(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2007) On March 29, 2007, Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) testified before the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands in support of legislation she introduced to honor Cesar Chavez. Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW) gave hope that farm workers and others would finally stop being put at risk by deadly pesticides such as methyl bromide.

In her testimony, Rep. Solis said, “Cesar Chavez’s work to protect health, the environment and workers’ rights paved the way for people like me to use my voice to fight for greater equality, to be courageous, and to bring justice to those who cannot achieve it themselves. Through this legislation, future generations of young Latinos and Latinas may have the opportunity to understand who Cesar Chavez was, the significance of his work, and know that yes, it can be done.”

An organizer and man of vision who challenged the use of toxic chemicals used for agriculture, Ceasar Chavez was an ardent proponent of sustainable, natural farming methods, who himself grew vegetables organically at La Paz, the UFW headquarters and living complex in Keene, California. He was deeply concerned over the toxic burden of pesticides borne so disproportionately by farm workers and their families. He grieved over farm workers’ children with cancer and birth defects.

H.R. 359, known as the Cesar Chavez Special Resources Study Act, was introduced in the House of Representatives January 9, 2007, and has broad bipartisan support, including 65 cosponsors. Rep. Solis said that this legislation may be considered by the full Natural Resources Committee and the U.S. House. The bill, also introduced in the Senate (S. 327) by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Salazar (R-CO), will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement.

Rep. Solis said, “H.R. 359 is not a memorial bill. H.R. 359 simply authorizes a study to determine whether sufficient historic resources still exist, so his story and the story of the farm labor movement could be added to the National Park System. At issue in the legislation is not the rightness of his cause, but the significance of his cause.” Given the lives that he touched and the changes made regarding pesticide legislation and worker protection that his organizing was responsible for, Rep. Solis continued, “the significance of his cause cannot be denied.”

According to Rep. Solis, “He courageously took up causes to improve the life of farm worker families, and as a result many farm worker families have benefited from the results of Chavez’ missions, including fair wages, health care coverage, pension benefits, housing improvements, and pesticide and health regulations. These changes have meant considerable improvements for the life of the farm worker, three-fourths of which are Latino. But his contributions extend farm beyond the lives of farm workers and well beyond any imaginable political limitations.

“For many Latinos,” Rep. Solis testified, “this appreciation of the environment is cultural. However, there is not a single unit of the National Park System dedicated to Latinos.” Rep. Solis said that it is her “hope that one day Latino families have a place in the National Park Service where they can appreciate, honor and learn about Cesar Chavez’s work and beliefs, just as African American families can visit the Martin Luther King, Jr. historical site and the Selma-Montgomery trail.”

TAKE ACTION: Today, Congresswoman Solis will be joined by Dolores Huerta and other Latino Leaders to call on Congress to pass H.R. 359, the Cesar Chavez Special Resources Study Act. This event will be held at Olvera Street in Los Angeles. Joining her will be Dolores Huerta (Co-Founder United Farm Workers and President of the Dolores Huerta Foundation), Reverend Deacon Sal Alvarez (LULAC and National Farm Worker Ministry), Paul Park (President, Cesar E. Chavez Foundation), Father Richard Estrada (Archdiocese of Los Angeles), John Trasvina (MALDEF President and General Counsel), and Deborah DeMeo (National Parks Conservation Association).

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2007) Responding to concerns about the state’s polluted waterways, Florida will become the first in the nation to enact a statewide restriction on the content of fertilizers. If passed, fertilizers sold in Florida must be no- or low-phosphate. Phosphorus, along with nitrogen, is a pollutant that contributes to algae blooms, fish kills, and dead zones, all of which alter already fragile ecosystems. The high phosphate levels are due in large part to Americans’ affinity for heavily-fertilized, brilliantly green lawns, golf courses, and recreational areas.

The proposed rule was designed in response to a number of local fertilizer restrictions in the state; rather than deal with the confusion of regulating a wide variety of local standards, the Department of Agriculture’s rule will clarify and standardize the movement to reduce pollution from lawn fertilizers. According to Richard Budell, director of water resources protection for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, “One of the things we’re trying to prevent is a patchwork of local ordinances that would be almost impossible to enforce.”

Local regulations include a similar rule that has been in place in Wellington since 2000, one in Crystal River than allows only slow-release fertilizers, and a restriction in Sanibel that allows homeowners only six applications of low-phosphate fertilizer per year. Martin and Sarasota counties have also been working to reduce nutrient loading on area waterways.

The new phosphate rule will also require industry to reformulate some fertilizers for sale in the state. While industry groups originally supported the idea of a statewide standard, they are bristling over the new rules, which will take effect in May or June, barring serious objections. Mary Hartney, president of the Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association, complained, “The proposed rule as written is problematic. It puts a disproportionate share of the burden on the industry. We certainly don’t think we’re the whole problem.” She added, “We don’t love it, but we can live with it. This rule gives the homeowner the most flexibility while also protecting the environment.”

Florida officials, meanwhile, hope the proposal serves as an example to other states as they try to reduce pollution in their rivers and lakes.”If we can do it,” said Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District,”then everybody can do it.”

Reducing phosphorus-rich fertilizers can have the added benefit of reducing the levels of pesticides that runoff into lakes and streams as well. Fertilizers are often paired with pesticides in weed-and-feed products, the use of which will fall under the fertilizer restrictions. Local bans of such products have been upheld in federal courts in the past, despite state preemption laws aimed at limiting local authority. However, it is unclear how the Florida rule will influence pesticide use and if it will preempt the more stringent local laws.

Sources: St. Petersburg Times, All Headline News, Palm Beach Post

TAKE ACTION: Beyond Pesticides advocates healthy, organic lawn care practices to eliminate pollution and health risks from fertilizers and pesticides. For tips on organic lawn care, visit our Lawns and Landscapes page, where you can find our “Read Your ”˜Weeds’�? factsheet and other tips for organizing in your region. To let us know that you want change in your region, sign the National Declaration on the Use of Toxic Lawn Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2007) The Suffolk County Legislature approved a controversial mosquito control plan, 13-3, despite major objections from other county agencies, environmentalists, and members of Suffolk’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The eleven-member CEQ advises lawmakers on the environmental impact of proposed county projects and while their recommendations are non-binding, the Legislature has generally followed the group’s advice. Several members of CEQ resigned after the bill’s passage.

CEQ objects to the planned use of methoprene, an insecticide that interferes with larval growth. Objections were also raised over the county’s mosquito-control strategy of “ditching,” or altering wetlands to make artificial ponds where mosquito-eating fish thrive, a method they claim is unproven and harmful to the environment. Those objections, which CEQ passed in a split vote earlier this year, were ignored in the final approved plan. Members of CEQ also suggest that in the absence of pathogens like West Nile virus, the threshold for troublesome yet basically harmless mosquitoes should be raised.

Prior to the controversial vote by the County Legislature, towns within Suffolk County also opposed the methods. The East Hampton Town Board and town trustees passed resolutions urging the county to abstain from using methoprene. Southampton’s trustees urged that methoprene be used sparingly and asked that ditching be stopped within the borders of the town. East End towns, and the Peconic Baykeeper are also strongly opposed to continued insecticide spraying, and Larry Penny, East Hampton’s director of natural resources, among others, issued warnings that methoprene kills many benign invertebrates.

In July 2001, New York City banned the use of methoprene in areas where it would spread into wetlands and groundwater, because the chemical was found to interfere with metamorphosis in a number of organisms. Methoprene is very highly toxic to some species of freshwater, estuarine, and marine invertebrates. Suffolk County reportedly sprayed 4,000 of its 17,000 acres of tidal wetlands last year, but vowed to reduce the amount of spraying by 75 percent over 10 years.

A lawsuit filed by Peconic Baykeeper, part of the Riverkeeper environmental action network, against the county’s spray program, citing the Clean Water Act, is pending. The Baykeeper began filing lawsuits against the county over its spraying and ditching strategy in 2001. The following year, the Legislature itself required the vector control division’s long-term plans to be reviewed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

“I saw it coming,” said Kevin McAllister, who holds the title of Peconic Baykeeper, of the decision. “I watched the program escalate with West Nile, and in 2000 I offered the Legislature a cautionary note, that I viewed the spraying and ditching as a serious threat to health of the bays.”

Four years after the 2001 suit was brought against the county, a State Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of Baykeeper. The suit charged that a thorough review had not been made. The county reversed the ruling on appeal, however.

According to Mr. McAllister, the Baykeeper has sued the State Department of Environmental Conservation on two other occasions because the agency issued permits for ditching and spraying in the absence of a proper review. Those suits became moot when the permits in question lapsed.

Mr. McAllister said on Tuesday that the Legislature had permitted no discussion of its advisory council’s concerns. “There was no representations that the chemical could be dangerous. It was completely glossed over. It’s outrageous.”

Legislator Jay Schneiderman of Montauk, who voted against the bill stated, “It is not good that people get bit by mosquitoes, but we are a county with high rates of cancer and above the national average. We should be doing everything we can not to introduce toxins in the environment. Too often the Legislature says it is not going to put environmental concerns over health concerns, but this is a health concern.”

Seven New Yorkers died of West Nile virus in 1999 when the virus first emerged. There have been no reported deaths in Suffolk County.

Sources: East Hampton Star, Newsday

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2007) A committee of experts advising the United Nations Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has recommended adding endosulfan and tributyl tin compounds (TBT) to a list of substances that are considered so harmful they can only be traded in special circumstances. On March 27, 2007, the United Nations said that the toxic chemicals would only be allowed to be exported to countries that have explicitly chosen to permit them, a measure aimed at protecting humans and the environment in developing countries.

Endosulfan, a chemical sprayed onto food crops and cotton, and TBT, used in “antifouling paint” for ships’ hulls, are already banned in many countries. However, they may be traded freely in countries lacking tight environmental regulations. According to David Santillo who works at the research center for Greenpeace at Britain’s Exeter University, “It’s great that these two have been added to the list so countries have the choice whether to import them or not.”

Endosulfan has been linked with testicular cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and defects in male sex organs. According to a recent study conducted in Costa Rica’s mountain forests, findings show that surprisingly high concentrations of pesticides are accumulating far above the low altitudes at which they are used, including endosulfan; it was one of the pesticides found in the largest concentrations at 3 ppb in soil. TBT impacts marine life, especially in harbors, and it also disrupts the hormone system. TBT is toxic to fish, molluscs and other organisms.

Chemicals that are already on the Rotterdam Convention’s Prior Informed Consent list include asbestos and the pesticides lindane and DDT. Governments have to approve the decision before it can come into force, something they are expected to do next year at a meeting of the Rotterdam Convention on trade in chemicals.

According to FAO, other chemicals on the list include the following pesticides: 2,4,5-T, aldrin, binapacryl, captafol, chlordane, chlordimeform, chlorobenzilate, DNOC and its salts, ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB), dieldrin, dinoseb, fluoroacetamide, HCH, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mercury compounds, monocrotophos, parathion, pentachlorophenol and toxaphene, plus certain formulations of methamidophos, methyl-parathion, and phosphamidon, as well as dustable-powder formulations containing a combination of benomyl at or above 7 per cent, carbofuran at or above 10 per cent and thiram at or above 15 per cent. The list also includes the following industrial chemicals: five forms of asbestos (actinolite, anthophyllite, amosite, crocidolite and tremolite), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCT) tetraethyl lead, tetramethyl lead and tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate.

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2007) While it seems to allergy-sufferers that symptoms get worse year after year, most figure it’s all in our heads. However, research by Lewis Ziska, Ph.D., a plant physiologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service’s Crop Systems and Global Change Lab and speaker at the upcoming National Pesticide Forum, shows that common pollen allergens – including the troublesome ragweed pollen – may be getting worse as a result of global climate change. The conventional response to unwanted plants is increased pesticide use, which raises concerns among environmental and public health advocates.

According to Dr. Ziska’s research, elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the top greenhouse gas, and warmer temperatures appear to increase ragweed pollen production. Dr. Ziska’s research uses sealed growth chamber systems to simulate current levels of CO2 (370 parts per million by volume, ppmv) and that projected for the mid-21st century (600 ppmv). The ragweed increased pollen productivity by 131 and 3200% respectively, compared to ragweed grown at pre-industrial CO2 levels (280 ppmv).

A recent two-year real-world observational study of ragweed also found that urbanization-induced increases in CO2 and temperature were associated with increased ragweed growth, pollen production and pollen allergenicity, suggesting a probable link between rising CO2 levels, global climate change and public health. According to Dr. Ziska, while most of the work regarding weeds, pollen production and climate have focused on common ragweed, rising CO2 and/or temperature would also be expected to influence seasonal pollen production of other allergenic plants, including tree and grass species.

Dr. Ziska’s research states, “[I]t is estimated that approximately 10% of the U.S. population-or 30 million people-suffer from hay fever or allergenic rhinitis. Symptoms include sneezing, inflammation of nose and eye membranes, and wheezing. Complications such as nasal polyps or secondary infections of the ears, nose and throat may also be common. Severe complications, such as asthma, permanent bronchial obstructions, and damage to the lungs and heart can occur in extreme cases. Although there are over four dozen plant species that produce allergic reactions, common ragweed, a ubiquitous weed, causes more problems than all other allergenic plants combined.”

Dr. Ziska’s research also examines the impact of climate change on pesticide use and efficacy — especially in relation to glyphosate (RoundUp), crop nutrition, medicinal plants, disease vectors, increases in poison ivy, and more (see also 3/19/07 Daily News post). His full article, “Climate Change, Plant Biology and Public Health,” will be published in the Spring 2007 issue of Pesticides and You.

In addition to significant cuts in fossil fuel emissions, research by Paul Hepperly, Ph.D., of the Rodale Institute and speaker at the National Pesticide Forum, suggests that organic agriculture may also be a powerful tool. The Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial, the world’s longest running study of organic farming, has documented that organic soils actually scrub the atmosphere of global warming gases by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and converting it into soil material. This is the first study to differentiate organic farming techniques from conventional agricultural practices for their ability to serve as carbon “sinks.”

Although it’s not a “silver bullet,” carbon sequestration can become a powerful component of a multi-pronged approach to managing the issue of global warming. Since 1981, The Rodale Institute has monitored soil carbon and nitrogen levels in scientifically controlled test fields using organic as well as a wide range of other farming methods. In the organic systems, soil carbon increased 15 to 28 percent.

To find out more about the link between pesticides and global warming effects, as well as to learn about ways that organic agriculture can help sequester carbon, join Beyond Pesticides at our 25th National Pesticide Forum, Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, June 1-3 in Chicago, IL. Details at www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2007) Menu Foods, which markets cat and dog food in the United States under 95 brand names, has recalled 60 million cans and pouches of wet pet food. The deaths of fifteen cats and one dog are being blamed on an analog of folic acid, aminopterin, which is used overseas as rat poison.

In high doses, the rodenticide causes acute kidney failure, which has been named as the cause of death in an estimated sixteen pets (as reported by Menu Foods; the Food and Drug Administration lists 14 dead; in contrast, the Veterinary Information Network, a website with 30,000 members in the profession, reported 471 cases of kidney failure, including 104 deaths, since the recall). The drug’s history includes uses for cancer treatment and, at one point, inducing abortions. The compound is banned in the U.S. for pesticide use, but is still used to kill rodents in other countries. Among aminopterin’s side effects in humans are cancer and birth defects.

On March 23, scientists at the New York State Food Laboratory confirmed aminopterin as the toxic chemical present in the Menu Food samples, at levels of at least 40 parts per million. Regulators suspect that the pet food was contaminated by wheat gluten from China that was treated with the poison. However, Bob Rosenberg, senior vice president of governmental affairs for the National Pest Management Association, said, “It would make no sense to spray a crop itself with rodenticide,” noting that bait stations are common in grain storage facilities. Of the chemical’s determination, said Donald Smith, dean of Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, “This is one step in a long process that will lead us to know what has happened and how it has happened.”

Menu Foods, according to president and CEO Paul Henderson, will begin testing “suspect raw materials” for additional contamination. He continued, “We have the support of our customers, we have the support of our employees. We’re confident in the future and we remain confident we can put this behind us.” Meanwhile, investigators are considering the possibility that aminopterin is not the only toxic chemical responsible for the poisonings. Lawrence McGill, a veterinary pathologist from Salt Lake City, warned, “If it is not the only culprit, as I suspect, the problem isn’t over.”

Menu Foods’ recall includes food manufactured between December 3, 2006, and March 6, 2007. The company is offering to reimburse pet owners who can prove the connection between their pet’s illness and the recalled products for their medical expenses.

While aminopterin is banned as a rodenticide in the U.S., many Environmental Protection Agency-approved rodenticides and other pesticides are commonly used and readily available. Unfortunately, some of these chemicals can and do affect the health of companion animals, as well as their owners. Many behavior patterns of pets put them at risk for being exposed to toxic pesticides, whether they are exposed through their food or prey, or through playing in a treated home, lawn, garden or field. To protect your pets, children and yourself from poisoning, check our alternatives factsheets for least-toxic management ideas.

Sources: ABC News, Chemical & Engineering News, Associated Press, USA Today, Los Angeles Times

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2007) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Livestock Committee is recommending that fish raised in open net-cages and those farms using wild caught fish as feed be excluded from forthcoming USDA organic aquaculture standards. Three environmental groups, The Pure Salmon Campaign, The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, and The Center for Food Safety are commending the Committee for upholding the principles of organic production and are urging NOSB to follow the Committee’s lead when they meet in Washington, D.C. this week.

“We’re extremely pleased with the Committee’s recommendations because no matter how stringent and well intentioned organic standards for aquaculture are, open net-cages just don’t fit under the organic umbrella,” said Dom Repta, from the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform in a press release. “The evidence in British Columbia shows that open net-cage technology does not prevent the discharge of untreated waste or the escape of farmed fish and allows continued impacts on marine predators such as seals and sea lions, the transfer of sea lice to wild salmon and the contamination of aboriginal food sources.”

In prepared comments, the groups have offered support for organic certification of non-carnivorous fish farmed in closed systems, but stress that farming carnivorous fish in open net-cage systems violates core organic principles. The groups cite scientific evidence from around the world that shows open net-cage fish farms cannot meet the standards for ecological protection to which current organic practitioners must adhere. In addition, carnivorous species that use more wild than farmed fish for feed increase the pressure on already diminishing global wild fish populations.

“The USDA must now take a strong stance on organic aquaculture certification to ensure that the entire ‘organic’ label is not diluted,” said Andrea Kavanagh, director of the Pure Salmon Campaign. “To make sure consumers are getting what they pay for when they buy ‘organic’ seafood, we’re asking the U.S. to permanently close the door on organic certification for open net-cage fish farming and the farming of carnivorous fish like salmon.”

While NOSB has been developing organic aquaculture regulations, consumers are already increasingly seeing seafood products labeled as “organic” in U.S. supermarkets. These products are being imported from countries that allow certain practices, such as the use of open net-cages and the administration of chemicals (including pesticides) to control parasites and diseases, to be considered organic.

“Under U.S. law there is no such thing as organic seafood right now,” stated Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety. “Any products labeled as such mislead consumers. The USDA has the authority to stop this threat to the integrity of the organic label and should act to enforce the law.”

Rick Moonen, chef and co-owner of RM Seafood at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, is part of the chorus of support commending the Committee’s recommendation to exclude open net-cages from organic aquaculture standards. Tomorrow, Mr. Moonen will present a letter to NOSB on behalf of 19 U.S. chefs that reads:

“As professionals that depend on quality, healthy and sustainable ingredients, we are avid supporters of ‘organic’ systems. If the U.S. chooses to water down its organic standards to accommodate carnivorous farmed fish species from open net cage systems, however, it seriously risks losing our confidence in the USDA organic brand as a whole.”

Rather than modifying organic standards to fit the needs of salmon farming, the Pure Salmon Campaign and the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform are working to improve the sustainability of the industry as a whole by fostering a transition from open net-cages to closed containment systems. Closed containment technology would eliminate many of the environmental problems associated with open net-cage fish farms such as escapes, spread of sea lice and interactions with marine predators that organic aquaculture standards for open net-cages cannot adequately address.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2007) A new study finds exposure of pregnant women to agricultural pesticides during the first trimester may increase the risk of gestational diabetes. The over twofold increase in risk is associated with some of the most commonly used agricultural pesticides.

The study, published in the March issue of Diabetes Care, used a study group comprised of wives of licensed pesticide applicators. Self-reported pesticide-related activities during the first trimester of the most recent pregnancy were analyzed for 11,273 women. Of this group, 506 women reported having gestational diabetes.

Agricultural pesticide exposure during pregnancy, such as mixing or applying pesticides or repairing pesticide application equipment, resulted in an odds ratio of 2.2 [95% CI 1.5-3.3] for reporting gestational diabetes — in other words, the women were 2.2 times more likely to develop the disease. No association was found between residential pesticide exposure during pregnancy and gestational diabetes, but it should be noted that the study group is not necessarily representative of urban/suburban populations. The increased risk of developing gestational diabetes was associated with the frequent use of 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TP, atrazine, butylate, diazinon, phorate and carbofuran.

The data for this study was collected through the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a project that began in 1994 to identify occupational, lifestyle, and genetic factors that may affect the rate of diseases in farming populations. The study has nearly 90,000 participants in total in the states of Iowa and North Carolina. AHS was initiated in response to medical research that indicates agricultural workers may have higher rates of some cancers, including leukemia, myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and cancers of the lip, stomach, skin, brain, and prostate, as well as other conditions, like asthma, neurological diseases, and adverse reproductive outcomes that may also be related to agricultural exposures.

While AHS is still ongoing, other findings from AHS indicate that as the reported duration and frequency of pesticide use increases, it is reflected in an increase in reported neurological symptoms. This was particularly evident in those who used insecticides and fumigants. Additionally, the effect was compounded in those who have experienced acute pesticide exposure. AHS data also reveals exposure to certain pesticides may be a risk factor in respect to specific cancers and respiratory ailments.

Further, a growing body of evidence is strengthening the link between pesticides and many serious health problems. For example, Beyond Pesticides’ asthma brochure details evidence that exposure to pesticides is both a root cause and a trigger for asthma, especially in young children. Infants and unborn children are especially susceptible to the adverse effects of pesticides. Many pesticides disrupt the functioning of the endocrine system, which regulates everything from insulin to fertility.

TAKE ACTION: Pregnant women and children are especially vulnerable to the effects of toxic pesticides. If you or someone you know is pregnant, please educate them on the dangers of pesticide exposure during pregnancy, and the availability of non-toxic and least toxic alternatives. For more information, see https://www.beyondpesticides.org/alternatives/factsheets/index.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2007) Using advanced risk assessment techniques, researchers have shown pesticide usage in the Salinas Valley, California, exposes pregnant women to pesticides through air, water, and soil. The study tracks how agricultural pesticides can travel from the field into the body.

A team of scientists investigating whether there is a correlation between the high levels of pesticides in pregnant women in the Salinas Valley and the high pesticide usage in the surrounding farmland has discovered important pathways of exposure that greatly inform traditional risk assessment. At first, applying a simple statistical model suggested no direct correlation, but upon applying advanced modeling techniques that combine multiple fate and exposure models with biomonitoring data they found that the study population of 600 Latina women have a significantly higher intake of organophosphorus (OP) pesticides from exposure to the surrounding air, water, and soil, but not food.

The study, part of a larger study on women and children’s environmental health called the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) project, is conducted by Thomas McKone, Ph.D., and his colleagues at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley. Results are published in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T, March 21, 2007).

Originally, Dr. McKone and his team studied OP pesticide exposure in about 600 pregnant Latina women in the Salinas Valley. The concentration of pesticide metabolites in the CHAMACOS population was compared with the average levels in women from across the U.S. (from data collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or NHANES, in 1999—2000). This revealed that the Salinas Valley women are being exposed to “significantly higher” levels of the pesticides, says Dr. McKone. The next step was to determine how these women are being exposed.

This new study is very informative in terms of understanding the fate of pesticides, says Don MacKay, Ph.D., of the Canadian Environmental Modeling Center at Trent University. Most environmental models merely predict “that if you use this amount of chemicals in this area you probably get this concentration in air, and this in water, and that in fish, and that’s about as far as they go,” he says. Dr. McKone’s work goes beyond that and “quantifies the whole journey [of pesticides] from sources into the environments . . . into outdoors, indoors, into human body,” he says.

The scientists used more sophisticated methods in determining how much each route or source of pesticides was contributing to the measured levels of pesticide metabolites in the women. In this way they were able to track how pesticides travel from the fields through different channels into the human body. Few studies “include how much [of a contaminant] is actually reaching us and how this results in concentrations in our tissue and fluids,” adds Dr. MacKay. This study provides “a shining example of the approach that should be taken for more substances, including pesticides and industrial chemicals. If that can be done, it will help the whole risk assessment process enormously.”

Farmers use large amounts of pesticides in the Salinas Valley, an important agricultural region of California. Environmental Science and Technology Online reports that in 2001, 240,000 kilograms of OP pesticides were applied in and around the valley. Humans metabolize commonly used OP pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion, into simpler compounds that eventually are excreted. Researchers can monitor levels of exposure by analyzing the levels of these metabolites in urine. Understanding the routes of exposure, however, is trickier.

Interpreting biomonitoring data on chemicals like OP pesticides is also difficult because most of the chemicals don’t persist in the environment for very long and the data have an “inherent uncertainty and variability,” says Dana Barr, the chief of the pesticides laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health. “If you take one spot, you may get no exposure where you’ve been exposed previously, and another time you can get peak exposure,” she says. Dr. McKone’s approach provides a unique way of getting at the complex mechanism of exposure to pesticides, Ms. Barr comments.

Source: Environmental Science & Technology Online

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2007) A federal magistrate judge in Providence, Rhode Island fined The Little Rhody Beagle Club Incorporated and its former president $28,144 for illegally using pesticides, guns and steel leg-hold traps to kill birds and other animals that were preying on the club’s stock of rabbits, which are used to train beagles. According to a report in the Providence Journal, the charges resulted from a joint investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Police of the state Department of Environmental Management.

Members of the dog club were chiefly targeting birds of prey, which they say ate the stocked rabbits. Most of the other, non-target birds, all of them quite common, died from insecticide poisoning. None of the birds the club killed are listed on an endangered species list. However, the birds are still protected, according to Tom Healy, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He explains that virtually all birds in North America, including the ubiquitous robin and the squawking crow, are migratory and fall under the protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The club, which is located in Warwick, and its former president, William Forward, pleaded guilty to legally killing migratory birds and illegally using a pesticide to kill birds and other wildlife. Such misuse of pesticides is not uncommon. Just as disturbing is the fact that even when pesticides are used properly, the results can still be deadly to wildlife (as well as human health). Agricultural uses of pesticides have been attributed to the depletion of bee colonies, butterflies, birds, fish and other species. Pets and wildlife are also killed in urban and suburban areas by ingesting pesticides intended to kill target species, such as rodents. Secondary poisoning (when a predator preys on a poisoned animal) can also harm animals.

According to prosecutors, Mr. Forward used carbofuran in various ways, injecting it into eggs and placing it in carcasses of squirrels that were nailed to trees. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond accepted the terms of a plea agreement and placed the club and former president, Mr. Forward, on probation for one year. The judge fined the club $18,144 and Mr. Forward $10,000. The club was also ordered to pay $1, 855 in veterinary bills for a neighbor’s dog that became ill after coming in contact with the pesticide. Judge Almond said that the club created a potential hazard for children by putting a highly toxic pesticide and illegal traps on a site that is partially surrounded by a waist high wire fence. The judge said that the club’s actions were “amateurish and lacking in forethought and a desire to find out how to do it the right way.” Judge Almond continued, by saying that the club was “altering nature to suit its own needs” and that the birds and other animals killed were “innocent victims.”

As part of the agreement, $15,000 of the club’s fine and $7,500 of Mr. Forward’s fine will go to the North American Wetlands Conservation Account managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to the club’s lawyer, the club has contacted experts for advice on how to deal with predators without resorting to pesticides. After the court session, Thomas Healy, regional special agent for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, said, “The message here today is if you have problem wildlife, there are corrected ways and wrong ways to deal with it. And misuse of pesticides is definitely the wrong way.”

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2007) Farm and environmental groups are calling on Congress to make organic and family farming priorities in the 2007 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill provides hundreds of billions of dollars to the agricultural sector, but groups believe the subsidies, which primarily support large, chemical-intensive agribusiness, are distributed poorly and are wasting taxpayer dollars. Groups say that research priorities and other incentives must support the shift to organic and assist with compliance under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).

This week, both the Senate and House Budget Committees will be marking up their respective versions of the U.S. budget for 2008. This budget resolution will determine how much money will be available to the Agriculture Committees for the 2007 Farm Bill that covers the next five years, and to the Appropriations Committees for agricultural funding for 2008. The National Organic Coalition (NOC), including the Rural Advancement Fund International, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides and others, is promoting an agenda that seeks equity for organic production under USDA programs. Read NOC Testimony regarding 2008 Appropriations Requests.

California Coalition for Food and Farming (CCFF), joined by Pesticide Action Network North American and others, has created a Farm Bill policy platform (full version and summary) that embraces a vision for a more just and sustainable agriculture and food system, including the following priorities:

• Provides farmers the support they need to protect our water, air, wildlife habitat, and farmland by increasing funding and improving the effectiveness of conservation and technical assistance programs;
• Provides greater support for fruit and vegetable production, especially for small- and mid-sized producers, organic and sustainable agriculture, local and regional market development, and beginning and minority farmers; and,
• Increases access to fresh, local, healthy and nutritious foods, especially in limited resource communities of color, by investing in new retail, improving the quality and quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables served in schools, expanding farmers’ markets, and increasing the buying power of food stamp recipients, the elderly and consumers with limited income.

By contrast, the Farm Bill has historically focused on large agribusiness. According to the budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), U.S. farm policy remains essentially unchanged since being established over 70 years ago as temporary assistance measures during the Great Depression. According to TCS, “Current farm policies no longer reflect the needs of America’s farmers, rural communities, consumers, or the tax paying public. Dominated by an array of payment programs shelling out billions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporate farms, America’s farm policy has become the longest ongoing welfare program in the country””a welfare program that hurts the majority of farmers and non-farmers alike.” Read TCS’s facts on farm policy.

TAKE ACTION: Let Congress know you want to support sustainable agriculture in the U.S. with adequate funding. Please urge your Member of Congress and Senators to speak with the House and Senate leadership and Budget Committee members and urge them to increase funding for organic and family farms. 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, March 20, 2007) Over two million poisonings are reported each year to Poison Control Centers (PCCs) across the country, including many incidents that involve pesticides. A fundamental step in poison prevention is eliminating unnecessary chemical use from your life, including pesticides. March 18-24 is National Poison Prevention Week.

According to the 2005 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poisoning and Exposure Database (the most recent report available), PCCs receive, on average, one call every 13 seconds concerning a suspected or actual human poisoning or exposure to a toxic substance. Of the over two million poisoning cases that were reported in 2005, almost 40 percent involved children under the age of three.

The 2005 report also shows over 100,000 pesticide exposures were reported to PCCs. Over 3,000 of these exposures resulted in moderate to fatal health outcomes. Recorded pesticide exposures were predominantly unintentional and almost half involved children under the age of six. It should also be taken into consideration that pesticide exposures are likely to be underreported, especially since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discontinued its pesticide incident monitoring system (PIMS) in 1981.

Taking into account that over 90 percent of poisonings reported to PCCs occur in the home, EPA advocates keeping pesticides and other household chemicals locked up, and stresses the importance of using products as directed.

Beyond Pesticides’ asks you to do something even safer for National Poison Prevention Week, and every week of the year — don’t use unnecessary chemicals, especially pesticides. Pesticide exposure is linked to many acute and chronic health problems, including asthma, breast cancer and obesity.

TAKE ACTION: Synthetic chemical pest control methods are hazardous to the environment and your health, and fail to treat the root cause of pest problems. Non-chemical pest control methods are not only effective, but also help to prevent poisoning of you, your family, your pets and your environment. See Beyond Pesticides’ alternatives factsheets to learn how to control common pests, or contact us at (202) 543-5450. To find a pest control provider near you, see Beyond Pesticides’ Safety Source directory. If you have been poisoned by exposure to pesticides, fill out a pesticide incident report form.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2007) Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers are publishing a study saying that some of the world’s farms are yielding markedly fewer crops because of global warming, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Meanwhile, providing further evidence that the pace of global warming is accelerating, scientists announced last week that this winter was the hottest on record – and that surface temperatures around the world have been increasing at three times the rate they were before 1976.

This warming most likely is costing the planet $5 billion annually in losses to three of the six major food crops, the Stanford and Lawrence Livermore researchers say. The study warns that wheat, corn and barley are especially affected, with 40 million fewer metric tons of the crops produced each year. For every 1 degree increase in temperature, the researchers say, crop yields drop by about 3 percent to 5 percent, and the decline is clearly caused by human activity.

“Global warming is having real impacts – and we’re seeing their effects already,” said Chris Field, one of the authors of the crop study, and director of the department of global ecology at Stanford’s Carnegie Institution.

“This is a sign we’re going to have more of this [crop loss] in the future,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “This will have an impact on many things that will affect humans, from food and crops but also on all kinds of ecosystems, wildlife, forests, even fisheries and especially things like wildfires, things that can be really devastating.”

It isn’t entirely clear exactly how warmer temperatures are driving the crop changes. One theory is that without occasional deep freezes, insects and plant diseases aren’t killed off during the winter, allowing them to continue to wreak havoc. Drought also can play a role. As climate scientists analyze the effects of the warming that’s already been occurring, they say they believe it’s only going to get worse.

The effects on crops are just the beginning of the widespread effects that global warming will have on pesticide-related issues. 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. Pesticide use is tied to its own myriad of problems, including pest resistance, interference with ecological services, such as beneficial organisms, water quality issues, endocrine disruption, immune suppression, and other health and environmental issues.

Below is a summary of some of the research linking global warming to increases in pest populations:

Weeds

Fast-growing weeds are able to adapt and change reproductive patterns as quickly as over a 7-year period, an ability which will lead to their expansion in response to global warming. According to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, those plants with short life cycles can adapt more quickly to change than those that reproduce slowly.(1) In their study, they found that the annual plant Brassica rapa, or field mustard, flowered significantly earlier than usual during a period a drought. Droughts, which are expected to become more frequent, especially in arid regions, cause abbreviated growing seasons. The ability of Brassica rapa to adapt in just a few generations shows how weeds will likely keep up with any attempts to develop crops that can adapt to global warming.(2) The findings are reported in the January 16, 2007, issue of the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Another study finds that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide cause poison ivy to grow larger and more poisonous.(3) An additional expected result of rising carbon dioxide levels is an increase in invasive plants. One study finds that in plant communities, high levels of carbon dioxide stimulate the growth of invasive plant species more than native species.(4) Additionally, as carbon dioxide increases, herbicides may become less effective at controlling invasive weeds.(5)

Insect populations

In addition to increasing weed populations, global climate change is expected to increase the frequency and the intensity of insect outbreaks through direct effects of climate change on insect populations, as well as through disruption of community interactions.

Researchers at the University of Washington have found that insect species that adapt to warmer climates also will increase their maximum rates of population growth, meaning that global warming will likely lead to increased insect populations. The study’s authors say that this “warmer is better�? phenomenon is likely to have widespread effects on agriculture, public health and conservation.(6)

Additionally, climate change is expected to increase the range of some insect pest populations. For example, the red imported fire ant, an invasive pest originally from South America that currently occupies much of the Southeast, is expected to expand its range into the eastern U.S. over the next century, with the help of global climate change.(7)

A 2005 study finds a decrease in levels of insect parasitism as climatic variability increases. Specifically, they predict that the decrease in parasitoids, which feed on and ultimately kill herbivores and in this case, caterpillars, will lead to an increase in the frequency and the intensity of herbivore outbreaks as the climate becomes more and more variable. The authors hypothesize that “these indirect effects of climate change via disruption of enemy-herbivore dynamics could be as disruptive as some of the more direct effects of global warming” and could increase “the frequency and perhaps intensity of herbivore outbreaks.” They predict these changes will be most disruptive in agricultural systems.(8) Many species of parasitic wasps have been used as biological controls in agriculture, and climate change may compromise their ability to control pests, leading to increased use of pesticides.(9)

Insect-Borne Disease

With the boom in insect populations, scientists also hypothesize that there will be increases in insect-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and viral encephalitis. Scientists believe that climate change will increase disease transmission by shifting insects’ geographic range, increasing reproductive and biting rates of the insects, and by shortening the pathogen incubation period.(10) In fact, research shows that malaria zones are already increasing worldwide. It has been suggested that 60% of the world will be in a malaria zone by 2100.

To find out more about the link between pesticides and global warming effects, as well as to learn about ways that organic agriculture can help sequester carbon, join Beyond Pesticides at our 25th National Pesticide Forum, Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, June 1-3 in Chicago, IL. Details at www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

TAKE ACTION: Learn about ways to take action on global warming at http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/.

(1) Franks, SJ, S Sim, and AE Weis. 2007. Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print, 10.1073/pnas.0608379104.

(2) Washington Post. Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page A09, “Weeds Adapt Quickly To Climate Change.�?

(3) Mohan, J.E., Ziska, L.H., Sicher Jr, R.C., George, K., Thomas, R.B., Schlesinger, W.H. 2006. Poison ivy grows larger and more poisonous at elevated atmospheric CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103(24):9086-9089.

(4) Ziska, L.H., George, K. 2004. Rising carbon dioxide and invasive, noxious plants: Potential threats and consequences. World Resource Review. 16:427-447.

(5) Ibid. (Ziska and George 2004).

(6) Frazier, M., R.B. Huey, and D. Berrigan. 2005. Thermodynamics constrains the evolution of insect population growth rates: “warmer is better.” American Naturalist 168:512-520.

(7) Morrison, LW, MD Korzukhin, and SD Porter. 2005. Predicted range expansion of the invasive fire ant, Solenopsis invicta

(8) Stireman, JO, LA Dyer, DH Janzen, et al. 2005. Climatic unpredictability and parasitism of caterpillars: Implications of global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:17384-17387.

(9) Ibid (Stireman et al 2005).

(10) J. A. Patz, P. R. Epstein, T. A. Burke and J. M. Balbus. 1996. Global climate change and emerging infectious diseases. JAMA 275(3).

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2007) 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.

This easy to read guide takes the mystery out of organic lawn care and makes transitioning a chemical lawn to a natural lawn fun. It guides homeowners in reading their weeds to interpret what is going on in their lawn. Simple practices like mowing too low, using synthetic-based fertilizers, over watering, or using pesticides contributes to poor soil health and invites weeds. It also explains some of the benefits of so-called weeds, such as dandelions’ ability to pull nutrients from its deep roots to the surface for grass to use. The guide provides a great way to involve kids in learning about protecting the environment.

“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. This factsheet and our recent Basic Organic Land Care Training have generated more interest and feedback than anything we have released,” says Eileen Gunn, project director for Beyond Pesticides.

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 estimates a 10 percent annual growth for the organic fertilizer market, twice the projected growth for all lawn and garden goods.

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.

According to Scripps News, even Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, a major manufacturer of chemical lawn care products, is making changes in how they convey their message and products to consumers worldwide. Rich Martinez, their chief environmental officer, claims a strengthened focus of the company on environmental stewardship. There are also regional efforts underway to reformulate fertilizer products to reduce nutrient loading to polluted coastal environments.

TAKE ACTION: 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, March 15, 2007) In a press release last week, industry group CropLife America (CLA) announced the formation of its Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), along with another industry leader, the Chemical Producers and Distributors Association (CPDA). JITF’s creation comes in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement that certain pesticide “inert” ingredients will be subject to regulatory action.

EPA’s final rule, published in the Federal Register (71 FR 45415), states, “EPA is revoking 130 inert ingredient tolerance exemptions because insufficient data are available to the agency to make the safety determination required by FFDCA [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] section 408(c)(2).” The rule is slated to go into full effect August 9, 2008.

JITF is designed to respond to data gaps that might result in the revocation of some or all of those 130 inert ingredients. JITF currently consists of 29 companies, not necessarily all of which are members of CLA or CPDA, but all of which must prove that they are registrants or inert ingredient suppliers.

Information on JITF’s work available to interested parties outside of these qualifications is extremely limited. As Ray McAllister, CLA regulatory and policy leader said in a recent press release, “This task force will allow the industry to work together to provide necessary data to the EPA, ultimately satisfying tolerance exemption requirements,” and, as this statement implies, ensures industry’s continued ability to manufacture these inerts without disclosing them to the public.

Mr. McAllister continues, “The EPA recognizes the value of a joint effort approach to providing the necessary data.” EPA’s notice is consistent with this statement, saying, “EPA continues to offer to work with industry to clarify whether testing certain chemicals within a multi-chemical tolerance exemption will suffice rather than testing each chemical in the group . . . EPA is pleased to report that numerous companies have already consulted with the agency, and more meetings have been scheduled for the near future.”

The formation of JITF comes in contrast to non-industry responses to the August EPA notice. A coalition of health, safety, and environmental organizations filed a petition that month, requesting the disclosure of so-called “trade-secret” inert ingredients in farm and household products. Inert ingredients are not listed on product labels even though they often constitute 99% of a product, and are potentially hazardous to public health and the environment. Fourteen state and U.S. Virgin Islands attorneys general agreed and submitted a corresponding petition to EPA. As Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said at the time, “The EPA is inexplicably misleading the public — allowing hazardous substances in pesticides to be identified simply as ”˜inert’.”

TAKE ACTION: Tell EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson (email: [email protected], phone: 202-564-4700, fax: 202-501-1450) that you have a right to know what ingredients are used in pesticide products and that EPA has a duty to fully test pesticide formulations.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2007) On March 12, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) 2005 approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa is vacated and ordered an immediate halt to sales of the GE seed. The judge’s ruling follows a hearing held last week in the case brought by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) against USDA for approving GE alfalfa without conducting the required Environmental Impact Statement.

In a press release issued by CFS, Will Rostov, senior attorney said, “We are pleased that the judge called for halt to sales of this potentially damaging crop.” Mr. Rostov continued, “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 give these harmful effects of the crop full consideration.”

The preliminary injunction ordered by Judge Charles Breyer in the Federal Northern District of California follows his ruling last month, finding that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. In addition to barring seed sales, the injunction calls for a March 30, 2007, halt to planting of GE alfalfa by farmers who have already purchased their seed.

Monsanto and Forage Genetics, the developers of the GE alfalfa seed, argued against the injunction. But while Monsanto and its allies claimed that delaying the sale or planting of their GE seed would harm farmers, the judge found otherwise. “Disappointment in the delay to their switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa is not an interest which outweighs the potential environmental harm”¦” posed by the GE crop, he wrote.

The March 12 decision is consistent with Judge Breyer’s ruling of February 13, in which Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa. The ruling noted that “”¦for those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop.” Commenting on the agency’s refusal to assess this risk and others, the judge noted that, “Nothing in NEPA, the relevant regulations, or the caselaw support such a cavalier response.”

Judge Breyer will hold a hearing and is expected to decide whether to impose a permanent injunction in late April.

The Center for Food Safety represented 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. For more information, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org; call Will Rostov, 415-826-2770, 415-307-2154 (cell) or John Bianchi, Goodman Media, 212-576-2700.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2007) On March 12, 2007, all state agencies regulating pesticide use were asked by Beyond Pesticides to prohibit the marketing of pesticide products with a new label that displays the Red Cross symbol because it violates federal pesticide law and misleads consumers on product safety. Clorox says on some of its new soon-to-be released pesticide labels that it will donate up to $1 million to the Red Cross when people purchase the products. Last month, a dozen groups petitioned EPA to stop the release of the new labels, which they say will mislead consumers and violates federal law prohibiting such labeling.

According to a letter sent by Beyond Pesticides, “The use of the Red Cross symbol implies an endorsement of the product and may imply an endorsement of its safety to many, which may mislead users and contribute to product misuse.”

While Clorox products are mistakenly viewed as safe chemical products without potential hazards, they do contain toxic materials that must be handled very carefully. Some of the products require that they be diluted with water and warn that they can cause irritation of the eyes, skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal tract. Exposure to high levels can result in severe corrosive damage to the eyes, skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal tissues. The label on some Clorox products warns, “Although not expected, heart conditions or chronic respiratory problems such as asthma, chronic bronchitis or obstructive lung disease may be aggravated by exposure to high concentrations of vapor or mist.” Some of the products are suspected neurotoxicants. “While EPA should ensure severe caution when using pesticides, a label displaying the Red Cross symbol sends a misleading message that will undoubtedly result in greater product misuse because of a failure to heed important product warnings,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Twelve environmental health organizations petitioned EPA in February, citing a blatant violation of its own guidelines which prohibit false and misleading labels, including: “Symbols implying safety or nontoxicity, such as a Red Cross or a medical seal of approval (caduceus).” EPA’s own review finds compliance with labels tied to consumer perception of product safety.

Background Materials: Beyond Pesticides’ Letter to New York DEC (3/12/07); Beyond Pesticides letter to Red Cross (2/9/07); Red Cross response (2/27/07); Petition to EPA (2/7/07); View Clorox “Red Cross” labels