Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog

29
Aug

EPA Takes Action to Enforce Farmworker Protection Law

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2008) It was seen as a positive development when EPA this summer announced that, “Through recent settlements with four Puerto Rico farms, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending a message to farm owners that protecting their workers must be their first priority.” That is tough talk from an agency that has long been criticized for its abysmal record of instituting and enforcing even the most basic human health protections from pesticides for those who are responsible for planting and harvesting much of the nation’s food. And it turns attention to the larger question of whether the enforcement system that EPA has in place is adequate.

This case started in October 2007 when EPA filed a complaint against four Puerto Rico farms for being in violation of the worker protection standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the settlement, each farm has agreed to pay a civil penalty, and to display information on pesticide applications, information on pesticide safety and emergency medical care, as well as to provide decontamination supplies for workers and handlers, personal protective equipment, and pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. The farms have agreed to meet specific deadlines set by the EPA to report on progress that has been made under the settlement agreements. Owners of Finca Roman Farm, Anthuriums de Puerto Rico and the Javier Quiles Farm, all in Adjuntas, as well as the owner of Finca Los Tres Picachos in Jayuya, failed to display specific pesticide application information for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. Several of the farm owners also failed to provide workers with training, protective equipment or ways to wash off residual pesticides before leaving the work sites. Additionally, some of the farm owners failed to provide medical care information to workers and pesticide handlers and did not follow the pesticide label instructions for proper pesticide use and disposal.

Earlier on January 19, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessed the second highest penalty for violating worker protection provisions of U.S. pesticide laws to an agricultural company based in Puerto Rico. According to the EPA, Martex Farms has been ordered to pay a total penalty of $92,620 by EPA’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (See Daily News of February 7, 2007.)

On an historical note, farmworkers were originally “protected” under a 1974 standard in EPA regulations that only instructed growers to keep workers out of pesticide-treated fields until the dusts had settled or sprays had dried. That standard was developed after field hearings in which EPA heard from growers but not farmworkers. With the threat of litigation from the National Association of Farmworker Organizations and Migrant Legal Action Program in the late 1970s, the Carter Administration funded an effort to reach out to workers and collect data on their experiences with pesticide exposure and poisoning in the fields. Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director, involved in that effort, points out that, “Chemical-intensive growers viewed the discussion about worker protection as a threat to agricultural production and their livelihood and resisted calls for new standards.” So, it was not until nearly 15 years after the Carter Administration began the review that EPA in 1992 upgraded the 1974 “standard.”

GAO, in its 2000 analysis Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children (GAO-GAO/RCED-00-40), describes the background on the WPS:

EPA established the Standard in 1974, but in 1980, the agency reviewed the Standard and found it inadequate to protect agricultural workers from exposure to pesticides. In 1992, EPA made major revisions to the Standard that the agency began enforcing in January 1995. The revised Standard contains general protections applicable to farmworkers and others, including prohibiting the spraying of pesticides while anyone is in a field or allowing the exposure of people to pesticide spray drift. The Standard also contains provisions that specifically apply to farmworkers, including restricting entry into treated areas for specified periods and requiring employers to provide workers with, among other things, (1) information about when and where pesticides were applied, (2) basic pesticide safety training, and (3) supplies (soap, water water, and towels) for workers to use to decontaminate themselves. (p7 GAO/RCED-00-40)

GAO is extremely critical of the enforcement apparatus that EPA has established to carry out the WPS. According to Farmworker Justice http://www.fwjustice.org/health&safety/Pesticides.htm, “Most violations merely result in a letter of warning, and few monetary penalties are issued.” GAO, in its reports cites limited inspections that could lead to enforcement actions. The enforcement system relies heavily on states under cooperative agreements with EPA, which provides funding for state enforcement activities.

According to GAO:

In fiscal year 1998, 5 states reported to EPA that they had conducted no routine worker protection inspections, and 11 other states each reported conducting fewer than 10 routine inspections under the cooperative agreements with EPA.6 In addition to the inspections conducted under the cooperative agreements, states can conduct additional worker protection inspections using state resources. However, EPA regional officials told us that they generally do not receive information on the number of inspections conducted with state resources. Moreover, officials from several EPA regions told us that worker protection enforcement is in its infancy in some states and that the states had conducted few, if any, routine worker protection inspections on their own. (p21)

We also found inconsistency among EPA’s regions in whether they negotiated goals for the number of routine worker protection inspections that the states should conduct under the cooperative agreements. Specifically, while three of EPA’s regions had established goals for the number of routine worker protection inspections that states in their regions should conduct, the remaining seven regions had not. Within the three regions, the goals have established at least a minimum number of routine worker protection inspections to be conducted under the cooperative agIn reements. For example, beginning in fiscal year 1999, EPA’s Atlanta region reached agreement that each of the eight states in the region would conduct between 60 and 100 routine worker protection inspections annually. These goals call for several of the states in the region to do many more inspections than they have done in the past. In fiscal year 1998, Alabama reported that it had conducted only five routine inspections under its cooperative agreement, and Tennessee reported it had conducted four such inspections. The remaining seven EPA regions had not negotiated routine worker protection inspection goals, and according to officials from several regions, it is up to the states to decide how to spend their federal pesticide resources.

Besides the inconsistency in setting inspection goals, EPA was also inconsistent in establishing minimum requirements for what constitutes a worker protection inspection for reporting purposes under the cooperative agreements. Officials from six regions told us that states have varying interpretations of what constitutes a worker protection inspection for reporting purposes. For example, as part of our analysis of the number of worker protection inspections conducted under the cooperative agreements during fiscal year 1998, we noted that Oklahoma had reported conducting 174 such inspections, while New Mexico reported conducting 1 inspection.

We also found that EPA’s regions were inconsistent in the extent to which they oversaw and monitored the states’ implementation and enforcement of the Standard. During fiscal year 1998, three of EPA’s regional offices limited their oversight of the states’ worker protection enforcement programs to file reviews, meetings and discussions with state officials, and mid- and end-of-year reports. No one from these regional offices accompanied state officials on any worker protection inspections during the year.

We found that the regions did not know how many and what types of actions the states had taken in response to worker protection violations. Although the states report to EPA on the number and types of actions (such as fines or warning letters) taken under their pesticide enforcement programs, these statistics do not isolate the number and types of actions that involved worker protection as opposed to other pesticide requirements such as the proper labeling of pesticide products. EPA’s Atlanta region, however, has developed a tracking system that is intended to provide the region with statistics on actions states have taken in response to worker protection violations. (p 22)

In 2005, EPA developed a new WPS How to Comply (HTC) Manual which supersedes the 1993 version. EPA maintains that changes to the WPS since 1993 have made the earlier version obsolete, and its continued use may lead an employer to be out of compliance. The 2005 HTC Manual revision was coordinated by EPA’s National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center and a workgroup consisting of representatives from EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional Offices, and several state agencies, with input solicited from USDA and other state and tribal pesticide agencies.

See EPA press release here.

Posted in Pesticide Regulation, Puerto Rico by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

28
Aug

German Coalition Sues Bayer on Bee Die-Offs

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2008) The German Coalition Against Bayer Dangers has filed legal action in Germany against Bayer for its role in marketing insecticides that the coalition believes company officials knew were toxic to honey bees. The suit follows recent action by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the agency into compliance with its Freedom of Information Act request for scientific studies relating to clothianidin, one of the Bayer-manufactured pesticides tied to bee toxicity.

In May, Germany suspended the approval of eight pesticides linked to a massive bee die-off. Six of the eight suspended are manufactured by Bayer, the other two by Syngenta. Two of the primary active ingredients of concern are clothianidin and imidacloprid, both in the neonicotinoid family of chemicals. They are systemic pesticides, meaning the chemical is incorporated into plant tissue and can therefore be present in pollen and nectar, which is of particular importance to bees. They also have long persistence in the soil and can be absorbed by multiple generations of crops, increasing the likelihood of exposure for bees.

Attorney Harro Schultze, who represents the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers said, “The public prosecutor [in Germany] needs to clarify which efforts Bayer undertook to prevent a ban of imidacloprid and clothianidin . . . We’re suspecting that Bayer submitted flawed studies to play down the risks of pesticide residues in treated plants.” Bayer continues to defend its products, claiming that when properly used they pose no threat to bees. Richard Schmuck, an ecologist at Bayer CropScience, said in June, “All studies available to us confirm that our product is safe to bees if the recommended dressing quality is maintained. This is also shown by the product safety assessments which we have submitted to the registration authorities.”

In France, concern over the effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees led to severe restrictions on imidacloprid beginning in the 1990s and a rejection of Bayer’s application for approval of clothianidin in 2003. These actions followed contentious debates over the science between Bayer scientists, independent researchers and beekeepers. A 2007 examination of the French debate over imidacloprid in the journal Science of the Total Environment reveals that Bayer used outdated and disproved methods (not meeting state of the art detection limits) for its “scientific” studies assessing the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees, actions that call into question all of the scientific studies Bayer has produced regarding its products, in which it has a clear, vested economic interest.

The U.S. and German lawsuits both stress the importance of transparency in pesticide registration, and the importance of valid science when making registration decisions. The NRDC lawsuit against EPA prompted a letter from EPA’s Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, Debra Edwards, PhD, stating that “EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs ‘sets the bar’ for its exceptional public participation processes and transparency.” NRDC refutes this claim by pointing to several cases in which federal judges rebuked EPA for just the opposite—a lack of transparency and public participation on pesticide regulatory issues. Despite NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act request, EPA still does not have a complete public record of the agency’s decision to approve clothianidin.

Source: Environment News Service

Posted in Bayer, Clothianidin, International, Litigation, Pollinators by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

27
Aug

Proposed European Pesticide Ban Under Attack

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2008) Citing the possibility of lower crop yields and higher food prices, government ministers in the United Kingdom are planning to step up pressure on the European Parliament in opposition to plans to ban the most hazardous pesticides, amounting to three quarters of the pesticides used by farmers in the European Union. Environmental campaigners, like the UK Pesticides Campaign, are adamant that a crackdown on the use of pesticides is needed to protect public health and believe that the new measures must not be watered down by industry lobbying.

Officials from the U.K. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) believe that the ban would remove important pesticides from the market. Those arguing against the proposal say it could prevent the use of certain fungicides and result in substantially lower wheat yields, postulating a 30 percent reduction from current levels. DEFRA officials claim that the ban would have “significant adverse impact on crop protection, but secure no significant health benefits for consumers.”

British Farming Minister Lord Rooker is adamant that fungicides should not be banned before alternatives are approved and is urging other European countries to block the measure. The controversy centers on the types of chemicals to be removed, including substances with endocrine disrupting properties that could cause adverse effect in humans. Advocates for a reversal of the planned ban argue that the public is already exposed to such substances through prescribed drugs, meat, peas and beans and products like soya milk.

DEFRA ministers insist that withdrawing these pesticides is likely to cause “significant agronomic and economic damage” but not lead to any significant loss in overall consumer exposures to endocrine disruptors.

Last fall, the European Parliament voted in favor of tighter legislation to be enacted by 2013. However, member states are to be given the discretion as to how the plan would be implemented in their countries. In May, the European Union Health Commissioner called on European governments to adopt tougher guidelines on pesticides and to ban the use of all potentially dangerous pesticides that can cause cancer, reproductive effects and hormone disruption. Then, the Commissioner urged agriculture ministers of member states not to ‘water down’ recommendations in the two-year-old draft plan to introduce tougher guidelines on the use of pesticides.

It is expected that in the fall the plan will be formally adopted as the common position of the European Council and passed to the European Parliament for the second reading.

Source: Western Morning News UK

Posted in International, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

26
Aug

Court-Imposed Pesticide Air Pollution Standards Reversed on Appeal

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2008) On August 20, 2008, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2006 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) that required the state of California to establish limits on air pollution associated with pesticide use. The Appeals Court found that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to impose solutions under the Clean Air Act.

According to the plaintiffs represented by the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment (CPRE), an environmental justice litigation organization based in San Francisco, pesticides are the fourth largest source of smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Prior to 2005, the state did not regulate this source of pollution from the politically powerful agriculture industry, even though the state had made a promise to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides by 20% more than a decade earlier in its Ozone State Implementation Plan, a smog clean up plan adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act. El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart and the Association of Irritated Residents, represented by CRPE, filed suit (El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart, et al. v. Warmerdam, et al.) in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in July 2005.

In April 2006, Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor, requiring California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to implement regulations to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides by 20% from 1990 levels by January 1, 2008. The judge found the act was violated when regulators used improper data in calculating the baseline for emission reduction goals and thus did not adopt “enforceable control measures.”

The state appealed and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state.

“As it carefully worked through the parties’ labyrinthine administrative law arguments, the [U.S. District] court acknowledged that its rulings were potentially incongruous. We agree. In our view, the district court ultimately exceeded its jurisdiction,” says the appellate ruling. “While we acknowledge that the baseline is a critical foundation, this does not change our view that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualify as independently enforceable aspects of the state’s plan.”

The ruling was unanimous among the three-judge panel of Circuit Judges Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Michael Hawkins and Margaret McKeown.

Posted in Asthma, California, Chemicals, Disease/Health Effects, State/Local by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

25
Aug

Wood Preservative Contaminant Linked to Childhood Obesity

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2008) A recent study by Spanish researchers has found a connection between an ncreased risk of childhood obesity and exposure to the organochlorine pesticide and contaminant hexachlorobenzene (HCB) before birth. Entitled “Exposure to hexachlorobenzene during pregnancy increases the risk of overweight in children aged 6 years,” the article was published online by Acta Paediatrica at the end of July. Found as a contaminant in the wood preservative pentachlorophenol, widely used in the U.S., HCB is extremely persistent in the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it “has been listed as a pollutant of concern to EPA’s Great Waters Program due to its persistence in the environment, potential to bioaccumulate, and toxicity to humans and the environment.”

Researchers studied 405 infants in Menorca, Spain. They measured persistent organic pollutants (HCB, PCBs, p,p’-DDE, and p,p’-DDT) in their cord blood and then measured each child’s height and weight at 6.5 years of age. “Overweight” was defined as the 85 percentile or higher on the US National Center for Health Statistics/WHO reference body mass index (BMI). They also took into account information about the mothers, such as age, education, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, weight, and diet.

All 405 children studied had contaminants in their cord blood. P,p’-DDE averaged the highest level, and p,p’-DDT had the lowest. The median level of HCB was third-highest, at 0.68 ng/mL. The children in the group with highest HCB exposure also had the highest exposure to the other organochlorines, and their mothers were older and had higher BMI. The children in this group also had the highest BMI. After sorting factors like the mother’s weight during pregnancy, HCB exposure related to obesity remained significant. Children with higher exposure had a 1.7 risk of being overweight compared to the low exposure group, and a risk of 2 for obesity.

The researchers concluded, “The prevalence of obesity has increased at an alarming level of at least 300 million people worldwide. Additionally, other diseases like diabetes will increase in prevalence as well. Protection for this possible diabetes epidemic is needed. The risk on increased BMI at a young age, caused by prenatal exposure to OCs like HCB, has to be minimized. Therefore, it is important that pregnant women are informed about the possible effects on prenatal exposure to HCB on the BMI of the child later in life.”

HCB has also been linked to non-hodgkins lymphoma and behavioral disorders. EPA’s fact sheet on HCB lists a variety of health effects, as well as possible sources of exposure.

Source: Environmental Health News

Posted in Obesity, hexachlorobenzene (HCB) by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

22
Aug

Comments Needed: Tell EPA to Revoke Endosulfan Tolerances!

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2008) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting comments on letters sent from the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances for the toxic pesticide endosulfan. In addition, EPA is accepting information on endosulfan residues on commodities consumed by Alaskan natives.

PANNA’s August 12 letter stated: “We are particularly concerned about the effects of endosulfan on prenatal and child development. Peer-reviewed science demonstrates that endosulfan is both an endocrine disruptor and a neurotoxicant.”

The letter followed up on a February 2008 petition signed by 13,300 people across the country, a legal petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council that same month, three letters sent to the Agency on May 19, 2008 signed by 111 nonprofit environmental groups, 55 scientists, and 5 coalitions of Indigenous groups and tribes, and a lawsuit filed on behalf of PAN, environmental and farmworker groups on July 24.

“Endosulfan poses a threat to the health of children in the U.S.,” the letter concluded. “This antiquated DDT-era organochlorine has already been phased out of agriculture in the European Union and at least 20 other countries. It is high time for the U.S. to take the health of our future generations seriously and ban all uses of endosulfan.”

Endosulfan also made news after ten tons of the pesticide spilled in the Philippines during a typhoon, complicating efforts to recover the 800 people who died in the wreck.

TAKE ACTION: Tell EPA you support a full revocation of all tolerances for endosulfan. The comment period is open through October 20, 2008, and you can view the Federal Register notice here, or by entering Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0615 at regulations.gov. You can also submit comments by mail addressed to: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public, Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001 or by delivery to: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA.

EPA will not address the cancellation of endosulfan until early 2009; a separate comment period will be established for that possibility.

Posted in Endosulfan, Pesticide Regulation by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

21
Aug

Experts on Food Crisis: Stop Promoting Genetic Engineering and Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2008) As the debate over how to solve the global food crisis heats up, experts criticize many in the mainstream media for promoting pesticides and genetically engineered seeds as solutions to global hunger. In a recent critique, Francis Moore Lappe, author of the famous book Diet for a Small Planet and co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute, says the media, in this case NPR, are off the mark in identifying the underlying causes of the food crisis and fail to look at the hopeful stories of farming communities that are succeeding with agro-ecological methods.

Ms. Lappe writes, “On every continent one can find empowered rural communities developing GM-free, agro-ecological farming systems. They’re succeeding: the largest overview study, looking at farmers transitioning to sustainable practices in 57 countries, involving almost 13 million small farmers on almost 100 million acres, found after four years that average yields were up 79 percent.” As an example, she points to what may be the “pesticide capital of the world,” Andhra Pradesh, India,where “pests developed insecticide resistance and genetically modified (GM) cotton failed to live up to Monsanto’s promises.” After significant crop losses and farmer suicides there, many communities rejected Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals and adopted farming methods relying on agro-ecological approaches and have since enjoyed increased incomes and health.

Ms. Lappe’s argument that the answer to the food crisis lies largely in the adoption of community-based agro-ecological farming methods echoes the assessment of over 400 scientists and experts in agriculture from around the world who convened earlier this year for the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (see Daily News of June 5, 2008). Some described this report as the agricultural version of the International Framework Convention on Climate Change, the now famous treaty on global climate change. Yet the findings of the IAASTD rarely make it into the media when discussing the global food crisis.

Recently, Prince Charles’ outspoken stance against genetic engineering has reinvigorated the debate about the pros and cons of genetically engineered seeds. For all the value in having this discussion, it is paramount not to overshadow what should be the focus of attention -the promising future of agro-ecological and organic farming in addressing the food needs of the world while protecting public health and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides encourages sound organic practices as a viable, healthy alternative to agriculture that relies heavily on chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and as a valuable tool to slow climate change.

Posted in Alternatives/Organics, Genetic Engineering, International, Monsanto by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

20
Aug

Lawsuit Challenges EPA on Pesticides Tied to Bee Colony Collapse

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2008) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit on Monday to uncover critical information that the U.S. government is withholding about the risks posed by pesticides to honey bees. NRDC legal experts and a leading bee researcher are convinced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country. The phenomenon has come to be called “colony collapse disorder,” or CCD, and it is already proving to have disastrous consequences for American agriculture and the $15 billion worth of crops pollinated by bees every year.

EPA has failed to respond to NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act request for agency records concerning the toxicity of pesticides to bees, forcing the legal action.

“Recently approved pesticides have been implicated in massive bee die-offs and are the focus of increasing scientific scrutiny,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA should be evaluating the risks to bees before approving new pesticides, but now refuses to tell the public what it knows. Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?”

In 2003, EPA granted a registration to a new pesticide manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the condition that Bayer submits studies about its product’s impact on bees. EPA has refused to disclose the results of these studies, or if the studies have even been submitted. Bayer CropScience was required to submit studies on chronic exposure to honeybees, including a complete worker bee lifecycle study, as well as an evaluation of exposure and effects to the queen. The pesticide in question, clothianidin, recently was banned in Germany due to concerns about its impact on bees. A similar insecticide, imidacloprid, was banned in France for the same reason a couple of years before. These chemicals still are in use despite a growing consensus among bee specialists that pesticides, including clothianidin and its chemical cousins, may contribute to CCD. EPA’s factsheet states that clothianidin has the “potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other non target pollinators, through the translocation of residues in nectar and pollen.”

In the past two years, some American beekeepers have reported unexplained losses of 30-90% of the bees in their hives. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. As the die-offs worsen, Americans will see their food costs increase.

Despite bees’ critical role for farmers, consumers, and the environment, the federal government has been slow to address the die-off since the alarm bells started in 2006. (See previous Daily News of June 19, 2007 and July 19, 2007.) In recent Congressional hearings, USDA was unable to account for the $20 million that Congress has allocated to the department for fighting CCD in the last two years.

In the new book A Spring Without Bees, author Michael Schacker ties CCD to a historical pattern of EPA-issued emergency use permits (Section 18 under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) for agricultural use of imidicloprid across the U.S. Mr. Schacker shows a direct correlation between states with CCD and the emergency imidicloprid uses permits. States without the use did not show the problem, with one exception.

“This is a real mystery right now,” said Gabriela Chavarria, PhD, director of NRDC’s Science Center. “EPA needs to help shed some light so that researchers can get to work on this problem. This isn’t just an issue for farmers — this is an issue that concerns us all. Just try to imagine a pizza without the contribution of bees! No tomatoes. No cheese. No peppers. If you eat apples, cucumbers, broccoli, onions, squash, carrots, avocados, or cherries, you need to be concerned.” Dr. Chavarria has spent more than 20 years studying bees, and has published a number of academic papers on the taxonomy, behavior and distribution of native bees.

NRDC filed the lawsuit yesterday in federal court in Washington DC. In documents to be filed next month, NRDC will ask for a court order directing EPA to disclose its information about pesticides and bee toxicity.

Source: NRDC Press Release

Posted in Clothianidin, Litigation, Pollinators by: Beyond Pesticides
1 Comment

19
Aug

Take Action: Demand EPA and NMFS Protect Endangered Fish from Harmful Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2008) Three toxic pesticides used heavily in the United States — chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion — harm children and farmworkers, poison wildlife, and taint food and drinking water, and despite well-documented hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows homeowners, farmers and others to use these poisons in ways that harm salmon and steelhead. Coupled with public pressure, a recent scientific analysis from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could force EPA to adopt new restrictions on the use of these pesticides in the Pacific Northwest and California.

In a draft study – called a “biological opinion” – released on July 31, 2008, NMFS concluded that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are contaminating rivers and streams jeopardizing protected salmon and steelhead.

Please urge NMFS and EPA to adopt strong measures to protect Pacific salmon from these poisons. It is their responsibility under the Endangered Species Act.

Please send an email addressed to both:
Jim Lecky
Director of Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
Jim.lecky@noaa.gov

James Gulliford
Assistant Administrator, US EPA Headquarters
Gulliford.jim@epa.gov

You can be sure that chemical companies are working to ensure the unabated use of their products. Make sure the voice of the public is heard. Harmful pesticides must be kept out of our waters! We all need clean water to survive. To learn more, read the draft biological opinion.

There is no formal comment period, but comments need to be in by Oct. 15 to be considered. Please write in as soon as possible.

SAMPLE LETTER
Jim Lecky
Director of Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
James Gulliford
Assistant Administrator, US EPA Headquarters

Dear Director Lecky and Assistant Administrator Gulliford,

I am encouraged by the scientific basis of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s recent draft biological opinion evaluating the impacts of three pesticides — chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion — on salmon and steelhead in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. I applaud NMFS for its thorough analysis and scientifically sound conclusion that these three pesticides are “jeopardizing” salmon survival and recovery.

NMFS and EPA must now implement the strong measures necessary to protect salmon and steelhead from these pesticides. The best science available demonstrates that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are simply too dangerous to be used near rivers and streams that serve as habitat for these threatened and endangered fish.

Homeowners and farmers alike deserve clarity on how they can manage pests without harming a Northwest icon, the Pacific salmon. Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are antiquated pesticides that pose unreasonable risks to both humans and wildlife and should not be used near salmon and steelhead habitat.

I’m pleased to see that NMFS has taken the first step toward getting these chemicals out of our waterways and I urge the agencies to follow through with strong protective measures.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

Posted in Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Malathion, Wildlife/Endangered Sp. by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

18
Aug

NC Farmworker Protection Bill Signed Into Law

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2008) North Carolina Governor Mike Easley last week signed into law Senate Bill 847, “An act to add agricultural workers to those protected against retaliation in the workplace and to direct the Pesticide Board to adopt rules requiring licensed pesticide applicators to record the specific time of day when each pesticide application is completed, as recommended by the Governor’s Task Force on Preventing Agricultural Pesticide Exposure” headed by State Health Director Leah DevlinThis new law, along with funding approved by the legislature in the Governor’s budget, will help protect agricultural laborers, farmers and applicators who work with and around pesticides.

“This new law helps us move forward to protect the health of our farm workers,” said Gov. Easley. “Requiring employers to keep more detailed records of pesticides being used and forbidding retaliation against those who might complain about exposure to these chemicals are important steps toward safety in agricultural workplaces.”

The new law makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against farm workers who complain about unhealthy exposure to pesticides. It also directs the state Pesticide Board to require more detailed record keeping on the time of day and kinds of pesticides being used, and it requires those records to be kept for two years, instead of the current 30 days.

“This bill represents a significant step forward,” said Ms. Devlin, the task force chair. “There is more to be done and we will continue to develop new health protection measures and work to see they are implemented.”

Ms. Devlin noted that the task force’s work will be continuing through the recently-organized Interagency Pesticide Work Group that will operate out of the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

In the state budget, $350,000 was designated to replace federal funding that was cut to track pesticide poisoning cases. It also will pay for two state workers to train farm laborers on proper handling of pesticides.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Charles Albertson (D-Duplin). It passed the state Senate 48-0 and the House of Representatives 118-0. The law becomes effective upon the Governor’s signature.

Farmworkers are among the groups most at risk for pesticide poisoning. Some have been fighting for reparation for decades and are still exposed to some of the most toxic pesticides on the market. In addition to protecting farmworkers from retaliation, governments should ban these products to reduce and eliminate both direct and indirect exposure to them.

You can support less toxic agriculture by buying organic food and learning more about it here.

Posted in Announcements, Environmental Justice, North Carolina by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

15
Aug

Public Comment Needed by Monday, August 18, 2008: Chemical Sensitivity Omitted from Americans with Disabilities Act Proposed Regs

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2008) With a public comment period that ends Monday, August 18, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division proposes rulemaking that fails to recognize chemical sensitivity (CS) and environmental illnesses as disabilities that may require specific access standards. In a public comment to be submitted next week, Beyond Pesticides urges the Justice Department to specifically include access requirements for those with CS and environmental illnesses in its rulemaking. The organization is urging the public to send comments as well, and invites sign-ons to the Beyond Pesticides’ comment.

The comment says, “The proposed rule errs in omitting environmental illness and chemical sensitivity with a justification that people with the illness may have a “sensitivity [that does] not rise to the level needed to constitute a disability.” This statement is false and out of step with environmental medicine which diagnoses CS as a chemical-induced illness from which patients suffer with debilitating effects. Similar to other disabilities, a diagnosis reflects a finding that patients cannot function as a result of exposure to neurotoxic chemicals. Eliminating the chemical exposure substantially increases their ability to function and lead normal lives.”

The comment continues, “As an organization whose primary focus is pesticides, Beyond Pesticides is in contact with people who are chemically sensitive and are exposed to pesticides, thus substantially limiting their life activities on a regular basis. These are people whose disability is not well understood or accepted by the general public, which is uninformed about the illness. In conveying their concerns to neighbors, employers or landlords they often receive ridicule instead of respect and accommodation. Without mentioning in the text of the accessibility standards of the ADA that those with chemical sensitivities are indeed protected when life activities are substantially limited and that they have specific access requirements, people with CS often cannot get their needs addressed without individual lawsuits to prove their disability. This becomes a burden and barrier to protection.”

The comment points to a 1992 memorandum issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that recognizes CS and environmental illness as a “handicap,” with all the protections afforded those disabled by this illness. The comment reads, “In a 1992 memorandum entitled “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder and Environmental Illness as Handicaps,” the Office of General Counsel in the Department of Housing and Urban Development clearly defines MCS and environmental illness as “handicaps” within the meaning of subsection 802(h) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3602(h), and the Department’s implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. Section 100.201 (1991).” Rather than equivocate on this debilitating condition, protection should be ensured under the proposed rulemaking beyond one’s place of residence.”

Beyond Pesticides’ comment includes the story and recommendation of a former physical education teacher and coach in Kansas who writes:

With proper accommodation, I would still be teaching and coaching today! Officially recognizing not only the life-changing severity of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, but also the value of “avoidance” in treating it would help building administrators understand how to keep employees with this disability on the job. I have many friends who are also disabled by MCS. Not one of them wanted to quit their job! But lack of accommodation caused their illness to progress to the point where they could no longer work. MCS takes a huge toll on individual lives and results in unnecessary loss of productivity. I urge you to officially recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/Environmental Illness as a disability requiring accommodation for accessibility. The chemical barriers that prevent those with MCS from entering buildings are every bit as limiting as lack of a ramp would be to someone in a wheelchair. Those with MCS deserve the same rights as other citizens. Recognizing MCS as a “qualified disability” would go a long way toward achieving equal access for everyone!

Beyond Pesticides suggests that the rulemaking include the following language: “Integrated pest management (IPM) practices to protect those disabled with chemical sensitivity (CS) or environmental illnesses and ensure access are required in public facilities or properties to include the following practices: identification of pests and conditions that attract pests; prevention techniques, such as sanitation, vacuuming, structural repair and sealing; monitoring; education and training; approved least toxic chemicals whose use does not, by virtue of its neurotoxic or other properties, impair the abilities of those with CS; and pre-notification and posting of chemical use.”

The full text of Beyond Pesticides’ comment can be seen here. Thanks to Mary Lamielle of the National Center for Environmental Health Strategies for alerting us to the comment period. Read her comments here.

TAKE ACTION: Access the Federal Register and submit comments electronically here. Click on the yellow dialogue bubble that says “add comments.” If you would like to sign on to Beyond Pesticides’ comment, please contact Natalie Lounsbury, nlounsbury@beyondpesticides.org, 202-543-5450, by 3:00pm (EDT) on Monday, August 18, 2008.

Posted in Announcements, MCS/chem. sensitivity by: Beyond Pesticides
13 Comments

14
Aug

Fed Report Finds Pesticides Threaten Salmon

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2008) The first report released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a result of a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) settlement reveal “overwhelming evidence” to suggest that the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon increase the chance of extinction for protected salmon and steelhead. The report on the three pesticides and their effects on threatened fish is the first in what is expected to be a four year review process of 37 pesticides.

“These are pesticides that EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] has swept under the rug for years. These are three that stood out as the nastiest of the (pesticides) that are still in widespread use,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice who represented the plaintiff, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). The 377-page report is clear in its conclusion that current use patterns of these three toxic pesticides threaten the salmon and steelhead protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it does not delineate the next steps to reduce the risk. A report on mitigation measures, which could include restrictions or bans, is expected in the next few months.

The timing of the report coincides with other important and related events in pesticide regulation and protection of endangered species. On August 11, 2008, the Bush administration announced new draft rules for the Endangered Species Act that will limit interagency assessments. Federal agencies, including EPA, which are now required to check in with the Fish and Wildlife Service about potential effects their actions may have on endangered species, will make their own determinations about effects without consultation from the corresponding agency overseeing the survival of the species.

Chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon are organophosphate insecticides of concern also because of their adverse effects on human health and all wildlife. All three have undergone EPA’s reregistration review process, and their reregistration eligibility decisions (REDs) were signed in 2006. Although there were some restrictions put into place on their use, they are still very commonly used pesticides in agriculture and some other applications. Because of the extremely high risks associated with diazinon, at the end of July 2008, a coalition of farmworker, environmental and public health advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s decision to allow its continued use.

Mr. Osborne-Klein, who also represents the plaintiffs in the diazinon case, said of the NMFS report, “It seems to be a very thoughtful and fair opinion.” However, opposing, pro-pesticide groups disagree and say the report does not draw its conclusions from real world assumptions about pesticide exposure. Numerous reports have documented myriad effects of low levels of pesticides on salmon that limit their ability to swim, eat, reproduce, and avoid predators.

For more information on salmon and pesticides, please read our Daily News stories about real world pesticide mixtures and their effects on salmon as well as our article from Pesticides and You.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Posted in Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Litigation, Malathion, Pesticide Regulation, Washington, Water, Wildlife/Endangered Sp. by: Beyond Pesticides
No Comments

13
Aug

WA County Recalls Consumer Pesticide Guide Under Industry Pressure

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2008) Last month, King County, Washington discontinued a popular wallet-sized consumer guide in which fruits and vegetables containing the most and least pesticide residues were listed, after agricultural industry-sponsored groups claimed that the consumer guide was oversimplified, misleading and influencing consumers to not eat locally grown produce.

Industry groups repeatedly lobbied the county program to remove the information saying that the guide did not contribute to food safety but instead hurt local farmers, whose crops are among those that contain the most pesticides. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, a coalition of health and hazardous-materials agencies in King County, Seattle and 38 neighboring communities introduced the informational card about a year ago in printed form and soon after on the King County website.

“It is outrageous that the pesticide industry is trying to prevent people from getting information that will help them make healthier choices about their food. We urge King County to make the information available to the public,” said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, environmental health advocate for the Washington Toxics Coalition.

The consumer guide lists suggestions on “how to shop for the safest household products” on one side of the card, and on the other lists produce into one of two columns, “High pesticide risks” and “Low pesticide risks.” The high pesticide risk column included produce such as apples, carrots and celery, while produce like asparagus, avocados and bananas were in the low pesticide risk column. The rankings came from data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration in 51,000 analyses for pesticides in 44 fruits and vegetables.

Washington Friends of Farms and Forest, which lobbied the county program to remove the information, stated that the consumer guide was “misleading” and “harmed local farmers by saying you shouldn’t buy apples and pears and peaches and the cherries,” all leading crops in Washington, but which contain higher amounts of pesticides. In fact, Washington Friends of Farms and Forest argues that the guide tells consumers, “Don’t eat locally grown stuff. Eat mangos and bananas.”

The guide, however, does not say to avoid buying local produce, and even lists a website sponsored by King County that contains maps and directions to farms and farmers markets in 12 surrounding counties. When asked why the guide is misleading, the group states that it is the role of the USDA and the FDA to tell consumers to have a healthy diet and that the guide does not contribute to food safety.

Program administrator for the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, Jay Watson, said, “[T]he design of the card is flawed. The information was oversimplified. It doesn’t address the scientific uncertainly (of pesticides).” The USDA, however, stands behind the accuracy of its data which was collected after extensive testing and analysis, but cautioned it should not be taken as an indicator of what exists on all crops everywhere. Mr. Watson noted that no more guides would be printed or distributed until the issue has been studied and input solicited, including comments from the agriculture community.

Many farmers and growers are angered at the interpretation often made of government-collected data, which have sprouted similar consumer guides across the country. Washington growers of apples, pears, peaches and other crops have conceded that such data have greatly reduced the amount and types of pesticides they use.

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. To make sure your food is organic, look for the USDA Organic label.

See the consumer guide here.

Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer