(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2008) A team of University of Michigan scientists discover interactions between genes and organophosphate exposure cause some forms of motor neuron disease (MND). The study, which appears in the March issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, shows the mutations in one key gene (neuropathy target esterase, or NTE) that causes a previously unknown type of inherited MND. The scientists also find the mutations caused changes in a protein already known to be involved when people develop neurologic disorders as a result of exposure to toxic organophosphate chemicals commonly used in solvents and insecticides and also as “nerve gas” agents.

Motor neuron disease is a rare, devastating illness in which nerve cells that carry brain signals to muscles gradually deteriorate. One form of it is Lou Gehrig’s disease or ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). For most MND patients, the cause is unknown. Figuring out why these people develop the disease, which causes muscles to weaken, atrophy and cease to function, is an important step in developing therapies to treat or prevent motor neuron disease. Motor neuron disease affects five per 100,000 people.

“Our findings support the possibility that toxic organophosphates contribute to motor neuron disease in genetically vulnerable people,” says John K. Fink, M.D., professor of neurology at the U-M Medical School and senior author of the study. He believes the results suggest that altered activity of the gene found in patients in the study may also contribute to other motor neuron disorders, possibly including ALS. The findings are an exciting first step in uncovering a possible link between the environment and motor neuron disease, says Shirley Rainier, a research assistant professor at the U-M Department of Neurology and the first author of the study. “Why does one person in a family get it, and another doesn’t?”

Dr. Fink examined members of two families who had progressive weakness and tightness in their legs, as well as muscle atrophy in their hands, shins and feet. James Albers, M.D., Ph.D., a U-M professor of neurology and an expert in neuromuscular disorders, studied nerve and motor function. Dr. Rainier performed genetic studies and determined that the gene for the condition was on a region of chromosome 19. Mark Leppert, Ph.D., co-chair of human genetics at the University of Utah, and his team performed genetic analysis that confirmed this location and excluded other areas in the genome. Among the many genes in this region of chromosome 19, one gene stood out as particularly likely: the gene that encodes for NTE. Because of its known role in organophosphate-induced neurological disease, the NTE gene was considered an important candidate gene and was studied immediately.

Analysis showed that the affected people in each family had NTE gene mutations. These mutations altered a critical part of the NTE protein called the esterase domain. Dr. Fink has named the inherited condition “NTE motor neuron disease.” It begins in childhood and progresses slowly, with symptoms of weakness and spasticity in the legs and muscle atrophy in the hands and lower legs.

Next, Dr. Fink and his team want to learn if mutations in the NTE gene happen in other types of motor neuron disease such as ALS, and if the mutations make a person more vulnerable to neurological damage from organophosphate exposure. Dr. Fink’s lab is currently using fruit flies as a model to study the NTE mutations, with the goal of finding treatments for people with motor neuron disease.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2008) A coalition of farmworker advocates and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of four deadly organophosphate pesticides. These pesticides were derived from nerve gas developed during World War II. Some of these pesticides have been detected in California’s rural schoolyards and homes, Sequoia National Park, and Monterey Bay. The four organophosphates at issue in the case filed April 4 are methidathion, oxydemeton-methyl, methamidophos, and ethoprop. They are used primarily in California on a wide variety of fruit, vegetable, and nut crops.

“These four pesticides put thousands of farmworkers and their families at risk of serious illness every year,” said Patti Goldman, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental law firm that represents the coalition. “It is inexcusable for EPA to allow use of pesticides that they know are harming people, especially children.”

EPA has documented that children are especially susceptible to poisoning from organophosphates. Exposure can cause dizziness, vomiting, convulsions, numbness in the limbs, loss of intellectual functioning, and death. Some organophosphates also cause hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

“Farmworkers, and all people living in and near agricultural regions, especially children, are at great risk of neurological and developmental damage due to exposure to these toxins,” said Margaret Reeves, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

EPA has long recognized that the four organophosphates can poison farmworkers. However, in 2002 and 2006, EPA decided that growers could continue using these poisons without considering the risks posed to rural children and families when these four pesticides drift into schoolyards, outdoor play areas, and homes.

“EPA knows that children in rural communities are exposed to these poisons, yet EPA has not even attempted to assess the risks resulting from such exposures,” said Shelley Davis, an attorney for Farmworker Justice. “By ignoring the risks that pesticides pose to our children, EPA has failed us all.”

The lawsuit was brought by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers, Teamsters Local 890 in California, Sea Mar Community Health Centers, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Beyond Pesticides, Natural Resources Defense Council, Farm Labor Organizing Committee. California Rural Legal Assistance is also participating in the case on behalf of Moises Lopez, an individual farmworker in California.

How Bad Are These Four Poisons?
The four poisons at issue in the lawsuit are all organophosphate (OP) pesticides. OP pesticides are derived from nerve gas poisons developed during World War II. They are acutely toxic and cause systemic illnesses to humans and wildlife by inhibiting the ability to produce cholinesterase, an enzyme necessary for the proper transmission of nerve impulses. Symptoms of cholinesterase inhibition include muscle spasms, confusion, dizziness, loss of consciousness, seizures, abdominal cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, cessation of breathing, paralysis, and death. Acute poisonings can also cause chronic (long-term) effects, such as permanent nerve damage, loss of intellectual functions, and neurobehavioral effects. In addition to cholinesterase inhibition, which is common to all OPs, each of the pesticides targeted in the lawsuit poses unique risks to children, farmworkers, and wildlife.

Methidathion
In addition to cholinesterase inhibition, exposure to methidathion is believed to cause cancer. While incident reporting databases vastly under-report actual incidents, methidathion is regularly among the top pesticides associated with pesticide poisonings. In 2001, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency cancelled all methidathion registrations, noting the high worker and environmental risks and the availability of alternatives. In 2008, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation listed methidathion as a toxic air contaminant because of methidathion’s carcinogenicity and neurotoxic effects. Methidathion has been found in the air far from the farm fields where it is used, such as in Sequoia National Park.

In 2004, EPA estimated that 90% to 95% of methidathion use occurred in California. Approximately 48,000 pounds of methidathion are applied in California annually, primarily on artichokes, oranges, almonds, peaches, and olives.

ODM
Oxydemeton-methyl (ODM) is a reproductive toxin and is associated with decreased size and viability of offspring, decreased fertility, and decreased size of reproductive organs. It has also been associated with birth defects. Of more than 600 entries in the poison control database regarding ODM poisonings, approximately 5% were farmworkers, 74% were adult bystanders, and 20% were children under six. ODM is documented as causing die-offs in migratory birds. According to EPA, ODM poses severe risks to threatened and endangered species.

Approximately 130,000 pounds of ODM were used in California in 2005, primarily on broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, corn, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts. EPA estimates that 75% of Brussels sprouts, 62% of broccoli, and 46% of cauliflower are treated with ODM.

Methamidophos
EPA has suggested that methamidophos “poses one of the highest risks to workers of any organophosphate insecticide currently registered.” It is one of the pesticides that EPA has designated for screening as a potential endocrine disrupting chemical. There are documented die-offs of sage grouse associated with methamidophos use in the potato-growing regions of the Pacific Northwest. This poison is also believed to have significant impacts on honey bees””a field study of the effects of methamidophos on honey bees demonstrated that the chemical can severely reduce the foraging activity of bees for a prolonged period of time after application. Methamidophos use is banned or severely restricted in Kuwait, Indonesia, Samoa, and Sri Lanka as a result of the risks it poses to human and environmental health.

In 2000, approximately 640,000 pounds of methamidophos active ingredient were used in the U.S. Most of this use was on potatoes (77% ), followed by cotton (12%), fresh and processed tomatoes (5%), and California alfalfa grown for seed (5%).

Ethoprop
Ethoprop is listed as a “known carcinogen” under California’s Proposition 65 Carcinogen List. EPA has found that ethoprop poses cancer risks to farmworkers far exceeding what the agency considers acceptable for pesticides. There are documented incidents of ethoprop drifting from fields following application and poisoning children and other bystanders in agricultural communities. Ethoprop is also associated with massive fish kills after being used on golf courses before that use was banned. Fish kills have also been documented after application of ethoprop to tobacco fields, which EPA still allows. In the 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that ethoprop uses jeopardized the survival and recovery of threatened and endangered species. When released into the environment, ethoprop degrades into other toxic chemicals that also pose cancer and non-cancer toxicological risks of concern.

Approximately 700,000 pounds of ethoprop are used in the U.S. annually. Ethoprop is primarily used on potatoes, sugarcane, and tobacco.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2008) A study called “Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank,” recently published in the journal Biology Letters, has found a genetically modified (GM) crop to persist in spite of a decade of efforts to remove it from a field. Researchers from Sweden’s Lund University and the Danish Technical University found GM oilseed rape (also known as canola) plants still growing ten years after seeds were planted.

According to the study, the result contrasts previous trials: “In general, studies suggest that the majority of seeds disappear from the seedbank within two years.” The oilseed rape volunteer (rogue) plants were discovered by their resistance to the herbicide glufosinate. Researchers wrote, “This finding of volunteers, despite labour intensive control for 10 years [including intensive chemical spraying], supports previous suggestions that voulnteer oilseed rape needs to be carefully managed in order for non-GM crops to be planted after GM crops.” They added, “These results are important in relation to debating and regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops.”

The study’s findings are consistent with previous research. A larger French study found similar survival of volunteer plants eight years after a GM trial. Swedish researcher Dr. Tina D’Hertefeldt pointed out the commercial implications of these results. “I would expect the same to happen in a commercial field too,” she said. “It may even be more prevalent as the trial had very stringent regulations, and higher controls than a farmer would probably carry out.” Furthermore, Dr. D’Hertefeldt said, “If you had a high number [of volunteer plants], you could get above the threshold for labeling GM ingredients.”

The results have spurred opponents of GM crops to speak out. “Despite the best efforts by the researchers to eliminate GM oilseed rape, it appears that once it is planted, it is virtually impossible to prevent GM contamination of future crops, ” said Clare Oxborrow, GM campaigner with Friends of the Earth UK. “The government must now tear up its weak proposals for the ‘coexistence’ of GM with organic and conventional crops, and put in place tough rules that protect GM-free food and farming.” Mark Westoby, plant ecologist at Macquarie University in Australia, concurred, “This study confirms that GM crops are difficult to confine. We should assume that GM organisms cannot be confined, and ask instead what will become of them when they escape.”

In addition to the persistence of GM oilseed rape seeds, the plant has been found to pass on its GM traits to nearby weeds, a side-effect common to GM crops. GM crops are being planted more and more, in spite of the risks at which they put conventional and organic farmers. For more information on GM crops, visit our program page and Daily News archive.

Sources: BBC News, Navigator.com, The Telegraph, TopNews

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2008) Wines on sale in the European Union (EU), including wines made by world famous vineyards, contain residues of a number of pesticides, according to a new report by Pesticide Action Network Europe. The organization tested 40 bottles of wine purchased inside the EU from Australia, Austria, Chile, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal and South Africa, six of which were organic wines. Every bottle of conventional wine included in the analysis was found to contain pesticides, with one bottle containing 10 different pesticides. On average each wine sample contained over four pesticides.

The analysis revealed 24 different pesticide contaminants, including five classified as being carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to the reproductive system or endocrine disrupting. The most widespread pesticide contaminant was pyrimethanil, a possible carcinogen, which was detected in 25 bottles of conventional wine — almost 75% of all conventional samples analyzed. While the majority of wines tested were selected from low cost affordable brands, three of the bottles are world famous Bordeaux wines and more expensive, according to PAN Europe.

The discovery of pesticides in samples of wine follows the publication of a report by the French Ministry of Agriculture which identified 15 pesticides as being systematically transferred from grapes into wine during the wine-making process. Grapes are among the most contaminated food products on sale in the EU and receive a higher dose of synthetic pesticides than almost any other crop. The contamination of wines is a direct result of over reliance on pesticides in grape production. In the EU, grapes account for 3% of all cropland, while being responsible for 15% synthetic pesticide applications.

“The presence of pesticides in European wines is a growing problem,” said Elliott Cannell of PAN Europe. “Many grape farmers are abandoning traditional methods of pest control in favor of using hazardous synthetic pesticides. This trend has a direct impact on the quality of European wines. In two thirds of cases the pesticide residues identified in this study relate to chemicals only recently adopted into mainstream grape production in the EU. Hazardous pesticides applied to food crops growing in the field can and do end up in food products. Almost half of all fruit and vegetables sold in the EU are contaminated with pesticides, with one item in 20 containing pesticides at concentrations above legal limits.”

Of the six bottles of organic wine tested, five contained no detectable pesticide residues. These results provide a clear proof of principle that pesticide free wine production is possible where no synthetic pesticides are applied to grapes. One sample contained a low concentration of pyrimethanil, a possible carcinogen. The presence of pesticide residues in organic wines is a rare but well documented phenomenon. A 2004 study, suggests that small organic wine producers located in areas of intensive conventional grape production may suffer occasional contamination due to the drift of pesticides from neighboring plots affecting front-line organic vines.

The U.S. is second behind EU for global wine consumption. Europe accounts for two thirds of global wine production and consumption. Italy, France, Spain are major exporters selling around 64% of all wine traded internationally. Germany and UK are the world’s largest wine importers.

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

Back in 1998, a wine industry group acknowledged that some wines produced in France may have been contaminated with polychlorophenols, specifically pentachlorophenol, for the past decade. The wine industry says the contamination causes “no health hazard,” according to L’Express news magazine, but that it makes the wine taste bad. This bad taste was often blamed on bad corks.

However, pentachlorophenol is a probable human carcinogen that contains dioxin; it is not registered for food uses and has no “safe” level, according to Beyond Pesticides. The chemical is used to treat wood used for the walls of wine storage facilities, and “trace quantities” seeped into such wines as Bordeaux, Burgundy, Beaujolais and champagnes. Contamination in champagne has been known of since 1982. The industry chose not to inform the public so as not to cause unnecessary alarm. According to L’Express, Sophie Gerard, a spokesperson for the wine industry, says that less than one percent of Bordeaux wine was affected and that the problem has been resolved through replacing the treated wood with solid oak which does not need treatment. She cites a study by the Conseil Interprofessionenel du Vin de Bordeaux (CIVB), also mentioned in Wine Spectator magazine, which found that of 1344 wine samples, only 11 were contaminated with a wood preservative. The scientist, Pascal
Chatonnet, who discovered the contamination, says that about 50% of his samples had been contaminated. According to Wine Spectator, vintners believe it is the humid conditions in wine cellars that cause the polychlorophenol molecules from wood ceilings and walls to evolve into 2,4,6, trichloroanisole (TCE), which is commonly cited as the chemical responsible for making wine taste “corky.”

The health impacts of pesticide exposure to vineyard farmworkers is also a concern. According to the PAN-Europe report, “Published scientific analysis suggests that those exposed to pesticides in grape production suffer a higher incidence of allergic rhinitis, respiratory problems, cancers, and chromosomal and nuclear abnormalities, as well as lower neurological capacities.”

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2008) A study that analyzed chemical contamination in clothes found that fabrics absorb high concentrations of moth repellents, and retain these concentrations even after prolonged airing. These contaminated fabrics then serve as secondary sources of indoor air pollution once the chemicals are released back into the air.

Moth repellents, which contain naphthalene and/or p-dichlorobenzene, as well as camphor, have been recognized as major contributors to indoor air pollution. However, their persistence in the fabrics they are used to protect has been underestimated. The study entitled, “Domestic sampling: Exposure assessment to moth repellent products using ultrasonic extraction and capillary GC-MS,” published in Chemosphere, revealed that once cloths are exposed to moth repellents, whether directly or indirectly, high concentrations of p-dichlorobenzene, naphthalene and camphor are detected even after airing.

A regular cotton shirt, for example, placed in a cabinet containing one tablet of moth repellent was found to contain up to 7, 3 and 7.5mg of p-dichlorobenzene, naphthalene and camphor respectively after airing for 1 hour. These concentrations are high when compared with the average exposure to p-dichlorobenzene at about 35 micrograms (μg), and the average indoor exposure from naphthalene at less than 1ppb. While airing did reduce initial residual concentrations, results showed that airing for 1 hour was insufficient to significantly lower the concentration of the moth repellents in clothing, despite label recommendations.

Exposure to moth repellents- p-dichlorobenzene, naphthalene and camphor, can cause eye and respiratory irritation, headaches, confusion and even loss of appetite. P-dichlorobenzene is also used in air fresheners and bathroom deodorizers and camphor is a component in medications, cosmetics and perfumes. The chemicals are readily adsorbed through the skin and exposure comes from breathing in vapors and through wearing clothes exposed to these repellents.

Naphthalene and p-dichlorobenzene are among the most toxic chemicals detected in indoor air. Naphthalene and p-dichlorobenzene are potential human carcinogens, with naphthalene being linked to nasal tumors in laboratory animals, developed after inhalation of vapors. They have also been associated with Non- Hodgkin Lymphoma and blood disorders, including several types of anemia. Studies have shown reactions including acute hemolysis, jaundice and death in infants wrapped in blankets that had been stored with mothballs. German workers exposed to naphthalene were found to have a variety of cancers – including laryngeal, gastric, nasal, and colon cancer. Based on the adverse effects and the persistence of moth repellents on clothes, the researchers recommend that the use of these harmful chemicals as moth repellents be revised. The US EPA states that mothballs pose a hazard to young children since they can be easily mistaken for candy, or simply tempt young children to touch and play with them.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2008) On March 27, many distinguished environmental health and justice advocates in addition to political leaders gathered in Los Angeles, CA to express their gratitude & praised the efforts of the Los Angeles Unified School District, (2nd largest in the nation) for working cooperatively for a decade with California Safe Schools (CSS), a children’s environmental health organization in creating the most protective pesticide policy for schools in the country.

California Safe Schools (CSS) was formed by Robina Suwol in 1998, following an incident with her then 6-year-old son Nicholas, a student at Sherman Oaks Elementary School. Unaware students were present, a school gardener in a hazardous materials suit sprayed the herbicide Princep, creating a cloud of pesticide mist students were forced to walk through in order to reach their classrooms. Later, Nicholas, whose asthma had previously been under control, experienced a life-threatening asthma attack.

Ms. Suwol’s initial research on a web site sponsored by Cornell University revealed that a single exposure to Princep could be very dangerous to children, and may cause tremors, convulsions & paralysis, among other symptoms. Further investigation revealed that many chemical pesticides commonly used in schools carry significant risks to growing children specifically, increased risks of cancer, asthma, birth defects & learning disabilities.

With no litigious motives, only a desire to protect children, teachers & schoolworkers, Ms. Suwol formed CSS. With the support of LA Unified Boardmember Julie Korenstein, a committee was formed with CSS & district staff. One year to the date Nicholas became ill, LA Unified, adopted a groundbreaking policy known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The policy was the first in the United States to embrace the Precautionary Principle, the concept that no chemical is free from harm, unless proven so, and Right to Know. The success of the policy led to California Legislation, Healthy Schools Act 2000, and today is a national and international model for schools and communities.

“LAUSD, by working with California Safe Schools, continues to lead the nation in protecting children from pesticides and ensuring a safe learning environment,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides.

On October 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 405 (Montanez) sponsored by California Safe Schools. This law closes a loophole and now protects more than 6 million California K-12 public school students, and hundreds of thousands of teachers and school employees from exposure to experimental pesticides whose health effects are yet unknown.

“We believe that all children have the human right to grow, learn and play in a toxic free environment. Advocates for Environmental Human Rights would like to congratulate California Safe Schools and the Los Angeles Unified School district for leading the effort to create an educational policy that is based on the human right to a healthy learning environment,” said Michele Roberts, Campaign and Policy Coordinator, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, Washington, DC.

In honor of the 9th Anniversary, Honorable California Assembly Member Lloyd Levine presented awards to Los Angeles Unified School District and California Safe Schools, commemorating a decade of commitment to children’s health and the environment, beginning with the creation of California Safe Schools in 1998.

California Safe Schools also made a special presentation to LA Unified with awards designed by internationally celebrated artist Michael Bruza.

“California Safe Schools has become an indispensable “thin green line”  between kids’ health and unnecessary hazards,”  said Ms. Suwol. “When we all work together and provide information, alternatives, and partnership, everybody wins.” 

Robina Suwol is the president of the Beyond Pesticides Board of Directors.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2008) Researchers studying related individuals who share environmental and genetic backgrounds find an association between pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease. The strongest links were between the disorder and use of herbicides and insecticides, such as organochlorines and organophosphates. The study, “Pesticide exposure and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a family-based case-control study,” was published March 28 online in the journal BMC Neurology.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2008) Three years ago, Carlos Candelario was born without arms or legs and with spinal and lung deformities, birth defects caused by his mother’s exposure to multiple pesticides while working in Ag-Mart Produce fields during her pregnancy. His parents, Francisca Herrera and Abraham Candelario, sued the company in 2006, and last week’s settlement will provide for Carlos for the rest of his life, pending a judge’s approval.

“I am as gratified about this case as any I’ve ever handled,” said attorney Andrew Yaffa. “This child has tremendous needs and needed somebody willing to speak on his behalf. Every medical need will be taken care of as a result of this settlement.”

Ag-Mart has a history of state pesticide violations and use of extremely toxic pesticides (although in 2005, the company did agree to discontinue use of chemicals linked to reproductive risks, excepting methyl bromide, which is still in use). The company grows “UglyRipe” heirloom tomatoes and Santa Sweets grape tomatoes in a chemical-intensive operation. Ms. Herrera and Mr. Candelario worked alongside other migrant workers in North Carolina and Florida fields at the time of Ms. Herrera’s exposure. Both Florida and North Carolina have published reports on Ms. Herrara and two other women’s exposure to pesticides during pregnancy. (To view, click here.)

The suit included a long list of violations by the company, which defense lawyers corroborated with depositions of fellow migrant workers. They include: spraying fields with workers present; ordering workers to reenter recently sprayed fields before the recommended airing out period had passed; failing to provide protective equipment to workers; burning used pesticide containers next to fields and workers; applying pesticides up to three times as often as allowed by law; negligently using up to eighteen different chemicals on their crops; and intentionally ignoring state regulations pertaining to pesticides because “it felt that paying fines to the State was economically less expensive.”

Carlos’s mother was forced to work in tomato fields without gloves, and chemicals would dye her clothes and stick to her body. Beyond Pesticides board member Routt Reigart, M.D., former chair of the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated in a deposition that he believed Ms. Herrera was “heavily exposed” to a “witch’s brew” of pesticides early in her pregnancy.

Ag-Mart declined to comment on the settlement, but President Donald Long said in his deposition, “It doesn’t say on the label [of pesticides linked to birth defects] do not allow pregnant women to work in this, even though it has the warning that it might cause problems.” (For information on how pesticide labeling may become still less clear, click here.)

There is increasing research done showing the effects of pesticides on prenatal development. You can find more information in our Daily News Archive.

Sources: Palm Beach Post (and editorial), The News & Observer, Naples News, Associated Press (via Forbes)

Action: Stop Congress from undermining USDA’s ability through its conservation programs to (i) curtail dangerous pesticides that exceed safety thresholds or have not been fully tested, and (ii) advance the transition to organic production and land management.

Issue: USDA should retain its discretionary authority to restrict or prohibit specific classes of pesticides as a condition for participating in conservation programs. Language now on the table as a conference amendment in current Farm Bill negotiations: “The Secretary shall not prohibit [or “discriminate against” in the House-passed Farm Bill] the use of specific registered pesticides or classes of pesticides as a pre-condition for participation in programs under that [conservation] subtitle,” known as the Goodlatte pesticide amendment, named for its original sponsor, minority leader in the House Agriculture Committee Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

Threat: Conferees to the Farm Bill (Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives from the Agriculture Committees of Congress who are negotiating the final Farm Bill language), are considering a provision included in the House Farm Bill (SEC. 11305) that would prohibit USDA from exercising its authority to restrict specific pesticides in its conservation programs. Time Frame: Conferees are debating this issue now and intend to resolve it in the next week or two. They have already agreed in part to some language that will tie the Secretary of Agriculture’s hands in seeking to address contamination of air, land and water and coordinating conservation programs with the organic certification statute, the Organic Foods Production Act.

Background: The authority of USDA to restrict usage of specific pesticides when necessary, under its conservation title is critical to long-term sustainability in agriculture, forestry, wildlife and wetlands management, essential in assisting agricultural producers to meet the standards of numerous federal statutes (Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and others), and imperative as the department carries out its responsibility to assist in the transition to organic management systems.

Scientific research increasingly identifies the need to advance management practices that seek to avoid or limit the use of registered pesticides that are contaminating air, land, and water, in many cases now at elevated levels that raise concern for human health, wildlife and the environment. For example, ongoing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research findings of contamination of the nation’s waterways with pesticides have led to strategic initiatives, such as the intergovernmental Chesapeake Bay Project, which has developed a coordinated strategic plan to achieve a “toxics free Bay to improve conditions for aquatic-dependent wildlife.” Nationwide, the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program found in its report Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Groundwater (2006) that more than half of all agricultural streams and more than three-quarters of all urban streams have pesticide contamination that exceeds acceptable standards for aquatic life. Human health standards are exceeded in about 10 percent of agricultural and 7 percent of urban streams. In addition, drinking water standards have not been developed for 36 of the 83 pesticides and degradates found by NAWQA.

If USDA is to play a role in meeting the goals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, as well as other watersheds across the country, the department most certainly may have to consider some restrictions of specific pesticide contaminants in the disbursement of its conservation program dollars. To not do so would undermine USDA’s role in conservation and put it at odds with its statutory authority to advance organic and integrated pest management systems in response to widening environmental and human health problems.

There are numerous examples where USDA may need to utilize this authority to support methods that implicitly or explicitly seek to reduce contaminants that are adversely affecting the environment and, in the process, ensure continued agricultural viability. In addressing contamination through conservation programs, USDA may disburse funds and stipulate production methods, such as organic or integrated pest management, that eliminate or reduce certain contaminants. In the past, for example, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in some cases has utilized its payments to support the transition to certified organic production systems, thus allowing only those pesticides permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and prohibiting those substances not listed as acceptable. Under OFPA, “The Secretary shall establish a National List of approved and prohibited substances that shall be included in the standards for organic production”¦”

Under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty, Congress has restricted ozone depleters in an effort to curtail global warming. To assist agricultural producers in making the shift to alternatives, the department has the authority to limit the use of methyl bromide in its conservation programs and in so doing facilitate the transition to environmentally sound practices. Here again, organic practices can help lead the way in addressing conservation practices.

Who to Contact: Let your members of Congress (U.S. Representatives and Senators) know that you want them to contact the conferees on the House-Senate Farm Bill conference committee and ask them to reject the Goodlatte pesticide amendment and allow USDA to advance conservation practices as needed. If your Congress member is a conferee (see list), urge the member to be an advocate for this position.

Make our message stronger. Download and forward this alert to your friends and family today!

Please act now!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2008) The sowing of gene-altered corn, called MON810, in France this spring will not be allowed until further scientific evidence on its safety is reviewed. This ruling came after growers argued that they faced serious economic harm if the ban on genetically modified crops was not immediately released before the start of the spring planting season. The French Conseil d’État last week upheld the ban instituted February 7 of this year, after concerns were raised by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, on the heath and environmental benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops.

In the ruling, presiding Judge Jean-Marie Delarue pointed out that the safety of the product needs further study. The ban would therefore be upheld until a ruling could be made on the scientific underpinning. Hearings are expected to be held in the coming months. The French Ministry of Agriculture initially imposed the ban on GM products, stating that it should remain in place until European authorities completed a review of the product. Review is required every ten years.

Efforts to overturn the ban were led by the General Association of Maize Growers in France and several biotechnology companies, including Monsanto, which engineered MON810, and Pioneer, a unit of the chemical company Dupont.

“We are disappointed,” said Stéphanie Piécourt, a spokeswoman for Monsanto in France, adding that corn farmers “will not be able to benefit from the economic, agricultural and environmental advantages that this product offers.” Farmers in support of the crop also argued that MON810 could help reduce the use of pesticides and lower costs, which would benefit consumers at a time of rising food prices.

However, environmentalists, scientists and farmers opposed to GM crops have argued that the corn, which confers resistance to pests, could pollute other crops and pose a threat to the environment and human health. The debate over the use of GM crops in Europe has been ongoing for at least a decade. Despite this victory, there are signs that some governments and policymakers are prepared to ease longstanding opposition to the cultivation of these crops. Some expect that MON810 will be cultivated this year in at least seven European Union countries, including Spain and Germany. MON810, under the brand name YieldGard, has been used in the United States for more than a decade. Nevertheless, countries like France are ever wary of so-called “Frankenstein foods.”

Recent studies have shown that GM crops have led to a large increase in pesticide use, due to increased insect resistance, and that despite industry arguments and propaganda, these crops have failed to increase yield or tackle world hunger or poverty. GM crops have also been found to harm aquatic ecosystems and contaminate organic and non-GM crops (See Jan 24, 2008 Daily News on a California bill to protect farmers from GM contamination). For more information, visit our page on GM crops.

Source: The New York Times