of which are acutely toxic to humans. According to chief of homeland security and emergency response for the state Department of Environmental Protection, Mike Dorsey, “The thing that blew up was the least dangerous of the stuff that’s there.”

Jeannie Young, who lives near the plant, said that following the blast, “My daughter and I have headaches.” When taking her dogs outside half an hour following the explosion, “They acted really funny. They wanted to come right back in the house.” In spite of a noticeable odor and reactions like Ms. Young’s, Mr. Dorsey said, “People should not be concerned about coming outside.”

In response to the explosion, officials closed Interstate 64, U.S. 60, and state Route 25 and ordered a shelter in place, but a conflicting rumor of an evacuation also circulated. Complicating the issuance of emergency instructions was an initial lack of information from the plant. Kanawha County Commission president Kent Carper said, “We are getting such poor information from the plant, it’s worthless,” and County Commissioner Henry Shores said the county relies on advice on chemicals to come from the companies themselves. “We follow their lead really,” he said.

The Institute plant, formerly owned by Union Carbide, also produces methyl isocyanate (MIC), the chemical involved in the sister plant’s deadly leak in Bhopal, India that killed at least 3500 people in December 1984 and is linked to the death and maiming of tens of thousands of people since then. MIC is an intermediate chemical in the production of the insecticide carbaryl (Sevin). The Institute plant currently stores more than four times the amount of MIC than that which leaked in Bhopal. In 1994, then-owner of the plant, Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., estimated that a worst-case leak of the MIC stockpile could kill people in a 10-mile radius of the plant. Today, almost 26,000 people live within just three miles of the plant.

In the wake of this explosion, teams of inspectors from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the federal Chemical Safety Board have arrived to reevaluate Bayer’s safety measures. In OSHA’s latest examination, “We found serious issues related to process safety,” said assistant area director Prentice Clay. “There were some significant deficiencies.” Since 2005, OSHA has issued eight serious and two willful citations to Bayer following a plant inspection.

Philipp Mimkes, spokesman for the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers (CBG), said, “Bayer managers have often enough downplayed the risks of the Institute plant. Bayer has to make clear which amounts of which substances escaped into the air. We repeat our demand that MIC and phosgene stockpiles at Institute have to be dismantled. The explosion once more shows that the neighborhood of the plant is constantly endangered.” CBG has posted a partial list of accidents at the Institute plant, including a small MIC leak in 1997.

Sources: CNN, The State Journal, The Charleston Gazette, Huntington News, CBG

Posted in Bayer, Corporations, Events, State/Local, thiodicarb, West Virginia by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

04
Sep

Federal Court Upholds Ban on Genetically Engineered Alfalfa

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2008) On September 2, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers. Beyond Pesticides is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Although the suit (Geertson Seed Farms, et al. v. Johanns) was brought against U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forage Genetics and Monsanto entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that, “Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.”

“This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, lead plaintiff and counsel in the lawsuit. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the judge rightly dismissed Monsanto’s claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America’s farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.”

The decision upholds U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s May 2007 ruling, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. Judge Breyer specifically noted that Monsanto’s fear of lost sales “does not outweigh the potential irreparable damage to the environment.” Judge Schroeder’s decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. It also affirms that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant “superweeds” that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa.

In addition to Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Food Safety represented the following co-plaintiffs and itself in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms. For more information on the lawsuit, please visit the Center for Food Safety website.

For more information on GE alfalfa and other GE food issues, see Beyond Pesticides GE Food and Organic Food program pages, as well as past news articles in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog archives.

Posted in Corporations, Genetic Engineering, Litigation, Monsanto by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

03
Sep

Controversial EU Pesticide Residue Rules Take Effect

(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2008) On September 1, new rules that set harmonized maximum reside levels (MRLs) for pesticides went into force in the European Union (EU), despite opposition from environmental groups that claim the new rules expose consumers to unacceptable levels of contamination. This new regulation, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, is the result of a considerable joint effort by the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Member States, and aims to revise and simplify standards pertaining to pesticide residues and, according to officials, helps to strengthen food safety across Europe.

The new MRLs aim to remove the confusion associated with dealing with 27 lists of national MRLs. Previously, different MRLs could apply to the same pesticide for the same crop in different member states, which led to confusion, especially in cases where food residues exceeding defined MRLs in one member state were acceptable in another. Traders of produce will now be able to do business smoothly as the confusion surrounding various MRLs is eliminated. The regulation covers approximately 1100 pesticides and lists MRLs for about 315 agricultural products. The MRLs also apply to processed products.

“The new rules apply the principle that food produced or imported in one member state must be safe for consumers in all of them,” says EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou. “They ensure that pesticide residues in food are as low as possible and have no harmful effects.”

However, environmental groups claim that the new rules violate food safety by exposing consumers to unacceptable levels of contamination. Many groups have even threatened legal action- two groups, Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, have already lodged an appeal at the Court of First Instance. The groups are united in their condemnation of the rules and cite that the methodologies by which the new limits were devised are questionable and urge that further consideration of cumulative effects of pesticides on human health be studied.

Elliot Cannell, Coordinator, PAN Europe, said that the European Commission has failed to deliver on its obligation to set legal limits at the lowest achievable level as agreed in the Regulation. “For each pesticide, the [European] Commission identified the country with the worst safety limit and then sought to adopt this level as the new EU-wide standard. European consumers will now receive a much lower level of protection from dietary exposure to over 200 different pesticides,” Mr. Cannell said.

A joint analysis*, published last week by Greenpeace and Global 2000, found that almost 700 of the MRLs in fruit and vegetables were too high. 94 EU limits exceed the acceptable daily intake (ADI). When the ADI is exceeded there can be chronic damage to health such as cancer, disruption to the reproduction system or hormones. The study singled out apples, pears, grapes, tomatoes and sweet peppers as those with an unacceptable level of contamination and pose risks, especially to children.

Food items sold in Europe contain 349 different pesticides. Approximately half of all food items are contaminated, while over 5% of fruits, cereals and vegetables contain 5 or more pesticides.
To avoid pesticide contaminated foods, organic produce should be bought whenever possible.

For more information of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

* Report published in German and English

Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive UK, Europa Press Release

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

02
Sep

Research Shows Wide Array of Pesticide Exposures to Bees

(Beyond Pesticides, September 2, 2008) In new research findings by a Pennsylvania State University team, honey bees are exposed to a wide variety of pesticides outside of their hives. Add the outside assault to the pesticides already in the waxy structure of the hive, and bee researchers see a problem difficult to evaluate. However, an innovative approach may mitigate at least some beeswax contamination.

The researchers presented their analysis of pollen, brood, adult bees and wax samples on August 18 at the 236th national American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia. Those results show unprecedented levels of fluvalinate and coumaphos – pesticides used in the hives to combat varroa mites – in all comb and foundation wax samples. They also find lower levels of 70 other pesticides and metabolites of those pesticides in pollen and bees.

“Everyone figured that the acaricides (anti-varroa mite chemicals) would be present in the wax because the wax is reprocessed to form the structure of the hives,” says Maryann Frazier, senior extension associate. “It was a bit of a shock to see the levels and the widespread presence of these pesticides.”

While the researchers expected the presence of the chemicals available to treat varroa mites in the hives, the other pesticides’ levels were also surprising. All of the bees tested showed at least one pesticide and pollen averaged six pesticides with as many as 31 in a sample.

Testing bees for pesticide exposure presented a relative challenge. “We already had in place ways to test for viruses, bacteria and fungi, but it was difficult to find an analytical laboratory that could analyze for unknown pesticides,” says Christopher A. Mullin, Ph.D., professor of entomology. “We needed them to take a comprehensive look at all pesticides, not just those associated with beekeeping.”

They eventually turned to the National Science Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agricultural Marketing Service that already tests commodities such as milk and fruits and vegetables to allow them to meet national and international standards.

“When we began doing this work, honey was not regularly analyzed, and bee pollen was not a commodity and so was not analyzed,” says Dr. Mullin. “We decided to go with the types of screening the lab does for milk and apples which look at over 170 pesticides. Now, honey is included in the commodities to be analyzed.”

The researchers, including Roger Simonds, a chemist at the National Science Laboratory, decided on a modified QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) method because it uses smaller samples. They coupled this with gas and liquid chromatography to develop methods of analyzing pollen, bees and wax.

“Simplicity was important because there were many people across the country sampling for us,” says Maryann Frazier. “Now rather than having them collect 15 grams of pollen they need only collect 3 grams.” The researchers note that this method also uses less solvent and generates data in the parts per billion range.

While beekeepers will have a difficult time directly controlling pesticide exposure outside the hive, the researchers tested a method for reducing the acaricide load in beeswax. Using gamma radiation from a cobalt 60 source housed at Penn State’s Breazeale Reactor, they irradiated the sheets of beeswax that beekeepers use as the structural foundation for the bees to build their combs. They used radiation levels at the high end of that used to irradiate foods. Irradiation broke down about 50 percent of the acaricides in the wax.

“Gamma radiation is often used to kill viruses and other disease causing agents,” says James L. Frazier, Ph.D., professor of entomology, Penn State. “Commercial irradiation firms usually decontaminate medical instruments or foods.”

The researchers tried irradiation at a commercial plant and though some modifications were necessary to irradiate the wax sheets, it is possible. Some beekeepers already irradiate their equipment to get rid of any disease causing agents. However, it might be more efficient if the wax sheet supplier irradiated their product before sale to the beekeepers.

Beekeepers cannot manage the environmental pesticide contamination as easily as the wax contamination, as pesticide use in conventional agriculture tends to be widespread and varied. These chemicals mix when bees roam to gather pollen, but the interactions of such mixtures are not considered in a pesticide’s regulation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With the large number of pesticides found in bees and pollen, interactions are likely.

“We are finding fungicides that function by inhibiting the steroid metabolism in the fungal diseases they target, but these chemicals also affect similar enzymes in other organisms,” says Dr. Frazier. “These fungicides, in combination with pyrethroids and/or neonicotinoids can sometimes have a synergistic effect 100s of times more toxic than any of the pesticides individually.”

For CCD, bees are not dying in their hives, but are not returning to their hives. Dr. Frazier notes it is difficult to observe bees outside the hive. The EPA only looks at acute exposure to individual pesticides, but chronic exposure may cause behavioral changes that are unmonitored.

“We do not know that these chemicals have anything to do with Colony Collapse Disorder, but they are definitely stressors in the home and in the food sources,” says Dr. Frazier. “Pesticides alone have not shown they are the cause of CCD. We believe that it is a combination of a variety of factors, possibly including mites, viruses and pesticides.”

The effect of pesticides, however, is clearly contributing to the drop in bee populations. Organic farming, with fewer agricultural inputs, may provide fewer weakening agents to bees, something the Penn State team is interested in studying.

“We now want to look at small versus large operations and organic versus nonorganic operations to see if there are differences,” says Maryann Frazier.

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Coumaphos, fluvalinate, Pollinators by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

29
Aug

EPA Takes Action to Enforce Farmworker Protection Law

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2008) It was seen as a positive development when EPA this summer announced that, “Through recent settlements with four Puerto Rico farms, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending a message to farm owners that protecting their workers must be their first priority.” That is tough talk from an agency that has long been criticized for its abysmal record of instituting and enforcing even the most basic human health protections from pesticides for those who are responsible for planting and harvesting much of the nation’s food. And it turns attention to the larger question of whether the enforcement system that EPA has in place is adequate.

This case started in October 2007 when EPA filed a complaint against four Puerto Rico farms for being in violation of the worker protection standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the settlement, each farm has agreed to pay a civil penalty, and to display information on pesticide applications, information on pesticide safety and emergency medical care, as well as to provide decontamination supplies for workers and handlers, personal protective equipment, and pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. The farms have agreed to meet specific deadlines set by the EPA to report on progress that has been made under the settlement agreements. Owners of Finca Roman Farm, Anthuriums de Puerto Rico and the Javier Quiles Farm, all in Adjuntas, as well as the owner of Finca Los Tres Picachos in Jayuya, failed to display specific pesticide application information for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. Several of the farm owners also failed to provide workers with training, protective equipment or ways to wash off residual pesticides before leaving the work sites. Additionally, some of the farm owners failed to provide medical care information to workers and pesticide handlers and did not follow the pesticide label instructions for proper pesticide use and disposal.

Earlier on January 19, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessed the second highest penalty for violating worker protection provisions of U.S. pesticide laws to an agricultural company based in Puerto Rico. According to the EPA, Martex Farms has been ordered to pay a total penalty of $92,620 by EPA’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (See Daily News of February 7, 2007.)

On an historical note, farmworkers were originally “protected” under a 1974 standard in EPA regulations that only instructed growers to keep workers out of pesticide-treated fields until the dusts had settled or sprays had dried. That standard was developed after field hearings in which EPA heard from growers but not farmworkers. With the threat of litigation from the National Association of Farmworker Organizations and Migrant Legal Action Program in the late 1970s, the Carter Administration funded an effort to reach out to workers and collect data on their experiences with pesticide exposure and poisoning in the fields. Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director, involved in that effort, points out that, “Chemical-intensive growers viewed the discussion about worker protection as a threat to agricultural production and their livelihood and resisted calls for new standards.” So, it was not until nearly 15 years after the Carter Administration began the review that EPA in 1992 upgraded the 1974 “standard.”

GAO, in its 2000 analysis Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children (GAO-GAO/RCED-00-40), describes the background on the WPS:

EPA established the Standard in 1974, but in 1980, the agency reviewed the Standard and found it inadequate to protect agricultural workers from exposure to pesticides. In 1992, EPA made major revisions to the Standard that the agency began enforcing in January 1995. The revised Standard contains general protections applicable to farmworkers and others, including prohibiting the spraying of pesticides while anyone is in a field or allowing the exposure of people to pesticide spray drift. The Standard also contains provisions that specifically apply to farmworkers, including restricting entry into treated areas for specified periods and requiring employers to provide workers with, among other things, (1) information about when and where pesticides were applied, (2) basic pesticide safety training, and (3) supplies (soap, water water, and towels) for workers to use to decontaminate themselves. (p7 GAO/RCED-00-40)

GAO is extremely critical of the enforcement apparatus that EPA has established to carry out the WPS. According to Farmworker Justice http://www.fwjustice.org/health&safety/Pesticides.htm, “Most violations merely result in a letter of warning, and few monetary penalties are issued.” GAO, in its reports cites limited inspections that could lead to enforcement actions. The enforcement system relies heavily on states under cooperative agreements with EPA, which provides funding for state enforcement activities.

According to GAO:

In fiscal year 1998, 5 states reported to EPA that they had conducted no routine worker protection inspections, and 11 other states each reported conducting fewer than 10 routine inspections under the cooperative agreements with EPA.6 In addition to the inspections conducted under the cooperative agreements, states can conduct additional worker protection inspections using state resources. However, EPA regional officials told us that they generally do not receive information on the number of inspections conducted with state resources. Moreover, officials from several EPA regions told us that worker protection enforcement is in its infancy in some states and that the states had conducted few, if any, routine worker protection inspections on their own. (p21)

We also found inconsistency among EPA’s regions in whether they negotiated goals for the number of routine worker protection inspections that the states should conduct under the cooperative agreements. Specifically, while three of EPA’s regions had established goals for the number of routine worker protection inspections that states in their regions should conduct, the remaining seven regions had not. Within the three regions, the goals have established at least a minimum number of routine worker protection inspections to be conducted under the cooperative agIn reements. For example, beginning in fiscal year 1999, EPA’s Atlanta region reached agreement that each of the eight states in the region would conduct between 60 and 100 routine worker protection inspections annually. These goals call for several of the states in the region to do many more inspections than they have done in the past. In fiscal year 1998, Alabama reported that it had conducted only five routine inspections under its cooperative agreement, and Tennessee reported it had conducted four such inspections. The remaining seven EPA regions had not negotiated routine worker protection inspection goals, and according to officials from several regions, it is up to the states to decide how to spend their federal pesticide resources.

Besides the inconsistency in setting inspection goals, EPA was also inconsistent in establishing minimum requirements for what constitutes a worker protection inspection for reporting purposes under the cooperative agreements. Officials from six regions told us that states have varying interpretations of what constitutes a worker protection inspection for reporting purposes. For example, as part of our analysis of the number of worker protection inspections conducted under the cooperative agreements during fiscal year 1998, we noted that Oklahoma had reported conducting 174 such inspections, while New Mexico reported conducting 1 inspection.

We also found that EPA’s regions were inconsistent in the extent to which they oversaw and monitored the states’ implementation and enforcement of the Standard. During fiscal year 1998, three of EPA’s regional offices limited their oversight of the states’ worker protection enforcement programs to file reviews, meetings and discussions with state officials, and mid- and end-of-year reports. No one from these regional offices accompanied state officials on any worker protection inspections during the year.

We found that the regions did not know how many and what types of actions the states had taken in response to worker protection violations. Although the states report to EPA on the number and types of actions (such as fines or warning letters) taken under their pesticide enforcement programs, these statistics do not isolate the number and types of actions that involved worker protection as opposed to other pesticide requirements such as the proper labeling of pesticide products. EPA’s Atlanta region, however, has developed a tracking system that is intended to provide the region with statistics on actions states have taken in response to worker protection violations. (p 22)

In 2005, EPA developed a new WPS How to Comply (HTC) Manual which supersedes the 1993 version. EPA maintains that changes to the WPS since 1993 have made the earlier version obsolete, and its continued use may lead an employer to be out of compliance. The 2005 HTC Manual revision was coordinated by EPA’s National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center and a workgroup consisting of representatives from EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional Offices, and several state agencies, with input solicited from USDA and other state and tribal pesticide agencies.

See EPA press release here.

Posted in Pesticide Regulation, Puerto Rico by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

28
Aug

German Coalition Sues Bayer on Bee Die-Offs

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2008) The German Coalition Against Bayer Dangers has filed legal action in Germany against Bayer for its role in marketing insecticides that the coalition believes company officials knew were toxic to honey bees. The suit follows recent action by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the agency into compliance with its Freedom of Information Act request for scientific studies relating to clothianidin, one of the Bayer-manufactured pesticides tied to bee toxicity.

In May, Germany suspended the approval of eight pesticides linked to a massive bee die-off. Six of the eight suspended are manufactured by Bayer, the other two by Syngenta. Two of the primary active ingredients of concern are clothianidin and imidacloprid, both in the neonicotinoid family of chemicals. They are systemic pesticides, meaning the chemical is incorporated into plant tissue and can therefore be present in pollen and nectar, which is of particular importance to bees. They also have long persistence in the soil and can be absorbed by multiple generations of crops, increasing the likelihood of exposure for bees.

Attorney Harro Schultze, who represents the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers said, “The public prosecutor [in Germany] needs to clarify which efforts Bayer undertook to prevent a ban of imidacloprid and clothianidin . . . We’re suspecting that Bayer submitted flawed studies to play down the risks of pesticide residues in treated plants.” Bayer continues to defend its products, claiming that when properly used they pose no threat to bees. Richard Schmuck, an ecologist at Bayer CropScience, said in June, “All studies available to us confirm that our product is safe to bees if the recommended dressing quality is maintained. This is also shown by the product safety assessments which we have submitted to the registration authorities.”

In France, concern over the effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees led to severe restrictions on imidacloprid beginning in the 1990s and a rejection of Bayer’s application for approval of clothianidin in 2003. These actions followed contentious debates over the science between Bayer scientists, independent researchers and beekeepers. A 2007 examination of the French debate over imidacloprid in the journal Science of the Total Environment reveals that Bayer used outdated and disproved methods (not meeting state of the art detection limits) for its “scientific” studies assessing the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees, actions that call into question all of the scientific studies Bayer has produced regarding its products, in which it has a clear, vested economic interest.

The U.S. and German lawsuits both stress the importance of transparency in pesticide registration, and the importance of valid science when making registration decisions. The NRDC lawsuit against EPA prompted a letter from EPA’s Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, Debra Edwards, PhD, stating that “EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs ”˜sets the bar’ for its exceptional public participation processes and transparency.” NRDC refutes this claim by pointing to several cases in which federal judges rebuked EPA for just the opposite””a lack of transparency and public participation on pesticide regulatory issues. Despite NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act request, EPA still does not have a complete public record of the agency’s decision to approve clothianidin.

Source: Environment News Service

Posted in Bayer, Clothianidin, International, Litigation, Pollinators by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

27
Aug

Proposed European Pesticide Ban Under Attack

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2008) Citing the possibility of lower crop yields and higher food prices, government ministers in the United Kingdom are planning to step up pressure on the European Parliament in opposition to plans to ban the most hazardous pesticides, amounting to three quarters of the pesticides used by farmers in the European Union. Environmental campaigners, like the UK Pesticides Campaign, are adamant that a crackdown on the use of pesticides is needed to protect public health and believe that the new measures must not be watered down by industry lobbying.

Officials from the U.K. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) believe that the ban would remove important pesticides from the market. Those arguing against the proposal say it could prevent the use of certain fungicides and result in substantially lower wheat yields, postulating a 30 percent reduction from current levels. DEFRA officials claim that the ban would have “significant adverse impact on crop protection, but secure no significant health benefits for consumers.”

British Farming Minister Lord Rooker is adamant that fungicides should not be banned before alternatives are approved and is urging other European countries to block the measure. The controversy centers on the types of chemicals to be removed, including substances with endocrine disrupting properties that could cause adverse effect in humans. Advocates for a reversal of the planned ban argue that the public is already exposed to such substances through prescribed drugs, meat, peas and beans and products like soya milk.

DEFRA ministers insist that withdrawing these pesticides is likely to cause “significant agronomic and economic damage” but not lead to any significant loss in overall consumer exposures to endocrine disruptors.

Last fall, the European Parliament voted in favor of tighter legislation to be enacted by 2013. However, member states are to be given the discretion as to how the plan would be implemented in their countries. In May, the European Union Health Commissioner called on European governments to adopt tougher guidelines on pesticides and to ban the use of all potentially dangerous pesticides that can cause cancer, reproductive effects and hormone disruption. Then, the Commissioner urged agriculture ministers of member states not to ”˜water down’ recommendations in the two-year-old draft plan to introduce tougher guidelines on the use of pesticides.

It is expected that in the fall the plan will be formally adopted as the common position of the European Council and passed to the European Parliament for the second reading.

Source: Western Morning News UK

Posted in International, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

26
Aug

Court-Imposed Pesticide Air Pollution Standards Reversed on Appeal

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2008) On August 20, 2008, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2006 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) that required the state of California to establish limits on air pollution associated with pesticide use. The Appeals Court found that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to impose solutions under the Clean Air Act.

According to the plaintiffs represented by the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment (CPRE), an environmental justice litigation organization based in San Francisco, pesticides are the fourth largest source of smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Prior to 2005, the state did not regulate this source of pollution from the politically powerful agriculture industry, even though the state had made a promise to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides by 20% more than a decade earlier in its Ozone State Implementation Plan, a smog clean up plan adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act. El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart and the Association of Irritated Residents, represented by CRPE, filed suit (El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart, et al. v. Warmerdam, et al.) in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in July 2005.

In April 2006, Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor, requiring California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to implement regulations to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides by 20% from 1990 levels by January 1, 2008. The judge found the act was violated when regulators used improper data in calculating the baseline for emission reduction goals and thus did not adopt “enforceable control measures.”

The state appealed and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state.

“As it carefully worked through the parties’ labyrinthine administrative law arguments, the [U.S. District] court acknowledged that its rulings were potentially incongruous. We agree. In our view, the district court ultimately exceeded its jurisdiction,” says the appellate ruling. “While we acknowledge that the baseline is a critical foundation, this does not change our view that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualify as independently enforceable aspects of the state’s plan.”

The ruling was unanimous among the three-judge panel of Circuit Judges Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Michael Hawkins and Margaret McKeown.

Posted in Asthma, California, Chemicals, Disease/Health Effects, State/Local by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

25
Aug

Wood Preservative Contaminant Linked to Childhood Obesity

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2008) A recent study by Spanish researchers has found a connection between an ncreased risk of childhood obesity and exposure to the organochlorine pesticide and contaminant hexachlorobenzene (HCB) before birth. Entitled “Exposure to hexachlorobenzene during pregnancy increases the risk of overweight in children aged 6 years,” the article was published online by Acta Paediatrica at the end of July. Found as a contaminant in the wood preservative pentachlorophenol, widely used in the U.S., HCB is extremely persistent in the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it “has been listed as a pollutant of concern to EPA’s Great Waters Program due to its persistence in the environment, potential to bioaccumulate, and toxicity to humans and the environment.”

Researchers studied 405 infants in Menorca, Spain. They measured persistent organic pollutants (HCB, PCBs, p,p’-DDE, and p,p’-DDT) in their cord blood and then measured each child’s height and weight at 6.5 years of age. “Overweight” was defined as the 85 percentile or higher on the US National Center for Health Statistics/WHO reference body mass index (BMI). They also took into account information about the mothers, such as age, education, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, weight, and diet.

All 405 children studied had contaminants in their cord blood. P,p’-DDE averaged the highest level, and p,p’-DDT had the lowest. The median level of HCB was third-highest, at 0.68 ng/mL. The children in the group with highest HCB exposure also had the highest exposure to the other organochlorines, and their mothers were older and had higher BMI. The children in this group also had the highest BMI. After sorting factors like the mother’s weight during pregnancy, HCB exposure related to obesity remained significant. Children with higher exposure had a 1.7 risk of being overweight compared to the low exposure group, and a risk of 2 for obesity.

The researchers concluded, “The prevalence of obesity has increased at an alarming level of at least 300 million people worldwide. Additionally, other diseases like diabetes will increase in prevalence as well. Protection for this possible diabetes epidemic is needed. The risk on increased BMI at a young age, caused by prenatal exposure to OCs like HCB, has to be minimized. Therefore, it is important that pregnant women are informed about the possible effects on prenatal exposure to HCB on the BMI of the child later in life.”

HCB has also been linked to non-hodgkins lymphoma and behavioral disorders. EPA’s fact sheet on HCB lists a variety of health effects, as well as possible sources of exposure.

Source: Environmental Health News

Posted in hexachlorobenzene (HCB), Obesity by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

22
Aug

Comments Needed: Tell EPA to Revoke Endosulfan Tolerances!

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2008) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting comments on letters sent from the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances for the toxic pesticide endosulfan. In addition, EPA is accepting information on endosulfan residues on commodities consumed by Alaskan natives.

PANNA’s August 12 letter stated: “We are particularly concerned about the effects of endosulfan on prenatal and child development. Peer-reviewed science demonstrates that endosulfan is both an endocrine disruptor and a neurotoxicant.”

The letter followed up on a February 2008 petition signed by 13,300 people across the country, a legal petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council that same month, three letters sent to the Agency on May 19, 2008 signed by 111 nonprofit environmental groups, 55 scientists, and 5 coalitions of Indigenous groups and tribes, and a lawsuit filed on behalf of PAN, environmental and farmworker groups on July 24.

“Endosulfan poses a threat to the health of children in the U.S.,” the letter concluded. “This antiquated DDT-era organochlorine has already been phased out of agriculture in the European Union and at least 20 other countries. It is high time for the U.S. to take the health of our future generations seriously and ban all uses of endosulfan.”

Endosulfan also made news after ten tons of the pesticide spilled in the Philippines during a typhoon, complicating efforts to recover the 800 people who died in the wreck.

TAKE ACTION: Tell EPA you support a full revocation of all tolerances for endosulfan. The comment period is open through October 20, 2008, and you can view the Federal Register notice here, or by entering Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0615 at regulations.gov. You can also submit comments by mail addressed to: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public, Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001 or by delivery to: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA.

EPA will not address the cancellation of endosulfan until early 2009; a separate comment period will be established for that possibility.

Posted in Endosulfan, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

21
Aug

Experts on Food Crisis: Stop Promoting Genetic Engineering and Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2008) As the debate over how to solve the global food crisis heats up, experts criticize many in the mainstream media for promoting pesticides and genetically engineered seeds as solutions to global hunger. In a recent critique, Francis Moore Lappe, author of the famous book Diet for a Small Planet and co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute, says the media, in this case NPR, are off the mark in identifying the underlying causes of the food crisis and fail to look at the hopeful stories of farming communities that are succeeding with agro-ecological methods.

Ms. Lappe writes, “On every continent one can find empowered rural communities developing GM-free, agro-ecological farming systems. They’re succeeding: the largest overview study, looking at farmers transitioning to sustainable practices in 57 countries, involving almost 13 million small farmers on almost 100 million acres, found after four years that average yields were up 79 percent.” As an example, she points to what may be the “pesticide capital of the world,” Andhra Pradesh, India,where “pests developed insecticide resistance and genetically modified (GM) cotton failed to live up to Monsanto’s promises.” After significant crop losses and farmer suicides there, many communities rejected Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals and adopted farming methods relying on agro-ecological approaches and have since enjoyed increased incomes and health.

Ms. Lappe’s argument that the answer to the food crisis lies largely in the adoption of community-based agro-ecological farming methods echoes the assessment of over 400 scientists and experts in agriculture from around the world who convened earlier this year for the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (see Daily News of June 5, 2008). Some described this report as the agricultural version of the International Framework Convention on Climate Change, the now famous treaty on global climate change. Yet the findings of the IAASTD rarely make it into the media when discussing the global food crisis.

Recently, Prince Charles’ outspoken stance against genetic engineering has reinvigorated the debate about the pros and cons of genetically engineered seeds. For all the value in having this discussion, it is paramount not to overshadow what should be the focus of attention -the promising future of agro-ecological and organic farming in addressing the food needs of the world while protecting public health and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides encourages sound organic practices as a viable, healthy alternative to agriculture that relies heavily on chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and as a valuable tool to slow climate change.

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Genetic Engineering, International, Monsanto by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

20
Aug

Lawsuit Challenges EPA on Pesticides Tied to Bee Colony Collapse

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2008) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit on Monday to uncover critical information that the U.S. government is withholding about the risks posed by pesticides to honey bees. NRDC legal experts and a leading bee researcher are convinced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country. The phenomenon has come to be called “colony collapse disorder,” or CCD, and it is already proving to have disastrous consequences for American agriculture and the $15 billion worth of crops pollinated by bees every year.

EPA has failed to respond to NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act request for agency records concerning the toxicity of pesticides to bees, forcing the legal action.

“Recently approved pesticides have been implicated in massive bee die-offs and are the focus of increasing scientific scrutiny,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA should be evaluating the risks to bees before approving new pesticides, but now refuses to tell the public what it knows. Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?”

In 2003, EPA granted a registration to a new pesticide manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the condition that Bayer submits studies about its product’s impact on bees. EPA has refused to disclose the results of these studies, or if the studies have even been submitted. Bayer CropScience was required to submit studies on chronic exposure to honeybees, including a complete worker bee lifecycle study, as well as an evaluation of exposure and effects to the queen. The pesticide in question, clothianidin, recently was banned in Germany due to concerns about its impact on bees. A similar insecticide, imidacloprid, was banned in France for the same reason a couple of years before. These chemicals still are in use despite a growing consensus among bee specialists that pesticides, including clothianidin and its chemical cousins, may contribute to CCD. EPA’s factsheet states that clothianidin has the “potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other non target pollinators, through the translocation of residues in nectar and pollen.”

In the past two years, some American beekeepers have reported unexplained losses of 30-90% of the bees in their hives. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. As the die-offs worsen, Americans will see their food costs increase.

Despite bees’ critical role for farmers, consumers, and the environment, the federal government has been slow to address the die-off since the alarm bells started in 2006. (See previous Daily News of June 19, 2007 and July 19, 2007.) In recent Congressional hearings, USDA was unable to account for the $20 million that Congress has allocated to the department for fighting CCD in the last two years.

In the new book A Spring Without Bees, author Michael Schacker ties CCD to a historical pattern of EPA-issued emergency use permits (Section 18 under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) for agricultural use of imidicloprid across the U.S. Mr. Schacker shows a direct correlation between states with CCD and the emergency imidicloprid uses permits. States without the use did not show the problem, with one exception.

“This is a real mystery right now,” said Gabriela Chavarria, PhD, director of NRDC’s Science Center. “EPA needs to help shed some light so that researchers can get to work on this problem. This isn’t just an issue for farmers — this is an issue that concerns us all. Just try to imagine a pizza without the contribution of bees! No tomatoes. No cheese. No peppers. If you eat apples, cucumbers, broccoli, onions, squash, carrots, avocados, or cherries, you need to be concerned.” Dr. Chavarria has spent more than 20 years studying bees, and has published a number of academic papers on the taxonomy, behavior and distribution of native bees.

NRDC filed the lawsuit yesterday in federal court in Washington DC. In documents to be filed next month, NRDC will ask for a court order directing EPA to disclose its information about pesticides and bee toxicity.

Source: NRDC Press Release

Posted in Clothianidin, Litigation, Pollinators by: Beyond Pesticides
2 Comments

19
Aug

Take Action: Demand EPA and NMFS Protect Endangered Fish from Harmful Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2008) Three toxic pesticides used heavily in the United States ”” chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion ”” harm children and farmworkers, poison wildlife, and taint food and drinking water, and despite well-documented hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows homeowners, farmers and others to use these poisons in ways that harm salmon and steelhead. Coupled with public pressure, a recent scientific analysis from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could force EPA to adopt new restrictions on the use of these pesticides in the Pacific Northwest and California.

In a draft study — called a “biological opinion” — released on July 31, 2008, NMFS concluded that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are contaminating rivers and streams jeopardizing protected salmon and steelhead.

Please urge NMFS and EPA to adopt strong measures to protect Pacific salmon from these poisons. It is their responsibility under the Endangered Species Act.

Please send an email addressed to both:
Jim Lecky
Director of Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
[email protected]

James Gulliford
Assistant Administrator, US EPA Headquarters
[email protected]

You can be sure that chemical companies are working to ensure the unabated use of their products. Make sure the voice of the public is heard. Harmful pesticides must be kept out of our waters! We all need clean water to survive. To learn more, read the draft biological opinion.

There is no formal comment period, but comments need to be in by Oct. 15 to be considered. Please write in as soon as possible.

SAMPLE LETTER
Jim Lecky
Director of Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
James Gulliford
Assistant Administrator, US EPA Headquarters

Dear Director Lecky and Assistant Administrator Gulliford,

I am encouraged by the scientific basis of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s recent draft biological opinion evaluating the impacts of three pesticides ”” chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion ”” on salmon and steelhead in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. I applaud NMFS for its thorough analysis and scientifically sound conclusion that these three pesticides are “jeopardizing” salmon survival and recovery.

NMFS and EPA must now implement the strong measures necessary to protect salmon and steelhead from these pesticides. The best science available demonstrates that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are simply too dangerous to be used near rivers and streams that serve as habitat for these threatened and endangered fish.

Homeowners and farmers alike deserve clarity on how they can manage pests without harming a Northwest icon, the Pacific salmon. Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are antiquated pesticides that pose unreasonable risks to both humans and wildlife and should not be used near salmon and steelhead habitat.

I’m pleased to see that NMFS has taken the first step toward getting these chemicals out of our waterways and I urge the agencies to follow through with strong protective measures.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

Posted in Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Malathion, Wildlife/Endangered Sp. by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

18
Aug

NC Farmworker Protection Bill Signed Into Law

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2008) North Carolina Governor Mike Easley last week signed into law Senate Bill 847, “An act to add agricultural workers to those protected against retaliation in the workplace and to direct the Pesticide Board to adopt rules requiring licensed pesticide applicators to record the specific time of day when each pesticide application is completed, as recommended by the Governor’s Task Force on Preventing Agricultural Pesticide Exposure” headed by State Health Director Leah DevlinThis new law, along with funding approved by the legislature in the Governor’s budget, will help protect agricultural laborers, farmers and applicators who work with and around pesticides.

“This new law helps us move forward to protect the health of our farm workers,” said Gov. Easley. “Requiring employers to keep more detailed records of pesticides being used and forbidding retaliation against those who might complain about exposure to these chemicals are important steps toward safety in agricultural workplaces.”

The new law makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against farm workers who complain about unhealthy exposure to pesticides. It also directs the state Pesticide Board to require more detailed record keeping on the time of day and kinds of pesticides being used, and it requires those records to be kept for two years, instead of the current 30 days.

“This bill represents a significant step forward,” said Ms. Devlin, the task force chair. “There is more to be done and we will continue to develop new health protection measures and work to see they are implemented.”

Ms. Devlin noted that the task force’s work will be continuing through the recently-organized Interagency Pesticide Work Group that will operate out of the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

In the state budget, $350,000 was designated to replace federal funding that was cut to track pesticide poisoning cases. It also will pay for two state workers to train farm laborers on proper handling of pesticides.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Charles Albertson (D-Duplin). It passed the state Senate 48-0 and the House of Representatives 118-0. The law becomes effective upon the Governor’s signature.

Farmworkers are among the groups most at risk for pesticide poisoning. Some have been fighting for reparation for decades and are still exposed to some of the most toxic pesticides on the market. In addition to protecting farmworkers from retaliation, governments should ban these products to reduce and eliminate both direct and indirect exposure to them.

You can support less toxic agriculture by buying organic food and learning more about it here.

Posted in Announcements, Environmental Justice, North Carolina by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

15
Aug

Public Comment Needed by Monday, August 18, 2008: Chemical Sensitivity Omitted from Americans with Disabilities Act Proposed Regs

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2008) With a public comment period that ends Monday, August 18, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division proposes rulemaking that fails to recognize chemical sensitivity (CS) and environmental illnesses as disabilities that may require specific access standards. In a public comment to be submitted next week, Beyond Pesticides urges the Justice Department to specifically include access requirements for those with CS and environmental illnesses in its rulemaking. The organization is urging the public to send comments as well, and invites sign-ons to the Beyond Pesticides’ comment.

The comment says, “The proposed rule errs in omitting environmental illness and chemical sensitivity with a justification that people with the illness may have a “sensitivity [that does] not rise to the level needed to constitute a disability.” This statement is false and out of step with environmental medicine which diagnoses CS as a chemical-induced illness from which patients suffer with debilitating effects. Similar to other disabilities, a diagnosis reflects a finding that patients cannot function as a result of exposure to neurotoxic chemicals. Eliminating the chemical exposure substantially increases their ability to function and lead normal lives.”

The comment continues, “As an organization whose primary focus is pesticides, Beyond Pesticides is in contact with people who are chemically sensitive and are exposed to pesticides, thus substantially limiting their life activities on a regular basis. These are people whose disability is not well understood or accepted by the general public, which is uninformed about the illness. In conveying their concerns to neighbors, employers or landlords they often receive ridicule instead of respect and accommodation. Without mentioning in the text of the accessibility standards of the ADA that those with chemical sensitivities are indeed protected when life activities are substantially limited and that they have specific access requirements, people with CS often cannot get their needs addressed without individual lawsuits to prove their disability. This becomes a burden and barrier to protection.”

The comment points to a 1992 memorandum issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that recognizes CS and environmental illness as a “handicap,” with all the protections afforded those disabled by this illness. The comment reads, “In a 1992 memorandum entitled “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder and Environmental Illness as Handicaps,” the Office of General Counsel in the Department of Housing and Urban Development clearly defines MCS and environmental illness as “handicaps” within the meaning of subsection 802(h) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3602(h), and the Department’s implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. Section 100.201 (1991).” Rather than equivocate on this debilitating condition, protection should be ensured under the proposed rulemaking beyond one’s place of residence.”

Beyond Pesticides’ comment includes the story and recommendation of a former physical education teacher and coach in Kansas who writes:

With proper accommodation, I would still be teaching and coaching today! Officially recognizing not only the life-changing severity of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, but also the value of “avoidance” in treating it would help building administrators understand how to keep employees with this disability on the job. I have many friends who are also disabled by MCS. Not one of them wanted to quit their job! But lack of accommodation caused their illness to progress to the point where they could no longer work. MCS takes a huge toll on individual lives and results in unnecessary loss of productivity. I urge you to officially recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/Environmental Illness as a disability requiring accommodation for accessibility. The chemical barriers that prevent those with MCS from entering buildings are every bit as limiting as lack of a ramp would be to someone in a wheelchair. Those with MCS deserve the same rights as other citizens. Recognizing MCS as a “qualified disability” would go a long way toward achieving equal access for everyone!

Beyond Pesticides suggests that the rulemaking include the following language: “Integrated pest management (IPM) practices to protect those disabled with chemical sensitivity (CS) or environmental illnesses and ensure access are required in public facilities or properties to include the following practices: identification of pests and conditions that attract pests; prevention techniques, such as sanitation, vacuuming, structural repair and sealing; monitoring; education and training; approved least toxic chemicals whose use does not, by virtue of its neurotoxic or other properties, impair the abilities of those with CS; and pre-notification and posting of chemical use.”

The full text of Beyond Pesticides’ comment can be seen here. Thanks to Mary Lamielle of the National Center for Environmental Health Strategies for alerting us to the comment period. Read her comments here.

TAKE ACTION: Access the Federal Register and submit comments electronically here. Click on the yellow dialogue bubble that says “add comments.” If you would like to sign on to Beyond Pesticides’ comment, please contact Natalie Lounsbury, [email protected], 202-543-5450, by 3:00pm (EDT) on Monday, August 18, 2008.

Posted in Announcements, MCS/chem. sensitivity by: Beyond Pesticides
13 Comments

14
Aug

Fed Report Finds Pesticides Threaten Salmon

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2008) The first report released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a result of a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) settlement reveal “overwhelming evidence” to suggest that the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon increase the chance of extinction for protected salmon and steelhead. The report on the three pesticides and their effects on threatened fish is the first in what is expected to be a four year review process of 37 pesticides.

“These are pesticides that EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] has swept under the rug for years. These are three that stood out as the nastiest of the (pesticides) that are still in widespread use,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice who represented the plaintiff, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). The 377-page report is clear in its conclusion that current use patterns of these three toxic pesticides threaten the salmon and steelhead protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it does not delineate the next steps to reduce the risk. A report on mitigation measures, which could include restrictions or bans, is expected in the next few months.

The timing of the report coincides with other important and related events in pesticide regulation and protection of endangered species. On August 11, 2008, the Bush administration announced new draft rules for the Endangered Species Act that will limit interagency assessments. Federal agencies, including EPA, which are now required to check in with the Fish and Wildlife Service about potential effects their actions may have on endangered species, will make their own determinations about effects without consultation from the corresponding agency overseeing the survival of the species.

Chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon are organophosphate insecticides of concern also because of their adverse effects on human health and all wildlife. All three have undergone EPA’s reregistration review process, and their reregistration eligibility decisions (REDs) were signed in 2006. Although there were some restrictions put into place on their use, they are still very commonly used pesticides in agriculture and some other applications. Because of the extremely high risks associated with diazinon, at the end of July 2008, a coalition of farmworker, environmental and public health advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s decision to allow its continued use.

Mr. Osborne-Klein, who also represents the plaintiffs in the diazinon case, said of the NMFS report, “It seems to be a very thoughtful and fair opinion.” However, opposing, pro-pesticide groups disagree and say the report does not draw its conclusions from real world assumptions about pesticide exposure. Numerous reports have documented myriad effects of low levels of pesticides on salmon that limit their ability to swim, eat, reproduce, and avoid predators.

For more information on salmon and pesticides, please read our Daily News stories about real world pesticide mixtures and their effects on salmon as well as our article from Pesticides and You.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Posted in Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Litigation, Malathion, Pesticide Regulation, Washington, Water, Wildlife/Endangered Sp. by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

13
Aug

WA County Recalls Consumer Pesticide Guide Under Industry Pressure

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2008) Last month, King County, Washington discontinued a popular wallet-sized consumer guide in which fruits and vegetables containing the most and least pesticide residues were listed, after agricultural industry-sponsored groups claimed that the consumer guide was oversimplified, misleading and influencing consumers to not eat locally grown produce.

Industry groups repeatedly lobbied the county program to remove the information saying that the guide did not contribute to food safety but instead hurt local farmers, whose crops are among those that contain the most pesticides. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, a coalition of health and hazardous-materials agencies in King County, Seattle and 38 neighboring communities introduced the informational card about a year ago in printed form and soon after on the King County website.

“It is outrageous that the pesticide industry is trying to prevent people from getting information that will help them make healthier choices about their food. We urge King County to make the information available to the public,” said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, environmental health advocate for the Washington Toxics Coalition.

The consumer guide lists suggestions on “how to shop for the safest household products” on one side of the card, and on the other lists produce into one of two columns, “High pesticide risks” and “Low pesticide risks.” The high pesticide risk column included produce such as apples, carrots and celery, while produce like asparagus, avocados and bananas were in the low pesticide risk column. The rankings came from data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration in 51,000 analyses for pesticides in 44 fruits and vegetables.

Washington Friends of Farms and Forest, which lobbied the county program to remove the information, stated that the consumer guide was “misleading” and “harmed local farmers by saying you shouldn’t buy apples and pears and peaches and the cherries,” all leading crops in Washington, but which contain higher amounts of pesticides. In fact, Washington Friends of Farms and Forest argues that the guide tells consumers, “Don’t eat locally grown stuff. Eat mangos and bananas.”

The guide, however, does not say to avoid buying local produce, and even lists a website sponsored by King County that contains maps and directions to farms and farmers markets in 12 surrounding counties. When asked why the guide is misleading, the group states that it is the role of the USDA and the FDA to tell consumers to have a healthy diet and that the guide does not contribute to food safety.

Program administrator for the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, Jay Watson, said, “[T]he design of the card is flawed. The information was oversimplified. It doesn’t address the scientific uncertainly (of pesticides).” The USDA, however, stands behind the accuracy of its data which was collected after extensive testing and analysis, but cautioned it should not be taken as an indicator of what exists on all crops everywhere. Mr. Watson noted that no more guides would be printed or distributed until the issue has been studied and input solicited, including comments from the agriculture community.

Many farmers and growers are angered at the interpretation often made of government-collected data, which have sprouted similar consumer guides across the country. Washington growers of apples, pears, peaches and other crops have conceded that such data have greatly reduced the amount and types of pesticides they use.

TAKE ACTION: Buy organic foods for yourself and your family whenever possible. If organic foods are not easily accessible to you due to cost or distribution, consider buying organic for the foods you eat the most. To make sure your food is organic, look for the USDA Organic label.

See the consumer guide here.

Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer

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

12
Aug

USDA Cites Deficiencies in Organic Certification, Consumer Group Calls for Peer Review

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2008) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) announced August 5, 2008 that 15 of the 30 accredited organic certifiers it recently inspected failed the USDA audit and will have 12 months to make corrections or lose their accreditation with NOP. The non-profit Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is calling for an NOP “Peer Review Panel” to evaluate its adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions. Show your support for strong organic certification procedures by signing the OCA petition below.

A number of the violations noted in the several hundred page audit related to Chinese imports certified by the French-based organic certifier ECOCERT and other certifiers. However, OCA points out that Quality Assurance International (QAI), the largest organic certifier in the world, is not cited by the USDA, even though OCA recently reviewed documents that indicate that QAI is indeed under investigation by NOP.

QAI has recently been in the news for sourcing ginger, contaminated with the highly toxic and restricted insecticide, aldicarb, from its Chinese certification sub-contractors and then labeling it as “USDA Organic.” QAI is also under public fire, along with other certifiers, for certifying factory farm feedlot dairies supplying milk to Horizon and Aurora Organic Dairy, which in turn supply Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, and other organic private label organic milk.

Certifiers that failed a 2007 USDA audit and had to take corrective actions include: Marin County, Hawaii Organic Farmers Association, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Indiana Certified Organic, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Baystate Organic Certifiers, Minnesota Crop Improvement Association, International Certification Services, Global Organic Alliance, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Administration, OCPP/Pro-Cert Canada, BCS-Oeko Garantie GmbH, ECOCERT S.A., and IMO.

While consumers might consider some of USDA’s violations minor, such as a farmer not reporting changes in an organic farm plan (even if the changes did not violate organic farming practices), Beyond Pesticides believes it is still imperative that the organic law is followed so that organic standards remain meaningful and public confidence in the organic seal remains strong.

For six years, OCA and the organic community have called upon USDA to implement a Peer Review Panel system, as required by law in the National Organic Standards, so that respected members of the organic community can monitor and police violations of organic standards on the part of producers, importers, and certifiers. As the USDA has said, “The National Organic Standards call for the Administrator of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to appoint members of a Peer Review Panel to evaluate NOP’s adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions.”

For more information, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Food program page.

Petition to the National Organic Program
We, the undersigned, are calling on the National Organic Program (NOP) to implement the Peer Review Panel.

After 40 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a healthy, sustainable, and equitable multi-billion dollar alternative to energy and chemical-intensive industrial agriculture. Now a number of large so-called “organic” corporations and foreign importers, aided and abetted by unscrupulous certifiers and their sub-contractors, are violating the letter and the spirit of organic integrity, allowing factory farm production and bogus, at times toxic, “organic” imports from countries like China to degrade the “USDA Organic” label.

As you yourselves at the NOP have admitted on your website for the past six years, “The National Organic Standards call for the Administrator of AMS (USDA Agricultural Marketing Service) to appoint members of a Peer Review Panel to evaluate the NOP’s adherence to its accreditation procedures and its accreditation decisions.” It’s time for the USDA National Organic Program to stop dragging its heels and begin the legally required public process to set up an accountable and transparent organic community “Peer Review Panel.”

We obviously need this Safeguard Organic Standards Panel more than ever so that can we can start helping the NOP (obviously under funded and understaffed with a meager annual budget to police a giant industry) carry out its important task of monitoring and policing organic producers, importers, and certifiers.

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, National Organic Standards Board/National Organic Program by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

11
Aug

Research Disputes Benefits of Organic Food, Challenges Earlier Findings

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2008) Its findings in disagreement with other studies, University of Copenhagen research concludes that organic food may contain no more nutrients than food grown using harmful pesticides and chemicals, and is merely a “lifestyle choice.” The study finds that no clear evidence of any difference in the vitamin and mineral content of crops grown organically and those using legally permitted levels of fertilizers and pesticides. However, many others – including organic farmer Elizabeth Henderson of Peacework Organic Farm in western New York – disagree. In a post-publication comment on this blog entry, Ms. Henderson calls the new study, “just another example of really poor research,” pointing out several potential flaws in its design. Additionally, other research has shown that organic farming does indeed yield more nutritious food (See Daily News Blog of April 21, 2008 and June 13, 2008) as well as eliminates a significant source of toxic chemical contamination in the environment.

The study, published in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture and entitled “Effect of plant cultivation methods on content of major and trace elements in foodstuffs and retention in rats,” investigated the effect of three different model cultivation systems on selected major and trace element contents of dried foodstuffs. Model 1 consists of growing the vegetables on soil, which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no pesticides. Model 2 involves applying a low input of nutrients using animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed by regulation, and model 3 comprises a combination of a high input of nutrients through mineral fertilizers and pesticides as legally allowed. The crops grown were carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes.

The researchers, led by Susanne Bügel, PhD, found that there is no evident trend towards differences in major and trace element content of the crops grown due to the use of different cultivation methods. The produce from the organically and conventionally grown crops was then fed to animals over a two-year period. Results here show there is no difference in retention of the elements regardless of how the crops are grown.

“No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs,” said Dr. Bügel.

However, this study overlooks the importance that organic farming in reducing toxic contamination of food by harmful pesticides and other chemicals used in conventional farming. In other words, organic food contributes to better human health through reduced pesticide exposure. The most vulnerable to pesticide exposures are children, and a study has shown that those who eat conventional diets of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophophate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet (See study here).

Organic farming also protects the farmworkers and their families from chemicals that have been shown to cause a myriad of chronic health effects, such as cancer, endocrine disruption and a series of degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. Beyond Pesticides supports organic farming as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm, as well as the general population.

For more information of the many benefits of organic food, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Source: The Daily Green, The Daily Mail Online

Posted in Alternatives/Organics by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

08
Aug

Research Links Agent Orange Exposure to Prostate Cancer

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2008) University of California Davis Cancer Center physicians recently released results of research showing that Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange have greatly increased risks of prostate cancer and even greater risks of getting the most aggressive form of the disease as compared to those who were not exposed.

The findings, which appear online now and will be published in the September 15 issue of the journal Cancer, are the first to reliably link the herbicide with this form of cancer by studying a large population of men in their 60s and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for the disease.

“While others have linked Agent Orange to cancers such as soft-tissue sarcomas, Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, there is limited evidence so far associating it with prostate cancer,” said Karim Chamie, lead author of the study and resident physician with the UC Davis Department of Urology and the VA Northern California Health Care System. “Here we report on the largest study to date of Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange and the incidence of prostate cancer.”

Chamie also said that, unlike previous studies that were either too small or conducted on men who were too young, patients in the current study were entering their prime years for developing prostate cancer. There was also the added advantage that it was conducted entirely during the era of PSA screening, providing a powerful tool for early diagnosis and tracking of prostate cancer.

More than 13,000 Vietnam veterans enrolled in the VA Northern California Health Care System were stratified into two groups ”” exposed or not exposed to Agent Orange between 1962 and 1971. Based on medical evaluations conducted between 1998 and 2006, the study revealed that twice as many men exposed to Agent Orange were identified with prostate cancer. In addition, Agent Orange-exposed men were diagnosed two-and-a-half years younger and were nearly four times more likely to present with metastatic disease. Other prostate cancer risk factors ”” race, body-mass index and smoking ”” were not statistically different between the two groups.

“Our country’s veterans deserve the best possible health care, and this study clearly confirms that Agent Orange exposure during service in Vietnam is associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer later in life,” said Ralph deVere White, UC Davis Cancer Center director and a study co-author. “Just as those with a family history of prostate cancer or who are of African-American heritage are screened more frequently, so too should men with Agent Orange exposure be given priority consideration for all the screening and diagnostic tools we have at our disposal in the hopes of early detection and treatment of this disease.”

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in American men. It is estimated that there will be about 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States in 2008 and about 28,660 men will die of the disease this year.

Now a banned chemical, Agent Orange is a combination of two synthetic compounds known to be contaminated with the dioxin tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD) during the manufacturing process. Named for the color of the barrel in which it was stored, Agent Orange was one of many broad-leaf defoliants used in Vietnam to destroy dense forests in order to better visualize enemy activity.

It is estimated that more than 20 million gallons of the chemicals, also known as “rainbow herbicides,” were sprayed between 1962 and 1971, contaminating both ground cover and ground troops. Most of the rainbow herbicide used during this time was Agent Orange. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reclassified TCDD as a group 1 carcinogen, a classification that includes arsenic, asbestos and gamma radiation. TCDD has been found in common herbicide 2,4-D.

Agent Orange exposure has been linked to a variety of other health effects, including leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Vietnam continues to be affected by the contamination, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed veterans’ right to seek compensation for their exposure.

Posted in 2,4-D, Prostate Cancer by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

07
Aug

EPA Extends Pesticide Inert Ingredient Tolerance Exemptions

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2008) In a move antithetical to the precautionary principle, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to extend the tolerance exemptions on certain inert ingredients in pesticides until further studies on their possible health effects have been performed. A decision in 2006 announced that tolerance exemptions on the listed inerts would be revoked as of August, 2008. However, pesticide producers put pressure on the agency to extend this deadline, and the agency complied, extending the date to August 2009.

Environmental and public health organizations advocate for stricter controls and more transparency regarding inert ingredients. Because inerts are not “active” ingredients, they do not have to appear on label and are considered proprietary information on the part of the manufacturers. However, their supposed inactivity or inertness belies the fact that these ingredients frequently pose serious health risks of their own, and commonly make up the majority of the volume of a pesticide. One such example is that of the herbicide Roundup, for which the primary inert ingredient was found to be highly toxic to amphibians (for full story, read Daily News of September 12, 2005).

The announcement in the Federal Register states, “EPA developed voluntary guidance describing how interested parties [pesticide registrants] could support these revoked tolerance exemptions, including consultations with the Agency about how they can demonstrate support, identifying test materials, and providing evidence that a laboratory has been hired to conduct the study.” The studies produced by industry-hired scientists and labs are frequently not peer reviewed, and the financial incentive exists to produce results favorable for the registrant.

The continued exemption on these inert ingredients highlights the primary flaw with the regulatory process for both active and inactive ingredients in pesticides. Rather than adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to chemicals with unknown toxicity, the EPA appears to allow chemicals to remain innocent until proven guilty, and relies on a flawed risk assessment process that does not adequately address exposure and risk. Once proven guilty, these pesticides, both active ingredients and inerts, have already left a toxic trail on the environment and people’s well-being.

For more information on inert ingredients, visit the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides articles on inerts.

Posted in Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

06
Aug

National Fisheries Agency Agrees to Review Harmful Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2008) On July 30, 2008, a coalition of fishing and environmental groups settled a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) that requires an impact analysis of 37 pesticides on protected salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the federal agency charged with protecting threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead, agreed to the settlement, which requires the design and adoption of permanent measures to help pesticide users minimize the harmful effects of those pesticides.

The lawsuit, filed last year in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, petitioned the court to order the NMFS to uphold a five-year-old rule that directs the agency to identify measures needed to protect salmon from the pesticides. The petitioners pointed out that NMFS failed to carry out these measures. (See Daily News Blog of November 7, 2007.)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the 37 toxic pesticides at issue in the settlement may harm protected salmon and steelhead. Most of the pesticides have been detected in major salmon and steelhead rivers in the Pacific Northwest and California. Scientists have found that, even at low levels, toxic pesticides can harm salmon and steelhead by causing abnormal sexual development, impairing swimming ability, and reducing growth rates.

In 2002, a federal court ordered EPA to consult with NMFS on the impacts that certain pesticides have on salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. EPA began submitting the required assessments to NMFS, but NMFS never identified the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. The federal Endangered Species Act requires NMFS to complete such actions within 90 days of receiving EPA’s assessments.

“This settlement starts the federal agencies down the path of honestly addressing a serious problem endangered salmon still face in our rivers ”” too many pesticides and other chemicals. It also brings more certainty to the agricultural community by ensuring that these issues will not be hanging over them indefinitely. Cleaning up our rivers is good for both fishermen and farmers, and will also help restore thousands of lost fishing jobs to the Northwest,” said Glenn Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Associations (PCFFA), a commercial fishing industry trade association that is a plaintiff in the suit.

NMFS has now agreed to complete the long overdue assessments over a four-year period, with the first decisions due by October 2008. These consultations are expected to culminate in on-the-ground measures designed to reduce the amount of pesticides that run into salmon-supporting rivers and streams. It is uncertain what protective measures the government will impose. This is the first time NMFS has evaluated large-scale impacts of pesticides to salmon.

“Today’s agreement is a victory for all of us,” says Aimee Code of Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, a plaintiff in the case. “Keeping pesticides out of the river also keeps pesticides out of drinking water and our bodies.”

“We’re extremely pleased with the settlement, but it is only the first step,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, one of the Earthjustice attorneys who represents the coalition. “We’ll continue to keep a close eye on this process to make sure that salmon and steelhead are protected from these dangerous poisons.”

Source: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP)

Posted in Litigation, Washington, Water, Wildlife/Endangered Sp. by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

05
Aug

TruGreen Takes a Step Toward Pesticide Reduction, Falls Short of Organic

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2008) Under pressure from activists and shareholders to change its chemical dependent lawn care practices, TruGreen””the world’s largest lawn and landscape care company, has joined the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP). Although the voluntary move comes with a pledge to reduce pesticide use, the company’s reformed practices will still fall short of organic land care, which does not utilize toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic land care is effective, affordable and better for human health and the environment, but TruGreen has failed to commit to organic methods.

The PESP is a voluntary program started in 1994. According to the EPA, “By joining PESP, organizations pledge that environmental stewardship is an integral part of pest management, and they commit to working toward innovative practices that reduce risk to human health and the environment.” One of the benefits of joining the PESP for companies, according to the EPA website, is that “Membership may enhance public perception of your organization, constituent support, and employee morale.” Underneath this enticement to join is the clear potential for “greenwashing,” or the promotion of a product or service as environmentally friendly when the veracity of such claims is dubious.

The interpretation of “environmental stewardship” as incorporated in the pledge to join the PESP varies, and membership on the PESP is not limited to companies and organizations that have adopted environmentally sensitive practices. Among the PESP members is CropLife Foundation, which is part of CropLife America, an organization of pesticide producers whose members include notorious producers of toxic chemicals such as Dow Agrosciences, FMC Corporation, Monsanto, and Syngenta. CropLife Foundation’s pledge for the PESP amounts to educational programs regarding the proper storage and disposal of pesticide containers.

TruGreen’s PESP strategy is admittedly more focused on pesticide use reduction than that of the CropLife Foundation, but without taking the step to eliminate all toxic pesticides, the move cannot be applauded as truly “green,” but merely greener. TruGreen has pledged to select products that fit an “overall reduced risk strategy,” which includes “reduced risk products applied as basal drenches or with effective injection systems to reduce air-borne application of pesticides to landscapes.” However, their criteria for reduced risk products is undefined. The EPA’s list of reduced risk pesticides includes glyphosate and fipronil, two products with proven deleterious health and environmental effects.

With 3.4 million residential and commercial customers, TruGreen has the potential to transform the industry of land care, but until they pledge to adopt organic methods, Beyond Pesticides encourages consumers to find service providers that use less- and non-toxic chemicals.

Source: Market Watch

Posted in Lawns/Landscapes, TruGreen by: Beyond Pesticides
3 Comments

Archives

Categories

Most Viewed Posts

Using the Blog

Recent Comments

Admin / Feeds