(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2007) Connecticut activists seeking to expand their state ban on pesticides in schoolyards report a victory this week. House Bill 5234, An Act Banning Pesticide Use on School Grounds, which bans pesticides in private and public schools for grades K-8, passed the Connecticut House by vote of 145-2. The Bill is now headed to the Senate where it will be introduced by Senator Bill Finch (Bridgeport), Chair of the Environment Committee.

In 2005, An Act Concerning Pesticides at Schools and Day Care Facilities (Public Act 05 — 252) 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.”
The present Bill 5234, will ban the use of lawn-care pesticides on the grounds of all schools K-8 and allow IPM on playing fields until 2009 – when the athletic fields will also have to go organic.

Industry opponents are seeking an amendment to extend the three-year transition period for playing fields to go organic. According to Dr. Jerry Silbert, M.D., Watershed Partnership, “Any further amendment could stall the process and prevent this important bill from being passed in this session.”

TAKE ACTION: If you live in Connecticut, please contact your State Senator by phone or e-mail and ask them to vote for the school-grounds pesticide ban Bill – 5234 with no new amendments. To see what school pesticide laws are enacted in your state see Beyond Pesticides’ state pages. For more information about Beyond Pesticides’ School Program visit www.beyondpesticides.org/schools/index.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2007) The risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is significantly increased with substantial exposure to pesticides, regardless of asthma or atopy history, according to findings from a study published in the May issue of the International Journal of Cancer. This study further strengthens the link between exposure to pesticides and cancer and specifically to lymphoma.

“Occupational exposure to pesticides and a personal history of atopy have been widely examined as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a neoplasm arising from cells of the immune system,” writes Claire M. Vajdic, Ph.D., of the University of New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. “These studies have typically found that exposure to pesticides increases risk of NHL, while asthma, or atopy more generally, has been inconsistently protective.”

In an Australian population-based, case-control study, the researchers examined the interaction between occupational pesticide exposure and atopy on the risk of NHL. Included in the study were 694 incident cases and 694 randomly selected controls that were matched to cases by age, sex, and state of residence.

Participants completed telephone-administered job-specific questionnaires. Experts used the information collected to determine occupational pesticide exposure. History of atopy (including asthma, hay fever, eczema, and food allergy) was self-reported.

The odds ratio (OR) for NHL with substantial exposure to pesticides and any history of asthma was 3.07. With substantial pesticide exposure and no history of asthma, the OR was 4.23. The risk of NHL was less for subjects with non-substantial pesticide exposure and a history of asthma (OR = 0.30), and was close to null with non-substantial pesticide exposure and no history of asthma (OR = 0.99).

“This finding was consistent for several measures of pesticide exposure and asthma, including lifetime pesticide dose, subtype-specific pesticide dose and history of asthma as an adult, teenager, or child,” Dr. Vajdic and colleagues report.

Furthermore, “The pattern of risk for a history of hay fever, eczema, food allergy or any type of atopy was similar; risk was increased with substantial pesticide exposure and no history of atopy, but less so when atopy was reported.”

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer of the immune system. There are several different types of NHL, which are differentiated by the type of immune cell that is cancerous, the characteristics of the cancerous cell, and different genetic mutations of the cancerous cells. Treatment for NHL varies depending on NHL type, patient age, and other existing medical conditions.

A number have studies have established a link between NHL and pesticide exposure. According to a 2000 study, parents who used pesticides in the home once or twice a week were nearly 2.5 times as likely to have children with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Parents who used pesticides on a daily basis were 7 times more likely to have children with the disease. In 2002, The Lymphoma Foundation of America released a report that found that the majority of 117 scientific studies and articles reviewed showed a significant increase in lymphoma in populations with higher exposures to pesticides, especially herbicides. A May 2006 study published in the journal Blood found that agricultural exposure to insecticides, herbicides, and fumigants are associated with increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, May 09, 2007) In a precedent-setting decision last week, Judge Charles Breyer ordered a complete environmental review of Monsanto’s genetically-altered alfalfa, making a final ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2005 approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” alfalfa was illegal. The judge called on USDA to ban any further planting of the GE seed until it conducts a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

In the decision, Judge Breyer in the Federal Northern District of California affirmed his preliminary ruling, which echoed the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Beyond Pesticides and other co-plaintiffs’ arguments in their lawsuit against USDA, that the crop could harm the environment and contaminate natural alfalfa. The ruling also requires Forage Genetics to provide the locations of all existing Roundup Ready alfalfa plots to USDA within 30 days. Judge Breyer ordered USDA to make the location of these plots “publicly available as soon as practicable” so that growers of organic and conventional alfalfa “can test their own crops to determine if there has been contamination.”

“This permanent halt to the planting of this risky crop is a great victory for the environment,” said Will Rostov, a senior attorney for CFS. “Roundup Ready alfalfa poses threats to farmers, to our export markets, and to the environment. We expect the USDA to abide by the law and insure that American farmers are protected from genetic contamination.”

The decision is consistent with Judge Breyer’s ruling of February 13th, in which Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. In calling for a permanent injunction, Judge Breyer noted that contamination of natural and organic alfalfa by the GE variety has already occurred, and noted that “Such contamination is irreparable environmental harm. The contamination cannot be undone.”

“This ruling is good news for organic farmers and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of CFS. “This crop represents a very real threat to their crops and their livelihood. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country,” Mr. Kimbrell concluded.

The permanent injunction ordered by Judge Breyer follows his ruling last month finding that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. Monsanto and Forage Genetics, the developers of the GE alfalfa seed, failed to convince the Judge that their interests outweighed the public interest in food safety, freedom to farm natural crops, and environmental protection. In fact, Judge Breyer specifically noted that Monsanto’s fear of lost sales “does not outweigh the potential irreparable damage to the environment.”

Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant “superweeds” that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa. Commenting on the agency’s refusal to assess this risk, the judge stated, “Finally, the court rejects defendants’ assertion that allowing an expansion in the Roundup Ready alfalfa market is in the public interest because it promotes the use of less toxic herbicides. The record reflects that organic and most conventional forage alfalfa is grown without the use of any herbicides. In any event, a finding that increasing the use of Roundup is in the public interest is premature in light of APHIS’s failure to analyze the potential for the development of Roundup-resistant weeds.”

The Center for Food Safety initiated the legal action resulting in the ruling in February 2006, representing itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.

“As a consumer of organic foods, I’m relieved to know that a U.S. District Court Judge understands the regulatory role USDA plays, even though the agency itself seems to have forgotten,” said Dean Hulse, an organic food consumer and past chair of Dakota Resource Council. “Judge Breyer’s ruling forces USDA to do its job – that is, to conduct the research necessary to determine the effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa on the environment.”

“I’m hopeful that Judge Breyer’s precedent-setting ruling will induce a rebirth of values at the USDA, in particular, and federal regulatory agencies generally,” added Mr. Hulse. “The USDA’s role with respect to regulating transgenic crops should be that of watch dog, not lap dog.”

Organic alfalfa seed producer Blaine Schmaltz of Rugby, North Darkota, said the ruling helps farmers in a time of uncertainty. “The Judge’s order to make public the location of Roundup Ready alfalfa fields is a critical part of the decision,” said Mr. Schmalz. “It allows GM-free and organic producers like me make sound planting decisions.”

“This ruling protects the ability of farmers producing organic meat and milk to obtain non-GMO alfalfa seed to grow feed for their animals and preserve the organic integrity of their products,” said Jim Munsch, a certified organic livestock producer from Coon Valley, Wisconsin, who represents The Cornucopia Institute, one the plaintiffs. “This is precedent-setting. For the first time the courts have intervened on a USDA ruling to ensure that proper environmental evaluation and consideration for the livelihood of family farmers are accounted for and balance the desires of large companies,” Mr. Munsch added.

“This landmark decision curtails a genetically engineered crop that, among other serious environmental problems, increases farmers’ dependence on toxic weed killers that hurt farmers, food consumers, and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

“[The] final ruling reaffirms what Sierra Club has been saying all along: the government needs to look before it leaps and must comprehensively examine through an EIS how genetically engineered alfalfa could impact the environment before approving its widespread use,” said Neil Carman of the Sierra Club’s genetic engineering committee. “Conducting an EIS is plain common sense.”

“This is a huge victory for family farmers in the livestock and diary industry,” said Bill Wenzel, national director of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on GE. “It is unfortunate that it took lengthy and expensive litigation to achieve what should have been apparent to the bureaucrats at the USDA — that nobody but Monsanto benefits from the commercialization of GE Alfalfa.”

For more information on GE alfalfa and other food modification issues, see past news articles in Beyond Pesticides’ blog archives and Daily News archives.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2007) A new study, presented yesterday at the Pediatric Academic Societies’ annual meeting, has found a strong correlation between the month of conception and both likelihood of premature birth and future academic achievement. Researchers found that students conceived in June through August, when statewide pesticide applications are at their highest, clearly scored the lowest on the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP) examinations.

Dr. Paul Winchester, M.D., of the Indiana University School of Medicine, studied over 1.5 million third- through tenth-grade students in Indiana. Dr. Winchester explained the correlation saying, “The fetal brain begins developing soon after conception. The pesticides we use to control pests in fields and our homes and the nitrates we use to fertilize crops and even our lawns are at their highest level in the summer.” The study also monitored levels of pesticide and fertilizer use during the year. He continued, “Exposure to pesticides and nitrates can alter the hormonal milieu of the pregnant mother and the developing fetal brain. While our findings to do not represent absolute proof that pesticides and nitrates contribute to lower ISTEP scores, they strongly support such a hypothesis.”

In conjunction with the ISTEP study, the same research team found a connection between pesticide and nitrate levels in surface water and pre-term births. Babies born when levels were highest (April-July) were the most likely to be premature, and full-term births peaked when the levels were lowest (August-September). Pre-term birth increases the risk of many health ailments. Of more than 27 million births studied between 1996 and 2002, June had the highest premature birth rate at 12.03 percent, while September produced the least, at 10.44 percent. Birth data was considered regardless of race, age, education, marital status, cigarette and alcohol use, or urban or rural location, while the data on surface water contamination came from the U.S. Geological Survey.

This research is a continuation of a study presented last year, in which Dr. Winchester noted that birth defects peak nationally in infants born between April and July, when surface water levels of nitrates and pesticides are highest. He argued, “A growing body of evidence suggests that the consequences of prenatal exposure to pesticides and nitrates as well as to other environmental contaminants is detrimental to many outcomes of pregnancy. As a neonatologist, I am seeing a growing number of birth defects, and preterm births, and I think we need to face up to environmental causes.”

Dr. Winchester’s colleague, Professor of Pediatrics at Indiana University’s School of Medicine James Lemons, M.D., added, “I believe this work may lay the foundation for some of the most important basic and clinical research, and public health initiatives of our time. To recognize that what we put into our environment has potential pandemic effects on pregnancy outcome and possibly on child development is a momentous observation, which hopefully will help transform the way humanity cares for its world.”

To find out which pesticides have been linked to birth defects and other health effects, click here.

Sources: Science Daily, Daily Mail

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2007) Beyond Pesticides is encouraging its members, activists and others in the Midwest to join Students for Bhopal and Amnesty International in a protest at the Dow Chemical Company Annual General Meeting (shareholder meeting) on Thursday, May 10, 2007, in Midland, Michigan. The purpose of the protest is to send a message to Dow that corporate irresponsibility will not be tolerated.

The protesters will demand that Dow: 1) Clean up toxic wastes and contaminated groundwater left by the 1984 Bhopal disaster; 2) Face trial and ensure that Union Carbide (now owned by Dow) and CEO Warren Anderson present themselves in the Indian Courts; 3) Cooperate with authorities assessing the long-term health consequences of the explosion; and, 4) Make public information about the toxicity of reaction products released during the leak. See details on the Bhopal disaster below.

Beyond Pesticides is part of an international campaign working to expose and hold Dow Chemical accountable for its wrong doings. Aside from its liabilities in Bhopal, Vietnam and around the world, Dow AgroSciences, a division of Dow Chemical, produces many of the most hazardous pesticides on the market, which contaminate our bodies and the environment through a variety of exposure routes. Dow has also been a leader in obscuring the science and weakening the regulation of these and other deadly chemicals.

Because many of Dow’s pesticides and industrial chemicals are linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America and Trillium Asset Management have introduced a shareholder resolution that aims to hold Dow accountable for its continued production of hazardous chemicals linked to asthma. Tess Karowski of the Michigan Environmental Council and member of Beyond Pesticides will table the resolution at Dow’s Annual General Meeting later this week.

In 1984, Union Carbide was responsible for the worst industrial disaster in history in Bhopal, India. Forty tons of deadly gas was released. Seven thousand people died in the next few days and 15,000 have died since from illnesses related to the accident. Over 100,000 victims still suffer from illnesses because of this event. In a 1989 settlement, Union Carbide agreed to pay $470 million to victims. However, $330 million still has not been paid to the victims. In addition, the site is still heavily contaminated and residents are continuously being poisoned without access to clean drinking water. In 2001, Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide and with it, its liabilities. Dow refuses to clean up the spill.

TAKE ACTION: Join the demonstration! Meet at the Midland Center for the Arts, 1801 West St. Andrews, Midland, MI, on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9:00 am. Contact Manan Desai [email protected] for carpool information. For more information on Dow, its pesticides and the Bhopal disaster, visit Beyond Pesticides Dow Chemical Consumer page at www.beyondpesticides.org/dow. Download the Safer Choice booklet and learn how to protect your family from seven commonly used Dow pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2007) Recently published research comparing two adjacent Colorado cities shows an unexpected correlation between West Nile virus (WNv), mosquito control programs and human behavior factors.

Northern Colorado experienced major outbreaks of human WNv disease in 2003. However, the neuroinvasive disease rates recorded were higher in Loveland (38.6 vs. 15.9 per 100,000), which had a more extensive mosquito control program and fewer mosquitoes, than adjacent Fort Collins.

The study, entitled “Behavioral Risks for West Nile Virus Disease, Northern Colorado, 2003” (Gujral et al., Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 13, No. 3), calls into question the ability of spray programs to actually reduce the risk and transmission of the virus. Additionally, it shows spray programs may be giving communities a false sense of security, and re-emphasizes the importance of personal preventative measures in lowering disease rates.

During the height of the outbreak, from July 26 to September 5, 2003, the number of mosquitoes (Cx. tarsalis and Cx. pipiens) collected per trap night was higher in Fort Collins than in Loveland, and the WNv infection rates of the mosquitoes were approximately equivalent in the two cities during that period. In other words, more WNv-infected mosquitoes were present in Fort Collins than in Loveland.

Loveland had an integrated mosquito control program in place since 1986. In contrast, Fort Collins reacted to the outbreak by implementing an emergency mosquito control program later in the outbreak (mid-August through early September).

After a full analysis of public perception and behavior, the authors were left with this question, “Did Loveland residents choose to rely on the city’s control program instead of practicing individual preventive measures?” They concluded that Loveland residents may have been less likely to have applied personal preventive measures given their reliance on the long-standing community mosquito control program.

In an effort to explain the findings, a telephone survey was conducted to assess differences in personal protection and risk practices by each city’s residents. In Larimer County, which encompasses both Fort Collins and Loveland, health officials encourage residents to “Fight the Bite,” with the typically recommended four Ds of prevention: (1) DEET (Beyond Pesticides recommends using less toxic repellents, such as oil of lemon eucalyptus or picaridin (KBR 3023) products) – wear an insect repellent containing DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide); 2) Dress – wear long sleeves and long pants; 3) Drain – drain standing water around the home; and 4) Dusk to dawn – limit time outdoors during this time.

The study concluded that personal protective practices may directly influence rates of WNv infection and remain important even when comprehensive community mosquito control measures are implemented.

• Loveland residents were 39% more likely to report seldom or never using DEET, and 30% were more likely to report being outdoors during prime mosquito-biting hours than Fort Collins residents.

• No statistically significant difference was observed between Fort Collins and Loveland residents who reported seldom or never wearing long clothes to protect against mosquitoes.

• According to the authors, the drain model was omitted after careful review of the survey question deemed it too vague for a meaningful interpretation. This was unfortunate because draining water from around a residence may reduce exposure to mosquito breeding sites.

• Compared with the Fort Collins residents, Loveland survey participants were 35% more likely to report spending greater than five hours outdoors during the week, and 30% more likely to report spending greater than two hours outdoors on weekends from dusk to dawn.

The authors conclude WNv neuroinvasive disease rates may be due, in part, to lower use of repellents containing DEET (they did not discuss other repellents) and greater dusk to dawn outdoor exposure among Loveland residents. They also note that persons with lower incomes reported practicing fewer preventive behavioral measures. They emphasize that these findings support the benefit of promoting personal prevention approaches, particularly by using effective insect repellents and reducing exposure to mosquitoes during prime-biting hours.

Beyond Pesticides believes the ideal mosquito management strategy emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. The decision to use pesticides meant for adult mosquito control should be open to public discussion and only made after carefully evaluating all the contributing factors to human epidemics. Citizens should also be given the right to opt-out of spray programs and notice in advance so they can protect themselves.

TAKE ACTION: Find out about safer mosquito repellents, smart community mosquito management, and public service annoucements you can request to be played on your local radio station at https://www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2007) On Monday April 30, California Safe Schools (CSS) celebrated the 8th anniversary of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)’s groundbreaking Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy. This policy, one of the most stringent pesticide policies in the nation for schools, stresses least-toxic methods of pest control and using pesticides only as a last resort, and has become a national and international model.

California Safe Schools is a grassroots children’s environmental health organization formed by parents who witnessed their children walk through a toxic cloud of insecticide at an LAUSD campus nine years ago. Founded by activist and Beyond Pesticides’ board member Robina Suwol, CSS has gained a national reputation for its effective education of parents, schools, and elected officials about protecting children from toxins.

“It takes a village – and several bureaucracies! – to protect children’s health,” said Ms. Suwol, executive director of CSS. “I am so pleased to see how far we have come and grateful that so many school districts, communities, and government officials have contacted us for assistance in replicating our policy and protocol. All children everywhere deserve the protection of IPM.”

IPM is an inherently sustainable method using low risk measures to eliminate undesirable species, such as rodents, insects and plants that are a nuisance or public health risk. The CSS policy adopted by LAUSD was the first in the United States to embrace the Precautionary Principle and the idea that parents and students deserve the right-to-know about what, where, and when pesticides are used on school campuses. To ensure implementation, the policy includes an IPM Oversight Committee. The fifteen member team, which has met monthly for almost a decade, includes parents, environmentalists, community members, teacher, principal, physician, school staff, a county health representative and an “independent IPM expert.”

“As a physician who practices Environmental and Preventive Medicine, I appreciate L.A. Unified’s groundbreaking Integrated Pest Management Policy,” said Dr. Cathie Lippman. “I’ve enjoyed serving on the L.A. Unified oversight IPM Team, and often cite the successful program for understanding the link between health and the environment. Happy 8th Year Anniversary!”

Last month Volvo of North America, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency honored CSS and its founder Robina Suwol for their “Outstanding Achievement” to protect human health and the environment.

California Safe Schools is a member of the School Pesticide Reform Coalition (SPRC), a group comprised of 25 organizations around the country working for healthy, pesticide-free schools. If you or your organization is interested in joining the Coalition, send an email to [email protected] or call 202-543-5450.

Source: Environmental News Network

TAKE ACTION: Find out what state laws and local policies govern your school. Contact Beyond Pesticides to learn how to get your school to adopt an IPM program by:
(1) Identifying the school’s pest management policy;
(2) Educating yourself and evaluating the program;
(3) Organizing the school community;
(4) Working with school decision-makers; and,
(5) Becoming a watchdog and establishing an IPM Committee.
If your school already has an IPM program in place or other laws regarding pesticide use or right-to-know, find out if they are complying. Work with your school to see what is being done and what still needs to be done. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools issue pages.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2007) A recent study completed by the Center for Public Integrity finds that industry, including pesticide companies, spent over $12 million on trips for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees between October 1997 and March 2006. During that time, EPA officials took more than 10,000 privately sponsored trips totaling more than 40,000 days ”” a total of 110 years ”” away from their offices.

While some of those trips were legitimate fact-finding missions paid for by companies, local governments, nonprofit organizations, universities and international environmental groups, many were funded by those with a financial stake in EPA decision-making, including groups and companies that receive EPA contracts and grants, groups lobbying the federal government and companies with ties to federally recognized toxic waste sites, according to disclosure documents.

Although EPA’s authority is limited to the U.S., more than $6.6 million was spent on trips to other countries. Agency employees took more than $1 million in trips to France, Germany and Italy during the study period. East Asia was also a common destination – more than $1.4 million was spent on trips to China, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand.

“While EPA is a domestic agency, it has international responsibilities,” said Jennifer Wood, EPA Press Secretary in a statement to the Center. “We face trans-boundary pollution issues with our neighbors to the north and south, and have a vital presence in global environmental issues.”

Many of the domestic trips were to vacation destinations. Agency employees took more than 700 trips to Florida and Hawaii for various reasons, spending more than $625,000.
EPA officials accepted more than $90,000 in trips to gambling capitals, like Atlantic City, Las Vegas and Reno. The trips allowed them to take part in industry-sponsored workshops, seminars and conventions while staying at hotels such as the Atlantis Casino Resort Spa, Aladdin Hotel and the MGM Grand.

The Center also examined EPA’s top contractors. Twelve of those paid more than $25,000 for trips taken by EPA officials. Those companies received more than $2.7 billion from EPA in contracts in fiscal years 1998 to 2005. Hundreds of nonprofits, universities and other organizations that received EPA grants also paid for travel taken by agency officials.

The Center found that some EPA trips were underwritten by companies that the agency has identified as “potentially responsible parties” for pollution at the country’s worst toxic waste sites. The Center obtained EPA’s list of 100 companies linked to the largest number of those Superfund sites and analyzed their spending on EPA travel. At least 14 of the companies found on the list spent a total of more than $40,000 for agency officials’ trips in the study period. The companies have been linked to at least 353 Superfund sites.

In all, groups that lobby the federal government paid for more than 20 percent of all EPA trips. Government watchdog groups say that some of this $1.8 million in travel for agency officials could be seen as an extension of lobbying.

“It sounds like corporations are really trying to buy the favor of EPA administrators rather than fund travel necessary for the agency to fulfill its mission,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

With approximately a third of pesticide sales taking place in the U.S., it is no surprise that the pesticide industry has been very engaged in Washington politics and regulation. According to the Center’s 1998 report, Unreasonable Risk: The Politics of Pesticides, millions of dollars have been spent on pesticide lobbying efforts. Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment poured $15 million in to hire over 200 lobbyists, including former Senators, in 1996 alone. Tens of millions of dollars have historically made their way from industry members to congressional candidates in the form of campaign contributions.

The money trail is only one method of questionable business practices that industry has employed over the years. Scientific integrity and other aspects of ethics have often been a sore spot as well. Recent examples include a 2004 deal where EPA agreed to accept $2.1 million from the American Chemistry Council to help finance a study to investigate the exposure of infants and toddlers to pesticides and chemicals used in the home — a study which would have required parents agree to routinely spray or have pesticides sprayed inside their homes during a two-year period. In 2005, industry requested exemptions to the human testing rule allowing some chemical testing on children and other provisions, which were incorporated and ultimately adopted in January 2006.

The Center obtained EPA travel records through a Freedom of Information Act request. The data has been made available through a searchable database.

Source: Center for Public Integrity

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2007) More than a month after ordering a temporary halt to sales of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa seeds, federal district court judge Charles Breyer is considering making the ban permanent, at least until the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) completes a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that confirms the seeds’ safety. (See Daily News of March 14 for Judge Breyer’s reasoning for siding against Monsanto’s team of lawyers, who were arguing that an EIS is unnecessary.) On why he was reluctant to reauthorize the planting of the GE crop, Breyer said, “It is not the court’s function to do an environmental impact study. That hasn’t been done, and I don’t know if the court ought to do it. The government ought to do it, and that is what I held.”

Arguments by industry lawyers emphasized their belief that there is very little likelihood of damage being done by the GE alfalfa. Monsanto, which developed the seeds marketed as “Roundup Ready,” argued that there is an “extremely low risk” of conventional crops being contaminated, providing “appropriate stewardship measures” are taken. Monsanto Lawyer Janice Schneider even said, “There are some significant environmental and beneficial effects in Roundup Ready Alfalfa.”

Breyer’s reluctance to allow planting to continue, however, is based on a variety of evidence, ranging from the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops to the potential for significant revenue losses of organic farmers whose crops may become contaminated by pollen drift. The health effects alone offer compelling evidence for the need for an EIS, as glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) is associated with high levels of reported human poisonings and has been linked with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Researchers and farmers alike have demonstrated concern over Roundup Ready crops. Phillip Geerston, of Geerston Seed Farms, objects to GE seeds because of the dangers they pose to his ability to produce conventional alfalfa seed. Agreeing with Breyer’s decision, he said, “[Regulators at USDA]’re simply going to have to do some very careful research and demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that these things are safe when they’re released into the environment and can’t be recalled.” Mick Canevari, a farm advisor for San Joaquin County, also cautions against weed resistance due to the crop’s reliance on one chemical. His conclusion is that “perhaps within every other year, you should rotate another chemistry in [a field].”

It may grow increasingly difficult for farmers to choose alternatives to glyphosate as they rotate crops through their fields, as Monsanto and other companies have developed other Roundup Ready crops, like soybeans and corn. Already used widely in the Americas, DuPont is currently pushing to gain the European Union’s (EU) approval for GE soybeans. The EU has largely resisted bio-engineering, but DuPont is “pursuing EU approvals for all our biotech products,” and expects the soybeans to be allowed by 2009.

The controversy surrounding GE crops will continue, particularly as federal and state governments begin to show signs of commitment to thorough environmental reviews before approving their use. In some states, farmers have shown themselves more effective than USDA in protecting themselves from crop contamination and other potential dangers of biotech crops. Until USDA begins routine EIS, states, farmers, and the courts may be forced to assert their concerns.

Sources: Reuters, Capital Press, Delaware Online

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2007) Today, school officials, teachers, parents and community activists around the country are celebrating National Healthy Schools Day. The Healthy Schools Network, which organizes the event, and event supporters, including Beyond Pesticides, believe that every child in every community should have an environmentally safe and healthy school that is clean and in good repair. Schools in poor condition on the outside often have indoor environmental problems that affect children’s health and learning.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide and other toxic chemical exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The U.S. EPA, National Academy of Sciences, and American Public Health Association, among others, have voiced concerns about the danger that pesticides pose to children. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels. Several pesticides, such as pyrethrins and pyrethroids, organophosphates and carbamates, are also known to cause or exacerbate asthma symptoms.

Buildings in disrepair typically face higher rates of pest infestation and are often treated with pesticides that can impact children’s ability to learn and focus at school. “Is anyone actually surprised that children do better with fresh air and sunshine indoors? Repeated studies have shown layers of neglect of school buildings that cause or expose hazards that erode children’s health and learning,” said Claire Barnett of the Healthy Schools Network. “This is no longer a local problem — this is a national crisis. Today, National Healthy Schools Day, and this week, School Building Week, we honor and educate schools, agencies, communities, and advocates, and ask everyone to commit to resolving systemic problems so that every child has an environmentally healthy school.”

In 2003, Healthy Schools Network began coordinating events with the Council for Educational Faculty Planners International to celebrate National Healthy Schools Day. This year, event organizers are asking school districts to use the following checklist for healthy schools. Following these steps will reduce the need for pesticides and reduce children’s exposure to toxic chemicals.

Existing Buildings: Prevent/stop leaks; Replace wet and damaged materials in 24-48 hours; Wash floors and frequently touched surfaces with green cleaning products; Prevent/control pests and weeds naturally; Use nontoxic teaching supplies; Inspect and clean heating, ventilating, and A/C systems; Control/remove asbestos, radon, lead, arsenic, mercury, and persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs; and, Dispose of dangerous lab chemicals such as mercury, formaldehyde, or explosives.

New Buildings: Site new facilities for walking and biking to school; Provide safe outdoor learning/play areas; Keep site and building materials dry; Design to prevent dampness indoors; Use natural daylight, natural ventilation, windows that open; Design and furnish areas for easy cleaning, maintenance, and storage; Avoid carpets; Design halls and classrooms to minimize noise and reverberation; Don’t use building products that contain persistent or bio-accumulative toxics; Protect occupant health during renovations; and, Air out spaces prior to use.

TAKE ACTION: National Healthy Schools Day is the first day of School Building Week. To learn more about School Building Week and to learn what you can do, visit http://sbw.cefpifoundation.org. To learn more about the dangers of pesticide use in schools and to learn how to get pesticides out of your child’s school, visit www.beyondpesticides.org/schools. To learn more about the link between pesticides and childhood asthma, visit www.beyondpesticides.org/children/asthma.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2007) Health risk, environmental risk and investment risk all have one thing in common — they are all part of Amvac Chemical Corporation’s business practices. According to a Los Angeles Times investigation earlier this month, this socially irresponsible business model has led Amvac to double-digit revenue growth and a toxic legacy.

The Amvac homepage reads, “The Company’s chief strategy is to acquire niche product lines from multi-billion dollar companies that divest mature products to focus on newly discovered molecules. The Company’s products include insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, soil fumigants, defoliants, molluscides and growth regulators.”

In actuality, Amvac buys the rights to older, high risk pesticides from larger companies. Many of these pesticides, which are some of the most toxic on the market, are likely to be banned or restricted due to safety concerns. Amvac hires scientists and lawyers to keep these dangerous chemicals on the market as long as possible. The company also often skirts regulatory issues by exporting products to countries with weaker regulatory systems.

“There’s something here rather unique, which is a company that basically goes intentionally after chemicals that are in trouble because of health and safety concerns,” said Steve Schatzow, a former director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide program and now an attorney for pesticide firms. Amvac “buys them up at a discount price from the major chemical companies who no longer want to be associated” with them, he said.

The resulting human health and environmental costs have been recorded in EPA and state records, regulatory investigations and multiple lawsuits.

In 1977, nearly three dozen chemical factory workers were found to have low to zero sperm counts due to working with dibromochloropropane (DBCP) (data dating from the 1950s had shown the pesticide could cause testicular atrophy in lab animals). Amvac, which had ceased making DBCP years earlier, renewed production after the incident and quickly became the primary U.S. manufacturer. During this time EPA increasingly restricted the chemical’s registration and eventually disallowed all use in 1985.

As the domestic market waned, Amvac turned to the export market to sell DBCP. In 1978-79, Amvac supplied DBCP to a company that is now known as Dole Fruit Company. Thousands of agricultural workers were exposed, causing sterility, brain and kidney damage, including a group of 13 Nicaraguans who brought Amvac to court. The Los Angeles Times reports Amvac settled this month, agreeing to pay $300,000.

Amvac currently produces metam sodium, a widely used agricultural pesticide. The chemical has been responsible for many mass poisonings and was identified in one-fifth of all poisoning incidents in California involving 10 or more people. In 1991, a train carrying metam sodium manufactured by Amvac overturned sickening over 700 people and wiping out wildlife along a 42-mile stretch of the Sacramento River.

Amvac has also grown to become a leading manufacturer of a toxic class of pesticides called organophosphates. While EPA is phasing out and restricting the use of many of these chemicals and larger firms have scaled back organophosphate manufacturing, Amvac has bought the rights to make or sell 10 of them since 1989, according to company records and interviews. This list includes mevinphos, chlorpyrifos and dimethyl dichlorovinyl phosphate (DDVP).

Mevinphos is one of the most toxic organophosphate chemicals. It has been implicated in hundreds of poisonings, primarily farmworkers who have suffered seizures, vomiting, depression and in several cases death. When DuPont decided to stop manufacturing the chemical, Amvac bought exclusive rights and created a market in Washington apples. Poisoning incidents continued and Amvac was pressured to voluntarily withdraw the pesticide from the U.S. market. The company still sells the insecticide in Mexico, South Africa, Australia and other countries.

The list of Amvac’s irresponsible practices goes on, including dragging out negotiations with regulatory agencies and failing to adequately clean up its factory in Commerce, California. For more information, read the full story in the Los Angeles Times.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 26, 2007) As concerns about the effects of pesticides in children’s food grows, sales of organic baby food have increased dramatically. Although it still only accounts for a fairly small portion of the overall baby food market, the organic baby food sector is booming.

Whole Foods Market Inc. said it has tripled the space allotted to organic baby products in the past five years. Last year, Gerber Products Company rebranded and broadened its organic line, and Abbott Laboratories introduced an organic version of its baby formula.

Organic baby food sales soared 21.6 percent to $116 million this past year, after jumping 16.4 percent a year earlier, according to The Nielsen Company. Meanwhile, overall baby food sales rose 3.1 percent to $3.7 billion in the same period, after being essentially flat a year earlier. The data were gleaned from U.S. grocery, drug and mass-market retailers, excluding Wal-Mart.

Big companies aren’t the only ones addressing the demand for organic baby products. Two years ago, Gigi Lee Chang started Plum Organics, a line of frozen baby foods that now is a very popular line, according to Whole Foods officials.

Ms. Lee Chang got the idea to start the company when she heard friends talking about her son’s healthy appetite. She decided the organic foods she had been preparing for him might be a good business opportunity. The products are sold nationally, and an extension of the line is planned for later in the year.

Producers said adhering to USDA regulations makes organic foods cost more but parents are willing to pay the difference. For example, a 25.7-ounce container of organic Similac formula retails for about $27.50, but the traditional brand would cost $23.50, according to Scott White, a vice president at Abbott Nutrition. Gerber said its organic products cost about 30 percent more than its traditional baby foods.

The growing organic baby food sales are part of a larger boom in organic products. This past year has also seen increasing numbers of sustainable vegetable and cotton growers; and even hospitals and schools are purchasing organic food.

Source: AP

TAKE ACTION: The Farm Bill currently heavily subsidizes conventional agriculture over organic growers. Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative and tell them to support increased funding for organic growers in the farm bill. Take action today to ensure that there is sufficient funding authorized in the 2007 Farm Bill to protect our environment and ensure sustainable, healthy food for all.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2007) Public health and environmental activists call on the world community today to respect life, protect children, stop hazardous pesticide use, including DDT, and adopt what they call “sustainable programs that attack poverty and the conditions that give rise to insect-borne diseases such as malaria.” Africa Malaria Day is commemorated on April 25, a day set aside by African governments committed to rolling back malaria and meeting the United Nations malaria-related Millennium Development Goals.

Last September, the World Health Organization came under heavy criticism from public health and environmental groups when it announced its new policy to promote the use of DDT for malaria control in developing countries. Environmental and public health advocates warn that good intentions are in this case misguided. According to the Washington, DC-based non-profit organization Beyond Pesticides, advocating a reliance on pesticides, especially DDT, as a silver bullet solution for malaria protection is extremely dangerous. When the underlying causes of pest problems are not adequately addressed, then a sustained dependence on toxic pesticides like DDT causes greater long-term problems than those that are being addressed in the short-term.

“The WHO is misleading the world on DDT, which is a known cancer causing chemical, also linked to developmental effects in children. WHO should be leading charge to adopt sound and safe pest management practices at the community level that prevent insect-borne diseases like malaria,” says Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. Mr. Feldman’s group advocates strategies aimed at preventing mosquito breeding sites, repellents, bed netting, larvicides, and development efforts that address the conditions of poverty in developing countries that contribute to mosquito breeding.

Despite WHO proclamations of DDT safety, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, ratified or adopted by 144 countries but not the U.S., specifically commits governments around the world to the “goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT.” (Stockholm Convention, Annex B, Restriction, Part II)

Governmental agencies in the U.S. and internationally have classified DDT as an agent that can cause cancer and nerve damage. Worse still is the fact that DDT and its metabolites have been identified as endocrine disruptors. Proponents of DDT use often argue that “the dose makes the poison” so it can be used in a way in which the benefits outweigh the risks. However, because DDT acts as an estrogen mimic, it wreaks havoc on biological systems causing severe adverse effects because of exposure to miniscule amounts during vulnerable periods of life.

The return of DDT for malaria control in South Africa has lead to women with 77 times the international limit for DDT residue and 12 times the acceptable limit in infants, even in families not living in treated dwellings.

Fifty-nine environmental, public health and international organizations signed a statement, Preventing Malaria and Promoting Health Solutions to Malaria Beyond DDT, which is being released at a Congressional briefing today. For more background information, see www.beyondpesticides.org/DDT.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2007) Three recent studies were presented earlier this month at the Parkinson’s Disease Environmental Research meeting in California strengthening the theory that pesticides increase risk of the disease. The studies clarify how pesticide exposure can lead to the development of Parkinson’s.

Two pesticides named in the studies are paraquat and dieldrin, both of which have been linked to Parkinson’s in the past. The three new studies, however, combine information from human and animal studies to show how exposure can lead to onset of the disease. As William Langston, M.D., founder of the Parkinson’s Institute, told Reuters, “All of these pieces really look like they are coming together now.”

The first study examined a cohort of 80,000 licensed private pesticide applicators and spouses. Researchers found farm workers exposed to paraquat had twice the expected risk of Parkinson’s.

The second and third studies address a protein called alpha-synuclein. The second study shows the protein builds up in rodents exposed to paraquat. The third study connects this protein to Parkinson’s by finding that the protein kills the dopamine-producing brain cells affected by the disease.

One common difficulty in tracking pesticide-induced diseases is the amount of time that passes between exposure and the onset of disease. In these studies, pesticide exposure could be accurately tracked by records of pesticide purchase, details of which will be published later, according to Dr. Langston.

The study of laboratory animals could be the missing link in proving causation of Parkinson’s. Donato Di Monte, M.D., of the Parkinson’s Institute, said of the protein buildup, “This increase in alpha-synuclein in the brain could be the missing link between the exposure to this agent and how this agent causes the disease.” In addition, Dr. Langston said brain inflammation during pesticide exposure greatly increased the risk of Parkinson’s in later years, as “systemic inflammation may somehow sensitize the brain.”

These studies are only the latest linking pesticides, particularly paraquat, to Parkinson’s disease. For previous Daily News stories on the subject (and other health effects), click here.

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2007) Organic produce growers, beef producers, and others testified before Congress this week that industrialized farming has hurt rural communities, the American diet, and family farms and asked that the Farm Bill support the fast growing and successful family businesses that are producing organic foods. The disproportionate subsidies going to conventional agriculture and leaving out organic farmers was brought to light during the first-ever hearing about organics last week before the House Agriculture Committee.

Organic farmers are vying this year to gain some federal support as Congress rewrites its five-year farm bill set to expire later this year. Organic growers, now believed to number more than 10,000 are experiencing rapid growth nationwide as interest in healthier food and a healthier environment continues to spread from local farmers’ markets to major supermarkets across the country.

Despite this rise is organic markets, growers are not nearly keeping pace with consumer demand for organic products, estimated to be growing by 20 percent a year. Representative Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat who chairs a new agriculture subcommittee on horticulture and organics, hopes to include organic farmers in the farm bill.

Since the Great Depression, congressional farm bills have been dominated by support for a handful of commodity crops such as corn, wheat and cotton, which last year received $25 billion in crop subsidies and billions more in research and marketing aid. Over the decades, subsidies have been widely blamed for contributing to the industrialization of U.S. agriculture, concentrated on vast monoculture crops on ever larger and fewer farms, driving up land prices and depopulating rural communities.

Organic growers face an uphill battle against the conventional commodity growers that get the lion’s share of farm bill spending. Mostly, the organic growers asked at Wednesday’s hearing not for direct aid, but for an added share of the research and education money, as well as better statistical collection to convince bankers to grant loans.

Organic farming is a complex undertaking that relies on crop rotations and other ecological management of insects, weeds and diseases rather than pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Even if the nation’s rapidly aging farmers were not reluctant to adopt such methods, experts said at Wednesday’s hearing that federal farm programs make it even more difficult to take the leap.

“A major problem has been supply — that is really the crux of the matter,” said Robert Marqusee, director of a rural development agency in Sioux City, Iowa. “Demand is high, but aging farmers are trapped in the subsidy treadmill. There are few young farmers left in these communities, and most economic development is focused on ethanol plants,” which he said “does nothing but put industrial farming on steroids.”

The current subsidy system, he said, “simply does not make sense.”

Farmers transitioning from conventional crops to organics have had to figure it out mostly by themselves, said Mark Lipson, policy program director at the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting organic agriculture among farmers. It’s past time, Mr. Lipson said, to begin devoting a portion of the vast federal agriculture research programs — from farm extension services that provide education and technical assistance to agricultural research at universities. Federal funding of organic research and education only began in 2001, Mr. Lipson said, and remains at less than one percent of the federal farm research budget.

The gap between demand for organic products and U.S. supply is filled by foreign producers in Canada, Mexico, Central and Latin America, and as far away as China. Many growers express suspicion about the quality standards from such sources. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s organic certification offices are so short-staffed that maintaining the integrity of the agency’s brown and green organic certification seal is a challenge, Mr. Cardoza said. Growers worry that with organic products in short supply and demand strong, the market creates a greater incentive to skirt the standards.

Getting into organic farming can be daunting, growers told the committee on Wednesday. The decision is often made because of a fascination with health foods or distaste for chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Scott Lively, president and chief executive of Dakota Beef, in Howard, South Dakota, now the nation’s largest producer of certified organic beef, said he got into the business “cold turkey,” mainly because of his wife’s obsession with health foods.

“I knew nothing about the industry, nor did I really care much about it,” Mr. Lively said. “I was a meat-eating, potato-eating guy from Chicago. Nevertheless, we went out and bought 30 head of cattle in Illinois, processed them locally all at one time, and sold them door to door in Chicago restaurants out of the back of a Volvo.

“I think a lot of people would like to pretend that this industry doesn’t exist, or that it’s concentrated on that crunchy-granola Whole Foods shopper,” he said. “It clearly is not.”

Mary-Howell Martens, of Lakeview Organic Grains in Penn Yan, New York, said the idea came to her in 1991, when she stood pregnant at her kitchen door and watched her husband, Klaas, “leave the house dressed for battle in his white Tyvek ‘zoot suit’ and special heavy green plastic gloves ready to attack and subdue the enemy — weeds.”

Growing grain on 600 acres at the time, Mrs. Martens said, “we were like many conventional farmers, using the chemical fertilizers and pesticides simply because we saw no other alternatives, but very concerned about what it might be doing to us, our family, our land and our environment. We farmed conventionally because we had been told so often that it was the only way to survive in agriculture today.”

Now they are farming 1,400 acres of organic corn, soybeans, spelt, barley, oats, triticale, red kidney beans, cabbage and hay — each with a strong market, she said. She and her husband also opened a mill for organic animal feed for New York organic dairy farmers. Mrs. Martens said she can’t get enough organic grain to meet demand.

“Organic agriculture is no longer simply an inconsequential nice for the counterculture or extremely affluent,” she said.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

TAKE ACTION: Let your Congressional representatives know how you feel about this issue. Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative and tell them to support increased funding for organic growers in the farm bill. Take action today to ensure that there is sufficient funding authorized in the 2007 Farm Bill to protect our environment and ensure sustainable, healthy food for all.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2007) As we celebrate Earth Day this weekend, Beyond Pesticides would like to take this moment to reflect on exactly where pesticides fit into the current environmental picture, including victories of the past and victories needed for a healthy future.

Over the last year, the organic movement has seen many successes, with school pesticide reduction victories in North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and California; new organic parks in New Jersey; increasing numbers of sustainable vegetable and cotton growers; and even hospitals and schools purchasing organic food. As we celebrate these victories, we look ahead to ways we can continue this trend toward organics, and opportunities for connecting with other environmental causes.

Global climate change is the major focus of Earth Day this year, as well as a major focus of the environmental movement as a whole. But rather than being a separate issue from pesticides, the two are actually very much related.

In fact, the Rodale Institute has figured organic farming requires 63% less energy (fossil fuels) than “conventional” methods. Top this off with the fact that industrial agricultural methods also reduce the amount of carbon that can be sequestered in soil, and the organic connection becomes even more important. According to the Rodale Institute, which conducts the world’s longest running study of organic farming, the soils of organic crops sequester significantly more carbon than conventional methods. Although organic farming cannot tie up all of our abundant greenhouse gasses, Rodale researchers have figured a 320-acre organic farm is equivalent to the reduction of 117 cars from the road. Additionally, consider that not only are many of the active ingredients in pesticides derived from petroleum, but so are “inert” ingredients like solvents, as well as synthetic fertilizers. Going organic not only sequesters carbon, but it also cuts down on the fossil fuels required for the production of pesticides.

Beyond the fact that organics may be a key solution in the fight against greenhouse gases, climate change will have major effects on pesticide-related issues. Scientists believe that global warming will increase pest populations, including weeds, invasive species, insects, and insect-borne diseases, which will likely lead to large increases in the use of pesticides. The effects of climate change are already beginning to be seen, and will continue to be seen for years to come. Without drastic actions to curb global warming, the current course we are heading on will lead to booms in pest populations and pesticide use.

Besides switching to organic food, what else can we do? For starters, take a good look at your yard. Is it organic or does it require petroleum-based life support? (If you need support for kicking the habit, visit the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns.) How about your house or apartment, workplace or school? Prevention methods such as sanitation and physical barriers (sealing cracks, screens, etc.) work wonders. Have messy neighbors or a building maintenance company that doesn’t get it? There are alternative control methods for unwanted species and chemical factsheets to get the message across.

Beyond global warming, pesticides play a role in many other aspects of Earth Day. Pesticides have been an Earth Day issue since the first rally held on April 22, 1970. Rachel Carson and others knew pesticides were taking their toll on the environment and public health. Shortly after the first Earth Day, President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, which, within the first few years of operation, banned DDT and started reviewing pesticides. However, just like oil-addiction, moving on from the pesticide-addiction has been a slow and arduous process.

Today, we know pesticides are virtually ubiquitous in our bodies and in our environment. Biomonitoring studies reveal a body burden of toxic chemicals exists throughout the nation’s population. Studies of major U.S. rivers and streams find that 90% of fish, 100% of surface water samples, and 33% of major aquifers contain one or more pesticides at detectable levels (to learn more, read Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination). We also know pesticides can be carcinogenic, disrupt the endocrine system, weaken the immune system, affect neurodevelopment, impair fertility, and influence the development of asthma, as well as trigger asthma attacks.

So, as we celebrate a day that is dedicated to improving our quality of life through clean air, water and food, and honors the basic human right to a healthy environment, don’t forget that pesticide reduction is an important part of the equation. In 2000 (the most current data), over four pounds of active pesticide ingredient was used per capita in the U.S. Anything and everything you can do to take pesticides out of your life helps.

If you would like to add to these thoughts, have a victory to share or have comments, please make yourself heard by clicking on ”˜Comments’ below.

To find out more about the link between pesticides and global warming, and to find out about emerging pesticide issues and what activists are doing around the country, join us at our 25th National Pesticide Forum, Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, June 1-3 in Chicago, IL.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 19, 2007) On April 12, a federal judge signed a settlement agreement in which New York City admits that the pesticides it sprayed may indeed be dangerous to human health as well as to the natural environment. For seven years, the No Spray Coalition, Beyond Pesticides and others have battled the City of New York in Federal Court in opposition to the Giuliani administration’s massive and indiscriminate spraying of toxic pesticides, including the organophosphate malathion.

The settlement agreement states that, contrary to the City’s prior statements, pesticides may remain in the environment beyond their intended purpose, cause adverse health effects, kill mosquitoes’ natural predators, increase mosquito resistance to the sprays, and are not presently approved for direct application to waterways.

Mitchel Cohen, the coordinator of the No Spray Coalition and an individual plaintiff in the lawsuit, sees the settlement agreement as a “tremendous victory” for health and environmental advocates.

“Thousands of New Yorkers were made seriously sick by the spraying,” said Mr. Cohen. “A number of members of our coalition, including several of the plaintiffs, died from pesticide-related illnesses. Many suffer from multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) or asthma caused or exacerbated by the spraying. We are very glad that the new City administration has to some degree acknowledged that pesticides are extremely dangerous to human health. They need to be rejected as a way of killing mosquitoes.” He added that the use of insect repellents containing DEET should never be used, especially on children.

Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Robert Lederman, noted that in 1999 and 2000, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and other City officials claimed that the spraying was “safe” and was used as “a last resort” in its effort to kill mosquitoes said to be vectors for West Nile encephalitis.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Joel Kupferman of the NY Environmental Law and Justice Project, and Karl Coplan and Daniel Estrin of PACE Environmental Litigation Clinic, announced that as part of the settlement the City agreed to pay $80,000 to five grassroots environmental and wildlife rehabilitation groups and meet with the plaintiffs in several sessions to review an extensive list of concerns that the No Spray Coalition provided. The plaintiffs are not permitted, under the terms of the Clean Water Act, to receive a monetary settlement themselves.

The Coalition says that the resolution of the lawsuit begins a new phase in its activities. In its letter of concerns to the City, which is an attachment to the lawsuit settlement, the Coalition seeks to win official approval for its proposed “Community Environment and Health Council,” with members drawn from the plaintiffs, the City, health care professionals, environmental organizations, advocacy groups, non-toxic pesticide applicators and other pesticide-conscious parties.

The Environment and Health Council would make recommendations on environmental health impacts of pesticide use and alternatives; hear from neurotoxicologists, neuropsychologists, non-toxic pest control experts, wildlife rehabilitators; analyze toxicological samplings; and submit findings to review by occupational and environmental health case providers and advocates. It would also sponsor public meetings before pesticides are used, at which the Department of Health and other public officials would be available to answer questions.

Mr. Cohen believes the terms of the settlement agreement are helpful to those fighting against pesticide spraying elsewhere. “Indeed, we consulted with many organizations not only in the U.S. but in Canada and Mexico as well,” Mr. Cohen said, “and we negotiated clauses in the Agreement with other locales in mind.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were the No Spray Coalition, Beyond Pesticides, Disabled in Action, Save Organic Standards – New York (by its president, Howard Brandstein), and individual plaintiffs Valerie Sheppard (deceased), Mitchel Cohen, Robert Lederman, and Eva Yaa Asantewaa.

TAKE ACTION: For responsible, safer and smarter control of mosquitoes and vector-borne diseases in your community see Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Activist Index page at https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/mosquito/. To view the decision see https://nospray.org/release-no-spray-settlement-of-lawsuit-against-giuliani-et-al/ 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2007) Two members of Oregon’s Congress have sponsored bills that, if passed, would provide schools with a no-spray buffer zone during the academic year. Among other requirements, the bills would establish separate buffers around schools for aerial spraying, backpack pesticide applications, and additional buffers around roads servicing schools during commuting hours.

Senate Bill 20 (SB 20) and House Bill 2978 are sponsored by State Senator Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, and Representative Paul Holvey, D-Eugene, respectively. SB 20, the stronger of the two bills, is currently the focus of media and organizers on both sides. It is currently being reviewed by the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee, which will determine whether it should be introduced to the entire Senate.

The two bills come after a Merck Foundation-funded study by Oregon Toxics Alliance and Forestland Dwellers to map pesticide applications near schools in Lane County. The study found some schools were near areas treated with aerial applications and a logging area sprayed adjacent to athletic fields. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has reported drift incidents at schools causing illness and at least one school closure (as has happened in other states). The proposed buffer zones, according to Lisa Arkin, executive director of Oregon Toxics Alliance (OTA), will reduce children’s health risks. “Secondhand pesticide exposures occur not only from direct particle fallout, but also from volatilization and revaporization, factors that can extend the exposure period from two to 10 days,” she wrote for the Eugene Register Guard.

This focus on spraying near schools, Ms. Arkin continued, is because “Children are more vulnerable to chemical insults because their organs and immune and nervous systems are still maturing, and their ability to metabolize and excrete harmful chemicals inhaled or absorbed through their skin is not yet developed.” A number of recent studies have linked areas of high pesticide drift, including areas treated with common herbicides like 2,4-D, to increased incidence of cancer.

Opponents of SB 20 claim that it will “wreak havoc on the agricultural industry” by forcing property owners “through a series of bureaucratic hoops to apply sprays within five miles of school facilities.” Terry Witt, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, claims it is “basically a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” However, if SB 20 passes, Oregon will join a number of other states with no-spray zones around schools, such as Massachusetts, Louisiana, New Jersey, and North Carolina. For more information on OTA’s campaign to protect children from pesticide drift, click here.

Sources: Hood River News, Eugene Register Guard (via OTA), Eugene Register Guard Op-Ed (via OTA)

TAKE ACTION: If you live within the district of one of the Committee members, contact your representative and urge him to support SB 20. OTA also provides a list of Representatives who should hear from their constituents here, along with sample letters and talking points.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2007) With questions about the safety of toxic lawn chemicals and concerns about the impact of petroleum-based synthetic fertilizers on soil health, water pollution and global warming, the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns issued its Spring message to homeowners and land managers: Go organic!

As the lawn chemical companies hit the advertising airwaves this Spring pushing companies like “Lawn Doctor” and “Scotts,” the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns is urging homeowners and land managers to reject toxic pesticides and synthetic, petroleum-based fertilizers and instead adopt organic products and practices. The Coalition is a consortium of public health and environmental groups and landscapers nationwide that points to the long list of scientific studies documenting the human health, wildlife, pet, and environmental hazards associated with pesticide products used by the typical commercial lawn care companies and sold at lawn and garden centers.

“Scotts Miracle-Gro Company advertising this season is particularly misleading because it suggests practices such as sweeping chemical granules off driveways and pavement after lawn application to protect local waterways, while the program they are selling introduces unnecessary health and environmental hazards given the viability of organic non-toxic practices,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. Chemical lawn pesticides are linked in the scientific literature to cancer in people and pets, and are known to be toxic to the nervous and immune system, endocrine disruptors, and tied to respiratory effects such as asthma. Organic practices rely on maintenance techniques and soil health that prevent unwanted insect and weeds.

The Coalition promotes A Simple Guide to Creating a Healthy Lawn, Read Your “Weeds” for parks, lawns and playing fields this Spring that addresses the whole turf system, including developing healthy soil, maintaining a proper pH balance, selection of appropriate grasses and other plants, aeration of compacted soil, timely thatch removal, and proper mowing, correct watering, and organic fertilizing methods.

The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns maintains a website with scientific documentation on the hazards of chemical lawn care, the benefits of organic care, and activist tools for community change, http://www.pesticidefreelawns.org. A new public service announcement, Organic Lawns Now!, was released yesterday. This Winter the Coalition offered the first on-line training in Organic Land Care for Municipalities and Transitioning Landscapers with organic horticulturist, Chip Osborne (Marblehead, MA) with participants from 18 states, District of Columbia and Canada. (Available on the website.) The Coalition saw a surge in activity last Spring when activists in 39 states distributed the safe lawn door hang tags, Want a Green Lawn Safe for Children and Pets, providing information on pesticide hazards and alternatives, throughout their neighborhoods.

Landscapers offering alternatives to chemicals can be found at
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/safetysource.

TAKE ACTION: Radio provides a great outlet to get the message out about the importance of organic land care. Public service announcements (PSAs) are often played by radio stations as a service to the public. The chances that they will be played increases greatly if the request comes from a local listener! That is why we need your help. Please contact your local radio station and request that they play our PSA promoting the importance of organic land care for healthy communities.

How to Contact Your Local Radio Station
Contact your local station’s programming director or find the station’s website to find out their preferred method for receiving PSAs. Tell them you would like them to air the PSA on the importance of organic land care in protecting public health and the environment. You can give them an MP3 they can play, or the text version if they would like to read it themselves.

Sample email text:
Dear Radio Programming Director,
Please help us promote the protection of state and local water supplies and public health. The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns and myself request that you play a 30 second public service announcement -Organic Lawns Now- on the importance organic land care. This very timely and emerging topic is of interest to all families and communities concerned with protecting their children, pets and environment.

We would appreciate it if you could air Organic Lawns Now throughout the spring and summer seasons. The MP3 and text versions are attached.

Report Back
Let us know if you hear the PSA played in your community!

Links to the PSA and text as well as additional community resources, https://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticidefreelawns/actions/index.htm. For more information, contact Eileen Gunn at 202-543-5450.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2007) In the April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 7068-17071), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has once again proposed a rule that would weaken the regulation of pesticide-treated food packaging. The rule seeks to exempt from the definitions of “pesticide chemical” and “pesticide chemical residue” under section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food packaging (e.g., paper and paperboard, coatings, adhesives, and polymers) that is treated with a pesticide. Beyond Pesticides is encouraging the public to oppose the rule.

The agency previously proposed the rule as a “Direct Final Rule” on December 6, 2006, circumventing the public comment process. After Beyond Pesticides objected to the use of this process, EPA withdrew the rule in a February 2, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 4963). This time around, it is a “Proposed Rule” that is otherwise identical to the earlier version.

Pesticide-treated food packaging is a potential threat to the public’s health. The average consumer is unaware of the potential dangers associated with pesticide food residues from packaging and will not be alerted in the absence of labeling practices that disclose this information.

The proposed rule comes at a time when the agency has received increased applications for a wider variety of pesticide treated food packaging products. Due to this trend, Beyond Pesticides feels weaker regulation is inappropriate, citing existing gaps in the pesticide regulatory system, and has asked EPA and the Food and Drug Administration to require full reviews for pesticidal action of packaging, residues on food, and non-toxic strategies for food packaging.

TAKE ACTION: Submit comments to EPA on or before April 23, 2007, identified by docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0175. You may file online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or by mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Consider the following points in your comments to EPA:

1. Definition of inert: The rule, in not defining inert, adopts the definition of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As interpreted by EPA, the definition of inert casts a broad net that includes materials classified as toxic under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA), pesticides under FIFRA as long as a pesticide claim is not made by the registrant, and toxic materials under other statutes. These toxic chemicals should be reviewed in the context of the tolerance setting process. EPA’s regulatory review of inert ingredients has been the subject of considerable controversy and the rule’s reliance on this categorization raises serious issues that may enable pesticides to avoid necessary regulatory review.

2. Pesticidal purpose or pesticidal characteristics: Under the proposed rule, a pesticide may be exempt from regulation under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408 as a pesticide chemical residue if the manufacturer of the packaging does not make a pesticidal claim or state a pesticidal purpose. Under this scenario, the proposed rule creates a loophole that must be closed. For food consumers, the question is whether the use of a substance is known to have pesticidal characteristics, regardless of a pesticidal claim, is being used and whether its use creates residues.

3. Expansion of 1998 rule exception (40 CFR 180.4): The expansion of 40 CFR 180.4 requires a more in depth review and analysis of the impact that the 1998 decision has had on food safety, and this rulemaking would be an appropriate time. The 1998 exception may be ill-founded, especially given the proposed expansion. While an ingredient of packaging may be defined by EPA as “inert” (which may be biologically and chemically active, and under other circumstances classified as a pesticide) and it is a component of food packaging material, this classification does not ensure protection from possible food residues.

4. FDA and sole jurisdiction: While FDA may be given sole jurisdiction over food packaging that should not exempt those toxic pesticides in food packaging from review under section 408 of FFDCA, particularly in the case of food packaging for which there are no pesticidal claims even though it may contain pesticides.

5. Section 201(q)(3) of FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA): Section 201(q)(3) of FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), does not support the proposed action. The exception from the definition of pesticide chemical can be triggered under this provision if the manufacturer of the packaging does not make a pesticidal claim. EPA has long held that without a pesticidal claim for a product the agency does not treat the toxic substance as a pesticide. As a result, there are a host of consumer products on the market that contain pesticides for which manufacturers do not make pesticidal claims and skirt regulatory review for adverse impacts on health and the environment. As a result, under the proposed rule, a pesticide could be incorporated into packaging material, result in a residue on food, while avoiding regulatory scrutiny.

6. EPA jurisdiction: While the rule justification states that EPA’s jurisdiction under FIFRA is retained under 408, it does not require EPA to act in the case of pesticide components for which there are no pesticidal claims.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2007) A broad coalition of public interest, non-profit and labor groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have issued a letter calling the international nanotechnology community to join them in rejecting a voluntary risk assessment framework. The framework, developed under the leadership of industry in conjunction with the Environmental Defense Fund, is billed as flawed and as a public relations campaign.

Nanotechnology, or nanotech, describes the design, production, and application of engineered nano-sized materials from known chemicals such as silver, carbon, iron, or titanium. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, or around one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair. Concern over nanotech products comes from the fact that despite nano-sized chemicals have different properties compared with their bulk-sized counterparts, they are not being adequately regulated and may potentially pose health and environmental risks that are not being properly assessed.

The letter states:

We, the undersigned, submit this open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large. We are a coalition of public interest, non-profit and labor organizations that actively work on nanotechnology issues, including workplace safety, consumer health, environmental welfare, and broader societal impacts.

DuPont Chemical Company (DuPont) and Environmental Defense (ED) jointly have proposed a voluntary “risk assessment” framework for nanotechnology. These groups intend to circulate their proposed framework both in the U.S. and abroad for consideration and/or adoption by various relevant oversight organizations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

We reject outright the proposed voluntary framework as fundamentally flawed. We strongly object to any process in which broad public participation in government oversight of nanotech policy is usurped by industry and its allies. We made the decision not to engage in this process out of well-grounded concerns that our participation — even our skeptical participation — would be used to legitimize the proposed framework as a starting point or ending point for discussing nanotechnology policy, oversight and risk analysis. The history of other voluntary regulation proposals is bleak; voluntary regulations have often been used to delay or weaken rigorous regulation and should be seen as a tactic to delay needed regulation and forestall public involvement.

Nanotechnology’s rapid commercialization requires focused environmental, health and safety research, meaningful and open discussion of broader societal impacts, and urgent oversight action. Unfortunately, the DuPont-ED proposal is, at best, a public relations campaign that detracts from urgent worldwide oversight priorities for nanotechnology; at worst, the initiative could result in highly reckless policy and a precedent of abdicating policy decisions to industry by those entrusted with protecting our people, communities, and land. We strongly urge all who have an interest in nanotechnology’s future to reject this proposed framework. Respect for adequate worker safety, people’s health, and environmental protection demands nothing less.

The letter was submitted by: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Beyond Pesticides, Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology, Society and Environment, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Corporate Watch, Edmonds Institute, ETC Group, Friends of the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth Europe, Friends of the Earth United States, Greenpeace, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International Center for Technology Assessment, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations , Natural Resources Defense Council, Sciencecorps, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Third World Network, and United Steelworkers of America.

For more information, contact: George Kimbrell, Staff Attorney, The International Center for Technology Assessment at 202-547-9359.

Nanotechnology and pesticides will be discussed by Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., at Beyond Pesticides’ 25th National Pesticide Forum, Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, which will be held June 1-3 in Chicago.