(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2007) The aerial spraying for eradication of the brown apple moth, which has been disputed by environmentalist and concerned residents, is set to resume this week. This is a result of the lifting of the temporary restraining order against the use of the pesticide, in light of the order given by Governor Schwarzenegger that called on the California Department of Food and Agriculture to release the names of the chemical components of the pesticide and then restart spraying. On Friday a Monterey judge determined that the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, did not contain toxic chemicals and lifted the ban instituted October 10. The restraining order was first granted more than 100 residents complained of health problems after the spraying first took place last month over the Monterey peninsula. Environmental groups sued the state claiming that a health safety assessment was never conducted before spraying. That suit is still pending. The lingering concerns prompted the governor to order the state to release the ingredients on Saturday, despite efforts by the manufacturer to keep the contents secret.

California Secretary of Food and Agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, said in a statement on Saturday that the governor supports the public’s right to know every ingredient of the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, “to the maximum extent possible under U.S. trademark law” and that he is confident that full disclosure will confirm that the spray is nontoxic to humans, plants, animals and insects.

However, the inert chemicals in CheckMate LBAM-F have now come under scrutiny by local residents. These inerts ingredients causing concern are: butylated hydroxytoluene, tricaprylyl methyl ammonium chloride, polyvinyl alcohol, and sodium phosphate. These inerts are listed by the US EPA as List 3 – Inerts of unknown toxicity, and List 4B – Other ingredients for which EPA has sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the current use pattern in pesticide products will not adversely affect public health or the environment, respectively.

Suzanne Dowling, a concerned resident, said, “There are health hazards associated with each and every one of the four inert ingredients of the product to be dumped on us.” Concern, not just with the ingredients but also with their concentrations, has prompted groups such as HOPE (Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment) to ask Governor Schwarzenegger to order the state to also release the concentrations of the ingredients found in CheckMate LBAM-F. HOPE has said that it would also appeal the lifting of the ban.

Inert ingredients include many that the EPA has officially determined, under other statutory programs, to be hazardous or toxic. Numerous studies indicate that inert ingredients may enhance the toxicity of pesticide formulations to the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, mitochondria, genetic material and hormone systems (For a discussion, see “Unidentified Inert Ingredients in Pesticides: Implications for Human and Environmental Health”). Under current labeling regulation, inert ingredients do not have to be disclosed.

The pesticide CheckMate LBAM-F works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Least toxic alternatives for pest control include the use of pheromones. However, the uncertainty about inert ingredients included in many pesticide formulations remains a serious concern. Beyond Pesticides advocates for full disclosure of inert ingredients. By ending the secrecy about inert ingredients in pesticides, people will be able to make better decisions about how they manage pests in their homes and their communities.

CheckMate LBAM-F Ingredients: (E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl acetate, (E,E)—9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl-acetate, cross linked polyurea polymer, butylated hydroxytoluene, polyvinyl alcohol, tricaprylyl methyl ammonium chloride and sodium phosphate, ammonium phosphate, 1,2-benzisothiozoli-3-one, 2-hydroxyl-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone.

Sources: Houston Chronicle, Santa Cruz Sentinel

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2007) On October 18, 2007, groundskeepers at one of New York City’s largest apartment complexes released 720,000 ladybugs over its 40 acres of landscaping as an alternative to spraying insecticides to control mites and other insects that feed on its flowers, shrubs and trees. The bugs, hippodamia convergens, were harvested in Bozeman, MT, shipped in bags of straw and released by hand at the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village complex in Manhattan’s East Side.

The complex’s owner, Tishman Speyer, purchased the ladybugs from Planet Natural, an online retailer, for just under $6,000 and is expected to save money over the cost of the insecticides. The ladybugs are available to the public through the Planet Natural website at $16.50 for 2,000 (shipping included).

Eric Vinje, owner of Planet Natural, explained to the Associated Press that he buys from ladybug collectors working the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains in Oregon, California and Montana. In Bozeman, he keeps the ladybugs alive in large refrigerators where the temperature is kept to about 35 degrees. Under these conditions, they go “dormant,”, using up their fat stores without eating anything, and staying alive for about five months.

In the shipping boxes, they slowly awaken while flying to a buyer’s destination. By the time they reached Manhattan, “they were lively and ready to eat anything that was not too quick for them,” said Mr. Vinje. Buying the bugs means Mr. Speyer can avoid using chemical insecticides. “In most cases, we reach for a can of pesticide — and we kill not only the ‘bad guys,’ but the ‘good guys,”‘ Mr. Vinje told the AP. “All we’re doing here is putting more of the ‘good guys’ to tip the scale, to get some kind of pest population control.”

Mr. Vinje says 720,000 ladybugs are about the right number to clean up the 40-acre New York complex. Each insect can take care of a piece of land measuring about 19-by-19-inches. A ladybug can eat up to 50 pests a day, plus insect eggs. As they reproduce, “they’ll do their thing out there!” Mr. Vinje promises. Even the ladybug larvae will keep eating.

Apartment residents and nearby neighbors need not worry about confronting swarms of ladybugs. The species known as a seasonal nuisance pest is the Asian lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis. In their native habitat, large aggregations of these lady beetles often hibernate in cracks and crevices within cliff faces. Unfortunately, when cliffs are not prevalent, they seek overwintering sites in and around buildings. The ladybugs native to the U.S. prefer to stay outdoors.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2007) Twelve North Carolina public school districts received recognition from North Carolina State University’s school IPM program for their work in reducing pest problems while cutting down on the use of chemical pesticides. State and university officials, members of the nonprofit community, and industry representatives attended the third annual School IPM Recognition Awards ceremony Oct. 10 at North Carolina State University to honor school districts who have been able to protect children from the hazards of pests and pesticides.

The awarded schools demonstrate that administrators do not have to choose between two ills, rather they can prevent students and teachers from exposure to both pests and toxic chemicals. The schools’ integrated pest management (IPM) programs emphasize cultural practices and structural repairs, including routine building inspections and maintenance, sanitation efforts and prompt repairs when slight leaks or cracks make an inviting home for unwanted guests. “The whole IPM effort is about striking while the bug is close,” State School Superintendent June Atkinson said in her keynote speech. “It’s going to take people like you to make sure our schools are safe.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates IPM for school buildings with a clear definition containing eight essential program components: education/training, monitoring, action thresholds, prevention, least-toxic tactics criteria, notification, recordkeeping, and evaluation. Proper IPM is discussed in detail in a Beyond Pesticides report, Ending Toxic Dependency: The State of IPM. Soon North Carolina public schools will have to transition from a scheduled monthly pesticide application program to an approach that involves less risky practices, as required by the passage of the Schoolchildren’s Health Act (HB 1502) last summer.

Dr. Godfrey Nalyanya, coordinator of the school IPM program at NC State University, refereed the ceremony. Nalyanya and Superintendent Atkinson presented the awards. “School districts have to apply and fill out an eight-page application,” Nalyanya said. “So they’re really serious about the program.” Three categories of awards recognize different levels of achievement for the school districts. Leadership awards go to school district representatives that not only have successful integrated pest management programs but also have assisted other schools with beginning similar programs; program awards go to schools that have transitioned to an IPM program; and initiative awards go to schools that have recently begun an IPM program.

North Carolina is one of 12 states to require school IPM programs and indicative of the increased national attention to the hazards that pesticides pose to children. Connecticut banned the application of pesticides on school grounds this summer. Studies consistently link many pesticides to adverse health effects that affect children’s respiratory system and their ability to learn. A study in Canada found that an overwhelming number of pesticide poisonings occur in children under the age of six, the World Health Organization highlights children’s increased vulnerability to chemical exposures at different periods of their growth and development, and a recent study from Drs. Theo Colborn and Lynn Carroll describes the multigenerational effects of pesticides. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels.

Ben Matthews, director of the School Support Division at the state Department of Public Instruction, said that about 54 percent of North Carolina’s school districts have transitioned away from monthly pesticide use to Integrated Pest Management. “We have some work to do, but we’re going to be here for a long time, and I think that’s great,” he said. So far, IPM has found its way onto schools’ agendas in North Carolina, but no laws have been passed governing pesticide use on public property or state-managed land.

Source: WNCT

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2007) Antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps and, in fact, may render some common antibiotics less effective, says University of Michigan public health professor Allison Aiello, Ph.D. The study, “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” appears in the August edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases.

In the first known comprehensive analysis of whether antibacterial soaps containing triclosan work better than plain soaps, Dr. Aiello of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and her team found that washing hands with an antibacterial soap was no more effective in preventing infectious illness than plain soap. Moreover, antibacterial soaps at formulations sold to the public do not remove any more bacteria from the hands during washing than plain soaps.

Because of the way triclosan, the main active ingredient in many antibacterial soaps, reacts in the cells, it may cause some bacteria to become resistant to commonly used drugs such as amoxicillin, the researchers say. These changes have not been detected at the population level, but e-coli bacteria bugs adapted in lab experiments showed resistance when exposed to as much as 0.1 percent weight/volume triclosan soap.

“What we are saying is that these e-coli could survive in the concentrations that we use in our (consumer formulated) antibacterial soaps,” Dr. Aiello said. “What it means for consumers is that we need to be aware of what’s in the products. The soaps containing triclosan used in the community setting are no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms, as well as reducing bacteria on the hands.”

The University of Michigan team looked at 27 studies conducted between 1980 and 2006, and found that soaps containing triclosan within the range of concentrations commonly used in the community setting (0.1 to 0.45 percent wt/vol) were no more effective than plain soaps. Triclosan is used in higher concentrations in hospitals and other clinical settings, and may be more effective at reducing illness and bacteria in the hospital setting, according to the researchers.

With the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations, deaths and school closures, public health advocates are concerned over the rampant overuse of antimicrobial products and antibiotics. Triclosan is found in hundreds of common everyday products, including nearly half of all commercial soaps. In addition to soaps, triclosan is found in deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics and plastics.

Triclosan works by targeting a biochemical pathway in the bacteria that allows the bacteria to keep its cell wall intact. Because of the way triclosan kills the bacteria, mutations can happen at the targeted site. Dr. Aiello says a mutation could mean that the triclosan can no longer get to the target site to kill the bacteria because the bacteria and the pathway have changed form.

The analysis concludes that government regulators should evaluate antibacterial product claims and advertising, and further studies are encouraged. The FDA does not formally regulate the levels of triclosan used in consumer products. Other antiseptic products on the market contain different active ingredients, such as the alcohol in hand sanitizers or the bleach in some antibacterial household cleaners. Dr. Aiello’s team did not study those products and those ingredients are not at issue.

Additionally, researchers at Virginia Tech have found that triclosan reacts with chlorine in tap water to form significant quantities of chloroform. Chloroform is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen. The research also suggests that the reaction of triclosan with chlorine could produce highly chlorinated, and thus dangerous, dioxins in the presence of sunlight.

TAKE ACTION: When used in hospitals and other health care settings, or for persons with weakened immune systems, triclosan represents an important health care and sanitary tool. Outside of these settings, it is totally unnecessary, and the constant exposure to triclosan becomes a health and environmental hazard. The best solution to preventing infections is good old soap and water. Make sure you read all labels when buying soaps and other toiletry products to ensure that triclosan is not included. Also be on the lookout for Microban and Irgasan, which are other names for triclosan. Consult our Triclosan factsheet for a list of products containing triclosan (some, like Teva sandals and kitchen knives, may surprise you) and for more detailed information on alternatives to triclosan.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2007) In a scholarly review written by Theo Colborn, Ph.D. and Lynn Carroll, Ph.D., the authors point to the multigenerational effects of some pesticides that they say demand improved regulation to protect human and environmental health. The review, “Pesticides, Sexual Development, Reproduction, and Fertility: Current Perspective and Future Direction,” appears in the international journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (13:5, 1078 — 1110), September, 2007. The study points out a major deficiency in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of pesticides under current health reviews and risk assessments. The authors call EPA’s pesticide registration system “outmoded” and one that has “almost completely missed the low-dose and endocrine system-mediated effects of pesticides.” The study reviews both epidemiological and laboratory data. In the abstract, the authors state the following:

Improvements in chemical analytical technology and non-invasive sampling protocols have made it easier to detect pesticides and their metabolites at very low concentrations in human tissues. Monitoring has revealed that pesticides penetrate both maternal and paternal reproductive tissues and organs, thus providing a pathway for initiating harm to their offspring starting before fertilization throughout gestation and lactation. This article explores the literature that addresses the parental pathway of exposure to pesticides. We use DDT/DDE as a model for chemicals that oftentimes upon exposure have no apparent, immediate health impacts, or cause no obvious birth defects, and are seldom linked with cancer. Their health effects are overlooked because they are invisible and not life threatening””but might have significant health, social, and economic impacts at the individual and population levels. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the necessity to develop new approaches for determining the safety of pesticides and the need for innovative regulatory policy to protect human and environmental health.

The authors cite an article, “DDT and DDE exposure in mothers and time to pregnancy in daughters”, Cohn BA, Cirillo PM, Wolff MS, et al. 2003, Lancet 361:2205—06) a pesticide effect in the third generation, saying,

This study exposed heretofore occult activity of DDT and DDE where their effects are manifested in the second generation””and not until adulthood””and with an ultimate effect at the population level in the third generation. These cryptic and confusing findings provide insight into the complexity and insidious nature of a pesticide that is not acutely toxic and has been considered safe by some (Attaran et al. 2000) for more than 60 years. This study points out the need for multigenerational testing of pesticides, especially those that are persistent and may have degradation products that have different health impacts than the parent compound.

The authors conclude that:

The lesson learned from DDT and the other studies cited earlier is that developmental, transgenerational testing is critical to protect public health and future generations from widely dispersed chemicals. Certainly we cannot wait for prospective studies that could resolve the uncertainties. . . It is apparent that although there are adequate scientific data available to make sound public health decisions about certain pesticides, neither the political will nor the correct vehicle are available to translate that knowledge into policy to protect human health.

The authors can be reached at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), PO Box 1407, Paonia, CO 81428.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2007) The European Space Agency (ESA) has announced its support for a new initiative that would utilize satellite images to develop data that will be used in the registration process for agricultural pesticides across Europe. Currently “efficiency data” from field trials is required for pesticide registration in the European Union (EU). Data in the same climatic zones across the EU can be used for registration. The new service, Site Similarity Certification, has been developed in the framework of an ESA-supported project aimed at strengthening the European capacity to provide geo-information services based on Earth observation data. It is expected that the system will reduce the number of pesticide field trials across the EU.

The national members of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), which currently registers all pesticides to be used within the EU, also collects “pesticide efficiency” data from field trails across defined zones of comparable climates across Europe. This system allows data generated in one country to support the registration of pesticides in another country within the same climatic zone. Site Similarity Certification (SSC) merges satellite imagery with conventional physical and biological data such as temperature, precipitation, soil characteristics and recurring natural phenomena. In doing so, the scientific approach to defining and transferring field trial results achieved in one EU member state to another can be improved.

“In view of the needs for testing and regulating Plant Protection Products within EPPO member countries, the continuation of the already successfully started efforts to integrate the use of satellite images into the process of pesticide registration seems to be a promising tool,” EPPO Working Party member Udo Heimbach, Ph.D., said. “Satellite images are intended to be used to prove the similarity of trial sites and herewith to improve the procedure of mutual recognition of trial results throughout Europe, which is one of the aims of EPPO.”

Proving the comparability of crop sites also saves the pesticide industry from carrying out expensive perennial trials, allows field trials to be planned more efficiently and creates the possibility of substituting missing field trials. The SSC is part of an ESA Earth Observation Market Development (EOMD) project that provides geo-information services.

Source: Science Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2007) Corn, genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), has been found to harm non-target aquatic insects and disrupt the connected food web. A new study by researchers at Indiana University, funded by the National Science Foundation and published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, suggests that the crop, which has been licensed for use since 1996, poses an unforseen risk to aquatic ecosystems.

According to the study, roughly 35 percent of American corn acreage is Bt corn. Pollen and other parts of the plants are travelling much farther than the fields in which they are planted, carrying Bt toxins through watersheds and being consumed by close relatives of the corn’s targeted pests. Caddisflies experience high mortality and stunted growth as a result of exposure. As researcher Todd V. Royer observed, they “are a food resource for higher organisms like amphibians and fish. And, if our goal is to have healthy, functioning ecosystems, we need to protect all the parts. Water resources are something we depend on greatly.”

This effect went unnoticed for ten years because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in its registration trials, tested Bt on a crustacean, rather than the aquatic insects that are being affected. “Every new technology comes with some benefits and some risks,” said Royer. “I think probably the risks associated with widespread planting of Bt corn were not fully assessed.”

This risk to aquatic life increases as the demand for corn grows. James Raich, a National Science Foundation program director, warned that “increased use of corn for ethanol is leading to increased demand for corn and increased acreage in corn production. Previous concerns about the nutrient enrichment in streams that accompany mechanized row-crop agriculture are now compounded by toxic corn byproducts that enter our streams and fisheries, and do additional harm.”

Bt corn, along with other genetically GE crops like soybeans and rice, has been controversial in some states and studies, whether over its environmental impact or economic value. In addition to this study’s findings among non-target species, it raises fears of pesticide resistance in target species, contamination of non-GE crops, and corporate monopolies on seed. For more on genetic engineering, click here.

Sources: Science Daily, The Student Operated Press, Brownfield (including audio interview with researcher Todd Royer)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2007) President Bush signed the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA II) into effect last Tuesday, renewing and amending the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA). Environmentalists, government officials and industry representatives hailed the passage of the law, marking a rare consensus among the groups.

The Senate passed the bill (S. 1983) without opposition on August 2, and the House of Representatives gave its unanimous approval on September 24. The renewal legislation will extend funding through 2012 for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which originally received $200 million in registration fees in 2003. Environmental groups and trade organizations called Congressional passage of the act a victory for cooperative public policy development, led by the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), CropLife America and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

“This is a win-win-win proposition,” said Phil Klein, CSPA’s senior vice president of legislative and public affairs. “The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs gets long-term stable funding. The environmental and farm worker communities get increased funding for worker protection, shorter timelines for reduced risk pesticides, a comprehensive review of pesticides every 15 years, and additional grant money for farm worker certification. And industry benefits from predictable timelines for bringing newer and more innovative products to market.”

“Renewal of PRIA is a huge win for both public health and the environment,” said Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director, NRDC. “The law has kept harmful pesticides in check since 2003 and will continue to safeguard the public in immeasurable ways for years to come. It’s clear that the more environment and industry work together, the more we all win.”

PRIA II builds upon the tradition of the first PRIA legislation, which is set to expire in 2008, amending the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It increases in and clarifies categories covered, uses maintenance fees for registration review, protects funds for grant programs, increases funding levels, and prevents free-riding. “PRIA II reauthorizes the solid legislation created four years ago by a broad coalition of pesticide manufacturers, public interest groups, and pesticide user groups. Predictable timelines have allowed industry to provide the American farmer with better and more innovative methods to produce the safe, affordable and abundant food supply Americans enjoy,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CropLife. “We are enthusiastic about the reauthorization of the legislation and applaud Congress for swiftly passing it.”

“The reauthorization of PRIA by the 110th Congress represents a significant legislative victory in a most challenging time and demonstrates the benefits of collaboration among all stakeholders in the process,” said Beau Greenwood, executive vice president government relations and public affairs of CropLife.

Along with CSPA, CropLife and NRDC, the coalition supporting PRIA reauthorization included American Chemistry Council Biocides Panel, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Biopesticide Industry Alliance, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association, International Sanitary Supply Association, Protected Harvest and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment. CSPA represents the manufacturers of consumer household pest management and antimicrobial (disinfecting) products, and CropLife represents the producers of agricultural pesticides. NRDC is a leading national environmental organization.

Sources: NRDC, CropLife America, ThomasNet Industrial Newsroom

(Beyond Pesticides, October 12, 2007) One of the nation’s most visible and heavily used plots of turf will be a demonstration site for organic lawn care over the next two years. Over four acres of Washington, DC’s National Mall will be maintained organically in order to determine “whether environmentally friendly treatments . . . can improve the viability of the soil enough to make grass more viable under the extreme compaction conditions of the National Mall,” according to the National Park Service (NPS).

The area will be cared for by SafeLawns.org employees. According to NPS, “SafeLawns.org originally contacted the National Mall & Memorial Parks in Spring of 2007 offering to maintain at no cost to the NPS some portion of the National Mall using proactive environmentally friendly techniques and proceedures.” Among those used are aeration, compost and compost tea applications, and overseeding, all of which comply with Department of the Interior Integrated Pest Management requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency will also conduct independent soil monitoring, along with complete record-keeping of the project.The panels under SafeLawns.org’s care are currently closed to public use, along with others in the eastern half of the National Mall, as part of NPS’s scheduled rotation. They will reopen next April, at which point the lawn’s health will be tested by daily use.

For now, though, the most intensive treatment is underway. The first panel has received “8 [inches] deep tilling for reduction of compaction and aeration . . . Then 450 cubic yards of solid plant material compost were tilled into the soil. The site was re-graded, seeds were applied and a liquid compost mulch applied over the seeds. It will be watered through October, 2007. Panel 2 received core aeration, liquid compost and seeds but, like the NPS panels, will not be irrigated.” A third adjacent panel will be maintained by NPS according to their regular practices as a “control” by which the organic panels may be measured. SafeLawns.org’s work area is between 4th and 7th Streets on the Mall, and will by cared for through August, 2009.

“This is exactly the kind of high visibility project we had in mind when we conceived our organization in February of 2006,” said SafeLawn.org’s founder, Paul Tukey. “If we can grow resilient grass on the National Mall, where 27 million people trample the lawn each year, then we will have demonstrated that we can grow grass anywhere. Most importantly, we’ll have proved that you can grow grass without relying on chemical fertilizers and pesticides that can harm wildlife and contaminate drinking water, as well as cause harm to people and their pets.”

Sources: Landscape Management, National Park Service