(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2007) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives this month finds that children born to mothers living in households with pesticide use during pregnancy have over twice as much risk of getting cancer, specifically acute leukemia (AL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The study, Household Exposure to Pesticides and Risk of Childhood Hematopoietic Malignancies: The ESCALE Study (SFCE), 115:1787—1793 (2007) , investigates the role of household exposure to pesticides in the etiology of childhood hematopoietic malignancies, using the national registry-based case—control study ESCALE (Etude sur les cancers de l’enfant) that was carried out in France over the period 2003—2004.

The researchers evaluated maternal household use of pesticides during pregnancy and paternal use during pregnancy or childhood which was reported by the mothers in a structured telephone questionnaire. Insecticides (used at home, on pets or for garden crops), herbicides and fungicides were distinguished. The researchers estimated odds ratios (ORs) using unconditional regression models closely adjusting for age, sex, degree of urbanization, and type of housing (flat or house).

The researchers included a total of 764 cases of acute leukemia (AL), 130 of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), 166 of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) , and 1,681 controls. Insecticide use during pregnancy was significantly associated with childhood AL [OR = 2.1 ; 95% confidence interval (CI) , 1.7—2.5], both lymphoblastic and myeloblastic, NHL (OR = 1.8 ; 95% CI, 1.3—2.6) , mainly for Burkitt lymphoma (OR = 2.7 ; 95% CI, 1.6—4.5) , and mixed-cell HL (OR = 4.1 ; 95% CI, 1.4—11.8).

The researchers conclude that the study findings strengthen the hypothesis that domestic use of pesticides may play a role in the etiology of childhood hematopoietic malignancies. The consistency of the findings with those of previous studies on AL raises the question of the advisability of preventing pesticide use by pregnant women.

Hematopoietic malignancies are the most common childhood cancers, with world age-standardized incidence rates of 43.1, 6.7, and 8.9 per million children in France for leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), respectively (Clavel et al. 2004). The etiology of those malignancies remains largely unknown. Some epidemiologic studies have suggested that pesticides might increase the risk of childhood hematopoietic malignancies (Daniels et al. 1997; Infante-Rivard and Scott Weichenthal 2007; Jurewicz and Hanke 2006; Nasterlack 2006, 2007; Zahm and Ward 1998). Furthermore, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the occupational spraying of insecticides as probably carcinogenic to humans (group 2A); adult lymphoma is one of the main cancers suspected (IARC 1991). Children can be exposed to pesticides in utero or during childhood through their parents’ work, domestic use, or the general environment (residues in food, water, air, and soil). It is not clear which sources of pesticide exposure are the most important for children, and household pesticide exposure may be a major exposure for children (Bradman and Whyatt 2005; Grossman 1995). No French survey on household pesticide use is available, but surveys conducted in North America and the United Kingdom reported high rates of household use or storage of pesticides (Adgate et al. 2000; Grey et al. 2006).

This study supports numerous other studies that have for years linked household use of pesticides with elevated rates of childhood cancers. See [viii] Gold, E. et al., “Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Children,” American Journal of Epidemiology 109(3): 309-319, 1979 and [ix] Lowengart, R. et al., “Childhood Leukemia and Parent’s Occupational and Home Exposures,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 79:39, 1987.

For more complete information, also see Beyond Pesticides’ Facts and Figures: Children, Pesticides and Schools.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2007) The state of Maryland, in an effort to stem the extensive pollution of the Chesapeake Bay, has developed a cost-share program that pays farmers to plant winter cover crops, beginning with a pilot program in 1992. Farmers plant a variety of crops, wheat being the most popular, which in turn absorb excess nutrients in the soil and reduce the amount that is washed into the bay. In spring, famers will harvest the cover crops (sometimes with an herbicide) and plant for the regular growing season.

According to a 2005 report by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), “Excess nutrients and sediments entering the Chesapeake Bay from urban, agricultural, and forested nonpoint sources [NPS] within the Bay region have been shown to cause degradation of both water quality and living resources.” The report continued by acknowledging, “Excess loading of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay region has been attributed to runoff and potential nitrate leaching from agricultural practices . . . agriculture has been its most frequent cause.”

Cropland in Maryland accounts for 1.7 million acres of 6.3 million total acres in the state. The MDA report states, “As in other agricultural areas nationwide, crop yields are linked to the amount of fertilizer applied to the soil.” So with a surplus of fertilizer applied under this theory, MDA argues, “the use of winter cover crops has been recognized as an efficient and cost effective practice to reduce NPS pollution.”

The current cover crop program is over-enrolled for MDA’s budget, which pays 1,529 farmers as much as $50 per acre to plant in winter. Participation demand has risen 54 percent in the last year, forcing Maryland to look for additional funding to continue the program. The $50 million Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund was passed this fall, but designates the money for he Department of Natural Resources and not the MDA, which cover crop advocates will try to change in the new year. The Environmental Defense, in a recent report, stated, “Farms are the largest and most indispensable part of the solution [to the Bay’s pollution]. We must help farmers, who already are taking steps to help the bay, deliver even greater benefits.”

Of course, part of the solution should be reducing dependence on synthetic fertilizers in the first place, eliminating the need to harvest cover crops with herbicides. State and federal incentives for organic farming would both protect the bay in the short term and the health of Maryland’s farmland in the long term. For more on organic farming, including the proposed amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill, click here.

Sources: The Baltimore Sun (November 13, November 23), Lancaster Farming

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2007) On November 29, 2007, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) reported 2006 pesticide use statistics that showed continued progress toward less pesticide use statewide. However, strawberry growers increased their reliance the highly toxic, ozone depleting fumigant methyl bromide.

Overall statewide pesticide use declined by nearly six million pounds from 2005 to 2006 (from 195.3 million to 189.6 million). While use increased in landscape maintenance, public health and other categories, production agriculture saw a 10 million pound drop.

Use of many high-toxicity chemicals, including carcinogens, neurotoxic pesticides and chemicals linked to reproductive effects dropped for the third consecutive year. “DPR works hard to promote least-toxic pest management, and our efforts are paying off,” said DPR director Mary-Ann Warmerdam. “At the same time, we will continue to strive for long-term success in pest management, and we have more work to do.”

On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times reports that state strawberry growers, primarily around Oxnard and in the Salinas and Watsonville areas, applied fumigants to 5,000 more acres, using 132 more tons of the chemicals than in the previous year. That is a 9% increase in acreage treated and a 3% increase in tonnage.

Methyl bromide is injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne organisms. Because of the high application rates and gaseous nature of these chemicals, they drift away from the application site to poison neighbors and farmworkers. EPA’s analysis evaluated possible buffer zones around fields and concluded that bystander exposure would not be significant. It said farmworkers could protect themselves sufficiently with respirators.

The Montreal Protocol, a 1992 commitment by the world’s nations that includes the phase out methyl bromide – one of the five deadly pesticides targeted by Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers – gave hope that farmworkers and others would finally stop being put at risk by this deadly pesticide. Unfortunately, EPA is not only backpedaling on this, but approved methyl iodide, a carcinogenic fumigant that may be even more hazardous to human health than methyl bromide, as its replacement. In EPA-reviewed lab studies, methyl iodide causes thyroid tumors, changes in thyroid hormone levels- which are closely tied to metabolic disorders, respiratory tract lesions, neurological effects, and miscarriages.

Fresno County applied the most pesticides, followed by Kern, Tulare, San Joaquin, and Madera.

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

Take Action: Contribute to a pesticide use reduction in your community by pledging your property pesticide-free and sign the Declaration on the Use of Toxic Lawn Chemicals. Learn more about organic land care on Beyond Pesticides’ lawns and landscapes page.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2007) Twelve states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday November 28 over a new regulation that exempts thousands of companies from disclosing to the public details about their use and emission of toxic chemicals. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York by Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Vermont, accuses the agency of jeopardizing public health and seeks to force it to return to more stringent requirements. EPA’s measure, which took effect in January, raised by 10 times the threshold for reporting most chemicals under its national Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.

For most toxic substances, the changes allow businesses that manage less than 5,000 pounds of a given chemical in a year, and release less than 2,000 pounds into the environment, to file a simplified, two-page form that provides only the names of the compounds. Previously, all companies that handled more than 500 pounds were required to file more detailed five-page forms, as were companies that handled any amount of substances considered the worst actors — those that accumulate in people or animals, are persistent in nature or are highly toxic. The EPA’s changes allow the latter companies to avoid detailed reporting if they emit none of the substances into the environment and manage less than 500 pounds. In joining the lawsuit, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said the EPA was “subverting a key public safety measure that helps communities protect themselves from toxic chemicals.”

“EPA’s rollbacks set a dangerous precedent that undermines two decades of public access to toxic pollution data,” said Emily Rusch, a California Public Interest Research Group advocate. For nearly 20 years, the national Toxics Release Inventory has allowed people to access data about hundreds of chemicals used and released in their communities. Congress established the toxic database in 1986 when it enacted the Right to Know Act after a 1984 leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, killed at least 20,000 people and left over 150,000 people injured. In about 9,000 communities, the annual reports provide details about the use of nearly 600 industrial chemicals. The reports identify which industrial plants emit the most toxic substances, whether their emissions are increasing and what compounds may be contaminating the air and water.

EPA spokeswoman Molly O’Neill said in a statement the TRI revisions included incentives to reduce emissions of PBT, persistent bioaccumulative and toxic, chemicals. O’Neill said companies “can only use the shorter TRI form for PBT reports if they can certify that they have zero release of PBTs to the environment.” EPA officials say they changed the regulation to cut companies’ costs of monitoring emissions and filing complex annual reports. The agency says the changes will save industry $6 million a year and affect about 6,700 facilities.

In its original proposal unveiled in 2005, the EPA had planned to grant even broader exemptions. But after an outpouring of opposition among the more than 100,000 comments received, the EPA dropped about 60% of the proposed exemptions. The goal, EPA officials said, is to cut costs for smaller facilities that contribute less than 1% of total emissions in the country. In all, industry spends about $650 million a year to comply with the reporting requirements.

But Brown said even small companies should be forced to provide the more detailed information because they pose a public threat. “A ton’s a lot of stuff, you know,” Brown said Wednesday in an interview. “As we swim in this chemical soup that modern society serves up, we certainly have a right to know what we are encountering. Number one, it makes the businessperson conscious that they’re trespassing on the public’s space, and secondly, neighbors and activists are alerted and can bring pressure to bear to reduce the emissions.”

Sources: LA Times, Ithaca Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2007) Seven years ago, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets, along with other crops like potatoes and rice, was shelved at fears that consumers would not support their use. Sugar beets, which produce about half of the United States sugar (almost all of which is used domestically), are used in foods like candy, cereal, and baking products. The failure of the GM beet’s initial introduction was based on unwillingness from companies like Hershey and Kellogg to provoke consumer protests.

Now, the marketplace seems to have changed enough that such big sugar-buying companies are less hesitant to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” beet (which are tolerant of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate). According to Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles, her company “would not have any issues” buying them because “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.”

“Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said American Crystal Sugar president David Berg of the switch. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.” Most other companies, including Hershey and Mars, are refusing to comment on the subject, which has kept these developments quiet until recently.

Despite the corporate perception of public opinion on GM crops, organic advocates are disappointed that GM sugar beets have again become a possibility. “When I first saw this I said, ‘No, it can’t be,'” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). “I thought we had already dealt with this.” OCA has already begun its consumer campaign to get sugar buyers to reject GM beets again. “I don’t think companies like Hershey are going to want any more hassles than they already have,” said Cummins.

Issues with the crop center around environmental impact, like herbicide-resistant weeds (which have begun to appear in Roundup Ready corn and soybean fields) and threats to wildlife (see Daily News from 10/24/03 and 1/21/05). While the sugar derived from GM beets does not contain DNA or proteins, in areas where the beets are left in the ground for a winter, like California, they can produce seed that might spread to other fields. “We have to make sure we don’t cause ourselves more problems than we’re curing,” said Ben Goodwin, executive manager of the California Beet Growers Association. For more background on GM crops, visit our program page.

Sources: New York Times, Wired Science

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2007) As a follow-up to a Congressional hearing in September 2007, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is planning to develop a unified program referred to as “Partnerships for Environmental Public Health” (PEPH). The intent of the program is to support a variety of research, outreach and educational activities to prevent, reduce, or eliminate environmental exposures that may lead to adverse health outcomes in communities, with the active engagement of those communities in all stages of the work.

To establish a vision for the PEPH Program, NIEHS is seeking input from the lay public, environmental health researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, policy makers and others with a vested interest in the effects of environmental exposures on public health. The NIEHS released a Request for Information (RFI) — available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-ES-08-002.html — with six open ended questions that will help the institute advance its commitment to environmental public health.

NIEHS requests that public input be sent to Mr. Liam O’Fallon ([email protected]) by January 19, 2008. The following are easy ways to submit your responses:

1. Download interactive Adobe Acrobat form [http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/docs/pephform.pdf] that can be completed and submitted electronically;
2. Copy and paste the questions from the RFI into the body of an e-mail message and send your responses to [email protected]; or
3. Mail or fax your responses in a letter to the attention of Mr. O’Fallon (address provided in the RFI).

If you have questions about this Request for Information (RFI), please contact Mr. Liam O’Fallon ([email protected]). Please reference the RFI in your subject line.

This effort grew out of Congressional hearings, September 25, 2007, held in the U.S. House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), to examine the impact on public health of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ (NIEHS) new research direction and priorities. A new emphasis on treating disease has come at the expense of preventive research, education and outreach, according to Rep. Kucinich. There was bipartisan agreement in the committee that this change in direction compromised public health, pointing the NIEHS’s 2006-2011 strategic plan and current budget priorities.

In March 2007, the Domestic Policy Subcommittee in conjunction with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee began an inquiry into former NIEHS director David Schwartz, M.D., amid allegations of conflicts of interest, financial misconduct, profiting from his title as director, and extremely low morale and lack of confidence among agency employees. In August 2007, Dr. Schwartz was asked to temporarily step down as director of NIEHS while the National Institute of Health (NIH) conducts its own internal investigation.

As reported on The Scientists.com, Samuel Wilson, acting director of NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, testified at the hearing that he intends to restore cuts to NIEHS programs that focus on disease prevention, long-term epidemiological research, education and outreach.

At the hearing, Rep. Kucinich pointed to several cuts in programs aimed at the prevention of environmental diseases, gave several examples of these cuts, including this year’s discontinuation the National Children’s Study program, which followed the health and development of more than U.S. 100,000 children from before birth to age 21, an almost one million dollar drop from the 2005 to the 2007 budget of NIEHS’s journal Environmental Health Perspectives, and the elimination of the community-based participatory research in environmental health program, which received $4.7 million in the 2004 budget.

Contact: Liam R. O’Fallon, Program Analyst, Division of Extramural Research and Training
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233 (MD EC-21), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; (T) 919.541.7733, (F) 919.316.4606, (E) [email protected]
(W) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/science-education/. Overnight Deliveries can be sent to: 79 TW Alexander Drive, Bldg 4401, Room 3457, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 28, 2007) Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have determined that previous studies that assessed population-based exposure to atrazine were significantly and systematically underestimated. The CDC relies on the detection and analysis of only one of the twelve identified metabolites of atrazine measured in human urine samples to estimate exposure. However, after looking at multiple metabolites, researchers found that previous assessments missed most of the exposure. Atrazine mercapturate (AM), a metabolite of atrazine, was used as definitive evidence of direct atrazine exposure. General population data indicated that less than 5% of the population was exposed to atrazine-related chemicals. However, researchers at the CDC found that this research, which relied on AM detection, gives a low and misleading estimate of exposure to atrazine and atrazine- related metabolites.

Published in Environmental Health and Perspectives and entitled “Assessing Exposure to Atrazine and Its Metabolites Using Biomonitoring”, the small-scale study involving 24 individuals measured nine atrazine-related metabolites in urine. The sample was organized with respect to how likely the individuals were to be exposed to atrazine: (1) high exposure (turf pesticide applicators), (2) low exposure (non-occupationally exposed people in whom atrazine mercapturate was found during a prior study) and (3) environmental exposure (volunteers with no known exposure to atrazine).

Results indicated that the variation in proportion of total atrazine metabolites among persons was consistently large, suggesting that one metabolite alone could not be used to determine true atrazine exposure in humans. This means that most, if not all, metabolites of atrazine will need to be measured in order to get the most accurate picture of atrazine exposure. The researchers noted that exposure to atrazine or its metabolites appears more pervasive than previously believed.

Diaminochlorotriazine (DACT) was the most commonly measured metabolite, contributing 51% of atrazine-related metabolites in turf applicators, 28% to the low exposure group and 77% to the environmental exposure group. In contrast, AM contributed only 12%, 6% and 2% to samples from those groups, respectively.

These results are important because they demonstrate the importance of indirect environmental exposure, which for atrazine, would most likely be through food and drinking water. Most of the metabolites of atrazine, like DACT, are formed via environmental degradation.

They are detected in water and can even be bound in the tissue of plants, which may be miles away from the initial site of application. This also explains why AM, which is an indication of direct exposure, was more prevalent in turf applicators than in the other groups. The other common metabolites include: desethylatrazine (DEA), desisopropyl atrazine (DIA) and hydroxydesethylatrazine (DEA-OH). DACT and DEA appear to be the most important metabolites to measure to evaluate exposures to atrazine. The researchers emphasize that further evaluation is necessary because of the small sample size used and of other variables not considered.

Atrazine — which as been linked to cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and a variety of other health effects such as increased prostate cancer, decreased sperm count and high risk of breast cancer; and has been banned by the European Union — is the most widely used agricultural pesticide in the U.S. Its effect on amphibians has been well documented, and similarly serious health effects have been found in larger mammals.

It is also widely applied in the Mid-western states to control weeds in field crops, especially corn and sorghum and has been found in the drinking water supplies in the Midwest at high levels. Chronically contaminated drinking water puts humans at the risk of exposure to long-term health effects.

For more information on the safety of your drinking water contact your local health department or call EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline: (800) 426-4791.

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2007) While there is a trend towards less pesticide use in Christmas tree production, most trees are still treated with one pesticide or another — many of which are prohibited for residential use. In it’s 2007 survey results, North Carolina State University’s Mountain Horticultural Research and Extension Center, reports that glyphosate was the pesticide applied most commonly. The Center found that almost 90 percent of the state’s tree growers had applied glyphosate last season. The following tables summarize the state’s results, listing the pesticides that are used on at least 5% of the Christmas tree acreage.

Nearly 40 different active ingredients are registered for tree production nationwide. Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, and Virginia are the nation’s top Christmas tree producing states. Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture, which published a list of insecticides for Christmas tree production in February 2007, recommends carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, imidacloprid, malathion, permethrin and many more.

Many of these pesticides have been “banned” or have always been prohibited in residential settings, however EPA’s registration process and phase-out deals with manufacturers allows continued use on Christmas trees and other agricultural products. For information on the toxicity of these and other pesticides, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Alternatives (Internet Explorer preferred).

But hope is not lost. Organic Christmas trees and wreaths are available. Debra’s List, a website dedicated to “Green Living” has compiled a list of organic trees, wreaths and local organic tree farms. The Pesticide Education Project in Raleigh posts an online list of organic and sustainable tree producers in North Carolina.

This year, protect your family’s health and the environment by purchasing an organic Christmas tree or wreath. And while you’re at it, let your guests know you care by serving organic food at your holiday dinners and parties, and buy local, organic and fair trade gifts for your loved ones. The following are links to sites selling organic and fair trade gifts this holiday season: Global Exchange, Organic Bouquet, The Green Guide, Organic Gift Shop, Taraluna and World of Good. Happy Holidays!

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2007) Minnesota’s Department of Health (MDH) plans to measure arsenic levels in 100 children who live near a former pesticide production site in south Minneapolis. Pesticides containing arsenic, a known human carcinogen, were made and stored at the CMC Heartland site between 1938 and 1963. The pilot project follows the passage of health tracking and biomonitoring legislation and would help to determine whether children in south Minneapolis have elevated levels of arsenic in their bodies. Children who are found to have elevated levels would be advised to seek medical attention. Also, health officials would give families information to help them determine how they might be exposed to arsenic (including the soil, green-treated lumber, foods, dietary supplements and cigarette smoke) and to take steps to reduce the exposure in the future. Health Department staff members aim to begin the project in the summer of 2008 and will present preliminary plans and accept feedback on the proposal at a public meeting at December 6 at 7 p.m. at the Midtown YWCA, 2121 E. Lake St.

Health officials have said that the risk from the contaminated soil is low, particularly since much of the contaminated soil is under grass or other vegetation. “It’s our hope that this public meeting will help us design the best project possible for the community,” said Mary Manning, Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Division Director. “In addition, results from the pilot project will help us make recommendations about further public health actions, including the possibility of developing an ongoing biomonitoring program at MDH.”

This pilot project stems from state legislation that was passed in 2007, directing MDH to develop and implement a statewide Environmental Health Tracking and Biomonitoring (EHTB) program. Environmental health tracking is the ongoing collection, integration, analysis and dissemination of data on human exposures to chemicals in the environment and on diseases potentially caused or aggravated by those chemicals. Data for environmental health tracking are generally gathered from existing sources, such as statewide surveys and assessments. When tracked over time, environmental health data helps researchers, policy makers and public health authorities to recognize patterns, identify populations that are most affected and identify actions to protect public health.

Biomonitoring directly measures the amount of a chemical (or products that the chemical breaks down into) in people’s bodies. An increasingly popular science, it can be used to track hundreds of potentially harmful contaminants, such as lead, mercury, DDT and other pesticides, PCBs and flame retardants. Monitoring results will provide more information about toxics’ health risks by measuring how much, and in whom, they accumulate. In order to measure the chemical, a sample of a person’s urine, hair, blood, or some other body tissue or fluid is tested.

“Biomonitoring measurements can be a good way to determine exposure to a chemical — especially for chemicals that linger in the body — because they indicate the amount of the chemical that actually gets into people, rather than the amount that could potentially get into them,” said Jean Johnson, Environmental Health Tracking & Biomonitoring (EHTB) program director. Biomonitoring data have the potential to show changes in exposures to chemicals over time, to identify and assess groups of people who are at high risk for exposure, and to help decision makers target interventions to reduce exposure to chemicals in the environment. Biomonitoring projects measure only the exposure to chemicals and are not able to determine whether specific illnesses or health conditions are caused by exposure to those chemicals.

The legislation that created the EHTB program directed MDH to implement four biomonitoring pilot projects, including one in a community likely to have been exposed to arsenic. South Minneapolis was chosen as the site for the arsenic project because of the levels of contamination in the soil in many yards in the area and the concerns among community members. MDH made the selection in consultation with an EHTB scientific advisory panel. The south Minneapolis biomonitoring project will be the first of the four pilot projects. A second pilot project is being developed to measure perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in people’s bodies in the east metro area. The focus of the other two pilot projects has not yet been determined. Participation in the project is voluntary, however, participants will be chosen based on a number of demographic and exposure factors, in order to yield the most meaningful data for the projects, Johnson said.

In October 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed a bill to create the first statewide biomonitoring program. California state health officers will use blood, urine, tissue, hair and breast milk samples collected voluntarily from a cross-section of California residents, taking into account ethnic, age, income and geographic differences, in an effort to gauge levels of exposure to toxic chemicals from common use products. “We monitor the air, the water and land for chemical contaminants, but we don’t measure the chemical contaminants in people,” Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund said. “By doing that, we can provide the kind of data we need to better understand links between chemical exposure and rates of disease, and communities that are disproportionately affected.”

Sources: Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2007) The US Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its final plan to clean up a former fertilizer and insecticide plant that leaked numerous pesticides from its storage facility in Arvin, California. Among the chemicals released were dinoseb, ethylene dibromide, as well as other fumigants that have since contaminated the soil and potentially the groundwater.

Brown and Bryant, the company that manufactured and stored the chemical, was shut down 18 years ago. Since then residents have feared that the chemicals leaked would eventually get to the drinking water. The EPA confirmed that people who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk.

The plan for the site is three-fold. The first component is to relocate the nearest water well to another location yet to be determined. The second component is to design and implement a system of large water arbor wells to pump and treat contamination in the shallow groundwater that is contained below the site. The third component is to develop a monitored “natural attenuation” plan. This is the natural decomposition process of contaminants in the middle aquifer.

Residents were hoping that the plan would also include the removal of contaminants in the deeper water level. However, the EPA said the contaminants have not reached the drinking water below the site and that there is not enough water in the deeper zone to pump and treat.

“I’m cautiously optimistic, we didn’t get everything we wanted. But we did get improvements, which is key,” said Ingrid Brostrom, an attorney with Committee for a Better Arvin.

Under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, corrective action, such as the plan unveiled for Arvin, addresses the clean up of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into soil, ground water, surface water, or air. The owners or operators of facilities responsible for the contamination are held responsible for clean up. The EPA is currently in litigation with the Santa Fe Railway and Shell companies over who must pay to clean up the site.

Sources: The Bakersfield Californian, CBS Eyewitness News, Bakersfield

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2007) According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, as of January 1, 2008, dairy products with labels such as “growth-hormone free” will be illegal in the state. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff announced the decision last month after convening a 22-member Food Labeling Advisory Committee to look into false or misleading claims in “absence labeling.”The ruling covers all dairy products sold in the state, forcing some out-of-state manufacturers, in effect, to make Pennsylvania-only packaging. So far, the state Department of Agriculture has notified 19 companies that their labels must change. Of the three principal types of labeling affected by the ruling, getting rid of “growth-hormone free” milk labels has proven most controversial.The PA Department of Agriculture explained its decision in a statement on its website, “[S]ome milk labels contain statements such as ”˜hormone-free,’ but all milk contains hormones. Some labels also claim the absence of synthetic hormones, but there is no scientific test that can determine the truth of this claim.” Organic labeling, Mr. Wolff said, involves a certification process that includes surprise audits, so the department does not currently intend to interfere with it.

Some food safety advocates believe that Monsanto, the company that produces recombinant bovine growth hormone- rBGH or rBST- heavily influenced the state’s decision. Rick North, of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a leading critic of the artificial growth hormone, told the Associated Press that the Pennsylvania rules amounted to censorship. “This is a clear example of Monsanto’s influence,” he said.

Recombinant bovine growth hormone increases milk production by 15 percent, but causes an increase in udder infections in cows, and some studies have shown a correlation between certain types of cancer in humans and elevated levels of insulin growth factor, which is present in rBST-fueled milk. Canada, Japan, Australia and the European Union, have not approved the use of rBST because of health concerns.

Chuck Turner Jr., of Turner Dairy Farms in Penn Hills, PA told the Post-Gazette that rBST-free milk makes good business sense. Consumers pay an average of 25 percent more for milk labeled rBST-free. “There’s a certain customer segment out there that is interested in cows not being injected with this Monsanto stuff,” Mr. Turner said. “There’s nobody saying, ‘Give me milk with growth hormones.’ That’s the way we saw it.”

Environmentalists encourage consumers to buy organic milk and for local diaries to convert to organic methods. Organic certification ensures that consumers are drinking milk free of synthetic hormones and pesticides. The Pennsylvania ban only applies to milk labels. Advertisements may still make hormone-free claims.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2007) Boulder, CO, officials will delay spraying herbicide in a community park for at least a year, after activists protested last Wednesday the pesticide application to control the spread of a noxious weed. The herbicide Plateau, whose active ingredient is the ammonium salt of imazapic, would have been sprayed over jointed goatgrass, an invasive, non-native plant. About a dozen people, including children, gathered Wednesday morning at Foothills Community Park to distribute information on their concerns about the health effects of spraying the herbicide. More people called in to express their opposition, prompting officials to halt the spraying, said Paul Bousquet, spokesman for the city’s parks and recreation department.

Boulder City Manager Frank Bruno said the decision to delay herbicide spraying at the park was made because the weed situation is not a life-threatening one. “This isn’t a situation where the people pushed and the city blinked,” said Bruno. “We’re all in this together. We can take a strategic moment to explain what we’re doing.” Bousquet said that the herbicide is safe, but that officials want to better educate the community on its health and safety information. The delay will allow the city to distribute information, as the window during which the herbicide is effective will close soon.

Protesters called on Boulder to not go ahead with spraying because of negative effects the herbicide could have on people and animals nearby. “Citizens for Pesticide Reform has researched Plateau and is concerned about possible deleterious health effects on neighbors, dogs, wildlife and aquatic life,” said Betty Ball, spokeswoman for the citizen group. In laboratory studies, imazapic and imazapic-containing herbicides have caused eye irritation, muscle degeneration, liver damage, anemia, increased blood levels of cholesterol and a birth defect called rudimentary ribs. “This is the most potent herbicide on the market,” said Randall Weiner, an environmental lawyer who protested the spraying. Though imazapic is of low toxicity to birds and mammals, it is moderately toxic to fish. Ball added that the herbicide lingers in the area for months after spraying. Imazapic has an average half-life of 120 days in soil, and it can damage crops up to 40 months after application. BASF Corporation, the manufacturer, warns that Plateau “has a high potential for runoff for several months or more after application,” which makes it likely to contaminate groundwater.

Residents also complained about the city’s notification efforts. “Neighbors did not receive sufficient notice to take adequate precautions to avoid effects of this toxic herbicide,” said Ball. Some neighbors said that the fliers left on their doorsteps were too vague, and officials with the nearby Shining Mountain Waldorf School said they were not informed about the spraying at all. Several children from the school joined the protest. Bruno said the city is only required by law to post a notice at the spraying site, and that officials went beyond their duties by notifying neighbors.

Colorado law also requires city officials to do research on the best way to eliminate pests, including troublesome plants, and officials said that they have tried to eradicate the jointed goatgrass by mowing, weed whipping and mulch-covering. “There are lots of non-toxic alternatives,” said Ball. “People are always in too much of a rush to do what’s easy.” (See the Beyond Pesticides’ Lawn Care page for least-toxic control of weeds and prevention of weeds).

Bruno said the city has spent five years trying to eradicate the goatgrass at Foothills Community Park through “mechanical” means, but to no avail. “We have spent years whacking away at it — literally,” he said. “But we’ve not been successful.” The need to exterminate jointed goatgrass is so extreme that Plateau is the best option, according to Bruno. He stresses that the city only uses chemicals when other options have been exhausted. “This is a long-held value of the city of Boulder,” he said. “We seek the least toxic route if we’re going to use herbicide.” Around the nation, other cities have set a higher standard by passing laws that prohibit the use of pesticides in parks.

Bruno points to the Boulder’s mosquito control plan as an example of how chemicals are used only as a last resort. Despite the danger of the West Nile virus, spread by some kinds of mosquitoes, the city does not spray chemicals to kill them, he said. Boulder will hold off spraying chemicals over the jointed goatgrass for at least a year, and in the meantime officials can consider what alternatives are available. Ball said the group of concerned citizens is “very excited” about the city’s decision to delay spraying. “Now we have to figure out what is next and make a plan,” she said.

Ball offered grazing goats as a non-toxic, environmentally-friendly alternative method of control. Goats could eat the unwanted plants, and they would add fertilizer to the area and aerate the soil with their hooves at the same time. (For more on goats as an alternative for weed management, see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News blog post from May 10, 2002.) Boulder County has used goats and other non-chemical solutions like bio-controls for years to combat noxious weeds on open space. Bruno said goats are not likely a realistic solution at the park because the area is active with people and pets.

Sources: Daily Camera (November 14, November 15), Colorado Daily News

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2007) A Pennsylvania beekeeper, John McDonald, has undertaken a study of agriculture’s effect on colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honeybees. After writing an article for the The San Francisco Chronicle that speculates on genetically modified (GM) crops’ contribution to the phenomenon, McDonald spent the last six months producing evidence to support his theory (one of many regarding the causes of CCD).

In his original article, McDonald asks, “Is it not possible that while there is no lethal effect directly to the new bees [from GM crops], there might be some sublethal effect, such as immune suppression, acting as a slow killer? . . . Given that nearly every bite of food that we eat has a pollinator, the seriousness of this emerging problem could dwarf all previous food disruptions.”

While CCD has been a worldwide concern, there has been minimal research in determining pesticides’ role, particularly regarding proximity to cropland. McDonald writes, “When it appeared that others weren’t interested in this experiment, I undertook to do my own investigation at my own expense.” Beginning in May, McDonald established new colonies (as his had been wiped out earlier), one in Centre County, Pennsylvania, where farming is extensive, and one adjoining Allegheny National Forest, where agriculture lay outside of the bees’ foraging range. The eight hives were monitored from May to October, and all had free access to goldenrod with which to produce honey.

By mid-October, the hives adjacent to farmland consistently did not gain weight, while those away from it grew steadily. When the “supers,” where honey is collected, were checked, the former had not produced enough honey to feed themselves, while the latter had produced close to 350 pounds of honey.

McDonald will leave the colonies in place to see if these bees die off like his last, but hopes “These results should encourage new research to determine what factor or factors are present in farm country to cause such a discrepancy in honey production.”

Sources: San Francisco Chronicle: March 10, 2007 and November 10, 2007

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2007) Researchers from across the globe have contributed to a Nature article, which analyzed the defense mechanisms of 12 fly species that damage agricultural crops. The analysis may shed some light on why some insects are able to metabolize toxins and become resistant to pesticides.

The paper is part of a series published online edition of the journal Nature special issue on Drosophila (fruit fly) biology, genomics and evolution. A large international team conducted the analysis of the sequence of genomes of 12 different species of fruit flies. Part of the team were researches from the University of Melbourne, Australia, who focused on genes which may be responsible for breaking down poisons that the fly consumes. Comparison of the 12 genomes has allowed the genes that are likely to be involved in breaking down poisons to be identified, said Associate Professor Phil Batterham.

“This genetic discovery of the Drosophila is critical in pointing to the genes that form the defense system of insect pests. In pest insects such as blowflies and mosquitoes, the counterparts to these genes may be responsible for the break down of the chemical insecticides that are used to control them.”

Fruit flies are unique because they feed on the yeast found on decomposing fruit and vegetable matter. Prof. Batterham noted, “[T]hey do not consume healthy fruit. However, while Drosophila flies are not pests, they are closely related to insect pest species. Genome sequences of pest insects are needed, so that we might find ways of evading the defense systems of pest insects to reduce their impact on human health and agriculture.”

He also noted that the investigation of the defense mechanisms of pest insects is of particular concern in countries with large agriculture industries such as Australia and the US.

Drosophila species vary considerably in their morphology, ecology and behavior, and are found in a wide range of global distributions. As such, it has become a model organism in basic research, especially, genetics.

Source: ScienceAlert Australia & New Zealand

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2007) As directed by the 2007 legislature, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is starting a 2-year, $150,000 Voluntary Notification Study Project concerning the application of “Danger/Poison” pesticides near schools, hospitals, nursing homes and adult and child daycares.

This project will collect data to determine if notification is a significant factor in reducing pesticide exposures when agricultural “Danger/Poison” pesticides are applied by aerial or airblast application methods near these facilities. The Study Project will be limited to Chelan, Kittitas and Yakima Counties and will run from October 1, 2007 to October 1, 2009. It will focus on pesticides labeled with the signal words “Danger/Poison” that are applied either by air or by airblast application equipment. A voluntary notification register will be maintained by the Department and made available for applicators to check contact information if they plan on making specific types of applications near facilities. The primary source of information regarding location of facilities and facility contact information will be the WSDA website. Contact information will also be available by phone for those applicators who do not have access to the Internet.

This is a Voluntary Notification Project. No regulatory action will be taken against any applicator that fails to notify a nearby facility nor against any facility that does not want to be notified. However, it is hoped that by providing an easy and practical way for applicators to let facilities know in advance that an application is anticipated, communication will be enhanced and the potential for pesticide exposures reduced.

The Department will contact both state certified or licensed facilities and applicators in the three counties to inform them of the project. Facilities will be provided information on how to contact the Department’s Pesticide Management Division. Applicators will be informed on where they can find information on facilities that want to be notified.

As a requirement in order for a facility to be listed on the WSDA website for notification, the facility must agree to completing a questionnaire. The questionnaire may be copied, and additional copies may be downloaded from the WSDA website, or the department may be contacted for more copies.

WSDA will not be collecting specific information on the pesticides applied or the applicator. An interim report will be provided to the Governor at the end of 2008, and a final report will be issued at the end of 2009. Data will be collected on the number and type of facilities participating, the number of notifications received, any actions taken by a facility as a result of the notification, any increase or decrease in the number of drift complaints reported to WSDA due to increased awareness of applications and acceptance and satisfaction with the process.

What is this project? A two-year study to determine if providing pesticide applicators with contact information for accredited schools, hospitals, nursing homes and state licensed adult and child daycares will reduce pesticide drift complaints or potential pesticide drift exposure by allowing them to voluntarily notify facilities before applications.

What facilities are included in this project? Accredited schools, hospitals, nursing homes, adult daycares and child daycares in Chelan, Yakima and Kittitas counties.

What pesticides are affected? Products labeled with the signal words “Danger/Poison” that are applied by aircraft or by airblast sprayers.

For more information, go to the Washington State Department of Agriculture website.

November 13, 2007) Autism is on the rise, both in prevalence and incidence, and there is growing evidence that environmental insults, such as pesticides, are linked to this developmental disability. According to the latest study, published in the October issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, children born to mothers living near fields where pesticides are applied are more likely to develop autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The authors of “Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the California Central Valley” compared maternal pesticide exposure for 465 children with ASDs and 6,975 children without ASDs living in the same area. The research reveals that mothers who lived within 500 meters of fields sprayed with organochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan and dicofol, during their first trimester of pregnancy had a six times higher chance of having children with autism compared to mothers who did not live near the fields. Mark Horton, M.D., director of the California Department of Health, said the findings are exploratory and indicate that more research of the relationship between organochlorines and ASDs is needed. (See Daily News Blog posting from July 31, 2007 for further reactions from health care officials and more details about this study.)

ASDs include a range of developmental disabilities that are characterized by substantial impairments in social interaction and communication and the presence of unusual behaviors and interests. The symptoms range from mild to very severe, appearing before the age of 3 and lasting throughout a person’s life. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of every 150 eight-year old children has an ASD, a prevalence rate of almost 7 per 1,000 children that is the same across multiple areas of the US. ASD prevalence shot up in 1990s, reaching levels of 2.0-7.0 per 1,000 children, greater than a tenfold increase from the prevalence rates identified in the 1980s, 0.1-0.4 per 1,000 children. There are indications that the rates, while still rising, may be leveling off at present, but this may reflect improvements in diagnostic screening and increased parental awareness as much as changes in the underlying factors. ASDs were first identified as a specific disorder in 1943, and since then the criteria for diagnoses have changed many times. Comparisons of rates over time may not be entirely consistent or thoroughly systematic, but the prevalence has reached a point where it is a condition of concern for parents and school officials.

Federal health authorities believe that ASDs probably result as an interaction between genetics and environmental factors. Despite the high degree of heritability of ASDs, genetic factors cannot completely account for the incidence of autism. After extensive genetic testing, researchers have not been able to pinpoint a specific genetic locus or set of genes linked to autism. Among identical twins, if one child has autism, there is a 75% chance that the other child is affected, but there can be significant differences in the symptoms displayed in twins. Because the concordance rate among identical twins is not 100% and the number of autism cases is rising, it seems likely that environmental causes are key factors. A 2000 report by the National Academy of Sciences indicates that as many as 25 percent of all developmental disabilities in children may be caused by environmental factors.

The relative rarity of autism in the Amish community around Middlefield, Ohio, where only one per 15,000 children has an ASD, provides promise for uncovering environmental factors that cause the disorder. One explanation for the lower prevalence was that Amish children, who are religiously exempt from immunizations, were not exposed to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in vaccines. While the CDC acknowledges the possibility of a link between thimerosal and autism, they point out that there have been studies that discredit this causal relationship. (See Daily News from June 13, 2005 for more on Amish rates of autism).

Other substances that have been implicated as risk factors for autism include viruses, industrial chemicals and electromagnetic radiation. A few individual cases of ASDs have been linked to prenatal exposure to valproic acid, as well as to infectious agents such as the rubella and influenza viruses. Some drugs taken by mothers during pregnancy are also linked to a higher risk of autism in children, especially the prescription drug thalidomide, which in the past was administered as a sleeping pill and used to treat morning sickness. Yet, for all these factors, there is less than perfect concordance, which suggests that a genetic predisposition is necessary for the chemical or microbial factors to lead to autism.

However, the role of environmental insults in the development of autism has been documented and cannot be ignored in future research. Research of autistic children in the San Francisco Bay area, “Autism spectrum disorders in relation to distribution of hazardous air pollutants in the San Francisco bay area”, found a potential association between autism and concentrations of mercury, cadmium, nickel, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride in ambient air around birth residence.A 1998 article in Toxicology and Industrial Health, “Autism: xenobiotic influences”, looked at 18 autistic children and found that 16 of these children had levels of toxic chemicals in their blood that exceeded the adult maximum tolerance. Similarly, the authors of “Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: implications for environmental toxicity” describe how urninary levels of porphyrin, a biomarker of environmental toxicity, were elevated in autistic children relative to control groups. Porphyrin levels were not significantly different in children with Asperger’s disorder, distinguishing it from autism.

“Men, Boys and Environmental Threats”, a 2007 report by the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment, highlights how boys are more susceptible to environmental risks than girls, which is especially relevant to autism. Boys are four times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism, in addition to outnumbering girls in the incidence of learning disabilities overall, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy and dyslexia. For several reasons, boys’ brains may be more vulnerable during development to damaging substances found in the environment, including lead, mercury, arsenic, radiation, dioxins, PCBs, solvents and some pesticides, and (See Daily News from July 16, 2007 for more information on why boys are more prone to environmentally related health conditions.)

Gustavo C. Román, M.D., suggests that substances that interfere with thyroidal activity may produce morphological brain changes leading to autism, in a 2007 article, “Autism: transient in utero hypothyroxinemia related to maternal flavonoid ingestion during pregnancy and to other environmental antithyroid agents”. Scientists have identified specific changes to brain cells during development that are particular to autism, and these processes are regulated by hormones produced by the mother’s thyroid gland. Dr. Román notes that environmental contaminants interfere with thyroid function, including 60% of all herbicides, in particular 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), acetochlor, aminotriazole, amitrole, bromoxynil, pendamethalin, mancozeb, and thioureas. Other antithyroid agents include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perchlorates, mercury, and coal derivatives such as resorcinol, phthalates, and anthracenes. Mercury acts as an antithyroid substance by causing inhibition of deiodinases and thyroid peroxidase. A leading ecological study in Texas, “Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas”, correlated higher rates of autism in school districts affected by large environmental releases of mercury from industrial sources.

Warren Porter, Ph.D. argues that the connections among the nervous, endocrine and immune systems need to be looked at when asking how do pesticides affect learning and behavior. “Studies show that pesticides can function as nerve poisons and as pseudo hormones, modify hormone levels, and/or impact immune system function,” he writes. Learning is dependent on immune system processes & hormonal changes, so any changes to these systems could lead to developmental disabilities. Dr. Porter was first drawn to the relationship between pesticides and learning when he looked at a 1997 survey of student disabilities in the Madison Metropolitan School District (WI). From 1990-1995, the number of children in Madison with learning disabilities increased 70%, children that were emotionally disturbed increased 87%, and children with birth defects increased 83%. Dr. Porter writes that similar changes are seen globally, and that the data from Madison are indicative of a worldwide phenomenon of increasing behavioral and learning disabilities among children, who face more and more contaminants and toxic chemicals in the environment.

To address the public health concern that autism has become and explore the potential environmental factors related to the developmental disorder, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created four new children’s environmental health research centers in 2001. Over the past five years, twelve such research centers nationwide were funded $1 million a year. Additionally, CDC’s Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) have teamed up on a large, population-based study, the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), to uncover the risk factors for and causes of autism. If successful, researchers will better know how to develop strategies to prevent this complex disorder.

Irva Hertz-Picciotto, epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, and a member of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) panel, believes that the government’s proposed projects can provide some answers, but not a definite cause for autism. “I’m optimistic that we will have identified some environmental risk factors, and may have excluded a few others, between 2008 and 2010””but by no means will we have the final word. The genetics and the gene—environment interactions may be even tougher. Unfortunately, I don’t see enough groups working on the environmental contribution to autism, so it may be slower than projected,” she says. Mark Blaxill, vice president of SafeMinds, a parent-led advocacy group, also thinks that more attention should be paid to environmental risk factors. “The CDC has not addressed the crisis in autism responsibly,” he says. “They should be raising the alarm, and they have failed to do so. They should be asking why so many children are sick. Instead, they’ve tried to suggest a degree of doubt about the increases, and that diverts attention and funding from environmental causes.”

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2007) A British group that certifies 80 percent of the country’s organic product recently announced new requirements in order to market produce as organic. The Soil Association will eventually label air-freighted food as organic only if it also meets their fair trade standards. This announcement is part of a growing concern over the impact of air-freight on climate change and the overall carbon footprint of organic agriculture. It introduces “ethical standards” to organic certification, which is more narrowly defined in the United States by production practices like pesticide use.

The Soil Association’s long-term goal is to minimize air-freight, but the exception for fair-trade produce is designed to protect poor farmers in developing countries, particularly in Africa, where much of Britain’s organic produce originates. In their press release, the Soil Association said,

“Less than 1% of organic imports come to the UK by air. However, 80% of air freighted organic produce coming into the UK is grown in low or lower-middle income countries. Being able to export fresh organic fruit and vegetables provides significant economic, social and local environmental benefits, often for farmers with otherwise very low carbon footprints. For a small number of organic producers there are no available alternative markets offering the same development returns.”

As part of their long-term goals to move Britain away from dependency on air-freight, the Soil Association’s chair of their Standards Board, Anna Bradley, said, “the Soil Association will be doing all it can to encourage farmers in developing countries to create and build organic markets that do not depend on air freight.”

The success of the Soil Association’s plan depends, in part, on cooperation amongst trade organizations and organic advocates. Alexander Kasterine, of the International Trade Centre (ITC), points out, “The impact for farmers will depend on the degree to which UK retailers insist on SA certification. ITC urges retailers to . . . accept the EU-Defra standard which is provided by many other certifying bodies and focuses on organic production and processing, and does not stipulate conditions related to fair trade or airfreight.”

Arguments center around the ability of farmers to trade, regardless of fair trade certification, the relatively small percentage of carbon emissions caused by organic “food miles” (11 percent of the UK’s food transportation), and adding confusion to potentially misleading food labels. The Soil Association has said it will open a public comment period early in 2008 and post changes to the standards in January of 2009. Regardless of the final direction of their standards, the announcement highlights the increasing link between the organic food and climate change movements. This first attempt at reconciling their respective goals could be a sign of things to come for organic food.

Sources: The Soil Association, WorldChanging, The Guardian, New Consumer, Business Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2007) In a landmark decision, a California jury on November 5, 2007 awarded $3.3 million to Nicaraguan farmworkers sterilized by pesticides made by Dow Chemical and used at Dole’s banana plantations. The lawsuit accused Dole and Standard Fruit Co., now a part of Dole, of negligence and fraudulent concealment while using the pesticide 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) to kill rootworms on banana plants. Until 1977, DBCP was used in the United States as a soil fumigant and nematocide on over 40 different crops. From 1977 to 1979, EPA suspended registration for all DBCP-containing products except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. In 1985, EPA issued an intent to cancel all registrations for DBCP, including use on pineapples. Subsequently, the use of existing stocks of DBCP was prohibited. In Nicaragua, DBCP was legal from 1973 until 1993.EPA’s website states the following:

Acute (short-term) exposure to DBCP in humans results in moderate depression of the central nervous system (CNS) and pulmonary congestion from inhalation, and gastrointestinal distress and pulmonary edema from oral exposure. Chronic (long-term) exposure to DBCP in humans causes male reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm counts. Testicular effects and decreased sperm counts were observed in animals chronically exposed to DBCP by inhalation. Available human data on DBCP and cancer are inadequate. High incidences of tumors of the nasal tract, tongue, adrenal cortex, and lungs of rodents were reported in a National Toxicology Program (NTP) inhalation study. EPA has classified DBCP as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.

According to PubMed:

In mid-1977 a number of cases of infertility among male pesticide workers in California came to light. A description of this problem was published as a Preliminary Communication in The Lancet. A larger clinical-epidemiological study was undertaken to better understand the exposure-effect relationships involved. Of 142 non-vasectomized men providing semen samples, 107 had been exposed to 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) and 35 had not been exposed. There was a clearcut difference in both the distribution of sperm counts and the median counts between the exposed men and the not-exposed men, Of the exposed, 13.1% were azoospermic, 16.8% were severely oligospermic, and 15.8% were mildly oligospermic. Among the controls, 2.9% were azoospermic, none were severely oligospermic, and 5.7% were mildly oligospermic. Under workplace conditions, DBCP appears to have a selective effect on the seminiferous tubules.

According to the AP, in court arguments earlier this month, attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Duane Miller, “pointed to documents from the 1960s and 1970s that he said showed Dole and Dow were aware of dangers connected with the pesticide. [Miller] noted that medical experts who had examined his clients found 11 of 12 had no sperm in their bodies and detected other symptoms reflecting exposure to a toxic chemical.”

The case is the first of five lawsuits involving at least 5,000 agricultural workers from Ecuador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama, who claim they were left sterile after being exposed to the pesticide. Other growers and manufacturers are named as defendants.

In a similar case tried in a Nicaraguan court in December 2002, the judge ordered Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, and the Dole Food, to pay $490 million to 583 banana workers adversely affected by the use of the pesticide Nemagon (DBCP). The case was filed in Nicaragua under a controversial law that allows any Nicaraguan worker to sue a foreign company. However, Dow Chemical called the judgment “unenforceable” because the case was supposed to be moved to a U.S. court, and because the ruling was “based on a law passed in Nicaragua that its own attorney general has called unconstitutional.” The companies refused to pay.

See Daily News Blog posting from July 12, 2007.

Source: Associated Press