(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2007) A lawsuit was filed in federal court on Monday by fishing and environmental groups seeking to force the federal government to uphold five-year-old rules aimed to keep toxic agricultural pesticides from endangering salmon and steelhead.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, petitions the court to order the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to identify measures needed to protect salmon from the pesticides and to complete required consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NMFS has failed to carry out these measures first ordered in 2002 by federal court. It was ordered to consult with the EPA to develop permanent methods for protecting salmon and steelhead from 54 toxic pesticides found in west coast salmon streams. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, the NMFS is required to complete such actions within 90 days.

“Apparently what it takes to get this administration to do its job under [the Endangered Species Act] is to have someone there enforcing the law every step of the way,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental public interest law firm representing the advocates.

Pesticides have been detected in every major salmon stream in the Pacific Northwest and California. It has been found that even at low levels these pesticides harm salmon and steelhead by causing abnormal sexual development, impairing swimming ability, and reducing growth rates.

Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a commercial fishing industry trade association that is also a co-plaintiff in the suit, commented, “NMFS needs to protect the salmon and steelhead legacy for future generations. Protecting salmon and steelhead from pesticides could bring back tens of thousands of fishing jobs and a billion dollar industry to our region.” Joshua Osborne-Klein added, “This region has devoted far too much time and money to restore imperiled salmon runs to allow [NMFS] to sit on its hands while pesticides continue to contaminate streams and kill struggling salmon.”

For years, federal courts have been finding that NMFS has been negligent in its efforts to protect declining salmon populations. Hydroelectric projects on the Columbia and Snake rivers and failure to follow the Endangered Species Act in licensing pesticides for sale are still major issues threatening salmon. EPA documents have reported that the use of several dozen pesticides are likely to result in surface water contamination levels that threaten fish or their habitat. Additionally, water monitoring by the U.S. Geological Survey detected pesticides in salmon watersheds at concentrations at or above levels set to protect fish and other aquatic life. Previous lawsuits have challenged the inaction of EPA and NMFS. (See Daily News from 5/10/01 and 12/9/02).

For more information on endangered salmon see articles from the Spring 2002 and Summer 1999 issues of Pesticides and You.

Sources: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides Press Release, The Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2007) Reclaiming Our Healthy Future: Political change to protect the next generation, the 26th National Pesticide Forum, will be held March 14-16, 2008 at the University of California, Berkeley. The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Session topics include: Children’s health, Farmworker justice, Fair and healthy food, the DDT resurgence, and much more. Check the website for the weekly updates. In addition, veteran stage actress Kaiulani Lee will perform A Sense of Wonder, her one-woman play based on the life and works of Rachel Carson. The play, which is made up of mostly Carson’s own words from letters, journal entries, speeches, not only focuses on Silent Spring, but on aspects of her private life not often examined. Ms. Lee explains, “She [Carson] was very poor…She had nothing. And she changed the course of history.”

Registration is $65 for members, $75 for non-members, $175 for business registrants, and $35 for students. Forum registration includes receptions, breakfast and lunch on Saturday and breakfast on Sunday, plus all plenaries, keynotes, workshops and the stage performance of A Sense of Wonder. All food will be organic.

Online registration, lodging information and other details are available on the Forum website.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2007) Forty-four organizations signed on to a letter to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) on October 26, asking the board to protect organic aquaculture standards by prohibiting the USDA’s organic label from being placed on fish raised in open net pens or fed wild fish. Six months ago, the NOSB voted overwhelmingly to temporarily ban the labeling of any fish raised under these circumstances as organic until comments from industry and the organic community on the issue could be heard. During this time, the Aquaculture Working Group issued an Interim Report, which proposes conditions under which wild fishmeal and oil could be used as feed ingredients and open net pen fish farming would be allowed in organic aquaculture. In response to the report’s suggestions, the co-signing organizations conclude that while the farming of herbivorous finfish may be conducted within organic regulations, farming carnivorous finfish (including salmon) in open net cage systems is an inherently flawed farming practice, incompatible with organic principles. “Raising fish in this manner directly contradicts USDA Organic regulations; putting a USDA Organic label on these fish is like trying to force a round peg into a square hole,” said Center for Food Safety Legal Director Joseph Mendelson. The NOSB will meet in late November to decide whether fish farmed under these conditions can be certified as organic.The body of the letter reads:

In developing U.S. organic standards over the last sixteen-plus years, Congress, USDA, the NOSB, organic farmers and consumer and environmental advocates have all recognized that creating ecological balance and conserving biodiversity are guiding principles of organic systems. The undersigned groups concur that certain aquaculture practices — specifically the production of herbivorous finfish in closed systems — can be compatible with organic principles. And, we see significant potential for the USDA organic label to “reward” these seafood producers for ecologically sound production practices. However, as we have detailed in past individual submissions, we believe the farming of carnivorous finfish in open net pen systems inherently contradicts organic principles.

Since the most recent decision of the Livestock Committee to defer rulemaking about wild fishmeal and oil and open net pens until further input from industry and the organics community, the undersigned groups have re-evaluated these aquaculture practices to explore if there are any adaptations or improvements to current, carnivorous finfish farming practices that would make it compatible with organic principles.

Our review of the situation has led us to the same frustrating conclusion. Attempting to define organic standards for open net pens and wild fish as feed is like attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole — the principles and the practices are simply incompatible. The more we have tried to adapt open net pens to meet organic principles, the more obvious the inconsistencies have become.

Extensive research on the impacts of open net pens on marine ecology has been done and no solution to those impacts has been found, save for the use of technology that creates an impermeable barrier between farmed and wild fish, allows for waste collection, and treats water going into and leaving the farm system. Moreover, there are no consistent or reproducible standards to measure pollution from open net pens, so enforcement regarding pollution problems from open systems is extremely difficult. While some refer to benthic layer sampling as a way to measure pollution from open net pen systems, this type of testing is difficult to standardize. In fact, pollution problems may be missed with this methodology due to inherent turbidity issues.

Further, if we accept the Aquaculture Working Group’s proposal to include open net pens and feed from wild fish within organic standards, we are forced to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. In other words, instead of simply prohibiting the use of ecologically harmful farming methods, we are left with organic standards that attempt to reduce the severity of the farming impacts associated with an inherently flawed farming practice, that of carnivorous finfish farming in open net pen systems.

Pure Salmon Campaign Director Andrea Kavanagh points out that an inventory of international data reveals that open net salmon farms, whether labeled as “organic” or not, may inevitably allow escapes and the spread of sea lice and infectious diseases. “The ugly truth is that salmon farmed in open net cages pose a threat to the marine environment and public health and should never be sold as ”˜organic,’” she said.

Urvashi Rangan, PhD, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst at Consumers Union, said, “Consumers deserve clear assurance that their choice of organic products supports a safer and more sustainable environment. Fish labeled as ”˜organic’ that are not fed 100 percent organic feed, come from polluting open net cage systems, or that are contaminated with mercury or PCBs fall significantly short of consumer expectations and undermine the integrity of the organic label.”

The letter was signed by: Australian Marine Conservation Society, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Consumers Union, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecology Action Centre, Equal Exchange, Florida Consumer Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Oldman River, Georgia Strait Alliance, Go Wild Campaign, Greenpeace Canada, Greenpeace USA, Gulf Restoration Network, The Humane Society of the United States, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Living Oceans Society, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Mangrove Action Project, National Cooperative Grocers Association, Northeast Organic Farming Association, Norwegian Salmon Association, OCEANA — South American Office, Organic Consumers Association, The Organic Research Centre- Elm Farm, Pure Salmon Campaign, Raincoat Conservation Society, Rural Advancement Foundation International, Save the Swilly, Sierra Club Canada, Sierra Club, Slow Food Canada, T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, Trout Unlimited, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Wilderness Committee, Wild Farm Alliance, Wild Fish Conservancy, and Yukon Salmon Committee.

Source: Earth Times

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2007) According to figures released this week, genetically modified crops now cover 110,007 hectares of arable land across 7 European Union member states, an increase of more than 77 percent compared to last year, despite concerns from scientists and environmentalists. The figures show that the largest gains came from France, which quadrupled its cultivation, while Spain, the EU’s largest GM cultivator, saw increases of around 40 percent. Cultivation of GM crops also doubled in the Czech Republic and Germany. EuropaBio, the EU association for bioindustries, released the figures in advance of the Environmental Council meeting, which took place on October 30 to discuss proposals on GMO cultivation and import bans. “We are delighted to see that the uptake of biotech crops is growing despite the fact that only one product is available on the European market,” said Johan Vanhemelrijck, Secretary General of EuropaBio. He continued, “The cultivation of biotech plants is legally possible in all EU countries and we strongly urge policy makers in Europe to give all farmers the right to choose the products which they think are best to protect their crops and increase their competitiveness.”

To date, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is Bt maize (corn). Bt maize contains a gene that allows the maize to defend itself against the European corn borer. The European corn borer is an insect present primarily in southern and middle Europe, and is steadily making its way north.

However, these statistics come a week after French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced a moratorium on GM crops. Speaking at Le Grenelle, a summit for French environmental policy, Mr. Sarkozy said, “As a matter of precaution, I would like the commercial culture of GM pesticides to be suspended pending expert opinions. The truth is that we have doubts about the current use of GM pesticides, the truth is that we have doubts about the control of distribution, the truth is that we have doubts about the health and environmental benefits of GM crops.”

Along with placing a temporary freeze on the planting of genetically modified crops in France, the President proposed cutting pesticide use by half within a decade and, that all cafeterias in schools and public buildings be required to offer organic food once a week.

President Sarkozy’s concerns echo those of many within the scientific community. A recent study by researchers at Indiana University suggests that Bt corn can pose unforeseen risks to aquatic ecosystems by harming non-target aquatic insects and disrupting the connected food web (see Daily News Blog). Other concerns about GM crops include increased insect resistance, pollen drift and contamination on non-modified crops, harm to human health and the impact on farmers. For more information on GM crops, please visit Beyond Pesticides GMO page.

Sources: Farmers Guardian, EuropaBio Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2007) The borough of Fairlawn, New Jersey joined 11 other boroughs in banning pesticides from public play areas. The borough declared its parks pesticide-free and will post a “pesticide-free zone” sign at every playground in the borough.

The Record reported that:

Volunteers from the New Jersey Environmental Federation canvassed borough neighborhoods last spring asking residents to support the program, spokeswoman Jane Nogaki said. Mayor Steve Weinstein said those residents sent him hundreds of letters.

Lisa Lovermi and Randi Willey, who were walking through the park on their lunch break, said they always assumed borough parks were safe, but they thought a sign could help put park users’ minds at ease.

“You’d think that a park is supposed to be a natural environment,” Lovermi said. “You wouldn’t think there would be pesticides.”

New Jersey limited the use of pesticides on school grounds in 2002. But the recent discovery of dangerous levels of chemicals in the soil next to a Paramus middle school and several other North Jersey schools had many residents questioning the safety of their yards and play areas.

Organizers of the pesticide-free park campaign are trying to rally support for a county- or statewide policy. The Assembly is considering a bill to limit the use of pesticides in state parks and forests.

Nogaki said she hoped campaigning in residential areas would also make people reconsider the chemicals they use every day.

“When you knock on doors and say, ‘Would you like your parks to be pesticide-free?’ who’s going to say no?” Ms. Nogaki said. “The message you would like them to take home is, ‘What about what I’m doing on my own property.’ “

For information on localities that have adopted pesticide-free park policies, click here. For information on organizing on this issue see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes Tools for Change page.

Source: The Record

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2007) Beginning in January of 2008, golf course managers around the country will have an opportunity to participate in a survey of their pest and turf management strategies. The three-month survey is part of a larger project, which also maps water use, conservation efforts and playing surfaces. Conducted by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, the Golf Course Environmental Project is sponsored by Toro and The Environmental Institute for Golf (EIG).

The pesticide phase, the fourth of the project, which concludes in March 2008, will be submitted to the journal Applied Turfgrass Science for review and publication, according to EIG. Information included in this survey will be “regarding pest management and associated practices on golf courses throughout the United States,” such as product use and integrated pest management programs.” The third phase, which has been completed, gathered information on fertilizer and nutrient programs.

According to EIG, “GCSAA and the golf industry need information specific to the environmental attributes of golf courses. This will include natural resource inventories, management inputs and current environmental stewardship practices. This information will provide baseline data for documenting changes in environmental practices over time and help to set priorities for education, research, member services and other environmental programs. The data will also help us respond to governmental inquiries and to answer the public’s questions about environmental issues.”

As EIG explained, the data gathered from this survey, particularly with regards to fertilizer and pesticide use, will fill important informational gaps in how golf courses approach integrated pest management. Golf courses have been shown to use much higher levels of pesticides than are used in agriculture, some of which have been repeatedly linked to cancer and other health effects. For previous Daily News stories on golf’s environmental and health effects, click here, here, here, here, and for a look at an organic golf course, here. For more information on golf course management, visit our Golf Program Page.

Sources: Cybergolf, Environmental Institute for Golf

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2007) The organic and sustainable farming communities gave mixed reviews for the farm bill adopted by the Senate Agriculture Committee on October 25, 2007. Groups applauded new funding for the Conservation Security Program and organic farming, as well as the strong livestock competition title and the ban on packer-ownership of livestock, but objected to the complete lack of any meaningful reform to commodity and conservation payment limitations, as well as funding cuts to value-added producer grants and lack of any funding for beginning farmer programs. According to the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Committee bill provides $1.28 billion in additional funding for the landmark Conservation Security Program, sufficient to achieve an 80 million acre program level by 2013. The Coalition represents grassroots farm, rural and conservation organizations from across the country that advocate for public policies supporting the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources and rural communities.

“The Senate bill does a good job of revamping the Conservation Security Program, improving on the solid foundation laid in the last farm bill, but simplifying the program and ensuring it will be available on a nationwide, continuous sign-up basis,” said Ferd Hoefner, policy director for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Chairman Harkin is to be congratulated for his commitment to conservation and for a solid proposal to support advanced stewardship commitments by American farmers and ranchers.”

The Committee bill’s Livestock Title creates a USDA Special Counsel on Agricultural
Competition, expands the rights of contract producers, prohibits the use of mandatory arbitration in contracts, and prohibits meat packers from owning livestock more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

“This reform package to return fairness to the implementation of the nation’s agricultural competition and contract farming laws is long overdue,” said Mr. Hoefner. “We applaud the perseverance of the Chairman and the Committee in adopting open market reforms that were considered but not incorporated in the last farm bill.”

At the same time, however, the Senate Agriculture Committee backed down from adopting comprehensive payment limitation reform, choosing instead to hide behind a “fig leaf” reform proposal. The Senate Committee bill adopts direct attribution of payments and eliminates the 3-entity rule, but keeps a myriad of other loopholes open. The net effect is absolutely no change in the status quo.

“The Senate, like the House, chose to maintain waste, fraud, and abuse as our commodity limitation policy,” said Mr. Hoefner. “Payments are effectively uncapped under current law and are effectively uncapped under the Senate Committee proposal. Real reform must now be in made in the form of passage of the Senate floor amendment to be introduced by Senators Dorgan (D-ND) and Grassley (R-IA) that will put a hard cap of $250,000 on commodity payments and close all the loopholes so that mega farms cannot get unlimited payments at the expense of family farms and taxpayers.”

Notable increases in funding were included in the bill for programs that support organic
certification, organic research and extension, and organic conversion. It also authorizes the new Rural Entrepreneurs and Micro-Enterprise Assistance Program and provides $40 million in mandatory funding for the program over five years. The Farmers Market Promotion Program, an innovation of the last farm bill, is now slated to receive $30 million in mandatory funding.

Unfortunately, the Senate Committee bill authorizes but does not fund three important programs — the Value-Added Producer Grant Program, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, and Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account Programs.

“We are gratified by the provision of farm bill funding for organic farmers, rural microenterprise business assistance, and farmers markets,” said Mr. Hoefner. “However, the lack of any funding for the enormously successful and popular Value-Added Producer Grants program, and the dropping of all funding for beginning farmer grants, is inexcusable. The future health and vitality of agriculture hinges on forward-looking and innovative programs like these. The Coalition will work to restore their funding when the bill goes to the Senate floor.”

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2007) European Parliament members voted in favor of tighter pesticide legislation Tuesday, passing the first hurdle to enacting laws that would protect the EU’s most vulnerable communities, ensure high quality food, and prevent residues from accumulating in the environment. The European Commission’s proposal places a general ban on aerial spraying, heavily restricts the usage of pesticides in public areas, and plans to cut the use of “active substances of very high concern” by at least half by 2013. A majority of EU Member States need to approve the changes before the package can come into effect, and government representatives will meet on November 26 to debate the proposals.“This is something consumers want. They don’t want poison on their plates, they don’t want poison in their environment,” said German Green Party MEP Hiltrud Breyer. By targeting the most toxic chemicals and the areas that face the highest risk from pesticide exposure, the proposed measures would cut total usage by 5 or 6 percent in the EU, where 300,000 tons of pesticides are sold each year. The EU produces one quarter of the world’s supply of pesticides, 230,000 tons each year, despite it only accounting for 4 per cent of agricultural land worldwide. Growers, farmers and park and forestry applicators will be weaned off pesticides and encouraged to adopt alternate practices.

Farmers and the chemical and agriculture industries were critical of the package even though many measures of the Commission’s initial plan were made less stringent and some altogether dropped. For instance, the ban on aerial spraying grants special exemptions, including wine-growing areas. While pesticide applications will not be allowed or restricted to a minimum in schools, playgrounds, parks, and hospitals; the MEPs rejected a plan to set up ten meter pesticide-free buffer zones around rivers, lakes and waterways to prevent chemical run-off from reaching water supplies. Instead Member States will be given discretion as to how wide the buffer zones they want to implement will be.

“A [ten meter pesticide-free] buffer zone is perceived to be a too large burden on farmers. But there are enough possibilities to compensate farmers that lose arable land because of a spray-free zone by providing subsidies,” said Dutch Green Party MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg. “It’s going to take a lot of money to purify the drinking water contaminated with agricultural poison,” she added.

MEPs took out a rule that would make it obligatory for farmers to inform neighbors before spraying. Parliament decided not to split Europe into three zones for pesticide approval as proposed, choosing a single EU-wide mutual recognition system that will give Member States flexibility for pesticide registration. Parliament also voted on a report on a draft regulation on the authorization of new “plant protection products”, i.e. pesticides. Under the regulation, the EU will create a positive list of “active substances”, the key ingredients of pesticides, and new plant protection products will then be authorized at national level on the basis of the active substances list.

The Commission proposed that most new substances should be approved initially for 10 years, though low-risk ones would be approved for 15 years. To encourage non-chemical alternatives, Parliament voted to approve substances that can be replaced by less toxic substances for only 5 years, down from the 7 years suggested by the Commission.

Parliament supported the Commission’s proposed ban on substances that are genotoxic, carcinogenic, toxic reproductively or endocrine-disrupting, and it added substances with neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects to the banned category. The proposed rules state that substances must not have harmful effects on human health, including vulnerable groups, to be approved.

Sources: Reuters, EU Observer, Farmers Guardian, Royal Society of Chemistry, European Parliament

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2007) Aurora Organic Dairy, found earlier this year by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to be in “willful” violation of organic standards, is once again the subject of claims made by the Cornucopia Institute. In its findings, USDA had announced that Aurora “labeled and represented milk as organically produced, when such milk was not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program [NOP] regulations.” As a result of this report, Cornucopia, whose research and original complaint initiated USDA’s investigation, has brought class action suits in Denver, St. Louis, and federal courts, which allege “consumer fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment concerning the sale of organic milk by the company. “The basis of Cornucopia’s suit centers around milk sold before USDA’s organic certifier, Quality Assurance International (QAI), filed a notice of the violations found. Cornucopia’s Mark Kastel argued that the milk sold in the more than three years prior to QAI’s findings hurt smaller players in the organic industry, as well as consumers. “Aurora’s actions have injured the reputation of more than 1,500 legitimate organic dairy farmers who are faithfully following federal organic rules and regulations,” he said. “We cannot allow these families to be placed at a competitive disadvantage.”

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), while not part of Cornucopia’s lawsuit, has simultaneously called for a boycott of “the Shameless Seven.” These include Horizon and Aurora dairy products, five national “private label” brands supplied by Aurora, and two organic soy products, Silk and White Wave. OCA decried Aurora’s “greenwashing,” citing its “failing grade from the Cornucopia Institute’s survey of organic dairies for its practice of intensive confinement of dairy cows.”

As if this were not enough, Aurora’s Gill, Colorado operation is embroiled in controversy with its neighbors. Due to a “substantial fly problem” caused by its 4,500 cows’ manure being spread incorrectly over fields, the dairy’s special permit is up for review by the Board of Weld County Commissioners. Although the Board granted Aurora until August 2008 to solve the problem, failure to do so could result in the revocation of its operating permit. “I’m still in favor of immediate revocation,” said Commissioner Bill Jerke. “It’s pretty clear that they’ve burned some bridges with neighbors – they’re burning some bridges in this room today.” Neighboring farmer Wendy Rogers claims, “The dairy is too big to manage naturally.” Indeed, Aurora’s solution to the flies has been to hire a “world-class” entomologist and spray insecticides to kill flies. Rogers claims she has been made sick by the smell of the chemicals.

Aurora is no stranger to controversy these days, but these three current challenges present a wider look at the issues surrounding large-scale organic farming. In the debate between lowering the premium on organic products and their integrity, Aurora’s legal woes are poster children for the organic food movement’s growing identity crisis. To learn more about organic integrity and its future, click here.

Sources: St. Louis Business Journal, The Greeley Tribune, American Agriculturalist, Boulder County Business Report, NewsTarget.com

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2007) In a report it releases every six years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) and for the first time considered “the extent to which schools have health-promoting physical school environment policies and programs.” The report’s consideration of environmental health issues suggests a breakthrough in public policy at the federal level. In Part II of the report, in its section on pesticides, the authors cite the work of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Beyond Pesticides’ report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws.

In its introduction the report says:

The toll that environmental hazards take on children’s health is not completely understood, nor has it been quantified. Nonetheless, environmental exposure to air pollution, lead in paint and drinking water, tobacco smoke, radon, asbestos, and many pesticides and other chemicals in and around school environments is known to be hazardous to children’s health.

The report acknowledges and cites the scientific literature on the special vulnerability of children to environmental hazards during developmental stages of life. The report cites the literature on the elevated exposure to chemicals in the environment relative to their body weight, metabolic rate, and relative consumption of food, as well as exposure patterns and elevated breathing rate. “Damage to the lungs during development through exposure to indoor or outdoor air pollution may interfere with proper lung development and may lead to chronic lung disease later in life,” the report says. The report continues, “Furthermore, the brain is not fully developed until adolescence, and thus, children’s brains are more vulnerable than adults’ brains to such toxins as metals, solvents, insecticides, and certain gases.”

SHPPS found the following:

One third (35.4%) of districts and 51.4% of schools had an indoor air quality management program; 35.3% of districts had a school bus engine-idling reduction program; most districts and schools had a policy or plan for how to use, label, store, dispose of, and reduce the use of hazardous materials; 24.5% of states required districts or schools to follow an integrated pest management program; and 13.4% of districts had a policy to include green design when building new school buildings or renovating existing buildings.

The report makes important linkages and citations to the scientific literature and clearly states that environmental hazards “that sometimes are found in schools. . .can adversely affect the health, attendance, and academic success of students, as well as the health of teachers and other staff.” For those who advocate the precautionary principle of taking pesticides out of school (replacing chemical-reliant practices with prevention and non-chemical practices), this report clearly supports the notion that what we do know is suggestive of problems that impede the safety of students and their ability to learn and develop to their full potential. These same advocates maintain that what we do not have full information on undermines the very chemical industry and EPA risk assessments on which hazardous pesticide product registrations rely.