(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2007) With the joint release on July 31, 2007 of Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products, citing risks to the public, workers and the environment.

Science and Environmental Health Network (U.S.)
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (U.S.)
Tebtebba Foundation – Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Philippines)
The Soils Association (United Kingdom)
Third World Network (China)
United Steelworkers (U.S.)
Vivagora (France)

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2007) At least one farm in Sacramento, California, has been contaminated with aerial spraying of pesticides to control mosquitoes that may carry the West Nile virus (WNv). This claim is verified by lab results released Monday, which were carried out by an independent lab commissioned by a group against aerial spraying.

Insecticides were sprayed across 55,000 acres north of the American River from July 30 to August 1. At least one organic farm in Citrus Heights was covered with the chemicals.

Organic food is supposed to be grown without relying on synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic farmers are required by the National Organic Standards to prevent contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant and animal nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.

“The district’s spray-everything attitude put my business and health at risk,” organic farmer Steven Zien said in a statement.

The area is home to 375,000 residents and many are angry as well as concerned about possible health effects. Pesticides most commonly used across the country for mosquito control are neurotoxic and have been linked to cancer and other illnesses. Given the limited efficacy of adulticidal sprays (pesticides meant to target adult mosquitoes), it becomes even more important to recognize the public health hazards associated with widespread pesticide exposure.

“The district hasn’t taken enough precautions to protect the public from exposures to these pesticides,” said Paul Schramski, state director of the Sacramento-based Pesticide Watch.

Sacramento health officials have said that the chemicals sprayed were at low concentrations and not harmful to human health. However, aerial spraying for mosquito control is widely considered by experts to be the least effective and most risky response to this important public health concern. There is no credible evidence that spraying pesticides used to kill adult mosquitoes reduce or prevent WNv incidents or illnesses. A court settlement on April 12, 2007, affirmed that health concerns are real in a recent lawsuit against New York City. The settlement agreement stated that the pesticides sprayed might indeed be dangerous to human health as well as to the natural environment.

At least four people have contracted the virus in Sacramento and Yolo counties this year, according to the pest district. Statewide, 120 people in 21 counties have had confirmed cases of West Nile this year. Seven deaths have been reported in California, equaling the total from last year, according to a state web site that provides information about the virus. Less than 1 percent of those who contract the virus experience serious symptoms.

Source: Associated Press

TAKE ACTION: For responsible, safer and smarter control of mosquitoes and vector-borne diseases in your community see Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Activist page at www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito/activist/index.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2007) Last week, The Cornucopia Institute announced that Aurora Organic Dairy, one of the largest organic dairies in the United States, could soon lose its organic certification. Based on a private investigation as well as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) documents, Cornucopia claims the industry giant does not comply with organic regulations regarding pasture grazing and cattle procurement.

Aurora has 12,000 milking cows on five farms in Colorado and Texas. The company claims that the cows have access to 5,700 acres of organic pasture land across those farms, and that all cows graze for at least 120 days per year. Among the brands Aurora supplies organic dairy products for are Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, Wild Oats, Trader Joes, and other grocery chains.

According to Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst Mark Kastel, “After personally inspecting some of Aurora’s dairies in Texas and Colorado, we found 98 percent of their cattle in feedlots instead of grazing on pasture as the law requires.” While USDA’s investigation is ongoing, Cornucopia expects to hear of other missteps. “Our sources tell us that the USDA’s investigators found many other violations when conducting their probe of Aurora,” said Mr. Kastel.

Cornucopia’s original complaint with USDA was filed in 2005. Concerned at the length of time USDA has allowed the investigation, Cornucopia has filed a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) with USDA to ensure that Aurora is receiving no favoritism from the department. “We hope that the USDA will issue tough sanctions, if warranted,” said Mr. Kastel. “And we want the agency to know that the organic community is very closely monitoring this case.”

Aurora has responded to Cornucopia’s claims by defending its organic certification. In an email, it claimed, “We have been working cooperatively with the USDA for 18 months to resolve complaints made by Cornucopia Institute, and we are confident USDA will make a decision on the merits.”

The dairy’s statement closed by saying, “Aurora Organic Dairy is the only organic dairy to have the animal welfare standards and practices of all of its farms reviewed by the independent auditor, Validus Services, trained to international ISO [International Organization for Standardization] standards . . . Our retail customers and consumers have every reason to be confident in the quality and integrity of the organic milk and butter supplied by Aurora Organic Dairy.”

Regardless of the outcome of USDA’s investigation of Aurora Organic Dairy, the issue of organic integrity is critical to the industry’s success, as well as for consumer protection. For more information and articles on organic food, click here.

Sources: The Cornucopia Institute, Aurora Organic Dairy, Associated Content, Northern Colorado Business Report

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2007) Environmental groups launched a public campaign last Wednesday to urge state officials to stop applying toxic herbicides for vegetation control along state roadways. Members of the Massachusetts Coalition for Pesticide Reduction maintain that herbicides, which the state resumed using in 2003, are harmful to people and the environment.

Sylvia Broude, community organizer for Toxics Action Center, said toxic chemicals such as the ones the Highway Department uses can harm more than just the intended target. The chemicals can run off highways, pollute drinking water and eventually lead to health problems in humans, ranging from eye problems and learning disabilities to some forms of cancer, she said. The group is asking the state to use organic herbicides or manual means, such as weed whackers or lawnmowers, which the state used exclusively in the early 2000s.

But state officials say affected areas are in small, controlled environments. The Highway Department says that it removes unwanted bushes and weeds manually or mechanically on the vast majority of the 48,200 acres it maintains but needs the herbicides for about 188 acres, less than half of 1 percent of the total. Spokesman John Lamontagne said removing weeds mechanically in some of those areas would require closing down a lane of traffic and hiring a police detail to ensure the safety of workers and motorists.

The Coalition for Pesticide Reduction, which includes Toxics Action Center and Environment Massachusetts, asked the public yesterday to join their campaign against toxic roadside herbicides. “This year we wanted to launch a broader message so the state knows people are not behind this,” Ms. Broude said.

A dozen lawmakers signed on to the campaign, and several said the state should use nontoxic herbicides as a precautionary measure when manual removal is not feasible.
“I just think you can’t exercise too much caution,” said state Representative Sarah Peake, a Democrat who represents several towns on Cape Cod. “When I was a child, DDT was thought to be safe,” she said. “And now we know better.”

The environmental groups met with Bernard Cohen, the state’s secretary of transportation and construction, asking that he use other methods to control vegetation, but a spokesman with MassHighway said plans are underway to begin using the herbicides, including glyphosate-based Accord ® Concentrate and Oust ® Extra (active ingredients sulfometuron methyl and metsulfuron methyl), later this month.

The Highway Department is operating under a five-year vegetation management plan adopted in 2003. It is scheduled to draft a new five-year plan that will go into effect in 2008 and will include a strategy to control “invasive species” and “nuisance species” of “weeds” along highways.

Every year, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, railroad corridors and other types of rights-of-way (ROWs) are treated with herbicides to control the growth of unwanted plants. Massachusetts law prohibits the handling, mixing or loading of herbicide concentrate on a ROW within 100 feet of a sensitive area, one “in which public health, environmental or agricultural concerns warrant special protection to further minimize risks of unreasonable adverse effects,” and the application of herbicides by aircraft for the purpose of clearing or maintaining a ROW.

Sources: Boston Globe (August 15, August 16), Worcester Telegram & Gazette News

TAKE ACTION (NATIONAL): For more information on herbicide ROW policies and tools on how to organize for the adoption of such policies at the state or local level, please contact Beyond Pesticides by email [email protected] or call 202-543-5450.

TAKE ACTION (LOCAL): Show your disapproval of toxic herbicide use by writing a letter to the Massachusetts Highway Department or call 617-973-7800. Contact the MassHighway districts directly.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2007) The widespread presence of pesticides and other agricultural runoff has been confirmed in the world’s largest coral reef system. Degradation of the system threatens not only a natural treasure but also the region’s economy.

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is the subject of a recent report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Entitled the “Annual Marine Monitoring Report 2006,” the study confirms extensive contamination in eight of the ten major tributaries into the marine park, much of which is fertilizer and pesticide runoff from the area’s farmland. Local environmental groups are calling for government protection of the reef from these pollutants, and tourism interests worry that damage to the reef will reduce the number of visitors to Australia. According to World Wildlife Foundation-Australia program leader Nick Heath, “Reducing pollution load is possible and will help us save the Reef, as well as the 60,000 tourism jobs based around the Reef.”

According to the report, “Water quality in the Great Barrier Reef is principally affected by land-based activities in its adjacent catchments, including vegetation modification, grazing, agriculture, urban development, industrial development and aquaculture. Nutrients, sediments and pesticides are the pollutants of most concern for the health of the Great Barrier Reef.”

Among the pesticides found in the waters sampled are diuron, which is found at the mouth of each tributary year round, atrazine, the other most commonly-applied pesticide, and other herbicides. Herbicides are also routinely found in inshore reef water samples.

Mr. Heath cited a 2004 report that found sugar cane farmers were over-applying pesticides by 75 percent as a contributing factor to the study’s results. “These pesticides are used on the ground to kill weeds and will have the same effect in the ocean,” he said.

Mud crabs were also tested for bio-accumulation of persistent organic contaminants like PCBs, dieldrin, and DDT, which is present in 33 percent of the crabs tested. While the concentration of these chemicals is relatively low and not in commonly eaten parts of the crab, the results indicate that long-since banned chemicals are still affecting the ecosystem.

In response, activists call for the Australian government to invest in protection of the Reef. “If nothing is done it’s quite a grim future for the reef,” said Mr. Heath. “Pollution will continue to stress corals, continue to feed wave after wave of crown of thorn starfish outbreaks, reducing coral cover and probably even worse reducing the resilience of the reef to be able to deal with the increased temperatures expected from climate change.”

Mr. Heath’s concern for the Reef’s future is corroborated by a University of North Carolina study, which found that over the past 20 years the Reef has reduced in size at five times the rate of the rainforests.

The continued documentation of environmental degradation throughout the globe in conjunction with pesticide contamination reinforces the need in a global economy to buy certified organic products and vote with your dollar by refusing to support companies that are not socially and environmentally responsible.

For past Daily News on the Great Barrier Reef and pesticides, click here.

Sources: The Sydney Morning Herald, Voice of America, The Herald Sun, WWF-Australia

(Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2007) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent decision not to go through with a Special Review of 2,4-D’s carcinogenic properties is being touted by industry as the final word that the toxic chemical “has been found to have no human carcinogenic effects,” despite significant evidence to the contrary. The Special Review has been cancelled after an industry task force poured millions of dollars into industry funded research and a public relations campaign.

The pesticide 2,4-D, or 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, was first slated by EPA for Special Review in 1986. A few years later in a unique move, several large pesticides companies with a common interest in keeping 2,4-D on the market formed the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data.

Since then, the task force reports it has funded nearly $30 million in new research on the chemical. Industry funded research is often biased and influential in the regulatory process. The results are reported to EPA, which provides a large portion of the data the agency relies on in order to make decisions under an inadequate risk assessment review process. The task force is currently comprised of the major pesticide producers Dow AgroSciences (U.S.), Nufarm Ltd. (Australia) and Agro-Gor Corp., a U.S. corporation jointly owned by Atanor, S.A. (Argentina) and PBI-Gordon Corp. (U.S.).

However while industry has been pouring millions into and making much more off of 2,4-D, several independent studies show the chemical is carcinogenic. Research links 2,4-D to various cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (see “EPA Decides Not To Initiate Special Review for 2,4-D Cancer Risk“). Additionally, 2,4-D is a probable endocrine disruptor slated for the first tier of review under EPA’s long awaited screening program, can cause reproductive and developmental effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and is a sensitizer/irritant. Environmental effects of the chemical include leaching, groundwater contamination and toxicity to fish, birds and bees. 2,4-D is the third most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and the most widely used worldwide.

TAKE ACTION: Let the Bush Administration know that politics should not trump sound science. Tell EPA what you think about its decision to not initiate a Special Review for 2,4-D, despite overwhelming evidence of its carcinogenicity. Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson by email or call 202-564-4700.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2007) As the popularity and demand for organic food has and continues to increase, so too is the popularity of organic lawn care, as an increasing number of people are seeking out alternatives to conventional lawn chemicals.

Organic products are making inroads into the $35 billion lawn- and garden-care industry, which for years has been focusing on chemically-intensive methods. The growing demand for organic land care is coming from all sectors: homeowners, municipal park managers, and business professionals alike. A 2005 survey of 2,000 adults by the Natural Marketing Institute found 20 percent of consumers had bought some kind of environmentally friendly lawn-and-garden product. According to CNN, market researchers Freedonia Group estimate a 10 percent annual growth for the organic fertilizer market, twice the projected growth for all lawn and garden goods.

Taking the organic route may be more work and pricier initially, but the payoff will be a yard that costs less in the long-term to care for, is safer for the environment and handles stresses such as drought. Additionally, as more people switch to organic lawn care, the costs will keep coming down, and the techniques will be further refined.

With more pesticides and other synthetic lawn care chemicals being implicated in the development of Parkinson’s disease, autism, cancer and other chronic effects, concerned citizens are turning to safer, organic methods to care for their lawns. Conventional lawn care chemicals can be persistent, and are tracked into homes, leading to increased exposure to people and pets. Children are greatest at risk from chemical exposure, since they are smaller, have less developed immune systems, and also spend more time at home, in the yard, and low to the ground. Lawn chemicals have also turned up in waterways, where they damage aquatic environments. In many areas, these waterways are also utilized for drinking water.

Following on the heels of a 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision that ruled communities can restrict the use of cosmetic pesticides on both private and public property, U.S. industry lobbied to block such restrictions from occurring in all but nine states. However, with education campaigns small municipalities have been able to secure organic treatment on public lawns and landscapes. The nation’s largest lawn-care company, TruGreen-ChemLawn, has even dropped the ChemLawn part of its name to capitalize on consumers’ growing preference for organic lawn care and improve their public image, despite a history of questionable, chemically-intensive methods.

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

Sources: Wall Street Journal, The Daily Green

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2007) In an August 8, 2007 Federal Register Notice (72 FR 44510-44511), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to not initiate a Special Review for the commonly used herbicide 2,4-D, as well as the related herbicides 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP (dichlorprop). Despite evidence to the contrary, according to the FR notice, “Based on extensive scientific review of many epidemiology and animal studies, EPA find that the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP are likely human carcinogens.”

Although a mounting body of evidence links 2,4-D to various cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, EPA has been reluctant to classify it as a carcinogen in the face of industry pressure. EPA lists the herbicide in class D for carcinogenicity. Chemicals in this class are considered to have inadequate evidence for carcinogenicity, or not enough data is available. However, the link between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has been demonstrated in the United States, Italy, Canada, Denmark, and Sweden.

A 1986 National Cancer Institute (NCI) study found that farmers in Kansas exposed to 2,4-D for 20 or more days per year had a six-fold higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than non-farmers. The risk of cancer was higher for farmers who mixed or applied the pesticide themselves. A 1990 study published in the journal Epidemiology (Vol. 1, No. 5) found a 50% increase in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in farmers who handle 2,4-D. Even a manufacturer’s study submitted to EPA in 1986 linked 2,4-D to rare brain tumors.

In 1991, an NCI study found that dogs were more likely to contract canine malignant lymphoma if their owners use 2,4-D on their lawns than if owners did not use the herbicide. When 2,4-D was applied four or more times per year, dogs were twice as likely to contract lymphoma. In addition to these epidemiological studies, a laboratory study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found a 4% incidence of lymphoma in rats exposed to 2,4-D and no lymphoma in unexposed rats.

EPA first proposed 2,4-D for Special Review in 1986. Two years later, EPA proposed not to initiate Special Review (53 FR 9590; FRL-3353-3), because it said the literature did not support a cancer link. EPA deferred a final decision until the completion of the 2,4-D reregistration eligibility decision (RED), which occurred in 2005.

EPA uses the Pesticide Special Review process when it has reason to believe that the use of a pesticide may result in unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment. The Special Review process usually involves intensive review of only a few or just one potential risk. The review involves evaluating existing data, acquiring new information and/or studies, assessing the identified risk and determining appropriate risk reduction measures.

Known formerly as the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) process, Special Review provides a mechanism for public input into EPA’s deliberations before the Agency issues a Notice of Final Determination describing its selected regulatory action. The Special Review process determines whether some or all registrations of a particular active ingredient or ingredients meet the federal standard for registration, or whether amendment or cancellation of portions or all of the registrations is appropriate.

TAKE ACTION: Let the Bush Administration know that politics should not trump sound science. Tell EPA what you think about its decision to not initiate a Special Review for 2,4-D, despite overwhelming evidence of its carcinogenicity. Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson by email or call 202-564-4700.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2007) Greenland sharks, which inhabit some of the least populated regions on Earth in seemingly pristine Arctic waters, contain high amounts of human-manufactured industrial waste in their bodies, including toxic pesticide byproducts. The findings are available online in Marine Pollution Bulletin (in press), entitled “Dioxins and PCBs in Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) from the North-East Atlantic.”

According to the team of researchers at Stockholm University, the highest measured concentration found is for the world’s most toxic dioxin, TCDD, a compound found in the herbicide Agent Orange, which the U.S. military used during the Vietnam War. The herbicide was used for other applications from 1961 to 1971.

The study also names another set of discontinued chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, as the main source of the contaminants found in the Greenland sharks. PCBs were banned in the 1970s, which illustrates how persistent such compounds are in the environment and how long-living, top predator species may carry them for decades.

Project leader Dr. Åke Bergman, Ph.D., an environmental chemist at Stockholm University, told Discovery News that he and his team decided to focus on Greenland sharks since their normal lifespan may exceed 100 years, based on an annual estimated growth rate of just a fraction of an inch.

“I noticed that quite a few recently captured sharks appeared to be older than when PCBs were first manufactured in bulk in 1929,” he said.

PCBs were used in a variety of industrial applications, including pesticides, electrical-related fluids for capacitors and transformers, heat transfer fluids, lubricating oils, paints, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, sealants, plastics, and even in surgical implants.

Dr. Bergman and his team measured concentrations of PCBs, as well as the industry-related compounds dioxins and furans, in Greenland shark livers and muscle tissue. Dioxins and furans may occur naturally, such as during lengthy forest fires, but not at the amounts found in today’s environment. Dioxins, for one, can enter the waterways as byproducts of manufacturing processes and from the use of popular herbicides containing 2,4-D.

Though the health effects of most industrial pollutants remain difficult to quantify, Dr. Bergman said, “[t]hese contaminants can cause reproductive failures, neurological effects and other problems.”

Compared to other areas, the concentrations of contaminants are often low in the fish species consumed by the Greenland sharks in the remote marine environments that they inhabit. However, Dr. Bergman thinks that pollutant levels are especially high in the sharks due to their slow metabolism rates as a result of their cold-water habitats.

Also, studies show that other apex predators, like polar bears, large marine mammals and birds high on the food chain, tend to have more contaminants because of “biomagnification through the food web,” meaning that as one animal eats another, the substances in their bodies become more concentrated with each step up in the chain.

Dr. Bergman said, “Sharks provide evidence for what is happening in marine ecosystems, and since we found Greenland sharks carry quite a load of environmental contaminants, there is cause for concern.”

Another recent study also shows how some organic pollutants, such as lindane, can biomagnify in terrestrial food webs even though the same chemicals do not accumulate in aquatic food webs.

Source: Discovery News

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2007) As the face of agriculture in America changes with rising prevalence of herbicide-tolerant crops, farmers in Mississippi and Arkansas are also facing challenges caused by increased herbicide resistance. A recent press release by the Delta Research and Extension Center (DREC) blames glyphosate-resistant weeds for increased costs in Mississippi, while a leading British researcher will work with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service to determine the impact that the same weeds will have on farming in Arkansas.

According to DREC’s release, a “concern for agricultural production in the Mississippi Delta is the increase of weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate . . . DREC rice weed scientist Jason Bond said that both glyphosate-resistant horseweed and volunteer Roundup Ready soybeans have become problem weeds for Mississippi rice production.” Research associate Tom Eubank also said, “Glyphosate-resistant horseweed, ryegrass and pigweed are concerns in Mississippi Delta soybeans.”

Meanwhile, Arkansas farmers are noticing a similar trend: the increased use of glyphosate on Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops is leading them to map the future of herbicide-resistant weeds and consider alternative weed management programs. According to the High Plains/Midwest Agricultural Journal, “researchers believe that if pigweed, or Plamer amaranth, can’t be controlled by glyphosate, it will add major costs to farming and drastically change the way the land is farmed.” Dr. Paul Neve, Ph.D., of England’s Warwick University, is coming to Arkansas to determine the extent of the need for change.

Herbicide-resistant weeds have ballooned in recent years, due particularly to the expansion of Roundup Ready crops, like soybeans and alfalfa. According to Syngenta manager Les Glasgow, “[I]f you go back, say 10 years, and look at glyphosate resistance, you probably wouldn’t see it. At that time, conventional wisdom said the frequency of mutation was extremely low. What wasn’t taken into account was how extensive and intensive the use of one mode of action would be.” Dr. Neve agreed on the cause of resistance. “Having seen the amount of seed production here, it’s obviously a problem. If you were writing a recipe for glyphosate resistance, the ingredients are already in place here,” he said. Chuck Foresman, head of Syngenta’s weed resistance strategies, points to a potentially greater problem. “Stacked resistance weeds are developing in the landscape,” he said. “That makes weed scientists’ jobs tough. Someone describes a problem. How do you offer a remedy? It’s hard to know if a stacked weed is out there.”

Weed resistance is only one of many reasons why genetically modified crops and reliance on herbicides is dangerous to both health and agriculture. Pesticide residues, misleading labeling, and complete testing prior to planting should also be considered. To view Beyond Pesticides’ page on genetic engineering, click here. Buying organic food whenever possible and supporting local agriculture is another way to ensure that you protect both your health and the environment. For more information on organics, including related publications, click here.

Sources: High Plains/Midwest Agricultural Journal, Delta Farm Press

(Beyond Pesticides, August 9, 2007) China reports it is cracking down on the use of recently banned pesticides and is taking additional actions in an effort to counter concerns about the country’s food safety. The major exporter has been the subject of frequent reports of contaminated products, including several foods imported by the U.S.

Reuters reports that according to a new poll, U.S. consumers are extremely wary of products made in China, and nearly two-thirds said they would support a boycott of Chinese goods. In reaction to the potential loss of export markets and the upcoming Beijing Olympics, China says it will spend more than $1 billion improving food and drug safety over the next three years.

The Chinese government will specifically launch a campaign to crack down on the use of banned pesticides that are still being manufactured and remain in use. The campaign is in response to news reports that “a dozen or so” pesticide producers were still making highly poisonous pesticides such as methylamine and phosphamidon. Prior to the recent ban, 1,500 pesticide manufacturers, approximately half of the industry, produced the chemicals.

However, pesticides that are still approved for use in China are also raising concerns as they are typically overused. Official data reveals China sprays 1.45 million tons of pesticides annually, almost two times more than the Chinese government recommends, according to China Daily.

The overuse of pesticides in the country has been problematic for Chinese and U.S. consumers alike. The most recent concern over food security involves tons of ginger exported from China, which supplies nearly half of U.S. ginger imports and is a major supplier of ginger on the world market. Since the state of California recently discovered levels of aldicarb sulfoxide that are deemed unacceptable by the government, U.S. health officials are now working to determine how the ginger made it into the country and how widely it has been distributed.

According to the Oakland Tribune, this not the first time that contaminated Chinese ginger has been a problem. In recent months, Seattle port inspectors turned away shipments of Chinese ginger that contained unacceptable levels of pesticides, and Japanese authorities mistakenly allowed 25 tons of contaminated ginger into their country.

Pesticide misuse on ginger is only one example of contaminated products from China. For example, one recent study also documents seafood contamination – scientists have found that seafood products from southern China contain high concentrations of DDT and hexachlorocylohexane (HCH).

In response, China’s State Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman, Yan Jiangying says her department will work throughout China to educate the public about pesticide use, including the estimated 60 percent of the 1.3 billion population that resides in rural agricultural areas.

Sources: China Daily, Oakland Tribune, Reuters

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2007) For the first time, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report in July on children’s heightened vulnerability to chemical exposures at different periods of their growth and development. The organization cites over 30% of the global burden of disease in children can be attributed to environmental factors, including pesticides.

The report, Principles for Evaluating Health Risks in Children Associated with Exposure to Chemicals, is a new volume of the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria series. It highlights the fact that for children, the stage of their development when chemical exposure occurs may be just as important as the magnitude of the exposure. In respect to pesticides, the report cites several studies that tie pesticide exposure during key periods of development to neurobehavioral problems, Parkinson’s disease, and immunotoxicity, including respiratory diseases.

“Children are not just small adults,” said Dr. Terri Damstra, Ph.D., WHO’s team leader for the Interregional Research Unit, in WHO’s press release. “Children are especially vulnerable and respond differently from adults when exposed to environmental factors, and this response may differ according to the different periods of development they are going through.”

Air and water contaminants, pesticides in food, lead in soil, as well many other environmental threats may cause or worsen disease and induce developmental problems. The report notes that children have different susceptibilities during different life stages, referred to as “critical windows for exposure” or “critical windows of development,” due to their dynamic growth and developmental processes, as well as physiological, metabolic, and behavioral differences. Exposure can occur:

• In utero through transplacental transfer of environmental agents from mother to fetus or in nursing infants via breast milk.

• Through diet – children consume more food and beverages per kilogram of body weight than do adults, and their dietary patterns are different and often less variable during different developmental stages.

• Through inhalation and absorption – children have a higher inhalation rate and a higher body surface area to body weight ratio, which may lead to increased exposures.

• Through behavior – children ’s normal behaviors, such as crawling on the ground and putting their hands in their mouths, can result in exposures not faced by adults.

• Other physical factors – children’s metabolic pathways may differ from those of adults, and children have more years of future life and thus more time to develop chronic diseases that take decades to appear and that may be triggered by early environmental exposures.

• Also, children are often unaware of environmental risks and generally have no voice in decision-making.

Some examples of health effects resulting from developmental exposures prenatally and at birth include miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight and birth defects; in young children, infant mortality, asthma, neurobehavioral and immune impairment; and in adolescents, precocious or delayed puberty. Evidence also suggests that an increased risk of certain diseases in adults such as cancer, chronic respiratory disease and heart disease can result in part from exposures to certain environmental chemicals during childhood.

Traditional risk assessment approaches and environmental health policies have focused mainly on adults and adult exposure scenarios, utilizing data from adult humans or adult animals. The report highlights there is a need to expand risk assessment paradigms to evaluate exposures relevant to children from preconception to adolescence, acknowledging each developmental stage.

The study, while pointing out risk assessment is flawed and encouraging new and improved research, also states “A lack of full proof for causal associations should not prevent efforts to reduce exposures or implement intervention and prevention strategies.”

Real world exposure is indeed complicated and makes it difficult to conclusively draw causal associations, especially taking into account synergistic effects, etc., leaving a clear and vital need to exercise the precautionary principle. The easiest and safest solution regardless of risk assessment methods is to avoid chemical use and exposure by using alternative, non- and least-toxic management methods for species that can cause economic and health problems, being more tolerant of species that are solely a nuisance or aesthetically displeasing, and using organic products, especially foods.

Due to the large amount of time children spend in schools, Beyond Pesticides’ Healthy Schools Project aims to minimize and eliminate the risks posed by pesticides through the adoption of school pest management policies and programs at the local, state, and federal level, thereby creating a healthier learning environment. Central to this effort are activities aimed at public education on pesticide hazards and efficacy of alternatives, and the continued development of model communities that serve as examples.

TAKE ACTION: Find out what laws your state has enacted to protect children from pesticide exposure. Learn about model policies your state and community can work toward adopting.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2007) In a study that examines the influence of age of exposure on the magnitude of the association between DDT and breast cancer risk finds that women who were exposed to DDT before the age of 14 are five times more likely to develop breast cancer later in life. In contrast, the study finds exposure after adolescence does not increase risk.

The data used in the study targets the age of a woman in 1945 as an indicator for the youngest possible age for a woman to be exposed to DDT, since DDT was first introduced to the U.S. for mosquito control in 1945. The researchers, from the Center for Research on Women’s and Children’s Health, Public Health Institute at Berkeley, California and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, analyzed blood that had been collected from women between 1959 and 1967 – years during which the use of DDT was at its highest.

“DDT and breast cancer in young women: New data on the significance of age at exposure,” published last week in the online edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, is “the first study specifically designed, a priori, to consider whether age at exposure may modify DDT effects on breast cancer.”

The health records for the women studied were collected from the California Cancer Registry and the California Vital Status Records. The researchers identified those who were diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50, or those who had died because of breast cancer before age 50. Of the women whose blood was stored, 129 cases were used to measure three forms of DDT: p,p’-DDT, o,p’-DDT, and p,p’-DDE. These cases were divided into groups based on what their age would have been in 1945 and included groups younger than 4 years old, 4-7 years, 8-13 years and >13 years old, and paired them with control groups.

After analysis, DDT was found to be present in all subjects. However, for those that developed breast cancer, DDT was at much higher levels than for those who did not. Those younger than 14 in 1945 with the highest levels of exposure were 5.4 times more likely to have breast cancer. In contrast, there was no relationship between exposure level and breast cancer for women who were 14 years and older in 1945. The researchers also found that those exposed at the youngest age had the highest risk for developing breast cancer.

These findings add to the growing number of studies that show exposure to chemicals that are hormonally active can lead to diseases such as cancer.

The recurring message is that exposure to these chemicals at critical periods in the body’s development, in this case pre-adolescent breast development, has long terms effects that manifest as adult onset of disease, such as cancer, later in life. Also important to note is that women who would have been exposed to DDT during the 1950s and 1960s have not yet reached the age of 50 – the age of greatest breast cancer risk is around age 60. This means that the significance of these findings may be larger.

According to Barbara Brenner, executive director of San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, “We have to start paying very close attention to what we put in our environment. This is an example of doing something to our environment where we did not understand the long-term consequences. I don’t know how many times this story has to be told.”

However, the study does not account for other known risk factors that may have predisposed the women toward cancer. Researchers also don’t know when the women were exposed to DDT. Co-author of the study Dr. Mary Wolff, Ph.D., a professor of oncology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine remarked, “I don’t think it’s just early life exposures. Most cancers are an accumulation of a lot of factors.”

Their conclusion is carefully worded: “It is too soon to decide that DDT exposure has little public health significance for breast cancer risk. We based this conclusion on 1) the long latency of possible effects on breast cancer, 2) the large numbers of women exposed world-wide, and 3) the evidence that we provide here which suggests that women exposed when young may be most strongly affected.”

They also note “the public health significance of DDT exposure is potentially large.”

This is important because the costs and benefits of DDT in respect to public health are still being weighed. DDT, or dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, while highly persistent in the environment, was initially found to be effective against mosquitoes and the diseases they carry such as malaria. However, insect resistance to the chemical has been documented since 1946, DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972 after it was linked to the decline of the bald eagle and other raptors, and it continues to be linked to health problems. The benefits of the use of DDT for mosquito control are still debated, especially in developing nations that are plagued with high infection rates of malaria. Some countries are continuing to use DDT to prevent malaria, while others insist that the health and environmental risks are too great citing alternatives and an international agreement to phase-out the remaining uses of the persistent chemical.

See the Washington Post’s October 9, 2007 coverage of this issue.

Sources: Environmental Health News, The Oakland Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2007) On July 20, 2007 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Farm, Nutrition and Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419), commonly known as the Farm Bill, on a vote of 231-191, with 10 Representatives not voting. The vote fell generally along party lines with 19 Republicans (just six from the Agriculture Committee) voting for the bill, despite opposition from Republican leadership, the threat of a Presidential veto, and 14 Democrats voting against it.

Organic and sustainable agriculture groups are giving the 2007 Farm Bill a mixed review. While taking several steps forward by increasing funding for programs that support the
next generation of farmers and new marketing options for organic, sustainable producers, the bill as a whole moves in reverse with substantial weakening of current commodity and conservation payment limitations and a 30 percent funding cut for the Conservation Security Program.

The National Organic Coalition (NOC), which includes the Rural Advancement Fund International, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides and others, developed a list of priorities for the Farm Bill. View a full analysis of the NOC requests adopted and rejected by the House Agriculture Committee.

The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition reports that the Farm Bill provides or increases mandatory funding for several sustainable, organic and family farmer-friendly programs, including the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Farmers Marketing Assistance Program, Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers. The bill also provides $30 million a year in mandatory funding for the Value-Added Producers Grant Program (VAPG). Although this is $10 million a year less than is currently allocated, it does not cut all funding, as proposed by the rural development subcommittee. The bill also makes food supply chain networks to support small and mid-sized farms a priority under the VAPG program.

The bill provides renewed funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, establishes a mandatory Cooperative Conservation Partnerships Initiative, and provides new incentives to lease or sell land coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program to beginning farmers. The bill makes major improvements in the Beginning Farmer Down Payment Loan Program and increases the percentage of loan funds reserved for beginning farmers. It also authorizes, though does not fund, two important new programs — a Rural Entrepreneurs and Micro-Enterprise Assistance Program, and an Organic Conversion Assistance Program.

At the same time, however, the committee unanimously passed a commodity program payment limitation provision that results in greater inequity in a program already faulted for its wastefulness and fraud. This is a significant step backward and one whose net effect would be a large increase in subsidies to megafarms, which drives small farm operations out of business. On the conservation side, the House bill weakens the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Conservation Security Program (CSP), and in certain instances the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

“The House Agriculture Committee made some positive strides with their bill. We applaud the stronger commitments made to the next generation of farmers and to new marketing tools that help increase family farm revenue and provide consumers greater access to healthy foods,” said Ferd Hoefner, Policy Director for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Unfortunately, the same forward-looking position does not characterize the Committee’s treatment of commodity and conservation programs.”

The vast majority of the funding in the Farm Bill continues to pad the bottom lines of corporate, conventional agriculture. According to the budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, current agriculture policy distorts our international and domestic commodity markets, prices small and family farms out of the market, does little for the rural economy, subsidizes crops that are of little nutritional value, and transfers billions of taxpayer dollars annually to a small number of producers.

The Senate is expected to address the Farm Bill in September or October 2007. Once the Senate adopts its version, a final Farm Bill will be negotiated in committee.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 3, 2007) Maine is no longer the only state to prohibit the use of genetically altered corn. Despite concern from the organic farming community, Maine joined the rest of the nation last Friday when the Board of Pesticide Control (BPC) ruled to allow Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn to be grown and sold in the state of Maine.

With the aim of reducing the use of hazardous pesticides, the BPC registered Bt corn products from Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Monsanto to be grown for animal feed. Bt corn is genetically modified to produce its own pesticide, a naturally occurring toxin that protects against a combination of insects.

Organic growers caution that overuse of the crop will lead to insect resistance to the Bt toxin, which is widely sprayed on organic crops.

“I think it might very well be a short-term solution and farmers will be forced to use more pesticides in the future,” said Board member Lee Humphreys, a market gardener. She warned that there are too many unknowns about the genetically modified corn, such as its long-term effect on the soil and in creating resistant bugs.

In addition, the safety of consuming milk and beef products from animals fed with Bt corn has not been fully probed. A 2000 report of the National Academy of Sciences on Bt crops concluded that “there is the potential for…adverse health effects” and recommended that “priority should be given to the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens” in these crops.

“This technology has been out there about a generation,” testified Peggy Gannon, “and there have been no long-term tests on humans.” Ms. Gannon and others asked the Board to wait for approval until next spring to give the Legislature time to review new liability rules for planting genetically engineered crops.

Another concern is that the pollen from Bt corn will contaminate crops that are not bioengineered, possibly resulting in copyright infringement lawsuits from the chemical companies that manufacture the Bt corn seeds.

While allowing the corn to be grown in Maine for the first time, the Board plans to develop rules for the crops use to alleviate organic farmers’ fears of contamination.

“I’m only going to be able to say there aren’t unreasonable risks if we add some conditions (for use),” said Chairwoman Dr. Carol A. Eckert, M.D.

The applications were approved under the conditions that the three companies report sales data to the Board and support education and training. Just as important is the need to develop a strategy to prevent pollen drift, according to Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.

He said farmers must also follow a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirement to use non-Bt corn on 20 percent of their corn acres, so insects have a refuge from the toxin.

“If the refuge is planted on the edge of cornfields then it would make a great buffer” with nearby farms, Mr. Libby said.

Although EPA asks farmers to set aside refuges of non-Bt crops, a biotechnology industry survey published in January 2001 showed that nearly 30% of farmers who grew Bt corn in 2000 did not follow the resistance management guidelines.

Along with considering the potential adverse effect on the environment of Bt corn, the Board required that farmers had shown a need to use the Bt corn.

“If we don’t take advantage of this technology, these farmers may not be here in five or 10 years down the road,” said Board member Richard Stevenson.

However, When Does It Pay to Plant Bt Corn?, a 2001 report, found that American farmers suffered a net loss of $92 million, or about $1.31 per acre, from planting Bt corn between 1996-2001.

Bt corn has been a controversial issue in Maine, especially between small organic farms and larger traditional dairy farms, but it would not be the first genetically engineered crop grown in Maine. The Roundup Ready line of canola, corn and soybeans, which has been modified to survive herbicides, has been legally grown in Maine for at least 10 years, the Board said.

But the fact that Bt corn can not be grown in Maine had been a point of pride for some environmental and agricultural groups, whose members worry that the rise of bioengineered crops will hurt wildlife and humans and give corporations too much control over farming.

The Board’s decision bows to the pressure of industrialized dairy farmers and underscores the difficulties that organic agriculture faces.

Sources: The Boston Globe, Portland Press Herald, North Kennebec Valley Morning Sentinel, Keep Maine Free From Genetically Engineered Crops

(Beyond Pesticides, August 2, 2007) According to the Associated Press (AP), a new study finds frogs in Vermont living near farms are more than twice as likely as those living elsewhere to have deformities like missing legs. Yale University ecologist David Skelly, Ph.D., told the AP he decided to look at Vermont frogs because the state has been a hot spot during the last 10 years for deformed frogs.

“We went to all these wetlands and cataloged where the deformities were found, and what kind of landscapes seemed to pose higher risks, if any,” Dr. Skelly said. “The answer was, frogs growing up in proximity to agriculture were more than two times as likely to have deformities. This doesn’t say it is chemical pesticides, but you can’t credibly consider this problem of the frogs without at least evaluating whether pesticides are involved.”

Richard Levey, a biologist with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, said two common farm chemicals, atrazine and metolachlor, had been found in trace amounts in water from wetlands where deformed frogs had been found. But he told the AP that the concentrations were far below those thought to have any effect on aquatic life.

Research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, has found pesticides, including atrazine, to cause serious deformities at levels well below EPA drinking water standards.

While Dr. Hayes’ research has not linked pesticides to this specific deformity, he has shown dramatic effects at extremely low levels. Past research by Dr. Hayes has demonstrated that exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion – a level permitted in drinking water by EPA – turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites – creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics. Dr. Hayes’ team found that up to 20 percent of frogs exposed during their early development produced multiple sex organs or had both male and female organs. Many also had small, feminized larynxes.

Dr. Skelly believes his research has discounted one theory, which was that the deformities are being caused by a naturally occurring parasite, a type of flatworm blamed for frog deformities in the Pacific Northwest. He says the flatworm in question has not been found in Vermont wetlands.

The study, “Ribeiroia Infection Is Not Responsible for Vermont Amphibian Deformities,” is available in the June issue of EcoHealth.

Source: Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2007) Farm workers and advocate groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed a lawsuit yesterday against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of a deadly pesticide called chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is a highly neurotoxic insecticide developed from World War II-era nerve gas. Exposure can cause dizziness, vomiting, convulsions, numbness in the limbs, loss of intellectual functioning and death.

“This pesticide puts thousands of workers at risk of serious illness every year,” said Erik Nicholson of the United Farm Workers. “It is inexcusable for the EPA to allow the use a pesticide they know to be damaging to people, especially children.”

Luis Medellin, a Lindsay, California resident, suffered first hand exposure to chlorpyrifos. “I got sick, and my mother and younger sisters started throwing up, all this in our own home. It was a terrible feeling, the smell coming in through our air conditioner,” he said. “The government must not allow this dangerous chemical to be sprayed around our schools and communities.”

Chlorpyrifos is used widely on corn, orchard, and vegetable row crops all over the country. Also know as Lorsban, it is responsible for a substantial number of worker poisonings each year and has been found to drift into rural schoolyards and homes. In 2001, an EPA report found that chlorpyrifos poses risks to the health of workers and to the environment. Spraying chlorpyrifos on fields from farm vehicles with open cabs causes “risks of concern” to workers, yet EPA does not require enclosed cabs to protect farmworkers. Workers who enter sprayed fields are also exposed to unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos.

“It’s wrong for EPA to allow continued uses of chlorpyrifos that exposes farm workers and their children to unacceptable risks of pesticide poisonings,” said Patti Goldman, an attorney for Earthjustice based in Oakland.

The 2001 EPA report identified serious risks for children who are exposed to chlorpyrifos through drift onto schoolyards and outdoor play areas as well as take-home residues on their farmworker parents’ clothing and skin. It called for additional study of the risks to children; however, it finalized its chlorpyrifos authorization in 2006 without taking any further action to protect them.

“Recognizing the risks to children, EPA banned most home and garden uses of chlorpyrifos. But by allowing continued use in agriculture, EPA failed to protect farm worker children or children living in rural areas,” said Shelley Davis, attorney for Farmworker Justice in Washington, D.C. “With safer alternatives already in widespread use, the EPA has betrayed the trust of the men, women, and children whose health it is supposed to protect,” she said.

“Poisonings due to accidents, drift, and airborne contamination remain a serious hazard to children in rural and agricultural settings,” said Dr. Routt Reigart, Professor of Pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston who has treated many chlorpyrifos poisonings. “Chlorpyrifos is a potent neurotoxicant with both acute and chronic effects on children and their developing nervous systems. To protect children it is important to remove this hazard from their environments,” he concluded.

From 1987 to 1998, between 21 and 24 million pounds of chlorpyrifos were applied to more than eight million acres of crops in the US. It is one of the most heavily used insecticides in American agriculture, even though it was phased out of residential use in 2005 primarily because of the hazard it presents to children.

The lawsuit was brought by Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, Natural Resources Defense Council, California Rural Legal Assistance, on behalf of United Farm Workers, Teamsters Local 890 in California, Sea Mar Community Health Centers, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Beyond Pesticides, Frente Indigena de Organizaciones Binacionales, Farm Labor Organizing Committee and Martha Rodriguez and Silvina Canez, farmworkers in California.

Contact: Patti Goldman, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340 ext. 32
Erik Nicholson, United Farm Workers of America, 206-255-5774
Shelley Davis, Farmworker Justice, 202-293-5420 ext. 311
Mike Meuter, California Rural Legal Assistance, 831-757-5221 ext. 316

TAKE ACTION: Dozens of farm workers have been exposed to chlorpyrifos in two major incidents in California over the past month. As a result, workers have suffered acute poisoning symptom, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nausea, memory loss and chest pressure. For details and to email the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (CDPR) today and tell them to investigate these incidents to the fullest extent of the law, visit: http://www.ufwaction.org/campaign/chlorpyrifos.