(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.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2007) A new study has found the proportion of boys born over the past three decades has unexpectedly dropped in both the United States and Japan. In all, more than a quarter of a million boys are missing, compared to what would have been expected had the sex ratio existing in 1970 remained unchanged. The study’s authors hypothesize that the skewed sex ratio may be linked to prenatal exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as pesticides.

Although the researchers do not know why boys are taking a hit, they suspect contributing causes could include widespread exposure to hormone-mimicking pollutants by women during pregnancy and by men before they conceive children.

“We hypothesize that the decline in sex ratio in industrial countries may be due, in part, to prenatal exposure to metalloestrogens and other endocrine disrupting chemicals,” the authors note in the study, published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer reviewed journal of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

These endocrine-disrupting chemicals include some pesticides, dioxin and methylmercury, a pollutant from coal-fired power plants and many industrial sources that is commonly found in seafood.

The study also flagged a host of other possible factors, including rising obesity rates, older parental age, growing stress levels, and the increasing number of children being conceived using fertility aides. Other research has shown some associations between these factors and a drop in boy births.

The study was conducted by researchers in both the U.S. and Japan, and led by Devra Lee Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a prominent epidemiologist and director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.

In an interview, Dr. Davis said that although the cause of the decline isn’t known, it could be linked to the increasing number of other male reproductive problems, such as falling sperm counts and rising testicular cancer rates.

She said that males during fetal development may be more sensitive to pollutants that mimic hormones, leading to increased fetal deaths and reproductive problems later for the surviving males.

The study also says the world’s most skewed sex ratio is in Canada, in a native community surrounded by petrochemical plants in Sarnia, Ontario, where the number of boys born has plunged since the mid-1990s at a rate previously unobserved.

The situation in Sarnia, where nearly twice as many girls are being born than boys in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, is internationally significant, according to the study. “To our knowledge, this is a more significantly reduced sex ratio and greater rate of change than has been reported previously anywhere,” the researchers stated.

The reserve is located in the heart of Sarnia’s chemical valley, and the native community, along with researchers at the University of Rochester and the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, are trying to find the cause of the unusual sex ratio.

Fewer boys than expected are being born in the non-aboriginal community downwind of the petrochemical plants in the area as well, but not to the same degree as on the reserve. The work force in Sarnia has not been studied, something that would shed light on whether pollutants are the cause.

Researchers in many countries have been reporting a drop in the ratio of boys to girls being born over the past few decades.

It is considered normal in a large population for the number of baby boys to slightly outnumber girls, by a proportion of about 105 males to 100 females. It is widely thought that more boy births are a way nature compensates for higher rates of male mortality.

But the ratio has not been static in industrialized countries, and researchers suspect that increasing numbers of male fetuses are being miscarried, a kind of sex-based culling in the womb.

In Japan, the sex ratio fluctuated with no trend from 1949 to 1970, but then declined steadily to 1999, the end of the study period there. The decline in the number of boys in Japan equals 37 out of every 10,000 births.

Data shows the sex ratio in the U.S. also declined from 1970 to 2002. The drop in the number of boys equals 17 out of every 10,000 births. This change has been concentrated among Caucasians, while almost no change has taken place among African-Americans.

Source: Toronto Globe and Mail

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2007) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in an April 10, 2007, press release that it is seeking damages from the Clorox Company for violating pesticide regulations. Fines were levied for multiple violations that involved mislabeled pesticides intended for export.

A fine of $177,300 is based on 38 alleged violations involving unregistered and mislabeled disinfectant bleach, originally intended for export to Asia. The bottles, according to the complaint, were missing appropriate directions for use and did not bear the required wording, “Not Registered for Use in the United States.” The bottles were discovered during an audit of the company, which was prompted by inconsistencies between production and distribution in the Clorox Company’s 2005 yearly report to EPA of its export-only, unregistered products. According to Clorox spokesman Dan Staublin, “The bleach in question was part of a charitable donation that Clorox made to two Los Angeles nonprofit organizations.”

“Companies must ensure that all pesticides meant solely for export do not enter into the U.S. market,” said Enrique Manzanilla, EPA’s Community and Ecosystems Division director for the Pacific Southwest. “Selling or distributing unregistered, mislabeled pesticides is a serious violation that can result in harm to public health and the environment.”

Mr. Staublin said the company disputes EPA’s charges and will “vigorously defend our position.” He also maintained that the bleach in question was produced at the same plant and by the same formula as domestic bleach and were labeled in English, despite EPA’s claim that the label contained Chinese and English.

The press release concluded by saying the labeling and reporting requirements “protect public health and the environment by ensuring safe and effective handling, application, and disposal of pesticides, and by preventing false, misleading, or unverifiable product claims. The law also prohibits marketing of misbranded, improperly labeled, or adulterated pesticides.”

This is the second time in recent months that the Clorox Company has come under fire for improper or misleading labels. Despite opposition from pesticide regulators, several Clorox labels donning the American Red Cross symbol and language were approved by EPA last fall. After learning of this decision, environmental groups petitioned EPA to rescind and deny the labels, citing that the placement of the Red Cross symbol on a pesticide product will mislead consumers and imply safety. This is a violation of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and blatantly goes against EPA policy, which states labels may not include “symbols implying safety or nontoxicity, such as a Red Cross or a medical seal of approval (caduceus).” To read Beyond Pesticides’ press release, letters to government and Red Cross officials, and the Red Cross’s response, click here.

Additional sources: San Francisco Chronicle, Bay City News Wire

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2007) Scientists have reported several environmental estrogens can affect the immune system, promoting allergic diseases such as asthma. Researchers have observed this response using pesticides and other environmental contaminants.

Focusing on six environmental estrogens (xenoestrogens), researchers were able to reveal how these contaminants affect the immune system. Using doses representative of present human exposures, these estrogen-mimics were tested on human and mouse cells. The observed effect of exposure was both an increase in speed and intensity of immune reactions.

Three of the environmental estrogens tested were organochlorine pesticides or metabolites: endosulfan, dieldrin and DDE (DDT metabolite). The other contaminants included nonylphenol, a by-product of plastics manufacturing, and two PCBs.

The study reveals that the accelerated and increased level of degranulation of mast cells is the mechanism that causes more severe allergic reactions than would otherwise take place. According to Environmental Health News, mast cells play a vital role in allergic reactions because they are primed by past experience with allergens to release inflammatory agents into the body, which causes an allergic reaction. If the mast cell has been primed to react to a specific allergen, it will degranulate, releasing molecules such as histamine. The more intense the degranulation, the more intense the allergic reaction. Therefore, since environmental estrogens increase degranulation, these contaminants can intensify the strength and even frequency of allergic reactions.

The researchers also found that in combination with endogenous estrogen (estrogen produced within the body), environmental estrogens had an additive effect on degranulation, in effect, amplifying allergic responses.

The researchers state, “This estrogenic impact is likely to be important both for rapid disease-promoting responses, such as mast cell activation, and for more long-term pathogenesis, such as estrogen-induced cancers.”

They conclude, “The results described here indicate that we must also consider the possible impact of environmental estrogens on normal immune function and on the development and morbidity of immunological diseases such as asthma.”

These findings help to explain the dramatic increase of asthma and other allergic diseases that have taken place, especially in industrialized countries, over the past thirty years. Several persistent and ubiquitous pollutants, including pesticides, produce estrogen-like responses and tend to bioaccumulate and bioconcentrate in the food chain. Biomonitoring studies have shown most of us carry around many of these chemicals in our body.

The full study, “Environmental Estrogens Induce Mast Cell Degranulation and Enhance IgE-mediated Release of Allergic Mediators,” is available in the January 2007 edition of Environmental Health Perspectives.

Muhammed Towhid Salam, M.D., will speak on the link between pesticides and asthma 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.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2007) Today Grassroots Environmental Education, a Long Island non-profit and steering member of the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns, announces the launch of a major transit and radio advertising campaign in the suburban New York metropolitan area. The campaign is aimed at encouraging homeowners to “kick the pesticide habit” and treat their lawns the natural way.

Seven-foot high billboards now adorn the platforms of most Long Island Railroad stations, with a photo of a young father standing on the lawn of his home, cradling his young daughter in his arms. The caption reads, “I’ve Got One Great Reason Not to Use Chemicals On My Lawn.”

“Parents are naturally protective of their children,” says Grassroots associate director Doug Wood. “Once they find out how toxic some of these chemicals are and how easy it is to have a beautiful lawn without them, it’s an easy choice.”

The ad campaign is part of a larger lawn pesticide reduction program developed and carried out by Grassroots. The “Grassroots Healthy Lawn Program,” or “GHLP,” is in its first year on Long Island, but has been proven highly successful in Westchester where it was launched in 2005. The award-winning program, which aims to increase both the supply and demand for natural lawn care, is conducted in cooperation with Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and is sponsored in part by the Long Island Community Foundation.

This year Grassroots, working with the Nassau Suffolk Landscape Gardeners Association, trained more than 125 professional landscapers in the science and techniques of natural lawn care. The program website, www.ghlp.org, now lists more than 40 lawn care companies on Long Island who are offering natural lawn care programs.

“We’ve been working on the supply side of the equation this winter,” says Wood. “Now that spring is here, we’re looking to increase demand by letting people know that they have alternatives when it comes to lawn care: an advertising campaign seemed like the obvious way to get the message out.”

For homeowners who maintain their own lawns, the program website offers consumer tips as well as a list of participating Long Island retailers who carry non-toxic lawn care products.

TAKE ACTION: If you live in the New York region, work to promote the education of your community landscape professionals by visiting www.grassrootsinfo.org for training opportunities or DVD trainings. You can also educate yourself, your municipal or school grounds officials, or local landscapers with the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns online Organic Land Care Course.

Source: Grassroots Environmental Education is a non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization based in Port Washington, NY. Founded in 2000, the organization’s mission is to educate the public about the links between environmental toxins and human health. Grassroots produces videos, DVDs, brochures, white papers and other communication tools which enable individuals to act as catalysts for change in their own communities. More information at www.grassrootsinfo.org.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2007) On April 4, 2007, at a press conference on the National Mall in Washington, DC, the New Gloucester, ME-based SafeLawns Foundation issued a challenge to Americans to convert over one million acres of grass to organic lawn care by 2010. Beyond Pesticides and the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns’ door hanger, Want A Safe Lawn for Children and Pets?, was distributed at the press conference.

The SafeLawns Foundation’s mission is to create a broad-based coalition of non- and for-profit organizations committed to educating society about the benefits of organic lawn care and gardening, and effect a quantum change in consumer and industry behavior. SafeLawns is in the process of becoming a formal non-profit and is currently operating with a board of directors consisting of Paul Tukey (Spokesman), Shepherd Ogden, (Executive Director), Todd Harrington (Harrington’s Organicare), Peter Wild (Arborjet, Inc.), Rusty Warner (Database Consultant). The effort is currently underwritten by Bradfield Organics (a division of the Ralston Purina Company), Gardener’s Supply Company, MultiBloom, and People, Places and Plants. Beyond Pesticides is currently collaborating with SafeLawns on various issues, although the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns did not speak at the Washington, DC press conference.

Components of the challenge include:

• Safe Lawns Challenge – A challenge will be issued to universities and companies across the country to end the use of synthetic lawn chemicals on their campuses and headquarters;

• Safe Lawns Environmental Partnership – States across the U.S. will be urged to eliminate lawn care pesticides at day care facilities and school grounds – following the model of a law recently adopted in Connecticut; and,

• Safe Lawns Certification Program – A nationwide realty partnership program will be launched to inform home buyers of houses that have child- and pet-safe organic lawns.

“We see the writing on the wall about the future of lawn care in North America,” said Home and Garden Television (HGTV) personality and SafeLawns Foundation spokesperson, Paul Tukey. “Americans are spreading millions of tons of toxic materials and wasting enormous amounts of fossil fuels, all in the name of having a beautiful lawn. Our mission is to show people that you can have a beautiful lawn without the toxic and wasteful side effects.”

The growing demand for organic land care is coming from all sectors: homeowners, municipal park managers, and business professionals alike. A 2005 survey of 2,000 adults by the Natural Marketing Institute found 20 percent of consumers had bought some kind of environmentally friendly lawn-and-garden product. Organic land care is also a major business opportunity for product manufacturers and businesses. According to CNN, market researchers Freedonia Group estimate a 10 percent annual growth for the organic fertilizer market, twice the projected growth for all lawn and garden goods.

“We are seeing a major interest in and shift toward organic land care as the general public learns how detrimental pesticides are to their lawn, health, and the environment,” says Eileen Gunn, project director for Beyond Pesticides.

In Canada, the market shift is happening much more rapidly due to widespread bans on the aesthetic use of pesticides and a less powerful chemical industry lobby. According to Agriculture Canada, the organic sector is a small but rapidly growing sector of the lawn and landscape industry. Canada’s non-profit trade association, Organic Landscape Alliance, reports upwards of 30% growth in business over the past year and new members are continuously joining the association.

TAKE ACTION: In response to a growing demand for organic land care, Beyond Pesticides, in conjunction with its partners in the National Coalition for Pesticide Free Lawns released a new spring lawn care factsheet emphasizing a new approach to understanding non-chemical lawn care — Read Your “Weeds�” — A Simple Guide to Creating a Healthy Lawn. Get involved in promoting organic land care by distributing this factsheet in your community and to your local media outlets. You can also display our pesticide-free zone sign proudly on your lawn.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2007) In the wake of costly litigation, product sales bans, and reputation damage arising from asbestos, pesticides and other toxic materials in cosmetics and toys, and Teflon-related chemicals, U.S. investors are becoming increasingly wary of toxic chemical risks in products, in supply chains, and in their own portfolios. The number of shareholder resolutions dealing with toxic product risks jumped from three in 2004-2005 to 17 in 2006-2007, including 13 resolutions introduced for the 2007 proxy season at such leading U.S. corporations as Dow and DuPont, according to a press release.

In response, the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), which represents 20 investment organizations with $22 billion in assets under management, yesterday released the 52-page “Fiduciary Guide to Toxic Chemical Risk.” The guide for institutional investors examines the financial dimensions of toxic chemical risk, including how to quantify such risk, the theory behind the danger posed by toxic chemicals to the wealth of shareholders, and a comprehensive set of action steps that can be taken by investors to translate the long-term threats and opportunities associated with toxic chemical issues into prudent portfolio stewardship.

The IEHN primer for institutional investors concludes: “Researchers are increasingly detecting scores of these substances in human blood, breast milk, and amniotic fluid, and scientists are increasingly recognizing the particular vulnerability of fetuses and young children to them. These and related findings are contributing to rising awareness that the strategic choices businesses make about managing toxic chemicals in their products can have major financial consequences. As DuPont has been discovering with PFOA, a chemical used to produce Teflon and stain and grease repellants, consumers and industrial customers may abandon product lines over toxicity concerns. At the same time, liability litigation and government enforcement actions may further undermine bottom lines and reputations.”

Report co-author and Rose Foundation Executive Director Tim Little said: “Companies’ strategic choices have serious implications for government pension funds. Our report estimates the combined annual costs of environmentally related childhood asthma, cancers and neurobehavioral disorders in California, Connecticut and New York States as on the order of $15 billion dollars. Government employee pension funds, in particular, should take heed and take action on the funds, state treasuries and fund members are shouldering the resulting health care and special education costs.”

Richard Liroff, Ph.D., executive director of IEHN, said: “Poor corporate management of toxic hazards can increase risks for investors. Regulatory controls are tightening around the globe, not only in Europe but also in US states such as California, and in developing markets such as Korea and China. The failure to address safer materials is causing products to be locked out of markets. By contrast, corporate efforts to minimize or avoid exposures, or to offer safer alternatives, can benefit corporate bottom lines and reward investors.”

Craig Metrick, US lead for responsible investment at Mercer Investment Consulting, said: “The good news for investors is that there are constructive steps they can take immediately to mitigate the potential risk posed by toxic chemicals in their portfolio. These steps we are outlining include comprehensive directions that can help fiduciaries understand the relationship between toxics and financial risk, and guide their exploration of these issues with investment managers and consultants.” The 2006 proxy season saw a flurry of positive corporate steps following the filing of shareholder resolutions focusing on toxic chemical risks, including:

• Whole Foods Markets announced that it would remove baby bottles and other products that contain certain toxics from its shelves as part of a new corporate policy initiative to reduce customers’ exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals.
• Wal-Mart announced a new “preferred substances policy” that incorporates a precautionary, hazards-based approach to chemicals management, initially focusing on persistent bioaccumulative toxics and carcinogens.
• Johnson & Johnson agreed to initiate a stakeholder dialogue with one of the cosmetics industry’s harshest critics, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Experts expect the concerns about toxic chemical risks to continue apace in the 2007 proxy season, with many key votes scheduled over the next few weeks:
• Dow (asthma). Refiling of 2006 resolution that requests report analyzing impact of Dow products on asthma and measures Dow is taking to phase out or restrict such chemicals. Lead Filer: Trillium Asset Management. Estimated voting date: May 10.
• DuPont (chemical security). Shareholders are requesting the independent directors of DuPont to report on the implications of a policy for reducing harm from catastrophic chemical releases by reducing the use and storage of extremely hazardous substances and taking other steps. Lead Filer: Green Century Capital Management. Estimated voting date: April 25.
• Scotts Miracle-Gro. Shareholders requested a report on the company’s expenditures during 1993-2005 on efforts to oppose local policies to limit lawn care product use. Lead filer: Boston Common Asset Management. Outcome: 9.3 percent of vote. In its opposition statement to the resolution, the company reported it had spent less than $300,000 in fiscal year 2006 to oppose local pesticide ordinances.
• ServiceMaster. Shareholders request a report on the feasibility of discontinuing the use of synthetic pesticides at TruGreen Chemlawn, instead substituting natural and non-toxic lawncare services. Lead filer: Green Century Capital Management. Outcome: Estimated voting date May 8. Note that ServiceMaster has announced its pending acquisition by a private equity consortium led by Clayton, Dubilier, and Rice, Inc.

The full IEHN report is available online at www.iehn.org.