(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2007) This week the European Commission’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted on elements of a proposed framework that fills in regulatory gaps on pesticides, and adopts stricter rules than originally proposed, including a ban on aerial spraying.

European Union’s existing legislation on pesticides only deal with two stages of the life cycle of pesticide products: the “placing on the market” stage and the “end of life-cycle” stage. To deal with the period in between – when pesticides are actually being used – the Commission, in July 2006, put forward a report, Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. The first piece of legislation generated by the strategy is a draft framework directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, on which the Environment Committee voted.

Measures proposed in the strategy report include:

• National action plans by Member States to identify the crops, activities or areas most at risk from pesticides, together with targets for tackling the problems;
• Training for professional users of pesticides and awareness-raising for the public;
• Rules on inspections of pesticide equipment and on the handling and storage of pesticides;
• Special measures to protect water from pesticide pollution;
• Special measures to identify areas where zero or very little pesticide use is to be allowed;
• A ban on aerial spraying with pesticides, albeit with derogations.

There was a proposal to replace the Commission’s ban on aerial spraying with a requirement for Member States simply to “regulate” such spraying. However, this was rejected by the Committee, which instead opted to endorse the ban, with some modifications.

The Committee sought to scale down not just the “risks” of pesticides as the Commission proposes, but the very “use” of these products. The report also insists that the directive should apply not only to agricultural contexts but also to non-agricultural ones.

The Committee backs the idea of national action plans (NAPs) but insists they include a specific EU reduction target of 25% within five years, and 50% within 10 years, as well as national targets for particularly active or toxic substances. The report also calls for Member States to set up a system of taxes or levies on pesticides to fund the NAPs.

The Committee backs the Commission’s plans to require training for pesticide users and distributors but lay down more stringent, detailed rules on this point, as they also do for the clauses on awareness and information programs for pesticide users.

To protect water courses, the Commission proposed 10 meter wide “buffer zones” where pesticides may not be used or stored. They also voted to ban pesticides in all areas used by the general public (e.g. parks, school grounds, residential areas) and in “substantial no-spray zones” around them.

The draft report, as amended, was adopted by 34 votes to 11, with five abstentions.

Source: European Commission, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2007) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) gave interim approval last Friday to a controversial proposal that allows 38 non-organic ingredients to be used in foods carrying the “USDA Organic” seal. The agency also decided to allow an extra 60 days for public comment on the rule. The interim final rule can be viewed here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Newsroom/FedRegNoticeTM-07-06InterimFinalRule062207.pdf.

Some manufacturers of organic foods are pushing for the change, arguing that the 38 items are minor ingredients in their products and are difficult to find in organic form. But consumers concerned about the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones in food production bombarded USDA with more than 1,000 complaints last month.

“If the label says organic, everything in that food should be organic,” wrote Kimberly Wilson of Austin, Texas, in one comment, according to the LA Times. “If they put something in the food that isn’t organic, they shouldn’t be able to call it organic. No exception.”

Under the 1990 Organic Foods Protection Act, USDA is required to identify which non-organic ingredients are allowed in organic food products. Current organic standards require products labeled “organic” to be made up of at least 95 percent organic ingredients. The remaining five percent can come from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, a list comprised of substances that are not otherwise commercially available as organic.

The list approved last week includes 19 food colorings, two starches, hops, sausage casings, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin, celery powder, dill weed oil, frozen lemongrass, Wakame seaweed, Turkish bay leaves and whey protein concentrate. Manufacturers will be allowed to use conventionally grown versions of these ingredients in foods carrying the USDA seal, provided that they cannot find organic equivalents and that non-organics comprise no more than five percent of the product.

A wide range of organic food could be affected, including cereal, sausage, bread, beer, pasta, candy and soup mixes. Under the new rule, Anheuser Busch will be allowed to sell its “Organic Wild Hops Beer” without using any organic hops at all. Additionally, sausages, brats, and breakfast links labeled as “USDA Organic” are now allowed to contain intestines from factory-farmed animals raised on chemically grown feed, synthetic hormones, and antibiotics.

Supporters of the USDA rule change say that by allowing small amounts of non-organic ingredients to be used, more products that are mostly organic can be developed. This encourages the development of organic farming, they say.

Advocates for organic integrity argue that the majority of the 38 proposed ingredients are available organically; loopholes in the rule’s intended safeguard stem from USDA’s failure to enforce its own guidelines. USDA has failed to provide its 96 certifying agents with standardized guidelines for determining commercial availability of an ingredient. In a letter to USDA, Pennsylvania Certified Organic wrote, “There is no effective mechanism for identifying a lack of organic ingredients. It is a very challenging task to ”˜prove a negative’ regarding the organic supply.” Merrill Clark, of Roseland Organic Farms in Michigan, said, “More than 90 percent of the food/agricultural items on the proposed list of materials in this rule are items that can easily be grown organically.”

Organic food sales have more than doubled in the last five years, reaching $16.9 billion in the U.S. last year. The booming market has drawn in big food makers such as General Mills Inc., Kellogg Co. and Kraft Foods Inc. to what was formerly an industry of mostly mom-and-pop farms. Under USDA regulations that define “organic,” crops must be grown without chemical fertilizers, sewage sludge, bioengineering or pesticides, while animals must be raised without antibiotics and growth hormones and given access to the outdoors.

USDA first issued its proposal May 15, followed by a seven-day public comment period that many people on both sides of the issue decried as far too short. As a result, USDA announced Friday that it would allow 60 more days for its National Organic Program to collect public comments before issuing its final rule.

USDA has allowed small amounts of conventionally grown ingredients in products carrying its seal since its certification program started in 2002. But two years ago, a judge said the agency was misinterpreting the law and ordered it to tighten its approval system and allow only non-organic ingredients that have been added to its National List before they can be used in products carrying the agency’s seal. Unless the interim decision is overturned, the 38 ingredients will join five others that were previously approved for the National List: corn starch, water-extracted gums, kelp, unbleached lecithin and pectin.

As Carl Chamberlain, of the Pesticide Education Project, said, “Adding 38 new ingredients is not just a concession by the USDA, it is a major blow to the organic movement in the U.S. because it would erode consumer confidence in organic standards.”

TAKE ACTION: Tell USDA what you think about the new rule allowing 38 non-organic ingredients to be included in organic-labeled products. Directions for submitting comments can be found online. Be sure to include Docket Number AMS-TM-07-0062. Or, for a quick way to take action, use the Organic Consumers Association’s online web form to automatically submit comments to USDA.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2007) According to the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), the federal government continues to allow toxic pesticides to poison endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead without complying with a federal court’s decision to protect these species from such poisonings. As a result, a 60-day notice of intent to sue has been issued to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), citing unreasonable delay.

Despite the passage of almost five years since the first court ruling, NMFS has yet to identify a single measure needed to protect salmon and steelhead from toxic pesticides. Now, fishing and environmental groups are again asking NMFS to fulfill its responsibility to protect endangered Pacific salmon.

Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a commercial fishing industry trade association that was a co-plaintiff in the original action against EPA, commented: “It just makes no sense for the very federal agency charged with recovering west coast salmon to still allow poisons in our rivers known to kill them. Inaction is no longer an option, and threatens the whole west coast salmon fishing economy.”

Toxic pesticides have been found in every Northwest river and stream tested. Many rivers are contaminated with amounts of pesticides harmful to salmon and their survival. Scientists have found that, even at low levels, pesticides can cause abnormal sexual development of salmon and impair their swimming ability, growth, development, behavior, and reproduction.

“The chemicals we use in our homes, gardens and on farms threaten our health and the health of our local fish and wildlife,” said Aimee Code, water quality coordinator at NCAP. “Still, it is not too late to reverse the negative effects of pesticide contamination. If we act now we can ensure the revitalization of fishing and recreation areas,” she concluded.

In its 2002 order, a U.S. District Court in Seattle found that the federal government had failed to protect 26 endangered and threatened species of salmon and steelhead from 54 toxic pesticides. The judge ordered EPA to consult with NMFS to identify permanent measures needed to protect the salmon and steelhead from the pesticides. The judge also imposed buffers and urban warnings as temporary measures to protect these species until the government completed the assessments. The government has yet to develop protective measures for any of the pesticides that harm the salmon and steelhead.

“This region has devoted far too much time and money to restore imperiled salmon runs to allow pesticides to contaminate salmon streams and kill struggling salmon,” said Patti Goldman, the Earthjustice attorney who represents the groups.

For more information on this ongoing battle to protect endangered fish in the Pacific Northwest from pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ 2002 Daily News Coverage, the current 60-day notice of intent to sue, and the NCAP factsheet on pesticides and salmon.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2007) In a new report published by the David Suzuki Foundation, environmental lawyer David Boyd finds that over 6,000 Canadians are acutely poisoned by pesticides each year, and more than 46 percent of those cases are children under the age of six. Entitled Northern Exposure: Acute pesticide poisonings in Canada, the report analyzes records of poisonings that occurred immediately after exposure, rather than chronic symptoms, such as cancer and neurological diseases. Based on its results, the Suzuki Foundation has made recommendations for personal and municipal actions to reduce poisonings.

Sources: David Suzuki Foundation, Montreal Gazette

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2007) The U.S. Senate (S.Res. 580) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated June 24-30, 2007 as National Pollinator Week. This week has been designated to recognize the important work of pollinators and their role in ecosystem health. The Pollinator Partnership, sponsored by the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC) and their partners, has put together numerous resources and events all across the country to raise awareness and support for pollinators and pollinator-friendly practices.

Pollinators include approximately 200,000 species of beneficial insects such as bees, flies, wasps, butterflies, to name a few, along with vertebrates such as bats, birds and small mammals. Pollination is the process of pollen transfer between flowering plants that leads to fertilization. Without pollination, most plants would be unable to produce fruits or seeds and many of the foods consumed would no longer be available. Pollinators are responsible for pollinating about 75 percent of all crop plants worldwide. This translates to approximately 20 billion dollars worth of food and medicinal products. Other animals and plants also rely on pollinators for food and shelter.

Recent studies indicate that these important species are disappearing. Loss of habitat, diseases and the widespread use of pesticides have led to the decline of many beneficial insects. Since late 2006, dramatic losses in honeybee populations across the U.S. have led to what is being termed Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD, which has not only threatened the livelihood of beekeepers, but also strained fruit growers and other farmers who rely on bees to pollinate more than 90 flowering crops, including apples, nuts and citrus trees. Pesticides, such as imidacloprid, have been shown to disrupt the mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior of beneficial insects, and have been blamed for the decline in many insect populations, especially the honeybee.

Many events celebrating and raising awareness about pollinators will be held during National Pollinator Week. To find out what is happening in your state, visit http://www.pollinator.org/pollinator_week.htm.
To find out more about the harmful effects of pesticides and non-toxic alternatives, please visit Beyond Pesticides at https://www.beyondpesticides.org/how-to/index.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2007) Earlier this month the National Research Council (NRC) released the results of its analysis of current models used in the regulatory process by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Recognizing that many regulatory decisions are based on data obtained from models, NRC sees room for improvement.

The main recommendations of the report, Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making, lie within three areas of the modeling process: (1) model evaluation; (2) principles for model development, selection, and application; and (3) model management.

Specific recommendations of the report include the need for the agency to be committed to ongoing model evaluations, a transparent peer review process, the goal of not using proprietary models, transparency of a model’s origin and history, and improving model accessibility for stakeholders and others.

NRC also sees a future with more sophisticated toxicity testing that will be using cells, cell lines, or cellular components, preferably of human origin, replacing traditional animal testing over time. According to the National Academies’ press release, “For the foreseeable future, however, targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal.”

The press release summarizes, “Current toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors”¦ But it [the report] emphasizes that the proposed changes will generate better data on the potential risks humans face from environmental agents, building a stronger scientific foundation that can improve regulatory decisions to mitigate those risks, and reducing the time, money, and animals needed for testing.”

The report concludes the recommendations presented will meet some resistance due to the resource needs to implement these changes but finds, “such investments are essential if environmental regulatory modeling is to meet challenges now and in the future.”

(Beyond Pesticides, June 20, 2007) At a ceremony on June 18th at East Hartford High School, Governor M. Jodi Rell signed HB 5234, An Act Banning Pesticide Use on School Grounds (Public Act No. 07-168).

The new law, effective October 1, extends the ban on the use of lawn care pesticides at public schools from elementary school to grades 6, 7 and 8.

The new law also expands a school superintendent’s ability to authorize emergency applications of lawn care pesticides in health emergencies and makes the state Department of Environmental Protection responsible for administering and enforcing school pesticide applications.

“This law will help protect the health of more than 100,000 Connecticut middle school students,” Governor Rell said. “While pesticides are known to be detrimental to people of all ages, we must take extra precautions to ensure that our young people are protected from potential harm. Today, we take another step toward better protection of our children by reducing unnecessary exposure to harmful chemicals.”

“This law is good for our children, good for the environment and good for our efforts to promote public health and well-being. Children and their parents deserve the peace of mind of knowing that we are endeavoring to make their schools as safe as possible.”

The measure phases out use of toxic lawn care pesticides at schools by July 1, 2009. Professionals who knowingly break the law may be fined up to $5,000, imprisoned for up to one year, or both. A private applicator or other person who knowingly violates the law may be fined up to $1,000, jailed for up to 30 days, or both.

Toxic lawn care pesticides are linked to health impacts including cancer, birth defects, and learning disabilities. Unnecessary use of pesticides at schools increases children’s exposure and risk of adverse health effects.

The bill passed 140-9 in the House and 35-0 in the Senate.

According to the state Department of Education, as of 2006 there were 212,292 public school students in grades 1-5 and 131,210 public school students in grades 6-8.

“The Connecticut school pesticide ban is precedent setting and should be replicated by all states to protect children from harmful pesticide exposure in the learning environment,” said Eileen Gunn, project director at Beyond Pesticides.

Source: State of Connecticut Executive Chambers Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2007) Scientists investigating a mysterious die-off of many of the nation’s honeybees are concentrating on pesticides and microorganisms as possible causes of the disorder, and some beekeepers are refusing to place their hives near chemically treated fields out of fear that pesticides may be contributing to the die-off.

Scientists from Penn State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are leading the research into the disease, which has killed tens of thousands of bee colonies in at least 35 states.

The die-off has threatened the livelihood of commercial beekeepers and strained fruit growers and other farmers who rely on bees to pollinate more than 90 flowering crops, including apples, nuts and citrus trees.

After months of study, researchers cannot tie the ailment to any single factor. But scientists have zeroed in on a new, unnamed pathogen found in the dead bees, and on the role of pesticides, said Maryann Frazier, a senior extension associate in the university’s entomology department.

David Hackenberg was the first beekeeper to report the disorder to Penn State last fall after losing nearly 75 percent of his 3,200 colonies. He has since rebuilt his business to 2,400 colonies, but now asks growers whether they use chemicals because he believes that pesticides, especially a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, are harming the bees. ”I’m quizzing every farmer around,” Mr. Hackenberg said. “If you’re going to use that stuff, then you’re going to have to go to somebody else.”

Neonicotinoids are a class of chemicals that target nerve cells in a similar way as nicotine, acting as neurotoxins to insects. One of the most commonly used neonicotinoid is the insecticide imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer Crop Science and used in agriculture to control aphids, beetles, and other sucking insects. The use of imidacloprid was banned in France after it was suspected to be responsible for the decline of honeybee populations in the late 1990s.

Imidacloprid has been linked to neural effects in honeybees, including disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior – similar behaviors that are being displayed by bees suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). In CCD, bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. Researchers say the bees are presumably dying in the fields, perhaps becoming exhausted or simply disoriented and eventually falling victim to the cold (See Daily News).

A 2004 study by researchers in France found that exposure to imidacloprid causes decreased foraging activity, along with a reduction in olfactory learning performance and decreased hive activity in honeybees. Moreover, a 2003 study in Italy that dosed honeybees with sublethal amounts of imidacloprid found that the honeybees became disoriented and failed to return to the hive. The authors concluded, “[I]n certain conditions, the administration of imidacloprid can lead to the disappearance of honey bees from the hive, probably due to the disorientation caused by the substance.”

Beekeeper Jim Aucker of Millville was left with just 240 of his 1,200 hives earlier this spring after the illness struck. He’s back up to nearly 600 hives now and is convinced pesticides are playing a role after finding chemicals that had been sprayed on crops in the dead hives.

”Whether it’s 100 percent the cause, I’m not sure, but I’m positive it’s not helping,” Mr. Aucker said.

Daniel Weaver, president of the American Beekeeping Federation, said he is not surprised some beekeepers are avoiding fields with pesticides, but he also cautioned that the bees’ immune systems may have been weakened for reasons unrelated to pathogens or pesticides, such as mites. ”I try to limit my association to growers that I know will be responsible” he said, referring to farmers who avoid applying pesticide while the bees are flying. “Of course, I can’t escape it completely.”

TAKE ACTION: The fact that numerous registered pesticides are harmful and/or lethal to the very pollinators we depend upon for a prolific food system indicates there are fundamental problems with the pesticide regulatory system. Contact the House Committee on Agriculture (Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN)) and ask for hearings on the failures of the pesticide registration system to protect the environment, ecological services, such as pollinators, and public health.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2007) Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum is calling for immediate, independent testing of rubber pellets that may pose serious health risks to New Yorkers. The rubber pellets, used to fill in synthetic turf in more than 70 athletic fields throughout the City, are made from recycled tires that contain high levels of cancer-causing chemicals. The health risks to families and kids playing on the turf remain unknown.

Public Advocate Gotbaum was joined by CUNY Professor William Crain and representatives from New York Lawyers for the Public Interest to call on the Parks Department to allow an independent study of the health impacts of the pellets before the City expands their use to additional fields.

Public Advocate Gotbaum said, “Families and children play in City parks every day – and they shouldn’t be placed in danger. We know these pellets contain toxic agents, but we don’t know if these hazardous agents will hurt families or children. That’s why the City should allow an exhaustive, independent study to help us identify possible health risks and protect New Yorkers.”

In 2006, researchers at Rutgers University studied the pellets and found levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at levels well above those set for soil by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. However, the study did not determine if the chemicals are absorbed into the body. The Parks Department has denied requests for further tests.

Professor William Crain said, “It is an important public health issue that we learn how these chemicals in synthetic turf might affect children or athletes. The Parks Department should be encouraging our research, not putting obstacles in our way.”

The Parks Department uses the rubber pellet infill on the surface of the turf to make it feel more natural. As a result, the pellets come in near-constant contact with people using the fields.

Gavin Kearney at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest said, “New Yorkers deserve safe parks. Where legitimate health concerns are raised, the Parks Department should support efforts to address those concerns and not stone wall the process.”

Christian DiPalermo, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Parks, said, “Questions remain, and the City should make every effort to examine the turf issue in a transparent way to ensure the safety of all New Yorkers and the best use of public dollars.”

Professor Crain and researchers at Rutgers University have already secured funding to complete an independent study of the pellets. However, the funding is predicated on Parks Department authorization. Public Advocate Gotbaum said that the City should allow Rutgers University or another independent organization to analyze the health impact of these pellets.

Due to the unknown health effects of artificial turf and the health threats of pesticide-dependent playing fields, Beyond Pesticides recommends your school, neighborhood and/or city go organic. Communities around the country, such as Marblehead, Massachusetts and Cheshire, Connecticut, have had success in creating enjoyable and green organic playing fields. For more information, read “Pesticides and Playing Fields.”

Source: Press Release from The Public Advocate’s Office, Contact: John Collins, Press Secretary, (212) 669-4193; (917) 496-4587

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2007) What is herbicide-free, cheap, has four fury legs, produces fertilizer and is winning over the city of Seattle? Rent-A-Goats. The ruminants’ tendency to eat just about anything in its path in combination with their four-chambered stomachs has put goats in demand with Seattle-area developers and government agencies.

Eating up to eight pounds of green foliage a day, the goats’ appetites are quickly converting skeptics. John Iwanczuk, a project manager for a Seattle construction company was a skeptic, but he found “not only did it [the goats] reach our objective, we saved a pile of money and made incredible inroads with the neighborhood.”

Mr. Iwanczuk’s project entailed a lot covered with impenetrable brush — something he estimated would take a crew at least a week to clear, filling numerous trucks with debris. Instead, his lot was cleared within four days by 60 goats while attracting elementary school groups and numerous neighborhood residents.

Besides being a cheap non-chemical method to remove undesirable and invasive plants, the goats draw a crowd. The animals are popular with children and parents, and gardeners looking for free fertilizer.

Seattle Metro Transit Agency, Seattle City Light and Seattle Parks and Recreation are a few of the local government agencies hiring goats to help reach pesticide reduction goals. The animals are especially helpful when it comes to controlling invasive species and protecting waterways and the environment.

To learn about other non-chemical and least-toxic ways to manage undesirable species, visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/alternatives/factsheets/index.htm.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2007) State legislators in Massachusetts are working on a bill that would phase out the use of 10 toxic chemicals, create a system to study toxics and find safer alternatives. Many state, health, labor and environmental officials have long supported this bill, which attempts to remove many toxic components from products used in everyday materials.

Chemicals like those used in pesticides, wood and those found in children’s products, are especially targeted in the Safer Alternatives Bill (H. 783 / S. 558). Organophosphates, a toxic class of pesticides developed circa World War II, have been targeted in the phase out. Commonly used against mosquitoes, organophosphates like malathion (Fyfanon), naled (Dibrom) and chlorpyrifos (Mosquitomist) have been shown to be dangerous, especially to vulnerable populations, and affect the central nervous, cardiovascular and respiratory systems. The other chemicals slated for phase out have all been linked to environmental and health concerns as well and include perchloroethylene, dioxins and furans, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), trichloroethylene, formaldehyde and lead.

If passed by the Legislature, the State Department of Environmental Protection will be charged with the task of setting timelines to phase out the chemicals after considering economic costs and the availability of substitutes. Industry and businesses will need to find safer alternatives to their products, or obtain a waiver from the state if no alternative is technically or economically feasible. According to Nicholas Ashford, technology professor from MIT, “safer chemicals and safer technologies are out there, and they have been out there for years, and industry has failed to adopt them.” However industries have been resisting change, claiming that useful products would be eliminated. Proponents of the bill have long demanded that the state take responsibility for protecting consumers from dangerous chemicals, since industry has not taken the initiative to remove these chemicals from the market.

“Sometimes we have to push industry to do the right thing,” State Senator Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, remarked at the hearing. He said that even though exceptions are normally allowed for necessary uses, industry has had to be dragged, “kicking and screaming” to make changes to provide for the safety of consumers.

Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate against the use of dangerous chemicals such as organophosphate pesticides. For more information on safer alternatives to harmful chemicals, please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/alternatives/factsheets/index.htm.

Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette News

TAKE ACTION: Find out what your state is doing to reduce your exposure to toxic chemicals. If you are a Massachusetts resident, contact your representatives and ask them to support the Safer Alternatives Bill (H. 783 / S. 558).

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2007) Proposed nonorganic additions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) organic standards have experts raising their eyebrows about the integrity of the “USDA Organic” label. The nonorganic exceptions being considered involve common ingredients, such as hops and food coloring.

Under the 1990 Organic Foods Protection Act, USDA is required to identify which nonorganic ingredients are allowed in organic food products. Current organic standards require products labeled “Organic” to be made up of at least 95 percent organic ingredients. The remaining five percent can come from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (NL), a list comprised of substances that are not otherwise commercially available as organic.

The 38 new ingredients being proposed for permanent addition to the NL include hops, 19 food colorings, fish oil, and chipotle chili pepper. According to Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, “This proposal is blatant catering to powerful industry players who want the benefits of labeling their products ”˜USDA organic’ without doing the work to source organic materials.”

Advocates for organic integrity argue that the majority of the 38 proposed ingredients are available; loopholes in the rule’s intended safeguard stem from USDA’s failure to enforce its own guidelines. USDA has failed to provide its 96 certifying agents with standardized guidelines for determining commercial availability of an ingredient. In a letter to USDA, Pennsylvania Certified Organic wrote, “There is no effective mechanism for identifying a lack of organic ingredients. It is a very challenging task to ”˜prove a negative’ regarding the organic supply.” Merrill Clark, of Roseland Organic Farms in Michigan, said, “More than 90 percent of the food/agricultural items on the proposed list of materials in this rule are items that can easily be grown organically.”

Products that would be affected by this rule include several new varieties of beer made by Anheuser-Busch, like Organic Wild Hop Lager and Organic Stone Mill Pale Ale. James A. Riddle, current Beyond Pesticides board member and former chairman of USDA’s Organic Advisory Board, said, “Hops are a crucial ingredient for beer. Why can’t they use organic hops?” Other products include sausages, whose casings can be produced from conventionally-raised animals, which have been raised in feedlots and given antibiotics and growth hormones, and Annie’s Homegrown macaroni and cheese, which relies on a nonorganic, orange food coloring.

Industry groups have had two years to suggest ingredients for the new NL; USDA’s public comment period was open for seven days this spring. “To give the public seven days to comment is really insulting,” said Mr. Riddle. Besides that, it gave industry groups an enormous advantage in determining the future of organic integrity. As Carl Chamberlain, of the Pesticide Education Project, said, “Adding 38 new ingredients is not just a concession by the USDA, it is a major blow to the organic movement in the U.S. because it would erode consumer confidence in organic standards.”

Beyond Pesticides remains a vocal advocate for the integrity of organic standards. Ensure that you are getting truly organic products and supporting local agriculture by buying 100 percent organic, local food whenever possible. For more information on our organic food program, click here.

Sources: New York Times, The Seattle Times

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2007) More than 10 years after being directed to do so by Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will test 73 pesticides for their potential to damage the endocrine system and disrupt the normal functioning of hormones in the body, the agency announced in a press release yesterday. EPA is seeking comments on the draft list of 73 pesticides to be evaluated under the new screening regimen.

The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) set a 1999 deadline for EPA to develop a battery of assays with which pesticide manufacturers will be required to screen their products as possible endocrine (hormonal) disrupters, similar to tests required to determine whether chemicals cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations, or other problems. EPA has repeatedly pushed back the deadline and despite claims to be “a leader in endocrine disruptor research,” EPA has yet to test a single chemical under the protocol.

EPA draft list of 73 pesticide ingredients, including both active and inert ingredients, were chosen based on their relatively high potential for human exposure. According to the press release, priority was given “to pesticide active ingredients where there is the potential for human exposure through food and water, residential exposure to pesticide products, and high levels of occupational exposure following an application of agricultural pesticides. For pesticide inert ingredients, the priority was on those with high production volumes found in human or ecological tissues, water, and indoor air.”

Since the publication of the book Our Stolen Future in 1996, world-wide attention has been brought to scientific discoveries about endocrine disruption in wildlife and humans, and the fact that low-levels of exposure to common contaminants can interfere with the natural signals controlling development of the fetus and other hormonal functions. Research links the presence of endocrine disruptors to reproductive disorders, alterations in neurodevelopment, cancer, immune suppression and other adverse health endpoints. Examples of the environmental impacts of endocrine- disrupting chemicals have been well-established: hermaphroditic deformities in frogs, pseudo-hermaphrodite polar bears with penis-like stumps, panthers with atrophied testicles, and intersex fish have all been documented as the probable result of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment. Many scientists believe that wildlife provides early warnings of effects produced by endocrine disruptors, which may as yet be unobserved in humans.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2007) Scientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) have discovered a gene that enables crops to tolerate being sprayed with dicamba. Citing previous experience with glyphosate resistant crops, environmentalists are concerned that this will increase use of a toxic herbicide while negatively impacting health and the environment.

This new gene expands the range of genetically engineered (GE) crops available to farmers. The most popular are currently marketed as “Roundup Ready,” or tolerant of glyphosate, by Monsanto Company The discovery is being touted as a way to provide another option in areas where weeds have built up a resistance to glyphosate. Indeed, biochemist Don Weeks, who headed the UNL team, said, “Importantly, we think that this technology will help to extend the lifetime of the Roundup Ready technology. Some Roundup-resistant weeds have emerged in recent years, but working dicamba products into a weed-control strategy with Roundup could help counter that trend and lead to more complete weed control.” In fact, the dicamba-ready technology could appear in fields as part of a “stacked” seed, which is tolerant to both glyphosate and dicamba. Said Mr. Weeks, “It is highly likely that [Monsanto] would stack our gene with the Roundup resistant gene.”

UNL has signed an exclusive licensing agreement with Monsanto to develop crops using the new technology. Mr. Weeks noted, “We’re testing for efficacy in other crops; that research is looking promising.” The research, done through UNL’s Agricultural Research Division, is funded by Monsanto, which has, in recent years, invested considerable resources towards GE crops.

Dicamba, among other potential health effects, is neurotoxic and has been connected with reproductive and developmental problems. Additionally, glyphosate has been linked to neurotoxic and negative reproductive endpoints. For more information on their health and environmental effects, visit the Pesticide Gateway.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report found dicamba to be extremely mobile and likely to contaminate groundwater, directly contradicting Mr.Weeks’s claim that “it rarely runs off into water supplies that people drink” because it “does not stick around.” Mr. Weeks concluded his statement of complete confidence in GE food safety by saying “we all have been eating food that for the last 60 years have been treated with various herbicides that farmers use to control weeds and there’s been no significant health problems associated with consuming that food.”

In addition to the lack of information available on the long-term safety of GE products, Beyond Pesticides is concerned with the environmental and health effects of the herbicide’s application and residues. As courts have found in the past, risks associated with GE seeds are not limited to product consumption. Herbicide-resistant weeds, pollen drift, impact on organic agriculture and exported crops were enough to convince a federal judge that USDA was obligated to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before allowing use of GE alfalfa.

On glyphosate and dicamba, Mr. Weeks argued, “I don’t think anybody has any concern about the safety of either of those two compounds. And the fact of the matter is that all herbicide and pesticides have to go through a pretty thorough testing before they’re ever brought to market . . . and the government on rare occasions have pulled herbicides — not so much herbicides, but insecticides — off the market when they have deemed them to be perhaps less safe than they would like. So things that are on the market have been looked at very carefully in regard to human and wildlife and environmental safety.”

In contrast, Beyond Pesticides maintains that not only has the government approved chemicals that pose serious health and environmental risks, but that agriculture is economically viable without the use of toxic pesticides. In addition, full disclosure of the source of our food should be required; GE food is not currently required to be labeled as such. For more information on organic food and farming, click here.

Sources: Newswise, Truth About Trade & Technology, Chemical & Engineering News

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2007) New research shows that pesticides can reduce the efficiency of nitrogen-fixing plants, impacting soil fertility and ultimately reducing crop yields. The insecticides methyl parathion, DDT and pentachlorophenol were among the chemicals found to inhibit or delay the symbiotic relationship between the legume alfalfa and rhizobia bacteria, which is crucial to nitrogen fixation.

Legume crops are often cultivated to help replenish the vital soil nutrient nitrogen (N), but legumes cannot achieve this on their own — Rhizobium bacteria interacts with legumes to convert atmospheric N to nutrient compounds utilizable by plants. Legumes like alfalfa and soybeans are often included in crop rotations due to this beneficial relationship.

Nitrogen fixation resulting from the symbiotic relationship between leguminous plants and species of Rhizobium bacteria is an ecological service estimated to be equivalent to $10 billion worth of synthetic N fertilizer annually. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers, which cause environmental problems such as impaired water quality.

Acknowledging that SNF is both initiated and maintained by chemical signals between the host plant and the beneficial bacteria, the research team postulated that natural and synthetic chemicals could disrupt these signals. The study shows “previously undescribed in vivo evidence that a subset of organochlorine pesticides and pollutants inhibit symbiotic signaling between alfalfa and S. meliloti [rhizobia bacteria], resulting in delayed symbiotic recruitment, reduced SNF, and a decline in alfalfa plant yield.”

Alfalfa yields were affected by all chemical treatments applied, including methyl parathion, DDT, pentachlorophenol, and a commonly used plastic ingredient, bisphenol A. Methyl parathion is an organophosphate insecticide used to control a wide variety of insects on food and feed crops such as alfalfa, barley, onion and soybeans; DDT is a persistent organochlorine insecticide that is banned in several countries and identified as a chemical of concern by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and pentachlorophenol (PCP) is a chlorinated phenol wood preservative and multi-use pesticide. The health endpoints, as well as ecological effects, of all three of these pesticides are of concern.

Pointing to the fact that N fixation has declined over the past 25 years, the researchers estimate that the pesticide-induced SNF inhibition they have observed is ecologically relevant. Based on their model, they believe the findings translate to a one-third loss of plant yield per growing season. Additionally, they point to the need for more research to address real world scenarios as their data reflects a one-time treatment with a specific chemical. However, a typical field is treated multiple times throughout the growing season with a mixture of pesticides, suggesting additive and synergistic affects may further impact the capacity of N fixation.

The study, “Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants,” is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To learn about other benefits of organic farming, visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/index.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2007) During the first week of June 2007, the Connecticut House and Senate passed HB 5234, An Act Banning Pesticide Use on School Grounds, banning pesticides — which are often linked to learning disabilities, asthma and other health problems — from the grounds of schools grades K-8. Now activists across the state and around the country, along with the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Ed Meyer (D-Guilford), are urging Governor M. Jodi Rell to sign the bill into law and protect the health of more than 100,000 Connecticut middle school students. The bill passed 140-9 in the House on June 4, and 35-0 in the Senate on June 1.

“There is no doubt in my mind that this bill, once it is signed into law by the governor, will move us in the organic direction and improve the health of Connecticut’s younger students,” said Senator Meyer, who is co-chairman of the Select Committee on Children and vice-chairman of the Environment Committee. “Pesticides have a wide variety of side effects on young children, whose immune and nervous systems are still developing and whose low bodyweight make them susceptible to pesticide exposure.”

In 2005, Public Act No. 05-252, An Act Concerning Pesticides at Schools and Day Care Facilities, was passed in Connecticut. That law bans lawn care pesticides on the grounds of children’s day care centers and elementary schools, allowing integrated pest management (IPM) on playing fields for a three-year transition period.

However, private and public elementary schools are organized differently in different school districts, so the existing law only protects children up to grades five or six in many cases. According to Nancy Alderman of Connecticut’s Human Health and Environment, “All Connecticut school children deserve the same level of protection, and this bill provides that.”

According to the state Department of Education, as of 2006 there were 212,292 public school students in grades 1-5 and 131,210 public school students in grades 6-8.

HB 5234 expands the ban on applying lawn care pesticides to school playing fields and playgrounds to schools with students through grade eight; extends for one year (until July 1, 2009) the exemption for pesticides applied on these grounds according to certain integrated pest management (IPM) plans; expands a school superintendent’s ability to authorize emergency applications of lawn care pesticides in health emergencies; and makes the state Department of Environmental Protection responsible for administering and enforcing school pesticide applications.

TAKE ACTION: Contact Governor Rell’s office and ask her to sign HB 5234, An Act Banning Pesticide Use on School Grounds, as fast as possible. Her e-mail address is [email protected] and phone number is 860-566-4840 or toll free 1-800-406-1527. The text of the bill is available online at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/TOB/H/2007HB-05234-R03-HB.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2007) The results of a recent study indicate that farm workers and persons exposed to high levels of pesticides have an increased risk of developing brain tumors, especially gliomas – a tumor of the nervous system, commonly found in the brain. The study, “Brain tumours and exposure to pesticides: a case-control study in southwestern France,” published online in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, suggests that not only are occupational pesticide exposure risks high, but indoor domestic uses of pesticides also increase the risk of developing brain tumors.

Researchers conducted a population base control study with 221 incident cases of brain tumors and 442 individually matched controls selected from a population in Gironde, France between May 1999 and April 2001.The findings show that farm workers were three times more likely to develop gliomas, while persons treating indoor plants were approximately two and a half times more susceptible. However, the study was unable to identify individual pesticides or families of pesticides associated with this health risk.

These findings add to the mounting evidence linking pesticide exposure to adverse human health effects. Recent studies have linked pesticide exposure to the increased likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease. Other health effects include vision problems, cancer, and respiratory difficulties. Earlier this year, conservation groups reopened a lawsuit in federal district court against the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at speeding up the removal of several pesticides that pose serious health risk to farm workers.

TAKE ACTION: Pesticide exposure can be limited by switching to least and non-toxic forms of pest control. For more information on alternative methods, please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/alternatives/factsheets/index.htm. To find a service provider in your region that offers less-toxic methods of pest control, visit the Safety Source Directory.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2007) On May 26, a Montreal-bound train derailed near Lake Champlain, New York. Twelve of 33 cars jumped the tracks, including one carrying methylene chloride, a paint remover, and methyl bromide, a fumigant that has been banned in much of the world under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The county HazMat response team arrived two hours after the accident, putting out a small fire on the locomotive and determining within another two hours that the chemical tanks were unharmed, ending the threat of a chemical spill.

Essex County Emergency Services Deputy Director Don Jaquish noted that the tankers were around ten percent full when they derailed, calling the scene one of “moderate risk,” although “for people working on the train, it could be a severe risk.”

While this incident fortunately did not result in compromise of human health or the environment, the continued use of methyl bromide on fruits and vegetables across the country does compromise both public health and the environment by exposing many to a chemical that is carcinogenic, according to California’s Proposition 65. Methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting chemical that was supposed to be phased out in industrialized countries by 2005, according to the Montreal Protocol, which President Reagan signed in 1987. For the past several years, the Bush administration has requested exemptions from the phase-out for a variety of agricultural uses. The European Union has already banned methyl bromide and proven the efficacy of a number of alternative products, evidence the United States has ignored while manufacturing more of the chemical and building large stockpiles.

Fortunately, recent reports show a steady decrease in the U.S.’s methyl bromide inventory. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency released data from 2006, showing a reduction of over 3,000 metric tons held by U.S. companies since 2005, down to a total of 7,671 metric tons held by 35 companies. Further reduction, however, is needed before the U.S. can successfully fulfill its commitment to the Montreal Protocol.

Sources: The Press Republican, The Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Capital News 9

TAKE ACTION: Let the Bush Administration know that you think it should NOT delay the phase-out of methyl bromide and promote the rollback of public health and environmental protection under the Montreal Protocol. Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and send an email to President Bush. Also let your elected members of Congress know how you feel. Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2007) The breakdown products (oxons) of the three most commonly used organophosphate pesticides in California’s agricultural Central Valley — chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon – are 10 – 100 times more toxic to amphibians than their parent compounds, which are already highly toxic to amphibians, according to a study released last Wednesday by scientists of Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Ecological Research Center.

The results of the laboratory experiments on the toxicity of the three breakdown products were published in the journal Environmental Pollution. The title of the article is “Comparative toxicity of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion and their oxon derivatives to larval Rana boylii.”

“Since some of the parent pesticide compounds are already at concentrations sufficient to cause significant amphibian mortality in the Sierra Nevada, the higher toxicity of the breakdown products poses a serious problem,” said Gary Fellers, Ph.D., coauthor of the study.

Donald Sparling, Ph.D., a research biologist and contaminants specialist at Southern Illinois University, and Dr. Fellers, a research biologist and amphibian specialist at the USGS Western Ecological Research Center in California, conducted laboratory tests to determine the acute toxicity – the lethal dosage causing death in 96 hours or less – of chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon, and their oxon derivatives on tadpoles of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii).

Organophosphate pesticides have been implicated in the declines of several amphibian species in the California Central Valley and in downwind montane areas, including the Cascades frog, California red-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog and the foothill yellow-legged frog, all of which inhabit foothill or montane regions east of the Central Valley.

More than 6.5 million pounds of organophosphate active ingredients were used in California during 2004, the most recent year for which data are available. Researchers estimate that this accounts for about 25 percent of organophosphate pesticide use nationwide.

Organophosphate pesticides suppress an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase, which is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system. Reduced levels of acetylcholinesterase cause neurological synapses to fire repeatedly and uncontrollably, leading to death, usually by asphyxiation as the animal loses respiratory control. Most pesticides of this group reach their greatest potencies when metabolized internally and converted to an oxon form in the liver. However, oxons can also be found in the environment, formed by bacterial decay of the parent pesticide.

For the laboratory experiments, tadpoles were raised from eggs collected from a stream in the California Coast Range, upwind of agricultural activities in the Central Valley and away from areas where significant quantities of pesticides are used. Test results indicated that the degradate of chlorpyrifos, chloroxon, killed all tadpoles and was at least 100 times more toxic than the lowest concentration of the parent compound, which resulted in no mortality. Maloxon was nearly 100 times more toxic than malathion, and diazoxon was about 10 times more toxic than diazinon.

“Other data published in 2001 and new unpublished data show that these pesticides are widespread, even in pristine areas of the Sierra Nevada Mountains,” Dr. Sparling said. “The combination of field and laboratory studies is revealing that organophosphorus pesticides are posing serious hazards to the welfare and survival of native amphibians in California.”

The authors noted that amphibians inhabiting ponds in the Central Valley of California could be simultaneously exposed to two or all three of these pesticides and their oxons. “Because of this,” said Dr. Sparling, “the potential for interactive effects of these chemicals needs to be explored.”

Organophosphate pesticides form the largest group of chemicals used in the control of pests, including invertebrates, vertebrates and, to a lesser extent, plants. Some 200 organophosphate pesticides available in this class have been formulated into thousands of different products for use in agriculture, forests, gardens, homes and industrial sites.

This finding adds to a growing body of literature documenting the widespread presence and subsequent danger of pesticides on water quality and aquatic organisms. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ new report Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination.

Source: USGS Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2007) Adding to the weight of the evidence tying pesticide use to Parkinson’s disease, a study by University of Aberdeen researchers has found that pesticide exposure increases the likelihood of developing the disease. The researchers also found that the risk factor for developing Parkinson’s increases with high levels of pesticide exposure.

The European Commission funded study indicates that both pesticides and traumatic head injury play a causative role in Parkinson’s disease. The researchers found that exposure to low levels of pesticides increases the likelihood of being affected by the disease by 1.09 times compared to those with no reported exposure. Those exposed to high levels of pesticides were 1.39 times more likely to develop the disease.

The study is one of the largest conducted to date of genetic, environmental and occupational risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and other degenerative parkinsonian syndromes. The researchers identified 959 cases of parkinsonism, 767 of which are diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and 1,989 control cases in Scotland, Italy, Sweden, Romania and Malta. Data on exposure was self-reported by the subjects.

The results further compound previous studies suggesting a link between pesticides and Parkinson’s. Several recent findings have also revealed mechanisms that help to explain exactly how pesticide exposure and parkinsonian syndromes are related at the cellular level.

Source: University of Aberdeen

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2007) The Center for Biological Diversity today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA). EPA has registered and allowed the use of 60 toxic pesticides in habitats for nearly a dozen San Francisco Bay Area endangered species without determining whether the chemicals jeopardize their existence.

“Ending the use of known poisons in habitat for our most endangered wildlife is an appropriate 100th birthday tribute to Rachel Carson, who alerted us to the hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals almost half a century ago,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. “Unfortunately the EPA has not learned from her legacy and still has no plan to adequately assess impacts while registering and approving pesticide uses that pose a clear and present danger both to imperiled species and human health.”

At least 61 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients were applied in Bay Area counties from 1999 through 2005 ”” over 8.5 million pounds annually. Actual pesticide use may have been several times this amount since most home and commercial pesticide use is not reported to the state. Under the Bush administration, EPA has consistently failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species impacts when registering and authorizing use of toxic pesticides.

Studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, U.S. Geological Survey and California Department of Pesticide Regulation show that at least 60 pesticides of concern are used or accumulate in or adjacent to (upstream or upwind) habitat for 11 Bay Area endangered species: Bay and Delta aquatic habitat for the critically endangered delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi); tidal marshland habitat for the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); freshwater and wetlands habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) and California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica); and terrestrial habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). According to the Service, pesticide use may threaten an additional 19 of the 51 Bay Area animal species listed under ESA.

EPA is required under ESA to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service over registration, re-registration and approved uses of pesticides that may endanger listed species or adversely affect their designated critical habitat. The consultation is designed to ensure EPA avoids authorizing pesticide uses that jeopardize the existence of endangered species. The Center is seeking pesticide-use restrictions in habitat for the 11 Bay Area species until EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service assessments of pesticide impacts have been completed. The consultations should result in some permanent use restrictions for harmful pesticides.

Similar protections were obtained by the Center for the California red-legged frog under a settlement signed by EPA and the pesticide industry last October. The use of 66 pesticides is now prohibited in and adjacent to core frog habitats statewide for three years, until EPA completes consultations.

“The registrations of contaminants known to be deadly to endangered species and harmful to human health, such as atrazine, should be cancelled,” said Mr. Miller. “Given the proximity of agricultural pesticide spraying to some Bay Area residential areas, surveys that have detected accumulation of pesticides in local creeks and San Francisco Bay, and what we know about movement of pesticides through drift and runoff, we should be wondering if we are next when we see endangered species poisoned by these chemicals.”

In 2006 the Center published “Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife: San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides,” a report analyzing EPA’s dismal record in protecting endangered species and the agency’s ongoing refusal to reform pesticide registration and use in accordance with scientific findings. Despite mounting evidence of harm to endangered species and human health, the Bush administration keeps dodging use restrictions for dangerous pesticides and has tried to exclude wildlife agency oversight of the pesticide-registration process.

In 2004 the Center published “Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered Species,” detailing the decades-long failure of EPA to regulate pesticides harmful to endangered species despite numerous lawsuits, three of which have been filed by the Center. EPA still has no meaningful plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

San Joaquin kit foxes continue to be killed in the East Bay and Central Valley from poisoning by rodenticides such as brodifacoum, chlorophacinone and bromadiolone. Pesticides have also been implicated in the recent collapse of Bay-Delta fish populations. Toxic pulses of pesticides have been documented in Bay Area streams and the Delta during critical stages in fish development, and many local water bodies are listed as “impaired” for not meeting water-quality standards due to high concentrations of extremely toxic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon. An estimated one million pounds each of chlorpyrifos and diazinon were used in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003.

Numerous studies have definitively linked pesticides with significant developmental, neurological and reproductive damage to amphibians. Pesticide contamination can cause deformities, abnormal immune system functions, diseases, injury and death of frogs and salamanders. Studies by Dr. Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., (who will be speaking at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum — www.beyondpesticides.org/forum – June 1-3, in Chicago) at the University of California, Berkeley have strengthened the case for banning atrazine, a potent chemical that is the most common contaminant of ground, surface and drinking water nationwide. Dr. Hayes demonstrated that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that “assaults male sexual development,” interfering with reproduction by chemically castrating and feminizing male frogs. Atrazine has also been linked to increased prostate cancer, decreased sperm count and high risk of breast cancer in humans. Thousands of pounds of atrazine are used each year in the Bay Area in close proximity to habitat for the red-legged frog and tiger salamander.

The Bush administration has attempted to undercut ESA protections by changing how pesticide impacts on wildlife are evaluated and making it easier for pesticide manufacturers to ignore the effects of their products on endangered plants and animals. EPA proposed new regulations in 2004 that would have removed input from expert wildlife agencies in determining whether pesticides threaten endangered species, but a federal court overturned these new rules in 2006.

The lawsuit, report on pesticide impacts to Bay Area species, maps of pesticide use, and information about the listed species are on the Center’s pesticides web page.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2007) National, state and Chicago-based environmental groups are teaming up for Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, the 25th National Pesticide Forum, at Loyola University (Water Tower campus) in Chicago, IL, June 1-3, 2007. The Forum will have sessions focusing on the consequences of global warming on toxic pesticide use, and organic agriculture as part of the solution; impacts of pesticides on disadvantaged communities of color; cutting-edge science; Great Lakes water issues; and, steps for creating healthier communities. A complete agenda and list of speakers is available at www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

The conference will begin with a green roof tour at 1:00pm on Friday, June 1, meeting in the lobby of the Loyola University classroom building at 25 E. Pearson Street in Chicago’s Magnificent Mile neighborhood. Farmworker Justice is sponsoring an evening session and reception, Friday, June 1, 7:00-11:00pm, that will address changes to the 2007 Farm Bill needed to protect farmworkers. The conference will end at 12:30pm on Sunday. The Forum is convened by Beyond Pesticides; co-convened by Safer Pest Control Project; and, co-sponsored by Nutrition for Optimal Health Association, Beyond Today, Environment Illinois, Loyola Campus Greens, and People for Community Recovery.

Call to the Conference:

We celebrate Rachel Carson’s legacy and commitment to understanding and respecting our relationship to nature in this year of her 100th birthday. We come together at this 25th National Pesticide Forum at a time when the need for action is urgent.

This conference explores the interconnectedness of the environmental and public health crises associated with chemical-intensive approaches to modern living. At the same time, we strike a hopeful note in discussing solutions that are within our reach. In addressing the urgency of the problem, we offer ourselves, our communities, and our elected officials challenges that we must and can meet. We use the opportunity of this Forum to share the cutting edge science, current policy, and community experience for the purpose of empowering meaningful change.

At a time when global climate change has attracted national attention, it is clear that warming trends increase invasive plant and insect-borne disease pressures, which in turn result in increased calls for pesticide use —a response that can only lead to elevated public health and environmental hazards identified by the scientific findings that are presented at this conference. Critical research data focuses our discussion on organic practices as a powerful tool in averting a global warming catastrophe, by reducing fossil fuel use significantly and increasing by four times the sequestering of atmospheric carbon. Simultaneously, organic systems eliminate dependency on toxic pesticides and support ecological balance.

The Forum recognizes the importance of change through local action and offers an opportunity to discuss the necessary strategies for moving from current statutory and regulatory approaches that ineffectively define acceptable chemical risks to precautionary approaches that chart a safer and sustainable path.