(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2008) University of Cambridge scientists say there may be a link between persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including pesticides, and Type 2 Diabetes. The Cambridge scientists are advocating additional research into the little understood links between environmental pollution and adult onset diabetes.

In the most recent edition of the journal Lancet, Oliver Jones, Ph.D., and Julian Griffin, Ph.D., highlight the need to research the possible link between persistent organic pollutants (POPs, a group which includes many pesticides) and insulin resistance, which can lead to adult onset diabetes.

In their commentary, Dr. Jones and Dr. Griffin cite peer reviewed research including that of D. Lee, et al, which demonstrated a very strong relationship between the levels of POPs in blood, particularly organochlorine compounds, and the risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Of course correlation does not automatically imply causation,” says Dr. Jones. “But if there is indeed a link, the health implications could be tremendous. At present there is very limited information. Research into adult onset diabetes currently focuses on genetics and obesity; there has been almost no consideration for the possible influence of environmental factors such as pollution.”

Interestingly, in the Lee study an association between obesity and diabetes was absent in people with low concentrations of POPs in their blood. In other words, individuals were more at risk of diabetes if they were thin with high levels of POPs in their blood than if they were overweight but with low levels of POPs.

Dr. Jones said, “I think research should be carried out to first test the hypothesis that POPs exposure can cause diabetes, perhaps using cell or tissue cultures, so we know for sure if this can occur. Assuming POPs can have this effect, the next step would be to try and develop a method of treatment for those people who might be affected.”

POPs came into prominence as effective pesticides with the introduction of DDT in the 1940s. However, many of these chemicals, including DDT, fell out of favor after they were blamed for the declining number of wild birds and other animals and negative human health effects. As the compounds biodegrade slowly, they continue to find their way into the food chain and ultimately into the blood streams of individuals even though many of these toxins were banned many years ago. Additionally, these compounds can persist in body fat for very long periods of time following exposure.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2008) Reclaiming Our Healthy Future: Political change to protect the next generation, the 26th National Pesticide Forum, will be held March 14-16 at the University of California, Berkeley. Register now to pay the pre-registration rate.

Recent speaker additions include Marla Cone, author of Silent Snow and environmental journalist with the Los Angles Times; Paul Saoke, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility Kenya; and Ted Schettler MD, science director of the Science and Environmental Health Network. These speakers will be joining a line-up which already includes Arturo Rodriguez (UFW President), Devra Davis, Ph.D. (author and University of Pittsburgh professor of epidemiology) and Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. (UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology). Also, actress Kaiulani Lee will perform A Sense of Wonder, her one-woman play based on the life and works of Rachel Carson.

The conference themes are pesticides and health with a particular focus on  children and workers, a vision for a just and sustainable food system, and creating political change. A tentative schedule of events is now available on the Forum webpage.

Marla Cone is one of the nation’s premier environmental journalists. She has 22 years of experience covering environmental issues, including 18 years at the Los Angeles Times. In 2005 she published Silent Snow: The Slow Poisoning of the Arctic. What she discovered while researching the book was shocking: Tons of dangerous chemicals and pesticides from the U.S, Europe, and Asia are being carried to the Arctic by winds and waves and amplified in the ocean’s food web with dramatic impacts on Inuit communities. Ms. Cone has twice won a national award for environmental reporting.

Paul Saoke is executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR-Kenya) and vice-president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment. He participated actively in negotiation of the Stockholm Convention and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, and is currently working on two books on DDT and Malaria in Africa. He is currently the Vicechair of the National Steering Committee for the implementation of Stockholm Convention in Kenya, and chairs the DDT expert committee. He oversaw the development of Kenya’s national action plan on DDT.

Ted Schettler MD is science director of the Science and Environmental Health Network. He has a medical degree from Case Western Reserve University and an MPH from Harvard University. He practiced medicine in New England for over 30 years . Dr. Schettler is co-author of Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environment and In Harm’s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development. He has published a number of articles on related topics in peer-reviewed journals and has served on advisory committees of the US EPA and National Academy of Sciences. Speaker bios, basic information and registration details are available online.  

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2008) Officials with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) recently released their 2008 plan for eradicating the light brown apple moth from the Central Valley area of the state. In 2007, a state of emergency was declared to facilitate quicker action to control the moths, as CDFA reports that the infestation is spread throughout nine counties. The agency tried to disrupt the moths breeding patterns by spraying a pheremone, Checkmate LBAM-F, in several different rounds, but the problem remains. As a result, CDFA has a variety of strategies planned to wipe out the moths this year.

“The primary way to eradicate this pest remains aerial spraying,” according to CDFA spokesman Steve Lyle. “The expectation is that the program will move forward with that in mind in 2008.” However, on January 22, officials said that spraying will be postponed until late spring or early summer, when a better product has been found. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently conducting trials in New Zealand to determine which formulation is most effective against the moths. One of these forumulations would last longer than 30 days in the environment, allowing less frequent aerial applications in California. According to CDFA’s 2008 “Questions and Answers” sheet, “The products under consideration for aerial treatment contain the same pheremone but use different bio-degradable carriers.”

In the meantime, possible options include pheremone twist-ties (which will be applied in February), ground treatment with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and spinosad, used in “organically approved” forumulations, pheremone and permethrin applications on utility poles (eight feet above the ground), and the release of stingless trichogramma wasps, whose larvae feed on moth larvae. The latter two options have been used in New Zealand, where the light brown apple moth has spread beyond the possibility of eradication. A CDFA statement said, “These wasps will not bother over-wintering monarch butterflies and they would not be released threatened or endangered plants or butterflies or moths.”

The planned continuation of aerial spraying remains a target of local groups’ ire. Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), which, in October, led anti-spray litigation that resulted in a temporarily halt to spraying, expressed its disappointment over the announcement. “It shows their absolute hostility to anything but what they have already decided,” said HOPE’s David Dilworth. “They refuse to look at alternatives.” Nan Wishner, chair of the Albany Integrated Pest Management Task Force, emphasized, “The concern is that [the product] is used with aerial spraying.” In the first rounds of spraying, there were some reports of residents reacting negatively to Checkmate. The Albany City Council unanimously opposed the spray, and Councilmember Farid Javandel said, “Even a few people being hurt is not acceptable.”

Sources: CDFA Light Brown Apple Moth project page, The Berkeley Daily Planet, The Monterey County Herald, The Santa Cruz Sentinel, Central Valley Business Times

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2008) The first state bill on genetically engineered (GE) crops passed through its first committee in February, 2007, and the latest revision is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, January 24. While AB 541 has been pared down considerably from its first and most progressive incarnation, it includes two very important measures to protect farmers whose crops are contaminated by nearby GE fields.

The first provision states, “A farmer is not liable for the breach of a seed contract or for patent infringement if a product, in which the seed labeler, or patent holder or licensee, has rights, is possessed by the farmer or found on real property owned or occupied by the farmer and the presence of the product is de minimis or not intended by the farmer.” A frequent criticism of Monsanto and the company’s overwhelming market share of seed is its tendency to sue farmers who did not plant GE seed, but whose fields were contaminated by a neighbor’s GE variety. In a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell said, “These lawsuits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortion of American Farmers.” (See Daily News from January 27, 2005 for more information on such “breach of contract” suits.)

The second provision of AB 541 calls for the establishment of official protocol for patent holders to follow when collecting samples for such a “breach of contract” investigation. That protocol requires the patent holder to “Notify the farmer in writing of the allegation that breach of contract or patent infringement has ocurred and request permission to enter upon the farmer’s land” and to “Obtain the written permission of the farmer.” Furthermore, costs incurred in the collection of evidence are paid by the patent holder, and further protocol for sampling procedures may be established.

This revision is downsized from its 2007 version, which, in addition to protecting farmers from suit, included provisions that gave farmers compensation for losses due to GE contamination, established a GE crop notification process to enable farmers to trace contamination to the manufacturer, and prohibited open-field pharmaceutical GE crop production. However, the current version has won the support of the California Farm Bureau, which has never before endorsed GE legislation in the state. To follow the legislation’s history, click here, or view the summary and sample support letter by Californians for GE-Free Agriculture.

TAKE ACTION: If you live in California, contact your Assembly Member no later than Friday, January 25th, by fax or phone. You can find contact information at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html.

Source: The Ethicurean

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2008) Agribusiness giants Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto have successfully persuaded the state of Minnesota to reconsider their water-quality limit for the chemical, acetochlor. Scientists representing the industry presented their own studies to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and explained that the state’s original draft limit for acetochlor was too strict.

Despite three years of research conducted by the state, scientists from Dow and Monsanto presented officials at the MCPA with six published studies- one of them in Chinese- which they claimed were overlooked by the state when determining the standard for acetochlor in waterways. As a result, the MPCA has decided to allow 3.6 parts per billion of acetochlor in rivers, more than twice the concentration of the 1.7 parts per billion previously proposed. As a result, three of five streams classified as ”˜impaired’ by acetochlor, including a popular trout stream in southeastern Minnesota, can no longer be considered polluted.

Some environmental advocacy groups question whether the MPCA gave favorable treatment to the pesticide makers, claiming that other research that suggest that the chemical can cause ecological damage have not been seriously considered.

“It looks like there’s a double standard, that industry can come in and suggest changes without putting it up for new review and comment,” said Janette Brimmer, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

Acetochlor, widely used in Minnesota, is a herbicide that kills weeds before they can start growing in cornfields and is marketed as Harness, Surpass and Keystone, among other brands. The chemical, however, washes off from fields and into streams, rivers and lakes. According to former hydrologist for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Paul Wotzka, acetochlor started showing up in waterways soon after it was first marketed in the state in 1994. Concentrations have increased since then as corn cultivation and herbicide use increased on surrounding lands.

In 2002 the Agriculture Department asked the MCPA to develop a standard for acetochlor. Last July, the state determined that acetochlor was contaminating a well-known trout stream, as well as four other streams. The limit of 1.7 parts per billion, proposed by the MCPA would have been the first legal limit in the nation for acetochlor. However, industry officials found this limit to be too strict. They are also calling the new limit of 3.6 parts per billion unnecessary and scientifically unjustified.

In 1994, the US EPA approved the registration application proposed by the Acetochlor Registration Partnership (ARP) for the use of acetochlor on corn. This partnership includes Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences. The EPA imposed several restrictions and conditions on the use of acetochlor to limit potential risks to human health and the environment. This included several early-warning measures to ensure that ground and surface water resources remain protected.

The Agency has classified acetochlor as a probable human carcinogen and it is listed as an endocrine disruptor in the European Union. The Agency believes that the potential for exposure in drinking water is significant, with degradation products also present at significant levels in many ground and surface water sources of drinking water.

The continued registration of acetochlor is dependent on compliance with the registration agreement. For more information on the regulatory status of acetachlor, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/aceto/

Source: Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, January 22, 2008) Triclosan, a very common antibacterial chemical, is present in the plasma and breast milk of nursing mothers, according to a study by Swedish researchers. Every one of the 36 mothers tested positive for triclosan levels in their bodies, and the concentrations were clearly and significantly higher in the exposed group (i.e., those that use triclosan-containing products) than in the control group. This does not come as a surprise since triclosan is widely used in personal care products””including soaps, deodorants, and toothpaste””as well as plastics and textiles. Although there was high variability within groups, even members of the control group had triclosan present in their plasma, indicating that there are other significant sources of exposure outside of hygiene products.

Triclosan is not removed from wastewater by conventional treatment processes and has been found in both wastewater effluent and sewage sludge. The authors of Triclosan in plasma and milk from Swedish nursing mothers and their exposure via personal care products say that the significance of the presence of triclosan in plasma and breast milk of nursing mothers is not easily deduced and that the health effects, especially the long-term effects of chronic exposure, of triclosan are not fully known. They mention several triclosan-enyzme reactions, such as the capacity to inhibit the iodothyronine hormone sulfotransferase activity in rat liver cytosol in vitro. The findings suggest that triclosan may exert adverse effects on biological systems by interfering with the biotransformation of other exogenous and endogenous compounds. Other studies have found health and environmental effects due to triclosan, ranging from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems. The study on nursing mothers found the triclosan concentration was lower in milk than in plasma on an individual basis. As a result, the infant is exposed to a considerably smaller dose of triclosan via the breast milk compared to the dose in the mother, so direct contact with products that contain triclosan may be more important for determining exposure of infants.

Various contaminants have been found in the breast milk of both humans and animals, and triclosan has been detected in the urine of three in four people. The effectiveness of antibacterial soaps has been widely disputed by researchers. Triclosan levels in plasma and in breast milk may vary widely from country to country and are possibly influenced by the advice given by national health authorities on the use of products containing disinfectants. The EPA will be publishing an analysis of triclosan in a report Re: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products due out at the end of 2008. For more information or to voice your concern about triclosan, contact Rick Stevens, EPA, at: 202-566-1135 or [email protected].

(Beyond Pesticides, January 18, 2008) The second circuit federal appellate court on Thursday will hear a challenge to an EPA rule that allows people to be used as guinea pigs in tests of toxic pesticides. The lawsuit, NRDC V. EPA, was brought before the court by a coalition of environmental, farmworker and health groups in 2006. The groups contend that the agency’s human testing rule violates a law passed by Congress in 2005 mandating strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. At the time, the House Committee on Government Reform found “the actual experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed and rife with ethical violations.”

“Testing poisons on people is unethical and against the law,” said Shelley Davis, Beyond Pesticides board member and deputy director of Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy and education center for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, based in Washington, D.C. “The EPA should stop accepting these industry funded tests.”

Previous human testing by industry produced serious ethical and scientific problems including one instance in which a company told participants they were eating vitamins, not toxic pesticides. In other instances citied in the lawsuit, researchers ignored the adverse health effects reported by the participants.

“The only people who get what they want out of these immoral tests are the chemical companies,” said Aaron Colangelo, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior attorney representing the petitioners. “Their testing methods are questionable at best, the only purpose they serve is to weaken pesticide safety standards, and ultimately the people who grow and harvest our food suffer the consequences. This practice must end.”

In 2005, Congress passed a law strictly forbidding the use of pregnant women and minors in pesticide tests. A loophole in the new EPA rule will allow testing of pregnant women, infants and children. Low-income people and students are the most likely to participate in these dangerous experiments, for which they usually receive a few hundred dollars. However, participants injured in the studies are not guaranteed medical care outside of the testing period.

The groups contend the EPA rule violates international ethical standards enumerated in the 1947 Nuremburg Code by permitting the EPA to set safety standards based on tests conducted with only a handful of healthy people. In most tests, participants are not representative of the U.S. population, the test period is scientifically problematic, and group size is not large enough to detect potential harmful health effects.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of NRDC, Pesticide Action Network North America, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, Pineros y Campesinos del Noreste, and Migrant Clinicians Network. Attorneys for the petitioners are NRDC, Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice.

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances.EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here. For more information on the lawsuit, view the Petitioners’ brief and Reply brief.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2008) Newly elected members of the Council of the District of Columbia brought the issue of reforming pesticide law to the Council yesterday in a hearing on a right-to-know bill, Pesticide Consumer Notification Amendment Act of 2007, Bill 17-493. The bill would be the first time pesticide law in the District has been amended since the law was passed in 1977. Pest control industry representatives did not oppose the bill, but urged the sponsors to shift the burden of notification of apartment building residents to the landlord.

While the bill is a notification amendment that requires licensed pesticide applicators to provide hazard information to potential customers and those in multi-unit buildings who would be exposed, the bill’s sponsors throughout the hearing cited the need for overhauling the law to stop the use of hazardous pesticides in the District. The hearing was held in the Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs by Chairperson Mary Cheh. When told that it was working on these issues by the Department of the Environment, which oversees pesticide regulation and enforcement, the Council members said that was not good enough, and seemed unconvinced by the argument that pesticide restrictions are best set by the regulatory agency, not the legislative branch.

Beyond Pesticides’ executive director, Jay Feldman, testified at the hearing in support of expanding the bill to ensure that people are fully warned before purchasing pest control services or pesticide products. Mr. Feldman noted that the bill’s requirement to provide consumers and residents with the pesticide label, Material Safety Data Sheet, and product manufacturer information needed to be supplemented with a clear warning statement, which was proposed in the testimony.

The testimony covers three areas: (1) the failures of the current system of disclosure of toxic pesticide hazards to consumers and those exposed to pesticides; (2) the limitations of the regulatory system that registers pesticides and makes these chemicals available in commerce; and, (3) the best way to ensure that people are duly warned and provided with complete information to make an informed choice to protect their health and the health of their families.

The testimony provided a history on consumers being misled by pesticide and pest control industry practices, which was documented by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 1986 and again in 1990. The testimony says,

To give historical perspective to this problem and illustrate that this legislation is indeed on the right track, we can go back to 1986 when the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report entitled, Nonagricultural Pesticides: Risks and Regulation, and found that, “The general public receives limited and misleading information on pesticide hazards.” Four years later, in March 1990, GAO published another report on the subject, Lawn Care Pesticides: Risks Remain Uncertain While Prohibited Safety Claims Continue, and found “the same situation.” Today, 18 years later, commercial pesticide applicators have become more sophisticated and we now call it “greenwashing.” However, you can be sure that customers continue to receive the same message, the ones that GAO documented, characterizing toxic pesticides as “completely safe for humans.”

The testimony explains the deficiencies with the federal regulatory process at EPA, and the fact that the states and the District of Columbia rely on the agency’s decisions and pesticide productive labels that are not protective of health and the environment. Mr. Feldman said, “The difficulty, from a public health perspective, is that the inadequate regulatory system, allowing widespread use of poisons that are more often than not unnecessary, results in a pesticide product label that is also inadequate, or fails in restricting use or conveying hazard information.”

The hearing addressed a number of issues outside the scope of the bill, particularly the issue of inadequately trained commercial applicators who are “working under the supervision” of certified applicators off-site. The Council members were shocked to learn that commercial applicators, not fully trained and tested, were allowed under the law to go into homes and apply poisons. As the hearing went on for three hours, the Council members grew more and more outraged and skeptical of the statutory and regulatory apparatus in place to protect people and the environment.

TAKE ACTION: To submit written testimony in support of pesticide right-to-know and the restriction of pesticides in the nation’s Capital, Washington, D.C., email comments to [email protected] or fax comments to Ms. Cynthia Brock-Smith, Secretary to the Council, Room 5 of the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, 202-347-3070. At this point, the record will close at the end of the business day on Friday, January 18.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2008) As of January 2008, the UK’s leading campaigning and certification organization for organic food and farming bans man-made nanomaterials from all of its certified organic products. The Soil Association has become the first organization in the world to formally reject having nanomaterials in organic cosmetics, food, and textile products, and prohibits products made with nanoparticles from carrying the pro-organic group’s logo.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 15, 2008) Health officials have warned that a “widespread appearance” of mosquito-born diseases like dengue fever is a real possibility in the US. The disease is already beginning to make is presence felt with cases popping up in Texas, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Dengue, a flu-like illness that infects 50 million to 100 million people a year, has been growing more prevalent and severe as it moves from tropical regions into more temperate areas, where it’s now endemic, and along the U.S. border with Mexico. Many fear that as temperatures increase in temperate regions due to global warming, mosquitoes could extend their northern migration in North America.

“It’s starting to creep up from South America to the Caribbean,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview. “If it can occur right at the tip of Texas, a disease which maybe people never heard of could actually appear here.”

Drs. David Morens and Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases brought attention to the issue in a paper entitled Dengue and Hemorrhagic Fever: A Potential Threat to Public Health in the United States, published in this week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. More than 760,000 cases were reported in the Americas last year, of which some 20,000 involved the virulent form, known as dengue hemorrhagic fever. Hawaii had an outbreak in 2001. Puerto Rico had 10,000 cases last year, and in recent years there have been several cases on the Texas side of the U.S.-Mexico border. The CDC estimates that 100 to 200 cases each year are introduced into the United States by travelers.

“You might say that increased commerce and travel plus global warming are creating a perfect storm’ that allows these and other pathogens to move around the world more effectively,” said William K. Reisen, a research entomologist at the University of California Davis Center for Vectorborne Diseases.

Dr. Fauci explains that “[t]here is nothing definitive, but it’s very clear that as [temperatures] get warmer and warmer, the range of certain mosquitoes — and the duration time they are able to circulate — increases.”

Even though many other scientists dispute the potential spread of the disease, all four types of dengue are currently found in the Americas, and the two types of mosquitoes that transmit it are present in the U.S.: Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (also called the Asian tiger mosquito). Dr. Fauci pointed out that the Asian tiger was first seen in the U.S. in 1985 and can now be found in 36 states. There is no vaccine for dengue and people infected can have no symptoms or mild to high fevers, severe frontal headaches, severe joint pain and pain behind the eyes. Nausea, vomiting and rashes also can occur. More severe forms include bleeding from the skin, nose or gums and possible internal bleeding. If untreated, it can lead to circulatory-system failure, followed by shock and sometimes death.

Responsible mosquito management can be an effective method of mosquito control. Beyond Pesticides believes the ideal mosquito management strategy emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness.

TAKE ACTION: Find out about safer mosquito repellents, smart community mosquito management, and public service announcements you can request to be played on your local radio station at https://www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito.

Source: LA Times

(Beyond Pesticides, January 14, 2008) Researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras have developed nanoparticles that can remove organochlorine pesticides from drinking water. These chemicals are quite persistent in the environment and difficult to remove from water. Notorious organochlorines include DDT, endosulfan, HCH (hexacholorcyclohexane) and aldrin, all of which have known health and/or environmental hazards. Many of these chemical pesticides are used heavily in agriculture and taint India’s water. Though no comprehensive national survey has been done, isolated studies show contamination of groundwater and river systems that cannot be removed by standard water filters. “Even though some of these pesticides have been banned, they are very much present in the environment. For instance, endosulfan has an environmental lifetime of 100 years,” said Thalappil Pradeep, professor of chemistry at IIT Madras. He leads the research that has shown that nanoparticles, mostly from gold, silver, copper and several oxides, are effective at removing endosulfan even at very low concentration. “Efficient chemistry at low concentration is important so that even if one molecule of the pesticide passes by, it gets removed by the nanoparticle,” said Pradeep.

He holds a US and an Indian patent and has licensed part of the technology to Eureka Forbes, Ltd., makers of water purifiers and vacuum cleaners. In June 2007 Eureka released water filter that used nanosilver technology. “We wanted to productize and demonstrate our technology and create some excitement. So we took up initial industrial development at IIT,” said Pradeep. But any technology of this kind, he believes, needs to go the “real sufferers in rural areas”. His current nanoparticles are effective on four most common organochlorine pesticides (OPs) — DDT, endosulfan, malathion, and chlorpyrifos.

Eureka plans to make this technology available to rural populations in the future but the high cost of manufacturing could hold this effort back for some time. “We intend to take this up as a no-loss, no-profit venture but that will have to wait until production goes up (and cost comes down),” said Abhay Kumar, general manager of water technologies division at Eureka in Bangalore. A community water purifier prototype, using nanotechnology filter, is under construction. It is scheduled to be installed in Kasargod district, an area in Kerala affected by endosulfan, by March. “This effort has to multiply, through all possible channels — industry, non-governmental organization and most importantly, government machinery,” said Pradeep, whose interaction with the Central water resources ministry turned out to be a one-way affair. Under the US Clean Water Act of 1972, the extent of contaminants in a glass of water is decreasing, but the number of contaminants entering potable water is increasing, said Pradeep. While the technology to remove contaminants from water is improving, the agriculture industry continues to douse their crops with more and more chemical pesticides, which can end up in water supplies.

Experts believe that eventually nanomaterials could be used to purify not only water but also ambient air indoors. “Many of these organics are extremely stable in the environment. Hence, chemistry of novel materials is the need,” said Pradeep. His group has also developed a pesticide test kit, slated to enter the market this year. One of the early proponents of nanotechnology for water purification when he came to IIT Madras 14 years ago from Purdue University in Indiana, US, Pradeep now has a slew of new nanomaterials that could free water from heavy metals like lead and mercury and other OPs.

Nanotechnology has received considerable attention, but optimism in the new developments is tempered by caution about the unknown effects of manipulating particles at such a small scale. With more consumer products containing nanomaterials hitting the shelves every day, a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations released Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials in July 2007. The report calls for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products, which is built on a precautionary foundation to prevent risks to the public, workers and the environment. In September 2007, EPA determined that devices that emit ions for pesticidal purposes will be regulated as pesticides. Washing machines that contain electrodes that emit silver, copper or zinc ions would likely be subject to this oversight.

Source: Live Mint

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2008) Talks between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dow Chemical Company ended unsuccessfully when EPA determined that Dow’s offers were not comprehensive enough. Negotiations had centered around study and interim cleanup measures in the Saginaw and Tittabawassee rivers, wetlands, and Saginaw Bay. Dow agreed in July to clean up dioxin contamination downstream of its Midland, Michigan facility, but this time Dow spokesman John C. Musser said, “They were asking us to go beyond what we thought was reasonable, and we could not with our earlier offers resolve that dispute.”

EPA plans to return to negotiations, but the latest round was not progressing successfully. “Key issues that are paramount for protecting human health and the environment remain unsolved,” said Ralph Dollhopf, associate director for the Superfund Division of EPA’s Region 5 Office in Chicago. “EPA simply will not accept any deal that is not comprehensive.” EPA spokeswoman Anne Rowan added, “We’re not walking away from cleaning up the river system. We walked away from negotiations that we thought were not fruitful.”

The state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has worked with Dow to ensure completion of the required cleanup, and these latest developments seem par for the course to local groups. “We would like to see this get resolved, but we’re seeing essentially what the DEQ has experienced with this company over the last five years,” said Terry Miller, chairman of the Lone Tree Council, an environmental group. “It really comes as no surprise to us that there’s an impasse because we know the experience, again, the state has had with this company. It’s really unfortunate.”

Recent cleanups by Dow have illustrated the extreme need for restoration of the watershed. A section of the Saginaw River, recently cleared of contaminated muck, showed dioxin levels of 1.6 million parts per trillion, 20 times higher than ever recorded by EPA. While Dow dismissed the find as an isolated spot, activists are impatient with the company’s posturing. “For years on the Tittabawassee River, Dow has not done enough,” said Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Lone Tree Council. “They have stalled, they have delayed, they have complicated the process . . . Amid all the philanthropy, the best thing Dow can do is give us back a clean river.”

Sources: The Saginaw News, Midland Daily News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2007) EPA decided at the end of 2007 to extend the deadline for public comments on its controversial proposal to allow pesticide product labels with third-party endorsements and cause-marketing claims. The new due date is March 27, 2008. The agency extended the public comment period for another 90 days in response to requests from Beyond Pesticides and others. In extending the comment, Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, said, “The Agency is particularly interested in assuring that its State partners in pesticide regulations, as well as organizations such as yours, have adequate opportunity for comments.” See letter.The issue of cause-marketing on pesticide labels came up last year when Clorox petitioned EPA to allow it to display the Red Cross logo on some of its products, including pine-sol and bleach products.

Beyond Pesticides will be submitting comments reiterating earlier communications with the agency. If members of the public or organizations would like to sign on to our comments, please email [email protected]. You can view the docket for comments already submitted on EPA Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1008. View the Federal Register notice for more information.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2008) Triclocarban, an antibacterial compound widely used as an additive to a range of household and personal care products including bar soaps, detergents, body washes, cleansing lotions, and wipes, has been found to have an amplification effect on the activity of natural hormones, which in turn can lead to adverse reproductive and developmental effects.

In the study, published online November 29, 2007 in Endocrinology, researchers from University of California- Davis and Yale University investigated the endocrine disrupting properties of triclocarban and other polychlorinated diphenyl urea compounds by exposing human cells and rats to levels similar to those found in people. Triclocarban was found to have a synergistic interaction with the sex hormone, testosterone- present in both males and females. This interaction produced a positive, amplified biological effect, which is likely to hyperstimulate native sex hormones. This amplification of sex hormone activity occurs at the target cell and can result in developmental defects or decreased reproductive function. Researchers further explained that ovulation and ovarian function in females can be disrupted, while sperm quality can be decreased in males.

The researchers also point out that the results of their study create a new category for endocrine disruptive substances to include “hormone amplifiers or enhancers” rather than simple agonists or antagonists in order to accommodate the synergistic property demonstrated by triclocarban. They also note that since triclocarban has the potential to amplify synthetic compounds, further investigation into its interaction with oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy is needed.

Triclocarban, like its cousin triclosan, has been linked to numerous health and environmental effects. When disposed into residential drains and carried to streams and rivers, it kills beneficial organisms in soil and water. Both of these chemicals have been found in breast milk and fish. Triclocarban, along with triclosan, survives treatment at sewage plants and most ends up in waterways and sludge spread on agricultural fields, and may end up on produce. Researchers at the John’s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that triclocarban was the fifth most frequent contaminant among 96 pharmaceuticals, personal care products and organic wastewater contaminants evaluated and that levels of triclocarban in water resources nationwide are much higher than previously thought.

In 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration led a panel of experts and industry representatives to weigh and analyze different germ killing methods. The panel found “no firm scientific evidence that the flood of antimicrobial products we observe has any discernible benefit over the use of regular soap and water.”

TAKE ACTION: You can stay healthy and put pressure on manufacturers to phase out antibacterials by not using products with triclosan or triclocarban. Stay hygienic the most effective way, by using plain soap and water.

Source: Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2008) Reclaiming Our Healthy Future: Political change to protect the next generation, the 26th National Pesticide Forum, will be held March 14-16 at the University of California, Berkeley. Register now to pay the pre-registration rate.

James Roberts, M.D., associate professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina and co-author of Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, and Jim Riddle, outreach coordinator for the University of Minnesota Organic Ecology program, have recently been added to the program. Previously announced speakers include Arturo Rodriguez (UFW President), Devra Davis, Ph.D. (author and University of Pittsburgh professor of epidemiology) and Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. (UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology). Also, actress Kaiulani Lee will perform A Sense of Wonder, her one-woman play based on the life and works of Rachel Carson.

Session topics include: Children’s health and public policy; Farmworker justice, organizing and consumer action; Building just and healthy food systems; Power of local activism to influence political change; Pesticides and the secret history of the war on cancer; Skills training sessions; DDT and malaria; Global warming and biofuels; Biomonitoring and pesticide drift; Lawns and landscapes; Managing indoor environments; Water quality and much more.

Jim Riddle is outreach coordinator for the University of Minnesota Organic Ecology program and has worked in the field of organic agriculture for over 25 years. He began farming organically in 1980, and in the early 1990s, he became involved with various government agencies and private organizations that establish organic standards and policy, including the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement. Since 2001, Jim has served on the National Organic Standards Board. From 2003 to 2004, he held an endowed chair position in agricultural systems for the University of Minnesota.

James R. Roberts, M.D., MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, has been conducting clinical research since 1996. His special research interests include children’s environmental health hazards and the management of lead toxicity in children. A graduate of Texas Tech University School of Medicine, Dr. Roberts is co-author of EPA’s Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings.

Speaker bios, basic information and registration details are available online.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2008) Sri Lanka started restricting the use of paraquat at the start of the new year and plans to have the herbicide completely banned within the next three years. According to Assistant Director of Agriculture K.B. Gunarathne, the decision was made in response to “the high rate of deaths due to paraquat poisoning caused by its inherent toxic properties.” Four to five hundred Sri Lankans die as a result of paraquat poisoning each year, and misuse of the herbicide is especially high in farming communities. Most paraquat poisonings occur as impulsive injections of chemical stored in or near the home, and injection of paraquat has a mortality around 65%, much higher than other agrochemicals. Also unlike other agrochemicals, Paraquat has no proven antidotes, and supportive care is relatively ineffective at preventing death. A substantial reduction of poisoning deaths is unlikely to be achieved by focusing solely on in hospital care.

Sri Lanka will phase out paraquat in a series of steps, the first of which took place on January 1, 2008. Starting this year, the maximum concentration of paraquat ions in paraquat formulations will be 6.5%. In October 2006, the Pesticide Registrar mandated a reduction in paraquat ion concentration from 20% to 6.5% and restricted the bottle size, but preliminary reports on the new formulation suggested that the mortality from poisonings would remain “well over 50%”. The Pesticide Technical and Advisory Committee also decided to require the amount of paraquat sold in 2008 not to exceed the level sold last year. By the end of the year, the phasing-out scheme will be finalized.

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) North America Executive Director Kathryn Gilje noted that “there was active presence at the December 2007 PAN International meeting from a Sri Lankan Women’s Federation and peasant farmers association that had been working on this issue. This is wonderful news!”

Paraquat, which has been in use worldwide for more than 60 years, attacks the green part of a plant, drying the leaves out to kill it without affecting the roots of crops below ground. It is the main ingredient in Swiss-based Syngenta’s Gramoxone – one of the world’s three most widely used weedkillers. Other countries have imposed restrictions on paraquat; for instance, in July 2007, the European Union banned the use of paraquat.

TAKE ACTION: Let the Bush Administration know that the United States should ban the toxic herbicide paraquat. Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and send an email to President Bush. Also let your elected members of Congress know how you feel. Contact your US Senators and US Representatives.

Source: Sri Lanka’s Daily News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2008) A study appearing in the January 2, 2008 issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine has found a correlation between women’s exposure to farm pesticides and allergic asthma. The study’s lead author, Jane Hoppin, Sc.D., of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, cited the lack of information on the risks incurred when women apply pesticides, saying, “Farm women are an understudied occupational group.”

The study evaluated data on 25,814 farm women who are participating in the Agricultural Health Study in Iowa and North Carolina. “This is the largest study of farmers and their families in the world, so it gives us an opportunity to look at diseases that haven’t been well characterized,” said Dr. Hoppin. The women self-reported their doctor-diagnosed asthma, and the team separated them into subgroups of allergic and non-allergic asthmatics. They also found that more than half of the responders had used or been exposed to pesticides, while 61 percent grew up on a farm.

The resulting data found that use of pesticides increased risk of allergic asthma by almost 50 percent, but not of non-allergic. Where a woman grew up also affected her likelihood to develop allergic asthma. Women who were raised on farms and did not handle pesticides had the lowest risk of asthma. Women who who grew up on a farm and did work with pesticides were more likely to be asthmatic. Women who did not grow up on farms, however, were most likely to develop asthma, due to a little-studied protective affect of growing up in an agricultural setting, which provides an overall reduction in risk.

“Growing up on a farm is such a huge protective effect it’s pretty hard to overwhelm it,” said Dr. Hoppin. “[But] about 40 percent of women who work on farms don’t report spending their childhoods there. It is likely that the association with pesticides is masked in the general population due to a higher baseline rate of asthma.”

The study also divided out the different pesticides used by respondents and their correlation to the asthma rate. Malathion, for example, was associated with a 60 percent increase in incidence of allergic asthma. According to the report, “A total of 7 of 16 insecticides, 2 of 11 herbicides, and 1 of 4 fungicides were significantly associated with atopic [allergic] asthma; only permethrin use on crops was associated with nonatopic [non-allergic] asthma,” in spite of non-allergic asthma’s higher occurrence in adults.

A follow-up study has been planned to better evaluate the link between pesticides and asthma. “We want to characterize the clinical aspects of the disease, as well as lifetime exposures to agents that may either protect against asthma or increase risk,” said Dr. Hoppin. “We hope to start the study in 2008.”

Sources: Science Daily, U.S. News & World Report, Environmental News Service

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2008) The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has struck an arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in four states a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant a majority of Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. Farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota need to plant 75-80% of their crops with Monsanto’s (and only Monsanto’s) GM seeds to receive the “premium rate discount”. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that promotes herbicide use; the Monsanto brands are resistant to Roundup (main ingredient, glyphosate) and contain chemicals that kill insects and other plants.

Monsanto’s deal is legal, according to USDA officials, who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance passed by Congress. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and show resistance to insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies. “We knew it would look that way,” said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for USDA’s Risk Management Agency, which administers federal crop insurance. “But other companies can come and do the same thing. We are making the discount available because the corn has shown the traits necessary to reduce the risk.”

The deal with St. Louis-based Monsanto was approved September 12, 2007 under a provision called the Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE) program, which is part of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. No other companies have taken advantage of the program, Pugh said. The insurance premium benefit to farmers, according to USDA, will be about $2 per acre, or $2,000 for a typical 1,000-acre farm. Crop insurance prices have skyrocketed for farmers as corn prices have reached near-record highs in recent months. Today, corn trades at about $4 a bushel, double the price of about two years ago. Those prices have continued to stay high because of increased demand from the ethanol industry, which uses the grain to make fuel, as well as increased corn exports and demands from cattle-feeding businesses. Crop insurance rates can be as high as $50 an acre, according to Kurt Koester, a vice president and co-owner at AgriSource Inc., a crop insurance agency in West Des Moines, Iowa, involved in the pilot program. Several years ago, Koester said premiums were about $15 to $20 an acre. “Farmers are going to face some really tough decisions here,” Koester said. ‘They’ve got this high-value corn sitting out in their fields. When you take the cost of this crop insurance, even with government subsidies, there’s going to be sticker shock.”

The pilot program with Monsanto covers the country’s four most productive corn states. It involves corn that contains YieldGard Plus (which protects against corn borers and rootworms) with Roundup Ready Corn 2 (which tolerates the herbicide Roundup) or YieldGard VT Triple technology from Monsanto, the company said. The deal with the Agriculture Department was finalized this month. The corn grown is generally used as cattle feed and as raw material for ethanol plants. Monsanto won the BYE designation by providing three years’ worth of research that convinced the USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board that its triple-stack corn variety produces higher yields under difficult conditions, such as weeds and corn borer.

“It really bore out what we’ve heard from our farmers, saying over and over again that these triple-stack technologies in the corn plant help protect against weeds and root worms,” said Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesman. “What this does is reduce the risk for the farmers.”

Monsanto, however, has earned the wrath of organic agriculture and environmental groups, mostly for promoting the growth of genetically altered crops. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, characterized the USDA-Monsanto BYE arrangement as one of many examples in which the department has sided with big agribusinesses instead of smaller farmers and farm groups. He said the BYE program will leave farmers with little choice but to buy Monsanto seed. “We definitely have a problem with all the benefits that [Monsanto] gets,” Cummins said. “If you really look at our crop subsidy program and what’s given to farmers, you really see a lot of those subsidies going to purchase genetically engineered crops.”

Cummins also said that the USDA-Monsanto arrangement excludes organic farmers. Most of the corn acreage in the four states involved is insured, according to USDA figures. Of the 11 million acres planted in corn in 2006 in Illinois, about 9 million acres, or 79 percent, had federal crop insurance, according to USDA. In Indiana, 68 percent of corn acres were insured, in Iowa, 87 percent and in Minnesota, 89 percent.

Source: Chicago Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2008) The Cleveland Botanical Garden and several city departments are testing several low-growth grass mixes — some already available, while others are new mixes being developed at the garden. The grasses would be planted initially only in city-owned vacant lots. Low-mow — and its even more ecologically minded brother, no-mow — refer to limited-growth grass seed mixes. The seeds grow into lawns that need less water, need no fertilizers or chemical herbicide and stay reasonably short, 6 to 8 inches, even if mowed at most on a monthly basis. Low-grow grasses are already sprouting up in Cleveland. Five mixes sprouted with mixed results when planted in pilot strips last summer in front of the Botanical Garden’s East Boulevard building. The most promising blend topped off between 6 and 8 inches high when being cut only once a month. Other Northeast Ohio lawns probably grew that much in a single week this past summer when the rains came.

Supporters say that’s what will make these low-mow grasses an increasingly popular option, even though some disdain their small flowers, and most varieties look shaggier than well-manicured yards. “The perfect American lawn is going through a volatile period in its history,” said Case Western Reserve University environmental history professor Ted Steinberg of Shaker Heights. “Of course, I’m the guy who thinks any lawn maintenance is a waste of time.” Steinberg, author of American Green: The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn, said there is “an anti-perfect lawn revolution under way in Canada.” He said more than 120 cities there have enacted limits on the use of pesticides on yards, for example. A number of cities in the US require parks to be pesticide-free.

Steinberg said low-mow lawns are part of that larger movement away from chemically supported and perfect-looking lawns. The test lawn outside the garden certainly drew plenty of attention around University Circle this past summer, said Christin DeJong, the Garden’s urban botanist, who is running the experiment. “The Cleveland Botanical Garden’s mission is – in every sense of the word – conservation,” said Garden Executive Director Natalie Ronayne. “This project can play a role in urban greening, which improves sustainability and helps in economic development. It’s more aesthetically pleasing and easier to market a green city.”

The low-mow lawn test will continue through next spring on four parcels in the city’s Fairfax neighborhood. Contractors for the city planted the new seed mix on half of each of the bare-dirt lots. The other half got a traditional, faster-growing lawn mix. City workers will mow it monthly next summer and measure the height difference each time between the two sides. Ultimately, the grass could be used to reseed many of the city’s 8,000 parcels of available land. “That’s the bottom line with us – if it saves money on maintenance,” said Nate Hoelzel, the city’s brownfields program manager. “Green lots help a neighborhood more than plain dirt.”

Ronayne and Hoelzel said they could envision the low-grow also being marketed to park systems and maybe the Ohio Department of Transportation for median strips. Because none of the mixes include taller – and hardier – grasses like rye, they won’t hold up under heavy traffic, DeJong said. Landscapers who make part of their living mowing others’ lawns aren’t too worried – yet. “Quite honestly, it’s really not on our radar at this time,” said Sandy Munley, executive director of the Ohio Landscape Association in Broadview Heights. “It sounds pretty cool for some uses, but I think it would depend on what it looks like and feels underfoot.” Brad Copley, vice president of marketing for MTD Products, Ohio’s largest lawn care equipment manufacturer, said his company would welcome the idea. “I don’t think this is the end of lawnmowers as we know it,” he said. “Anything that would contribute to the greening of the landscape and the generation of more oxygen – as opposed to concrete or asphalt – is a good thing.”

The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns maintains a website with scientific documentation on the hazards of chemical lawn care, the benefits of organic care, and activist tools for community change, http://www.pesticidefreelawns.org. For more information on being a part of the growing organic lawn care movement, please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/index.htm. To find a service provider that practices least- or non-toxic methods, visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pcos/findapco.htm.

Source: The Plain Dealer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Organic integrity is strengthened.

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

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

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

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

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

2. EPA Plan Puts Vulnerable Populations at Risk

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

4. EPA Plan Creates Conflicts with State Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Associated Press, Kennebec Journal