Maryland Pesticide Network

In Agricultural Areas, Male Toads Feminized

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2008) In a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers have found an increased occurrence of intersex toads in areas with greater agricultural land cover. This points to a link between certain pesticides and endocrine disruption, a change in the hormonal balance that can have sexual and reproductive effects. Such results implicate pesticides in the decline of amphibian populations, and suggests that these chemicals are also adversely affecting humans.

The study, which was conducted in south Florida, looked at cane toads, Bufo marinus, at five sites with differing land use patterns ranging from suburban to nearly completely agricultural (primarily sugarcane and vegetables). Researchers examined physical characteristics such as coloration, sexual organs, and forelimb length, as well as hormone concentrations, and found a higher rate of feminization for toads in agricultural areas. In these areas, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round Up herbicide) and atrazine (an herbicide) use is common.

Tyrone Hayes, PhD, was one of the first to document the endocrine disrupting effects of atrazine on frogs in a laboratory setting. Countering any doubts of why this work is important, Dr. Hayes said, "People often say, ‘It is just frogs, so who cares?' Well it does not matter whether you are a frog, a dog, a bat, a cat or a human. The compounds and the genes and the hormones that we are talking about are the same."

This latest study, following on others, takes the issue out of the laboratory and attempts to address the effects of pesticides on amphibians in the environment. Because of the complexity of environmental factors and, as the authors say, the "milieu" of chemicals that may exist in the environment, it is much more difficult to prove definitive links between cause and effect outside the laboratory. In another study addressing frogs in the environment, researchers actually found increased intersex frogs in suburban areas. The two results do not necessarily contradict each other, and may indicate that a wide variety of chemicals are having endocrine disrupting effects on amphibians.

All of this work highlights the need for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a robust Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program that takes into account the effects, at all doses, pesticides can have on humans and wildlife, and eliminate the use of pesticides that are endocrine disruptors. The European Commission has taken steps to adopt a precautionary principle with endocrine disrupting chemicals.

EPA Drops Value of an American Life

By SETH BORENSTEIN,
AP
Posted: 2008-07-10 20:51:11

Filed Under: Health News, Nation News, Science News WASHINGTON (July 10) - It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be.

The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May - a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.

The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.

Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences.

When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules - a charge the EPA denies.

"It appears that they're cooking the books in regards to the value of life," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators. "Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death."

Dan Esty, a senior EPA policy official in the administration of the first President Bush and now director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said: "It's hard to imagine that it has other than a political motivation."

Agency officials say they were just following what the science told them.

The EPA figure is not based on people's earning capacity, or their potential contributions to society, or how much they are loved and needed by their friends and family - some of the factors used in insurance claims and wrongful-death lawsuits.

Instead, economists calculate the value based on what people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and on how much extra employers pay their workers to take on additional risks. Most of the data is drawn from payroll statistics; some comes from opinion surveys. According to the EPA, people shouldn't think of the number as a price tag on a life.

The EPA made the changes in two steps. First, in 2004, the agency cut the estimated value of a life by 8 percent. Then, in a rule governing train and boat air pollution this May, the agency took away the normal adjustment for one year's inflation. Between the two changes, the value of a life fell 11 percent, based on today's dollar.

EPA officials say the adjustment was not significant and was based on better economic studies. The reduction reflects consumer preferences, said Al McGartland, director of EPA's office of policy, economics and innovation.

"It's our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to reduce similar risks to their own lives," McGartland said.

But EPA's cut "doesn't make sense," said Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi. EPA partly based its reduction on his work. "As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go up as well. It has to." Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans are less willing to pay to reduce risks.

At the same time that EPA was trimming the value of life, the Department of Transportation twice raised its life value figure. But its number is still lower than the EPA's.

EPA traditionally has put the highest value on life of any government agency and still does, despite efforts by administrations to bring uniformity to that figure among all departments.

Not all of EPA uses the reduced value. The agency's water division never adopted the change and in 2006 used $8.7 million in current dollars.

From 1996 to 2003, EPA kept the value of a statistical life generally around $7.8 million to $7.96 million in current dollars, according to reports analyzed by The AP. In 2004, for a major air pollution rule, the agency lowered the value to $7.15 million in current dollars.

Just how the EPA came up with that figure is complicated and involves two dueling analyses.

Viscusi wrote one of those big studies, coming up with a value of $8.8 million in current dollars. The other study put the number between $2 million and $3.3 million. The co-author of that study, Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole.

EPA took portions of each study and essentially split the difference - a decision two of the agency's advisory boards faulted or questioned.

"This sort of number-crunching is basically numerology," said Granger Morgan, chairman of EPA's Science Advisory Board and an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "This is not a scientific issue."

Other, similar calculations by the Bush administration have proved politically explosive. In 2002, the EPA decided the value of elderly people was 38 percent less than that of people under 70. After the move became public, the agency reversed itself.

Chemical Law Has Global Impact
E.U.'s New Rules Forcing Changes By U.S. Firms

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2008; A01

Europe this month rolled out new restrictions on makers of chemicals linked to cancer and other health problems, changes that are forcing U.S. industries to find new ways to produce a wide range of everyday products.

The new laws in the European Union require companies to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it enters commerce -- the opposite of policies in the United States, where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market. Manufacturers say that complying with the European laws will add billions to their costs, possibly driving up prices of some products.

The changes come at a time when consumers are increasingly worried about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure and are agitating for more aggressive regulation. In the United States, these pressures have spurred efforts in Congress and some state legislatures to pass laws that would circumvent the laborious federal regulatory process.

Adamantly opposed by the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration, the E.U. laws will be phased in over the next decade. It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But American manufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives to chemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmets to shower curtains. The European Union's tough stance on chemical regulation is the latest area in which the Europeans are reshaping business practices with demands that American companies either comply or lose access to a market of 27 countries and nearly 500 million people.

From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks, which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment. "There's a strong sense in Europe and the world at large that America is letting the market have a free ride," said Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The Europeans believe . . . that being a good global citizen in an era of sustainability means you don't just charge ahead and destroy the planet without concern for what you're doing."

Under the E.U. laws, manufacturers must study and report the risks posed by specific chemicals. Through the Internet, the data will be available for the first time to consumers, regulators and potential litigants around the world. Until now, much of that information either did not exist or was closely held by companies.

"This is going to compel companies to be more responsible for their products than they have ever been," said Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law. "They'll have to know more about the chemicals they make, what their products are and where they go."

The laws also call for the European Union to create a list of "substances of very high concern" -- those suspected of causing cancer or other health problems. Any manufacturer wishing to produce or sell a chemical on that list must receive authorization.

In the United States, laws in place for three decades have made banning or restricting chemicals extremely difficult. The nation's chemical policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed.

In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals, a fraction of the 80,000 chemicals that are part of the U.S. market. The government has had little or no information about the health hazards or risks of most of those chemicals.

The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976. The hurdles are so high for the agency that it has been unable to ban asbestos, which is widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen and is barred in more than 30 countries. Instead, the EPA relies on industry to voluntarily cease production of suspect chemicals.

"If you ask people whether they think the drain cleaner they use in their homes has been tested for safety, they think, 'Of course, the government would have never allowed a product on the market without knowing it's safe,' " said Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. "When you tell them that's not the case, they can't believe it."

The changes in Europe follow eight years of vigorous opposition from the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration. Four U.S. agencies -- the EPA, the Commerce Department, the State Department and the Office of the Trade Representative -- argued that the system would burden manufacturers and offer little public benefit.

In 2002, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell directed the staffs of American Embassies in Europe to oppose the measure. He cited talking points developed in consultation with the American Chemistry Council, a manufacturers trade group.

Mike Walls, the chemistry council's managing director of government and regulatory affairs, said that 90 percent of its members are affected by the E.U. laws and that some cannot afford the cost of compliance. "We're talking about over 850 pages of regulation," he said.

The E.U. standards will force many manufacturers to reformulate their products for sale there as well as in the United States. "We're not looking at this as a European program -- we're buying and selling all over the globe," said Linda Fisher, vice president and chief sustainability officer for DuPont and a former EPA deputy administrator.

DuPont expects to spend "tens of millions" of dollars to register about 500 chemicals with the European Union, Fisher said. About 20 to 30 are expected to make the list of "substances of very high concern." One such chemical is likely to be perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), used to make Teflon and other substances used in food packaging, carpet, clothing and electrical equipment. A suspected carcinogen, it accumulates in the environment and in human tissue.

DuPont reached a $16.5 million settlement with the EPA in 2005 on charges that it illegally withheld information about health risks posed by PFOA and about water pollution near a West Virginia plant. Dupont and other companies have agreed to cease production by 2015. Once a chemical is included on the E.U. list, manufacturers are likely to feel pressure to abandon production, observers say. "It will be a market signal that says, 'These are best to avoid,' " said Joel Tickner, director of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts.

Linking the word "concern" to a chemical is enough to trigger a market reaction. Earlier this year, when government officials in Canada and the United States said they worried about health effects possibly caused by bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in plastics, major retailers pulled from their shelves baby bottles containing the chemical.

"When we see lead in toys and BPA in baby bottles, all of these things arouse a kind of parental anxiety that overrides any counter-arguments based on science that industry might make," Jasanoff said. In the absence of strong federal regulations in the United States, a patchwork system is emerging. Individual states are banning specific chemicals, and half a dozen lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced bills aimed at shutting down production of various chemicals. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced a measure last month that would overhaul U.S. chemical regulation along the lines of the new European approach. It would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to use biomonitoring studies to identify industrial chemicals present in umbilical cord blood and decide whether those chemicals should be restricted or banned. A study by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found an average of 200 industrial chemicals in the cord blood of newborns.

Said Denison: "We still have quite a ways to go in convincing the U.S. Congress this is a problem that needs fixing." But new policies in Europe and in Canada push the United States closer to change, he said. "They show it's feasible, it's being done elsewhere, and we're behind."

California Officials Cancel Aerial Spraying

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2005) California state officials abruptly cancelled the program to spray pesticides to combat the light brown apple moth (LBAM). This move came after months of protests by residents over concerns that the chemicals in the pheromone-based pesticide may adversely impact their health and the environment.California's Agriculture Secretary, A.G. Kawamura, announced on Thursday that the state has abandoned its plan for aerial spraying of the light brown apple moth in urban areas of several counties, including the San Francisco Bay area. However, sprayings may still proceed on farmland in rural areas. Officials also stated that they would not spray over communities near farms.

"I know there's concern out there, and we want to be able to address that," Secretary Kawamura told reporters. "Our focus is to use the technology that has moved progressively forward."

Instead of spraying, the state said that it would keep moth populations under control by releasing sterile moths to halt reproduction by rendering eggs useless. Apparently the use of sterile moth as a means of population control has been a part of the state's plans for more than a year. It is not clear therefore why aerial spraying was so heavily advocated by state officials, but Secretary Kawamura noted that the state's change of plans comes about because of "new science" and not over concerns about the environment.

This decision is viewed as a victory for many environmental activists and communities of Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, Solano and Santa Barbara. Protests over the spraying began after about 487 people reported feeling symptoms ranging from itchy eyes to breathing trouble after planes dusted a fine chemical mist over the area surrounding Monterey and Santa Cruz last fall.

State environmental health experts insisted that the illnesses reported could not conclusively be linked to the initial round of aerial sprayings. Despite this, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to delay continued aerial spraying, vowing to prove that the chemical was safe.

A lawsuit against the state was filed, citing that Secretary Kawamura broke state law by authorizing the aerial campaign without the benefit of an environmental review to determine the spray's effect on people and the environment. In April, a California Court ruled that the light brown apple moth was not an immediate threat and delayed aerial spraying so that an environmental impact report was completed (See Daily News of April 28 and May 14, 2008).

"Wahoo! This is a landmark victory for the public," said David Dilworth, executive director of Helping Our Peninsula's Environment (HOPE). "People had to spend thousands and thousands of hours of high-level work to get a bureaucracy to do the obviously moral choice."

The light brown apple moth, which federal officials say threatens more than 2,000 varieties of California plants and crops, was first spotted in the state in March 2007 and has infested ten counties stretching from north of San Francisco to Santa Barbara. Officials planned to use the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F which works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Uncertainties about so-called inert or undisclosed ingredients, included in many pesticide formulations, were a serious concern.

Source: Associated Press

EU To Limit Chemicals in Surface Waters

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2008) On June 17, 2008, the European Union (EU) voted and approved limits for chemical contaminants in surface waters. This measure would expand the EU's campaign to protect the environment and also reduce the cost of producing drinking water.This new measure will set limits for 33 chemicals, including pesticides and heavy metals, in lakes, rivers and coastal waters that may endanger the survival of ecosystems and, via the food chain, human health. EU member states, which approved this legislation, will have until 2018 to meet these water standards. States will have to reduce pollution from "priority substances," cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of "priority hazardous substances" in order to achieve good surface water chemical status and to be in compliance with the objectives set by the water quality standards."This directive will guarantee a higher level of the protection of water by principally applying the principal of polluter-pays and corrects," said rapporteur Anne Laperrouze of France, after the vote.

Member states will have to establish an inventory, including maps, if available, of emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and pollutants for each river basin district or part of a river basin district lying within their territory, including their concentrations in sediment and biota. States sharing bodies of surface water will coordinate their monitoring activities and the compilation of inventories.

This proposed directive on water quality is the final piece of legislation needed to support the Water Framework Directive introduced eight years ago. Thirteen of the 33 pollutants covered by the directive are already identified as "priority hazardous substances," including heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. In its first-reading, the Parliament wanted to phase out a wider range of substances, but the Council decided to take on board the list of 33. The majority of states are willing to accept this as a first step, since some action is seen as better than none, with a further review already scheduled. In 2011, 13 new substances, including dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol, will be classified as "priority" or "hazardous" substances and added to the list of chemicals to be discontinued or phased out under the Water Framework Directive.

Two years ago, the EU endorsed laws to control chemicals in ground water and to force manufacturers and importers to provide more safety information on substances in Europe's $800 billion chemicals market. On June 1, 2007, the EU regulation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances) took effect, triggering action that removes from the market toxic chemicals when less toxic alternatives are available.

Protecting the health of surface waters also translates into healthier drinking water. "With less pollution, water companies will have to do less treatment to meet drinking-water requirements," Barbara Helfferich, environment spokeswoman for the European Commission. "It's not only a health issue. It's a cost factor, too," she added.

Pesticide run-off from agricultural lands is a major source of surface water pollution. According to EU directive, it will not be possible to comply quickly with environmental quality standards close to pollution sources. In these areas, pollutant concentrations may exceed the limits, provided that they do not prevent the rest of the body of surface water from meeting the standards. However, measures to reduce the chemical concentrations in these areas will be included in future management plans.

Previous steps have been taken by the EU to reduce pesticide pollution that include limitations on aerial spraying, the use of buffer zones around agricultural lands and restrictions on the use of pesticides of high concern. (See Daily News of October 29 and July 13, 2007.)

Pesticide contamination of rivers, streams and waterbeds used as sources of drinking water is an acute problem for Europe.

Sources: European Parliament News, Bloomberg.com

Organochlorine Pesticide Linked to Behavioral Deficit in Infants

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2008) A study published in the May issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows a link between prenatal exposure to the pesticide DDT and poor attention-related skills in early infancy. This study follows in a long line of recent studies associated with the negative health effects of DDT including: diabetes; non-Hodgkin lymphoma; breast cancer; and autism. Despite the fact that DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972, concentrations of this toxic chemical's major metabolite, DDE, have remained alarmingly high in many ecosystems, including the waters of Los Angeles County, the arctic, and even U.S. national parks. All studies documenting the health effects of DDT and chemicals in the same family, organochlorines, are particularly important not just for understanding the lingering effects of DDT from days past, but because many countries continue to employ DDT as a method in controlling mosquitoes that transmit malaria, despite its toxicity, weakening efficacy, and availability of safer alternatives. Other organochlorines are still registered for use in the U.S.The study looked at 788 mother-infant pairs who met several criteria, which included living in a town adjacent to a Superfund site in New Bedford, Massachusetts, a location with known organochlorine contamination. Cord blood samples were taken at birth from the infants (ill, pre-term, and infants born by Caesarian-section were excluded), and then tested for DDE (dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene), as well as 51 individual congeners of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The researchers then utilized the Neonatal Behavior Assessment Scale (NBAS) to measure infants' alertness, consolability, self-quieting activity, hand-to-mouth facility, irritability, elicited and spontaneous activity, and motor maturity. The results show consistent inverse associations between the levels of cord serum of both PCBs and DDE and attention-related outcomes. Thus, the higher the exposure to the organochlorines, the poorer the infant's performance.

Although DDT has historically received the most press of all the organochlorine pesticides, this family encompasses a number of pesticides still registered for use in the U.S.. These chemicals, while inducing various harmful health effects, have in common their persistence in the environment and human bodies. Earlier this year, during the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comment period for the reregistration of endosulfan, an organochlorine used in the U.S. on cotton, tomatoes and other crops but banned in over 20 countries, many scientists and activists urged the agency to withdraw the registration of this toxic pesticide. Lindane, another organochlorine still registered for use as an anti-lice shampoo in the U.S., has been banned in California and is under consideration for severe restrictions in the Michigan Senate. Pentachlorophenol, an organochlorine used as a wood preservative mainly in utility poles in the U.S., is currently undergoing EPA's reregistration process.

Public health advocates call for a complete phase-out of DDT and other organochlorine chemicals given evidence of their persistence and harmful effects on health and the environment.

TAKE ACTION: Pentachlorophenol (PCP):The EPA comment period for the reregistration of pentachlorophenol is open. Send a comment to them and let them know that we need to stop using harmful organochlorine chemicals for our environment and our health. You can submit comments online at: www.regulations.gov, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0402. If submitting by mail, send to Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Lindane: Follow the lead of California and Michigan and encourage your legislature to ban the use of lindane, an unnecessary and harmful chemical used in the treatment of lice.

Endosulfan: Although the comment period has officially closed for the reregistration of endosulfan, you can still send a letter to the EPA. See the letter sent by scientists, and public health advocates.

Fed Launches Organic Lawn Management in Capitol Region

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2008) The General Services Administration (GSA) has begun using organic fertilizer on the grounds of all its federal buildings in the National Capital Region. The region, which is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, includes the District of Columbia, as well parts of Virginia and Maryland. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GSA is using 100-percent organic pelletized chicken manure at 64 sites, covering 84 acres. The poultry litter is being collected by a private company and converted to usable organic fertilizer, then transported by truck to the region, and applied at the GSA properties.

"Use of organic fertilizer is but one of many sustainable practices that GSA employs in our landscaping program," commented GSA Regional Administrator Tony Reed. "In this first year of utilizing this approach for all of our buildings in the National Capital Region, we have applied 80 tons, enriching our landscapes at the same time we are helping to clean up Chesapeake Bay."

Chemical fertilizer, pesticides, animal manure, and poultry litter are major sources of excess nitrogen and phosphorus that cause water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay. These pollutants get washed into local rivers, streams, and groundwater and eventually reach the bay, where they contribute to massive algae blooms. As these blooms die off and decompose, they rob the bay of dissolved oxygen creating dead zones in which fish and other aquatic life cannot survive.

"GSA is providing a reasonable alternative for poultry farmers to traditional manure applications, creating a sustainable new market for this material. GSA's switch to all organic fertilizer sets a good example of the kind of steps we all need to take to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay," said EPA Regional Administrator Donald S. Welsh.

For more than a decade, GSA has implemented an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program in 30 million square feet, approximately 7,000 federal buildings, in the capital area without spraying toxic insecticides.

Over four acres of Washington, DC's National Mall has been maintained organically by the National Park Service (NPS) over the past year. The growth of the pesticide-free zone movement around the country and the passage of pesticide-free public land policies are very promising. For more information on organic turf management, please visit Beyond Pesticides' Lawns and Landscapes program page. To find a service provider that practices least- or non-toxic methods, visit the Safety Source for Pest Management.

Study Shows Increased Diabetes Risk from Pesticide Exposure

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2008) A recent study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), finds pesticide applicators with regular exposure to pesticides to be at a greater risk of type-2 diabetes. Published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn028), the study shows specific pesticides produce between a 20 and 200 percent increase in risk. Researchers looked at data from 31,787 pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa over a period of five years. In that period, 1,171, or 3.7 percent, had developed diabetes, particularly for applicators in the highest category of lifetime days of use of any pesticide.

"The results suggest that pesticides may be a contributing factor for diabetes along with known risk factors such as diabetes, lack of exercise and having a family history of diabetes," said Dale Sandler, PhD, chief of the Epidemiology Branch of NIEHS. "Although the amount of diabetes explained by pesticides is small, these new findings may extend beyond the pesticide applicators in the study."

Freya Kamel, PhD, of NIEHS noted that "all of the seven pesticides" associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes are chlorinated compounds: aldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, dichlorvos, trichlorfon, alachlor, and cyanazine. "We don't know yet what the implication of that is, but it can't be a coincidence. I think it's an important clue for future research," said Dr. Kamel. Trichlorfon bore the strongest correlation; applicators who used it both frequently and infrequently show an 85 percent increase in risk for diabetes, while those who applied it more than 10 times experience nearly a 250 percent increase in risk.

"This is one of the largest studies looking at the potential effects of pesticides on diabetes incidence in adults," said Dr. Kamel. "It clearly shows that cumulative lifetime exposure is important and not just recent exposure." Weight and fitness also play a roll, researchers reported, as chemicals may be stored in body fat.

This is not the first study to report on the link between organochlorine pesticides and diabetes. Earlier this year, University of Cambridge scientists studied the role that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) play in the risk of adult onset diabetes, as did a study in 2007. The study looked at in this latest research also offer a wealth of connections to other health effects, including cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental effects, neurotoxicity, and others.

To find out how you can manage homes, buildings, lawns and landscapes without using toxic chemicals, visit Beyond Pesticides' alternatives fact sheets. To find a pest control company in your area that uses less- and non-toxic products, visit the Safety Source for Pest Management.

Sources: Science Daily, United Press International, News Inferno, Reuters

May 28, 2008

Common herbicide disrupts human hormone activity

Atrazine affects the endocrine systems of zebrafish at levels lower than U.S. drinking-water standards—and impacts human cells in tissue cultures.

The second most widely used herbicide in the U.S. could cause serious problems for both fish and humans, according to new research. In a paper published May 7 in PLoS ONE (DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0002117 ), scientists from the University of California San Francisco examined atrazine's endocrine-disrupting effects in zebrafish, a commonly used laboratory animal. In parallel studies of cultured human cells, the researchers found indications that some human genes may be more sensitive to atrazine than previously thought.

The team subjected cells and live zebrafish to environmentally relevant doses of atrazine. Fish in the lab had slightly higher female-to-male ratios than populations not exposed to atrazine, indicating some feminization induced by the weed killer.

More clear, however, was the elevated activity of a gene that encodes aromatase, which is linked to estrogen production. Zebrafish have two aromatase genes, one regulated by estrogen and the other by both estrogen and a receptor called NR5A. The researchers found that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine increased aromatase expression by activating NR5A receptors. The experiments show definite effects at 2 parts per billion (ppb); the U.S. EPA has set drinking-water limits for humans at 3 ppb for atrazine. The pesticide is currently under review. The researchers also found that atrazine activated NR5A receptors in human cell lines, affecting other genes that are critical to steroid synthesis and development.

"The zebrafish model made it easier to tease out the potential mechanisms," says John Incardona, a research toxicologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Northwest Fisheries Science Center. "They still don't have the exact mechanism," he adds, but the results are a "big step forward in identifying the mechanism of action of atrazine in producing these endocrine effects."

"Freshwater fish like zebrafish are going to be very sensitive to this" herbicide in the environment, says Holly Ingraham, coauthor of the new research. Although the debate about atrazine's environmental impacts has focused on Xenopus frogs, the lab animals may not be the best genetic model organism for understanding wild frog populations and may metabolize the chemical differently.

"The human data provide a brand new framework to look at atrazine," Ingraham continues. Future work should examine other genes, she says, because they may be much more sensitive to atrazine and could be linked to other important systems, such as reproduction and adrenal gland function. —NAOMI LUBICK 

Pet Shampoos Containing Insecticides Linked to Autism

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2008) A population-based study looking at how genes and environmental factors interact shows that pet shampoos containing insecticides may trigger autism spectrum disorders (ASD), reports New Scientist. The study findings, presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research, show that mothers of children with an ASD are twice as likely to have used an insecticidal pet shampoo during the prenatal and/or postnatal period when compared to mothers of healthy children. The strongest association was during the second trimester of pregnancy. According to the researchers, pet shampoos often contain pyrethrins and previous animal research has found that pyrethrins are designed to target the central nervous system in insects, rodents and other species and can cause death of neurons and compromise the blood-brain barrier in early life.Examining participants in the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) study, researchers from the University of California, Davis looked at 333 children with ASD and 198 healthy children between the ages of two and five, and their families. In-depth questionnaires and blood and urine samples were collected.

Isaac Pessah, Ph.D., a researcher involved in the study and professor in the Department of Molecular Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis, told the New Scientist, "Autism is associated with an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters within the brain, and one could hypothesize that children with an imbalance in this system may be more sensitive to the effects of pyrethrins."

Autism, which is on the rise in both prevalence and incidence, is a complex developmental disorder that includes problems with social interaction and communication. The symptoms range from mild to very severe, appearing before the age of three and lasting throughout a person's life. Research has shown that people with autism have certain irregularities in several regions of the brain and/or have abnormal levels of serotonin or other neurotransmitters in the brain, suggesting that autism is associated with the disruption of normal brain development early in fetal development. It is increasingly recognized that autism likely is caused by a complex interplay of both genetic and environmental factors.

Many of the most commonly used pesticides are designed specifically as neurotoxins. The transmitter systems and hormone systems of humans are similar to those of the insects those insecticides are targeting, according to a study published in 2004 in Pediatrics. Researchers show that animal studies and residual effects in humans following acute intoxication suggest that organophosphates can be toxic to the developing brain at exposure levels below those inducing overt signs. A study published in 1998 also showed that organochlorine pesticides are a source of developmental neurotoxicity in humans. A study published in the October 2007 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows that children born to mothers living near agricultural fields where organochlorine pesticides were applied during their first trimester of pregnancy were six times more likely to have children with autism compared to mothers who did not live near the fields.

Organochlorine Pesticide Linked to Behavioral Deficit in Infants

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2008) A study published in the May issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows a link between prenatal exposure to the pesticide DDT and poor attention-related skills in early infancy. This study follows in a long line of recent studies associated with the negative health effects of DDT including: diabetes; non-Hodgkin lymphoma; breast cancer; and autism. Despite the fact that DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972, concentrations of this toxic chemical's major metabolite, DDE, have remained alarmingly high in many ecosystems, including the waters of Los Angeles County, the arctic, and even U.S. national parks. All studies documenting the health effects of DDT and chemicals in the same family, organochlorines, are particularly important not just for understanding the lingering effects of DDT from days past, but because many countries continue to employ DDT as a method in controlling mosquitoes that transmit malaria, despite its toxicity, weakening efficacy, and availability of safer alternatives. Other organochlorines are still registered for use in the U.S.The study looked at 788 mother-infant pairs who met several criteria, which included living in a town adjacent to a Superfund site in New Bedford, Massachusetts, a location with known organochlorine contamination. Cord blood samples were taken at birth from the infants (ill, pre-term, and infants born by Caesarian-section were excluded), and then tested for DDE (dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene), as well as 51 individual congeners of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The researchers then utilized the Neonatal Behavior Assessment Scale (NBAS) to measure infants' alertness, consolability, self-quieting activity, hand-to-mouth facility, irritability, elicited and spontaneous activity, and motor maturity. The results show consistent inverse associations between the levels of cord serum of both PCBs and DDE and attention-related outcomes. Thus, the higher the exposure to the organochlorines, the poorer the infant's performance.

Although DDT has historically received the most press of all the organochlorine pesticides, this family encompasses a number of pesticides still registered for use in the U.S.. These chemicals, while inducing various harmful health effects, have in common their persistence in the environment and human bodies. Earlier this year, during the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comment period for the reregistration of endosulfan, an organochlorine used in the U.S. on cotton, tomatoes and other crops but banned in over 20 countries, many scientists and activists urged the agency to withdraw the registration of this toxic pesticide. Lindane, another organochlorine still registered for use as an anti-lice shampoo in the U.S., has been banned in California and is under consideration for severe restrictions in the Michigan Senate. Pentachlorophenol, an organochlorine used as a wood preservative mainly in utility poles in the U.S., is currently undergoing EPA's reregistration process.

Public health advocates call for a complete phase-out of DDT and other organochlorine chemicals given evidence of their persistence and harmful effects on health and the environment.

Researchers Looking For Alternatives to DEET

(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2008) Researchers have begun preliminary work to find suitable and safe alternatives to the widely used mosquito repellent DEET. Several possibilities have been identified, which repel mosquitoes for longer periods of time, but their safety for use on humans still needs to be investigated.Researchers, with funding from the Department of Defense, set out to determine what makes insect repellents work, and then to use that information in finding more effective ways to chase away disease-carrying insects. Insect repellents are used to repel biting insects such as mosquitoes and ticks that spread diseases such as encephalitis, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, malaria and dengue fever.

Ulrich R. Bernier, PhD, co-author of this study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/ and research chemist at the Agriculture Department's mosquito and fly research unit in Gainesville, Fla., remarked that several of the new chemicals reviewed were "just phenomenal."

Using previous USDA data on hundreds of chemicals collected over 50 years, the researchers rated chemicals from "1″ to "5″ on ability to repel insects, and then focused on what the most effective ones — the 5s — had in common. They were able to narrow the study down to 34 molecules, 23 that had never been tested before and 11 that had been tested, with a focus on a class of chemicals known as N-acylpiperidines.

Tests conducted using cloth treated with the chemicals were very promising. Some of the chemicals repelled mosquitoes for as long as 73 days and many worked for 40 to 50 days, compared to an average of 17.5 days with DEET. The 10 most effective were narrowed down to seven, with eliminations based on concerns about toxicity and high cost to produce. Safety testing to make sure these chemicals are safe to be applied on human skin is expected to begin this summer.

DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is commonly used as an insect repellent but its use has become highly controversial. Scientists have raised concerns about the use of DEET and seizures among children, even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that there is not enough information to implicate DEET with these incidents. DEET is quickly absorbed through the skin and has caused adverse effects including severe skin reactions including large blisters and burning sensations. Laboratory studies have found that DEET can cause neurological damage, including brain damage in children

Its synergistic effect with other insecticides is also a major health concern. DEET, when used in combination with permethrin - a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, likely facilitates enhanced dermal absorption of permethrin and induces symptoms such as headache, loss of memory, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, and ataxia, which causes an inability to coordinate muscular movements. Several studies done by a team of Duke University researchers lead by Mohammed Abou-Donia suggest that DEET in conjunction with permethrin-impregnated clothing may be linked to Gulf War Syndrome. (See Review of Study.) DEET was originally developed for military use in 1946 and was then registered for use on the general public in 1957. According to the EPA, more than one third of the U.S. population uses DEET-containing products every year.

Safer alternatives to DEET include picaridin, citronella and other essential oils, like oil of lemon eucalyptus. For more information on safer methods to protect yourself from mosquitoes and other insects, please visit Beyond Pesticides' fact sheet on mosquito repellents.

Source: Associated Press

Cosmetic Use of Lawn Chemicals Banned in Ontario

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2008) Ontario is moving to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals by banning the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides. Legislation to be introduced today would make Ontario's pesticide rules among the toughest in North America. It would also replace a variety of municipal by-laws in place across the province.Studies by public health experts are showing growing evidence of the potential health risk of pesticides, particularly for children. The ban would likely take effect next spring. It would not affect pesticides used for farming or forestry. Golf courses would still be able to use pesticides, but must meet certain conditions to minimize environmental impacts. Pesticides would still be allowed for control of mosquitoes and other insects determined to represent a health threat.

"Our generation is becoming more and more aware of the potential risks in our environment, not only to our health, but to our children's health. That's why we're taking action on behalf of the next generation of Ontarians, and reducing their exposure to chemicals," said Premier Dalton McGuinty.

"Many municipalities have already shown leadership in banning or restricting cosmetic-use pesticides. We're extending that protection to all families wherever they live," said Environment Minister John Gerretsen.

Over 44 per cent of Ontarians already live in a municipality where the cosmetic use of pesticides is banned. Groups such as the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Canadian Cancer Society have been calling for a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides as a prudent measure to protect our families' health.

This new legislation, proposed by Premier Dalton McGuinty, comes after years of petitions from local grassroots movements and health groups to ban all cosmetic use of pesticides across the province because of growing concern about the potential harmful effects of these products on human health. (See Daily News of February 28, 2007) The law would prohibit 80 chemicals and 300 products that experts say pose a potential health risk. Similar bans have gone into effect in Toronto and Quebec.

A draft list of outlawed pesticides would soon be released and the final list will be determined by regulation after the province consults on the draft before next spring. The main impact of this action would be to eliminate the residential use of the popular lawn herbicide known as 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds, such as dandelions. 2,4-D is the most widely used lawn chemical but several recent studies show that this pesticide can cause lymphatic cancer in exposed humans, while dogs are twice as likely to contract canine malignant lymphoma when exposed to lawns treated with the chemical. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (Round-up) and dicamba have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Health effects of the 36 most commonly used lawn pesticides show that: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 24 with neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 34 are sensitizers and/or irritants.

Action: This spring, care for your lawn without putting your health and that of your family's at risk. Least toxic alternatives for lawn care do exist. To find out more information, check out our Lawns and Landscapes program page.

Source: Premier's media office

RETAILERS TO PULL PESTICIDES OFF SHELVES

By Martin Mittelstaedt

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail - April 23, 2008 at 4:54 AM EDT

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wpesticides23/BNStory/National/home

Home Depot, one of Canada's largest retailers, says it will voluntarily stop selling traditional pesticides and herbicides by the end of the year and will replace these products with less environmentally harmful alternatives.

The move coincided with the announcement yesterday that Ontario will join Quebec to become the second province to formally ban the so-called "cosmetic use" of pest control products on residential lawns, gardens and parks.

Public health advocates who have been lobbying for an end to spraying to kill weeds and bugs around homes say the twin moves - by the country's most populous province and by major retailers - hold out a strong likelihood that Canada has reached a kind of tipping point on pesticides, and will eventually become a nation of organic gardeners, at least for residential areas. 

"I would say that now that we have Quebec and Ontario, there is huge pressure on the other provinces," said Gideon Forman, executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "The next obvious one would be British Columbia."

There are also an estimated 140 local communities that have tried to eliminate pesticide use through municipal bylaw restrictions, according to a running count by environmentalists, and PEI has also discussed instituting a ban. 

Canadian Tire, the country's largest garden supplier, also said yesterday it would pull pest control products from its Ontario stores by the end of the summer, a step it has already taken in Quebec, and intends to phase out sales elsewhere in the country where they are not banned.

Retailers say the market is shifting away from these products.  "This is just the next evolution for the Home Depot in terms of always providing our customers and our consumers with environmentally friendly products," said Gino DiGioacchino, the company's vice-president of merchandising.

For much of the past decade, Canada has been the scene of unusual turf wars occurring almost nowhere else in the world over whether homeowners should be allowed to spray their lawns - mainly to kill dandelions for the sake of appearances. The activity had become almost a right of spring in many areas before it became enmeshed in controversy. 

he fight over spraying has pitted environmental and public health advocates against pesticide manufacturers and lawn care companies, and also embroiled the federal government.  Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency says home pesticides "pose no unacceptable health or environmental risks" if label directions are followed, even though two major provinces now disagree, along with a number of the country's most influential public health groups, such as the Canadian Cancer Society.  The PMRA refused to comment yesterday, but it is expected to issue within days a new assessment vouching for the safety of 2,4-D, one of the most commonly used lawn herbicides, and the main chemical affected by the various provincial and municipal bans.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians has also rejected Health Canada's position, and issued an influential study in 2004 linking pesticides to such illnesses as leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, while more recently, other research has associated pesticide exposure with Parkinson's disease.

"There is no health benefit to these products and there is a lot of science that shows they are connected with really serious illness," Mr. Forman said. "In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, there is zero health benefit and the potential risk is enormous."

The actions in Canada are also in stark contrast to the United States, where Home Depot's U.S. parent continues to sell these products nationally, although it does face some local restrictions.

Loblaw Cos. Ltd. food chain was the first retailer to remove the pesticide products from its garden centres, in 2003, but until yesterday, no other chains had followed suit.  Canadian Tire says is trying to discourage pesticide use by promoting gardening and lawn care practices that are less reliant on chemical sprays.   "We actually have been phasing out" the use of traditional pesticides and "introducing a lot of eco-friendly options," said Lisa Gibson, a spokeswoman.

Intersex Frogs More Common in Suburban Areas

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2008) Common frogs that live in suburban areas are more likely than their rural counterparts to develop reproductive abnormalities, according to David Skelly, PhD, professor of ecology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. This phenomenon becomes a serious concern as the frog's mating season begins, leaving researchers to wonder: will frogs be clear on their role in the annual ritual?

Research by Dr. Skelly, soon to be published, focuses on the common green frog, Rana clamitans, within the Connecticut River Valley. A total of 233 frogs were collected from various ponds and landscapes with the river valley and among them 13 percent have abnormalities occurring in their reproductive organs. In urban areas, 18 percent of the collected frogs are intersex, and in suburban areas 21 percent. Frogs collected from agricultural areas have the lowest rate of reproductive problems with just 7 percent classified as intersex. According to Dr. Skelly, the more suburban the land cover, the more likely the abnormalities.

"This is the first evidence that I think anyone has provided that agriculture is doing anything but pushing those rates higher," remarked Dr. Skelly of the intersex phenomena.

In an attempt to explain the higher prevalence of intersex frogs in urban and suburban areas, the study notes that many suburban areas use septic systems that may be leaching chemicals or pharmaceuticals into streams or ponds. These areas also have higher rates of using herbicides and insecticides for lawn care and garden treatments.

Intersex frogs, also called hermaphroditic frogs, refer to frogs, mostly males observed to be producing eggs in their testes. There are many studies documenting this phenomenon, which is also blamed for the decline in many frog populations. Work by Tyrone Hayes, PhD, University of California, Berkeley, has linked the agricultural herbicide atrazine to reproductive disorders in frogs. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), also suggests a strong link between the abnormalities and agriculture. However, this study is the first to document the relationship with a non-agricultural setting.

Atrazine, which is classified as an endocrine disruptor, interrupts the workings of natural hormones. However, many household products, such as antibacterials and antimicrobials like triclosan and its cousin triclocarban, which are found in detergents, bar soaps, and other personal care products, have been shown to produce the same effects when released into streams and ponds. A recent study found that these antibacterials enhance endocrine disruption and have also been found to have the highest user rates among the wealthy. These antibacterials and other estrogenic chemicals are detected at high concentrations in the effluent discharged in the areas where the abnormalities are found. Lawn care chemicals like 2,4-D, permethrin, and glyphosate (Round-up) also cause damaging endocrine effects, even though the U.S. EPA does not currently evaluate or consider the endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides during registration or re-registration. These chemicals run off from treated lawn surfaces to contaminate nearby streams.

"Looking upstream and downstream from wastewater-treatment plants, we see there's obviously been an impact by some of the chemicals discharged," said Vicki S. Blazer, PhD, fish biologist at USGS.

Recent news reports have brought attention to antibacterials and pharmaceuticals in drinking water. While these chemicals pose serious health concerns to human populations, the harm posed to wildlife species being documented at alarming rates.

Source: New York Times

Swedish Study Finds GMO Seeds Persist 10 Years After Planting

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2008) A study called "Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank," recently published in the journal Biology Letters, has found a genetically modified (GM) crop to persist in spite of a decade of efforts to remove it from a field. Researchers from Sweden's Lund University and the Danish Technical University found GM oilseed rape (also known as canola) plants still growing ten years after seeds were planted.

According to the study, the result contrasts previous trials: "In general, studies suggest that the majority of seeds disappear from the seedbank within two years." The oilseed rape volunteer (rogue) plants were discovered by their resistance to the herbicide glufosinate. Researchers wrote, "This finding of volunteers, despite labour intensive control for 10 years [including intensive chemical spraying], supports previous suggestions that voulnteer oilseed rape needs to be carefully managed in order for non-GM crops to be planted after GM crops." They added, "These results are important in relation to debating and regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops."

The study's findings are consistent with previous research. A larger French study found similar survival of volunteer plants eight years after a GM trial. Swedish researcher Dr. Tina D'Hertefeldt pointed out the commercial implications of these results. "I would expect the same to happen in a commercial field too," she said. "It may even be more prevalent as the trial had very stringent regulations, and higher controls than a farmer would probably carry out." Furthermore, Dr. D'Hertefeldt said, "If you had a high number [of volunteer plants], you could get above the threshold for labeling GM ingredients."

The results have spurred opponents of GM crops to speak out. "Despite the best efforts by the researchers to eliminate GM oilseed rape, it appears that once it is planted, it is virtually impossible to prevent GM contamination of future crops, " said Clare Oxborrow, GM campaigner with Friends of the Earth UK. "The government must now tear up its weak proposals for the ‘coexistence' of GM with organic and conventional crops, and put in place tough rules that protect GM-free food and farming." Mark Westoby, plant ecologist at Macquarie University in Australia, concurred, "This study confirms that GM crops are difficult to confine. We should assume that GM organisms cannot be confined, and ask instead what will become of them when they escape."

In addition to the persistence of GM oilseed rape seeds, the plant has been found to pass on its GM traits to nearby weeds, a side-effect common to GM crops. GM crops are being planted more and more, in spite of the risks at which they put conventional and organic farmers. For more information on GM crops, visit our program page and Daily News archive.

Sources: BBC News, Navigator.com, The Telegraph, TopNews

Pesticide Residues Found in European Wines

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2008) Wines on sale in the European Union (EU), including wines made by world famous vineyards, contain residues of a number of pesticides, according to a new report by Pesticide Action Network Europe. The organization tested 40 bottles of wine purchased inside the EU from Australia, Austria, Chile, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal and South Africa, six of which were organic wines. Every bottle of conventional wine included in the analysis was found to contain pesticides, with one bottle containing 10 different pesticides. On average each wine sample contained over four pesticides.

The analysis revealed 24 different pesticide contaminants, including five classified as being carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to the reproductive system or endocrine disrupting. The most widespread pesticide contaminant was pyrimethanil, a possible carcinogen, which was detected in 25 bottles of conventional wine – almost 75% of all conventional samples analyzed. While the majority of wines tested were selected from low cost affordable brands, three of the bottles are world famous Bordeaux wines and more expensive, according to PAN Europe.

The discovery of pesticides in samples of wine follows the publication of a report by the French Ministry of Agriculture which identified 15 pesticides as being systematically transferred from grapes into wine during the wine-making process. Grapes are among the most contaminated food products on sale in the EU and receive a higher dose of synthetic pesticides than almost any other crop. The contamination of wines is a direct result of over reliance on pesticides in grape production. In the EU, grapes account for 3% of all cropland, while being responsible for 15% synthetic pesticide applications.

"The presence of pesticides in European wines is a growing problem," said Elliott Cannell of PAN Europe. "Many grape farmers are abandoning traditional methods of pest control in favor of using hazardous synthetic pesticides. This trend has a direct impact on the quality of European wines. In two thirds of cases the pesticide residues identified in this study relate to chemicals only recently adopted into mainstream grape production in the EU. Hazardous pesticides applied to food crops growing in the field can and do end up in food products. Almost half of all fruit and vegetables sold in the EU are contaminated with pesticides, with one item in 20 containing pesticides at concentrations above legal limits."

Of the six bottles of organic wine tested, five contained no detectable pesticide residues. These results provide a clear proof of principle that pesticide free wine production is possible where no synthetic pesticides are applied to grapes. One sample contained a low concentration of pyrimethanil, a possible carcinogen. The presence of pesticide residues in organic wines is a rare but well documented phenomenon. A 2004 study, suggests that small organic wine producers located in areas of intensive conventional grape production may suffer occasional contamination due to the drift of pesticides from neighboring plots affecting front-line organic vines.

The U.S. is second behind EU for global wine consumption. Europe accounts for two thirds of global wine production and consumption. Italy, France, Spain are major exporters selling around 64% of all wine traded internationally. Germany and UK are the world's largest wine importers.

According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) reported pesticide use statistics, total pesticide use on wine grapes in the state dropped by about 8.5 million pounds in 2006. DPR analysts note that pesticide use varies from year to year based on many factors, including types of crops, economics, acreage planted, and weather conditions. Even under similar conditions, pest problems may vary. For example, cool wet spring weather often prompts increased use of sulfur and other fungicides, as was the case in 2005. But similar weather conditions in 2006 did not produce as much vineyard disease in most areas, so wine grape growers actually used less sulfur.

Back in 1998, a wine industry group acknowledged that some wines produced in France may have been contaminated with polychlorophenols, specifically pentachlorophenol, for the past decade. The wine industry says the contamination causes "no health hazard," according to L'Express news magazine, but that it makes the wine taste bad. This bad taste was often blamed on bad corks.

However, pentachlorophenol is a probable human carcinogen that contains dioxin; it is not registered for food uses and has no "safe" level, according to Beyond Pesticides. The chemical is used to treat wood used for the walls of wine storage facilities, and "trace quantities" seeped into such wines as Bordeaux, Burgundy, Beaujolais and champagnes. Contamination in champagne has been known of since 1982. The industry chose not to inform the public so as not to cause unnecessary alarm. According to L'Express, Sophie Gerard, a spokesperson for the wine industry, says that less than one percent of Bordeaux wine was affected and that the problem has been resolved through replacing the treated wood with solid oak which does not need treatment. She cites a study by the Conseil Interprofessionenel du Vin de Bordeaux (CIVB), also mentioned in Wine Spectator magazine, which found that of 1344 wine samples, only 11 were contaminated with a wood preservative. The scientist, Pascal
Chatonnet, who discovered the contamination, says that about 50% of his samples had been contaminated. According to Wine Spectator, vintners believe it is the humid conditions in wine cellars that cause the polychlorophenol molecules from wood ceilings and walls to evolve into 2,4,6, trichloroanisole (TCE), which is commonly cited as the chemical responsible for making wine taste "corky."

The health impacts of pesticide exposure to vineyard farmworkers is also a concern. According to the PAN-Europe report, "Published scientific analysis suggests that those exposed to pesticides in grape production suffer a higher incidence of allergic rhinitis, respiratory problems, cancers, and chromosomal and nuclear abnormalities, as well as lower neurological capacities."

JAMA  review of book; PESTICIDES: A TOXIC TIME BOMB IN OUR MIDST

JAMA Review -- Pesticides: A Toxic Time Bomb in Our Midst,  April 2, 2008 ... JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, is a highly cited weekly medical journal that publishes peer-reviewed original medical research ... jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/13/1613 -
PESTICIDES: A TOXIC TIME BOMB IN OUR MIDST
Rachel's New's Letter says about the book : Levine has written a pragmatic book for physicians, health workers, and the general public.... His own perspective as a health professional with a concern for the public health and a fondness for the "precautionary principle," which assumes that a chemical is harmful unless there is good evidence to the contrary, is not hidden.
By Arnold Schecter
Review of "Pesticides: A Toxic Time Bomb in Our Midst," By Marvin J. Levine (264 pp, $49.95; Wesport, CT, Praeger Press, 2007; ISBN-13: 978-0-2759-9127-2)
This is a well-written and informative book about a relatively little known area of expertise for most physicians -- chemicals in the environment and their impact on health.
The book is devoted to pesticides, which includes herbicides, insecticides, weed killers, rodenticides, bacteriocides, fungicides, and other chemicals frequently called "pesticides." It is reasonably well-referenced text. However, some statements regarding health damage could benefit from more textual references to justify the statements presented.
Levine has written a pragmatic book for physicians, health workers, and the general public. It is relatively easy reading for physicians but demands a bit more attention than a vacation book intended for beach reading. His own perspective as a health professional with a concern for the public health and a fondness for the "precautionary principle," which assumes that a chemical is harmful unless there is good evidence to the contrary, is not hidden. Frequently and throughout this volume, the author attempts to balance industry and environmental points of view and actions. And he notes the eternal conflict between the need for economic productivity and reasonably priced food, with the possible short- and long-term damage to human health from the use or misuse of various chemicals. He favors "integrated pest management," a balanced method of control using far less pesticides than is common at this time.
The book emphasizes farm workers, children, pregnant women, individuals with asthma, and elderly individuals as being more sensitive than the general population to the effects of pesticides. The book also discusses policy issues and political actions sometimes based on lobbying, as well as specific scientific and biological aspects of pesticides. Chapters include those on the presence of pesticides in foods, schools, homes, air, water, and soil; the international trade in pesticides; and suggested remedies. A number of case studies relate to health damage from pesticides or, in one case, to fear of potential but not actual chemical exposure and damage.
The past 60 years are characterized as those when use of synthetic pesticides became common in agriculture, providing a means of producing more crops on a given plot of land than had previously been possible. The author notes that there are more than 17 000 pesticides currently registered in the United States, with more than 800 active ingredients that have contributed to acute and chronic health problems. However, as resistance to pesticides and damage to wildlife and humans was noted, the public and Congress, stimulated by Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, began to see the need for laws and regulations to protect the public and wildlife. Many of these laws are described in some detail and illustrated with respect to a variety of chemicals and a number of US government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
While cancer was once the major focus of government regulatory agencies, endocrine disruption -- especially from fetal and nursing exposure -- as well as reproductive and developmental alterations have recently become areas of concern. Brain damage has also been described from in utero exposure to some pesticides, especially the "persistent organic pollutants" (POPs). These include dichloro-diphenyl- trichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and other chemicals. Although the author does not make note of them, some brominated flame retardants are considered POPs with persistence, bioconcentration, and deleterious health effects similar to those of other POPs, especially PCBs, at least in laboratory animals.
Levine states that annual pesticide use in the United States is approximately 8.8 pounds per capita, or 2.2 billion pounds of active ingredients (if wood preservatives and disinfectants are also considered). He notes that some of the chlorinated hydrocarbons or organochlorines such as diledrin, chlordane, aldrin, and heptachlor break down very slowly and can remain in the environment for years or decades. Organophosphates, now common in agriculture, on the other hand, break down much more rapidly but also are more toxic to humans.
Levine also notes that because agricultural workers, including children, are heavily exposed to pesticides and usually have little knowledge of their dangers as well as of how to protect themselves, they are at particularly high risk. Lack of good sanitary conditions and health care likewise contributes to this public health problem. Schoolchildren are also a special group at risk because of the lack of knowledge on the part of those applying pesticides, frequently untrained school employees rather than certified pesticide workers.
State laws and regulations are sometimes more stringent than federal laws, although state laws must set standards at least at the level set by the federal government. With constant lobbying on both sides of the issue, the "how safe is safe" frequently changes over time.
The author notes the high industry costs of bringing a product to market and the myriad regulations that must be followed. But he also points out that just because a product is being produced and sold, it does not necessarily follow that it has been tested sufficiently for possible serious health effects. Also, while the term "inert ingredients" was once commonly used, it simply identified ingredients not meant to do what the product was sold to do, and did not indicate that they were not toxic. This term is no longer considered appropriate, and "other ingredients" is now the preferred term.
This book is an interesting and well-written volume that should be useful in providing an up-to-date introduction to pesticides from a variety of aspects, ranging from objective scientific principles to subjective policy directives. Despite some repetition and the occasional need for more extensive scientific citations, it was enjoyable and informative.
Arnold Schecter, MD, MPH, Reviewer University of Texas School of Public Health Dallas arnold.schecter@utsouthwestern.edu
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association

Chemical Industry's Influence at EPA Probed

By Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writer
Washington Post - Friday, April 4, 2008
A congressional committee is investigating ties between the chemical industry and expert review panels hired by the Environmental Protection Agency to help it determine safe levels for a variety of chemical compounds.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, have demanded documents from the EPA and the American Chemistry Council to probe the roles of nine scientists who are serving on EPA panels or have done so in the past.
The lawmakers sent a letter to the chemical industry Wednesday, expanding a probe that began earlier this month.
"Americans count on sound science to ensure that consumer products are safe," Dingell said through a spokesman yesterday. "If industry has undue influence over this science, then the public's health is endangered."
Dingell and Stupak want to know how much the chemistry council has paid consultants, lawyers, scientists and a scientific journal in efforts to affect public policy.
"I don't remember the last time Congress investigated a trade association like this," said Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, which contends that the chemical industry has stacked EPA panels. "Maybe for the first time, we might find out the extent of industry influence. It's a landmark investigation and has called into question the ethics of the entire industry."
Tiffany Harrington, a spokeswoman for the chemistry council, said it supports independent scientific research and it will cooperate with the congressional request.
The lawmakers want to know why the EPA allowed the scientists in question to remain on expert panels but removed a public health scientist, Deborah C. Rice, from a panel at the chemistry council's request.
Rice chaired an EPA panel last year that reviewed safe levels for deca-BDE, a polybrominated diphenyl ether used as a fire retardant in television casings and other electronics. Deca has been found to cause cancer in mice and is a suspected human carcinogen.
As a toxicologist for the state of Maine, Rice testified before the Maine legislature about the health risks associated with deca. Maine and several other states -- and this week, the European Union -- have since banned the compound.
After Rice's panel completed its work, Sharon Kneiss, a vice president of the chemistry council, wrote to the EPA and called Rice "a fervent advocate of banning" deca who "has no place in an independent, objective peer review." The agency informed Rice that it was removing her from the panel, and it expunged her comments from the official record, even removing them from the EPA Web site.
The Chemistry Council "seems to argue that scientific expertise with regard to a particular chemical and its human health effects is a basis for disqualification from a peer review board," Dingell and Stupak wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "This does not seem sensible on its face."
At the same time, the EPA has allowed at least nine scientists who have received funding from chemical makers or expressed similar opinions about particular chemical compounds to remain on review panels, Dingell and Stupak wrote.
Among those scientists is Dale Sickles, who serves on a panel reviewing acrylamide. He received $93,000 from the manufacturer of the compound and $230,000 from its marketer. "I've been totally transparent throughout the process," Sickles said yesterday.
Four other scientists reached yesterday said that industry funding never influenced their research. Scientists invited to participate in review panels are asked to disclose any conflicts or perceived conflicts. EPA guidelines say that conflicts do not automatically disqualify an expert but that the agency should make sure the panel has a balance of viewpoints.
Timothy Lyons, an EPA spokesman, said privacy issues prevent the agency from commenting on Rice or the scientists singled out by the congressional investigation. But the agency followed procedures in selecting panel members, he said.
Rice, who has declined to comment, has become a cause celebre among Bush administration critics, who say her case is symbolic of undue industry influence in public health regulation under President Bush.
"This is an administration that has put corporate interests before public health and safety, and ideological zealotry before sound science," Dingell said. "This disturbing pattern extends to EPA's peer review panels."

Pharmaceuticals and Anti-Bacterials in Your Drinking Water

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2008) Not everything that goes down the drain can be removed by water treatment plants, which leaves some alarming contaminants in America's drinking water. A five-month investigation by the Associated Press (AP) finds trace quantities of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of 41 million Americans. Scientists fear that ingestion of these tiny amounts of drugs may pose health risks to the public, wildlife and aquatic organisms.

The AP investigation surveyed the 50 largest cities in the country and a dozen other major water providers, as well as other small providers in each of the 50 states. A wide range of pharmaceuticals, whether administered to humans or to farm animals, are found in the water of 24 major metropolitan areas, and tests done in the watersheds of 35 major water providers shows 28 testing positive for pharmaceuticals. The levels of pharmaceuticals found in the water are at levels measured in the parts per billion or trillion, far below levels of medical use. The federal government has not set safety limits for drugs in drinking water. In fact, fewer than half of the 62 major water providers could say their water was tested.

Water treatment plants are not designed to remove these types of contaminants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require utilities to test for these chemicals. The drug residues in tap water join hundreds of other synthetic chemicals Americans are exposed to daily, as contaminants in food, water, air and in common consumer products.

EPA's assistant administrator for water, Benjamin Grumbles, told the AP in a related story, "No Standards to Test for Drugs in Water," that "the EPA has launched a four-pronged approach: to identify the extent of the problem, to ‘identify' what we don't know and close the gap,' to take steps using existing science and regulatory tools, and finally, to increase dialogue and awareness with water providers and state and local agencies." This sounds like business as usual at EPA – a lot of talk and little action, according to advocates.

Sudeep Chandra, an assistant professor at University of Nevada, Reno told the AP, "There's enough global information now to confirm these contaminants are affecting organisms and wildlife." According to the AP article, Drugs in Water Hurt Fish and Wildlife, "More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in surface waters throughout the world." Several species from algae to fish to vultures have serious reproductive problems as a result from these contaminants. Problems like lower sperm counts, damaged sperm, feminization of males, create androgynous characteristics, increased hormone levels, kidney failure, and inhibited growth.

Philadelphia has the highest number of pharmaceuticals, 56, found in its drinking water. Washington, DC has six different drugs in its drinking water, one of which is triclocarban, an antibacterial compound widely used as an additive to a range of household and personal care products including bar soaps, detergents, body washes, cleansing lotions, and wipes. Triclocarban, like its cousin triclosan, has been linked to numerous health and environmental effects. Researchers from the University of California- Davis and Yale University found triclocarban to have an amplification effect on the activity of natural hormones, which in turn can lead to adverse reproductive and developmental effects. Triclocarban has a synergistic interaction with the sex hormone, testosterone, present in both males and females. Researchers further explained that ovulation and ovarian function in females can be disrupted, while sperm quality can be decreased in males. They also note that since triclocarban has the potential to amplify synthetic compounds, further investigation into its interaction with oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy is needed. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that triclocarban is the fifth most frequent contaminant among 96 pharmaceuticals, personal care products and organic wastewater contaminants evaluated and the levels of triclocarban in water resources nationwide are much higher than previously thought. A recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study finds earthworms in agricultural fields contain chemicals from household products, indicating that such substances are entering the food chain. Chemicals introduced to the environment via land application of biosolids, the solid byproduct of wastewater treatment, and manure as fertilizers are transferred to earthworms. Earthworms continuously ingest soils for nourishment and can accumulate the chemicals present in the soil. Several compounds were detected in earthworms including triclosan and phenol (disinfectants), tributylphosphate (antifoaming agent and flame retardant), benzophenone (fixative), trimethoprim (antibiotic), and galaxolide and tonalide (synthetic fragrances). In previous research, the USGS found several drugs, including triclosan, in Shoal Creek in Missouri back in 1999 and 2002, according to The Joplin Globe.

Additionally, researchers at Virginia Tech have found that triclosan reacts with chlorine in tap water to form significant quantities of chloroform. Chloroform is classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen. The research also suggests that the reaction of triclosan with chlorine could produce highly chlorinated, and thus dangerous, dioxins in the presence of sunlight.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) of Oakland, California, among others, has already begun doing something about pharmaceuticals in waste water. One EBMUD flyer distributed during the summer of 2007, states, "The [EBMUD] plant, like others around the Bay, cannot remove 100 percent of these chemicals, which then ultimately end up in San Francisco Bay. You can help protect the Bay by reducing the use of antibacterial soap (containing triclosan), finding less-toxic pesticide alternatives and properly disposing of hazardous wastes such as pharmaceuticals and mercury-containing products." EBMUD has also phased-out its own purchases of products containing triclosan and triclocarban.

In 2006, the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative - Emerging Contaminants Workgroup, which was created to provide a forum to discuss issues related to endocrine disrupting compounds and recycled water, wrote a white paper on the hazards of triclosan. Among other solutions discussed, the heavily cited paper suggests looking into drafting legislation to limit antibacterial products and other emerging watershed contaminants in consumer products.

In response to the AP investigation, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) called on EPA to establish a national taskforce to investigate and make recommendations to Congress on any legislative actions needed. "The Associated Press report raises serious questions about the safety and security of America's water system. I am especially concerned about the lack of information known on the potential for pharmaceuticals in the water to bio-accumulate in humans or potentially decrease the effectiveness of antibiotics or other life-saving medicines," writes Congresswoman Schwartz in a letter to EPA. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Chairman of the Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, announced that they plan to hold a hearing on the issue sometime in early April.

In the wake of the AP investigation, the Governor of Illinois has ordered its state's waterways to be tested for pharmaceuticals and the New York City Council has scheduled an emergency public hearing for April 3rd.

USGS Identifies Contaminants in Potomac River Possibly Linked to Intersex Fish

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2008) Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) announced that they have identified ten contaminants, including pesticides, in the Potomac River, which flows through downtown Washington, DC, that could be responsible for the alarming discovery of "intersex fish," male fish producing eggs. The suspected chemicals include: atrazine, a common herbicide used in agriculture and on lawns that is already linked to sexual abnormalities in frogs; insecticides chlorpyrifos and endosulfan; the herbicide metolachlor; and two chemicals used to add fragrance to perfumes, soaps and other products, tonalide and galaxolide.

To collect the samples, USGS scientists suspended a device intended to serve as a facsimile fish in the Potomac River near the Washington, DC's Blue Plains sewage plant. The device had a plastic-coated tube, which simulated a fish's permeable skin, and a layer of simulated fat. According to the Washington Post, the tests on this fake fat revealed a range of potentially worrisome pollutants. Most have been found in other streams around the U.S.

"The types of things we're finding are the types of things that are associated with everyday life," David Alvarez, a U.S. Geological Survey research chemist who analyzed samples from the Potomac told the Washington Post. "The contaminants flow into the river from sewer plants and in rainwater washing off of farm fields and suburban lawns. If it's something we're using, ultimately it's going to end up in the water."

In 2006, USGS discovered in some Potomac tributaries, including the Shenandoah River in Virginia, nearly all of the male smallmouth bass caught were so-called intersex fish, producing immature eggs in their testes. In the Potomac itself, 7 of 13 largemouth bass exhibited female characteristics, including 3 that were producing eggs.

Intersex fish were discovered in the Potomac rivershed in 2003 and have also been found in other parts of the country. But the frequency found by the surveys is much higher than what had been found elsewhere, said Vicki Blazer, a USGS fish pathologist. Female fish caught in the survey did not develop any unusual sex traits, though fish of both sexes exhibited lesions and other problems related to pollution, said Ms. Blazer, who coordinated the initial survey.

Most scientists have suspected endocrine disruptors and synthetic estrogens, such as pesticides and birth control pills, from the beginning. Endocrine disruptors are a diverse group of several thousands of chemicals that are used in everything from pesticides and flame retardants to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Endocrine disruptors may be mistaken for hormones by the body and thus their presence may alter the function of hormones, either blocking their normal action or interfering with how they are made in the body. Since hormones regulate things like growth and body development, there is great potential for damage. In particular, some endocrine disruptors are mistaken for the female hormone estrogen. These estrogen mimics interfere with the reproductive system, causing infertility, malformed sexual organs, and cancer of sensitive organs.

Disturbingly, there are many commonly used pesticides that are known or suspected endocrine disruptors, such as atrazine, 2,4-D, lindane, and permethrin. A recent study found that the commonly used lawn pesticide formulation Round-up, with the active ingredient glyphosate, causes damaging endocrine effects in fetuses. EPA does not currently evaluate or consider the endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides during registration or reregistration.

The environmental effects of these chemicals has been well-established: pseudo-hermaphrodite polar bears with penis-like stumps, panthers with atrophied testicles, hermaphroditic deformities in frogs, and male trout with eggs growing in their testes have all been documented as the probable result of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment. Many scientists believe that wildlife provides early warnings of effects produced by endocrine disruptors, which may as yet be unobserved in humans.

Health Problems in Persian Gulf War Veterans Higher Due to Chemical Exposure

UCSD researchers warn of potential risk to civilians exposed to pesticides

March 10, 2008

By Kim Edwards

A study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine shows there is increasing evidence that high rates of illness in Persian Gulf War Veterans can be explained, in part, by exposure to certain chemicals, including pesticides and nerve agents. Veterans from the 1990-91 conflict have a higher rate of chronic, multi-symptom health problems than either non-deployed personnel or those deployed elsewhere. Symptoms routinely reported by these veterans include fatigue, muscle or joint pain, memory problems, trouble sleeping, rash and breathing problems.

"This evidence suggests that exposure to this certain class of chemical may be linked to elevated risk of health problems," said Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, whose study will be published in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) the week of March 10.

"Health issues among Gulf War veterans have been a concern for nearly two decades. Now, enough studies have been conducted, and results shared, to be able to say with considerable confidence that there is a link between chemical exposure and chronic, multi-symptom health problems," said Golomb. "Furthermore, the same chemicals affecting Gulf War veterans may be involved in similar cases of unexplained, multi-symptom health problems in the general population."

The study synthesized evidence regarding a class of chemicals known as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEis) -- including so-called "organophosphates" and "carbamates." These include nerve gas chemicals such as sarin; some military personnel were exposed when demolishing Iraqi munitions. They include common classes of pesticides which were aggressively used in the Gulf to control sand flies and other insects. And they include the nerve gas protection pill "pyridostigmine bromide" or PB. (Note: As a result of an earlier RAND Corporation report by Golomb detailing concerns about using such pills preventatively, military policy has been changed in the US and elsewhere.)

The study linked exposure to each of these chemicals with the chronic, multi-symptom health problems in 25 to 33 percent of returning Gulf War veterans.

"There is evidence that genetics have something to do with how a body handles exposure to these chemicals," said Golomb. "Some people are genetically less able to withstand these toxins and evidence shows that these individuals have higher chance of suffering the effects of exposure." Specifically, illness is linked to lower activity of enzymes that detoxify AChEis, due to genetic variants The enzymes known to be involved are paraoxonase (PON) for OPs, including sarin, and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) for PB.

Among those service members given PB pills as a preventive measure, those with the mutations that reduced their ability to detoxify the pills were at significantly higher risk of illness, according to Golomb.

Previous studies have shown genetic variants of these enzymes are also associated with increased rates of some neurological diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease. Golomb says this may explain the elevated levels of ALS seen in Gulf War veterans.

Some of the chemicals linked to these multi-symptom illnesses continue to be used in agriculture, and at homes and offices for pest control in the United States and around the globe. Studies not related to the Gulf War showed that agricultural workers exposed to organophosphate pesticides had 10 times the number of health symptoms as those not exposed.

"Again, genetic variants that hamper defense against these chemicals were linked to higher risk of health problems. These findings carry important implications for current members of the armed forces as well as the general public, suggesting that exposure to these pesticides in any setting may increase risk for impaired neuropsychological function and poor health" said Golomb.

 

Media Contact: Kim Edwards, 619-543-6163

Back to Recent News Table of Contents

Back to News: Public Health Table of Contents

Pesticides and Degradates Widely Detected in USGS Chesapeake Bay Study

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2008) In a five-year study of the Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest estuary, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that, "Synthetic organic pesticides and their degradation products have been widely detected at low levels in the watershed, including emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and hormones." The report finds that concentrations of DDT, while still present, have declined since the 1970s when it was phased out. The findings are contained in a report entitled Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and Implications for Environmental Management. The study is a part of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), which is a multi-agency partnership working to restore the Bay ecosystem. According to the report introduction, "In 2005, which represented the mid-point of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, there was growing concern at all levels of government and by the public that ecological conditions in the Bay and its watershed had not significantly improved. The slow rate of improvement, coupled with the projected human-population increase in the Bay watershed, implied that many desired ecological conditions will not be achieved by 2010. The Government Accountability Office (2005) recommended that the CBP complete efforts for an integrated assessment approach of ecosystem conditions and develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy. To address these challenges, the CBP partners are writing a strategic implementation plan (SIP) to more accurately define the degree to which restoration goals can be achieved by 2010, and the most effective approach to achieve the goals. The USGS findings and their implications provide critical information that will be used by the CBP partners to prepare the SIP and develop improved management strategies. A major CBP restoration goal is to "Have a "toxics free" Bay to improve conditions for aquatic-dependent wildlife." As a part of this effort, the study seeks to define the occurrence of contaminants in the Bay watershed. Some of the findings include:

- Pesticides are present year round in streams of the Bay watershed. - Changes in pesticide concentration over time generally reflect changes in application rates, as well as physical and chemical properties that control the movement of compounds. - The following pesticides and degradation products were found in one or a combination of headwater streams during spring base flow, shallow ground water in agricultural areas, ground water used for domestic supply and ground water used for public supply: acetachlor, acetochlor ESA, acetochlor DA, alachlor, alachlor ESA, alachlor DA, atrazine, deethylatrazine, desiopropylatrazine, bromacil, carbofuran, cyanazine, dieldrin, flumetsulam, glyphosate, imazaquin, imazethapyr, lindane, metalachlor, metolachlor ESA, metolachlor DA, pendimethalin, prometon, simzaine, tebuthiuron.- Pesticide occurrence is closely tied with nutrient land practices on agricultural and urban lands. In a national study of emerging contaminants which included the Bay (2002), at least one of 95 different emerging contaminants (including human and veterinary drugs, hormones, detergents, disinfectants, insecticides, and fire retardants) were found in 80 percent of the nation's streams, "with mixtures of the chemicals occurring at 75 percent of the sites." In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001, a ten-year survey of the contamination caused by pesticide use in agricultural and urbanized areas. Every year, nearly one billion pounds of pesticides, many of which are linked to cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, and environmental impacts, are used in the U.S, much of it ending up in our nation's waterways. The report is summarized in Beyond Pesticides' Daily News Blog.

Two year earlier, according to Water Quality in the Nation's Streams and Aquifers-Overview of Selected Findings, 1991-2001, released in 2004 as a compendium of 51 USGS reports on the health of major river basins across the country, insecticides such as diazinon and malathion were found in nearly all of the streams that were sampled in urban areas. Streams in agricultural areas were more likely to contain herbicides-especially atrazine, metolachlor, alachlor, and cyanazine.

Back to Recent News Table of Contents

Back to News: Environment Table of Contents

Researcher Shows Chemicals Alter Male Reproductive System

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2008) Common household chemicals and widespread pollutants are changing male reproductive health and impacting sexual function, development and cancer rates of today's generations and possibly their offspring, according to more than 15 years of research by a Colorado State University expert. For example, one study looking at sperm counts globally from 1940, when chemicals first began to be widely produced, to the 1990s, indicates a 1.15 percent per year decline in sperm counts. These declines may be linked to chemical exposure. Rao Veeramachaneni, BVSc, MScVet, PhD, a biomedical sciences professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, has found that chemicals including pesticides, common pollutants in ground water, and chemicals in plastics, make-up and nail polish are on a growing list of culprits causing developmental abnormalities such as impaired sperm quality and impotence. Reproductive health can be compromised if males are exposed at various times in life spanning from in utero up to adulthood.Dr. Veeramachaneni's findings span the globe and are across species lines, from humans to horses, wildlife to frogs. His research, coupled with the collective findings of other experts in the field, indicates a strong link related to pollutants, and incidence of such impacts continues to increase from year to year as chemicals infiltrate the modern world.

"Exposure to these chemicals, particularly during certain windows of time during fetal development, in newborns or as adolescents, can do permanent damage," said Dr. Veeramachaneni, who works in the university's internationally-known Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Laboratory. "It's been a difficult task to trace the impact of these chemicals because an exposure as a fetus may not be manifested until that fetus becomes an adult. Once exposed, many males develop a condition for life. But when we look at the big picture — at trends over time — research shows lasting effects of chemicals since their popularity after World War II." 

Some of these chemicals can survive in the environment for 30 to 40 years, and the chances for exposure are high because the chemicals have permeated our world. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that about one-third of the nation's lakes and one quarter of its rivers are polluted. There is also evidence that exposure today to some of these chemicals can affect the reproductive health of this generation as well as the future health of offspring of those exposed. The incidence of testicular cancer in young men 15 to 35 years old has increased three to four fold over the past 50 years, particularly in the Western world.

These chemicals affect the body through several channels. They attach to receptors in the body that help hormones carry out their functions and either block actual hormones from attaching or mimic the expression of the real hormones, causing confusion in the male body. In addition, some interfere with the body's natural production of hormones.

A pattern emerges when comparing the explosion of the world's use of chemicals, including pesticides and herbicides, and the steadily increasing incidence of testicular cancer, reproductive system abnormalities and impotence.

Phthalates, which are used in a variety of products including cosmetics, upholstery, pharmaceuticals and medical tubing, and also are found in drinking water and air. The chemicals can be found in body fluids of people who have been exposed, including in urine, blood and breast milk. Presence in breast milk can pass exposure on to an infant.

In a series of studies funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Veeramachaneni's laboratory found that exposing tadpoles to dibutyl phthalate, one form of phthalate, drastically slows their growth and reproductive development. At varying doses, tadpoles lagged weeks behind non-exposed frogs in developing legs and entering adulthood. More significant, however, was the impact on their ability to reproduce; one effect of the chemicals is particularly notable on their mating calls. Those exposed to chemicals had calls that were weaker and shorter. Images of the larynx, the voice box, showed that it was significantly underdeveloped.  Without a competitive mating call, the frogs will not be able to reproduce successfully.

DDT and other pesticides have been linked to testicular cancer in humans and animals. Reflecting human trends in the U.S. and abroad, in collaboration with medical scientists at University of Pretoria, South Afr