(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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2007) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson appeared before the Environmental and Hazardous Materials and Energy and Air Quality Subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 8, 2007 to discuss the EPA’s Budget for the first time in his six-year tenure as Administrator. Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) pressed the Administrator for answers related to EPA’s Performance Track Program, the closure of EPA libraries, changes made to the Toxic Release Inventory, closure of Region 10’s Office of Environmental Justice, failure to implement the Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice (EJ), and the overall budget for environmental justice.

According to Rep. Solis, three Monsanto facilities are members of the Performance Track Program, despite the fact that their parent company paid one million dollars in fines to the Department of Justice last year after being criminally indicted in 2005. Eligibility of the program requires that a company not be convicted of any environmental fines within the past five years. When asked why the three Monsanto facilities were members, Mr. Johnson deferred to staff from EPA to comment, at which time Rep. Solis was told they must review the documents and respond at a later date. The California Air Resources Board estimates 5,400 premature deaths, 2,400 hospitalizations and 140,000 cases of asthma in the Long Beach neighborhood of Los Angeles. When pressed on whether there was any reference in EPA’s proposed rule to the heath impact of locomotives and marine vessels in this environmental justice community, Mr. Johnson could not provide a clear answer or cite. Rep. Solis noted that a collection filter used in an EJ community near the ports of Los Angeles showed an accumulation of what EPA considers 2 ½ months worth of diesel exhaust only in a 24-hour period.

Similarly, the effects of pesticides on human health and the environment are well-documented in scientific and policy journals, however, the disproportionate risk to people of color communities is often ignored and has never been fully examined. Pesticides are linked to a range of serious health problems, including cancer, birth defects, reproductive effects, respiratory illness including asthma and reactive airway disease, neurological disorders including Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s diseases, learning disabilities and hormone system disruption. The range of effects and their impacts on daily life are staggering and unacceptable given the availability of safe alternatives that do not poison people or contaminate their communities.

Risk assessments that calculate “acceptable�? risks across population groups do not disclose the disproportionate effect that pesticide use has on people of color communities. Public policies, based on risk assessments, have been established without due regard for protecting human health or ensuring equity that prevents racially disproportionate pesticide exposures. For example, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which has been touted by many as a “health-based” standard for regulating pesticides that is far superior to the “risk-benefit” standard of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which allows escalating and uncapped hazards based on a presumption of benefits to the pesticide user and society. However, the FQPA standard does allow the use of unnecessary toxic pesticide products without regard for either the health effects of chemical interactions or the availability of safer non-toxic practices and products. Both standards are based on the flawed assumption that a pesticide has value or benefit if it meets a certain “acceptable” risk threshold. These standards ignore the disproportionate risk, for example, to African American children whose asthmatic conditions are caused or triggered by the very pesticide products that meet health-based standards.

The disproportionate impacts of pesticide standards and other public health and environmental policies are borne out by the statistics on asthma: 12.5 percent of children nationwide; 17 percent of children in New York City; and, 30 percent of children in Harlem, New York City. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, African Americans are 4 to 6 times more likely than whites to die from asthma.

According to Rep. Solis, “Two Inspector General and one GAO reports noted the failures of the EPA to address environmental justice and Executive Order 12898, including EPA’s inability to determine if its rules and regulations were disproportionately harming environmental justice communities (See Daily News).” EPA has again requested a 28 percent cut to environmental justice programs.

TAKE ACTION: Let your Congressional representatives know how you feel about this issue. Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative and tell them to support the Environmental Justice Act of 2007.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2007) New research shows that frogs are more sensitive to hormone-disturbing environmental pollutants than was previously thought. Male tadpoles that swim in water with environmentally relevant levels of such substances become females, according to the study that will be published in the scientific journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) in May (See University Press Release). The results may shed light on at least one reason that up to a third of frog species around the world are threatened with extinction, suggests the study.

In a laboratory experiment by researchers in Sweden, two species of frogs, the European common frog (Rana temporaria) and the African clawed frog (Xenopus tropicalis), were exposed to levels of oestrogen (estrogen or chemicals mimicking the effect of estrogen) similar to those detected in natural bodies of water in Europe, the United States and Canada.The results were startling: whereas the percentage of females in two control groups was under 50 percent – not unusual among frogs – the sex ratio in the groups of tadpoles who matured in water dosed with different levels of oestrogen were significantly skewed. Even tadpoles exposed to the weakest concentration of the hormone were, in one of the two groups, twice as likely to become females. The population of the two groups receiving the heaviest dose of oestrogen became 95 percent female in one case, and 100 percent in the other.

Dr. Hayes will be speaking about his research on endocrine disrupting chemicals and sex changes in frogs during the 25th National Pesticide Forum, Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, which will be held June 1-3 in Chicago.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 8, 2007) It’s almost spring and soon those little yellow pesticide caution signs, signaling a pesticide application, will be popping up everywhere. Many people do not know the meaning of these pesticide warning flags. They indicate that poisonous chemicals have been applied to the turf and that everyone, especially children, should STAY OFF THE GRASS. Even a 24-hour waiting period has been shown to be inadequate, as many pesticides can persist on turf and in the soil for months, not days, after an application. Additionally, pesticides get tracked into indoor environments and persist in carpet and in household dust.

Be aware of the facts about pesticides. Many people think that the pesticides wear off, and that people and pets are not being exposed. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found multiple pesticide residues, including the herbicide 2,4-D (weed and feed products), in the bodies of children ages 6-11 at significantly higher levels than all other age categories. Herbicides such as 2,4-D and mecoprop, chemicals tied to respiratory ailments, are found in 15 percent of children tested, ages 3 to 7, whose parents had recently applied the lawn chemicals. A 2002 peer-reviewed study found children born to parents exposed to glyphosate (Roundup) show a higher incidence of attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity (ADD and ADHD). Pesticide exposure is linked to many other adverse health effects, including Parkinson’s Disease, and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. These are the chemicals that are starting to be applied to lawns across the U.S. as spring approaches. (For references to the studies above and more information on health effects of pesticides, see Children and Chemicals Don’t Mix).

Watching for pesticide caution signs can help you avoid exposure to toxic chemicals. However, the only way to eliminate pesticide exposure is to eliminate pesticide use. Parks, playing fields, and your lawn can be converted to organic land care. The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns has numerous resources and works toward these goals. Over 800 signatories have signed the Coalition’s Declaration on the Use of Toxic Lawn Chemicals. These Coalition members receive bi-monthly action alerts to promote pesticide-free landscapes in their community.

TAKE ACTION: This month the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns Grassroots Action Alert provides a Spring Alert flyer for you to distribute in your community.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2007) On March 4, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) began a recall of a brand of long-grain rice seed because of possible contamination by genetically modified (GM) rice. The recall is one in a series of recent mishaps involving GM foods.

The seed, known as Clearfield CL131, is manufactured by BASF Agricultural Products, a division of the world’s largest chemical company, BASF AG, and marketed by Horizon Ag. According to a USDA press release, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service administrator Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., states, “The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is taking action to prevent the planting and distribution of a long-grain rice seed known as Clearfield CL131 because testing by a private company has revealed the possible presence of trace levels of genetic material not yet approved for commercialization.”

The release continues to explain, “On March 1, 2007, BASF notified USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of independent laboratory test findings on 2005 CL131 registered rice seed . . . suggesting the presence of an unidentified and possibly regulated GM event.” In addressing this possibility, Dr. DeHaven states, “APHIS is conducting an investigation to determine the circumstances surrounding the release and whether any violations of USDA regulations occurred.”

In a prepared statement, BASF director Andy Lee says, “BASF notified the USDA immediately after becoming aware of the laboratory findings and we continue to work cooperatively with USDA on this situation.”

CL131 “is conventionally bred (non-GM) rice.” However, this is not the first time CL131 has been found to contain trace amounts of genetically modified material. A week earlier, Dr. DeHaven said an already-approved GM trait was also identified in the rice. Both findings come months after an unapproved strain of GM rice, Bayer CropScience’s Liberty Link Rice 601, was found last summer in grain elevators.

The CL131 incident is especially notable in respect to the approaching spring planting season. It is possible that some planters have already sown CL131, according to USDA spokeswoman Andrea McNally.

Rice is one of several commodities that reveal an emerging pattern of GM contamination. GM crops have been documented to pass their traits to non-modified plants and are often not being adequately regulated. Last month, a U.S. District judge ruled that USDA violated federal environmental law by failing to conduct an environmental impact statement on genetically engineered alfalfa seeds before deregulating them in 2005. (To read more stories on genetic engineering, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News archive.)

Sources: Market Watch, Washington Post, Reuters

TAKE ACTION: Beyond Pesticides is opposed to the use of genetically engineered crops because they can endanger our environment and our health. To avoid genetically engineered foods, buy USDA certified organic products and ask your supermarket to label GM food.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2007) In a victory for Alaska’s environmental community, the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has denied the Alaska Railroad Corporation’s (ARRC) application to spray herbicides, citing water quality concerns. The decision effectively maintains a record of over 20 years of non-chemical vegetation management of Alaska’s railways.

ARRC submitted the application to spray herbicides last year to DEC. According to DEC’s documents, the proposed treatment area included approximately 500 miles of track and 100 miles of rail yard. The spray mixture proposed would have been comprised of three pesticide products: Razor Pro (active ingredient glyphosate*), Solution Water Soluble (dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D*), and Oust Extra (sulfometuron methyl and metsulfuron methyl). The mixture would have also contained the drift retardant Alenza (proprietary polyvinyl polymer). ARRC claims on its website it has “tried to control vegetation along its track with non-chemical methods including mechanical brush-cutting, manual labor, steam and burning since 1983. Despite these efforts, the volume and location of vegetation along the track has resulted in stiff fines from the Federal Railroad Administration, the railroad’s federal regulatory agency.”

Over one thousand written comments were filed with DEC, and oral testimony was given during the public participation process in response to ARRC’s application. Many of these commenters opposed the spraying because of the potential for environmental and health problems. Concern was voiced over, among other things, the potential for drinking water contamination, a lack of “inert” ingredient disclosure, and unknown effects of the chemical mixture. Opposed stakeholders pointed out non-chemical alternatives already exist. Comments also show stakeholders are concerned over potential economic costs involved in water monitoring, and for the salmon industry, tourism industry and farmers.

Several governments, tribal associations and environmental organizations opposed ARRC’s proposal. Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, told the Anchorage Daily News, “We felt the chemical mixture proposed by the railroad would harm water quality, salmon habitat and people’s health.”

DEC reports it reviewed and evaluated close to 100 studies before making the decision as well. The decision to deny the application was made on the grounds that 1) all three herbicide products are not allowed to be directly applied to water; 2) ARRC did not adequately identify all water resources in and adjacent to the proposed spray areas; 3) concerns were raised through public comment and inter-agency coordination regarding the possibility of water pollution; 4) the proposal may result in unreasonable adverse affect to environmental and human health; and 5) the ten-foot spray buffer zone proposed by ARRC is inadequate.

Tom Kluberton, who lives 200 feet from the railroad track and has a spring on his property, told Anchorage Daily News he “clicked his heels” when he ran back home to tell his wife that the state had rejected the herbicide proposal.

Ms. Miller says, “This is a big victory for people who have fought the railroad’s use of herbicides for several decades.”

Alaska’s railroad is just one example of vegetation management issues on rights-of-way. To learn more about how states can and have handled rights-of-way management, read “The Right Way To Vegetation Management” in Pesticides and You (pages 9-17).

Source: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Program, Anchorage Daily News

*Link best viewed with Internet Explorer.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2007) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect the public from exposure to two highly toxic pesticides, dichlorvos (DDVP) and carbaryl. The chemicals are found in common household products that have been demonstrated in laboratory studies to cause severe neurological and developmental harm, according to a lawsuit filed February 28, 2007, by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The action charges that EPA has missed its congressionally mandated deadline to finalize a comprehensive reevaluation of carbaryl, failed for 20 years to finish an expedited review of DDVP, and failed to respond to a petition calling for a ban on the chemicals.

“EPA is needlessly jeopardizing the health of our children,” said Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., an NRDC senior scientist. “The agency should ban DDVP and carbaryl. There are safer alternatives on the market today, and we urge consumers to avoid any products that use either of these two pesticides.”

DDVP*, currently used in pest strips, aerosol sprays and pet collars, is one of a class of the most dangerous pesticides on the market, called organophosphates, which derive from World War II-era nerve agents. Studies have shown DDVP causes cancer in laboratory animals. California lists DDVP as a known carcinogen, while the World Health Organization and EPA list it as a possible human carcinogen. According to NRDC, DDVP already is banned overseas, including the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden.

Carbaryl*, a highly toxic pesticide used in large-scale agriculture, lawn products, commercial garden centers and pet products, is particularly toxic to the developing nervous system in fetuses, infants, and young children. EPA acknowledges that carbaryl can overstimulate the nervous system, inducing symptoms including nausea, dizziness, confusion, and even death in extreme cases.

Through a deal with the Amvac Corporation, DDVP’s manufacturer, some uses were canceled and are being phased-out. Bayer, the manufacturer of carbaryl, made a similar deal in 2003. However, according to environmental and health advocates, nothing short of a full ban on these highly toxic, outdated pesticides will adequately protect health and the environment.

“EPA has known about the risks of these chemicals to human health for decades, and has dragged its feet while allowing exposures to continue,” said Mae Wu, a staff attorney at NRDC.

The lawsuit, NRDC v. Johnson, U.S. EPA, is being filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Dr. Sass will be speaking at the upcoming National Pesticide Forum, Changing Course in a Changing Climate: Solutions for health and the environment, June 1-3 in Chicago.

*Link best viewed with Internet Explorer.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2007) The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) recently released its latest annual summary detailing pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply. The data, from 2005, reveals approximately two-thirds of sampled foods contained one or more pesticides at detectable levels.

For the 2005 report, PDP sampled fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, soybeans, wheat, milk, heavy cream, pork, bottled water and drinking water. A total of 14,749 samples were tested for various insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and growth regulators. Twelve states reported data to comprise the report: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Excluding drinking water, 84 percent of samples originated within the United States.

Foods most likely to be consumed by infants and children are analyzed to provide data that is used in the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. The data is used in this context to assess dietary exposure to pesticide residues by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Overall results show that, excluding drinking water samples, 36 percent of samples had more than one detectable pesticide, 30 percent had one detectable pesticide, and 34 percent did not have detectable levels of the analyzed chemicals. In fruits and vegetables, 73 percent of fresh and 61 percent of processed produce had detectable residues. Drinking water analyses primarily found widely used herbicides and their metabolites; forty-eight different residues were found in untreated intake water and 43 in treated water.

Residue detection varied widely depending on the commodity. The percent of samples with detected residues for all analyzed chemicals ranged from 8 percent for pork to 99 percent for milk. Other commodities of interest had the following percentages of samples containing one or more pesticide residues: bottled water-16, soybeans-22, wheat-75, apples-98, heavy cream-99. Samples for each commodity were analyzed for a unique list of pesticides, which were partially determined by the need for additional data regarding dietary exposure, and changes in pesticide use directions. Some prohibited pesticides (DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane) have been included in many commodity analyses due to their persistent nature.

The number of pesticides detected on specific commodities also varied. Seven different pesticides were detected in bottled water, 12 in milk, 18 in wheat, 18 in green beans, 30 in strawberries, 31 in grapes, 36 in apples, and 43 in lettuce. Specific figures of concern include:

• Malathion was found in 66.9 percent of wheat samples.
• DDE, a metabolite of DDT, remains in 85.4 percent of milk samples.
• 2,4-D, alachlor ethanesulfonic acid (alachlor metabolite), atrazine, imazapyr, metolachlor ethanesulfonic acid and metolachlor oxanilic acid (metolachlor metabolites), and prometon were found in over half of the treated drinking water samples.
• Acephate, chloripyrifos, and methamidophos residue levels were found to be above EPA tolerance levels in multiple samples. Additionally, many pesticide residues were found in commodities that have not had tolerances set by EPA.

Studies have shown pesticide residues are higher in children that are fed conventional versus organic foods, and that an effective way to reduce a child’s exposure to pesticide residues on food is to change their diet to organic.

TAKE ACTION: Buy organic foods for yourself and your family whenever possible. If organic foods are not easily accessible to you due to cost or distribution, consider buying organic for the foods you eat the most.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2007) In 24 states throughout the country, beekeepers have been shocked to find that bees have been inexplicably disappearing at an alarming rate, according to an article in the New York Times last week. This loss of honeybees threatens not only beekeeper livelihoods but also the production of numerous crops, including California almonds, one of the nation’s most profitable crops. Although the reasons for the honeybee disappearances are unknown, pesticides may be one of the culprits.

“I have never seen anything like it,” David Bradshaw, a California beekeeper, said. “Box after box after box are just empty. There’s nobody home.” Last month he discovered that half of his 100 million bees were missing. Beekeepers have fought regional bee crises before, but this is the first national affliction. Bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. And nobody knows why. Researchers say the bees are presumably dying in the fields, perhaps becoming exhausted or simply disoriented and eventually falling victim to the cold.

As researchers scramble to find answers to the syndrome they have decided to call “colony collapse disorder,” growers are becoming openly nervous about the capability of the commercial bee industry to meet the growing demand for bees to pollinate dozens of crops, from almonds to avocados to kiwis.

A Cornell University study has estimated that honeybees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seeds and crops in the United States, mostly fruits, vegetables and nuts. “Every third bite we consume in our diet is dependent on a honeybee to pollinate that food,” said Zac Browning, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation. The sudden mysterious losses in honeybee populations highlight the critical link that honeybees play in the long chain that gets fruit and vegetables to supermarkets and dinner tables across the country.

The bee losses are ranging from 30 to 60 percent on the West Coast, with some beekeepers on the East Coast and in Texas reporting losses of more than 70 percent; beekeepers consider a loss of up to 20 percent in the offseason to be normal.

Along with recent stresses on the bees themselves and an industry increasingly consolidating smaller operations, some fear these losses may force a breaking point for even large beekeepers. Once the domain of hobbyists with a handful of backyard hives, beekeeping has become increasingly commercial. Over the last two decades, the number of beehives, now estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be 2.4 million, has dropped by a quarter and the number of beekeepers by half.

“There are less beekeepers, less bees, yet more crops to pollinate,” Mr. Browning said. “While this sounds sweet for the bee business, with so much added loss and expense due to disease, pests and higher equipment costs, profitability is actually falling.”

Some 15 worried beekeepers convened in Florida this month to brainstorm with researchers how to cope with the extensive bee losses. Investigators are exploring a range of theories, including viruses, pesticides, a fungus and poor bee nutrition. Mites have also damaged bee colonies, and the insecticides used to try to kill mites are harming the ability of queen bees to spawn as many worker bees. The queens are living half as long as they did just a few years ago.

Researchers are also concerned that the willingness of beekeepers to truck their colonies from coast to coast could be adding to bees’ stress, helping to spread viruses and mites and otherwise accelerating whatever is afflicting them.

The news of honeybee losses comes amidst a recent trend of declining pollinator populations. An October 2006 report by the National Research council found that long-term population trends for some North American pollinators — including bees, birds, bats — are “demonstrably downward.”

The issue of protecting pollinators from pesticides and other environmental hazards has been heating up recently. In a landmark decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that landowners who spray pesticides on tree groves can be held liable for damages to beekeepers’ neighboring apiaries (Anderson, et al. v. International Paper, March 2005). The case was brought by three beekeepers who raise bees for honey and sale. This ruling sets a standard that could have dramatic ramifications for pesticide use across the country. For more information on this issue, see “The Minnesota Honey Bee Battle” printed in the Spring 2006 issue of Pesticides and You.

According to Ohio State University, over 75 commonly used pesticides are highly or moderately toxic to bees. The following pesticides are highly toxic to bees: 2,4-D (Weed-B-Gone), abamectin (Zephyr), acephate (Orthene), azinphos-methyl (Guthion), bifenthrin (Capture), carbaryl (Sevin), carbosulfan (Advantage), chlormephos (Dotan), chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dursban), cyfluthrin (Baythroid), d-phenothrin (Sumithrin), demeton-s-methyl (Metasystox (i), (50-% Premix), diazinon (Spectracide), dichlorvos (DDVP), dicrotophos (Bibrin), dimethoate (Cygon, De-Fend), esfenvalerate (Asana XL), ethion (tech), (Ethanox), etrimfos (Ekamet), fenitrothion (Sumithion), fenpropathrin (Farmatox), fensulfothion (Dasanit), fenthion (Baytex), fenvalerate (DMSO), (Belmark), flucythrinate (Pay-Off), fonofos (Dyfonate), heptachlor (Fennotox), lindane (Lindane), malathion (Malathion 50, Malathion ULV), methamidophos (Monitor, Tamaron), methidathion (Supracide), methiocarb (Mesurol), methyl parathion (Penncap-M), mevinphos (Phosdrin), monocrotophos (Azodrin), naled (Dibrom), omethoate (Folimat), oxydemethon-methyl (Metasystox-R), oxydisulfoton (Disyston S), parathion (Bladan), permethrin (Ambush, Pounce), phosmet (Imidan), phosphamidon (Dimecron), propoxur (Baygon), pyrazophos (Afugan), resmethrin (Chrysron), tetrachlorvinphos (Gardona), and tralomethrin (Scout X-TRA). The following are moderately toxic: Acetochlor (Acenit), Aclonifen (Challenge), allethrin (Pynamin), alphacypermethrin (Fastac), ametryn(Evik), bromopropylate (Acarol), cinmethylin (Argold), crotoxyphos (Ciodrin, Decrotox), DCPA (Dacthal), diphenamid (Dymid), disulfoton (DiSyston, Ekanon), endosulfan (Thiodan), endrin (Hexadrin), ethoprop (Mocap), flufenoxuron (Cascade), fluvalinate (tau-fluvalinate), (Mavrik, Spur), formetanate hydrochloride (Carzol), mancozeb (Manzate, Dithane, Fore), methanearsonic acid (MAA), neburon (Granurex, Propuron), pebulate (Tillam), phorate (Geomet, Thimet), pirimiphos-methyl (Acetellic), sethoxydim (Poast), sulfosate (Touchdown), terbufos (Counter), thiocyclam hydrogen oxalate (Evisect), thiodicarb (Larvin, Nivral), and triforine (Denarin, Funginex).

The U.S. Senate (S.Res. 580) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated June 24-30, 2007, as National Pollinator Week. The Pollinator Partnership offers resources, as well as a listing of Pollinator Week events happening across the country for those who want to be involved.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2007) Residents in the Canadian town of Pickering, Ontario, pleaded with their local government to ban the use of pesticides on public and private lands for cosmetic use with the exception of emergencies, infestations and agricultural uses. Meanwhile, well-known medical, public-health and environmental organizations have been lobbying Ontario officials to institute a provincewide ban on the aesthetic use of pesticides.

According to Durham Region News, Ward 1 City Councillor Jennifer O’Connell said she knew the mere mention that pesticides can cause a low sperm count would get Pickering City Council’s attention. At the February 19th meeting, the council unanimously passed the motion to have staff first investigate pesticide ban bylaws in other municipalities and then draft a Pickering bylaw. The draft will be brought back before the summer recess for council’s consideration.

The interest to introduce a bylaw to ban pesticides comes from Councillor O’Connell and Ward 3 Councillor David Pickles. Councillor O’Connell provided a presentation at the meeting on the chronic effects of pesticide use. Also supporting the ban, Gideon Forman, executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said, “There is a great body of science to support that it has negative health effects.” Mr. Forman continued, “We are not talking about mild problems but deadly things like leukemia.”

Lawn pesticides have been linked to lymphomas, increases in childhood leukemia, low birth weight, endocrine disruption, asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and ADHD (see fact sheet: Children and Pesticides DON’T Mix).

Mr. Forman said Canada has success stories to draw from that show non-toxic pest management practices work. He cited Toronto’s success with banning pesticides on their playing fields, and Parliament Hill and the Governor General’s house as examples of pesticide-free lawns. Although he appreciates the concerns of the lawn care business, Mr. Forman said that the future of lawn care is pesticide free.

Pickering residents such as Jeff Mojsovski said he wholly supports a ban. Mr. Mojsvoski said, “It is a risk to my children.” Christine Stockell, resident and volunteer with the Canadian Cancer Society said, “Appropriate action should be taken to limit the risk to human health.” Ms. Stockell continued, “Personally, I like bending over, it burns a few calories.”

Pesticides also pose chronic risk to pets. According to Pickering resident Dave Renaud, a General Motors employee and president of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), his Maltese dog died of a liver disorder, which the veterinarian attributed to pesticides. Mr. Renaud said, “This stuff has no boundaries.” Given the limitless boundaries, CAW has been visiting local schools for the past eight years to educate students on the dangers of pesticides.

Dave Ryan, Mayor of Pickering said, “I think the time has come that we need to address this issue.” Mayor Ryan continued, “But the real issue is that the other levels of government need to take action.” Although Pickering can ban cosmetic use, Mayor Ryan said they can’t stop stores from selling the product. The latter would be up to other levels of government.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Globe and Mail reports the Canadian Association of Physicians, Canadian Cancer Society’s Ontario wing, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, Pesticide Free Ontario, and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, have been working to lobby Ontario’s Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health officials to seek a ban. A Pesticide Free Ontario poll shows 71 percent of Ontario residents support a ban, while 22 percent are opposed (margin of error of three percentage points).

If Ontario’s government accepts the idea, Ontario would be the second province, after Quebec, to take this action and it would mean that more than half of Canada’s residents live in areas where the use of pesticides for cosmetic reasons has been made illegal, based on health concerns. Over 120 communities across Canada, including the cities of Toronto and Halifax, also have bans.

TAKE ACTION: Support the need for healthy lawns and landscapes by joining the National Coalition for Pesticide-free Lawns and signing the declaration.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2007) Pesticide run-off is polluting larger areas of the Great Barrier Reef than originally thought, leading scientists to call for better land care practices. For the first time a new series of satellite images show that sediment plumes, containing pesticides and other pollutants from Australian river systems, travel to the outer Great Barrier Reef, and beyond. Originally, it was thought that the plumes only affected the inner Great Barrier Reef Lagoon and the inner reef corals.

The images, taken during the heavy rains in far north Queensland by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s MODIS satellite, show the pollutant plumes are travelling up to 135km offshore.

Recent studies have shown agricultural chemicals are so poisonous to coral that it can prevent spawning, even when only present in minuscule amounts. This was found to consequently hinder the reef’s ability to regenerate and protect itself.

Arnold Dekker, Ph.D., a scientist with the Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), said the images would change the way scientists analysed reef pollution and that they showed land care practices needed to be improved in order to save the reef from destruction. “This is the first time it’s been really proven that this is a phenomenon that we need to start incorporating into our studies of how we manage the land and what flows from the land, and how it affects the reef,” he said.

“It’s a good example of nature being a bit more complex than we think (and) we have to start studying how often these sediments and contaminants reach the outer reefs.”

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is currently overseeing the implementation a 10-year, $40 million Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to improve land management practices. It’s a plan that Dr. Dekker believes should be supported by farmers, tourism authorities and government.

“It’s a no-brainer to say that if farmers are helped to farm as smart as possible, using as little fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides as possible, and only using what the vegetation will take up, then you will have much less run-off of this material,” he said.

Source: The Australian News

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2007) The United States’ largest dairy company, Dean Foods, has adopted a policy statement rejecting milk from cloned cows. The decision, which joins those of the organic dairy community to reject animal cloning, reflects the publics’ demand for foods free of genetic manipulation and chemicals.

The food giant’s policy comes in the midst of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) open comment period on its evaluation of the safety of animal cloning. While FDA is expected to determine animal products from clones are as safe as those from naturally produced animals, Dean Foods’ stance is a clear message that the market is not interested in purchasing them. The statement reads:

“Based on the desire of our customers and consumers, Dean Foods will not accept milk from cows that have been cloned. If the FDA does approve the sale of milk from cloned cows, we will work with our dairy farmers to implement protocols to ensure that the milk they supply to Dean Foods does not come from cloned cows.

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to conclude that milk from cloned cows is safe. Our decision not to accept this milk is based on meeting our consumers’ expectations. We see no consumer benefit from this technology.

“Numerous surveys have shown that Americans are not interested in buying dairy products that contain milk from cloned cows and Dean Foods is responding to the needs of our consumers.”

Market forces aside, milk from cloned animals (as well as other animal products) has already been rejected by numerous members of the organic community. Other dairy companies have pledged not to sell milk from clones, including Stoneyfield Farms, Organic Valley, Straus Family Creamery, and Dean Foods-owned Horizon Organic. The decisive word on cloned products comes from Organic Trade Association head Caren Wilcox, who stated, “The Organic Trade Association (OTA) only supports the use of natural processes for breeding and raising animals in the organic system.” She continued, “Organic animal products will not come from cloned animals.” Organic Valley’s CEO, George Siemon, added, “This is absolutely prohibited in our world. It goes against everything we believe. Organic is based on having plenty with what nature’s given us.”

Government officials, too, are in disagreement with FDA’s findings on cloned animals. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has introduced legislation that would require labeling on packages of cloned animal products: “This product is from a cloned animal or its progeny.”

The Department of Agriculture, while it has not reached a decision on the offspring of cloned animals, says cloning is forbidden in organic animals. Yet scientists’ inability to determine whether an animal is a clone makes tracking cloned animals through the food chain extremely difficult — posing future risk and expense to farmers, organic and conventional, as they try to comply with differing standards of label disclosure.

Sources: Chews Wise, Associated Press

TAKE ACTION: Tell FDA you support organic integrity and full disclosure on labels regarding cloned animals. FDA’s draft risk assessment on cloned animals has three documents open for public comment until April 2. To submit comments online, visit http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm?AGENCY=FDA. Written comments may be sent to: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD, 20852, and must include docket number 2003N-0573.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2007) The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns is pleased to announce our Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers. This three-part teleconference starts Wednesday, February 28, and there are only four days left to register! The training will explain the Simple Steps to start an organic turf program and will cover the basic concepts, methods, and materials you need to get started. It is geared toward school, and park and recreation officials. However, landscapers interested in transitioning are welcome to attend.

The market demand for organic land care and availability of organic land care products is following the path of organic food into the mainstream. However, there is still a lack of understanding about what organic land care is, and there are many myths about cost and feasibility. As you will see from the local success stories featured in our Grassroots Action Supplement, organic land care is both a socially responsible and fiscally responsible approach to land management.

To continue the strong trend towards pesticide-free land care, we need municipal officials and landscape professionals who are knowledgeable. Organic land care training opportunities are increasing in pockets of the country, but in general it is difficult for the interested turf manager to find the training and resources needed to get started on an organic land care program. That is why we are pleased to be offering the first online basic organic land care course.

The program will be taught by Chip Osborne, a professional horticulturist with over 30 years experience and an expert on building and transitioning turf to organic care. He is NOFA (Northeast Organic Farming Association)-accredited in organic land care, and has attended the University of Massachusetts Green School for turf management. Chip has hands-on experience, including the conversion of his retail greenhouse operation to an organic management plan, design and construction of Marblehead’s Living Lawn Demonstration site, and, as the elected Chairman of the Town of Marblehead, Recreation, Parks and Forestry Commission, is currently implementing an Organic Turf Management Plan for the town’s public lands, including all athletic fields.

The cost of the training is only $45 for municipal officials and $95 for professional landscapers. This course will be offered in three 75-minute online sessions: February 28, March 5, and March 14, 2007 (12pm- 1:15pm eastern standard time).

This course is approved for NOFA certification credits.

TAKE ACTION: Send announcement emails and flyers to your local school and park officials, and your local chemical landscaper companies. To register, sign up by Monday, February 26, at www.pesticidefreelawns.org/training or call 202-543-5450.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2007) On February 16, 2007, Representatives Hilda Solice (D-CA), Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and Mark Udall (D-CO) and Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and John Kerry (D-MA) introduced the Environmental Justice Act of 2007 to the 110th Congress. The legislation was introduced to protect communities of color and low-income communities from the on-going disproportionate burden of the negative human health and environmental impacts of pollution that they are exposed to.

The act was introduced as a way to fully implement the 1994 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, an act to ensure that all federal agencies and their programs and rules are protecting our nation’s most vulnerable communities. The bill will require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fully implement recommendations included in three recent government reports and it will create reporting requirements, including an update on the inclusion of environmental justice in EPA’s emergency command response structure.

The reports noted the failure of EPA to ensure that its policies, rules and regulations protect environmental justice communities. In 2004, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that the agency has not fully implemented the Executive Order nor has it defined or developed criteria for determining who is disproportionately impacted. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that EPA failed to consider the impact of its air regulations on minority and low-income communities, and in 2006, OIG reported that EPA “cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities of color and low-income populations.”

Rep. Solis said, “For far too long federal agencies have disregarded the health of minority and low-income communities, choosing instead to reinterpret the Executive Order so that it fits the policies they want to promote.” Rep. Solis continued, “This legislation is a critical first step to achieving real and lasting justice for minority and low-income communities across this country. Codifying the Executive Order will empower communities without a voice to join in the fight to protect their health and welfare.”

Senator Durbin said that, “Healthy communities are important to everyone. And the simple truth is that our most vulnerable communities have not been treated fairly.” Senator Durbin continued, “Minority neighborhoods, the elderly and low-income communities bear disproportionate environmental risks and hazards and the investments and benefits to fix these problems are not equally distributed. This bill will change that by requiring the EPA to act to protect these communities from additional sources of pollution.”

Rep. Hastings said, “More than a decade after Executive Order 12898, the time has come for federal agencies to truly embrace the vision of empowered citizens and healthy communities.” According to Rep. Hastings, “This legislation will mandate the EPA accountability that communities of color and low-income families have been dying to achieve for many years. Through the open process that brought forth this legislation, the people have spoken!”

Meanwhile Senator Kerry said the bill was introduced as a means to ensure environmental protection for all communities. Senator Kerry said that “it is not only unacceptable; it is immoral to leave minority and low-income families bearing the brunt of our nation’s pollution problems. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has turned the very definition of environmental justice on its head. We can do better – and we should start by passing this legislation.”

Another bill sponsor, Rep. Udall said, “Too often, federal actions affecting the environment have hurt Americans in minority and lower-income communities that in some eyes have seemed expendable. Instead, federal policies must focus on providing clean, healthy and quality environments so these communities will have hope for the future and opportunities for their residents to improve their lives. Our bill is intended to help achieve that goal.”

The Environmental Justice Act of 2007 is endorsed by more than 15 organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Communities for a Better Environment, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, National Hispanic Environmental Council, National Small Town Alliance, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, and Earthjustice.

For more information contact: Sonia Melendez in Rep. Solis’ office at (202) 225-5464; (202) 225-4573

(Beyond Pesticides, Feb 21, 2007) Exposure to environmental chemicals found in everyday plastics and pesticides while in the womb may make a person more prone to obesity later in life, new research indicates. Frederick vom Saal, Ph.D, professor of biological sciences at University of Missouri-Columbia’s College of Arts and Science, has found that when fetuses are exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the way their genes function may be altered to make them more prone to obesity and disease.

Dr. vom Saal presented his research last week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Francisco. “Perinatal Programming of Obesity: Interaction of Nutrition and Environmental Exposures” is the title of Dr. vom Saal’s AAAS presentation.

“Certain environmental substances called endocrine-disrupting chemicals can change the functioning of a fetus’s genes, altering a baby’s metabolic system and predisposing him or her to obesity,” said Dr. vom Saal. “This individual could eat the same thing and exercise the same amount as someone with a normal metabolic system, but he or she would become obese, while the other person remained thin,” he said.

Obesity puts people at risk for other problems, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension.

Using lab mice, Dr. vom Saal studied the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including bisphenol-A, which the city of San Francisco has banned in children’s toys starting December 1, 2006. Some polymers used in dental fillings also contain bisphenol-A, and epoxy resins containing bisphenol-A are commonly used to coat the inside of food cans.

Dr. vom Saal found that bisphenol-A and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause mice to be born at very low birth weights and then gain abnormally large amounts of weight in a short period of time, more than doubling their body weight in just seven days. Dr. vom Saal followed the mice as they got older and found that they were obese throughout their lives. Low-birth-weight children often show a similar overcompensation after birth, resulting in lifelong obesity.

“The babies are born with a low body weight and a metabolic system that’s been programmed for starvation. This is called a thrifty phenotype, a system designed to maximize the use of all food taken into the body,” vom Saal said. “The problem comes when the baby isn’t born into a world of starvation, but into a world of fast food restaurants and fatty foods.”

More research must be done to determine which chemicals cause this effect. According to Dr. vom Saal, about 1,000 of the approximately 55,000 human-made chemicals in the world might fall into the category of endocrine disruptors. These chemicals are found in common products, from plastic bottles and containers to pesticides and electronics.

“You inherit genes, but how those genes develop during your very early life also plays an important role in your propensity for obesity and disease. People who have abnormal metabolic systems have to live extremely different lifestyles in order to not be obese because their systems are malfunctioning,” Dr. vom Saal said. “We need to figure out what we can do to understand and prevent this.”

In the past 30 years, the prevalence of both overweight and obese adults and children in the United States has increased sharply, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency. Between the periods of 1976—1980 and 2003—2004, the prevalence of obesity among adults aged 20—74 years doubled, increasing from 15.0 percent to 32.9 percent.

Dr. vom Saal’s research is not the first to link pesticides and obesity. A study done in September 2006 linked a class of environmental contaminants known as organotins with excess weight gain and fat cell aberrations. Organotins are ingredients in many household products, including pesticides, wood preservatives, textiles, and plastics, and are persistent compounds found in low concentrations in most humans and animals.

Source: ENS Newswire