Atrazine in water tied to menstrual irregularities, low hormones

Women who drink water contaminated with low levels of the weed-killer atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, scientists concluded in a new study. The most widely used herbicide in the United States, atrazine is frequently detected in surface and ground water, particularly in agricultural areas of the Midwest. The newest research, which compared women in Illinois farm towns to women in Vermont, adds to the growing scientific evidence linking atrazine to altered hormones.

By Lindsey Konkel
Environmental Health News
Nov. 28, 2011

Women who drink water contaminated with low levels of the weed-killer atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, scientists concluded in a new study.

The most widely used herbicide in the United States, atrazine is frequently detected in surface and ground water, particularly in agricultural areas of the Midwest. Approximately 75 percent of all U.S. cornfields are treated with atrazine each year.

The newest research, which compared women in Illinois to women in Vermont, adds to the growing scientific evidence linking atrazine to altered hormones.

The women from Illinois farm towns were nearly five times more likely to report irregular periods than the Vermont women, and more than six times as likely to go more than six weeks between periods. In addition, the Illinois women had significantly lower levels of estrogen during an important part of the menstrual cycle.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

New Research Links Propoxur to Abnormal Neurodevelopment in Children

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2011) A recent study published in the journal NeuroToxicology has found a positive link between exposure to the pesticide propoxur and poor motor development in infants. At the age of two, children exposed to propoxur in the womb experience poor development of motor skills, according to a test of mental development. The study joins numerous others that consistently show birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides.

The study, undertaken by researchers at Wayne State University in Michigan, the University of the Philippines, and Davao Regional Hospital in the Philippines, is entitled "Fetal exposure to propoxur and abnormal child neurodevelopment at 2 years of age." It examines levels of exposure to multiple pesticides in pregnant women living in areas of high pesticide use in the Philippines. Pesticide exposure was monitored by measuring the pesticide content of hair and blood for both mothers and children. The researchers then compare these exposure levels to adverse outcomes regarding the health of the infants once they were born. To accomplish this, the team used a method called path analysis modeling in order to determine what effects the pesticides might have on fetal development. The striking findings show that, controlling for a number of variables, there is a strong connection between high fetal exposure to propoxur and poor development of motor skills at two years of age.

Propoxur is a carbamate insecticide first registered in the U.S. in 1963 for the control of household pests, such as ants, cockroaches, and bed bugs. It is also commonly used in flea and tick collars. Propoxur can be very dangerous to humans and the environment. Common symptoms of poisoning include malaise, muscle weakness, dizziness, and sweating. Headache, nausea, and diarrhea may also result. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers propoxur a possible human carcinogen, while the state of California classifies it as a known human carcinogen. Propoxur is also highly toxic to beneficial insects such as honey bees as well as crustaceans, fish, and aquatic insects.

Although banned for indoor uses to which children would be exposed in 2007 due to concerns over potential health effects, propoxur has recently begun to be touted again as the answer to resurgent bed bug infestations. In 2009, the state of Ohio asked EPA for a special exemption to begin using propoxur again to eradicate bed bugs. Ohio was joined in its petition by 25 other states. Fortunately, the agency wisely denied the states’ petition citing concerns over potential ill effects and the “unacceptable risk to children.”

As many pest control operators now know, chemical treatments for bed bugs are not actually necessary and are often more harmful than the pests themselves. Additionally, due to an over-reliance on chemical controls over the years, bed bugs are now evolving resistance to pyrethroid chemicals. However, these pests can be effectively controlled with non-toxic approaches. An IPM approach, which includes methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat, can control an infestation without the dangerous side effects. This approach, as well as taking steps such as sealing cracks and crevices, reducing clutter and encasing mattresses, can also help to prevent an infestation in the first place.

Study Links Pesticide Exposure to Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2011) Research published in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives finds that exposure to certain pesticides elevates the risk of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). The study, "A Prospective Study of Organochlorines in Adipose Tissue and Risk of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma," finds a positive correlation between levels of the organochlorine pesticides DDT, cis-nonachlor, chlordane, and their breakdown products in human fat tissue and the often deadly form of cancer.

The researchers from the Danish Cancer Society's Institute of Cancer Epidemiology conducted a case-cohort study using a prospective Danish cohort of 57,053 persons enrolled between 1993 and 1997. Within the cohort they identified 256 persons diagnosed with NHL in the population-based nationwide Danish Cancer Registry and randomly selected 256 sub-cohort persons. The research team measured concentrations of eight pesticides and ten polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs) in fat tissue collected upon enrollment.

The results indicate a higher risk of NHL in association with higher fat tissue levels of DDT, cis-nonachlor and oxychlordane, but shows no association with PCBs. Because the tissue samples were taken up to 15 years prior to the cancer diagnosis, the research suggests that exposure to these organochlorines increases the risk of NHL later in life and strengthens the theory that there is an environmental factor in contracting the disease.

While most organochlorine pesticides are banned or restricted, they still continue to cause problems decades after their widespread use has ended. This study reinforces the need for a more precautionary approach to regulating pesticides and industrial chemicals. Once released into the environment, many chemicals can affect health for generations, either through persistence in the environment or long-term changes to the genetic code of humans and other animals.

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is cancer of the lymphoid tissue, which includes the lymph nodes, spleen, and other organs of the immune system. According to the American Cancer Society, a person has a 1 in 50 chance of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Most of the time, this cancer affects adults. However, children can get some forms of lymphoma. High-risk groups include those who have received an organ transplant or who have a weakened immune system. This type of cancer is slightly more common in men than in women.

Organochlorine pesticides have previously been linked to a number of adverse effects on human health, including birth defects and diabetes. This study illustrates how the health impacts of pesticides can be often subtle and delayed, and pesticides once considered to pose "acceptable" risks are continuing to affect public health. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects,

EPA Releases Pyrethroid Risk Assessment, Ignores Numerous Health Effects

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2011) On November 9, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroid class of insecticides, concluding that these pesticides "do not pose risk concerns for children or adults," ignoring a wealth of independent data that links this class of chemicals to certain cancers, respiratory and reproductive problems, and the onset of insect resistance. The agency went as far to state that its cumulative assessment supports consideration of registering additional new uses of these pesticides, potentially opening the flood gates for manufacturers to bombard the market with more pyrethroid pesticides, endangering the health of the public.

EPA issued the final pyrethins/pyrethroid cumulative risk assessment in the Federal Register and is requesting comment until January 9, 2011, including information that may be used to further refine the assessment. Pyrethroids are a widely used class of insecticides used for mosquito control and various insects in residential and agricultural settings. However pyrethroids are highly neurotoxic and have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, suppression of the immune system, and various reproductive effects. This class of chemicals includes permethrin, bifenthrin, resmethrin, cyfluthrin and scores of others. Once the agency completes and approves the pyrethroid chemical assessment, it is likely that new uses of these pesticides will be added. The agency claims that more pyrethroid registrations may help combat recent pervasive pest problems, such as stink bugs and bed bugs, even though this class of chemicals is already known to be ineffective against these pests due to growing resistance issues compounded with continued pesticide use. However, serious issues such as the carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting potential of several pyrethroids were not mentioned in the risk assessment even though a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that low-dose, short-term exposure to esfenvalerate, a synthetic pyrethroid pesticide, delays the onset of puberty in at doses two times lower than EPA's stated no observable effect level.

Most troubling is the agency's decision to reduce the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) protective safety factor from 10X (an additional margin of safety of 10 times) to 1X for children and adults over six years, and to 3X for children under six years of age. The FQPA safety factor is intended to protect vulnerable infants and children to account for their special susceptibility to pesticides taking into account the potential for pre- and post-natal toxicity. Given that children are especially sensitive to the effects of synthetic pyrethroids like permethrin, this reduction in the special safety factor is egregious. Studies have found that certain pyrethoids like permethrin are almost five times more toxic to the young compared to adults. Additionally, studies have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development. In this new cumulative risk assessment, the agency even states, "Based on pharmacokinetic data, there is evidence that indicates an increase in sensitivity to pyrethroids of the young compared to adults," which is attributed to the difference in the ability of the adults and juveniles to metabolize pyrethroids. EPA's modeling data also predict a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid concentrations in juvenile brains compared to adults. Similarly, researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a published study conclude that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children's exposure to pyrethroid insecticides. Despite all this, EPA chooses to forgo this evidence and green light more uses of pyrethroid chemicals which will inevitably impact more vulnerable children.

With the phase-out of most residential uses of the common organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, home use of pyrethroids has increased. Pesticide products containing synthetic pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators and community mosquito management bureaus as "safe as chrysanthemum flowers." While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chyrsanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic, take longer to break down, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency, and compromising the human body's ability to detoxify the pesticide.

As a consequence of their widespread use, many pests such as bed bugs are now becoming resistant to pyrethroids. A recent study shows that modern bed bugs have developed the ability to defend themselves against pyrethroid pesticides, with a required dosage of as much as 1,000 times the amount that should normally be lethal, due in part to the widespread use of such treatment methods. Due to the ability of these organisms to develop resistance to chemical agents, exposing these bugs to more pesticides would lead to higher rates of resistance among insect populations, a point that EPA does not acknowledge.

EPA is mandated to complete cumulative risk assessments for chemicals that have the same mechanism of toxicity. In 2009, EPA conceded that pyrethroid chemicals did in fact have a common mechanism of toxicity. In this risk assessment, not all pyrethroids were evaluated and various routes of exposures, such as dermal and inhalation exposures, were not adequately examined, with the agency stating that these exposures "generally do not significantly contribute to the overall risk picture," even though numerous pyrethroid formulations of 'apply to skin' mosquito repellent and indoor bug sprays are widely available. In an EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory study, several synthetic pyrethroids and their degradates were found in indoor dust collected from homes and childcare centers in North Carolina and Ohio, meaning that children inhale contaminated dust particles daily while these exposures go unevaluated. Given that asthma is the most common long-term childhood illness today, persistent residues of pyrethroids in house dust and air need to be taken very seriously.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin and cypermethrin as possible human carcinogens, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. EPA also lists permethrin as a suspected endocrine disruptor. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks. Material Safety Data Sheets, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for pyrethroid products often warn, "Persons with history of asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory tract disorders may experience symptoms at low exposures." Although synthetic pyrethroids are often seen as safe alternatives to organophosphate insecticides, they are persistent and are making their way into human bodies at alarming rates. CDC 's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that widely used pyrethroids are found in greater than 50% of the subjects tested.

In addition to human health effects which this cumulative risk assessment addresses, pyrethroids are also persistent in the environment and adversely impact non-target organisms. A 2008 survey found pyrethroid contamination in 100 percent of urban streams sampled in California. Researchers also find pyrethroid residues in California streams, although at relatively low concentrations (10-20 parts per trillion) in river and creek sediments that are toxic to bottom dwelling fish. Other studies find pyrethroids present in effluent from sewage treatment plants at concentrations just high enough to be toxic to sensitive aquatic organisms.

At the same time, there are clear established methods for managing homes and schools that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to this chemical class, an increase in synthetic pyrethroid use is hazardous and unnecessary.

Take Action: Tell EPA that more uses of pyrethroids is hazardous and unnecessary. Submit comments and input on the Pyrethrins/Pyrethroid Cumulative Risk Assessment by January 9, 2012, to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746 at Regulations.gov. The assessment and supporting documents are available in this docket.

November 11, 2011

Androgen Blockers Appear In Effluent

Water Pollutants: Popular germ killers could feminize male fish

By Janet Pelley

Scientists have long blamed environmental estrogens in wastewater for feminizing male fish downstream of sewage plants. Instead of estrogens, however, a new study of treated wastewater identifies a wide range of antiandrogens--compounds that block male hormones--that can accumulate in fish (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es202966c).

“About 90% of the studies on endocrine disruption focus on environmental estrogens,” says Helmut Segner, a toxicologist at the University of Bern, in Switzerland, who was not involved in the study. These studies show that compounds in sewage effluent behave like estrogen and lead to low sperm counts and the genesis of eggs in the testes of male fish.

However, recent surveys have found that sewage effluent can also block testosterone. The same surveys linked the effluent to feminized male fish. Some scientists think they could affect human reproductive health, as well. But the surveys of antiandrogens didn’t nail down the identity of the compounds. Elizabeth Hill, an analytical chemist at the University of Sussex, wanted to know which compounds posed a threat to fish.

Hill and her team took advantage of the fact that bile ducts in fish livers concentrate environmental contaminants. The scientists exposed trout for 10 days to effluent from a domestic sewage plant in the U.K. They then extracted the bile and separated it into fractions, using reversed phase-high performance liquid chromatography.

Using recombinant yeast containing a human androgen receptor, the researchers tested whether each fraction contained antiandrogens. The yeast also contained a reporter gene that produced a color change when the scientists exposed the yeast to androgens. If the researchers added a bile fraction to the yeast and saw no color change, they reasoned that it contained androgen blockers. Team member Pawel Rostkowski then analyzed the chemicals in the fraction using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. He identified each chemical by comparing its spectrum to those of known compounds. He then purchased commercially available standards for compounds he had found and confirmed that they blocked androgens using the yeast screen.

The research revealed 14 antiandrogenic compounds, and Hill thinks there were dozens more in the samples. The study is the first to show that fish take up antiandrogens from among the thousands of organic compounds in sewage effluents, Hill says.

“What’s surprising and shocking is how many compounds in effluent could be antiandrogenic,” says Louis Guillette Jr., an environmental toxicologist at the Medical University of South Carolina, who was not involved in the study. “If you combine such a large number of antiandrogens with estrogenic compounds, then you have a milieu that generates a more feminizing signal,” he says. “Researchers have to start thinking about the total hormonal signal arising from exposure to multiple compounds.”

Based on the concentrations of antiandrogenic compounds in the bile combined with their potency in the yeast screen, the researchers estimated that over half of the androgen blocking activity in fish bile came from chlorophene and triclosan, two germicides popular in consumer products like soap. This study is the first to show that chlorophene is antiandrogenic, Hill says.

Hill cautions that the study did not show that antiandrogens affect fish health. Her collaborators at the University of Exeter are currently testing these compounds to see if they feminize male fish.

---

This story was updated on Nov. 11, 2011, to correct the spelling of Pawel Rostkowski's name.

 

Chemical & Engineering News

ISSN 0009-2347

Copyright © American Chemical Society

Research links pesticides, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Nov 11, 2011

Bräuner, EV, M Sørensen, E Gaudreau, A LeBlanc, KT Eriksen, A Tjønneland, K Overvad and O Raaschou-Nielsen. 2011. A prospective study of organochlorines in adipose tissue and risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Environmental Health Perspectives http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103573.

Synopsis by Brandon Moore
Higher pesticide levels measured in people well before they were diagnosed with cancer are associated with an elevated risk of lymphoma later in life.

Elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides years before the cancer develops increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – a form of lymph cancer – later in life, report cancer researchers in Denmark. Their results are published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study is the first to show the association based on pesticide levels in fat tissues prior to the diagnosis of cancer. The study specifically tied the increased risk to three chemicals no longer used in the United States but still found in people and the environment – DDT, cis-nonachlor and oxychlordane.

Because the samples were collected years before cancer diagnosis, the results are more informative than other types of studies in forecasting an increased probability of disease. This type of study, which epidemiologists call a 'prospective' study, is especially useful in linking exposure to disease risk. The results strengthen an argument for an environmental link to increased risk for human non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that is linked to higher levels of organochlorine pollutants.

Lymphoma is cancer that affects the lymphatic cells of the immune system. The frequency of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has increased in Western countries since the 1970s but has stabilized since the 1990s. While genetics and previous cancers play a role in the disease, environmental exposures also may contribute.

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – part of the World Health Organization – animal studies show DDT and other organochlorine pesticides are carcinogens and can affect the immune system. Previous human studies also suggest a link between pesticide exposures and increased risks of lymphoma. These retrospective studies measured pesticide level only after cancer diagnosis or death. The results could not make strong predictions about if contamination results in disease.

In this study, fat tissues were collected between 1993 and 1997 from Danish men and women in the general population when they were in their 50s and 60s. The samples were analyzed for 10 PCBs and eight organochlorine pesticide or metabolites. Contaminants tend to accumulate in fat tissues. Therefore, the tissues serve as long-term markers of exposures. Participants were tracked through the Danish Cancer Registry, which collects comprehensive data on all cancer patients nationwide.

Pesticide levels of the 239 participants who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – some up to 15 years after samples were collected – were compared to a matched, cancer-free group. When analyzing the results, the researchers controlled for the effects of differences in the participants' age, gender and body mass index.

Measured levels of the pesticides DDT, cis-nonachlor and oxychlordane showed positive relationships with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma risk. This risk was stronger in men, but was not associated with body-mass index – a measure of body fat. No associations to lymphoma were found with the PCBs analyzed.

 

The above work by Environmental Health News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.environmentalhealthnews.org.

With Only Trace Evidence to Go On, Experts Discuss Drugs in the Water

by Sara Reardon on 4 November 2011, 3:31 PM

LONDON—Pharmaceuticals in drinking water: it's a made-for-TV topic that can stir up public outcry faster than you can say "barely detectable residues."

With little data on how much excreted and dumped medicines are in the environment, and even less showing a cause-effect relationship between an active ingredient and an adverse effect, researchers, health and environmental agencies, and water-quality regulators have been playing hot potato with the question for decades. But now it's getting serious attention from the European Commission and some pharmaceutical companies. A conference convened with the University of Verona met at the Royal Society of Medicine here on Monday to discuss whether increased monitoring of medicines' effects on the environment, or "ecopharmacovigilance," warrants more intense scrutiny, and what, if anything, can be done to green an increasingly drug-dependent world.

"Pharmaceuticals are new pollutants," said Yves Levi of the University of Paris-Sud. What makes them different, he said, is that the whole point of a drug is to have a very targeted effect from the lowest dose possible. Doctors and pharmacists should keep in mind the potential for unintended exposure, said Christian Daughton of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, comparing drug waste in water to doctors prescribing a cocktail of unknown medications to healthy people at random.

Weighing the benefit of expensive water cleanup procedures is tough to do when you don't know much about the risk of environmental exposure. Only a few studies have shown cause-effect relationships. For instance, wide use of the animal growth promoter avoparcin, which chemically resembles vancomycin, is believed to have enabled the evolution of vancomycin-resistant enterococci, which can cause intestinal infections. And in several rivers around the world, endocrine disruptors such as ethinyl estradiol (EE2), the main component in most oral birth control pills, have been linked to the feminization of male fish. (Some research questions whether this has any effect on the fishes' ability to reproduce, however.) No studies have shown any effects on human health or on developing fetuses, potentially the biggest causes for concern.

While some governments have been concerned, E.U. leaders have not seen pharmaceutical pollution as a priority in the past. Right now, the European Commission requires an environmental risk assessment to be performed prior to drug approval. For veterinary products, approval can be denied based on environmental hazard (although this has never happened). Human medicinal product approval cannot be denied for this reason.

But Sweden, for one, is taking the issue seriously. Over the past decade, Sweden has begun monitoring the environment for approved pharmaceuticals and instituted a national classification system that ranks drugs based on their possible toxic effects and potential to build up, or bioaccumulate, in the tissues of organisms. The government disseminates this information to doctors and pharmacies (state-owned in Sweden) to encourage environmentally sound decisions. At the conference, Åke Wennmalm of the consulting agency Sustainpharma in Stockholm presented part of a new, expanded classification system that analyzes the environmental impacts of a drug—where data are available—as it travels through manufacturing, disposal, and human waste. But Sweden does not set threshold limits for any drug.

Other countries are now getting into the game. Partly in response to public demand, France recently tasked its environmental and health ministries with instituting a national action plan to reduce pharmaceuticals in the environment. The "scientific supergroup," headed by Levi, will compile a list of drugs approved in France, their toxicity, and options for risk management. The project began in May. While he welcomed government attention to environmental research, Levi said that researchers need to be careful not to overstate their concerns.

Seeing that public interest was growing, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report in July on pharmaceuticals in drinking water, encouraging everyone to keep a level head and encouraging more research. The report concluded that, given what is currently known, "trace quantities of pharmaceuticals in drinking water are very unlikely to pose risks to human health." It said that routine monitoring was not recommended or necessary, and, most of all, that concerns about these chemicals "should not divert the attention and valuable resources of water suppliers and regulators" from pathogenic microbes and chemicals such as lead and arsenic.

One of the conference organizers, Klaus Kuemmerer of Leuphana University in Lüneburg, Germany, said that it was a "pity" that the WHO report's headline suggests that there isn't a problem. But he emphasizes that the report calls for more research into drugs' effects on fetal development and drug interactions. All agree that upstream prevention would be best: fewer drugs should be prescribed overall, more biodegradable ones are needed, and doctors should be persuaded to favor degradable ones. Several groups, including one headed by Kuemmerer, are trying to develop more biodegradable drug products.

AstraZeneca ecotoxicologist Gisela Holm announced that the company has just begun their own ecopharmacovigilance program to monitor drugs postlaunch. This includes steps such as watching the literature, studying bioaccumulation, and being cognizant that their products may spread in environments where water standards and irrigation practices differ from those in developed countries.

If AstraZeneca's action is an indicator, regulation may be imminent. The European Commission is revising its Water Framework Directive, which is due out next year. It contains a phrase that John Fawell, an independent water-quality consultant on the WHO report, calls a catchall requirement to monitor any chemical that could be a risk. Three pharmaceuticals, the birth control chemical EE2 among them, may fall into this category.

Fawell told ScienceInsider after the meeting that he was concerned about this move to get pharmaceuticals into the updated water framework directive. "It doesn't make a lot of sense," he says. The cost of putting activated carbon filters, for instance, on effluent streams to clean them would be extraordinarily high, he says, and targeting a few drugs with these specific methods can't solve all the problems. Essentially, he says, these drugs would have to be banned. "If you take precipitous action, then you're likely to cause more problems than you're going to solve."

Frank Mastrocco, Pfizer's director of environmental toxicology, agrees. The fears about drug waste having a direct effect on the environment and suggested legislation "presupposes there is a problem," and the cost of removing substances or banning them may be "just plain impractical," he said at the meeting. For instance, if the Water Framework Directive lists EE2 as a priority hazardous substance, under its current language "emissions" of EE2—and oral birth control by proxy—would need to be phased out within 20 years. "The Vatican could get behind that, but I don't know about the rest of us," Mastrocco said. The directive's wording is "ill designed for pharmaceuticals" he says. Pharma companies would favor investigations into drugs' effects, he said, but asked that drug producers and other stakeholders be included in decision-making.

*ScienceInsider corrected this item to clarify its interpretation of a statement by Frank Mastrocco.

EU food pesticide residue levels fall: EFSA

Tue, Nov 8 2011

MILAN (Reuters) - Pesticide residues found in food in the European Union fell in 2009 compared with 2008 thanks to tightening of safety rules and changes in patterns of pesticide use in Europe, EU's food safety agency said on Tuesday.

Compliance with the legal maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in food rose to 97.4 percent of the analyzed samples in 2009, up by about one percentage point from 2008, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said.

Based on current knowledge, long-term exposure to residues detected in major foods that make up the European diet would not raise health concerns, EFSA said.

Even a level of pesticides in food at a level exceeding the MRLs does not necessarily imply a safety concern, EFSA said in a statement on its annual pesticide residues report for 2009.

In the EU-coordinated part of the monitoring program, which is run alongside national programs, 61.4 percent of samples were free of measurable pesticide residues.

The samples that exceeded MRL under the EU-coordinated program fell to 1.4 percent in 2009 from 4.4 percent in 2006, the last time the same food commodities of plant origin were analyzed under the EU-coordinated program, EFSA said.

The improvement is due partly to the more effective use of legislation that compels producers and other industry players to implement safety systems as well as to changes in the pattern of pesticide use in Europe, EFSA said.

Harmonization of MRLs, which came into force in September 2008, may have also contributed to the improvement, the Parma-based agency said.

Risks to consumers from short-term acute exposure to pesticide residues in food are unlikely based even on worst-case scenarios, such as consumption of large portions of a food item containing the highest recorded residue, it said.

A potential risk could not be ruled out for only 77 samples out of the 10,553 samples taken in the EU-coordinated program.

MRLs were more often breached in samples from countries outside the European Economic Area (6.9 percent of samples) than in those from the EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which includes Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, (1.5 percent of samples), EFSA said.

Reporting countries, which included all EU member states as well as Iceland and Norway, analyzed nearly 68,000 samples of food commodities for 834 pesticides for the report.

The types of food commodities analyzed rose to about 300 in 2009 from just under 200 in 2008, EFSA said.

(Reporting by Svetlana Kovalyova, editing by Jane Baird)

PESTICIDES: Senate permit negotiations break down

Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter
October 31, 2011

Last-minute Senate negotiations to delay court-ordered permits for some pesticide users appear to have broken down at the end of last week, meaning U.S. EPA will have to begin issuing the new permits immediately.

At issue is a 2009 federal appeals court ruling in National Cotton Council v. EPA, which said EPA must issue and require permits for pesticide users who spray over water. The new permit requirement is set to take effect tomorrow, and EPA has said it will comply with that deadline.

In March, the House passed H.R. 872, which would undo the National Cotton Council decision. Once it got to the Senate, though, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) put a hold on it.

Boxer and Cardin's staffs have been working with Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and ranking member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to find a compromise.

Roberts has been adamant that the new permits would place an unnecessary economic burden on farmers. Boxer, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Cardin have argued that more research needs to be done on pesticides contaminating the country's waterways.

Last week, the two sides appeared to be close to a deal. In exchange for a two-year moratorium on the new permit requirement, a national survey would be conducted on pesticide contamination to help determine if such a permit is necessary (E&E Daily, Oct. 27).

On Friday, however, Roberts pulled the plug on that agreement.

In a statement, Roberts said "attempts to use a moratorium to leverage a controversial and overly broad study that threatens agriculture production will only increase confusion facing our farmers, ranchers and state and local health agencies."

The Kansan added that the compromise would "simply kick the can down the road" and said he won't support it when a "real solution," H.R. 872, is on the table.

A Democratic Senate source familiar with the negotiations said the two sides had been close to an agreement for several days.

"We were prepared and have been prepared to support this two-year moratorium and a study that gives us some valuable information about pesticides and water quality," the source, who is not authorized to speak on the record, said.

Republicans, however, were seeking to expand the agreement, the source said, seeking to roll back other provisions of the Clean Water Act.

It still remains to be seen how, exactly, EPA will implement the new permit requirement. Some lobbyists and Capitol Hill staffers have suggested EPA will only begin issuing the permits this week but delay enforcing them until 2012. That scenario would seem to make sense because it would be impossible for the agency to both issue the new permits and enforce whether they are being used starting the same day.

The National Cotton Council decision has been controversial since it was handed down in 2009. The court said EPA's current pesticides regulation, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), does not sufficiently protect waterways from pesticide contamination. The court ordered EPA to issue new permits under its Clean Water Act authority.

Farmers and the agriculture industry have strongly disagreed with the ruling, arguing that the new permit is duplicative because pesticide users already follow instructions on pesticide labels.

Environmentalists, however, supported the ruling and pointed to studies that found high levels of pesticides in water bodies.

H.R. 872 would amend FIFRA to prohibit EPA from issuing permits for pesticide use. It would also amend the Clean Water Act so EPA could not use it to issue pesticide permits. It passed the House in a 292-130 March vote.

White House Proposes Increased Pesticide Registration Fees

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2011) As part of his $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan, President Obama has proposed to increase pesticide and chemical registration fees and reinstate tolerance assessment fees in order to cover the costs of evaluating the chemicals' health and environmental effects data. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently collects fees from companies seeking to register their pesticides or maintain existing registrations; however these fees do not cover the full cost of the review process. The White House fee collection proposal will save $740 million over 10 years.

Under the reregistration program, pesticides that were registered prior to November 1, 1984 are evaluated to ensure that they continue to meet current regulatory standards. EPA began this effort under 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The amendment also requires EPA to review all other registered pesticides on a 15-year cycle to ensure that registrations reflect current regulations.

The reregistration of pesticides under FIFRA is a lengthy and ongoing process. Hundreds of pesticides currently registered and commonly used still lack a full assessment of their potential short and long-term effects on human health, particularly on children, and the environment. For example, EPA has failed to establish testing requirements, as mandated by law, to evaluate a pesticide's capacity to cause endocrine disruption. In 2007, EPA published a list of 67 pesticide ingredients that it intends to review for endocrine disrupting effects, once it finalizes its standards for review. Scientific studies are increasingly finding endocrine effects at extremely low doses (as low as 1 part per billion). These effects are also being discovered in wildlife.

Beyond Pesticides has said that EPA's general registration process is flawed because the agency does not evaluate whether hazards are "unreasonable" in light of the availability of safer practices or products. Though we applaud the effort to place the financial burden of registering pesticides on the manufacturer, Beyond Pesticides urges EPA to take a more precautionary approach, especially given the history of incomplete data or assessments leading to protective action decades after approval lead to widespread pesticide use. With some chronic endpoints, such as endocrine disruption, the agency has not adequately assessed chemicals for certain health risks.

There are several historic examples of pesticides that have been restricted or cancelled due to health risks decades after first being registered. Chlorpyrifos, which is associated with numerous adverse health effects including reproductive and neurotoxic effects, had its residential uses cancelled in 2001. Others like propoxur, diazinon, carbaryl, aldicarb, carbofuran, and most recently endosulfan, have seen their uses restricted or canceled after years on the market. Unfortunately, these pesticides and chemicals can still persist in the environment and in our homes years after they have been banned.

Source: E & E News

Panic Over Bedbugs Can Create More Health Risks Than Their Bites

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS and WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: September 22, 2011

As bedbugs have made a comeback, aided by resistance to pesticides and spread by worldwide travel, scientists have found that panic over the blood-sucking pests may be more dangerous than their bite. Some people are misusing poisonous chemicals in a desperate bid to eradicate the pests, federal officials said Thursday.

At least 111 people in seven states — 64 of them in New York City — have been sickened by the overuse or misuse of common pesticides against bedbugs over the last eight years, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. One person who became ill, a woman in North Carolina, died after dousing her home and herself with pesticides.

more...

New Study Links Pesticide Exposure to Prostate Cancer

(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2011) A new study finds that older men living in California's Central Valley are more likely to develop prostate cancer if they were exposed to certain agricultural pesticides than those who were not exposed. The study examines exposure via drift rather than occupational exposure, although similar results have been noted in farmworker populations. Exposure to methyl bromide or various organochlorine pesticides increased the risk of cancer by about one and a half times. The study, "Prostate cancer and ambient pesticide exposure in agriculturally intensive areas in California," was published in the June 2011 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

The researchers from the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine recruited 173 men between the ages of 60 to 74 from 670 identified by the California Cancer Registry as being diagnosed with prostate cancer between August 2005 and July 2006 in California's Central Valley. The authors used calendars and questionnaires to determine where they lived and worked between 1974 and 1999, and compared this to historical data of the corresponding area's agricultural pesticide use from state pesticide use reports and land use records.

In comparison with unexposed persons, increased risks of prostate cancer were observed among persons exposed to compounds which may have prostate-specific biologic effects [methyl bromide (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 2.59) and a group of organochlorines (odds ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 2.63)], but not among those exposed to other compounds that were included as controls (simazine, maneb, and paraquat dichloride).

According to the National Institutes of Health, prostate cancer is the third most common cause of death from cancer in men of all ages and is the most common cause of death from cancer in men over age 75. Prostate cancer is rarely found in men younger than 40. The prostate is a small, walnut-sized structure that makes up part of a man's reproductive system. It wraps around the urethra, the tube that carries urine out of the body. Men who are at higher risk include those who: are African-Americans, who are also likely to develop cancer at every age; are older than 60; have a father or brother with prostate cancer; have been exposed to Agent Orange; abuse alcohol; are farmers; eat a diet high in fat, especially animal fat; work in tire plant; are painters; and, have been exposed to cadmium.

This is not the first study to link pesticide exposure to prostate cancer. In 2008, University of California Davis Cancer Center research showed that Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange have greatly increased risks of prostate cancer and even greater risks of getting the most aggressive form of the disease as compared to those who were not exposed. Based on medical evaluations conducted between 1998 and 2006, the study identified twice as many men exposed to Agent Orange with prostate cancer. In addition, Agent Orange-exposed men were diagnosed two-and-a-half years younger and were nearly four times more likely to present with metastatic disease.

For more information on the diseases linked to pesticide exposure, see Beyond Pesticides' Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Roundup May Be Damaging Soil and Reducing Yields, Says USDA

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2011) A US Department of Agriculture (USDA) official speaking at an agricultural conference said that the heavy use of Roundup, an herbicide manufactured by Monsanto and used heavily on "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered (GE) crops, appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of crops that farmers are cultivating. Reuters reported that Robert Kremer, PhD, a microbiologist with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, told the audience at the August 12, 2011 conference sponsored by the Organization for Competitive Markets that repeated use of the herbicide glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, impacts the root structure of plants, and 15 years of research indicates that the chemical could be causing fungal root disease.

Dr. Kremer first warned us about his research and questioned the government's response last year. "This could be something quite big. We might be setting up a huge problem," Dr. Kremer told Reuters last year. "Science is not being considered in policy setting and deregulation. This research is important. We need to be vigilant."

Monsanto created "Roundup Ready" crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate). Growing previous Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn have led to greater use of herbicides. It has also led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the U.S. and other countries where such crops are grown, as well as contamination of conventional and organic crops, which has been costly to U.S. farmers. Because of GE crops, Roundup has become the most popular pesticide ever.

Problems with Roundup Ready GE crops don't stop with soil problems and superweeds. Researchers are finding impacts on livestock that eat GE feed as well. Michael McNeill, PhD, an agronomist with Ag Advisory Ltd. in Algona, IA, told Boulder Weekly that he and his colleagues are seeing a higher incidence of infertility and early-term abortion in cattle and hogs that are fed on GMO crops. He adds that poultry fed on the suspect crops have been exhibiting reduced fertility rates too.

Glyphosate is a general herbicide used for eradication of broadleaf weeds. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk and neurotoxicity, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. One of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), kills human embryonic cells. It is also of particular concern due to its toxicity to aquatic species as well as instances of serious human health effects from acute exposure.

Beyond Pesticides is currently involved in multiple lawsuits involving Roundup Ready and other GE crops. The first lawsuit is filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and seeks to end cultivation of GE crops on twenty-five national wildlife refuges across the U.S. Southeast. The suit is the latest step in a campaign to banish GE crops from all refuges. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 12, 2011 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Center for Food Safety (CFS), and Beyond Pesticides, the federal suit charges that FWS unlawfully entered into cooperative farming agreements and approved planting of GE crops in eight states without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in violation of FWS policy. This is the third in a series of lawsuits filed by CFS and PEER challenging FWS's practice of permitting GE crops on wildlife refuges. In 2009 and 2010, the groups successfully challenged approval of GE plantings on two wildlife refuges in Delaware — Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge and Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge — which forced FWS to end GE planting in the entire 12-state Northeastern region.

In another case involving GE crops, attorneys for CFS, Earthjustice, Beyond Pesticides, and others filed a lawsuit against USDA in March 2011, arguing that the agency's unrestricted approval of GE "Roundup Ready" alfalfa violates the Endangered Species Act. USDA announced plans to fully deregulate GE alfalfa in January, despite contamination risks it poses to both organic and conventional farmers.

For more news and information on "Roundup Ready" and other GE crops, see Beyond Pesticides' genetic engineering page.

Chesapeake Bay Pesticides: Some Diminish, Some Persist

ARS chemists Cathleen Hapeman (left) and Laura McConnell have found that traces of some "legacy" pesticides that are no longer used linger in the Chesapeake Bay airshed. (Credit: Peggy Greb)

ScienceDaily (July 9, 2011) — Scientists with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are identifying factors that influence pesticide levels in the Chesapeake Bay airshed, including traces of "legacy" pesticides that still linger even though they are no longer being used.

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) chemists Laura McConnell and Cathleen Hapeman obtained weekly air samples and rain samples for precipitation events from 2000 to 2003 at three sites in Maryland and Delaware. Both scientists work at the ARS Environmental Management and Byproduct Utilization Laboratory in Beltsville, Md. ARS is USDA's chief intramural scientific research agency.

The samples were tested for several types of legacy pesticides, including chlordane and related chemical products such as heptachlor and breakdown products of chlordane; lindane; aldrin and dieldrin; DDT and its degradation products (DDD and DDE); and mirex. Nearly all the air samples contained lindane and chlordane products, and pesticides measured at the highest mean concentrations were dieldrin and DDE.

The scientists found that some of the legacy pesticides detected in the samples -- including chlordane compounds, lindane, DDE, and dieldrin -- came from local and regional sources, possibly from contaminated soils. When disturbed, the generally sandy soils on the Delmarva Peninsula are more likely to release pesticides than soils that contain higher levels of organic carbon. But the researchers also concluded that most of the lindane, heptachlor, and many of the chlordanes detected in the air samples came from sources more than 60 miles away.

Modeling results indicated that the variability in air temperature and wind conditions only accounted for 30 to 60 percent of the variability in compound levels. And there was some good news: With the exception of dieldrin, the half-life values measured for the pesticides in the samples indicated that legacy pesticide levels were decreasing over time in the Delmarva.

Results from this study, which support the USDA priority of promoting sustainable agriculture, were published in Science of the Total Environment and Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

USDA/Agricultural Research Service (2011, July 9). Chesapeake Bay pesticides: Some diminish, some persist. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707111031.html

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Bills to Regulate Endocrine Disruptors Introduced in Congress

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2011) Parallel bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives designed to increase federal research on endocrine disrupting chemicals and ensure public safety by restricting or eliminating chemicals found to present unacceptable risks to public health. S 1361, introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and HR 2521, introduced by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), are both titled the Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act. The bills would establish a scientific panel at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to evaluate up to ten chemicals per year that potentially affect the endocrine system and would create a trigger to ban those found most harmful to public health.

The bills would create a more updated scientific evaluation process than any that currently exists in the federal government for reviewing potential endocrine disruptors and would have a strong regulatory mandate to ban or restrict chemicals that are found to present serious health risks. The specific process outlined directs the National Toxicology Program at NIEHS to evaluate each chemical according to (i) the amount of evidence that it is an endocrine disruptor, (ii) the "level of concern" that it may disrupt hormones, and (iii) the pathways of exposure by which it may affect both humans and animals. Every two years the Program would then submit a list of chemicals to Congress and federal agencies detailing the chemicals it has reviewed and what it found regarding the three evaluation criteria. There would then be a regulatory trigger for federal agencies to reduce human exposure for chemicals found to present a "minimal level of concern," or a ban on chemicals found to be of "highest level of concern." The bills also contain provisions allowing citizens or local governments to petition NIEHS to evaluate a particular chemical or reverse a finding on a previous chemical regarding whether or not it is an endocrine disruptor.

Common household products including detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides contain chemical ingredients that enter the body, disrupt hormones and cause adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems. Known as endocrine disruptors, these chemicals, which interact with the endocrine system, wreak havoc in humans and wildlife. The endocrine system consists of a set of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone and adrenaline), which help guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Hormones are signaling molecules, which travel through the bloodstream and elicit responses in other parts of the body.

The chemicals function by: (i) Mimicking the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (ii) Blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or (iii) Affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to a range of health problems, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, and childhood and adult cancers. Learn more by visiting our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. Many everyday chemicals that people are exposed to can be endocrine disruptors. Pesticides such as triclosan, atrazine, permethrin and many others have been associated with effects on the body's hormone system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a list of chemicals that will be screened for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system, along with a draft of the policies and procedures that the agency has proposed to follow for testing. The agency is mandated to test chemicals for their potential to affect the hormone system. However, the agency has yet to finalize its procedures or officially test a chemical for endocrine disruption since tasked to do so in 1996 by an act of Congress. The tests to be used by EPA were first recommended in 1998. Since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated. Current research is based on different assumptions than the toxicological assumptions that first drove the EPA test designs. However, EPA has not updated its protocol. The system created by these two bills would present the opportunity for a comprehensive federal evaluation process so that EPA would not have to rely on its own outdated system.

Earlier this year, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc. (TEDX) released a comprehensive list of potential endocrine disruptors. It is the most complete such list to date and currently approximately 800 distinct chemicals. Each one has one or more verified citations to published, accessible, primary scientific research demonstrating effects on the endocrine system.

S 1361 and HR 2521 have been referred to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Contact your Senators and Representative and urge them to support these bills and the commitments to public health that they represent.

Sources: TEDX, Senator John Kerry press release

Tell Bath and Body Works to 'Spread Love and Not Toxics'

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2011) With flavors like "tangelo orange twist," and "sugar lemon fizz," popular body care chain, Bath and Body Works, has marketed an entire line of antibacterial body care products to teens and young adults. Unfortunately, these products contain the toxic hormone disruptor and water contaminant, triclosan, which could be hazardous to teenagers whose bodies are still developing. Join Beyond Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health, and The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in asking Bath and Body Works to stop selling triclosan products that claim to "Spread Love, Not Germs."

The Bath and Body Works antibacterial line, which includes products with names like "Tangelo Orange Twist" and "Sugar Lemon Fizz," is marketed to teenagers using the slogan "spread love, not germs." Although not listed on their website, this antibacterial line and others sold by the company contain triclosan as their main germ fighting ingredient. Beyond Pesticides in 2004 began voicing concern about the dangers of triclosan and in 2009 and 2010, submitted petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the removal of triclosan from consumer products. Since then many major companies are quietly and quickly removing triclosan from their products. Colgate-Palmolive, makers of SoftSoap, and GlaxoSmithKline, makers of Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpastes, have reformulated these products to exclude triclosan. Others, including Johnson & Johnson, L'Oreal, The Body Shop, and Staples, have started phasing it out of products.

"Given triclosan's widespread environmental contamination and public health risk, companies must be held accountable for the safety of the substances they put into their products, especially when safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Take Action! Tell Bath & Body Works CEO: "Stop using toxic triclosan in your products."

Triclosan is not only an endocrine disruptor found at increasing concentrations in human urine and breast milk, but also contaminates waterways and possibly even the water we drink. To add insult to injury, triclosan is not even effective against harmful bacteria, including those found in hospitals.

Triclosan's efficacy has been called into question numerous times, even though triclosan is marketed as a germ-killing substance. A systematic review of research assessing the risks and potential benefits associated with the use of soaps containing triclosan finds that data do not show the effectiveness of triclosan for reducing infectious disease symptoms or bacterial counts on the hands when used at the concentrations commonly found in antibacterial products. There is also evidence that the widespread use of antibacterial compounds, such as triclosan and triclosan-containing products, promote the emergence of bacterial resistant to antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers. The American Medical Association has stated, "No data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them…it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products."

The scientific literature has extensively linked the uses of triclosan to many health and environmental hazards. As an endocrine disruptor, triclosan has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development, and also shown to alter thyroid function. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also has found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 42% since 2004.

Over 10,000 individuals told EPA this spring, via email and docketed comments supporting Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch's petition, to ban the dangerous antibacterial triclosan. Additionally, scores of public health and advocacy groups, local state departments of health and the environment, as well as municipal and national wastewater treatment agencies submitted comments requesting an end to triclosan in consumer products. EPA published the petition for public comment in December 2010 and closed the comment period on April 8, 2011.

Tell your family and friends to beware of products that contain triclosan.

Take Action Today: Tell Bath & Body Works CEO: "Stop using toxic triclosan in your products."

Join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge to stop using triclosan today. Avoid products containing triclosan, and encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, institution or company to adopt the model resolution which commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

USDA Study Finds Higher Rates of Herbicide Volatilization Than Expected

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2011) According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study published in the Journal of Environmental Quality, the volatilization of atrazine and metolachlor, two herbicides known to contaminate surface and ground water, consistently results in herbicide movement off the target site that exceeds nontarget field runoff, varying widely depending upon weather conditions. Linked to endocrine disruption, cancer, developmental effects, and more, increased levels of these hazardous pesticides in the air is cause for concern. When averaged over the two herbicides, loss by volatilization is about 25 times larger than movement from surface runoff, despite low vapor pressures. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) soil scientist Timothy Gish, PhD and ARS micrometeorologist John Prueger, PhD led the investigation, which looks at the field dynamics of these two herbicides commonly used in corn production.

Prior to this field study, many experts believed that volatilization was not a contributing factor to water contamination because atrazine and metolachlor had a low vapor pressure. However, the monitoring of both herbicide volatilization and surface runoff at the field-scale over multiple years had never been done. So the team set up a 10-year study in an experimental field in Beltsville that is equipped with remote sensing gear and other instrumentation for monitoring local meteorology, air contaminates, soil properties, plant characteristics, and groundwater quality. This allowed the team to carry out its studies on a well-characterized site where only the meteorology—and the soil water content—would vary.

Drs. Prueger and Gish observe that when air temperatures increases, soil moisture levels have a tremendous impact on how readily atrazine and metolachlor volatilize into the air, a key factor that had not been included in previous models of pesticide volatilization. When soils are dry and air temperatures increase, there is no increase in herbicide volatilization, but herbicide volatilization increases significantly when temperatures rise and soils are wet. Most of the volatilization from wet soils occurs within the first 3 days after the herbicide is applied.

The largest annual runoff loss for metolachlor never exceeds 2.5%, whereas atrazine runoff never exceeds 3% of that applied. On the other hand, herbicide cumulative volatilization losses after 5 days range from about 5 to 63% of that applied for metolachlor and about 2 to 12% of that applied for atrazine. Additionally, daytime herbicide volatilization losses are significantly greater than nighttime vapor movement.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. The herbicide does not cling to soil particles, but washes into surface water or leaches into groundwater, and then finds its way into municipal drinking water. It has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, birth defects, and cancer. As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine is applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant. Atrazine is a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

Metolachlor is used for grass and broadleaf weed control in corn, soybean, peanuts, sorghum, and cotton, as well as on lawns, golf courses and ornamental plants. It is classified as a possible human carcinogen. Evidence of the bioaccumulation of metolachlor in edible species of fish as well as its adverse effect on the growth and development raise concerns on its effects on human health. Metolachlor is a suspected endocrine disruptor and linked to organ damage.

Avoid contributing to a food system that relies on toxic pesticides that pose hazards to consumers, workers and the environment by eating organic food. Atrazine and metolachlor are routinely applied to conventional corn production. There are 83 pesticides with established tolerance for corn, 36 are acutely toxic creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 79 are linked to chronic health problems (such as cancer), 11 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 71 are poisonous to wildlife. Learn more about the hazards associated with chemical-intensive food production on our Eating with a Conscience webpage.

U.S. House Again Proposes Sweeping Rollbacks in Clean Water Safeguards

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2011) The U.S. House of Representatives has proposed to strip significant clean water protection from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). In a vote on Wednesday, July 13, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018. The act would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. The bill would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Supporters of the bill say that EPA has gone too far in its enforcement of water standards at the expense of economic development. Opponents, however, point out that the bill presents the potential for new risks to public health and the environment in allowing states to issue subpar water standards and making it more difficult for outdated standards to be revised.

The bill passed the House on a largely party-line vote of 239-184. 16 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the measure, while 13 Republicans voted against it. The fate of the bill in the U.S. Senate is less certain, as the Democrat-controlled chamber will be much less likely to pass such sweeping changes to environmental safeguards. After passage of the bill in the House, the White House issued a strongly worded statement threatening a veto if the bill made it to President Obama's desk.

This action falls on the heels of another bill weakening the CWA, H.R. 872, already passed by the House earlier this year and recently voted out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The so-called Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 would revoke EPA's authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways. Several Democratic Senators have voiced strong opposition to the bill, suggesting the possibility of a filibuster. In response, Republican lawmakers have been attempting to amend the bill to an environmental appropriations act that is currently working its way through the Senate. Click here to send a message to your Senators urging them to stand with you in opposition to this dangerous bill.

Enforcement of national standards for clean water is based on a partnership of federal and state agencies. CWA delegates enforcement of federal clean water standards to state agencies by default, once EPA signs off. However, it gives authority to EPA to step in if the agency determines that a state's actions do not measure up to the standards outlined in the act. H.R. 2018 would strip EPA of that oversight role and would require the agency to evaluate the economic impact of any enforcement actions that it takes. In addition to restricting the ability of EPA to issue new standards on water contaminants, provisions of the bill would prevent EPA from withdrawing approval of a state pollution permitting program or from objecting to any individual state-issued permit which EPA suspects is in violation of water quality standards.

Despite the suggestion of cooperation in the bill's title, many agree that, if enacted, it would actually decrease the amount of give and take between state and federal agencies as it significantly limits the input that EPA can have in the process. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service stated in a memo that, "It is highly unusual for Congress to advance legislation that would broadly alter the federal-state partnership in order to address dissatisfaction with specific actions by EPA or another agency."

The bill has been interpreted by some as a response to two recent instances in which EPA stepped in to enforce federal standards. The first was in 2005 and involved regulating agricultural runoff in Florida. In the second more recent instance EPA revoked a previously approved permit for water discharge from a planned coal mine in West Virginia. The speculation is fueled by the fact that the original sponsors of the bill are U.S. Representative John Mica (R) of Florida and U.S. Representative Nick Rahall (D) of West Virginia. Despite EPA's efforts to ensure that their constituents have access to clean water for drinking and recreation, the two Representatives have sought to limit the agency's powers in an attempt to rein in a perceived "regulatory nightmare."

The bill would have implications reaching far beyond the two specific instances at issue. Clean water standards are set for a range of contaminants, including agricultural and pesticide discharge or runoff. As evidenced by the developments around H.R. 872, many believe regulation of pesticides around waterways to be burdensome and unnecessary despite widespread evidence that water contaminated with pesticides poses serious risks to public health and upsets fragile ecosystems, damaging natural resources. Critics of the bill also point to the fact that it makes little sense for states to be the only regulators ensuring clean water since most waterways cross state lines and watersheds cover large geographical areas encompassing many states. David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council points out that the Clean Water Act was adopted for a reason:

"On clean water, history has already shown what happens when states are left to their own resources. They often engage in a ‘race to the bottom,' granting concessions to businesses whatever the impact on health and water quality, especially if the consequences will be most felt downstream in other jurisdictions. This was life before the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 and few would see that as ‘the good old days.' Optimism is sometimes defined as the triumph of hope over experience. For this Congress, we need a word for the triumph of failure over experience."

EPA was recently cited by Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for its lax regulations regarding drinking water contaminants. Passage of H.R. 2018 would make it significantly more difficult for EPA to take action by regulating activities that cause these contaminants to enter waterways and end up in public drinking water supplies.

Although the bill's supporters claim it would create jobs and help the economy, some observers are calling that claim into question. Additionally, an economic analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office found that enacting the bill would result in no significant reduction in federal spending.

Sources: Associated Press, Dow Jones Newswire, Bloomberg, Policito

Study Shows Conventional Farming Increases Pest Pressure

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2011) A study conducted by researchers at Michigan State University and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has linked the growth of industrial farming systems to increased pest pressure and higher pesticide use, highlighting the importance of biodiversity in agriculture. The researchers found that "landscape simplification" in the form of conversion of natural areas to intensive monocultural crop production results in increased pest populations through the removal of natural habitat for pest predators. This in turn leads to higher rates of pesticide application by farmers in response to the increased pest pressure.

As wild areas providing natural habitat to a range of wildlife and beneficial insects are destroyed and converted to conventional crop production, pest populations in the area will be robbed of their natural predators. This leads to pest population booms and to a corresponding increase in pesticides in an attempt to control them. Monocultural crop production—growing a single crop on hundreds and often thousands of acres—presents a uniquely perfect breeding ground for pests as it provides acres upon acres of food and habitat with no natural checks or barriers.

The study lays out the problems in this way: "The link between landscape simplification, pest pressure, and insecticide use is expected on the basis of two lines of logic. First, conversion of diverse natural plant assemblages to monocultures, at both patch and landscape scales, is known to reduce the abundance and diversity of natural enemies of crop pests, which has been associated with reductions in natural pest-control services. Second, increases in the size, density, and connectivity of host crop patches are expected to facilitate movement and establishment of crop pests, leading to higher pest pressure regardless of natural enemy activity."

To obtain its results, the research team evaluated agricultural activity in 562 counties across seven states in the Midwestern U.S. —Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. The researchers examined data showing rates of insecticide application, the percentage of land area in a county that is crop land compared to natural area, and what crops were grown on the cropland. The team uses the term "landscape simplification" as a way of describing conversion of natural areas with diverse populations of plants and animals to open areas of land where only a one or a small handful of plant species are intensively cultivated.

The findings show that, as land is cleared for crop production, insecticide use goes up. This is not surprising in itself, since insecticides would be unlikely to be used in great amounts in natural areas. However, the team noted that, since farmers are likely to want to minimize insecticide use owing to the financial costs, the fact that they are applying it in such large numbers likely betrays a disproportionately large insect population. This suspicion was verified by collecting data from aphid monitoring networks. As the team puts it, "We also found a positive relationship between aphid abundance and proportion cropland," meaning the more farmland there was, the more aphids there were, and the more insecticide was being used to control them.

The team also examined the financial costs that farmers incur as a result of the increased pest pressure, in the form of insecticide costs as well as crop losses due to the pests. The results show that increased pest pressure due to landscape simplification cost farmers $48 per hectare, resulting in a total increase in the cost of farming of about $122,000 in the average Midwestern county, or $69 million across the region.

The paper also cites the indirect costs that result from the increased rates of pesticide application. These costs are more often borne by society at large rather than the producer and include "(i) health problems due to direct human exposure [to pesticides] or air and water pollution, (ii) development of insecticide resistance by crop pests, and (iii) mortality of beneficial organisms that perform services across agricultural landscapes."

Biodiversity —the range of wildlife in an ecosystem and the unique roles fulfilled by each individual species—is an often neglected factor in food production. However, as this study shows, it is actually an integral factor in ensuring efficient and productive agricultural systems. Ignoring the important roles that it plays will lead only to more headaches and higher costs for farmers.

Organic agriculture is the embodiment of a food production system that nurtures biodiversity and encourages diverse cropping systems and integrated management of pests. Organic systems have been proven effective at reducing pests through harnessing the power of ecosystem services such as growing a diversity of crops and maintaining wild areas on the farm to support populations of natural pest predators, pollinators, and other beneficial insects. For more information visit our page on organic food and farming.

Source: Environmental News Network

New Lawn Chemical Suspected in Mysterious Deaths of Trees

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2011) Millions of dollars' worth of Norway spruce and white pine trees are mysteriously turning brown and dying this summer, and the chief suspect is a new lawn chemical. The product, Imprelis, a new herbicide manufactured by DuPont, is suspected by State officials and lawn care professionals who say they think Imprelis may be attacking pines and spruces. Once again, this new incident exposes the deficiencies in the registration process for new pesticides put onto the market without a full data set.

In what some say could be one of the biggest disasters of its kind since the emerald ash borer killed millions of trees, white pine and Norway spruce trees are turning brown or dying all around the country. Tree damage has been reported throughout the Midwest, in East Coast states and as far south as Georgia. Many landscapers in Michigan and elsewhere switched to Imprelis (See the MSDS here) this year to control weeds such as dandelions because it was touted as "safer" by DuPont for the environment than predecessors such as 2, 4-D. So many trees have died -from the East Coast west to Iowa - that the damage is projected to be in the millions of dollars, and now many states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are investigating the possible link to Imprelis.

Imprelis, whose active ingredient is the potassium salt of aminocyclopyrachlor, is a new herbicide conditionally registered in 2010. Conditional registration is allowed under Section 3(c)(7) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which allows pesticide registration to be granted even though all data requirements have not been satisfied, with the assumption that no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment will occur. When this occurs, pesticides are introduced to the market with unknown and unevaluated risks to human and environmental health. While all data must be eventually submitted, it often takes years before EPA acquires relevant data -often with data submitted for the 15-year reregistration review cycle that all registered pesticides must go through. It is rare that the regulatory decision will be altered once data has been submitted. Recently, EPA came under scrutiny recently since it was revealed that the conditionally registered pesticide, clothianidin, did not at the time it allowed the pesticide to be widely used have pertinent field data required on honeybees, even though the pesticide is known to pose risks to these vulnerable pollinators. This data is still outstanding even though clothianidin continues to be used in the environment.

The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is studying sites of damaged trees and gathering samples of wood and soil. Michigan State University Extension is monitoring the situation and also has visited sites following complaints from landscapers. According to reports, landscapers appear to be following label directions and spraying Imprelis away from the trees, but they still have browning. In some cases, some white pines and spruces turn brown while others of the same species don't, despite being in the same yard.

Landscapers switched to Imprelis this year to control weeds because it was claimed to be safer for the environment than predecessors. Amy Frankmann, head of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, said she has not seen such widespread tree death since the emerald ash borer ravaged ash trees. "I'd say this is right up there as far as the significance and losses," Frankmann said. "The customers are calling: ‘My trees are dying, what's up?' " said Mark Underwood, a Michigan lawn care specialist. "We've never experienced anything like this.

In a letter to lawncare professionals, DuPont advises applicators,"…[D]o not apply Imprelis™ where Norway Spruce or White Pine are present on, or in close proximity to, the property to be treated." Furthermore, the industry giant suggests that, "When applying Imprelis,™ be careful that no spray treatment, drift or runoff occurs that could make contact with trees, shrubs and other desirable plants, and stay well away from exposed roots and the root zone of trees and shrubs." Spray drift which is typically the result of small spray droplets being carried off-site by air movement due to wind, humidity and temperature changes, can poison people and animals, injure non-target foliage, shoots, flowers and fruits resulting in reduced yields, economic loss and illegal residues on exposed crops.

Although drift has been suspected where symptoms appear on groups of branches, or on only one side of the affected tree, such symptoms are consistent with root uptake. Jim Sellmer, PhD, Penn State Department of Horticulture, pointed out that if only a portion of the root system was exposed to the herbicide, then foliar damage may be limited to the section of the plant that is serviced by those roots. Dr. Sellmer cautions that there may be no direct connection between the side of the tree exposed to the herbicide, and the side showing injury from herbicide uptake. Because of the spiral pattern of the vascular system in many conifers, damage from herbicide uptake may even appear as a spiral on foliage.

Product Information
Imprelis is a post-emergent broadleaf weed control product controls a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds, including difficult to manage invasive and noxious brush and herbicide-resistant species. Its active ingredient is the potassium salt of aminocyclopyrachlor which was granted conditional registration in August 2010. EPA, in its review of data submitted by the registrant DuPont, concluded that, "In accordance with FIFRA Section 3(c)(7)(C), the Agency believes that the conditional registration of aminocyclopyrachlor will not cause any unreasonable adverse effects to human health or to the environment and that the use of the pesticide is in the public's interest; and is therefore granting the conditional registration." However some data is still outstanding and are required in order to better characterize risk and "required in support of the new uses," including data on environmental degradates, and certain environmental fate data.

According to EPA, aminocyclopyrachlor poses very low risk to humans, including workers and the general population, due to its low toxicity and low volatility. It is biologically active in soil and is rapidly absorbed by roots and leaves. Effects to target weeds include downward bending of leaves, severe necrosis, stem thickening, growth stunting, leaf crinkling and cupping, calloused stems and leaf veins, and enlarged roots. Symptoms may begin from a few hours to a few days after application, and plant death may take weeks to several months. Aminocyclopyrachlor is non-volatile, highly soluble in water, and highly mobile in soils. Due to its high mobility, this product has label advisories for surface and groundwater. Dissipation in the environment is expected to but aminocyclopyrachlor is environmentally persistent.

Aminocyclopyrachlor is in the chemical class of the pyrimidine carboxylic acids, which is similar to pyridine carboxylic acid herbicides which includes herbicides such as aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram. These chemicals have had repeated incidents where treated plant residues contaminated non-target plants. These chemicals persist in the environment, do not break down during composting, and have affected flowers and vegetables, such as beans, peas and tomatoes. Some states as well as the United Kingdom were prompted to take regulatory action due to these incidents.

Alternatives to Weed Management
There are some safer - though less widely used - options for weed control. To get started, read Beyond Pesticides' "Read Your 'Weeds' — A Simple Guide To Creating A Healthy Lawn" and "Least-toxic Control of Weeds."

For more information on Imprelis' effect on trees and what to do if your trees are affected, visit Penn State's Cooperative Extension's "Some Observations on Imprelis Injury to Trees."

Source: Detroit Free Press

Research Links Mixture of Old and Current Pesticides in the Environment to Developmental Effects

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2011) The findings of a research team suggest that the concentrations of the banned but still persistent insecticide chlordane and the widely used insecticide permethrin in cord blood may be associated with inflammatory cytokines (signaling molecules of the nervous and immune system important to intercellular communication) in the fetus. The results from the research team were significant because few studies on the developmental effects of chlordane and permethrin in humans have been performed, and they were the first to demonstrate an association between in utero exposures with changes in the immune systems of newborns. The data and findings are found in this month's Research Brief by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program, which highlights the widespread aggregate pesticide exposure that individuals in the U.S. experience, focusing on a recent study on the developmental effects of chlordane and permethrin mixtures. The study looks at the relationship between cord serum concentrations of chlordane and permethrin pesticides, gestational age, size at birth and the presence of inflammatory cytokines, which are endogenous proteins secreted as signaling compounds to coordinate immune system functions. The study, entitled "Fetal Exposure to Chlordane and Permethrin Mixtures in Relation to Inflammatory Cytokines and Birth Outcomes" was published in Environmental Science and Technology journal in January.

The research team, a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ad Arizona State University, set out to determine whether in utero exposure to chlordane or permethrin is associated with changes in levels of cytokines at birth. A previous study by the team showed that exposure to these two pesticide compounds was ubiquitous among newborns. In the current study, researchers measured serum levels of nine cytokines and recorded birth weight, length, head circumference, and gestational age. They then collected umbilical cord serum from 300 newborns at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, and measured concentrations of cis- and trans-permethrin, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) at the CDC.

Permethrin, belongs to the chemical class of synthetic pyrethroid pesticices which are chemically formulated versions of the natural-based pesticide pyrethrum, made from extracts from plants in the chrysanthemum family. Due in part to the prevalent myth that it is "natural," synthetic pyrethroids are a widely used class of insecticides. Unfortunately, they have not been widely evaluated for developmental toxicity, despite the fact that they are designed to be more toxic and longer lasting than pyrethrum, and therefore more potent to insects and pose elevated risks to humans. Permethrinit is a potential neurdevelopmental toxicant, a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, and exposure can cause immunotoxicity, and reproductive effects.

Furthermore, permethrin is often combined with piperonyl butoxide (PBO), also knwon as a synergist, to increase its toxicity. PBO is a highly toxic substance that causes a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system. A study published earlier this year found that children with high exposure to pyrethroid insecticides and PBO have an increased chance of learning problems.

Chlordane, the other pesticide implicated in this body of research, is an organochlorine chemical classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen and is also associated with adverse neurological and gastrointestinal effects. Studies also report an association between chlordane exposure and non-Hodgkins's lymphoma. Chlordane was registered in the U.S. in 1948 and was used as a pesticide on agricultural crops and gardens until 1978 when its registered uses on food crops and other above ground uses were cancelled. In 1988, chlordane's termicide use and all other uses were cancelled.

Though chlordane has been cancelled for a while, this bioaccumulative chemical still persists in the environment. Current research measuring pesticide residues in the home found high levels for chlordane and permethrin, suggesting that these compounds are essentially "ubiquitous in our living areas and that popular use, both past and present, has a major influence on their occurrence in homes." Last year, researchers found detectable levels of common, nonpersistant pesticides in umbilical cord blood. These persistent residues continue to expose people, especially vulnerable children, to the health risks associated with these chemicals.

Persistent Organic Pollutants Linked to Type 2 Diabetes

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2011) Recent findings add to a growing body of evidence that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) might drive changes in the body that lead to diabetes, researchers say. A new study finds that environmental exposure to some POPs substantially increased risk of future type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are lipophilic (fat-loving) chemicals that accumulate mainly in adipose tissue and have recently been linked to type 2 diabetes. This current study, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Organochlorine Pesticides in Plasma Predict Development of Type 2 Diabetes in the Elderly: The Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors (PIVUS) Study," sought to follow up on previous findings that had linked these chemicals with type 2 diabetes and was performed to evaluate prospective associations of type 2 diabetes with selected POPs among the elderly. The team recruited a group of 725 diabetes-free elderly adults in Sweden and took blood samples to measure their levels of the pollutants. Then, the researchers followed them for the next five years. Thirty-six of the study participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over that time. Nineteen POPs (14 polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB] congeners, 3 organochlorine pesticides, 1 brominated diphenyl ether, and 1 dioxin) were measured in plasma collected at baseline of the participants, aged 70 years. Those who had high levels of PCBs were up to nine times more likely to get diabetes than those with very low pollutant levels in their blood. Those exposed to organochlorine pesticides were up to three times as likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

The pollutants, including the pesticides and poly-chlorinated biphenyl are largely found in meat and fatty fish. According to one of the researchers, Duk-Hee Lee, PhD, "The exposure to these chemicals in the general population still occurs because they have widely contaminated our food chain." While the authors of this study note that the number of new diabetes cases is low, research suggesting that POPs are linked to the onset of type 2 diabetes is mounting.

More than eight percent of the U.S. population has diabetes, according to the National Institutes of Health — most of them type 2 diabetes. Many studies have linked type 2 diabetes to overweight, lack of exercise and high blood pressure. In this new study, a big waistline is also a diabetes risk factor. The authors speculate that long-term exposure to environmental pollutants could affect cells in the pancreas that secrete insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar. It would make sense that heavier people are more at risk of diabetes because they're also probably eating more fatty meat and fish high in these chemicals — and they have more fat themselves where these chemicals are stored.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, to be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and to have potential significant impacts on human health and the environment. Many POPs are currently or were in the past used as pesticides. Others are used in industrial processes and in the production of a range of goods such as solvents, polyvinyl chloride, and pharmaceuticals. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

The study illustrates how the health impacts of pesticides are often subtle and delayed, and pesticides once considered to pose "acceptable" risks are continuing to affect public health. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

To address this issue, Beyond Pesticides has called for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from risk assessment in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where the database shows clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.

Bill Reintroduced to Regulate Chemicals in Cosmetic Products

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2011) The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 was reintroduced last week in the House of Representatives aiming to grant the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate personal care products, including cosmetics, to ensure they are free of harmful ingredients before they hit the shelves. Cosmetics currently go unregulated and can contain harmful ingredients like triclosan, heavy metals, formaldehyde and others which expose consumers to numerous health threats.

The cosmetic and personal care product industry is self-regulated. But the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 will, according to U.S. Representative Ed Markey, a lead sponsor on the bill, "close a gaping hole in the federal law that allows potentially toxic chemicals to remain in the cosmetics products consumers use every day. Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin offered the "Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011," which would require companies to put all of a product's ingredients on its label. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct random annual tests of products for harmful substances and would force FDA to produce a list of ingredients that are prohibited from being used in cosmetics. It would also mandate that cosmetics companies report any cases of adverse health effects associated with a product.

The key points in the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011:

• Phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm;
• Creation of a health-based, risk assessment, safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations;
• Elimination of labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company websites, including salon products and the constituent ingredients of fragrance;
• Worker access to information about unsafe chemicals in personal care products;
• Required data-sharing to avoid duplicate testing and encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing; and
• Adequate funding to the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors so it has the resources it needs to provide effective oversight of the cosmetics industry.

While Beyond Pesticides generally supports legislation that removes hazardous chemicals from the market like the Safe Cosmetics Act, the organization, in addition, advances public policies that require alternatives assessments that remove synthetic chemicals from the market. Alternatives assessments typically show that many of the chemicals that meet risks assessment standards are allowed in commerce with "acceptable" hazards or uncertainties related to chemical interactions, depsite the availability of less toxic or green technologies.

The cosmetics industry uses approximately 12,500 unique chemicals in cosmetic products. The majority of those chemicals have never been tested for adverse health effects.

"The growing number of reports of serious health problems arising from the use of dangerous chemicals in personal care products show a need to update our laws and protect men, women, and children from harmful exposure," Rep. Schakowsky said in a statement. "Currently, manufacturers are not required to disclose all their ingredients on labels and the FDA has no power to supervise the use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics."

The bill has been updated since 2010 to make it more manageable for smaller companies to comply with its regulations which is extremely important considering many small businesses are the ones spearheading the push for safer cosmetics in their products. The bill will have its first hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where it's three lead sponsors, Representative Ed Markey, Representative Jan Schakowsky, and Representative Tammy Baldwin, are committee members.

Having full ingredient disclosure on consumer products have received push back from industry, which claims revealing such information would be a breach of confidential business information. Recent attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose "inert" ingredient on pesticide products have stalled due to industry pressure. Ingredients like triclosan, the controversial antibacterial pesticides found in many consumer products from toothpastes to toys is under scrutiny due to its association with thyroid impacts and other endocrine disrupting effects. Beyond Pesticides and others have petitioned both FDA and EPA to remove this harmful chemical form cosmetics and other consumer products

Environmental Disease in Children Estimated at $76.6 Billion Annually

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2011) In three new studies published in the May issue of the journal Health Affairs (Vol. 30, No. 5), Mount Sinai School of Medicine researchers reveal the staggering economic impact of toxic chemicals and air pollutants in the environment, and propose new legislation to mandate testing of new chemicals and also those already on the market. The studies, "Environmental Disease in Kids Cost $76.6 Billion in 2008," "Children's Vulnerability to Toxic Chemicals," and "Pollutants and Respiratory Illness in Infants," are available on the Health Affairs website.

Leonardo Trasande, MD, Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, analyzed the costs of conditions — including lead poisoning, childhood cancer, asthma, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) — associated with exposure to toxic chemicals. Dr. Trasande and his team calculated the annual cost for direct medical care and the indirect costs, such as parents' lost work days, and lost economic productivity caring for their children, of these diseases in children. The researchers found the annual cost in the United States to be an estimated $76.6 billion, representing 3.5 percent of all U.S. health care costs in 2008. The breakdown includes: lead poisoning ($50.9 billion), autism ($7.9 billion), intellectual disability ($5.4 billion), exposure to mercury pollution ($5.1 billion), ADHD ($5 billion), asthma ($2.2 billion), and childhood cancer ($95 million).

"Our findings show that, despite previous efforts to curb their use, toxic chemicals have a major impact on health care costs and childhood morbidity," said Dr. Trasande. "New policy mandates are necessary to reduce the burden of disease associated with environmental toxins. The prevalence of chronic childhood conditions and costs associated with them may continue to rise if this issue is not addressed."

Dr. Trasande also reviewed an earlier study of 1997 data, which was conducted by Philip J. Landrigan, MD, and documented $54.9 billion in annual costs for childhood diseases associated with environmental toxicants in the United States. Reviewing this prior analysis, Dr. Trasande found that while exposure to lead and costs associated with asthma had diminished, new chemicals and new environmentally-induced diseases, like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, have increased the overall burden of disease. Dr. Landrigan is currently Dean for Global Health, and Professor and Chair of Preventive Medicine, and Professor of Pediatrics, at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

In a related article also in the current issue of Health Affairs, Dr. Landrigan and Lynn R. Goldman, MD, Dean of the School of Public Health at George Washington University, propose a three-pronged approach to reduce the burden of disease and rein in the effects of toxic chemicals in the environment:

• Conduct a requisite examination of chemicals already on the market for potential toxicity, starting with the chemicals in widest use, using new, more efficient toxicity testing technologies.
• Assess all new chemicals for toxicity before they are allowed to enter the marketplace, and maintain strictly-enforced regulation on these chemicals.
• Bolster ongoing research and epidemiologic monitoring to better understand, and subsequently prevent, the health impact of chemicals on children.

"Implementing these proposals would have a significant impact in preventing childhood disease and reducing health costs," said Dr. Landrigan. "Scant legislation has been passed to reduce the risks associated with childhood exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment. Even though only six chemicals have been banned, we have seen dramatic benefits from that action alone. The removal of lead from gasoline and paint is an example of the importance of this type of regulation."

In a separate article in Health Affairs, Perry Sheffield, MD, Assistant Professor of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, evaluated the little-studied correlation between air pollution and infectious respiratory illness in children, and the resultant health care costs. Dr. Sheffield and her team analyzed hospitalization data between 1999 and 2007 for children aged one month to one year who had bronchiolitis — a type of viral lung infection with symptoms similar to asthma — and monitored the air quality surrounding in the hospitals where the patients were treated. They found a statistically significant association between levels of fine particulate matter pollutant surrounding the hospitals, and total charges and costs for infant bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Her team revealed that as the amount of air pollutants increased, infant bronchiolitis hospitalization costs increased by an average of $127 per patient.

The common diseases affecting the public's health are all too well-known in the 21st century: asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and several types of cancer. Their connection to environmental contaminants, especially pesticides, continues to strengthen despite efforts to restrict individual chemical exposure, or mitigate chemical risks, using risk assessment-based policy..

Pesticide Exposure Near Workplace Linked to Parkinson's Disease Risk

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2011) A study has found that people whose workplaces were close to fields sprayed with chemicals =97 not just those who live nearby =97 are at higher risk of developing Parkinson's disease (PD). The pesticide chemicals in question include two fungicides -maneb (in the ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EDBC) family and ziram (in the dimethylthiocarbamate family)- and the herbicide paraquat that appear to raise the risk of developing the movement disorder.

In a study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, entitled, "Parkinson's disease risk from ambient exposure to pesticides," a team of researchers led by UCLA neurologist Beate Ritz, PhD found that exposures to the trio of pesticides are actually higher in workplaces located near sprayed fields than they were in residences. And the combination of exposure to all three pesticides, which act in different ways to harm brain cells involved in Parkinson's disease, appears to be cumulative, the team led by Dr. Ritz concludes.

The study found that the combined exposure to pesticides ziram, maneb and paraquat near any workplace increased the risk of Parkinson's disease threefold, while combined exposure to ziram and paraquat alone was associated with an 80% increase in risk. The researchers estimate exposures to the three chemicals that 703 study participants would have had between 1974 and 1999 while living and working in California's agriculturally rich Central Valley. Of those, 362 participants already had been diagnosed with Parkinson's, and the remainder had no sign of the disease. Among participants who had worked for long periods near fields in which all three chemicals were used on crops, rates of Parkinson's disease are three times higher than among subjects whose exposure is less intensive.

In animal studies conducted as part of the research on agricultural chemicals and Parkinson's disease, the researchers found that ziram was powerfully destructive to neurons that use the transmitter chemical dopamine to send messages. These brain cells are the ones that die off in regions of the brain that govern motor function, causing the tremors, unsteady gait and difficulty initiating movement that are the hallmarks of Parkinson's.

"Our estimates of risk for ambient exposure in the workplaces were actually greater than for exposure at residences," said Dr. Beate Ritz, senior author and a professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health. "And, of course, people who both live and work near these fields experience the greatest PD risk. These workplace results give us independent confirmation of our earlier work that focused only on residences, and of the damage these chemicals are doing," adds Dr. Ritz.

In addition, Dr. Ritz notes that this is the first study finding strong evidence in humans that associates the three chemicals in combination with a greater risk of Parkinson's than exposure to the individual chemicals alone. Because these pesticides affect different mechanisms leading to cell death, they may act together to increase the risk of developing the disorder: Those exposed to all three experienced the greatest increase in risk.

In the past year, several studies have been published that link Parkinson's disease to a combination of environmental risk factors such as pesticide exposure and genetic susceptibility. For example, residential exposure to an agricultural application of the fungicide maneb and the herbicide paraquat significantly increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease, according to a University of California, Berkeley study. A University of Texas study found a strong correlation between Parkinson's disease patients and the use of the pesticide rotenone. In addition, Duke University and University of Miami researchers studying related individuals who share environmental and genetic backgrounds found a significant association between Parkinson's disease and use of herbicides and insecticides, such as organochlorines and organophosphates. Farmworkers have nearly double the risk for the disease if exposed to pesticides, with a dose-effect for the number of years of exposure.

Source: LA Times

IOSH Study Confirms Pesticide Drift Hazards Posed by Conventional Agriculture

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2011) A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and state agency partners finds that pesticide drift from conventional, chemical-intensive farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents in recent years. According to the authors, agricultural workers and residents in agricultural regions were found to have the highest rate of pesticide poisoning from drift exposure, and soil fumigations were a major hazard causing large drift incidents. The study, "Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural Applications =97 11 States, 1998—2006," was published June 6, 2011 in the online edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Using data from NIOSH's Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) - Pesticides Program and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the study identifies 2,945 cases of pesticide poisoning associated with agricultural pesticide drift in 11 states. While the study focuses on top agriculture producing states, it provides only a snapshot of the poisoning of farmworkers and other rural residents nationally and around the world. Advocates also point out that pesticide poisoning is often underreported by farmworkers. According to the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation, only one percent of California pesticide illness or injury is reported.

Of the cases attributed to pesticide drift examined in this study, 47% had exposures at work and 14% were children (<15 years). Most experienced "low severity" illness. The overall incidence (in million person-years) is 114.3 for agricultural workers, 0.79 for other workers, 1.56 for non-occupational cases, and 42.2 for residents in five agriculture-intensive counties in California. Soil applications with fumigants are responsible for the largest proportion (45%) of cases. Aerial applications account for 24% of cases. Study findings show that the risk of illness resulting from drift exposure is largely borne by agricultural workers, and the incidence (114.3/million worker-years) was 145 times greater than that for all other workers.

While this study focuses only on acute poisoning due to pesticide drift, an increasing number of studies are linking low level agricultural pesticide exposure to chronic health impacts. Beyond Pesticides' Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database features dozens of studies linking common diseases, from asthma and autism to Parkinson's disease and cancer, to pesticide drift and other agricultural exposures.

Pesticide spray drift is typically the result of small spray droplets being carried off-site by air movement. The main weather factors that cause drift are wind, humidity and temperature changes. Aside from poisoning people and animals, drift can injure foliage, shoots, flowers and fruits resulting in reduced yields, economic loss and illegal residues on exposed crops.

Study Finds Pregnant Women and Fetuses Contaminated with Pesticides Linked to GE Food

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2011) A study published in the May 2011 edition of the journal Reproductive Toxicology finds pregnant women and their fetuses contaminated with pesticides and metabolites of the herbicide gluphosinate and the Cry1Ab protein of the insecticide based on the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), both affiliated with genetically engineered (GE) food. The study, "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada," also identified the same chemicals, as well as glyphosate metabolites in the bodies of non-pregnant women.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada, is intended to pave the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

Herbicide resistance is the most common genetically modified trait in commercial agriculture. Crops are modified to be able to withstand extremely high doses of glyphosate (Roundup Ready) and gluphosinate (LibertyLink). Current herbicide resistant crops include soy, maize (corn), canola, sugar beet, cotton, with and alfalfa. As of 2005, 87% of U.S. soybean fields were planted with glyphosate resistant varieties.

The recently released 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports that the use of glyphosate has dramatically increased over the last several years, while the use of other even more toxic chemicals such as atrazine has not declined. Contrary to common claims from chemical manufacturers and proponents of GE technology that the proliferation of herbicide tolerant genetically (GE) crops would result in lower pesticide use rates, the data show that overall use of pesticides has remained relatively steady, while glyphosate use has skyrocketed to more than double the amount used just five years ago.

Another common type of genetically engineering involves modifying crops to produce a protein of the insecticide Bt. Bt is a naturally occurring soil bacterium. GE crops threaten the long-term efficacy of Bt, which is an approved insecticide in organic farming.

Senate Bill Threatens to Exempt Pesticide from Environmental Laws: Oppose HR 872

Without a hearing or public discussion, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted to strip states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of their fundamental responsibility to protect our nation's waters from toxic pesticides. HR 872 amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) and federal pesticide law to prohibit authorities from requiring a permit for the discharge of pesticides in waterways. Having already passed the House of Representatives, The fate of our nation's waters rests in the hands of the Senate.

Ask your Senators to oppose HR 872, the pesticide industry's latest move in their assault on our environmental laws. Email your Senators and call their offices as well.

House panel fast-tracks bill to divest EPA of regulatory power

(06/22/2011)

Paul Quinlan, E&E reporter, Greenwire

After a brief but rancorous debate, a House committee approved a fast-tracked bill that would shift regulatory powers over water, wetlands and mountaintop-mining regulation from U.S. EPA to the states.

In a 35-19, largely party-line vote, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this morning approved the bill (H.R. 2018 <http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/05/31/document_daily_01.pdf> ) backed by the top Republican and Democrat on the committee, Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) and Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.).Four other Democrats also joined in support: Reps. Jason Altmire (Penn.), Leonard Boswell (Iowa), Jerry Costello (Ill.) and Tim Holden (Penn.).

But the measure ran into stiff resistance from the majority of committee Democrats, including Rep. Tim Bishop of New York. Bishop is the ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, which the bill seeks to amend. Rep. Timothy Johnson (Ill.) was the only Republican who voted against the bill.

Republicans characterized the legislation as an effort to "rein in" the Obama administration EPA, which they said had run roughshod over states. They pointed to EPA's move to step up regulation of mountaintop-removal mining, including the agency's decision to revoke a key permit for a proposed mine in West Virginia, Rahall's home state, and to tighten state water pollution limits in Mica's home of Florida.

"It's important to move forward and pass this legislation because we have permitting delays that are stifling economic growth and job creation," said Ohio GOP Rep. Bob Gibbs, chairman of the water subcommittee.

Critics countered with sharp concerns that the bill would prevent EPA from updating state water pollution limits and permits after science identifies new pollution threats to human health or the environment. Downstream states would also suffer if upstream states failed to adequately regulate polluting industries or enforce permits and limits, Democrats argued.

Bishop said the bill "fundamentally undermines our nation's commitment to clean water" and offered an amendment that would essentially negate the changes and preserve EPA's authority over individual states. The amendment failed in a party-line voice vote.

"This go-it-alone approach flies in the face of science, common sense and decades of experience implementing the Clean Water Act," Bishop said.

But Rahall rejected that, saying the bill re-establishes the "cooperative federalism" in Clean Water Act enforcement and citing the slowdown of mining and job losses in his state. Among the legislation's provisions is a clause to limit EPA's ability to veto "dredge and fill" permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. States would have to approve such a move.

"What we are experiencing at least in the Appalachian region is an overreach by EPA," he said.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has said he hopes to have a floor vote on the bill this summer. Bishop objected to the committee's fast-track consideration of the measure, noting the markup was announced just days earlier -- and held in advance of a subcommittee hearing Friday meant to explore several of the relevant Clean Water Act issues.

Environmental groups were swift to condemn the vote. Ed Hopkins, director of the Sierra Club's environmental quality program, said the committee acted "irresponsibly" in moving forward so quickly on a bill that "kicks the legs out from under the Environmental Protection Agency."

"Their attempt to hijack the Clean Water Act, roll back many of its provisions and undo 40 years of progress in cleaning up the nation's waters opens up new avenues for polluters to make Americans sick, dirty our waterways and further line their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer," Hopkins said in a statement after the vote.

Take action:
Please let your Members of Congress know NOW that a vote for polluter-friendly bills is a vote for dirty water.

Dear Member of Congress:

The Clean Water Act is one of our nation's most important and fundamental laws. Just this week, an attempt to weaken this landmark legislation was passed in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the form of The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, HR 2018. Notice of this markup was only posted on the day of the vote, giving little chance for citizen input. Passage of this bill on the floor will have deleterious impacts on our nation's clean water and would create regulatory uncertainty. I urge you to vote against HR 2018 if and when it comes to the floor of the House.

HR 2018 would reverse many key provisions of the Clean Water Act by appointing the states, rather than the EPA, as the ultimate arbiter of water quality standards and final authority on Clean Water Act permits. The result would be a patchwork of state water quality standards in which the EPA would be powerless to interject, even if they found a state-issued Clean Water Act permit to be questionable.

By allowing states to opt out of implementing federal water quality standards, not only are citizens of the communities near polluters affected, downstream communities in other states would also suffer from the pollution flowing into their drinking water supplies from upstream states willing to adopt scientifically indefensible water quality standards that sacrifice public health for corporate profits.

I urge you to OPPOSE HR 2018.

Maryland Announces Pesticide Drift Database

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2011) The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) has announced a new online tool under development designed to protect sensitive crops from unintended herbicide exposure as a result of pesticide spray drift. Called the Sensitive Crop Locator Database, the tool would enable growers of grapes, tomatoes, tobacco, fruit trees, ornamentals and other specialty vegetable crops to register their crops and field locations with the Maryland Department of Agriculture to let farmers who may be spraying pesticides on nearby fields know where there are sensitive crops. This will hopefully encourage applicators to take steps to minimize potential drift from their applications onto nearby fields.

"Controlling pesticide drift is an important issue for pesticide applicators," said Maryland Secretary of Agriculture Buddy Hance. "The innovative Sensitive Crop Locator database will be a valuable tool to help protect sensitive crops from unintended herbicide exposure. We encourage farmers to register their sensitive crops and field locations with MDA to ensure they are included in the voluntary database."

Crop and field location information will be included in the new voluntary statewide Sensitive Crop Locator database to assist pesticide applicators in identifying locations where sensitive crops are grown in order to take extra precautions for preventing the potential exposure of these crops to spray drift from neighboring fields. Applicators can search, identify and locate sensitive crops adjacent to areas where they intend to spray pesticides. The database, developed with Maryland Speciality Crop Block Grant funding, will also offer pesticide applicators access to maps and aerial photographs.

It is important to note that the law does not require applicators to consult the database when spraying, or owners of sensitive crops to register. It is intended purely as a voluntary information source, should users wish to consult it.

The database could also be a useful tool for organic farmers wishing to avoid any potential contamination of their crops with substances not approved for production under organic standards. A court case in California recently found that pesticide applicators can be held responsible for contamination of organic crops with pesticide residues, suggesting that applicators would serve their own interests in addition to those of their neighbors by consulting the database and ensuring that they minimize their drift.

Pesticide spray drift is typically the result of small spray droplets being carried off-site by air movement. The main weather factors that cause drift are wind, humidity and temperature changes. Drift can injure foliage, shoots, flowers and fruits resulting in reduced yields, economic loss and illegal residues on exposed crops.

Though the tool is well intentioned, it should be noted that there are other consequences besides crop damage that often occur as a result of pesticide drift. Development of this database marks a small step toward recognizing some of the dangers associated with the unchecked release of toxic chemicals into our environment, but it does nothing to protect members of the public who may reside in nearby areas from exposure to these substances. It also does nothing to address potential contamination of waterways that can result from pesticides drifting away from their intended target and into rivers, lakes, and streams.

Prenatal pesticide exposure tied to lower IQ in children

By Sarah Yang, Media Relations
April 20, 2011

BERKELEY —

In a new study suggesting pesticides may be associated with the health and development of children, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health have found that prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides — widely used on food crops — is related to lower intelligence scores at age 7.

The researchers found that every tenfold increase in measures of organophosphates detected during a mother’s pregnancy corresponded to a 5.5 point drop in overall IQ scores in the 7-year-olds. Children in the study with the highest levels of prenatal pesticide exposure scored seven points lower on a standardized measure of intelligence compared with children who had the lowest levels of exposure.

“These associations are substantial, especially when viewing this at a population-wide level,” said study principal investigator Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health. “That difference could mean, on average, more kids being shifted into the lower end of the spectrum of learning, and more kids needing special services in school.”

Click here to read the rest of the article.

First Report on Bioaccumulation and Processing of Antibacterial Ingredient TCC in Fish

ScienceDaily (Apr. 1, 2011) — In the first report on the uptake and internal processing of triclocarban (TCC) in fish, scientists have reported strong evidence that TCC -- an antibacterial ingredient in some soaps and the source of environmental health concerns because of its potential endocrine-disrupting effects -- has a "strong" tendency to bioaccumulate in fish. They presented the findings on March 31 at the 241st National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, California.

Bioaccumulation occurs when fish or other organisms take in a substance faster than their bodies can break it down and eliminate it. If a substance can be bioaccumulated, even minute and seemingly harmless amounts in the water can build up to toxic amounts inside the body.

Ida Flores, who presented the results, pointed out that all existing evidence indicates that TCC does not bioaccumulate in humans and certain other mammals. The human body quickly breaks down, or metabolizes TCC, changing it into other substances that exit the body in urine and feces.

The new study, however, suggests that the situation may be different for fish. They encounter TCC, found mainly in bar soaps, in water that washes down the drain and flows out of sewage treatment facilities into lakes and streams with a small amount of the TCC intact.

Along with a related ingredient called triclosan, TCC has been the source of controversy in recent years. Studies suggested that TCC and triclosan are no better than ordinary soap in preventing the spread of disease, and showed that the two substances have the potential to disrupt the activity of reproductive hormones.

"Due to its widespread usage, TCC is present in small amounts in 60 percent of all rivers and streams in the United States," said study leader Ida Flores, of the University of California-Davis. "Fish are commonly exposed to TCC, even though much of it is eliminated by wastewater treatment plants." Despite that widespread distribution in the environment, Flores and colleagues were surprised that only a few studies had investigated TCC's role in aquatic ecosystems.

"Some of those showed that TCC does accumulate in the environment, and this compelled us to look at the environmental effects of TCC on fish -- not simply seeing how it accumulates in fish but also how it is processed and eliminated," Flores explained.

To find out, they exposed one-week-old larvae of medaka fish, an approach often used in research of endocrine disrupting effects to amounts of TCC similar to those found in natural waterways, and analyzed how the fish metabolized TCC.

"The fish quickly accumulated TCC," Flores said. "The levels of the TCC in the fish soon after exposure were about 1,000 times higher than the concentration in the water. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of uptake and metabolism of TCC in fish species. We found evidence of strong accumulation and also got details on exactly how TCC is metabolized in these animals."

Flores explained that details of TCC's metabolism are important because they play a key role in understanding the health and environmental effects of TCC.

"Unmetabolized compounds, such as dioxins, can't be excreted from the body," Flores noted. "Those that can be metabolized pose decreased health risks because they can be excreted. Our major concern is accumulation of TCC in the environment and impacts on ecology by its potential endocrine disrupting effects."

Study Links Prenatal Atrazine Exposure to Adverse Birth Outcomes

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2011) According to a French study published March 2, 2011 in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, prenatal exposure to the herbicide atrazine is linked to small head circumference and fetal growth restriction. The authors say the study "raises particular concerns for countries where atrazine is still in use." Atrazine is a widespread contaminant in drinking water and is linked to various birth defects, endocrine disruption and cancer, even at concentrations below EPA standards. Although it has been excluded from re-registration in the European Union because it is found above allowable thresholds in groundwater, it is still one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. and around world.

The study, "Urinary Biomarkers of Prenatal Atrazine Exposure and Adverse Birth Outcomes in the PELAGIE Birth Cohort," used a case-cohort design nested in a prospective birth cohort conducted in the Brittany region from 2002 through 2006. It collected maternal urine samples to examine pesticide exposure biomarkers before the 19th week of gestation.

Quantifiable levels of atrazine were found in urine samples from 5.5% of 579 pregnant women, and various metabolites were identified in 20-40% of samples. The presence versus absence of quantifiable levels of atrazine or a specific atrazine metabolite was associated with fetal growth restriction and small head circumference. Head circumference was also inversely associated with the presence of the herbicide metolachlor.

Atrazine is used to control broad leaf weeds and annual grasses in crops, golf courses, and even residential lawns. It is used extensively for broad leaf weed control in corn. The herbicide does not cling to soil particles, but washes into surface water or leaches into groundwater, and then finds its way into municipal drinking water. It has been linked to a myriad of health problems in humans including disruption of hormone activity, birth defects, and cancer.

In 2007, Indiana researchers reported in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery that in their state, where rates of such birth defects are also very high, atrazine levels are significantly linked with the rate of gastroschisis and other defects. Another study, published last year in Acta Paediatrica, found similar results for the general rate of birth defects in the U.S. population; it found that atrazine upped the risk of nine birth defects in babies born to mothers who conceived between April and July, when surface water levels of the pesticide are highest. Another study also found that atrazine triggers the release of stress hormones, leading researchers to believe that this may explain how the popular weed killer produces some of its harmful reproductive effects.

As the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells, an estimated 76.4 million pounds of atrazine is applied in the U.S. annually. It has a tendency to persist in soils and move with water, making it a common water contaminant. Research found that intersex frogs is also common in suburban areas than agricultural areas. Another study suggests it is a possible cause of male infertility.

Atrazine is a major threat to wildlife. It harms the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic animals. Fish and amphibians exposed to atrazine can exhibit hermaphrodism. Male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations within federal standards can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs.

The European Union banned atrazine in 2004, after repeated testing found the herbicide in drinking water supplies, and health officials were unable to find sufficient evidence that the chemical is safe. In much of Europe the burden of proof falls on the pesticide manufacturer to prove it is safe, unlike in the U.S. where EPA has assumed the burden of proving a pesticide does not meet acceptable risk standards before taking regulatory action.

Congress Advances Bill to Limit Clean Water Protections from Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2011) The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture unanimously approved a bill, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872), on Wednesday, March 9 which would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. The bill would effectively reverse a 2009 Sixth Circuit court decision which ruled that, under FIFRA and the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must require such permits. A similar bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year.

The 2009 court ruling came in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA. Prior to this case, EPA had deemed it unnecessary to require permits for pesticide applications near waterways. These previous regulations meant that, in instances where pesticides were applied directly to water to control pests such as mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds, or when pesticides were applied to control pests over or near water, applications were held to the much less stringent FIFRA standards. FIFRA, unlike the CWA, does not fully regulate or monitor water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in the local context. When a pesticide is registered under FIFRA, the dangers of heightened toxicity due to combinations of chemicals and chemical drift are not fully considered. EPA, in implementing FIFRA, uses controversial and, many studies say, inadequate exposure and essentiality assumptions in its risk assessment and does not take least-toxic alternatives into account. CWA, in contrast, uses a health-based standard, setting maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requiring permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams. In deciding the case, the court ruled that pesticides, when entering waterways, constitute pollutants, and as such, are subject to the permitting requirements of the CWA.

The permits are required, the court said, as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), an element of the CWA. NPDES seeks to, as the name suggests, reduce and eventually eliminate pollutants in the natural environment through requiring polluters to obtain permits. This theoretically allows regulators to evaluate the proposed discharge and take into account any ecological effects it might have. The permits would then only be granted in instances where discharge was absolutely necessary and where there would be minimal adverse effects on the environment. Additionally, NPDES permits allow for local citizen input, and provide for increased oversight and accountability.

The current bill would eliminate the elements in the NPDES program which require these permits, and thus allow for the associated regulatory review, through removing the associated provisions in FIFRA and the CWA. The bill's sponsors call the permitting process "duplicative" and say that they are economically costly to pesticide applicators. However, the removal of this permitting process could result in serious contamination of rivers, lakes, and streams, causing irreversible ecological damage and requiring great sums of money to be spent in clean-up efforts.

Since June 2010, EPA has been, and remains, in the process of developing new permit requirements in accordance with the 2009 court ruling. It has recently requested an extension on the deadline for when the court ruling will take effect. The court stated that its mandate should take effect on April 9, 2011, but EPA has requested that the deadline be extended until October 31, 2011. The agency's new permitting requirements may in fact achieve similar results as the proposed bill, with regards to reducing environmental protections. EPA has proposed issuing a "pesticide general permit" which would essentially grant blanket approval to all pesticide applicators operating near waterways. It would accomplish this through issuing a single permit which would apply to all such potential applications, and would largely remove the opportunity for environmental oversight of specific applications. The only aquatic applications to which the general permit would not apply are those which would occur near waters which are known to be already contaminated with a particular pesticide, and those near "outstanding national resource waters."

TAKE ACTION:
The next step for H.R. 872 is for it to be considered by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. If your Congressional representative sits on this committee — see list here — please contact the Rep. with a message that explains your feelings are reducing pollution in our waterways, and ongoing or increasing contamination. If your Representative is not on the Committee, you can still communicate your concerns to Committee members. Contact information can be found here.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51043.html
Opinion Contributor

Plain soap and water will do

The best way to protect against bacteria is to use plain soap and water, the authors write.
By REP. ED MARKEY & REP. LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER | 3/11/11 4:47 AM EST

While most Americans may never have heard of the chemical triclosan, they've probably come into contact with it in the past few hours. Triclosan is in 75 percent of all liquid hand soaps, and also in kitchenware, cosmetics, children's toys and countless other items we handle everyday.

When we use an "antibacterial" soap, we're usually dosing our hands with triclosan.


In children ages 6-11, triclosan concentrations rose 55 percent in a two-year period that ended in 2006, according to a study <http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/Update_Tables.pdf> from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recent studies suggest that three out of four Americans, of all ages, have been exposed to triclosan at some point in time.

And yet soap with triclosan doesn't protect us from infections any better than a product without it. The Food and Drug Administration has made clear the best way to protect against harmful bacteria is by using old-fashioned soap and water.

It's this simple: Soap stops germs. Triclosan only raises health risks.

In 1974, the FDA warned that triclosan required more study because of concerns about its safety and effectiveness. It has taken 37 years -- and counting -- for regulators to take action to limit exposure to this chemical. In our view, such action is long overdue.

Last week, former Rep. Bob Barr wrote an Opinion piece, "Antimicrobial Crusade Won't Wash" (POLITICO, March 2), about the efforts members of Congress are taking to educate the public about the dangers of triclosan. Unfortunately, his piece was more opinion than fact.

Barr cites opinion surveys that support the use of triclosan products to combat the advent of powerful flu strains.

Here's what the science says:

Triclosan, like all antibacterial chemicals, is designed to be useless at combating or killing the flu, the common cold or any other virus.

Even more troubling, studies show triclosan may be harmful. Studies from the Environmental Protection Agency have demonstrated that triclosan is an endocrine disruptor that interferes with reproductive and thyroid hormone function in laboratory animal studies. This is of concern, since thyroid hormone is vital for proper brain development and function. Other thyroid-disrupting chemicals have been associated with learning and behavioral problems in children.

In humans, some studies suggest that triclosan exposure is associated with sexual developmental changes, as well as allergy and hay fever diagnoses.

Studies also have pointed to the ability of triclosan to contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance, a looming public health crisis. As companies saturate the marketplace with products that make fabricated claims of flu-free homes, consumers -- especially parents -- need to know that many products are not only ineffective but they may also be dangerous.

The FDA issued a "consumer update" about triclosan last spring, saying that existing data raise "valid concerns about the repetitive daily human exposure."

Triclosan has been banned <http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm205999.htm> or restricted in nine other countries, including members of the European Union, which recently banned triclosan's use in products that come into contact with food.

Four companies have informed <http://markey.house.gov/docs/updated_letter_to_fda_on_triclosan_122210.pdf> us they plan to remove the chemical from their products or introduce triclosan-free products because of changes in consumer demand or regulatory changes in other countries. But we have to ensure that more follow suit.

This is why we need regulators to take action now, and why we, as legislators, have been working diligently to make sure the companies that profit from these products and the government agencies that study them don't wash their hands of their responsibility to protect consumers.

USDA Research Links Neonicotinoid Pesticides to Bee Deaths

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2011) Research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Bee Research Laboratory and Penn State University shows that the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid contribute —at extremely low levels— to bee deaths and possibly colony collapse disorder (CCD), the widespread disappearance of honey bees that has killed off more than a third of commercial honey bees in the U.S. While the study has not been published yet, the UK's The Independent newspaper reports that honeybees exposed to imidacloprid are more susceptible to the fungal pathogen Nosema.

This is the first study to show that neonicotinoids impact the survival of bees at levels below the level of detection, meaning that field studies would not have considered the role of the pesticide, because they would not have detected it. USDA researcher Jeffrey Pettis, PhD and Penn State University researcher Dennis Van Engelsdorp, PhD explained their research in the 2010 documentary, The Strange Disappearance of the Honeybees (transcript courtesy of Grist.org):

[Pettis] I've done a recent study actually in collaboration with Dennis van Engelsdorp and some other researchers, where we exposed whole colonies to very low levels of neo-nicotinoids in this case, and then ‘challenged' bees from those colonies, with Nosema — a pathogen — a gut pathogen. And we saw an increase, even if we fed the pesticide at very low levels— an increase in Nosema levels — in direct response to the low level feeding of neonicotinoids— as compared with the ones which were fed normal protein.

[Van Engelsdorp] You measure that effect (Nosema infection) at levels that you could not detect the pesticides — and so that brings up the question: if it's having an effect at that low dosage —we would not have discovered it in our study because it was below the limit of detection. The only reason we knew the bees HAD exposure (to nicotinoid pesticides) is because we exposed them; otherwise we would never have known they had been exposed (to neonicotinoids).

[Pettis] The take-home message is that interactions may be the key. Bee Health is very complex and that these interactions are often overlooked and are hard to tease apart. So in this case we were manipulating ONE pesticide (Imidacloprid) and one pathogen (Nosema Ceranae) and we clearly see the interaction.

Dr. Pettis told The Independent his research had now been put forward for publication. "[It] was completed almost two years ago but it has been too long in getting out," he said. "I have submitted my manuscript to a new journal but cannot give a publication date or share more of this with you at this time."

Since the publication of The Independent story and leak of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memo in December showing the agency used flawed science to approve another bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticide, clothianidin, lawmakers in the UK have begun calling for a full ban of all neonicotinoids. Member of Parliament Martin Caton, a former agricultural scientist, told The Independent that the evidence was growing that neonicotinoids are a problem, and that the testing required in Britain and European Union was not rigorous enough. "I think they should be suspended on the precautionary principle while we improve it," Mr. Caton said. The House of Commons is expected to debate the issue this week, although a full ban is unlikely.

Beekeepers and environmentalists called on EPA December 8, to remove a pesticide linked to CCD, citing the leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific support study.

Clothianidin and imidicloprid are members of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides, which are taken up by a plant's vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides began to take over the seed treatment market. Clothianidin is Bayer's successor product to imidacloprid, which recently went off patent. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in CCD. Together, the two products accounted for over a billion dollars in sales for Bayer Crop Science in 2009. Imidacloprid is the company's best-selling product and among the most widely used insecticides in the U.S. Starting in about 2004, seed companies in the U.S. began to market seeds treated with a 5-X rate of neonicotinoids (1.25mg/seed, compared with the traditional 0.25 mg/seed).

Colony Collapse Disorder is the name given to the mysterious decline of honeybee populations around the world beginning around 2006. Each winter since, one-third of the U.S. honeybee population has died off or disappeared (more than twice what is normal). While CCD appears to have multiple interacting causes including pathogens, a range of evidence points to sub-lethal pesticide exposures as important contributing factors. Neonicotinoids are a particularly suspect class of insecticides, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides found in honeybee hives. Key symptoms of CCD include: 1) inexplicable disappearance of the hive's worker bees; 2) presence of the queen bee and absence of invaders; 3) presence of food stores and a capped brood.