(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2008) Under pressure from activists and shareholders to change its chemical dependent lawn care practices, TruGreen””the world’s largest lawn and landscape care company, has joined the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP). Although the voluntary move comes with a pledge to reduce pesticide use, the company’s reformed practices will still fall short of organic land care, which does not utilize toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic land care is effective, affordable and better for human health and the environment, but TruGreen has failed to commit to organic methods.

The PESP is a voluntary program started in 1994. According to the EPA, “By joining PESP, organizations pledge that environmental stewardship is an integral part of pest management, and they commit to working toward innovative practices that reduce risk to human health and the environment.” One of the benefits of joining the PESP for companies, according to the EPA website, is that “Membership may enhance public perception of your organization, constituent support, and employee morale.” Underneath this enticement to join is the clear potential for “greenwashing,” or the promotion of a product or service as environmentally friendly when the veracity of such claims is dubious.

The interpretation of “environmental stewardship” as incorporated in the pledge to join the PESP varies, and membership on the PESP is not limited to companies and organizations that have adopted environmentally sensitive practices. Among the PESP members is CropLife Foundation, which is part of CropLife America, an organization of pesticide producers whose members include notorious producers of toxic chemicals such as Dow Agrosciences, FMC Corporation, Monsanto, and Syngenta. CropLife Foundation’s pledge for the PESP amounts to educational programs regarding the proper storage and disposal of pesticide containers.

TruGreen’s PESP strategy is admittedly more focused on pesticide use reduction than that of the CropLife Foundation, but without taking the step to eliminate all toxic pesticides, the move cannot be applauded as truly “green,” but merely greener. TruGreen has pledged to select products that fit an “overall reduced risk strategy,” which includes “reduced risk products applied as basal drenches or with effective injection systems to reduce air-borne application of pesticides to landscapes.” However, their criteria for reduced risk products is undefined. The EPA’s list of reduced risk pesticides includes glyphosate and fipronil, two products with proven deleterious health and environmental effects.

With 3.4 million residential and commercial customers, TruGreen has the potential to transform the industry of land care, but until they pledge to adopt organic methods, Beyond Pesticides encourages consumers to find service providers that use less- and non-toxic chemicals.

Source: Market Watch

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2008) According to a new Center for Public Integrity investigation, Perils of the New Pesticides, pyrethrins and pyrethroids were responsible for more than 26 percent of all major and moderate human incidents involving pesticides in the United States in 2007, up from just 15 percent in 1998 ”” a 67 percent increase. This is based on an analysis of adverse reaction reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by pesticide manufacturers.

As a result of the Center’s investigation, the director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs said the agency would begin a broad study of the human health effects of these chemicals this year.

“The alarming rise of pesticide-related incidents attributed to pyrethrin and pyrethroid affiliated products is a serious concern for the millions of households that use them,” said Center Executive Director Bill Buzenberg. “The Center for Public Integrity uncovered this public safety issue through more than a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests and crunching the data. This should be basic public information if the EPA were doing its job.”

Data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers reveals a similar trend that supports the EPA data analyzed by the Center. The number of reported pyrethrin and pyrethroid incidents to poison centers across the country jumped from 16,000 in 1998 to more than 26,000 in 2006, a 63 percent rise.

Pyrethrins, naturally-occurring compounds with insecticidal properties derived from chrysanthemum flowers, are used in commonly available household products to control insects in the home, on pets, and on people. Their synthetic counterparts, pyrethroids, have similar properties to pyrethrins, and were created as safer alternatives to an earlier class of pesticides (organophosphates), originally derived from nerve gas. Manufacturers’ use of pyrethroids has grown widely to include thousands of household products, ranging from bug repellants, anti-lice shampoos, pet shampoos, and carpet cleaners.

While pyrethroids have been characterized as less toxic than organophosphates, the number of reported human health problems, including severe reactions and even deaths attributed to pesticides containing pyrethrins and pyrethroids, increased from 261 in 1998 to 1,030 in 2007, nearly a 300 percent increase. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids account for more incidents than any other class of pesticide over the last five years. EPA data shows at least 50 deaths attributed to this supposedly safer class of pesticides since 1992.

While organophosphates have been extensively studied and their impact on public health thoroughly documented, researchers and scientists are still unsure of the long-term neurotoxicity of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, particularly among children and those susceptible to allergies. Even so, the EPA does not require product warning labels cautioning consumers with allergies of the dangers associated with pyrethrins and pyrethroids products. However, the Food and Drug Administration does require warning labels on shampoos that contain pyrethrins and pyrethroids.

The Center’s investigation includes an online nationwide pesticide incident database that allows anyone to search by state, city, exposure type, chemical, and product.

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan independent Washington, D.C.-based organization that does investigative reporting and research on significant public issues.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2008) The Oregon Department of Agriculture has released the 2007 Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS) annual report, summarizing data collected last year -making it the first report to include information from a mandatory electronic reporting of pesticide use statewide. The requirement to report online applies to anyone using a registered pesticide or pest control product in the course of business, for a government entity, or in a public place. The 2007 annual report also includes data from a household pesticide use survey. The release comes nine years after being authorized by the state legislature, due to debate over funding and scope of the report. The required reporting is also set to expire in 2009, requiring activists to lobby for continuation of the program.

For 2007, there were 5,732 reporters who filed 284,984 reports of pesticide use into PURS. The reports identified 551 active ingredients used statewide last year. The most used active ingredient, by pounds, was the soil fumigant metam-sodium (42 percent of total pounds reported), which is often used before planting potatoes to kill most soil life. The next two most commonly used active ingredients were the herbicide glyphosate (9 percent), and copper naphthenate (7 percent), used as a wood preservative. The most common pesticide applied to homes is bifenthrin, a possible human carcinogen.

Among all site categories of pesticide use reported to PURS, agriculture reported the greatest percentage of active ingredients by pounds, at 84.7 percent. Because of licensing requirements for pesticide use on agricultural and forest crops, along with outreach efforts to agricultural and forestry pesticide applicators, it is likely that compliance with the requirement to report to PURS was greatest for these site categories. It is important to note that PURS data pertains to usage, with no determination of improper pesticide use.

“From what the statewide report tells us, there does not appear to be very many surprises regarding pesticide use in Oregon,” says ODA Director Katy Coba. “Oregon pesticide use shows similarities with what neighboring California has been finding through their reporting system. One year’s data is interesting, but we hope the reports collected this year and in the future will help provide a more clear picture of trends in Oregon’s pesticide use.” Unlike California, however, Oregon’s report does not list acres treated, detail pesticides used on specific crops, or note carcinogenic and reproductive effects of certain chemicals.

“I would like more detailed information, but politically that’s going to be a hard battle,” said Aimee Code, water-quality coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). “For me, it’s always just shocking to look at how many pounds of things that we know are poisons are being put on our land and water.”

The 2007 PURS report identifies a number of challenging issues that may have kept the data from being complete. Some reporters had varying skill levels and access regarding online reporting. Some did not understand the mandatory reporting deadline. Others had trouble identifying the product used. ODA will continue working to improve PURS and provide further outreach and education to those pesticide users required to report.

Although detailed information on 2007 non-household pesticide use was electronically collected, the law that created PURS protects confidentiality of individual users and requires ODA to prepare an annual report summarizing the data collected through PURS. That confidentiality also makes it impossible for the state to track pesticide use at specific parks and schools, something activists think would make the tracking more effective in reducing pesticide use.

The 2007 PURS report also contains the second year of household use data collected by a voluntary statewide survey. There is no requirement for households to report their pesticide usage online.

While 1,693 households agreed to complete pesticide use diaries last year, only 1,483 actually completed at least one month of reporting. The survey shows only 40 percent of the household reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients used. The greatest percentage of pesticide applications in a household setting was reported to have taken place outdoors. The major purpose listed for pesticide use was to control all types of “bugs” (fleas, insects, spiders, etc.), closely followed by weed control. Challenges included participants being unable to specify the amount of pesticide used, determine what products were actually pesticides, and provide correct product identification. Information collected from the 2007 household survey is considered insufficient to calculate total household use of pesticides in Oregon.

There are alternatives to toxic pesticides available for a wide range of household pests and weeds. For a list, visit our alternatives fact sheets.

Sources: The Oregonian, The Register-Guard

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2008) The Third International Biofumigation Symposium took place in Australia July 21-25, 2008, highlighting new scientific advancements in the age old practice of planting crops in the brassica family (radish, mustard, etc.) prior to growing other crops to control diseases, insects, and weeds. Research in this area reveals that in many cases, “biofumigation,” as it is called, provides disease and pest control comparable to that of pesticides commonly used as soil fumigants, and does not have the negative health and environmental effects associated with these fumigants.

Growing interest in biofumigation is spurred by the international phase-out of the toxic soil fumigant methyl bromide (for its role in ozone depletion) under the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, even though the environmental and health risks of methyl bromide and other soil fumigants have been documented, and non-toxic alternatives such as biofumigation exist, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has essentially ignored the Montreal Protocol and continued to allow the use of methyl bromide under “exemptions.”

In the most recent EPA action on the subject, the agency released proposed rules and risk mitigation measures for five toxic soil fumigants on July 10, 2008. These rules fall short of the hopes of farmworker and environmental advocacy groups because they fail to protect farmworkers, communities, and the environment adequately. The comment period for these proposed rules is open until September 15, 2008.

Biofumigation presents a natural alternative to chemical fumigation and is particularly effective for control of diseases and pests in solanaceous crops such as tomatoes and potatoes. John Kirkegaard, PhD, explains that, “Brassica plants naturally release compounds that suppress pests and pathogens, principally isothiocyanates (ITCs), which most people would recognise as the ‘hot’ flavour in mustard or horseradish. When ITCs are released in soil by green-manuring, soil-borne pests and pathogens can be suppressed and the yields of solanaceous vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes and eggplants can be increased by up to 40 per cent in some cases.” In addition to brassica plants, other crops have shown biofumigation potential. In one study, incorporation of sorghum was compared to use of methyl bromide in a peach orchard for nematode suppression, and the sorghum performed as a viable alternative to methyl bromide.

In California alone, one of the only states to require pesticide use reporting, over 1.5 million pounds of the five soil fumigants EPA addresses in its proposed rules were used in 2005 (an additional 2.9 million lbs. of methyl bromide was used in strawberry production post-planting). With alternatives such as biofumigation, advocates question the continued use of such toxic chemicals. Ecologically-based farming systems such as organic agriculture and practices such as biofumigation hold the key freeing our agricultural system of its chemical dependency.

For more information on biofumigation please see the Daily News Archive.  

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2008) After repeated calls from parents, consumer groups and health experts to protect children from toxic chemicals, congressional lawmakers have agreed on statutory language that would prohibit the use of a family of toxic chemicals found in many children’s products, according to the Washington Post. Legislators are proposing to include this language to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act (HR 4040 and S.2663). This new ban, set to take effect in six months, will have far reaching implications on the long-debated overhaul of U.S. consumer safety standards.

On Monday, House and Senate lawmakers agreed to prohibit three types of phthalates from children’s toys and to outlaw three other phthalates from products pending an extensive study of their health effects in children and pregnant women. This measure aims to improve product safety and is part of popular legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees more than 15,000 types of products.

Phthalates are used to soften plastic and are found in homes across the U.S. in a wide range of products including shower curtains, shampoos, perfumes, toys and pesticides, to name a few. They are associated with adverse developmental and reproductive health effects, including low sperm counts. Scientific research has indicated that phthalates act as hormones and children can ingest these toxins by acts as simple as chewing on their plastic toys. Earlier this year, the country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart; the biggest toy seller, Toys R Us; and Babies R Us told their suppliers that they will no longer carry products containing these chemicals as of Jan. 1, 2009.

This new act by Congress has long been opposed by the chemical industry, which criticized the move saying that it allows for less tested, more hazardous chemicals to be used as substitutes. Leading the charge was Exxon Mobile, which spent a $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent the ban. Exxon manufactures diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The American Chemical Council, which represents chemicals manufacturers, stated that there was no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products since they are among the most thoroughly studied products in the world.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the measure, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market. “Chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign,” she said.

The European Union (EU) has already banned six phthalates from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same. Last year the state of California prohibited their use in children’s products, while Washington and Vermont have since passed similar legislation on use of the chemicals. The EU and California currently prohibit di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), along with diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). Other consumer products, such as children’s jewelry, cribs and strollers, will also be affected by this new measure and stricter standards for testing will be imposed. These stricter standards have been prompted after a year of massive recalls of tainted toys and other consumer goods.

“This is by far the most robust reform in the agency’s history,” Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America told the Journal. “We’re happy.”

President George W. Bush opposes the ban, but many believe that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure. However, Keith Hennessey, director of President Bush’s Economic Policy Council, wrote to the Senate, reiterating industry stance, saying that a ban could hurt children. “Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children’s health,” he wrote.

Phthalates are a ubiquitous class of chemicals and are found in most of the population. Studies out of the University of Rochester Medical School found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited changes related to low sperm count, un-descended testicles and other reproductive problems. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer. Health experts argue that dangers may be more significant from cumulative exposure, because phthalates surround babies not only in toys and products but also in breast milk if the mother has been exposed to the chemicals. Several phthalates have also been listed as potential endocrine disruptors.

Over 1.4 billion dollars worth of phthalates are manufactured in the U.S. annually and many believe the industry has taken a major blow. This new measure may have further implications for the uses of phthalates. Most noteworthy, is that phthalates are among the many “inert ingredients” used in pesticides. Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, said industry viewed the ban as a benchmark that might signal a shift in Congress’s willingness to toughen restrictions on toxins.

“The great fear is that if a big, established chemical like this can be driven from the market, what’s next?” he said.

Source: The Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2008) On July 28, 2008, a coalition of farmworker, public health, and environmental groups -including Beyond Pesticides- filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to allow continued use of the toxic pesticide diazinon. “The lack of action on diazinon is yet another example of EPA’s failure to fully consider the risks to farmworkers, children, and the environment from pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The lawsuit is part of the coalition’s multi-year campaign to protect children, farmworkers, and wildlife from the most dangerous pesticides and to reform EPA’s lackadaisical regulation of public and environmental health. The coalition has filed a series of lawsuits targeted at the worst poisons on the market: diazinon is near the top of that list.

“EPA’s system for protecting the public from the dangers of pesticides like diazinon is broken,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the public interest law firm that represents the coalition. “The agency should be protecting farmworkers and children, not the profits of pesticide manufacturers.”

Diazinon is an organophosphate pesticide that originates from nerve gases the Nazis developed during World War II. Farmworkers who are exposed to diazinon can suffer muscle spasms, confusion, dizziness, seizures, vomiting, and diarrhea. Severe exposures can cause coma and death. Exposure is also associated with damage to the liver and pancreas, diabetes, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (a form of cancer).

“In the 21st century, we don’t need poisons like diazinon to grow our food,” said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist for Pesticide Action Network. “Americans increasingly are demanding pesticide-free food for their own health, their children’s health, their community’s health.”

After application, diazinon can become airborne. Monitoring has detected the poison in the air near schools at unsafe levels. Infants and children are especially vulnerable to diazinon, which can interfere with growth and development.

“Children and farmworkers are breathing diazinon in the air in their schools, homes, and workplaces,” said Mike Meuter, an attorney from California Rural Legal Assistance. “In failing to protect our children from diazinon exposures, EPA has failed us all.”

Diazinon is also notorious for contaminating water–it is the most common insecticide detected in surface waters and is implicated in numerous bird and fish kills. Almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that diazinon threatened the survival of numerous endangered species.

Diazinon is used on a wide variety of crops including apples, blueberries, broccoli, cherries, cranberries, pears, spinach, and tomatoes. In 2004, EPA cancelled home uses of diazinon due to the extreme risks that it poses to children, but EPA has continued to allow farm uses of the pesticide.

The lawsuit was brought by Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, and California Rural Legal Assistance on behalf of United Farm Workers, Pesticide Action Network North America, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), Beyond Pesticides, Teamsters Local 890, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), and Luis Garcia Lopez, an individual farmworker in California.

The complaint is available on the Earthjustice website. For more information, see the diazinon profile on Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards or download the Earthjustice factsheet.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 2008) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposed decision that residues of carbofuran, a toxic pesticide that is used on a variety of crops, will no longer be allowed on food. This effectively means that carbofuran will have to be removed from the U.S. market, benefiting consumers and farmworkers, as well as birds, which are frequently poisoned by the deadly chemical.

EPA has concluded that dietary, worker, and ecological risks are of concern for all uses of carbofuran. According to EPA’s website, all products containing carbofuran generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and do not meet safety standards, and therefore are ineligible for reregistration. The agency says the notice, which is available now online, will be published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment period on July 30, 2008.

“This is a huge victory for the environment. EPA is to be congratulated for taking such decisive action to eliminate the dangers posed by carbofuran,” said Dr. Michael Fry, American Bird Conservancy’s Director of Conservation Advocacy. “This decision is based on overwhelming scientific evidence and sends a clear signal to manufacturers that it doesn’t pay to fight the cancellation of products proven to be harmful.”

The move by EPA is the latest in a long battle to halt all uses of carbofuran (sold under the trade name Furadan). The chemical first came under fire in the 1980’s after EPA estimated that one to two million birds were killed each year by the granular formulation of carbofuran use. According to scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “There are no known conditions under which carbofuran can be used without killing migratory birds. Many of these die-off incidents followed applications of carbofuran that were made with extraordinary care.”

Then, in 1991 EPA issued what it described as a “total ban” on the use of granular carbofuran to take effect in 1994 and then extended the phase-out through the 1996 growing season. During this period Beyond Pesticides joined with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (now Earthjustice) and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides to put legal pressure on EPA to cancel both granular and liquid formulation uses that posed hazards to endangered Bald Eagles. Despite EPA’s granular phase-out, EPA continued to accept requests for emergency exemptions as recently as 2006, illustrating the further need for a complete cancellation and revocation of tolerances.

In August of 2006, EPA announced its intention to cancel carbofuran registration due to hazards to wildlife and people. However, carbofuran manufacturer FMC Corporation is pursuing a court battle so that it can keep selling the pesticide. This is the first time in twenty years that a pesticide manufacturer has fought cancellation of a registered pesticide.

In its recent announcement, EPA stated that in addition to the revocation of food tolerances, it will continue to pursue cancellation of the product, which it announced in February 2008. By revoking all food tolerances, it has the effect of speeding its removal from the market. In addition, the decision applies to imported food, which will help eliminate the use of carbofuran in countries that export rice, coffee and bananas to the United States. The decision will go into effect following a public comment period and the issuance of a final notice by the agency.

Carbofuran is one of the most deadly pesticides to birds left on the market. It is responsible for the deaths of millions of wild birds since its introduction in 1967, including Bald and Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, and migratory songbirds. In its 2005 ecological risk assessment on carbofuran, EPA stated that all legal uses of the pesticide were likely to kill wild birds.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposed tolerance revocation for 60 days. For additional information, visit EPA’s carbofuran webpage.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2008) San Francisco, California —  On July 24, 2008,  a broad coalition of farmworker, public health, and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of a hazardous pesticide called endosulfan. The coalition is demanding action from EPA to protect children, farmworkers, and endangered species.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine, part of the same family of chemicals as DDT, which EPA banned in 1972. Like other organochlorine pesticides, endosulfan is persistent in the environment and poisons humans and wildlife both in agricultural areas and in regions far from where it was applied.

“This dangerous and antiquated pesticide should have been off the market years ago,” said Karl Tupper, a staff scientist with Pesticide Action Network. “The fact that EPA is still allowing the use of a chemical this harmful shows just how broken our regulatory system is.”

Acute poisoning from endosulfan can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, and an increase in the risk of miscarriages.

One glaring omission in the EPA’s decision is its failure to consider risks to children. A 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

“EPA has failed to protect children and endangered species from endosulfan poisonings,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice who is representing the coalition. “We call on EPA to ban the use of endosulfan in the United States.”

Endosulfan is a potent environmental pollutant and is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. It also affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects. A recent federal study found that U.S. national parks from Texas to Alaska are contaminated with endosulfan in amounts that threaten ecosystems and wildlife in these protected environments.

Endosulfan travels such long distances that it has been found in Sierra Nevada lakes and on Mt. Everest. This persistent pesticide can also migrate to the Poles on wind and ocean currents where Arctic communities have documented contamination.

EPA’s own analysis of endosulfan confirmed that the pesticide poses severe risks to humans and only minimal benefits to growers.

“This dangerous pesticide puts farmworker communities at increased risk of severe health effects,” said Shelley Davis, deputy director of Farmworker Justice. “These risks are unacceptable since even EPA acknowledges that safer alternatives to endosulfan are already in widespread use.”

Earlier this year, more than 13,000 Americans concerned about these health and environmental risks signed a petition urging EPA to discontinue endosulfan use. More than 100 environmental and public health groups recently sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson outlining their concerns about endosulfan. Further, more than 50 international scientists, medical doctors, nurses, and other health professionals have urged EPA to take action, as have tribal governments and indigenous groups in the Arctic.

“When EPA doesn’t consider how a hazardous pesticide could impact the health of children, it is breaking the law,” said Mae Wu, health attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “EPA’s approach to reviewing the safety of this chemical is not only flawed and dangerous – but also illegal. The full scope of endosulfan’s health impacts needs to be a priority, not an afterthought.”

With little response from the EPA, a coalition of health and environmental groups today took the issue to federal court.

The European Union and more than 20 other countries including Cambodia, the Philippines, and Tonga have already banned endosulfan. In addition, it has been nominated for inclusion in the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty that bans persistent chemicals from global use.

“The U.S. has fallen far behind the rest of the world in protecting its children from harmful toxins,” said Pam Miller, Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “We must act now to reduce the toxic imprint that endosulfan will leave on future generations. We are particularly concerned that endosulfan is increasing in the Arctic and that northern ecosystems and Indigenous peoples are especially vulnerable.”

According to EPA, approximately 1.38 million pounds of endosulfan were used annually in the United States as of 2002, the most recent year for which national usage data are available. Crops commonly treated with endosulfan include cotton, tomatoes, melons, squash, and tobacco.

“The science clearly shows that the use of this chemical puts the health of exposed farmworkers and children in agricultural communities at risk,” said Erik Nicholson of United Farm Workers. “There’s plenty of evidence and no need for more studies – we’re demanding that EPA take action now.”

The lawsuit was brought by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice on behalf of: Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Action Network North America, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), United Farm Workers, and Teamsters Local 890.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2008) Although the text of the Department of Labor’s proposal on workplace safety standards has not been made public, the Washington Post reports that the proposal will likely weaken an already inadequate risk assessment process, thus putting workers at an even greater risk of health effects from toxic chemical exposure. This proposal follows on the heels of news that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently lowered its value of a human life, which will make it easier to avoid environmental regulations.

Peg Seminario, director of health and safety policy at the AFL-CIO, accused the Department of Labor of secrecy and said, “They are trying to essentially change the job safety and health laws and reduce required workplace protections through a midnight regulation.” According to the Post, changing the risk assessment process for workplace safety has become the priority for the Department of Labor. Undoubtedly, this prioritization came under pressure from industries, which claim that the risk assessment process overestimates worker risk. However, risk assessments, like those that the EPA employs in regulating pesticides, already allow for a 10-fold increase in risk of health effects for workers than they do for the general public. Risk assessments also often fail to account for long-term effects of toxic exposure because they frequently do not consider epidemiological studies to be sufficient evidence for drawing conclusions about health effects.

Examples of failed pesticide risk assessments for worker safety include the EPA’s recent release of fumigant regulations, and the revised risk assessment for heavy duty wood preservatives. In some of these risk assessments, the occupational cancer risks calculated by the EPA are higher than one in a thousand, which is much higher than the EPA’s own target of keeping increased cancer risks to less than one in a million. Often, these risk assessments are based on industry-funded science that is not peer-reviewed and does not adequately reflect real-world exposures to chemicals for workers and communities.

Toxic chemicals such as pesticides threaten workers’ health. Currently, worker protection standards in many areas are inadequate at reducing risks. Implementing stronger controls costs money, and rather than implementing controls to protect workers’ health, industries have been lobbying for years to change the risk assessments. Doing so will have long-term consequences on occupational safety and health, and regulation of toxic chemicals.

Source: Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2008) Aerial spraying for West Nile virus (WNv) over urban areas of Sacramento County, California has been halted for one week, after three days of spraying, in order to determine the success of the treatment. The results from a series of before-and-after mosquito trapping, dead bird testing and testing for infected mosquitoes are expected to take one week to complete before it is determined whether spraying should continue.

The Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District is hoping that previous treatments were successful in reducing infected mosquitoes and that it will not need to do more aerial spraying this season. Assistant manager, Gary Goodman, indicated that the possibility of continued spraying remains uncertain, as new data from dead bird testing, mosquito trap analyses and from human cases become available.

To combat WNv, the Sacramento-Yolo district has sprayed the pesticide, Evergreen Crop Protection EC 60-6T (which contains pyrethrins) over selected urban areas. Spraying for mosquitoes over urban areas of the county started in 2005, even though aerial sprayings over agricultural fields and from the ground using trucks or hand crews have occurred for a long time. In 2005 however, WNv began spreading broadly in northern California, and Sacramento was especially hard hit. Reported human cases, which usually involve either more severe symptoms or detection during routine blood donation, peaked at 880 in California in 2005. Nineteen people statewide died of WNv that year. In 2007, there were 380 reported human cases and 21 deaths, and so far this year there have been six reported cases and no deaths, according to the California Department of Public Health. The Sacramento-Yalo area reported 182 human cases in 2005. The disease most commonly passes with no symptoms, but it can be deadly or permanently disabling.

Spraying began late last week for three consecutive days after a delay due to smoke from wildfires that have ravaged the region. WNv often appears in late July, but this year signs of infection were confirmed earlier, with the first dead bird that tested positive for WNv found in March in the Sacramento-Yalo area. The public is now being urged to take precautions. Along with eliminating sources of standing water where mosquitoes breed, including abandoned pools and spas, the district is encouraging people to wear long sleeves and pants and mosquito repellant if they venture out at dawn or dusk, when mosquito activity is at its peak.

TAKE ACTION: To learn more about protecting yourself from mosquitoes and WNv this summer, read our factsheet, “How to Repel Mosquitoes Safely.” and visit Beyond Pesticides’ West Nile Virus/Mosquito Management program page.

Source: Sacramento Bee

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2008) It is with deep sadness that we announce the death of Erik Jansson, noted environmentalist and conservationist, both nationally and in his beloved Southern Maryland, and founding board member of Beyond Pesticides. Erik died of apparent injuries resulting from a fall on June 27.

A memorial service will be held on Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:00am at Myrtle Point Park, 24050 Patuxent Blvd., California, MD 20619. Directions to the memorial service can be found here.Please consider sharing your thoughts about Erik in the comments box below.

Appreciation from Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides
Erik Jansson helped give life to the Beyond Pesticides family and community, as he, back in the late 1970s, saw the need for a strong voice and advocate for those poisoned and the environment contaminated by pesticides. At that time, Erik was the pesticides and toxics lobbyist for Friends of the Earth (FOE) in Washington, D.C., going on to create the National Network to Prevent Birth Defects and then the Department of Planet Earth. Erik came together with other DC-based organizations, including farmworker, legal action, public health and environmental groups, to form an umbrella organization under which we could voice common concerns and positions —a true collaboration. The umbrella was named the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) and I was a member of the group as a staffer for a rural advocacy organization called Rural America.

Prior to that time Erik had been organizing with people across the country on the problem of pesticide spray drift. He brought activists together from across the country to organize and demand change. Erik knew the facts alone would not effect change. But, he knew that he had to bolster his advocacy with extensive research documents and citations. He turned both advocates and facts on government urging all of us to ensure that government worked for the people, not the polluters. To that end, in 1979, Erik, on behalf of FOE, petitioned both EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration to curtail spray drift. He proposed to: (i) impose restriction on aerial application of pesticides to protect inhabited and sensitive areas (ii) require written permission to spray pesticides within 1,000 feet of a person or another person’s property; (iii) establish a much more stringent enforcement program, including the creation of a system of “penalty points” to be levied against a pilot’s certificate for certain offenses involving spray drift onto person or property; (iv) other modifications of law.

It is fair to say, Erik moved ahead of the curve and put the issues in front of decision makers. In his petitions, he stated unequivocally that “people have a right not to be sprayed with any poison without their permission.” Erik got their attention. Even though the agencies may not have concurred with his creative solutions, the agencies acknowledged at the time that most of those commenting on the petitions “agreed with the basic need to reduce pesticide spray drift.” I don’t think you would ever see a communication between Erik and government regulators without him asking whether they were fulfilling their responsibility to taxpayers in carrying out their responsibilities. And he wasn’t alone. His petitions received large numbers of comments from organic gardeners, beekeepers, concerned citizens, health groups, and natural resource councils, expressing concern that pesticide drift may cause environmental contamination resulting in depleted fish stocks and poisoned birds, as well as crop or livestock damage.

I was relatively new to the movement at that time, having joined the staff of Rural America in 1977. Watching Erik, his energy, optimism, enthusiasm and belief that change was possible was an inspiration and a guiding light for me. No research effort, no amount of time, late nights, or weekends was too much for this incredibly committed person. No better example, perhaps, is Erik’s commitment to the banning of 2,4,5-T, the phenoxy herbicide used as half of the mixture of Agent Orange for defoliation in the Vietnam War, and throughout the northwest in forestry. As Carol van Strum documented in her book, A Bitter Fog, Erik went through EPA files, gleaned the stories of 450 poisoning victims and zeroed in on a letter from a women in Alsea, OR who reported on what her group thought, based on their own study, was an association between spontaneous abortion rates and herbicide use. So, Erik used his favorite tactic. He copied the letter and distributed it widely to decision makers in Washington DC and the media. Carol said upon learning of Erik’s death: “The result of his persistence was the EPA’s Alsea Study, which linked phenoxy herbicide spraying to “spontaneous” abortions in a 1600-square mile area surrounding Alsea, Oregon. Preliminary data from the study prompted EPA to issue an unprecedented emergency suspension of registrations of two phenoxy herbicides in early 1979.” She continues, “That was my introduction to Erik Jansson. He was the faceless hero in Washington, D.C. who forced EPA to act on the dangers of domestic herbicide use.”

Erik believed in the power of individuals with passion to effect change with his whole being. That is who he was, summoning all the energy he had to move change. It was no surprise then that he was attracted to David Brower’s (founder of FOE, and earlier executive director of the Sierra Club) style of organization in which he gave people a desk, phone, and typewriter, and later fax machine and computer, and asked them to pour their heart and soul into solving the problems contributing to environmental degradation and environmentally-induced illnesses. So, when I was looking for a space to work out of, to nurture NCAMP into a national grassroots organization, it was Erik who invited me to find a space at the FOE office. Erik not only invited me into the FOE office, but devoted his own resources to launching the organization. That began 27 years of Erik and I sharing the same office.

I think that Carol Van Strum really captured Erik when she wrote, “Privately, I tend to associate my favorite people with particular birds, and from [his first to our farm] onwards Erik was for me a stormy petrel — small, trim, and indomitable, a lonely spirit defying every tempest with unfeigned grace; to have him alight and visit was a rare privilege. The audacity and humor that inspired him to create the Department of the Planet Earth were so damn typical of this remarkable, unassuming champion.”

Erik’s latest project on global climate change had him advocating that organic farming qualify for carbon credits. Erik’s solution: Lobby the Chicago Climate Exchange and others to qualify organic farming for climate credits. Erik wrote: “The U.S. House of Representatives recently purchased a fraudulent carbon credit from the Chicago Climate Exchange: i.e. no-till farming from North Dakota. Conventional no-till does not reduce greenhouse gas because it uses high rates of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. Also, the carbon is at the surface of the soil where it can be oxidized.” In his style, Erik recently produced a 144-page Chartbook, entitled “Leveling U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission in One Decade and then 80 Percent Below 1990 Levels by 2050.” That is Erik on the leading edge; giving us the next critical challenge to meet.

Erik was in many ways the organic farmer he advocated for; he planted seeds and nurtured their environment to create a healthy and sustainable future. I realize now that I am just one of those seeds that he nurtured, supported, and encouraged. Those who knew Erik know that he did all this for people, his community, the country and the world without seeking acknowledgement, credit, or accolades. Erik did what he thought was right and we are all better off because of him.

The board of Beyond Pesticides will be developing a strategy for continuing Erik Jansson’s legacy so that others may benefit from his spirit and commitment to a healthier world.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2008) Advocacy groups are encouraging California’s Senators to support Assemblywoman Fiona Ma’s bill (AB 977) that returns the ability to restrict pesticides to local jurisdictions. Currently, California and 40 other states have pesticide “preemption” laws that deny local authorities the right to pass pesticide restrictions that are more stringent than the state’s laws. Preemption laws are a result of intensive lobbying by the agrichemical industry, and groups in California and across the country believe the time has come to take back the democratic right for localities to adopt restrictions to protect environmental and public health. This authority enables local jurisdictions to respond to exposure scenarios that are not addressed by state law and address unique contamination or poisoning situations.

California’s preemption law, passed in 1984, was the first of its kind in the nation and explicitly states that no local government “may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter relating to the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides.” The state law nullified the first attempt at local pesticide regulation, which was a 1979 Mendocino County prohibition on aerial herbicide spraying that arose from an incident in which herbicide drifted almost three miles to school buses. The frustrations over the lack of local control mounted again recently regarding the state of California’s desire to spray for the light brown apple moth, prompting renewed interest in overturning the undemocratic preemption law.

Realizing that federal and state pesticide regulations are often not strong enough to protect public health and the environment, and do not take into account local environmental or health issues, many towns, cities, and counties have been passing non-toxic landscape care policies, and school integrated pest management (IPM) policies. With preemption laws in place, however, these policies can only extend as far as government-owned property, and do not restrict the use of toxic chemicals for homeowners.

In 1984 the California State Supreme Court decided in favor of Mendocino County and its local pesticide regulation, but the state of California, with pressure from the pesticide industry, avoided the consequences of this decision by simply changing the law. The only way to give back local democratic authority in such critical environmental and health matters is to overturn this law, and for other states to follow suit with their preemption laws.

The issue of federal preemption of local ordinances made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1991 that federal law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides (Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Ralph Mortier). However, the ability of states to take away local authority was left in place. The pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called The Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed model state legislation that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances regarding the use or sale of pesticides. The Coalition lobbyists descended upon states across the country seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the coalition’s wording. Nearly a dozen states voted down the measure. Congress has toyed with the idea of restricting local jurisdictions’ authority in FIFRA since the 1980s, but industry lobbyists have always been beaten back.

TAKE ACTION: If you live in California, contact your Senators to voice your position on this bill. For more information, contact Pesticide Action Network North America or Californians for Pesticide Reform. If you live in another state with pesticide preemption laws, share this legislation with your representatives in your state legislature.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2008) A recent New York Times report on current U.S. Department of Agriculture research shows weeds flourishing from increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Lewis Ziska, PhD, and his team of researchers, have found “noxious” weeds to be more adaptable to changing conditions than crops, predicting further growth of their productivity and range in urban and rural areas.

Dr. Ziska’s latest research focuses on weeds uniformly grown at three sites in Maryland: an organic farm in the western side of the state, a park in a Baltimore suburb, and a reclaimed industrial area in Baltimore’s inner harbor. The last was chosen because the city acts as a “heat island,” with temperatures averaging three or four degrees above those outside the city. Dr. Ziska’s team took soil from the organic farm, which already contained seeds from 35 weed species, and transplanted them into identical plots at the three locations, beginning the experiment in 2002.

The resulting plants tended to grow much larger closer to the city. Lambs-quarters grew six to eight feet on the farm and ten to 12 feet in Baltimore. Ailanthus grew five feet tall on the farm, compared to one in the city reaching 20 feet. Pollen output was also increased. Species succession, a process which takes native species decades to complete, was almost achieved by the end of five years of growth.

Of the changing climate and increasing carbon dioxide levels, Dr. Ziska said, “When you change a resource in the environment, you are going to, in effect, fabor the weed over the crop. There is always going to be a weed poised genetically to benefit from almost any change.”

According to the Times, weeds cost U.S. farmers 12 percent of their harvest, or $33 billion per year in lost revenue. Increased threat of weeds are leading companies like Monsanto to develop “Climate Ready” crop seeds, which are genetically altered to withstand drought and higher temperatures, and which promise huge financial incentives to their patent holders. Genetically engineered crops have a complicated and controversial history, globally and nationally, and have been found to increase pesticide use and resistance. According to Dr. Ziska, the answer is not to constantly change the tools with which we fight weeds, but to look to weeds and wild relatives of crops for the answer.

Sources: New York Times, Treehugger

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2008) In a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers have found an increased occurrence of intersex toads in areas with greater agricultural land cover. This points to a link between certain pesticides and endocrine disruption, a change in the hormonal balance that can have sexual and reproductive effects. Such results implicate pesticides in the decline of amphibian populations, and suggests that these chemicals are also adversely affecting humans.

The study, which was conducted in south Florida, looked at cane toads, Bufo marinus, at five sites with differing land use patterns ranging from suburban to nearly completely agricultural (primarily sugarcane and vegetables). Researchers examined physical characteristics such as coloration, sexual organs, and forelimb length, as well as hormone concentrations, and found a higher rate of feminization for toads in agricultural areas. In these areas, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round Up herbicide) and atrazine (an herbicide) use is common.

Tyrone Hayes, PhD, was one of the first to document the endocrine disrupting effects of atrazine on frogs in a laboratory setting. Countering any doubts of why this work is important, Dr. Hayes said, “People often say, ”˜It is just frogs, so who cares?’ Well it does not matter whether you are a frog, a dog, a bat, a cat or a human. The compounds and the genes and the hormones that we are talking about are the same.”

This latest study, following on others, takes the issue out of the laboratory and attempts to address the effects of pesticides on amphibians in the environment. Because of the complexity of environmental factors and, as the authors say, the “milieu” of chemicals that may exist in the environment, it is much more difficult to prove definitive links between cause and effect outside the laboratory. In another study addressing frogs in the environment, researchers actually found increased intersex frogs in suburban areas. The two results do not necessarily contradict each other, and may indicate that a wide variety of chemicals are having endocrine disrupting effects on amphibians.

All of this work highlights the need for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a robust Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program that takes into account the effects, at all doses, pesticides can have on humans and wildlife, and eliminate the use of pesticides that are endocrine disruptors. The European Commission has taken steps to adopt a precautionary principle with endocrine disrupting chemicals, and has published its research here.

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2008) People exposed to pesticides are more likely to suffer changes in nerve responses and severe weakness in their neck and limb muscles in the days before they succumb to their symptoms. This is according to a new study, which found that the major cause of death was as a result of respiratory failure following acute organophosphate poisoning.

The study entitled, “The Spectrum of Intermediate Syndrome Following Acute Organophosphate Poisoning: A Prospective Cohort Study from Sri Lanka” published in the open-access journal Public Llibrary of Science (PloS) Medicine was a collaboration between researchers from Sri Lanka, Australia, and the UK. These researchers examined and assessed 78 consenting symptomatic patients with organophosphate poisoning and found that 10 suffered severe weakness in their neck and limb muscles and five of these eventually developed respiratory failure. Respiratory failure is the major cause of death after poisoning by organophosphates.

Lead author Pradeepa Jayawardane, clinical pharmacology lecturer at the University of Sri Jayawardenepura in Sri Lanka, and colleagues realized that there are changes in nerve transmission that are presented before individuals with organophosphate poisoning develop muscle weakness, also known as intermediate syndrome (IMS). IMS results in muscle weakness in the limbs, neck, and throat, and develops in some patients 24—96 hours after poisoning. Long-term nerve damage sometimes develops 2—3 weeks after poisoning. The functional changes that are associated with IMS (its pathophysiology) are poorly understood however.

Electric shocks were applied to certain muscles of the patients, using a technique called repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS). This technique allows researchers to trace changes in nerve transmissions during the course of poisoning. About 12.8% of patients (10 of 78) were diagnosed with IMS and the researchers saw specific changes in their neuromuscular transmission patterns – often before a physician could make in IMS diagnosis from clinical signs.

“In all 10 patients we demonstrated that the neuromuscular junction progressively fails, leading to muscle weakness,” said Pradeepa Jayawardane. About 38% of patients (30 of 78) presented muscle weakness that was not severe enough for an IMS diagnosis. In these patients, the researchers also found defined changes in their neuromuscular transmission patterns.

The findings reveal that IMS is a “spectrum” disorder in which the weakness and neuromuscular problems, caused by organophosphate poisoning, gradually progress over time through a series of electrophysiological changes that can sometimes resolve quickly and, only in the most severe cases, result in respiratory failure. Changes in nerve transmission that evolve during the development of IMS can be objectively monitored using RNS. Since the clinical signs of IMS come after changes in nerve transmission, the researchers suggest using these changes as an indicator of future outcome.

RNS tests might also be useful in the clinical management of patients with organophosphate poisoning, particularly since such tests could provide an early warning of impending respiratory failure. However, the researchers note that these findings need to be validated in further studies, particularly since most of the patients in this study had been exposed to a single organophosphate (chlorpyrifos). This would improve diagnostic and prognostic tools for clinical use in organophosphate-poisoned patients

Organophosphates, derived from World War II nerve agents, are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. Organophosphates are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission- acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Symptoms include tingling sensations, headaches, tremors, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever, severe forgetfulness, convulsions and movement disorders. Repeated or prolonged exposure to organophosphates may result in the same effects as acute exposure, including delayed symptoms.

Most pesticide poisonings in developing countries result from deliberate ingestion of pesticides. About half the people in developing countries in Asia who kill themselves do it using pesticides, and aid agencies have been lobbying to ban their use.

Source: Medical News Today

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2008) After three years of deliberation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new rules for five highly toxic fumigant pesticides on July 10, 2008. Environmental health, community and farmworker groups say the rules, while substantially better than the past, still fall short of protecting people, workers and the environment. The rules will be published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2008.The fumigant review, mandated by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, was conducted as a combined evaluation of five commonly used fumigants, called the “Fumigant Cluster Assessment.” The five fumigants included in the assessment are methyl bromide, metam sodium, metam potassium, dazomet, and chloropicrin. Methyl bromide was slated for phaseout by January 2005 under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent ozone depletor, but the Bush Administration has sought annual “critical use exemptions,” keeping it on the market.

Fumigants, which are among the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture, are gases or liquids that are injected or dripped into the soil to sterilize a field before planting. Even with plastic tarps on the soil, fumigants escape from the soil and drift through the air into schools, homes, parks and playgrounds. Strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, carrots and potatoes are some of the major crops for which fumigant use is high.“So many people, including my family and friends, have been poisoned by these pesticides. I was hoping EPA would do more to protect farmworkers and rural communities,” says Teresa DeAnda, a resident of Earlimart, CA from Californians for Pesticide Reform.

Other mitigation measures include:

• Posting requirements: signs must include a “do not walk” symbol, date and time of the fumigation, date and time the buffer restrictions expire, fumigant product name, and contact information for the fumigator.
• Agricultural worker protections: workers who cut open tarps after fumigation will now be considered “handlers” and required to wear protective breathing masks; reentry intervals will be extended (but vary based on application); and, air monitoring will be required to determine if respirator action levels have been reached.
• Applicator and handler training programs: requiring fumigant registrants (pesticide manufacturers) to develop and implement training programs for applicators in charge of soil fumigations.
• Good agricultural practices: require, rather than recommend practices that help reduce off gassing.
• Application method, practice, and rate restrictions: restricting certain fumigant application methods and practices for which data are not currently available to determine appropriate protections, or that lead to risks that are otherwise difficult to address.
• Restricted use pesticide classification: all metam sodium/potassium and dazomet products will now be restricted use.
• Site-specific fumigant management plans: requiring that fumigant users prepare a written, site-specific fumigant management plan before fumigation.
• Emergency preparedness and response requirements: requiring registrants to provide, through their community outreach programs, training and information to first responders in high fumigant use areas and areas with significant interface between communities and fumigated fields.
• Notice to state and tribal lead agencies: fumigators must notify State and Tribal Lead Agencies for pesticide enforcement about applications they plan to conduct
• Community outreach and education programs: requiring fumigant registrants to develop and implement community outreach programs, including programs for first responders, to ensure that information about fumigants and safety is available within communities where soil fumigation occurs.

While these steps will likely reduce the number of poisoning incidents involving fumigant pesticides, environmentalists are disappointed that EPA is continuing to register outdated and unnecessary pest management chemicals.“Fumigation is an antiquated technology that relies on killing everything in the soil,” said Susan Kegley, Ph.D., senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). “EPA has made some real progress with buffer zones, notification, posting and monitoring – they actually heard some of what we’ve been telling them. And they’ve put the burden back on manufacturers for responsible handling of these highly toxic chemicals. But it’s time to help farmers move beyond this ”˜scorched earth’ approach. The new rules are a small start.”

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2008) According to calculations by the Associated Press (AP), the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “value of a statistical life” is $6.9 million in today’s dollars, a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago. The AP discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.According to the federal government, the statistical value of a human life is calculated in the following manner. Suppose a new pesticide regulation reduces the annual risk of dying from cancer by 0.00001. In a population of 100 million, the regulation is expected, in a statistical sense, to result in 1000 fewer deaths from that cancer risk each year. If each person in that population of 1 million is willing to pay 7 cents a year for the reduction in mortality risks, $7 million is said to be the value of a statistical life (VSL).

Redefining Progress created the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) in 1995 as an alternative to the gross domestic product (GDP). The GPI enables policymakers at the national, state, regional, or local level to measure how well their citizens are doing both economically and socially. The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data that the GDP is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It adjusts for factors such as income distribution, adds factors such as the value of household and volunteer work, and subtracts factors such as the costs of crime and pollution. For more information, visit the Redefining Progress website.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2008) According to an internal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum, a Supreme Court decision is undermining the agency’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA). Two House Committee Chairmen have sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for more information regarding EPA’s enforcement efforts in the wake of the 2006 decision Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States. The Rapanos decision was split 4-1-4 over the question of Federal protections for waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the Clean Water Act.

In the letter, Chairman James L. Oberstar of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Chairman Henry A. Waxman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, explain that information has come to them indicating that enforcement of key clean water programs is faltering.

The memo, obtained by Greenpeace and released by the Congressmen, was sent by EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Granta Y. Nakayama and cites enforcement problems created by the Rapanos case and the subsequent guidance.

In the memorandum, Mr. Nakayama states, “Data collected from the regions shows that a significant portion of the CWA docket has been adversely affected.”

The letter from Congressmen Waxman and Oberstar goes on to quote the Nakayama memo as reporting that some 500 clean water enforcement cases were negatively affected in just nine months as a result of the Rapanos decision and agencies’ guidance, and that EPA dropped enforcement in 300 more cases between July 2006 and December 2007.

“The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held three oversight hearings on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rapanos and SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001),” Rep. Oberstar said. “The Bush Administration has twice testified how it was responding to the uncertainty created by these decisions, but it never once revealed the full extent to which Federal attempts to protect clean water have been undermined. It took the release of an internal EPA document to bring that fact to light.”

“We need vigorous enforcement to protect our nation’s waters,” said Rep. Waxman. “But instead, hundreds of potential violations are being ignored.”

The letter requests that the Administrator provide complete and unredacted copies of all communications relating to the charges presented in the Nakayama memo. The letter further requests answers to a number of questions about EPA’s enforcement processes. It sets a July 21 deadline for the agency’s response.

The Clean Water Act has been an important tool in fighting pesticide poisoning and pollution in the U.S. It has played a roll in a variety of cases, from aerial spraying to mosquito prevention to oyster beds. More recently, EPA has exempted pesticides from CWA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, a decision which was later challenged in a lawsuit.

Source: Washington Post