Update: See Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2008.  The report notes that not only can organic agriculture feed the world but it may be the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in developing countries. UNEP and UNCTAD state that its extensive study “challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.” In an analysis of 114 farming projects in 24 African countries, UNEP reports that organic or near-organic practices result in a yield increase of more than 100 percent.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2007) After a three-year study of worldwide organic versus conventional farm yields, researchers have found that organic farming can produce as much as, and even exceed the crop and animal yields of conventional farming. These findings dispute the myth that organic methods are less productive.

University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment professor Ivette Perfecto, Ph.D., and Catherine Badgley, Ph.D., research scientist with the University’s Museum of Paleontology, conducted the study. Their findings are derived from a database of information from farms in both developed and developing nations. The full study, “Organic agriculture and the global food supply” is published in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (formerly known as American Journal of Alternative Agriculture), Vol. 22, Issue 2.

Among the findings are that (1) in developed countries, organic and conventional farms recorded similar yields, (2) yields can be doubled or tripled in developing countries using organic methods, and (3) organic fertilizers can be used to attain such yields, even without putting more farmland into production.

Their research shows that for organic corn, yields range from 84 percent to 130 percent of conventionally grown corn. “It even surprised us,” Dr. Badgley said, “We expected we might find that it might be oh, 80 percent or something simply because that’s the number that has been cited in the past.”

This study is not the only analysis that shows organic farming can be competitive with conventional methods. Other findings have reported that comparable yields can be obtained with organic farming while using 30 percent less energy, conserving water and without pesticides.

However, some have disputed these findings. Mike Score, who has worked several years with African farmers, and is a Washtenaw County agricultural agent for Michigan State University Extension, said that these reports do not reflect his experience. Mr. Score said, “The farmers I have worked with have not been able to equal yields (with organic methods) in all cases.” He also added that other factors, such as labor and fuel costs, need to be taken into consideration.

Organic farming conserves natural resources by recycling natural materials and it encourages an abundance of species living in balanced, harmonious ecosystems. Organic farmers are required by the National Organic Standards to minimize soil erosion; implement crop rotations; provide for the humane, general welfare and health of farm animals and prevent contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant and animal nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances. Even though the popularity of organic produce has grown tremendously in recent years, farmers in the US are not nearly keeping pace with consumer demand for organic products, estimated to be growing by 20 percent a year. Organic growers face an uphill battle against the conventional growers that get the lion’s share of appropriations from the Farm Bill.

Beyond Pesticides is a member of the National Organic Coalition that is advocating for an increase in the funding available for organic farmers in the 2007 Farm Bill. For more information, please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/index.htm.

Source: The Ann Arbor News

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2007) New research finds several species of freshwater fish have lower temperature tolerances when exposed to the widely used pesticides endosulfan and chlorpyrifos. The discovery reveals another key pesticides issue in the global warming debate.

The study, “The Effects of Three Organic Chemicals on the Upper Thermal Tolerances of Four Freshwater Fishes” (Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, July 2007), is the work of Ronald Patra of Australia’s Department of Environment and Conservation and colleagues. The study establishes the upper temperature tolerances of both unexposed and exposed silver perch, eastern rainbowfish, western carp gudgeon and rainbow trout. Exposed fish were given sublethal doses of endosulfan, chlorpyrifos or phenol.

The results show exposure to endosulfan cause a decrease of temperature tolerance in silver perch by 2.8 °C, eastern rainbowfish 4.1 °C, western carp gudgeon 3.1 °C, and rainbow trout 4.8 °C. Chlorpyrifos decreases temperature tolerance in silver perch by 3.8 °C, eastern rainbowfish 2.5 °C, western carp gudgeon 4.3 °C, and rainbow trout 5.9 °C. Phenol is not shown to cause a significant decrease in tolerance.

The authors conclude, “The reduction in thermal tolerance of fish in the presence of endosulfan and chlorpyrifos suggest that, not only does temperature influence the sensitivity of fish to a toxic chemical, but chemical exposure also affects the temperature tolerance of fishes.”

The additive stress on species from exposure to pesticides and other toxics in combination with rising global temperatures reiterates that reducing pesticide use in favor of non-toxic alternatives remains an important action that protects and improves environmental and human health.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2007) Dow Chemical Company has reached agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin cleanup of dioxin contamination downstream of its Midland, Michigan facility immediately. The teratogenic (i.e. ability to cause developmental malformations) and mutagenic compounds are not only byproducts of manufacturing processes but are contained in one of Dow’s most used herbicides.

Last November, Dow identified dioxin hot spots along the Tittabawassee River, but corrective action “has taken too long” according to an EPA press release. “EPA has documented that dioxin contamination in soil poses risks to human health and the environment.” Dioxins are a family of chemicals that have been linked to cancer, weakened immune systems and reproductive problems.

Terry Miller, a member of Lone Tree Council, an environmental group, told the Saginaw News that EPA’s decision confirmed his suspicions that Dow was “dragging their feet” in the cleanup efforts. “There’s been a lot of print suggesting the state has been too hard on the company when it appeared that Dow was being too slow,” he said. “The federal government would seem to support that contention.”

Michelle Hurd-Riddick, a spokeswoman for the Lone Tree Council, was quoted by the Saginaw News saying that her search of the federal agency’s documents revealed “fatigue and frustration” with the chemical giant’s “chronic, chronic delays” while the highest concentrations of dioxin contamination linger untouched.

Past waste disposal practices, fugitive emissions and incineration at the Midland plant have resulted in on- and off-site contamination of nearby waterways. Dow’s manufacturing of chlorine-based products and other chemicals results in dioxins, as well as furans, chlorobenzenes and heavy metals, as byproducts.

Dioxins can be found in final products too, including 2,4-D, one of Dow’s major herbicides in use today. 2,4-D is commonly found in weed and feed and is used widely for vegetation control in agriculture as well. Dow has been a leader in obscuring the science and weakening the regulation of these and other deadly chemicals. Beyond Pesticides is working to make consumers aware of the dangers of these products and hold companies accountable for their wrongdoings.

Sources: EPA Press Release, Saginaw News

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2007) In response to the recent declining bee colony crisis, U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale Buchanan announced on July 13, 2007 that USDA researchers have finalized an action plan for dealing with colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honey bees, which includes pesticides as a reason for the problem.

“There were enough honey bees to provide pollination for U.S. agriculture this year, but beekeepers could face a serious problem next year and beyond,” Buchanan said. “This action plan provides a coordinated framework to ensure that all of the research that needs to be done is covered in order to get to the bottom of the CCD problem.”

The action plan coordinates the federal strategy in response to CCD. It addresses four main components: (1) survey and data collection needs; (2) analysis of samples to determine the prevalence of various pests and pathogens, exposure to pesticides, or other unusual factors; (3) controlled experiments to carefully analyze the potential causes of CCD; and (4) developing new methods to improve the general health of bees to reduce their susceptibility to CCD and other disorders. Four possible causes for CCD are identified in the plan: (1) new or reemerging pathogens, (2) new bee pests or parasites, (3) environmental and/or nutritional stress, or (4) pesticides. Research will focus on determining which of these factors are contributing causes of CCD, either individually or in combination.

CCD became apparent as a problem beginning in the winter of 2006-2007 when some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. While colony losses are not unexpected during winter weather, the magnitude of loss suffered by some beekeepers was highly unusual. There is currently no recognizable underlying cause for CCD. The main symptom is finding no or a low number of adult honey bees present with no dead honey bees in the hive. Often there is still honey in the hive and immature bees (brood) are present.

Many scientists believe that pesticides, including imidacloprid, have been shown to disrupt the mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior of beneficial insects, and have been blamed for the decline in many insect populations, especially the honeybee.

Pollination is a critical element in agriculture, as honey bees pollinate more than 130 crops in the United States and add $15 billion in crop value annually.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2007) Since 2000, the United States has financed aerial spraying of glyphosate over Colombia’s coca crops, the raw material of cocaine, as part of the “War on Drugs.” Scientists from Pontificia Catholic University in Quito, Ecuador, have completed a study of 24 residents living within three kilometers of the Colombian border — an area targeted by the coca spraying – and have found a wide variety of ailments. The study’s subjects suffer from symptoms that include intestinal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, numbness, blurred vision, skin irritation, rashes, and difficulty breathing. In addition, the damage to their chromosomes was 600 to 800 percent greater than that of people living 80 km away, which can signal possible conditions like cancer and reproductive effects like miscarriages.

The U.S. has increased the spraying each year since 2000, including the addition of a fourth spray team in 2006. In 2006, the Colombian National Police’s Anti-Narcotics Directorate (DIRAN) sprayed more than 424,055 acres of coca. Extensive research in recent years regarding glyphosate’s toxicity to placental cells and aquatic life, among others, has prompted the U.S. Congress to seek guarantees that Colombian wetlands would not be sprayed, but the program continues to threaten legal crops, domestic animals, and fish hatcheries, in addition to exposing humans to the study’s documented health effects.

Research like this study, led by researcher Cesar Paz y Mino, has led Colombian officials to seek out other means of eradication of the coca crops. By 2006, more than 100,000 acres, or 25 percent, were destroyed by workers using hoes, while guarded by policemen against guerrilla groups that derive much of their wealth from the cocaine trade. This year, they aim to uproot 172,000 acres. “We are convinced of the advantages of manual eradication over spraying, and that’s why we want to give more importance to manual eradication,” said Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos.

This position, likely due in part by studies like that of Paz y Mino, is also aided by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) data that shows coca crops remain as strong as they were in 2001, despite $5 billion in U.S.-funded spraying. El Tiempo, Colombia’s largest newspaper, published an editorial that said, “The strategy doesn’t work; fumigating doesn’t eradicate. Instead of clamoring for help on a program that seems more inappropriate every day, the government should take advantage of this moment to redirect and rethink its anti-drug collaboration with the United States. Fumigation should be suspended and only used in extraordinary causes.”

TAKE ACTION: Democrats in Congress have recently cut aid to Colombia by ten percent from concern over human rights and the efficacy of spraying. To ensure that coca eradication does not continue to endanger humans or the environment, write to your senator or representative and express your concern over these issues today!

Sources: Truthout, Washington Post

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2007) A study conducted by Canadian researchers show that high concentrations of POPs, or Persistent Organic Pollutants, can be observed in humans and other air-breathing animals even though they may not accumulate in fish. This suggests that current risk assessment methodologies need to be changed for identifying potential POPs in birds and mammals.

POPs are synthetic, toxic chemicals that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in food chains and are common contaminants in fish, dairy products and other foods. These compounds are generally accepted to be hydrophobic and fat-soluble. Screening for these bioaccumulative compounds is normally conducted with laboratory tests using fish. However researchers Barry C. Kelly, and Frank Gobas, Ph.D., at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia report that this methodology may overlook a significant number of pollutants that pose health risks to air-breathing animals.

The study entitled “Food Web—Specific Biomagnification of Persistent Organic Pollutants” (Science 2007, v317, p236) examines the biomagnification of moderately hydrophobic compounds with octanol-water partition coefficients (K_ow) between 100 and 100,000 (currently, compounds with K_ow greater than 100,000 are generally categorized as bioaccumulative compounds and tend to be hydrophobic and fat-soluble) and compounds with high octanol-air partition coefficients (K_oa). The compounds have been tested within a variety of food webs including one with only water-respiring organisms, one with only air-breathing organisms, and one with both (including humans). Compounds with a high K_oa and K_ow, such as PCB 153, biomagnify in all food webs. However, compounds such as lindane, which has a high K_oa and low K_ow do not biomagnify in food webs including only water-respiring organisms, but do accumulate in food webs with air-breathing animals.

According to Lynn Goldman, M.D., of the John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, the study suggests, “a broader range of chemicals, with high K_oa but lower K_ow, should perhaps be considered to be persistent organic pollutants.” Dr. Gobas points out that even though the degree to which chemicals are transformed in organisms is difficult to predict, he hopes that environmental regulations will change in light of this new work. EPA research chemist, Lawrence Burkhard says, “[C]urrent risk assessments that classify a chemical as a persistent organic pollutant have based their conclusions primarily on science drawn from aquatic toxicology. This paper strongly suggests risk assessment methodologies need to be changed to include data on bioaccumulation in birds and mammals. If this is done, more chemicals may be classified as POPs than have been in the past.”

The finding is important since many Americans may carry enough POPs in their bodies to cause subtle but serious health effects, including reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, and disruption of the immune system. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), POPs pose a particular hazard because of four characteristics: they are toxic; they are persistent, resisting normal processes that break down contaminants; they accumulate in the body fat of people, marine mammals, and other animals and are passed from mother to fetus; and they can travel great distances on wind and water currents. Even minute quantities can cause nervous system damage, diseases of the immune system, reproductive and developmental disorders, cancers and other diseases like diabetes. Most vulnerable are those in the womb or egg, and in infancy, as vital organ systems are being developed.

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (see Daily News) represents one of the most important efforts by the global community to rein in and ultimately halt the proliferation of toxic chemicals. This treaty, ratified on May 17, 2004 is an attempt to reduce the impact of these persistent chemicals throughout the world. The U.S. has yet to be among 150 ratifying countries. In 2001, President Bush promised to support the treaty, but his administration has sought to undermine it with legislation that would make it harder, rather than easier, for EPA to comply.

Source: Chemical and Engineering News

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2007) In its report released on Father’s Day 2007, “Men, Boys and Environmental Threats,” the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment urges greater awareness among parents about environmental risks to boys. “All children are at risk from exposure to environmental hazards, but boys appear to be at greater risk,” said Dr. Lynn Marshall, MD, with the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

The report summarizes the evidence about environmental risks to boys, specifically examining cancer, asthma, learning and behavioral disorders, birth defects and testicular dysgenesis syndrome. Below is a summary of the report’s findings.

Cancer: Although cancer is rare among all children, more boys are diagnosed with cancer than girls. Among young adults (age 20—44) several cancers are on the rise, including testicular cancer. Concern arises over parents’ exposures before conception or during pregnancy. Childhood cancers are associated with exposures to pesticides, solvents, petroleum products, motor vehicle exhaust, benzene and other pollutants. Much remains unknown. Since cancer involves problems with cell division, it is logical that exposures during times of rapid cell division (especially in the womb) likely pose the greatest risk.

Asthma: In the past 20 years there has been a dramatic rise in asthma in children. Less well known is that more boys have asthma than girls and more are hospitalized for it. Boys are born with smaller airways, relative to their lung size, than girls. They also tend to have more allergies, which can contribute to developing asthma. Asthma is a complex disease. Evidence shows that it results from interactions between genetics and environmental triggers. Such triggers include indoor and outdoor air pollution and also include some pesticides and chemicals in household cleaning products.

Learning and Developmental Disorders and Disabilities: Large numbers of children have learning and behavioral disorders or disabilities. The apparent increase in autism in recent years is of concern. For unknown reasons, boys are at greater risk for autism as well. More boys than girls have autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities, Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia. For autism and ADHD, boys outnumber the girls by up to four to one. We know that children’s brains can be damaged by lead, mercury, arsenic, radiation, dioxins, PCBs, solvents and some pesticides.

Boys’ brains may be more vulnerable for several reasons. There are genetic differences, slower rates of maturity and greater vulnerability to physical injury. Brain development and the pattern of hormone production in the womb are different for boys than girls. Recent studies of adults reveal gender differences in brain structure, function and chemistry. These differences may make boys more vulnerable to chemical exposures. As well, there are a larger number of cell divisions in males during fetal development, which increases the chances of genetic errors occurring.

Birth Defects: Birth defects occur in about two to three per cent of births in Canada – boys are affected more often than girls. About half of birth defects affecting boys include cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) and hypospadias (a defect of the male urinary tract). Stillbirths and miscarriages, which often can be due to birth defects, also seem to be more common in male babies. Many factors can contribute to birth defects including genetics, infection during pregnancy, and environmental factors. While much remains unknown, interaction of multiple factors is likely. We know that certain chemicals can impact development, including lead, mercury, radiation, and PCBs contaminated by dioxins and furans. Scientists suspect there are many more contaminants that come into play, including some pesticides, organic solvents, and some air pollutants.

Development of the male reproductive system has more steps and is more complex than for the female system. As a result there are more chances for error. Rapid cell growth creates a higher risk of incorporating errors during development than cells growing more slowly. Where defects originate in an X chromosome, females have a chance to “neutralize” this defect with another X chromosome, while males have only one X
chromosome.

Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome: Scientists describe a group of impacts on the male reproductive system under the term Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome (TDS). TDS includes the birth defects cryptorchidism and hypospadias, as well as poor semen quality (i.e. reduced sperm count, abnormal sperm), decreased fertility and perhaps also testicular cancer. Scientists suspect chemical exposures during pregnancy, specifically during the time when the male reproductive system is developing, may be causing these related impacts. Hormones (the endocrine system) play an important role in the development of the fetus. Scientists suspect that TDS results from chemicals that can disrupt these hormones. Called “endocrine disruptors,” scientists have shown these effects for a few chemicals including PCBs, dioxins and some pesticides.

The report encourages parents, especially fathers, to take an active role in protecting their children from environmental risk factors. A checklist of preventive measures is included in the report.

For more information on children and pesticides, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools webpage.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2007) A European Union (EU) court banned the toxic weedkiller paraquat Wednesday, accepting arguments from the Swedish government that it does not meet EU health standards. Paraquat is the main ingredient in Swiss-based Syngenta’s Gramoxone – one of the world’s three most widely used weedkillers.

Paraquat has been linked to reproductive effects and to Parkinson’s disease. Although paraquat had already been banned in 13 countries, including Sweden, Denmark, and Austria, in 2003, the Commission of European Communities (CEC) had issued an order approving the use of paraquat. Sweden challenged this order and the judges, in a previous decision, ruled that the CEC’s action showed a “disregard” of proper procedures.

In the new ruling, the Court of First Instance criticizes EU regulators for not checking more carefully whether paraquat could harm humans and animals before authorizing it for sale in 2003. The court said the European Commission – which regulates herbicides and pesticides – was mistaken when it found no signs that the chemical could cause nervous system diseases such as Parkinson’s and that regulators failed to review existing studies on paraquat – even though the chemical producers that asked for approval had not mentioned the adverse studies in their application.

The ruling is a victory for Sweden – supported by Denmark, Austria and Finland – which was angered by having to lift some of its strict environmental controls when it joined the EU in 1995 in order to conform with trade rules.

Paraquat, which has been in use for more than 60 years, attacks the green part of a plant, drying the leaves out to kill it without affecting the roots of crops below ground. Among the literature that links paraquat to Parkinson’s is an April 2007 study that finds farm workers exposed to paraquat have twice the expected risk of developing Parkinson’s. A 2005 study also confirms the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s.

Source: Associated Press

TAKE ACTION: Let the Bush Administration know that the United States should follow the EU’s lead and ban the toxic herbicide paraquat. Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and send an email to President Bush. Also let your elected members of Congress know how you feel. Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2007) More than 5,000 agricultural workers from Central America have filed lawsuits in the United States, claiming that a pesticide used on banana trees has rendered them sterile. The pesticide, dibromochloropropane (DBCP), was used by workers from Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama to kill worm infestations in the trees’ roots. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DBCP, which was largely phased out on U.S. crops by 1979, causes male reproductive problems, including low sperm count, and is a “probable human carcinogen.”

The first of the five lawsuits, originally filed in 2004, which began jury selection two days ago, accuses Dole Fresh Fruit Co. and Standard Fruit Co. of “negligence and fraudulent concealment while using the pesticide.” In addition, it argues that Dow Chemical Corp. and Amvac Chemical Corp., which manufacture DBCP, “actively suppressed information about DBCP’s reproductive toxicity.”

The suit filed by attorney Duane Miller states that Dow and Amvac were aware of the health risks of DBCP in the 1950s. “Defendants, however, continued to market, sell, and use pesticide products containing a DBCP outside of the United States, including Nicaragua,” it says. In addition, Miller claims the pesticide seeped into the water supply, contaminating bathing and drinking water in company-owned plantation housing, while at the same time the company did not provide the workers with any sort of protective gear.

This case is particularly significant, legally speaking, because its outcome will likely determine whether multinational corporations, like Dole, should be tried in the country where they are based or where the employees are. The result is significant because settlements in the U.S. tend to be larger than in other parts of the world. According to Columbia University law professor Alejandro Garro, “The administration of justice in developing countries in comparison to the administration of justice in the U.S. — there’s a big gap. The significance of it is we’re talking about a global economy where big business does business all over the world and where we don’t have a uniform type of justice.”

This is not the only case of claims involving DBCP. The same Nicaraguan banana workers had their case tried in a Nicaraguan court before gaining approval for a U.S. trial. Earlier this year, West African plantation workers filed a suit against Dole, Dow, Amvac, and Shell Chemical Co., with similar claims of sterility. Amvac has also attracted some attention for its practices of selling older, more toxic pesticides overseas, in spite of U.S. bans. DBCP itself has also been found in California tap water as recently as 2001.

The health of farmworkers is one of many reasons to support locally and organically grown food. For more information on Beyond Pesticides’ work with organics, including the 2007 Farm Bill recommendations, click here.

Source: Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2007) According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service, the number of genetically engineered (GE) crop acres by U.S. farmers has skyrocketed since their introduction in 1996, despite resistance from consumers and concerns about agricultural and environmental impacts. Because the U.S. does not require GE crops to be labeled, the only way to be sure you are not consuming these products is to buy organic, which forbids the use of GE technologies.

Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the U.S., followed by insecticide-incorporated cotton and corn. The chart below shows the growth of GE soybeans, cotton and corn since 1996. (HT = modified to be herbicide tolerant, Bt = modified to produce the insecticide Bt)

Since 2000, use of HT soybeans has increased from 54% of acreage planted with the crop to 91% in 2007. GE corn varieties, both HT and Bt, have increased from 25% to 73%. Cotton varieties, both HT and Bt, have increased from 61% to 87%.

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

Glyphosate-resistant weeds have led to the recent laboratory development of dicamba-resistant GE crops by University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) researchers. UNL has signed an exclusive licensing agreement with Monsanto to develop crops using the new technology.

For more information on organic food and farming, click here.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2007) Beyond Pesticides came together last year with the Northeast Organic Farmers Association, Ecological Landscape Association and the New England town of Townsend, Massachusetts, to raise awareness about organic lawn care, which has now led to the implementation of an organic program for all municipal lawn areas. This program will facilitate the use of organic fertilizers and methods on lawn and landscaped areas at the Townsend Town Hall, library and town commons.

After a successful open presentation to the citizens of the town on the benefits of organic land care, Townsend public officials are now moving forward to improve their local environment by allowing Yard Spice Organics, LLC to implement a program of organic lawn care for the town’s common areas. This action came after officials expressed the desire last March to maintain organic lawns throughout the town. Yard Spice Organics, along with supplier, Bradfield Organics, LLC, will be donating their services and products to the town during the first year of service.

The town of Townsend is not alone in its quest for safe and healthy lawns. 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 like Yard Spice Organics, which is the largest organic lawn care and fertilizer company in the Northeast region. Yard Spice Organic and other providers that offer least-toxic service(s) are also listed in Beyond Pesticides’ Safety Source for Pest Management.

Homeowners use an estimated 100 million pounds of pesticides each year in their homes and gardens. Residential pesticide use figures are actually higher though when the usage by commercial companies is taken into account. Suburban lawns and gardens are known to receive far heavier pesticide applications per acre than most other land areas in the U.S., including agricultural areas. Studies show that these hazardous lawn chemicals are drifting into homes where they contaminate indoor air and surfaces, exposing children at levels ten times higher than pre-application levels. These chemicals are linked with causing cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption to name a few. (See more lawn pesticides facts and figures.)

Beyond Pesticides, as part of the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns, is working to bring activists across the country together to work on pesticide reform activities to educate communities, including landscapers and policy makers, about the unacceptable hazards of lawn chemicals. (see Daily News Blog).

For more information on organic land care, please visit https://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/index.htm.

Source: Newswire Today

TAKE ACTION: Sign the National Declaration on the Use of Toxic Lawn Pesticides. If you already have signed the Declaration and would like to pledge your lawn/landscape as organic, please contact us at (202) 543-5450, [email protected].

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2007) New field and laboratory research reveals that organochlorine pesticides reduce the hatching rate of alligator eggs. This finding adds to previous studies demonstrating that pesticides cause endocrine disruption in alligators, resulting in poorly developed reproductive organs.

American alligators, which were delisted from the endangered species list in the late 1980s, are still experiencing low hatching rates around contaminated wetlands. In Florida, many wetlands were converted or are adjacent to farmlands and some farmlands have been restored back into wetlands in efforts to improve ecosystem health. Agricultural runoff has altered the surrounding aquatic environments by depositing pesticide residuals and skewing nutrient levels. Organochlorine pesticides, such as chlordane, toxaphene and dieldrin, have been especially problematic due to their persistent nature.

The link between pesticides and reproductive problems in alligators has been firmly established since the 1990s. University of Florida zoologist Louis Guillette, Ph.D., found pesticides are linked to smaller penises and abnormal egg development in exposed alligators.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission official Allan Woodward has also observed fewer hatches around lakes with high pesticide levels. He reports the hatching rate has improved around Lake Apopka, a large lake in central Florida, during the last two decades from 10% to 50%, noting, “we still don’t see the hatching rate that we’d like to see.”

Building on this knowledge, the current study, Parental Exposure to Pesticides and Poor Clutch Viability in American Alligators, compares organochlorine levels in alligator eggs from four highly contaminated lakes to two less contaminated ones. This fieldwork has confirmed a strong correlation between pesticide levels and reduced hatching rates.

For the second step of the study, the researchers fed captive alligators environmentally relevant levels of organochlorine pesticides. The eggs from the exposed alligators show similar pesticide levels and hatching rates to those found in proximity to the contaminated lakes. These results suggest wild alligators have been consuming pesticides through their diet, which implies the entire food chain is ingesting these toxic chemicals as well.

“[I]t indicates that if this is happening to alligators, it’s happening to turtles. If it’s happening to turtles, it’s happening to frogs and birds,” says coauthor Timothy Gross, Ph.D., who is finding similar effects in other species.

Several pesticides and other common contaminants can cause endocrine disruption (i.e. interfere with the natural signals controlling development, daily maintenance of the body and other hormonal functions). Research links the presence of endocrine disruptors to reproductive disorders, alterations in neurodevelopment, cancer, immune suppression and other adverse health endpoints. Many scientists believe that wildlife provides early warnings of effects produced by endocrine disruptors, which may as yet be unobserved in humans.

Source: Environmental Science & Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2007) Organic fruit and vegetables may be better for the heart and general health than eating conventionally grown crops, according to new research from the University of California. A ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce found that they have almost double the quantity of disease-fighting antioxidants called flavonoids.

Flavonoids help to prevent high blood pressure and thus reduce the likelihood of heart disease and strokes. They have also been linked with reduced rates of some types of cancer and dementia.

Alyson Mitchell, Ph.D., a food chemist at the University of California, Davis, and colleagues measured the amount of two flavonoids””quercetin and kaempferol””in dried tomato samples that had been collected as part of a long-term study on agricultural methods. They found that on average the flavonoids were 79% and 97% higher, respectively, in the organic tomatoes than in the conventionally grown fruit. The study is due to be published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

New Scientist magazine reports that the different levels of flavonoids in tomatoes are probably due to the absence of synthetic fertilizers in organic farming. Flavonoids are produced as a defense mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency, such as a lack of nitrogen in the soil. The inorganic nitrogen in conventional fertilizer is easily available to plants and so, the researchers suggest, the lower levels of flavonoids may be caused by over-fertilization.

This new study adds to a growing amount of evidence that organic produce may have health benefits over conventionally grown produce. A 2006 study out of the University of Texas found that organically grown fruits and vegetables have higher levels of antioxidants as well as vitamins and minerals than their conventionally grown counterparts. Another University of California at Davis study, also by Dr. Mitchell, published in 2003 found greater nutritional attributes in organically grown food, which the authors believe may result from the lack of insecticides and herbicides used (see Daily News story).

Another 2003 study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found additional benefits to eating organic by examining levels of metabolites of organophosphate pesticides in children who ate conventional foods compared with children who ate a diet of organic foods. Children with organic diets have significantly lower body burdens of toxic pesticides and their metabolites (see Daily News story).

TAKE ACTION: Eat organic food whenever possible. Look for the USDA Certified Organic Label when buying food for your family, grow your own produce and/or buy from a local farm that discloses their practices.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2007) A new study showing that the order of exposure to multiple pesticides may be just as important as the dose, timing and length of exposure adds another dimension to the complex task of risk assessments. Using carbaryl and chlorpyrifos, University of York scientists have observed significant differences in mortality rates of freshwater invertebrates depending on the order of exposure to these frequently used agricultural chemicals.

The study, Modeling Combined Effects of Pulsed Exposure to Carbaryl and Chlorpyrifos on Gammarus Pulex, suggests the sequence of pesticide exposure may be just as important of a variable as the dose, the timing of the dose and the length of exposure when factoring environmental and health endpoints.

The researchers conducted the study by exposing the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus pulex — a tiny shrimp — to pulses of the two insecticides (both of which affect the nervous system through acetylcholinesterase inhibition) mimicking exposure to chemical mixtures in the environment — for example, farmers may apply several different pesticides over the growing season that run off into the aquatic environment. After receiving a pulse of one pesticide, the shrimp were given 14 days, a time period chosen based on previous experiments, to recover and expel the chemical from their systems before exposure to the second pesticide.

When first exposed to carbaryl and then chlorpyrifos two weeks later, mortality rates were observed to be 31% for carbaryl and 21% for chlorpyrifos. When reversed, with chlorpyrifos exposure occurring first, the mortality rates were 12% for chlorpyrifos and 55% for carbaryl. The significant difference in the mortality rates from the carbaryl pulses have led the authors to hypothesize that the shrimp were not able to recover completely from the chlorpyrifos exposure and therefore require greater “damage recovery” times.

As reported by Environmental Science & Technology, Jim Lazorchak, an EPA ecotoxicologist, calls the experiment “groundbreaking.” The team is “trying to explore modeling to predict realistic exposures,” he says, particularly for exposures to nonpoint sources of pesticides. Typical assessment methods don’t incorporate timing and order, which are critical in assessing real-world situations, where even more stressors occur, he emphasizes, from changes in water availability and climate to lack of food and habitat loss. “As far as assessing different exposure regimes, few people are getting involved” in such complex scenarios, he says, “but that’s the direction [eco]toxicology needs to go.” He continues, “The order in which you are exposed is just as important as the concentration and duration you were exposed.” The question now becomes “why is the order important?”

The study renews a central discussion over real world scenarios where mixtures and synergistic effects are common. This is a situation that not only impacts our environment but also our health. For example, several studies conducted by a team of Duke University researchers lead by pharmacologist Mohammed Abou-Donia suggest that DEET in conjunction with permethrin-impregnated clothing may be linked to Gulf War Syndrome. Exposing animals to the same doses of DEET and permethrin have been shown to result in similar effects.

Synergistic effects between multiple pesticides and/or other chemicals represent one of the greatest gaps in EPA’s ability to protect the public from the adverse health effects associated with pesticide use and exposure. This current study sheds further light on just how little is understood about exposure to pesticide mixtures and the many variables that can occur.

Source: Environmental Science & Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2007) A scientist at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has filed a whistleblower lawsuit in federal court, arguing that he was first not allowed to share his research with a legislative panel, and then fired for it. Hydrologist Paul Wotzka, who worked for the state Agriculture Department for sixteen years before leaving to join MPCA in October, had been slated to testify about the rise in atrazine levels in Whitewater State Park, which have exceeded recommended levels for several area species. Atrazine, which has been linked to cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and a variety of other health and environmental effects and has been banned by the European Union, is a widely used agricultural herbicide.. Mr. Wotzka said in his lawsuit, as well as publicly, that this rise in atrazine in Minnesota waterways was due to increased row-crop agriculture in the region and the the Agriculture Department’s support of corn for ethanol.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2007) Dangerous pesticides have been found in soil samples taken from the grounds of the West Brook Middle School in Paramus, New Jersey. The concentrations found exceed state safety standards and concerns are being raised over why the school took no action once it knew about the contaminants.

One of the chemicals found is chlordane. Chlordane is an organochlorine classified by the EPA as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen and is also associated with adverse neurological and gastrointestinal effects. Studies also report an association between chlordane exposure and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma. Chlordane was registered in the U.S. in 1948 and was used as a pesticide on agricultural crops and gardens until 1978 when its registered uses on food crops and other above ground uses were cancelled. In 1988, all uses of chlordane were cancelled. This pesticide however, is persistent in soil and the environment and has been found in air samples, fish tissue, and recent studies have linked organochlorines like chlordane to breast cancer.

The Record, a New Jersey newspaper, commissioned the tests to be carried out by Aqua Pro-Tech Laboratories, which revealed that chlordane at 17 parts per billion were on the school’s soccer field. The state’s safety standard for chlordane is 250 parts per billion.

Chief Operating Officer of Aqua Pro-Tech Laboratories, Robert Barrett said that chlordane at those levels should not be present on a playing field. “This shouldn’t be there, especially on the soccer field.”

These results were revealed just one day after Paramus Mayor James Tedesco and the Borough Council reported similar results of tests conducted by the borough through Melick-Tully and Associates.

Parents, teachers and students were not alerted about the situation until May, even though test results were available to school officials in January. On June 2, The Record’s reporter and photographer, as well as the lab technician they hired were arrested as they collected soil samples and charged with trespassing. Outrage over the school’s inaction has led Mayor Tedesco to call for the resignation of the borough schools superintendent.

The source of the chlordane and the other chemicals found, which also include the duo dieldrin and aldrin, is unclear. However Paramus, where the school was built, was mostly farmland, making it probable that these pesticides were applied historically in the area for agricultural use. West Brook Middle School has been closed indefinitely and more tests are scheduled. Clean up of the contaminated soil is currently underway. Surrounding districts are now considering testing their schools for contaminants.

Children are most at risk from pesticide exposure. The body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low levels. Beyond Pesticides’ Healthy Schools Project aims to minimize and eliminate the risks posed by pesticides through the adoption of school pest management policies and programs at the local, state, and federal level, thereby creating a healthier learning environment. Central to this effort are activities aimed at public education on pesticide hazards and efficacy of alternatives, and the continued development of model communities that serve as examples.

For more information, please visit: https://www.beyondpesticides.org/schools/index.htm

Source: Bergen County Record (June 16, June 27, June 29)

TAKE ACTION: Get involved and sign the protocol for School Pesticide Reform at https://www.beyondpesticides.org/toxicfreeschools/action.htm.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2007) On June 28, 2007, forty years after it received protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and thirty-five years after the banning of DDT in the U.S., the bald eagle was removed from the ESA’s “threatened” list. Bald eagle populations declined dramatically in the last century, attributed mostly to the accumulation of the pesticide DDT in fish, a staple of the eagle’s diet. The pesticide gradually poisoned females, causing them to produce thinly-shelled eggs that broke easily, preventing the embryos from growing. Years of hunting, accidental poisoning and habitat loss took an additional toll.

“The rescue of the bald eagle from the brink of extinction ranks among the greatest victories of American conservation.” said John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society. “Like no other species, the bald eagle showed us all that environmental stewardship has priceless rewards. In every state, parents and grandparents can still point to the sky and share a moment of wonder as a bald eagle soars overhead.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1967 listed the bald eagle as endangered, a designation that gave the bird legal protection from harmful human activities and in 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned most uses of DDT (although it remains a contaminant of the pesticide dicofol, which is still used today). Listing the bald eagle afforded greater protection for important habitat, and saw the beginning of intensive monitoring and management of bald eagle populations in the wild as well as introduction of eagles from Alaska, Wisconsin, and other states to areas of the country where they had disappeared.

By the mid-90’s, the eagle was well on the road to recovery and the FWS “downlisted” the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in most states under ESA. Today, the FWS estimates there are over 7,000 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the continental U.S.

After delisting, the bald eagle will remain under federal protection largely through the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as well as a patchwork of state laws. However, Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity worries that without habitat protection, developers will move into critical bald eagle areas, push the birds out and reduce their numbers. Mr. Suckling believes the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act will help protect the birds, but fails to protect their habitat. He offers this analogy: “You come back from your summer vacation and someone has trashed your property so badly that you can’t live there anymore. Have you been ‘disturbed’? I would say so, but the Fish and Wildlife Service definition says, ‘No.’ “

ESA plays an important role in the regulation of pesticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) alone does not adequately protect endangered species. EPA interprets FIFRA to require balancing the profits from using a pesticide against the dollar value of harm caused by that pesticide, without adequately considering alternative products and techniques. ESA, on the other hand, recognizes what almost all Americans believe — that no dollar amount can be placed on the extinction of our nation’s wildlife. While happy about the success of the bald eagle, pesticide activists are cautious because as species are removed from the endangered species list, it opens the door for greater pesticide use in or near the habitat of once-listed species.

ESA remains a target of pro-development and chemical company interests, as well as the Bush administration. Conservation groups say the administration will introduce regulations soon that would weaken the ESA’s ability to protect species and their habitat. Such an effort would follow years of attacks on the ESA prior to the change in Congressional leadership in 2007, including several proposals allowing FIFRA to trump ESA.

According to the National Audubon Society, the eagle’s success is not a trend shared by bird populations nationwide. A recent analysis on common birds in decline conducted by Audubon found the average population of the common birds in steepest decline had fallen by 68 percent; and some individual species nose-dived as much as 80 percent. All 20 birds on the national Common Birds in Decline list lost at least half their populations in just four decades.

The historic announcement of the bald eagle’s delisting comes during a controversial period in which some figureheads are encouraging the international use of DDT as an indoor treatment for malaria control. While DDT is best known for its impacts on wildlife, DDT also poses great risks to humans, including cancer, developmental and endocrine disrupting effects.

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

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

Measures proposed in the strategy report include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: David Suzuki Foundation, Montreal Gazette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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