(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2007) Rachel Carson, a timely and key voice responsible for warning the public about the dangers of chemical pesticides, would be turning 100 this weekend. Despite succumbing to breast cancer in 1964, her legacy lives on – Rachel Carson’s fight continues today, as her work is more relevant than ever.

Rachel Carson authored the seminal book of the modern environmental movement, Silent Spring, published in 1962. The book detailed detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment, focusing on bird decline and DDT use. Her message had and continues to have a profound effect, calling on people to think beyond wilderness conservation efforts when protecting the environment – to think about what is happening in every ecosystem, including our own backyards. Silent Spring was instrumental in setting off a chain of events, including Earth Day and the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which subsequently banned almost all DDT use in 1972.

Despite all of the honors, awards and praise that have been given in the memory of Rachel Carson, her cause continues to be controversial, especially regarding the dangers of DDT. The latest row has surfaced over claims that the decline in DDT use internationally has led to preventable malaria deaths. This stance ignores the fact insecticides lose effectiveness as insects become resistant – DDT resistance was reported as early as 1946, and that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a global treaty, identifies discontinued use of DDT as a priority to protect human health and the environment.

Earlier this week, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) intended to submit a resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth. An action that has been delayed by Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) stated intent to block the resolution, reports the Washington Post. Sen. Coburn has publicly blamed Rachel Carson’s work for turning public opinion against chemicals, using DDT as an example.

Last fall, environmentalists were shocked by World Health Organization officials’ announcement of a new policy encouraging the indoor application of DDT for malaria control in developing countries. Environmentalists believe that dependence on toxic pesticides like DDT causes greater long-term problems than those that are being addressed in the short-term, such as cancer and nerve damage, given that there are safer alternatives available for malaria prevention.

Indeed, these posthumous attacks on Rachel Carson neglect to take into consideration the long-term effects of her message, which are immeasurable. Her leadership has not only indirectly led to the reduction and elimination of many other toxic pesticides, but also has bolstered the call for exercising the precautionary principle in the interest of our environment, our children and our selves.

While she focused on wildlife impacts, Rachel Carson also raised many of the human health concerns of pesticides that scientists are confirming today. Not only did she lay out an eloquent explanation of the possible connection between pesticides in use then and cancer, she also described a connection with sterility, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, hormonal imbalances, and reproductive effects. She spoke of chemicals passing the placental barrier and affecting unborn children. She noted the increase in environmentally related diseases, and warned of combined and synergistic effects. She also made it clear that safer and more effective non-chemical controls were widely available.

Each decade since Silent Spring has brought a new generation of pesticides that manufacturers claim are safer only to find newer health and ecological impacts of concern. However the news is not all bad. The increasing abundance of organic farms, produce and landscaping products, pesticide-free landscapes, and buildings managed with integrated pest management is testimony to progress. But we need to be more persistent than ever.

It is evident that Rachel Carson’s work is just as important today as it was when Silent Spring was first published, and she will continue to inspire others, whether they be environmentalists, activists, professionals or non-profits, to continue to fight for protective measures to secure a healthy future.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2007) According to InsideEPA, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), is likely to design and initiate a set of long-term studies on the toxicological properties of so-called nanosilver, a booming part of the nanomaterials commercial market about which little health data is available.

The nomination list includes a request from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a variety of studies on nanosilver and nanogold particles, including nanoscale materials characterization; metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies; acute, subacute and subchronic toxicity studies; and mechanistic studies to assess the role of size and surface coating on biological disposition and toxicity.

The term nanotechnology refers to research and technology that manipulates matter at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular levels using a length scale of approximately one to one hundred nanometers in any dimension. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, or around one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair. Nanotechnology allows certain materials to have different molecular organizations and properties because at their tiny size, they have far more surface area relative to their mass than their larger counterparts. Silver, for instance, has been known for years for its biocidal properties in its bulk form, as well as for its hazardous health effects. It is more efficient as nanoparticles.

Nanosilver is the first form of nanotechnology regulated by EPA. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also regulates nanoproducts, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and biologicals. Products like food, cosmetics, food additives and food packaging also come under the purview of FDA. However, unlike pharmaceuticals and medical devices, FDA monitors the behavior of these products and takes regulatory action only if adverse events occur that “threaten public or individual health.” Nanomaterials are extremely common in cosmetics, and may pose a growing threat to public health, as their tiny size may allow them to be incorporated into the bloodstream and pass through cell membranes.

InsideEPA reports that NIEHS is currently leading a multi-agency research initiative looking at nanomaterials’ biological fate and transport, or how they move and break down in the body. NIEHS issued its request for proposals for the initiative last September. However, that project is assessing a list of nanomaterials that does not include nanosilver or nanogold particles because the list was developed before those substances became more commercially popular, sources say. The new NTP effort on nanosilver and nanogold, when results are available, will supplement the data generated by the interagency project, the sources add.

Nanogold is less common than nanosilver but is still in some commercial products, including certain kinds of toothpaste that claim the gold kills bacteria and in some dietary supplements that are likely to be of interest to FDA. Nanogold is also being tested as a cleaning agent for drinking water, but has not yet been formally approved.

The study process is expected to take several years.

Source: InsideEPA

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2007) Organic agriculture may play a role in the fight against world hunger. Researchers say a large-scale switch to organic is expected to meet food demand while greatly reducing the expensive and harmful synthetic chemicals that have been introduced globally via industrial agriculture.

Professionals gathered at the United Nation’s International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security on May 3-5 in Rome. Covering a vital issue, the conference represents a change in the paradigm of food security.

Due to figures that indicate crop yields can initially fall with the conversion from industrial to organic farming (a decrease that often evens out over time), the organic farming movement has largely been on the sidelines in regards to discussions about feeding the hungry. However, studies discussed at the conference reveal the potential of organic agriculture to meet these needs.

Researchers from Denmark have predicted that food security in sub-Saharan Africa would not be seriously harmed if 50 percent of agricultural land in the food exporting regions of Europe and North America were converted to organic by 2020. The potential rise in world food prices from such a shift can be mitigated by improvements in the land and other benefits, according to the researchers.

A similar conversion in the actual region would also be beneficial because it could reduce the need to import food to the sub-Sahara, said Niels Halberg, a senior scientist at the Danish Research Center for Organic Food and Farming. Other benefits include the use of methods that would eliminate the need for the region’s farmers to come up with money for expensive chemicals, such as pesticides, and would encourage the growth of more diverse and sustainable crops. Additionally, if certification is made available, any surplus of organic foods can be exported at favorable prices.

Alexander Mueller, assistant director-general of the Rome-based United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), praised the models predicted by the Danish researchers and noted that projections indicate the number of hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa is expected to grow.

Considering that the effects of climate change are expected to hurt the world’s poorest, “a shift to organic agriculture could be beneficial,” he said.

Research has shown that organic agriculture can be part of the solution to reducing global carbon emissions, and thus can be a valuable tool in fighting global warming. Paul Hepperly, Ph.D., a speaker at the National Pesticide Forum, has studied the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial, the world’s longest running study of organic farming, and has documented that organic soils actually scrub the atmosphere of global warming gases by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and converting it into soil material. This was the first study to differentiate organic farming techniques from conventional agricultural practices for their ability to serve as carbon “sinks.”

Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, an FAO official who organized the conference, pointed to other studies she said indicated that organic agriculture could produce enough food per capita to feed the world’s current population.

One study produced by the University of Michigan predicts that a global shift to organic agriculture would yield at least 2,641 kilocalories per person per day, just under the world’s current production of 2,786, and as many as 4,381 kilocalories per person per day.

“These models suggest that organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture today, but with reduced environmental impacts,” Ms. Scialabba said in a paper presented to the conference. However, she stressed that the studies were only economic models.

The United Nations defines organic agriculture as a “holistic” food system that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, minimizes pollution and optimizes the health of plants, animals and people. It is commercially practiced in 120 countries and represented a $40 billion market last year, according to Ms. Scialabba.

For more information, read the papers submitted for the conference.

Source: Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2007) In a study published in the latest issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, scientists found that seafood products from southern China contain high concentrations of DDT and hexachlorocylohexane (HCH). While banned in China since 1983, humans are being exposed to organochlorine pesticides (OCP) at rates high enough to pose health threats.

The study responded to high rates of DDT and HCH found in sediment, water and biota in the Pearl River delta and neighboring coast, where land is being rapidly industrialized, urbanized, and transferred from agriculture to commercial development.

Researchers tested 212 seafood products, including shrimp, crabs, and mollusks, from 11 coastal cities for 21 OCPs, including DDT, HCH, heptachlor, dieldrin, and endosulfan. The highest concentrations of DDT were found in four species of shellfish, although concentrations varied widely depending on sampling location.

The study reported, “These results suggest that bioaccumulation of DDTs in seafood products was highly species-specific, probably due to different feeding habits and habitats.” By taking a large sample of one indicator species, it also concluded “the coastal region of southern China is probably one of the most DDT-polluted areas in the world.”

Researchers also found HCH to be more widely prevalent than DDT, but in lower concentrations. The other OCPs were found to exist at relatively low levels, suggesting low potential for bioaccumulation and low residual levels in the environment.

The report’s conclusion is a warning sign for consumers. By the European Union’s maximum admissible concentration, 13.2% of the samples taken are considered to be over acceptable limits. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) comparatively strict guidelines show 32.1% of samples to exceed the allowable DDT residual level. Furthermore, if measured against the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s estimated daily intakes (EDI), the EDI’s of both DDT and dieldrin are “higher than the cancer benchmark concentration . . . suggesting a perceptible health risk associated with consumption of seafood products.”

Such high concentrations of toxic pesticides have the potential to affect Americans as well as the Chinese, as a portion of China’s 3.2 million metric tons of exported seafood goes to the United States annually, passing through limited inspections.

Source: News-Medical.net

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2007) On Friday, May 18, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposed rules to sharply reduce fumigant air emissions that contribute to smog. Acting under a federal court order, DPR will begin allocating fumigant use in areas with poor air quality. The proposed rules make California the first state to dictate how and where several widely used fumigants can be applied on fields statewide, said Glenn Brank, spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

The directive, which the agency has the authority to set, centers on fumigants – gases fruit and vegetable growers use to kill pests in the soil before planting. The chemicals have long been blamed for being part of the state’s air pollution problem because they cause smog-forming gases when they evaporate from fields.

The rules also would eliminate some fumigation methods that permit high emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. While farm chemicals comprise only about 2 percent of California’s overall VOC emissions, pesticides are among the top ten VOC sources in the San Joaquin Valley and Ventura air attainment areas. The Southeast Desert area also fails to meet pesticide VOC goals.

The Department predicts its plan will reduce emissions by more than 4.5 tons per day statewide. Proposed rules would reduce fumigant emissions from about 38 to more than 50 percent within the three areas. The new rules would require farmers using fumigants to hire special commercial applicators and to incorporate low-emission techniques such as injecting the gases deeper into moist soil and covering fields with heavier tarps.

“DPR is committed to improving California’s air quality,” said Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam. “We believe that pesticide emissions should be reduced in a way that protects people and their environment, while preserving the agricultural economy that is critical to so many livelihoods.

“Our strategy requires careful balance and close cooperation with environmental and economic stakeholders,” said Ms. Warmerdam, “but we are determined to succeed, because there is no acceptable alternative to providing clean air for all Californians.”

DPR’s regulatory action complies with a 2006 federal court order. The order requires DPR to enforce a 20 percent reduction in pesticide VOCs, compared to 1991 levels. Rules must take effect by January 1, 2008. The court order stemmed from a lawsuit that claimed the state failed to meet its obligations under the federal Clean Air Act. To achieve timely compliance with the court order, DPR targeted fumigants because of their high VOC emissions. From May to October, fumigants account for 35 percent of VOCs in the San Joaquin Valley area, and 76 percent or more in the Southeast Desert and Ventura areas. (Sacramento Metropolitan and South Coast areas are in compliance with pesticide VOC limits.)

DPR would set an overall fumigant use allocation (or “cap”) for each non-attainment area from May to October, based on the court-ordered goal. To remain within allotment and emission limits, fumigant registrants would track and report applications. They also would calculate emissions from each application method used, at DPR’s direction.

Statewide, farm fumigants account for about 20 percent of all pounds applied, and the proposed rules apply to all seven of them: methyl bromide, metam-sodium, 1-3 Dichloropropene, chloropicrin, dazomet, metam-potassium, and sodium tetrathiocarbonate.

As part of the rulemaking process, an economic analysis estimated it could cost growers $10 million to $40 million a year for low-emission application methods. DPR expects San Joaquin and the Southeast Desert to hit their VOC target levels using low-emission methods.

Last year, DPR launched an initiative to develop a comprehensive, long-term strategy to reduce pesticide air emissions without disrupting the agricultural economy. That strategy included a data call-in that required registrants to submit plans on how to reduce VOCs for about 600 products. Almost all have responded, and data evaluation is underway.

On another front, DPR’s proposed budget for 2007-08 includes $780,000 to revive Pest Alliance grant partnerships with the private sector, to seek alternatives to fumigants and other reduced-risk strategies.

According to the Associated Press, the proposed rules were met with criticism from both growers, who said implementing them would cost them millions, and environmentalists, who said the rules were too lax. In 1997, the state pesticide agency promised to adopt a plan for reducing fumigant emissions by 20 percent. The target went unmet, however, and several environmental groups sued in 2004, claiming the state violated national health standards for smog. Ruling in that case last year, a U.S. District Court judge in Sacramento made the voluntary reduction goal mandatory.

Environmental groups, including those that sued the state to force the regulation, said their biggest concern is enforcement. They want individual growers, not just pesticide manufacturers, to face potential penalties for exceeding emissions limits.

Formal hearings for the VOC regulations have been scheduled July 10 in Ontario and July 12 in Parlier, Fresno County. (See the proposed regulations)

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2007) Mosquito season is here in many parts of the country and many communities are reaching for mosquito control sprays as the solution to reducing West Nile Virus infection with little data supporting reduction in risk.

Beyond Pesticides urges communities to practice responsible mosquito protection by focusing on reducing breeding grounds and practicing safe personal protection. The first step in avoiding mosquitoes is prevention. Remove any standing water where mosquitos can breed around the home and the schoolyard, such as plant pots, leaky hoses, empty buckets, toys, and old tires.

The best way to avoid mosquitoes, especially in the evening when they are most active, is to wear long pants and long sleeves. Burning citronella candles outside also helps repel mosquitoes. Since these two options are not always possible, mosquito sprays can sometimes be a good alternative. Many common mosquito sprays can contain toxic ingredients, however, so it is important to consider all of the option and read labels carefully before buying or spraying the repellents.

Some Least-Toxic Mosquito Sprays Include:
Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus- CDC recommends lemon eucalyptus oil repellents as a good alternative to DEET. The scented oil of lemon eucalyptus masks both carbon dioxide and lactic acid exhalations that alert mosquitoes to our presence, essentially hiding humans from detection. According to CDC, this plant-based mosquito repellent provides protection time similar to low concentration DEET products. (Repel Lemon Eucalyptus Insect Repellent).

Essential oils: Pesticides made with essential oils are derived from plants that are known to have insecticidal properties. Some essential oils used in repellents include Cedarwood, Soybean Oil (www.biteblocker.com), and Geraniol (MosquitoGuard, Bite Stop, Bugband) When compared against products like Citronella, Geraniol proved to be 100% more effective. Against products containing 10% Deet, Geraniol proved to be more effective.

Picaridin (KBR 3023): This new repellent is dervived from pepper, is a newly registered repellent that CDC claims provides comparable protection as DEET products with similar concentrations (Cutter Advanced). The limited data available on this product suggest that it has low potential for toxicity.

Citronella sprays: The same ingredient in the candles that repels mosquitoes also is in some mosquito sprays, including the repellent Natrapel.

Some repellents include many of these ingredients, including: Quantum Buzz Away Mosquito Repellent, All Terrain), Avon Skin-So-Soft, and Herbal Armour.

These recommendations are based on what is known about the relative toxicity of the active ingredient. The inert ingredients, which often makes up the largest portion of the product, is not disclosed, and therefore cannot be evaluated.

With all these repellents, be sure to reapply often (following the directions on the label) to repel the mosquitoes most effectively.

For more information visit Beyond Pesticides Mosquito program page.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2007) Initial results of a pilot program conducted in a Central Valley farming community in California finds that residents have significant levels of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos in their bodies during the spraying season. The levels topped what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers acceptable for pregnant and nursing women.

Over 91% of the people tested had above average levels of breakdown products of the insecticide chlorpyrifos in their urine, and all but one had chlorpyrifos concentrations above EPA’s recommended threshold of 1.5 parts per billion.

The study is an outcome of the collaboration between Pesticide Action Network, Californians for Pesticide Reform, the nonprofit environmental research firm Commonweal, and the community group El Quinto Sol de America. The groups tested the urine of 12 adults in various locations throughout the town of Lindsay during peak spraying season last summer.

The results are paired with air monitoring data, also done by the group, that show for three years running chlorpyrifos has not only been detected in the air in town and near schools, but also exceeded EPA’s acceptable level for short-term exposure.

The results for the first time shed light on a problem residents suspected but could not prove: that a pesticide banned for household use was drifting off nearby fields and into their homes, with unknown long-term health consequences.

“The most important thing is we don’t know,” said Ana Gonzalez, who lives in one of the six houses where air was sampled. “The fear, the danger of having the pesticides right near us – we could fight against something we could see: A robber, a poison right here at home. But this we can’t see.”

The study, released yesterday, highlights gaps in state and federal pesticide regulation. EPA banned chlorpyrifos for household use seven years ago amid concerns that its potent neurotoxicity presented too much of a risk for young children.

Despite being banned for residential uses, commercial growers can still legally apply chlorpyrifos to plants abutting homes within one-quarter mile from a field or orchard in California. Advocates want to put a stop to this practice and seek a quarter-mile spray zone as a buffer.

The study also shows the considerable potential biomonitoring – the testing of humans directly for evidence of pollution or other compounds – offers in guiding public health decisions. California is in the midst of establishing the first-ever statewide program to test its residents’ blood, hair and urine for various chemicals. The program will provide a benchmark of sorts for the state.

Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network and the Lindsay program’s coordinator, said, “The fact that we can demonstrate that it’s out there and that it’s in their bodies and that it’s associated with all these known health effects gives power to the community’s demands. It makes them look real reasonable.”

According to Glenn Brank, the spokesman for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the group’s air monitoring data is in line with other levels the department has seen in other communities. “We do not see an imminent health threat from the chlorpyrifos based on the levels we’ve found in the air,” he said Tuesday.

The agency has launched its own pilot study in the Fresno County community of Parlier, which suffers from some of the valley’s worst air quality. Those results should be ready later this fall, Mr. Brank said. “We do see ongoing exposures at very low levels,” he added, but “as of now, we don’t see anything from the air standpoint that represents a concern.”

Farmers spread about 2 million pounds of chlorpyrifos, often sold as Dursban, over 1.7 million acres in California in 2005, mostly on cotton, oranges and walnuts. The human body expels the chemical relatively quickly, but the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 75 percent of all Americans have some in their blood, suggesting exposure is continuously occurring and widespread. Side effects of breathing the chemical are similar to nerve gas, a chemical cousin: dizziness, nausea, inability to concentrate, numbness or tingling in the limbs.

In a region where one out of five children have asthma, where the sky is so smoggy that nearby hills have disappeared from the horizon, chlorpyrifos is just a tiny part of the problem. The chemical accounts for 2 percent of nearly 18 million pounds of pesticides applied in Tulare County annually.

Community members are calling for stronger protections from chlorpyrifos and other high-hazard pesticides, including establishing protection zones between residential areas and fields that are sprayed, and notification laws for applicators so that residents can be warned before spraying occurs.

For more information, see Californians for Pesticide Reform.

Source: Contra Costa Times

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2007) Americans, whether we know it or not, are increasingly having imported food for dinner. While concerns over international agricultural practices, including pesticide use, have peaked recently, food imports are making their way with little inspection into the U.S. marketplace.

USA Today reports approximately 25,000 shipments of foods regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arrive daily from over 100 countries. Shipments have increased by more than four times and doubled in value since 1996 according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

FDA has not been able to keep up with this pace. It is reported that FDA inspects about 1% of the imported foods it regulates, down from an already low 8% in 1992. Too understaffed and underfinanced to inspect the vast majority of imports, this signals a large green light for produce and seafood to enter the U.S. market without having to sweat inspections (meat and poultry products are regulated separately through the U.S. Department of Agriculture).

“The public thinks the food supply is much more protected than it is,” William Hubbard, a former associate commissioner who left in 2005 after 27 years at the agency, told the New York Times. “If people really knew how weak the F.D.A. program is, they would be shocked.”

Mr. Hubbard continued that with the food-safety inspection system clearly overwhelmed, other countries will increasingly look at the United States as a dumping ground for substandard food shipments. He also pointed out that today the risks can be chemical, pesticide-related or bacterial in nature ”” none of which can be found by simply looking at the food.

As Michael Doyle, head of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia pointed out to USA Today, more food imports are coming from developing countries, where pesticide use is often higher than in the U.S.

Pesticide use is also frequently less regulated in many of the major exporting countries. For example, China is the third-largest exporter of food, by value, to the U.S., shipping almost five times as much food as it did in 1996. Reuters reported this week that “China’s farmers overuse pesticides, skip protective clothing and have at their fingertips an array of banned and counterfeit [pesticide] products, raising another area of concern in the country’s fragile food chain.” In addition, a 2003 analysis by FDA shows pesticide violations are two and a half times more likely in imported food samples.

Source: New York Times, USA Today, Reuters

TAKE ACTION: Buy local and organic whenever possible. While this is not always the cheapest source of food, it is a practice that supports the local economy, ensures local food production and protects you and your loved ones from pesticides. If you are not sure where to find local, organic food, try the Local Harvest website: www.localharvest.org.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2007) According to a study commissioned by Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Silent Spring Institute, 216 chemicals, many found in urban air and everyday consumer products, cause breast cancer in animal tests. The study, “Environmental Factors in Breast Cancer,” the most comprehensive review to date of scientific research on environmental factors that may increase breast cancer risk, was published in the online version of the American Cancer Society’s journal Cancer on May 14, 2007.

The state-of-the-science review collected and assessed existing scientific reports on potential links between specific environmental factors and breast cancer. The researchers synthesized national and international data sources and identified 216 chemicals that cause breast tumors in animals, including ten pesticides. They used the information to create a searchable online database featuring detailed information on the carcinogens. The database, accessible at www.komen.org/environment, is available free of charge.

The database includes references to 900 studies, 460 of which are human breast cancer studies that were critically evaluated by the research team. The studies measure breast cancer risk related to body size, physical activity, environmental pollutants, and prospective studies of diet. For each study, bibliographic information, key methods and findings, and a critical assessment of the strength of the evidence is included.

The database reveals that among the 216 compounds that cause breast tumors in animals:

• 73 have been present in consumer products or as contaminants in food;
• 35 are air pollutants;
• 25 have been associated with occupational exposures affecting more than 5,000 women a year;
• 29 are produced in the United States in large amounts, often exceeding 1 million pounds per year; and,
• 10 are pesticides: 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, atrazine, captafol, chlordane, clonitralid, dichlorvos, fenvalerate, nifurthiazole, simazine, sulfallate.

Some of the chemicals on the list are fairly widespread, including mutagens associated with chlorine-disinfected drinking water and diesel exhaust. Yet for the most part, Ruthann Rudel, a senior scientist with Silent Spring Institute noted, regulators and environmental health doctors haven’t even looked for a connection between exposure and breast cancer risk in humans.

“You have to ask the question right, and if you don’t ask the question, you don’t see it,” Ms. Rudel added. “That’s been true for a long time in environmental health: You don’t always ask the right question when you start out.”

The study also examined lifestyle influences on breast cancer, such as physical activity and diet. The study results underscore the importance of regular, lifelong physical activity to lower a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. The study concludes that further research is needed to determine the relationship between dietary factors and breast cancer risk.

“Komen is eager to see quality science yield answers that will eventually lead us to our ultimate goal of knowing how to prevent breast cancer,” said Hala Moddelmog, president and CEO of Komen for the Cure. “Commissioning this study is a step toward that goal, because it helps to determine what is known and what is not known about the possible link between certain environmental factors and the incidence of breast cancer.”

The study is one of several studies in recent years that has explored the link between pesticides and breast cancer.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2007) Wisconsin consumer fraud investigators have released the findings of a three month long look into claims that Wal-Mart has been mislabeling conventional products as organic. The state’s numerous findings of improper labeling confirmed a complaint placed by the Cornucopia Institute in January.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, in a letter to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., advised the company that “use of the term ”˜Wal-Mart Organics’ in combination with references to a specific non-organic product may be considered to be a misrepresentation and therefore a violation” of Wisconsin state statutes.

While the report did not take action beyond extending a warning to Wal-Mart, the Cornucopia Institute was pleased with the investigation’s outcome. “This finding is a victory for consumers who care about the integrity of organic food and farming,” said Mark Kastel, co-director of the Institute. “Wal-Mart cannot be allowed to sell organic food ”˜on the cheap’ because they lack the commitment to recruit qualified management or are unwilling to properly train their store personnel. Such practices place ethical retailers, their suppliers, and organic farmers at a competitive disadvantage.”

While Wisconsin has completed their investigation, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has yet to act on a complaint that the Cornucopia Institute filed before submitting one to Wisconsin. “A six-month period without any federal enforcement action is absolutely inexcusable when the largest corporation in the country is accused of defrauding organic consumers,” said Mr. Kastel. “Last November, we supplied photographic evidence and documentation to the USDA investigators who contacted us about our complaint. But their inaction, and our confirmation of these ongoing violations in Wisconsin earlier this year, prompted us to forward these continuing problems to Wisconsin state regulatory authorities.”

The Cornucopia Institute blamed Wal-Mart’s business model for its failure to responsibly market organic products. According to Mr. Kastel, “Wal-Mart’s model of top-down management and investing as little as possible in wages and training for local employees just isn’t working right in organics.” Since other Wisconsin retailers have not been found to have similar lapses in how they label their organic products, this seems to be a problem specific to Wal-Mart. Through their large-scale fraudulent advertising of organics, Mr. Kasten says “they have discredited their organization and injured some in the organic industry along the way.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates for organic integrity at all levels of production and marketing, from Wal-Mart’s labeling to cloned animals. For more information on Beyond Pesiticides’ Organic program, including information on the 2007 Farm Bill, click here.

Source: The Cornucopia Institute