(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2007) American consumers who buy organic food regularly are still a small minority, but are growing, according to a survey conducted last month. Most people – whether organic consumers or not – consider organic foods to be safer, better for the environment and healthier. In addition, the majority of consumers surveyed said they found organic products to be generally more expensive, but most of the consumers who buy organic food said these products taste better and are worth the extra cost. “The many people who have positive attitudes to organic food suggest that the increase in consumption of organic food is likely to continue and, in a few years time, could account for a much larger share of the food market,” according to the survey, which was conducted by Harris Interactive last month and released yesterday. The online poll gathered responses from 2,392 online respondents, with figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.The survey comes at a time when overall awareness of organic as a ‘healthier’ alternative to conventional food and drink products is growing . According to the latest figures from the organics industry, the market last year grew beyond expectations to represent almost a third of all retail food and beverage sales.Released earlier this year, the Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) 2007 Manufacturer Survey found that U.S. sales of organic foods totaled nearly $17 billion in 2006, exceeding last year’s forecasts of $16 billion. This marks a 22 percent increase compared to sales of $14 billion in 2005. Organic foods’ 3 percent share of total food sales is up from 1.9 percent in 2003 and approximately 2.5 percent in 2005.

According to the latest findings from the Harris poll, the number of consumers who report buying organic products ‘all the time’ still remains small – only one percent of the population. However, a further six percent said they by organics ‘most of the time’, while 31 percent responded ‘occasionally’, and 33 percent ‘rarely’. Some 26 percent of respondents said they ‘never’ buy organics.

Those who buy organics (including those who only buy them occasionally and rarely) report that their organic purchases are much more likely to have increased (32 percent) than to have decreased (5 percent) over the past year – evidence that organic food consumption has been rising, according to Harris.

Almost 80 percent of all respondents believe that organic food is safer for the environment, while 76 percent said they also thought it was healthier. Out of frequent organic food buyers, these figures jump to 92 percent and 98 percent respectively.

Some 86 percent of frequent organic food buyers also think it tastes better, but only 39 percent of all adults think this way. In addition, 95 percent of people, including 88 percent of frequent organic food buyers, believe organic food is more expensive.

About a third (36 percent) of American adults, including almost all (91 percent) frequent organic food buyers, believe that ‘organic food is much better for you’ and that ‘the extra expense is worth it to have better food’. A smaller 29 percent of the public believe it is ‘a waste of money as it is no better for you than conventional foods’. Some 36 percent said they ‘are not sure’.

The poll also found that some segments of the population are more likely to buy organic food regularly, including college graduates (11 percent), Liberals (11 percent), Westerners (10 percent), Echo Boomers (those aged 18-30; 10 percent), and Gen Xers (those aged 31-42; 9 percent).

Lorraine Heller © 2000/2007 Decision News Media SAS. All Rights Reserved. This story is posted here for the education of our members and we beleive it falls within the Fair Use statute of U.S. copyright law.

(Beyond Pesticides, October, 10 2007) One of the largest chemical companies in the world, BASF Corporation, announced in a press release October 9, 2007 that it will get serious in its campaign against the use of illegal pesticides. The sale and distribution of unregistered or counterfeit pesticidal products is clearly prohibited under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), resulting in harm to public health and the environment. Several companies have recently been fined by the EPA for selling and distributing unregistered or mislabeled pesticide products (See Daily News Blogs: “EPA Fines Clorox Over Export Labels” and “Target Settles with EPA on Labeling Violations”).

BASF sees the problem as adversely affecting its bottom line. BASF Agricultural Products spends over 300 million euros in research and development, especially in the field of crop protection, to develop and launch new products. As a result, the company is on a state of alert to prevent activities which deliberately infringe its existing patents or which are illegal, including product counterfeiting and the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides. The agricultural products division of BASF said that its worldwide fight against illegal pesticides would involve taking legal action for patent infringement, illegal imports of products, as well as illegal use of company brand names.

Division president Michael Heinz said, “Whether it’s an infringement of our patent rights, illegal imports or ineffective substances being sold under our brand names — we will relentlessly pursue all violations. This is part of our worldwide product responsibility, and we’re doing it to protect our customers.” Products with counterfeit labels and packaging are of great concern from a public health perspective. A discrepancy between a container’s label and its contents may not only be potentially dangerous for the users, but can pose significant economic damage in agriculture and elsewhere. In some cases, the product may contain hazardous and/or banned chemicals, or may contain chemicals that are completely ineffective.

Sources: Webwire and BASF press release.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 9, 2007) Two state agencies and the U.S. EPA are close to completing an investigation of the poisoning of over 100 farmworkers in Nevada two weeks ago. Chloropicrin, an agricultural fumigant, drifted to a worker-occupied field, sending 121 laborers to Saint Lyon Medical Center (SLMC) for treatment on the morning of September 26. Upon arrival, the workers were showing symptoms including difficulty breathing, nausea, watery eyes and sore throat. SLMC Administrator Joan Hall said that only 12 of the 121 people required emergency room care, and most returned to work the same afternoon.

Normally, chloropicrin’s off-gas dissipates, but because of a weather inversion the fumigant stayed lower to the ground and drifted more than a half-mile away from its application area to the worker-occupied field. Speaking on behalf of local farming operation Peri & Sons Farms, media contact Tim Cummings said both the Nevada Department of Agriculture and Occupational Safety and Health Administration have concluded their portion of the report, with the remaining piece due from the EPA. Peri & Sons owns both fields, which are located just over a half-mile apart, far enough apart from each other for such applications, according to state regulations and the EPA’s guidelines. Cummings said that findings so far have shown no wrongdoing or incorrect farming practices on the part of Peri & Sons Farms, but that he would reserve further comment until the investigation is complete. Ed Foster, regional manager for the Plant Industry Division of the Nevada Department of Agriculture, said he expects a report by all parties involved to be completed within this week. “It’s pretty cut and dried,” Foster said.

Chloropicrin is non-selective pre-plant soil fumigant with fungicidal, herbicidal, insecticidal, and nematicidal properties, according to the EPA, and is also used to treat wood. The chemical is extremely toxic, with the probable oral lethal dose in a human weighing 150 pounds (70 kg) being 350-3500 mg, or between seven drops and one teaspoonful. According to the substance’s Material Safety Data Sheet, chloropicrin is an irritant, which, in higher doses can cause severe eye irritation and permanent vision impairment including blindness. Chloropicrin may be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. The MSDS says, at 15 parts per million, it is intolerable to humans for more than a minute’s exposure to eyes. The chemical is also a respiratory irritant, which requires treatment at a medical facility. Source: Reno Gazette-Journal (September 28, October 5)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2007) Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, has long been a proponent of organic gardening and sustainability. In his new book, entitled Elements of Organic Gardening, the Prince of Wales illustrates how he maintains 15 acres of immaculate ornamental and vegetable gardens on his Gloucestershire estate, Highgrove. An organic gardener for the past 26 years, the Prince’s image has changed from a man who talks to his plants to organic spokesperson. “I think some people of the older generation saw him and organic gardening as mildly eccentric,” said co-author Stephanie Donaldson. “But I think it is like all prophets who have a bit of a problem to start with. People are starting to see that things he was saying 15 to 20 years ago are now being said by government scientists. Suddenly his time has come and people are starting to think that maybe he is right after all.”Highgrove’s head groundskeeper, David Howard, maintains the estate with organic, and often “old-fashioned”, tools. There is a team of draft horses to mow and rake the hay field, rather than a tractor. Slugs and other plant pests are kept in check by natural predators like hedgehogs birds. Beds are fertilized with compost and manure. “I challenge you to find any pesticides on the estate,” said Howard. “I don’t have a pesticides cupboard.” At the property’s entrance is a sign reading “This is a GMO-free zone.”

As for lawns, the Prince objects to the term; they are “green spaces which are mown regularly.” They are not weeded, aerated, watered, or fertilized. Instead, flowers, moss, and “weeds” are tolerated rather than causing concern. According to Donaldson, the organic approach was “to do with collaborating with nature rather than trying to vanquish it.”

Donaldson sees the Prince’s advocacy of organic gardening as the beginning of a larger trend. “I think any gardener aged under 40 these days will be generally organic. They are cutting down on the use of pesticides and fungicides because they have found that creating a balance in the garden is better,” she said. “They younger generation is far more aware of climate change and how it impacts all of us and they are worried about their future. They want to know what they are feeding their children.”

While Prince Charles’s book is available in the United States, there is a two-year waiting list for the public to view Highgrove estate. To join the waiting list, write to the Clarence House Press Office, London SW1A 1BA, England.

Sources: The Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, The Mercury News, The Providence Journal, Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2007) On September 28, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed approval of the pesticide methyl iodide, a highly toxic replacement chemical for the ozone-depleting methyl bromide (also called iodomethane), after more than 50 prominent scientists objected that the chemical was too dangerous. The decision surprised environmentalists who assumed the pesticide would most likely be registered despite opposition. According to EPA, it now “will address recent questions prompted by the pending registration of iodomethane.”

On September 24, 2007, scientists across the country — including six Nobel prize winners, alarmed by the prospect of registering methyl iodide as a pesticide, issued a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson urging the Agency not to sanction the broad use of methyl iodide now or at any time.

“The gratifying thing is that EPA has been responsive to people who are really concerned about this,” Robert Bergman, a University of California at Berkeley professor who organized the scientists’ letter, told the Associated Press. The letter criticized EPA’s scientific analysis, calling for an independent scientific review of the agency’s assessment.

Methyl iodide and methyl bromide are injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne pests. 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 is also facilitating the chemical industry and agribusiness efforts to introduce methyl iodide, a fumigant that may be even more hazardous to human health than methyl bromide.

The state of California lists methyl iodide as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. EPA found that methyl iodide caused thyroid tumors–and introduced a previously unheard of cancer ranking of “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.” The EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee came to this conclusion using only a single study””in which 62-66% of the rats in both the control and the high dose group died during the experiment. In addition to thyroid tumors, the study showed significant changes in thyroid hormone levels, which are closely tied to metabolic disorders. Other animal studies evaluated by EPA also indicated that methyl iodide causes respiratory tract lesions, neurological effects, and miscarriages.

PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY! Urge them to stand with Senator Harkin in fighting for a farm bill that invests in the future!

Time is of the essence. If your Senator is on the Agriculture Committee (see list of Members and their contact information below) call and ask for their legislative aid that works on agriculture. If the agriculture aid is available, talk to them about your support for the programs in Chairman Harkin’s proposal (for more background on these programs, most of which are in the SAC platform, go to: www.sustainableagriculturcoalition.org). If the aid is unavailable, leave a short message of support, along with your name and phone number, on the aid’s voice mail or with the receptionist.

If you prefer to write, fax a brief letter of support, addressed to the Senator, and remember to include your name and address and contact information. The fax numbers are listed below. You can also email your Senator by finding their entry on this page.

The message is simple: “I am a constituent and am calling to urge Senator _________ to support Chairman Harkin’s farm bill proposal that would strengthen conservation, rural development beginning farmer, local food systems, and sustainable bioenergy programs.”

On organic, add the following. Ask for support for:

1) Support these organic farming priorities:

–$25 million/year in organic research and education
–$25 million over 5 years for organic certification cost sharing
–An organic conversation program, with at least 50% of funding going to farmers transitioning to organic farming.

2) Support the Conservation Stewardship Incentive Program.

3) Oppose the amendment that prevents USDA from advising farmers on the harms of different types of toxic pesticides and promoting safer alternatives like Integrated Pest Management,

4) Support Senator Harkin’s efforts to fund conservation programs, organic agriculture, beginning and minority farmer programs and community food project grants.

110th CONGRESS: SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
Democrats

Member Staff Phone FAX
Tom Harkin (IA), Chair Mark Halverson 202-224-3254 202-224-9369
Patrick Leahy (VT) Brian Baenig 224-4242 202-224-3479
Kent Conrad (ND) John Fuher 224-2043 202-224-7776
Max Baucus (MT) Brandon Willis 224-2651 202-224-0515
Blanche Lincoln (AR) Robert Holifield 224-4843 202-228-1371
Debbie Stabenow (MI) Chris Adamo 224-4822 202-228-0325
Ben Nelson (NE) Jonathan Coppess 224-6551 202-228-0012
Ken Salazar (CO) Brendan McGuire 224-5852 202-228-5036
Sherrod Brown (OH) Joe Shultz 224-2315 202-228-6321
Robert B. Casey, Jr. (PA) Kasey Gillette 224-6324 202-228-0604
Amy Klobuchar (MN) Hilary Meggin Bolea 224-3244 202-228-2186

Republicans

Member Staff Phone FAX
Saxby Chambliss (GA) Ranking Member
Martha Scott Poindexter 202-224-3521 202-224-0103
Richard Lugar (IN) Aaron Whitesel 224-4814 202-228-0360
Thad Cochran (MS) West Higginbothom 224-5054 202-228-9450
Mitch McConnell (KY) Allison Thompson 224-2541 202-224-2499
Pat Roberts (KS) Mike Seyfert 224-4774 202-224-3514
Lindsey Graham (SC) Laura Bauld 224-5972 202-224-3808
Norman Coleman (MN) Tony Eberhard 224-5641 202-224-1152
Michael Crapo (ID) Staci Lancaster 224-6142 202-228-1375
John Thune (SD) Brendon Plack 224-2321 202-228-5429
Chuck Grassley (IA) Amanda Taylor 224-3744 202-224-6020

(Beyond Pesticides, 2nd October 2007) Target Corp. has been fined over $40,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating pesticide-labeling rules under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As part of the penalty, EPA (Region 5) filed a consent agreement and final order with Target to halt the distribution and sale of the products in violation. According to EPA, Target sold and distributed products from its stores and website that made pesticidal claims on their labels. Some product’s properties also made comparisons to other registered products sold by competitors. An inspector cited the company for violation in April and Target is now removing pesticidal claims from the products.The products identified were: Antimicrobial Toilet Seats, Home Ultimate Mattress Pads, Home Ultimate Pillows- which made “germ-killing” claims and Cleaner With Bleach, which compared its disinfectant properties with a competitor.

Under FIFRA (Section 2(u)), any substance or product intended for “preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest,” which includes germs and bacteria, is defined as a pesticide and must be registered with EPA prior to sale and distribution. EPA considers disinfectants, antimicrobial and antibacterial products to be pesticides.

This settlement is one of several recent EPA crackdowns concerning the sale and distribution of unregistered, mislabeled pesticides. The EPA maintains that this is a serious violation that can result in harm to public health and the environment.

Source: Trading Markets

(Beyond Pesticides, October 1, 2007) For the second time in ten years, state officials have poured aquatic insecticide and piscicide rotenone into California’s Lake Davis in an effort to control an invasive species of fish, northern pike. Despite the first failure of rotenone to eradicate the pike in 1997, Fish and Game officials felt they had no alternative but to resort to the toxic chemical once more.

The invasive pike were first introduced, illegally, into Lake Davis in 1994. Since then, the population has reached uncontrollable proportions, out-competing local trout. The small town of Portola, which uses Lake Davis as its drinking water supply, is largely supported by fishing and tourism, which are boosted by its reputation for producing extremely large trout. Local businesses fear the consequences of the pikes’ destruction of the attraction.

Despite its economic concerns, the town did not universally support the first application of rotenone in 1997. Four residents, including the mayor pro tem, were arrested in a mass protest of the application as Fish and Game put thousands of gallons of the chemical in the lake. Within a year, pike reappeared.

Ten years and many failed attempted alternatives later, the pike population thrives. Fish and Game officials, in a series of community meetings, have convinced most residents that rotenone is the only option left. As a result, Lake Davis and 52 miles of tributary streams and rivers have been treated and dead fish are beginning to appear on shore.

Fish and Game has reassured the town that all traces of rotenone will be gone from the lake in five weeks. One resident said, “we’ve been told the long-term effect of rotenone on other species is negligible, [but] I’m not convinced.” Rotenone, while an “organic” pesticide, has been linked to conditions like Parkinson’s Disease from chronic exposure. Additionally, a letter from Beyond Pesticides and Defenders of Wildlife reports that

“EPA’s risk assessment of rotenone identifies several data gaps that are cause for additional concern about the chemical, including gaps on acute and chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, chronic risk to birds, and a lack of data to evaluate the toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial plants (raising further concerns about threatened and endangered plant species and indirect effects to threatened and endangered animals).”

Several residents have been heard to threaten reintroduction of the pike after the lake is restocked with trout, adding to fears that this application will not succeed, either. “If we don’t eradicate the pike this time, it’s probably impossible,” said Ed Pert, head of Fish and Game’s eradication effort. “I don’t want to go through this again. I don’t think anybody wants to go through this again.”

Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, September 28, 2007) EPA is due to make a decision on methyl iodide, a highly reactive and carcinogenic chemical, for use in crop production as a soil fumigant. Scientists across the country are alarmed by the prospect of registering methyl iodide as a pesticide, and fifty-four chemists and physicians from across the country issued a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson Monday urging the Agency not to sanction the broad use of methyl iodide now or at any time.“[W]e are concerned that pregnant women and the fetus, children, the elderly, farm workers, and other people living near application sites would be at serious risk if methyl iodide is permitted for use in agriculture,” said the group in the letter. In the chemical community methyl iodide is a well-known cancer hazard due to its ability to mutate DNA, and the scientists are fearful that methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility will expose many people to harm if the chemical is used in agriculture.

Methyl iodide and methyl bromide are injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne pests. 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.

Environmental and farmworkers groups do not see the risks as reasonable or avoidable and stand firm in their continued resistance against the use of the fumigant. The Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), the United Farm Workers (UFW) of America and Beyond Pesticides helped bring methyl iodide to the public’s attention and organize opposition to the registration earlier this year. EPA refused registration for methyl iodide in April 2006, after the Agency received thousands of public comments opposing the chemical (See “Stop Methyl Iodide: Don’t let EPA register new carcinogenic pesticide”).

“An EPA decision to register this chemical would be irresponsible and reckless. Exposure to methyl iodide puts workers and rural residents at greatly increased risk for cancer, thyroid problems, miscarriages and stillbirths,” says Dr. Susan Kegley, senior scientist with PANNA. “Why is it that EPA seems so intent on registering a pesticide that is more toxic than the ones we have now? We need leadership from EPA to move towards sustainable farms that don’t poison their neighbors and workers.”

Internal documents obtained by The Associated Press indicate use of the fumigant may be approved on an interim basis and later reviewed after new safety restrictions are set for a group of fumigants already in use. The scientists who wrote to EPA questioned the Agency’s safety assessment and asked to delay the decision until the Agency’s evaluation of methyl iodide could be subject to peer review and scientific scrutiny. “U.S. EPA has made many assumptions about toxicology and exposure in the risk assessment that have not been examined by independent scientific peer reviewers for adequacy or accuracy. Additionally, none of U.S. EPA’s calculations account for the extra vulnerability of the unborn fetus and children to toxic insults.”

The new product is MIDAS, a methyl iodide compound manufactured by Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp., and methyl iodide does break down quickly enough in air to not be considered as a replacement to methyl bromide, an ozone depletor that is scheduled for phase-out according to the Montreal Protocol of 1992. It is not clear that this factor alone negates the hazards of the substance and deems special treatment for its use as a fumigant. The state of California lists methyl iodide as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. EPA found that methyl iodide caused thyroid tumors, and introduced a previously unheard of cancer ranking of “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.” The EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee used only a single study to come to this conclusion””in which 62-66% of the rats in both the control and the high dose group died during the experiment. In addition to thyroid tumors, the study showed significant changes in thyroid hormone levels, which are closely tied to metabolic disorders. Other animal studies evaluated by EPA also indicated that methyl iodide causes respiratory tract lesions, neurological effects, and miscarriages.

Sources: Washington Post, PANNA

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2007) In a call for sweeping reform in Canada, the Ontario Liberal Party, lead by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, has called for the banning ban of all cosmetic use of pesticides across the province as part of their commitment to healthier Ontario families. Twenty five municipalities, covering about 30 per cent of the province, have already introduced local bans or restrictions on the cosmetic use of pesticides, those typically used on lawns and landscapes. Just as the Ontario Liberals replaced a patchwork of local bylaws when they banned smoking provincewide, this new pesticide and herbicide ban would create a single, comprehensive law for all Ontario communities. “There is growing concern about the potential harmful effects of these products on human health,” Mr. McGuinty said. “When there is such widespread concern, why would we take a chance with our health, and our children’s health, just for the sake of a few dandelions, or a bit of crabgrass?”

The Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and the Ontario Public Health Association have all expressed concerns about the cosmetic use of pesticides and the potential to cause harm.

The Premier met with Dr. Trish Van Boekel and Dr. Kristen Blaine in Stratford, Ontario. They started a petition among physicians calling for a ban on pesticides in parks and on lawns and gardens here in Stratford. “I wanted to bring these physicians and Dalton together because they share a concern for families’ health, and especially children’s health,” John Wilkinson, Liberal candidate for Perth-Wellington, said.

”A provincewide ban is an important step that makes a lot of sense,” Mr. Wilkinson said. “Just as Ontario Liberals successfully banned smoking in public places in Ontario, we’ll also protect Ontario families by banning these chemicals in each and every community.”

The ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides will focus on towns and cities. Farmers and managed forests will be exempt as they are already governed by strict rules for pesticide use.

“We are committed to public health, protecting our shared environment and protecting the public interest,” Mr. McGuinty said.

“Our campaign is about positive ideas that will help families, and this ban is one of them.”

See Backgrounder.

For more information: Ontario Liberal Party Media Relations, 416 961-3800 Ext. 386

(Beyond Pesticides, September 26, 2007) In a Federal Register Notice issued on September 21, 2007, the U.S. EPA clarified the distinction between devices and pesticides by stating that ion-generating equipment will now be regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as a pesticide, if the equipment uses electrodes to emit ions (of silver or other substances) for pesticidal purposes. The notice outlines the timeline and process for manufacturers, sellers and other affected parties to come into compliance with the clarified requirements of FIFRA.

In 2005, the EPA was made aware of equipment incorporating substances, such as silver and copper that, through the use of electrodes, release the ions of the substances for the purpose of preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating a pest (e.g., bacteria or algae). Since such devices incorporate substances that accomplish a pesticidal function, the agency has determined that they are to be considered a pesticide for the purposes of FIFRA and must therefore be registered prior to sale or distribution as outlined in the federal notice issued.

Section 2(h) of FIFRA defines a device as “any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) which is intended for trapping, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest.” Section 2 (u) defines a pesticide as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.” In a federal notice issued in 1976 (41 FR 51065), the agency first provided a distinction between devices and pesticides to be the means by which they achieve their pesticidal purpose. According to the agency’s statutory interpretation, the key distinction between pesticides and devices is whether the pesticidal activity of the article is due to physical or mechanical actions or due to a substance or mixture of substances. As such, any equipment that generates ions of substances for the killing of bacteria, etc. is to be considered a pesticide.

Potentially affected equipment include, but are not limited to, washing machines that contain electrodes that emit silver, copper or zinc ions and swimming pools that use ion generators to kill algae as an adjunct to chlorination. The silver ion generating washing machine is currently marketed with claims that it will kill bacteria on clothing. The agency is currently requesting information on any other type of equipment that generates ions for pesticidal purposes. However, determinations as to whether a product is a device or pesticide are to be made on a case-by-case basis.

For further information contact: Melba S. Morrow, Antimicrobials,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-2716; fax number: (703) 308-8481; e-mail address: [email protected].

Source: Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)

(Beyond Pesticides, September 25, 2007) The Boston Red Sox announced on September 20, 2007 that the club will begin a partnership with the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to make Fenway Park “green” through a series of initiatives to improve the environment, including the introduction of locally-grown organic food by its concessionaire. Over the next several years, fans may find themselves drinking beer out of plastic cups made with corn starch, snacking on organic produce, and participating in a “fifth inning recycling stretch.”

“Fenway Park is one of America’s most beloved buildings,” said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist at the NRDC and coordinator of the organization’s greening initiatives. “The tangible and important ecological steps that the Red Sox and their team sponsors are advancing will have a lasting impact. By committing to the greening of this historic building, the Red Sox organization is showing leadership that reaches far beyond the game of baseball. The Red Sox are demonstrating that every organization can make a difference by joining in our collective efforts to combat global warming, bio-diversity loss, and other ecological ills. “

Giving a second meaning to the “Green Monster” (the ballpark’s well-known left field wall), efforts to make Fenway more environmentally-conscious will include a recycling program, introduction of locally grown organic produce, and the consideration of solar panels to reduce energy consumption. These initiatives, and others, will take place over the next five years, culminating in 2012, when baseball celebrates the 100th anniversary of the nation’s oldest Major League ballpark.

“We are not only committed to preserving the history, beauty, and integrity of Fenway Park, but we are also determined to enhance the park’s environmental attributes so it can serve our team, our fans, and our community in the 21st century as well as it did in the 20th century,” said Larry Lucchino, President/CEO of the Red Sox. “We look forward to beginning this process with the help of some key partners.”

Aramark, the concessionaire at Fenway Park, will be responsible for making available more environmentally-friendly food products, including locally-grown organic produce, throughout the ballpark’s concession services. Pesticide activists applaud plans to offer organic food, but encourage the franchise and NRDC to take the program a step further by making Fenway Park the country’s first organically managed Major League ball field.

For more information on organic turf management, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes webpage.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 24, 2007) Seven representatives wrote to the EPA last Thursday, urging the government agency to act promptly to identify and screen products for dangerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The letter asks EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to provide definite deadlines in the testing and control of endocrine disruptors, which are substances that interfere with the normal functioning of the endocrine system, responsible for hormonal and developmental processes. EPA’s regulation of these substances that mimic or alter natural hormonal processes has been slow and lacks direction to meet set goals promptly, according to the U.S. Representatives. “To date, EPA’s efforts in this area have been characterized by missed deadlines, prolonged delays, and inadequate incorporation of public input,” according to the letter from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California). Ranking Minority Member on the Committee Tom Davis (R-Virginia); Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Wayne Gilchrest (R-Maryland), and Jim Moran (D-Virginia); and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) also signed the letter to EPA.

Advocates say that EPA’s lack of urgency on endocrine disruptors leaves the American population and future generations at risk for adverse health effects from exposure to these substances through food and drinking water. Dioxins, PCBs, and DDT are notable chemicals known to be endocrine disruptors, but “[m]any other chemicals, particularly those used in pesticides and plastics, are suspected endocrine disruptors based on limited animal studies,” according to the Committee’s letter.

The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) set a 1999 deadline for EPA to develop a battery of assays with which pesticide manufacturers will be required to screen their products as possible endocrine disruptors, similar to tests required to determine whether chemicals cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations, or other problems. The manufacturers’ rapid-result tests are the first part of a two-tier testing system, after which chemicals flagged by the “Tier 1” tests will then undergo more intensive “Tier 2” tests to confirm that they are endocrine disruptors, determine how they interfere with the endocrine system, and identify the dose levels that may trigger such effects. Yet the Representatives say that EPA has not completed a single step of this multi-stage process to date.

More than 10 years after being directed to do so by Congress, the EPA announced this June that it will test 73 pesticides for their potential to damage the endocrine system and disrupt the normal functioning of hormones in the body. “This initial list of 73 chemicals is only a small fraction of the universe of 1,700 chemicals that the agency has identified for screening under the FQPA mandate, and a minute percentage of the 75,000 chemicals currently listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. EPA apparently has no internal deadline for identifying subsequent sets of chemicals for testing, and no plan whatsoever for ensuring that all chemicals of potential concern will be tested,” according to the Committee’s September letter. The congress members gave EPA twenty working days to respond to the letter, which includes questions as to when certain steps will be completed. Source: OMB Watch

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2007) As temperatures drop and the leaves start to fall, it is quickly becoming the perfect season for organic lawn care. Whether you want to transition a chemically-maintained lawn or keep your organic turf looking healthy, the work you do now will pay off next spring. From television networks to national newspapers to lawn care companies, making residential lawns ready for winter is the topic du jour, and for good reason: the healthy soil you promote this fall will better support healthy and weed-resistant grass in the future. As David Miller, owner of Nature’s Way Pest Control in Florida, said, “It’s all about soil health and you shouldn’t treat your soil like dirt. “So what should you do? Read our factsheets for complete summaries of fall lawn care. The most important things you can do are:

• Test your soil. Knowing what balance of nutrients exists will help you plan what to apply, and when, to your lawn.
• Aerate your lawn. Soil compaction fosters weed growth and makes it harder for fertilizers and water to penetrate to your lawn’s roots. Aerators can be rented; once microorganisms return to your soil, they will help aerate it for you.
• Fertilize moderately – and according to what a soil test says you need. Look for slow-release fertilizers that do not overload your soil, altering the pH and running off into nearby waterways. Leaving grass clippings on your lawn after mowing is an easy way to supply 58% of the nitrogen added by fertilizers.
• Add organic matter. Compost and compost tea can be added after aeration, by spreading a quarter-inch layer over your lawn. They suppress pathogens and feed your lawn.
• Overseed your lawn. Choose a native and pest-resistant type of seed (free from pesticides) that will offer the best ability to thrive in your area.

Lawn care trends are starting to move this way. According to the National Gardening Association, the number of people caring for all-organic lawns is expected to double in the next five years, and the sale of organic products is rising 27 percent each year. It is a trend with resources growing steadily, making it easier to convert.

As Murray Goff, a customer of Mr. Miller, said, “I have a daughter and a granddaughter. They can walk out on my lawn. I don’t have to worry about it. None of those things. It’s all organic and it makes so much sense.” Mr. Miller concurred. “We simply can’t keep polluting our earth. What I’m trying to do is a first step in one small way.” Todd Harrington, another business owner, agreed, “With chemicals, you’re not really doing anything beneficial; you’re polluting and you’re taking risks. With organics, you’re creating a sustainable environment.”

If you would like to convert your lawn to organic but are unable to maintain it completely, check our Safety Source for Pest Management for lawn care providers in your area.

Sources: Washington Post, Greenwich Time, First Coast News, The Philadelphia Enquirer, HeraldNet