Pesticides Key Contributor in Childhood Diseases, Highlights Need for Policy Change

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2012) A new report highlights the growing body of research that links pesticides to the rampant rise of learning disabilities, childhood cancer and asthma in the United States, and calls for swift policy change to protect future generations. In particular, the report points out that children are more sick today than they were a generation ago, confronting serious health challenges from pesticides and other chemical exposures that their parents and grandparents were unlikely to face. This report underscores the importance of changing the individual chemical assessment approach to regulating pesticides, and integrating a systems approach that incorporates organic principles that strive to eliminate unnecessary pesticide use.

The report entitled, A Generation in Jeopardy: How pesticides are undermining our children’s health and intelligence was released by Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN). It draws from academic and government research, focusing on studies published within the past five years, to chronicle the emerging threat of —with over 1 billion pounds applied on farms and homes annually— to children’s health. Children and other sensitive sub-populations are exposed to a “toxic soup” of chemicals whose health impacts are not properly understood and clouded in uncertainties which are not captured in current risk assessments. Knowing this, the take home message from this report is the need to shift from systems that depend of toxic pesticides to systems that incorporate organic principles of pest management.

The studies detailed in this report are just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond Pesticides began tracking similar studies with the launch of the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) in summer 2010, which captures the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The studies in this database supports an urgent need to shift to toxic-free practices and policies. The constantly updated database is a tool to support efforts to eliminate the continued use of hazardous pesticides in favor of green strategies that emphasize non-toxic and least-toxic alternative practices and products.

Beyond Pesticides has long 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 the current approach of 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 PIDD 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.

“Protecting our children from harm is the fundamental duty of parenthood, but how can we do this when developmental toxicants are allowed to freely circulate in our economy?” says Sandra Steingraber, ecologist and acclaimed author. “PAN’s report shines a light on a completely preventable tragedy – that an entire generation of children will not reach its full potential. As such, it describes a violation of human rights and a crisis of family life both. For the healthy development of children to become a national priority, we parents must walk ourselves into the political arena and, waving this good report, speak truth to power.”

The report shines a light on the growing links between exposure to pesticides where children, live, learn and play and an array of impacts on the mind and body —including diminished IQ, ADHD & autism, childhood cancers and asthma. In particular, the report points to the following trends across studies:

• The brains and nervous systems of boys are significantly more affected than girls.
• Timing of exposure is critically important. If a child is exposed to even very small amounts of a harmful pesticide during a particular moment of development, the impacts can be severe — and often irreversible.
• link exposure to pesticides during pregnancy to increased risk of childhood leukemia and brain cancer. And children who live in intensively agricultural areas are more likely to have childhood cancer.

“Pesticides can have unique and profound impacts on the developing child, even in very small amounts. The research shows that prenatal exposure to pesticides, in combination with other environmental and genetic factors, can contribute to increased risk of adverse health consequences, such as effects on the developing brain,” said Dr. Tracey Woodruff, Director, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco. “We must take swift action to reduce exposure to harmful environmental chemicals to ensure healthier generations.”

PAN’s report outlines a series of urgent recommendations for state and federal policymakers to better protect children’s health and intelligence, recommendations emphasized by organizations on Tuesday.

“Enough scientific evidence is in — we can’t fail our children. While individual household choices can help, protecting kids from the health harms of pesticides requires real and swift policy change,” said Dr. Marquez, report co-author and staff scientist at PAN. “Dramatically reducing pesticide use, starting with those most hazardous to children, is the best way to protect current and future generations.”

The report points to the need for the following reforms to reduce pesticide use:

• Create stronger policy tools so enforcement agencies can take swift action to pull existing pesticides off the market and block new pesticides when independent studies suggest they are harmful to children.
• Increase investment and support for innovative farmers as they transition away from pesticide use.
• Set and track national pesticide use reduction goals, focusing first on those pesticides that studies show are harmful to children.
• Withdraw harmful pesticide products from use in homes, daycare centers and schools.
• Establish pesticide-free zones around schools, daycare centers and neighborhoods in agricultural areas to protect children from harmful exposures, especially pesticide drift.

On the positive side, the report does highlight states and communities across the country where innovative policies have been put in place to protect children from pesticides where they live, learn and play. From pesticide-free playing fields in Connecticut to protective buffer zones for schools and neighborhoods in California’s central valley and organic school lunch programs in Minnesota, policies designed to keep children out of harm’s way are gaining momentum.

Source: Pesticide Action Network

Common Herbicide May Increase Risk of Rare Disorder in Infants

(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2012) The herbicide atrazine may be linked to an amplified risk of choanal atresia, a congenital abnormality of the nasal cavity, according to researchers at Baylor College of Medicine and other Texas institutions. Choanal atresia is recognized when tissue formed during fetal development blocks an infant’s nasal cavity. Though it is a rare condition, it is considered quite serious because it can affect an infant’s ability to breathe.

The study, scheduled for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, focused on atrazine because, although there are very few risk factors for choanal atresia, endocrine disrupting chemicals are suspected to be associated with the condition. “Endocrine disrupters aren’t fully understood, but it is believed they interfere with or mimic certain hormones, thereby blocking their proper function and potentially leading to adverse outcomes,” said Dr. Phillip Lupo, lead author of the study. Looking at mothers from Texas counties with the highest levels of estimated atrazine application, researchers discovered that they are 80 percent more likely to have children with choanal atresia or stenosis (a less severe form of the condition) than compared to mothers who live in counties with the lowest levels.

The herbicide atrazine and over 50 other active pesticide ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors by the European Union and endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, PhD. The body’s hormone producing glands -the thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary glands- produce hormones such as thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline in order to guide human growth, development, reproduction, and behavior. These glands and the hormones they produce comprise our endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors are a serious cause for concern due to their potential for wide ranging effects on our health. These chemicals have the potential to mimic human estrogen, block the reception of certain hormones, and effect the concentration of natural hormones in our body. Endocrine disruption is implicated in numerous adverse health effects. Suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Parkinsons, diabetes, Alzheimers, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility, and childhood and adult cancers. A 2004 studylinks endocrine disrupting pesticides to birth defects and adverse impacts on neurological development in infants whose mothers have been exposed to the chemical.

A more recent 2012 study reveals that even minute doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals can have significant effects on human health. Unfortunately, our regulatory structure does not adequately protect people from these possible human health effects. Given reports finding traces of these chemicals inindoor air, schools, drinking water supplies, and urine, many Americans are in uncharted territory when it comes to the future of their health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) largest move in this area came in 2007; a full 10 years after Congress mandated regulatory authorities to determine a mechanism to screen for these chemicals. When EPA did propose testing, the experiments performed were criticized by many as being outdated.

Atrazine is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops, but also in turf management. Beyond endocrine disruption, the chemical has been implicated in a wide range of human health effects, including cancer, neurotoxicity, and kidney and liver damage. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey found atrazine in approximately 75 percent of stream water and 40 percent of groundwater sampled near agricultural areas. Earlier this year, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) reintroduced a bill that (H.R.4318) would ban the production, sale, importation or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. However, as it currently stands, nearly 10 years after atrazine was banned in the European Union, the chemical is still sold in the United States.

Source: Baylor College of Medicine Press Release

A TRIBUTE TO RACHEL CARSON ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF SILENT SPRING

“The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials”

“The contamination of our world is not alone a matter of mass spraying. Indeed, for most of us this is of less importance than the innumerable small scale exposures to which we are subjected day by day, year by year, like the constant dripping of water that in me wears away the hardest stone. ” –Silent Spring, Rachel Carson.

Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson, a marine biologist, wrote Silent Spring. On this anniversary of the book’s publication, we continue to benefit from her understanding of the impacts of pesticides resulting in long-term health effects (cancer, neurological, reproductive, respiratory and developmental) as well as environmental impacts on our waterways, drinking water and wildlife — issues that are still with us and needing to be addressed more than ever.

Rachel Carson said, “If we are going to live so intimately with these chemicals — eating and drinking them, taking them into the very marrow of our bones — we had better know something about their nature and their power”. Silent Spring continues to guide us in protecting public health and our environment.

A New York Times Tribute to Rachel Carson: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/how-silent-spring-ignited-the-environmental-movement.html?pagewanted=all

Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study

By Carey Gillam

Mon Oct 1, 2012 9:18pm EDT

(Reuters) – U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of “superweeds” and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds.

Benbrook’s paper — published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe over the weekend and announced on Monday — undermines the value of both herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops, which were aimed at making it easier for farmers to kill weeds in their fields and protect crops from harmful pests, said Benbrook.

Herbicide-tolerant crops were the first genetically modified crops introduced to world, rolled out by Monsanto Co. in 1996, first in “Roundup Ready” soybeans and then in corn, cotton and other crops. Roundup Ready crops are engineered through transgenic modification to tolerate dousings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

The crops were a hit with farmers who found they could easily kill weed populations without damaging their crops. But in recent years, more than two dozen weed species have become resistant to Roundup’s chief ingredient glyphosate, causing farmers to use increasing amounts both of glyphosate and other weedkilling chemicals to try to control the so-called “superweeds.”

“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.

Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.

“We’re looking at this. Our experts haven’t been able to access the supporting data as yet,” said Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher.

Benbrook said the annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to genetically modified crops has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.

Similarly, the introduction of “Bt” corn and cotton crops engineered to be toxic to certain insects is triggering the rise of insects resistant to the crop toxin, according to Benbrook.

Insecticide use did drop substantially – 28 percent from 1996 to 2011 – but is now on the rise, he said.

“The relatively recent emergence and spread of insect populations resistant to the Bt toxins expressed in Bt corn and cotton has started to increase insecticide use, and will continue to do so,” he said.

Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops now dominate U.S. agriculture, accounting for about one in every two acres of harvested cropland, and around 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn acres.

“Things are getting worse, fast,” said Benbrook in an interview. “In order to deal with rapidly spreading resistant weeds, farmers are being forced to expand use of older, higher-risk herbicides. To stop corn and cotton insects from developing resistance to Bt, farmers planting Bt crops are being asked to spray the insecticides that Bt corn and cotton were designed to displace.”

(Reporting By Carey Gillam; Editing by Ken Wills)

Jim Riddle: Organic foods study flawed

September 14, 2012 12:00 am • By Jim Riddle | Winona

A recent press release from the Stanford School of Medicine reads: “Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods.”

The headline could just have easily read: “Despite billions spent on research and subsidies, conventional foods found more dangerous than organic.”

The Stanford study was striking in several regards:

• No new research was conducted — the Stanford team simply reviewed existing studies;
• The review included research conducted under different sets of organic standards;
• The review included research conducted prior to 2002, when USDA National Organic Program Regulations took effect; and
• The review concluded that organic foods consistently contain fewer pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and significantly higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic milk.

The Stanford team used a novel and simplistic “risk difference” measurement to compare pesticide residue levels in organic vs. nonorganic foods, and concluded that organic foods have a risk difference of 30 percent, compared to nonorganic foods. This metric is seriously flawed and easily misinterpreted. Let me explain….

Click here to read the rest of the article

Prenatal Exposure to Widely Used Pesticide Ingredient Linked to Childhood Cough

(Beyond Pesticides, September 12, 2012) Expectant mothers exposed to the pesticide additive piperonyl butoxide (PBO), widely used in synthetic prethroid insecticides and those ending in “thrin” (popular in mosquito spray programs), during pregnancy pass to their children a heightened risk of noninfectious cough at ages 5 and 6, according to researchers at the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH). These findings support the premise that children’s respiratory system is susceptible to damage from toxic exposures during the prenatal period.

Researchers outfitted 224 expectant mothers with air monitors during their third trimester of pregnancy and measured the levels of PBO and permethrin in the air around them. Then, once the children were 5 and 6, the same two chemicals were measured from air samples collected inside their home. Results showed that children exposed to PBO in the womb were at increased odds of reporting cough unrelated to cold or flu. Researchers found no correlation between prenatal or childhood exposure to permethrin, however they pointed out that this may be because PBO is easier to measure in air samples than permethrin. Coauthor of the study, “Prenatal exposure to pesticide ingredient piperonyl butoxide and childhood cough in an urban cohort,” Dr. Rachel Miller, indicates “these exposures may be a factor in a very common problem for children —cough.”

PBO is a highly toxic substance that can cause a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system, is one of the most commonly used synergists in pesticide products. Synergists are chemicals added to pesticide formulations to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients. PBO is frequently used, especially in aerosol products and mosquito sprays, to increase the potency of pyrethrin and synthetic pyrethroids, as well as other types of insecticides. Products generally contain between five to ten times as much PBO as the pesticide product’s active ingredient.

Permethrin belongs to the chemical class of synthetic pyrethroid pesticides, 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. Permethrin is a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, and exposure can cause immunotoxicity, and reproductive effects.

Beyond Pesticides has long documented the increased risk pesticides pose to young children and pregnant mothers. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides. This current research follows a 2011 study that links high levels of prenatal exposure to pyrethriod pesticides containing PBO with a threefold increase in developmental disabilities compared to children with lower exposure levels. Philip Landrigan, M.D., pediatrics professor at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine indicates that those levels are similar to the intelligence loss caused by lead. A study in June found the chemical naphthalene, an active ingredient in mothballs and a common air pollutant, is linked to chromosomal aberrations in children that put them at increased risk of cancer as adults.

Given such compelling research on the risks associated with childhood exposure to pesticides, it is concerning how prevalent and persistent pesticides are in our living environment, and particularly in our homes. In 2008, researchers at Columbia’s CCCEH found PBO in 75% of homes occupied by pregnant women in inner-city New York. A 2009 study from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the pesticide permethrin in 89% of the 500 homes randomly selected for sampling. Another study conducted by the School of Medicine at The University of Texas San Antonio earlier this year found at least five pesticides in the air of 60% of 29 homes occupied by pregnant Hispanic women. Just earlier this week, results from 11 Oregon schools whose drinking water was tested for pesticides revealed a myriad of different chemicals in various combinations at each school.

In order to reduce exposure to these chemicals, expectant mothers should choose organic foods. Families should also stop using pesticides in and around the home and advocate banning cosmetic pesticides in their communities. For more information on what you can do, see our materials for new parentswith tips on food choices and safer pest management, specifically designed for new moms and dads.

Source (including photo credit): Columbia Mailman School of Public Health Press Release

Mark A. Kastel: Organic food offers health and safety advantages

September 06, 2012 5:30 am * MARK A. KASTEL | senior farm policy analyst, Cornucopia Institute

I have enjoyed a virtually exclusive organic diet for the past 30 years. But I was deeply unsettled by Sept. 4 New York Times and La Crosse Tribune articles and a similar Associated Press story casting doubt on the value of an organic diet.

In terms of the extra cost and value of eating organically, I have always subscribed to the adage “pay now or pay later.” While my personal experience does not provide much in terms of a scientifically legitimate sample size, in the last 30 years, after suffering from pesticide poisoning prompted my shift to an organic diet, I have exceeded my insurance deductible only once, due to an orthopedic injury. And my doctor keeps telling me how remarkable it is that I, at age 57, have no chronic health problems and take no pharmaceuticals.

Unfortunately, the analysis done by Stanford University physicians profiled in the articles noted above did not look “outside the box,” as many organic farming and food advocates do.

They discounted many of the studies, including by the USDA, that show our conventional food supply’s nutritional content has dropped precipitously over the last 50 years. This has been attributed to the declining health of our farms’ soil, and healthy soil leads to healthy food. Organic farming’s core value is building soil fertility.

Furthermore, there are many externalities that impart risk on us as individuals and as a society, which the physicians failed to look at. For example, eating organic food protects us all from exposure to agrichemicals contaminating our water and air.

Additionally, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have become ubiquitous in processed food, with an estimated 80-90 percent contaminated with patented genes by Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations. The use of GMOs is prohibited in organics.

Interestingly, there have been virtually no long-term studies on human health impacts of ingesting GMOs, although many laboratory animal and livestock studies have led to disturbing conclusions. The best way to operate using the “precautionary principle,” as European regulators mandate, is to eat a certified organic diet.

Current research now indicates that some of Monsanto’s genes are passing through the placenta into human fetuses and into the bloodstreams of adults and children. Organics is a way to prevent your children from becoming human lab rats testing genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or a myriad of other novel life forms.

Stanford researchers, cited in the recent press accounts, dismissed statistically significant differences between agrichemical (pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, etc.) contamination in conventional and organic food.

The researchers might trust the FDA to set “safe” levels of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in the food we serve our families, but many parents have decided to set a lower threshold — as close to zero as possible. Even the doctors at Stanford confirm demonstrably lower levels of pesticide contamination in organic food.

In supporting this cautious approach, there is a growing body of scientific literature that suggests it’s not just the gross level of toxic contamination that pesticides present but, rather, minute amounts of these toxins can act as endocrine disruptors, or mimickers, sometimes triggering catastrophic and lifelong abnormalities in fetuses and developing children.

Is it worth experimenting with the health of future generations when we know that there is a demonstrated safe alternative — organic food?

To illustrate the difference, researchers at the University of Washington published a paper in Environmental Health Perspectives that documented a tremendous drop in organophosphate pesticide contamination in the urine of children, after just three days on an organic diet. This is hard science that did sway the Stanford investigation’s conclusion.

Scientists have also recognized that we must take into consideration the disproportionate quantities of food that children consume relative to their body weight, especially of certain fruits and vegetables that have been found to be highly contaminated with synthetic chemicals. Furthermore, their study failed to look at the cumulative effects of contamination in many different food items in one’s diet. Again, children, for developmental reasons, are especially at risk.

Both The New York Times and AP stories did touch on a number of advantages, like lower levels of contamination from antibiotic-resistant pathogens. But that was also dismissed by stating that these could be “killed during cooking.” However, we know that inadequate cooking does take place, and cross-contamination can easily occur in residential kitchens. So again, I pose the question, how many potentially lethal, antibiotic-resistant organisms do you want to bring into your home?

Although there is conflicting science on whether or not organic food is truly nutritionally superior, there is no doubt that in terms of many parameters, organic food is demonstrably safer.

I will stick with the diet that concentrates on fresh, local, more flavorful food that’s produced without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and genetically modified organisms. And I for one think I’m getting a good value for my own health, while at the same time supporting good environmental stewardship and economic justice for family farmers.

Mark A. Kastel is senior farm policy analyst at the Cornucopia Institute in Cornucopia. http://www.cornucopia.org/

EPA lawsuit could influence thousands, farm bureaus says

By The Associated Press

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — The American Farm Bureau and its West Virginia counterpart say an Environmental Protection Agency move aimed at cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay could set critical legal precedent for their members, so they should be allowed to intervene in an Eastern Panhandle chicken grower’s lawsuit.

In a court filing in farmer Lois Alt’s case, the bureaus argue they need to represent their members’ interests. They say a ruling against Eight is Enough farms would effectively require all similar farms to seek water pollution permits from the EPA if they’re designated “concentrated animal feeding operations.”

Alt sued the EPA in U.S. District Court in June to stop it from imposing new rules as part of a multi-state effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. She argues any waste-tainted runoff is agricultural storm water, not “process wastewater,” and that means it’s not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.

Requiring her to seek discharge permits is an overreach of the EPA’s authority, she contends.

EPA contends Alt’s case is built on facts specific to her Hardy County farm, so the farm bureaus should not be allowed to intervene.

But the bureaus say thousands of “similarly situated” farmers could be affected “if it rains enough in their area to wash manure dust particles off their land and eventually into a jurisdictional waterway.”

“Their legal obligations would arise automatically from this court’s ruling in EPA’s favor,” their joint filing says, adding that bureau members “automatically would be confronted with legal obligations that Congress meant not to apply to them.”

While the EPA calls the farm bureaus’ interest in the case “generalized, speculative and attenuated,” the bureaus say their members’ interests “are as concrete and immediate as it gets.”

Alt wants Judge John Preston Bailey to set aside the EPA’s order. She could face civil penalties of up to $37,500 a day if found in violation of what she calls an arbitrary, capricious and illegal action.

Last fall, EPA determined that dust, feathers and fine particles of dander and manure from Alt’s poultry house ventilation fans could land on the ground, come into contact with stormwater and flow into ditches, eventually reaching Chesapeake Bay tributaries.

The EPA is focused on protecting the watershed, which encompasses parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, and all of the District of Columbia.

IS YOUR COMMUNITY BEING SPRAYED FOR WEST NILE VIRUS?

Steps to Protect Your Family from the Virus and Pesticide Being Sprayed

We concur with the concern regarding West Nile virus in Maryland and the serious symptoms it can and has caused for some Maryland residents. We encourage residents to get rid of standing water on your property and to wear protective clothing ( long sleeve shirts and pants) and use non-toxic bug repellents when outdoors.

However, we also need to pay heed to the serious potential impact of the pesticide being used and to take every precaution to protect residents from exposure to Permethrin, a Synthetic Pyrethroid pesticide considered a possible carcinogen by US EPA as well as a suspected endocrine disruptor that can have long-term health impacts.The following recommendation is issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in their Toxicological Profile for Synthetic Pyrethroids: “Remaining indoors and closing your windows while your neighborhood is being sprayed will lessen your exposure.” (Toxicological Report, pg. 8). We also recommend turning off air conditioners and swamp coolers and keeping family pets indoors during this time. Because Permethrin is odorless and weather conditions vary, individuals must use their judgment in deciding how long after spraying to keep these precautions in place.

Additionally, we recommend bringing toys and other outdoor items indoors as well as potted plants on your property as much as possible as Permethrin can remain on items and persists in soil and on plants for a significant period of time beyond the actual application. For more information please go to: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/pesticides.permethrin.citizensguide.php

Questions? Please e-mail us at info@mdpestnet.org

Safer Options Available for Tackling West Nile Virus

(Exerpted from Beyond Pesticides, August, 2012)

Given the number of Wile Nile virus (WNv) cases, including 26 deaths, it is important to focus attention on mosquito management methods that are the most effective and do not introduce additional short- and long-term public health hazards with the use of toxic pesticides. It is understandable that local, state, and federal officials want to act decisively, but that does not mean that the widespread use of hazardous pesticides is the best course of action, Communities that are most successful and smart about mosquito control engage in aggressive efforts to reduce and eliminate mosquito breeding areas in standing water around homes and buildings and throughout the community. Mosquito breeding can take place in stagnant water, from very small to larger pools —bottle caps, discarded automobile tires, planters, containers, rain gutters, drains, or under piles of leaves.

The widespread spraying of toxic pesticides (typically chemicals known as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, or other nervous system poisons) does not provide a long-term sustainable solution to mosquito control. It has been shown that spraying pesticides that target adult mosquitoes is the least effective strategy, as well as the most risky response, since the pesticides used are linked to numerous adverse health effects, including respiratory inflammation, headaches, nausea, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other serious chronic diseases.

According to experts, the threat of WNv is best managed through an integrated program that does not expose vulnerable populations to pesticides, including children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with compromised immune or nervous systems. The most effective program to protect the public from WNv focuses on removing breeding areas, stopping mosquitoes at the larval stage, and mass public education on prevention and precaution.

Go to /projects/mosquitoControl.html for further information and for a community sample lette rand packet. Also, Beyond Pesticides advises communities to adopt a preventive, health-based mosquito management plan and has several resource publications on the issue, including the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy: For Decision Makers and Communities, found online at www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito.

Let your local council members, mayor, or state delegates know that safer, more sustainable options exist.

What you can do:

• Clean up—ensure waterways are clear of debris; eliminate pooled or stagnant waters from debris, containers, drains, pools.
• Natural Predators—Use indigenous fish populations, like bluegills or minnows, to eat mosquito larvae in shallow waters and ornamental pools. Copepod crustaceans can also be used to eat mosquito larvae in ditches, pools and other areas of stagnant water.
• Least-toxic Pesticide Options—Use Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bt), a biological larvicide that prevents mosquitoes from developing into breeding, biting adults, in standing waters that cannot be drained.
• Behavior Modification—wear long sleeves and long pants/skirts, and use least-toxic mosquito repellent when outdoors. Avoid being outside at dusk when mosquitoes are most active.

Johnson and Johnson to Phase Out Triclosan

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2012) Part of an increasing trend, health care and cosmetics giant Johnson and Johnson has announced that it will soon begin phasing out a number of potentially dangerous chemicals from its personal care brands, including the antibacterial triclosan. Beyond Pesticides and other groups, which have petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove triclosan from a vast array of consumer products, have urged companies like Johnson and Johnson to take action on the pesticide in the face of inadequate regulation to protect human health and the environment.

Along with other chemicals such as formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, the company cites consumer concern over the safety of triclosan as among its reasons for the alteration in its products. While the company downplayed any need for concern over the safety of triclosan, it also hinted that it was uncomfortable with growing body of science linking triclosan to a number of health concerns. The phase out is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2015.

On a website the company developed specifically regarding the chemical phase out, it stated, in part,

“In recent years, some questions have been raised about the potential environmental impact of triclosan. And some have questioned whether its use may promote the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. While current science has not demonstrated evidence for these concerns, the issues will be studied further and are likely to be discussed for some time… Despite triclosan having a long and extensive history of safe use, we want you to have peace of mind. So we have set a goal to phase out triclosan in our beauty and baby care products. We have made significant progress in developing alternatives that will allow us to replace triclosan.”

Although Johnson and Johnson publicly denies the evidence that triclosan can pose serious risks for human health, research is increasingly revealing its many causes for concern. Recently, researchers from the University of California at Davis and the University of Colorado found that the chemical impairs muscle function in fish and mice and stated the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure.” Beyond Pesticides has provided more extensive documentation of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites contaminate waterways and are present in fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.

Johnson and Johnson did not provide a list of which of its products contain triclosan, but some of the company’s personal care brands include Aveeno, Neutrogeena, RoC, Clean & Clear, and Lubriderm. A partial list of consumer products known to contain triclosan can be found on Beyond Pesticides’Antibacterials page. Triclosan is present in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products, appearing in some of these products in a formulation known as Microban. Be sure to always read the ingredient list on the label of any personal care product or product that is labeled as “antimicrobial” that you use or consider buying.

Last Year, Colgate-Palmolive announced that it would be reformulating its products to remove triclosan from its product line, including dish soaps, hand soaps, and toothpastes. Similarly, major retailers like Staples, the world’s largest office products company, are also beginning to identify “bad actor” chemicals whose future use in the products they carry will be reconsidered. In 2010, Staples announced a new sustainability strategy for products and packaging, characterizing it as a “Race to the Top” challenge for its key suppliers. The strategy’s initial priority includes collaboratively developed scorecards for both products and packaging. Staples hopes to begin conservations with its suppliers about the possibility of removing these “bad actors” from products and to replace them with alternatives. Among these “bad actor” chemicals is triclosan, along with the pesticides permethrin, and propoxur.

Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 80 other groups, submitted petitions to both the FDA and the EPA in 2009 and 2010 requiring that they end the use of all non-medically prescribed triclosan uses on the basis that those uses violate numerous federal statutes. Echoing these petitions, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also submitted letters of concern to both EPA and FDA. In FDA’s response, the agency acknowledged that soaps containing triclosan offer no additional benefit over regular soap and water. FDA stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients” and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. FDA also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects. Additionally, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) and two colleagues asked FDA to ban triclosan in 2010 due to the hazards that the chemical poses, including antibiotic resistance and potential health problems leading to higher health care costs.

In March, Canadian officials announced that they are set to declare triclosan toxic to the environment, an action which triggers a process to find ways to curtail a chemical’s use, including a possible ban in a range of personal-care products.

EPA Begins Phase Out of the DDT-Era Pesticide Endosulfan

(Beyond Pesticides, August 2, 2012) Following the phase-out announcement two years ago, and after many years of pressure from environmental and international groups concerned about the chemical’s health effects, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finally begun the process of phasing out the use of the highly toxic endosulfan an organochlorine insecticide in the same chemical family as DDT. The phase of endosulfan uses began on July 31, 2012 and will continue through July 31, 2016.

In 2010, EPA negotiated a long phase-out agreement with endosulfan’s manufacturers that allows uses to continue through 2016, even though EPA concluded that endosulfan’s significant risks to agricultural workers and wildlife outweigh its limited benefits to growers and consumers, and that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan. This is an egregious example of how EPA uses phase out and existing stock provisions in negotiating with industry on removing known hazards from the market, placing economic interests over the protection of public health.

In 2010, EPA decided that data presented in response to its 2002 reregistration eligibility decision (RED) demonstrated that risks faced by workers are greater than previously known. EPA also found that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as to birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan. Farmworkers can be exposed to endosulfan through inhalation and contact with the skin.

A 2007 study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders. It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air. In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

As of July 31, 2012, over 30 crop uses plus use on ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants have been discontinued. About 12 other crop uses will end over the following four years. Of these 12, the last 4 endosulfan uses will end on July 31, 2016. During the phase-out, after the determination of hazard, EPA requires no special warning to those who use or are exposed to the chemical. To see the list of crop uses and last use dates, see EPA’sEndosulfan Pesticide Registration page.

Endosulfan use that will will continue through July 31, 2013, include: pears; through December 31, 2014, include All Florida uses of: (only Florida uses) apple, blueberry, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, sweet corn, tomato, winter squash; through July 31, 2015, include (nationwide) All Florida uses of: apple, blueberry, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, sweet corn, tomato, winter squash; through July 31, 2016, include livestock ear tag, pineapple, sStrawberry (perennial/biennial), vegetable crops for seed (alfalfa, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, chinese cabbage, collard greens, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens, radish, rutabaga, turnip).

Acute poisoning from endosulfan can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, an increase in the risk of miscarriages and autism. It is also a potent environmental pollutant and is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life, and affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects.

Endosulfan is volatile, persistent, and has a high potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. A large body of scientific literature documents endosulfan’s medium- and long-range transport on a global scale and subsequent accumulation in nearly all environmental media. The International Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee recommended that urgent “global action” was needed to address health and environmental impacts of the toxic pesticide in 2009. After the conclusion of scientific experts at the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) that endosulfan “is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects, such that global action is warranted,” a broad coalition of environmental groups sent another letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging EPA to finally take action to ban the use of endosulfan.

Growing Body of Research Shows Gynecological Diseases Linked to Environmental Contaminants

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2012) New research is adding to the evidence that some pesticides and industrial chemicals may increase women’s risk of uterine and ovarian diseases, such as endometriosis. The research supports the decades old theory that hormone-mimicking chemicals impact human reproductive systems.

Scientists have long suspected a link between estrogen-mimicking pollutants and gynecological diseases. According to Environmental Health News, research investigating a link between hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment and gynecological diseases has had mixed results. But a new study,“Persistent Lipophilic Environmental Chemicals and Endometriosis: The ENDO Study,” from researchers at the National Institutes of Health and others, found that two groups of women in the Salt Lake City and San Francisco areas — one group with pelvic pain and the other with no symptoms — were more likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis if they had high blood levels of the estrogen-like pesticide hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) than women with low levels. HCH, a persistent organic pollutant (POP), and a byproduct of the production of the insecticide lindane (head lice treatments), has been banned as a crop pesticide in the United States but it persists in the environment and remains in some food supplies. Endometriosis is a female health disorder that occurs when uterine tissue grows in the ovaries or other parts of the body, often causing pelvic pain and infertility. It affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age.

Similarly, in Italy, women had endometriosis more often if they had higher levels of two chlorinated chemicals that can disrupt hormones polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or residue of the insecticide DDT, according to a 2009 study, “Endometriosis and Organochlorinated Environmental Pollutants: A Case Control Study on Italian Women of Reproductive Age,” which looked at exposure to organochlorine persistent pollutants as a risk factor for endometriosis.

Recent research has uncovered links to other gynecological problems. Women in Greece diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) -which causes irregular menstrual periods, infertility, weight gain and excessive hair growth were more likely to have higher blood levels of the estrogen-mimicking chemical bisphenol A than women without the disease, according to a study published last year.

Another recent study, “Environmentally Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Ovarian Disease,” found that female rats exposed in the womb to high doses of several chemicals, including pesticides and plasticizers, develop cysts resembling human polycystic ovarian syndrome and premature menopause. These changes are passed down through three generations great-granddaughters of the exposed rats also developed cysts and other ovarian problems, even though they were not directly exposed. In this study, vinclozolin, a fungicide commonly used in the wine industry, reprogrammed genes as the rat fetuses developed according to DNA analysis. Other chemicals in this study that caused multi-generational effects were dioxins, a pesticide mixture including permethrin and DEET, and a plastic mixture including BPA and two widely used phthalates.

Exposure to many hormone-disrupting chemicals starts in the womb, and some scientists suspect the timing may be important in determining reproductive disease risk later in life. But because decades can pass between exposure during fetal development or early childhood and the manifestation of the disease in adult life, it can be difficult to nail down a link.

Some studies have found no connection between women’s exposure to environmental chemicals and gynecological disease. For instance, among several hundred women in Italy highly exposed to dioxins from a 1976 factory explosion, UC Berkeley scientists found no significant increase in endometriosis linked to their contaminant levels. However, emerging data is beginning to paint another picture regarding environmental contaminants and reproductive health. Previous research documented by Beyond Pesticides has shown that women who drink water containing the widely used herbicide atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, even at concentrations far below federal drinking water standards considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The danger of estrogen-like chemicals already has been well-documented with DES, or diethylstilbestrol, a drug that was prescribed to millions of women at risk of miscarriages from 1940 through 1971. Daughters and granddaughters of the pregnant women who took the potent estrogenic drug had an increased risk of endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and rare reproductive cancers. In the case of uterine fibroids, the body’s natural estrogens turn genes on and off in the smooth muscle of the uterus that allow the tumors to grow, according to researchers. Investigations are underway to determine whether estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment affect these same genes.

“We know from animal models that there are critical periods during early development when cells are rapidly dividing and forming the circuitry through which cells will communicate with each other to form various tissues of the body,” said Retha Newbold, PhD, a reproductive biologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. “When chemicals alter this set-up, the changes may not be reversible.”

Source: Environmental Health News

________________________________

3- THE STUDY FOR PH RESEARCH WEB PAGE: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104432

Farm pesticides blamed for fish kill

July 10, 2012 – 4:16am By ALY THOMSON The Canadian Press

‘Acute toxic event’ may have led to die-off in brook, biologist says

COLEMAN, P.E.I. — The discovery of hundreds of dead fish in Prince Edward Island is spawning concerns from environmentalists about the use of pesticides in the province’s agriculture industry.

Dale Cameron of Trout Unlimited says more than 2,000 fish have been scooped from a three-kilometre stretch of Barclay Brook in Coleman since Thursday following heavy rainfall.

Cameron, who discovered the fish kill, said that’s more than triple the amount of fish that washed up on the same shores of the brook last July, though the current discovery is concentrated in a smaller area.

“This one looks worse,” said Cameron.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Ospreys in Back River get ‘nest calls’

Scientists studying impact of contaminants on fish-eating birds

Timothy B. Wheeler, The Baltimore Sun

5:57 PM EDT, July 9, 2012

Perched atop a weathered navigational marker near Rocky Point in Back River, the osprey shifted nervously, screeched and flew off as a boat full of people approached. With the raptor circling overhead, Rebecca Lazarus climbed onto the marker and peered into its nest, a tangled heap of tree branches and scraps of plastic.

“She’s got one chick in here,” called out Lazarus, a doctoral student at the University of Maryland, College Park. The osprey had laid two eggs, but only one hatched. The 3-week-old chick hunkered down to avoid detection, camouflaged by its still-developing brown-and-white plumage.

Lazarus and Barnett A. Rattner, a veteran scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, have been paying “nest calls” every 10 days or so since March on all the ospreys in Back River. They’re trying to figure out why the “fish hawks,” as they’re sometimes called, aren’t doing so well there.

Ospreys thrive across much of the Chesapeake Bay region. They have rebounded since the banning in the 1970s of DDT and other pesticides blamed for hurting reproduction of many raptors, including bald eagles. The last baywide osprey survey, in the 1990s, put the population at 3,500 nesting pairs, but that number has likely grown to 6,000 or 8,000, said Bryan D. Watts, director of the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William & Mary.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Pesticide Foes Win the Day in DC: Cheh’s Bill Goes to Mayor

Tue, Jul 10, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After more than a year of strategic planning and fierce opposition from synthetic chemical lobbying groups, a Washington, D.C., councilor today was able to unanimously pass the nation’s most comprehensive municipal law to restrict pesticides.

Representative Mary’s Cheh’s bill, known as the Pesticide Education and Control Amendment Act of 2012, is now awaiting the signature of DC Mayor Vincent C. Gray, who is expected to sign the historic legislation within 10 days.

Provisions of the law — which restricts non-essential “cosmetic” pesticides such as weed ‘n feed and Roundup from all government-owned property in DC — will be implemented by the District Department of the Environment beginning in late 2013 or early 2014. In the meantime, the bill calls for further education of DC businesses and even private homeowners, who will still be able to apply synthetic chemical products on their own properties that do not border waterways.

This is believed to be the first pesticide bill in the United States that reaches onto private property in certain instances — by eliminating synthetic chemical pesticides from all property within 25 feet of a waterway and also any privately owned schools and daycare facilities where children congregate. . . .

Click here to read the rest of the article

Tiny Crustaceans Enlisted to Fight Mosquitoes in New Jersey

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2012) One county in New Jersey is getting serious about combating mosquitoes this season. Instead of relying on pesticide spraying, which has been shown to not be effective, the Cape May County Department of Mosquito Control is employing 10,000 tiny shrimp-like crustaceans that will eat their way through mosquito larvae in the county’s swamps, roadside ditches and small pools.

The latest weapon in the battle against mosquitoes is barely visible. The crustaceans, known as copepods, are cousins to crayfish and water fleas, and do not get much bigger than two millimeters. They are voracious predators of mosquito larvae. New Jersey recently delivered 10,000 of the tiny shrimp-like crustaceans to Cape May County. They are already being used to fight mosquitoes in Bergen, Passaic, and Morris counties. Ocean County is next on the delivery list and six other counties will follow.

“The days of driving a truck down the street and spraying pesticides are long gone. These copepods can pick up where fish leave off,” according to Administrator Robert Kent, of the state Office of Mosquito Control.

Natural Predators as a Solution for Mosquito Control

New Jersey has used mosquitofish, fathead minnows, killifish, bluegill and other fish to combat the blood-sucking pests in larger waterways. Sometimes this involves digging ditches, not to drain the swamp as in the early days of mosquito control, but to give the fish access to the mosquitoes. Copepods, which eat mosquito larvae but not adult mosquitoes, are meant for smaller freshwater applications, such as roadside ditches, small pools, and near schools where there are strict regulations limiting pesticides. The hope is birds and other wildlife will also move the copepods around.

Peter Bozak, Cape May County’s director of Mosquito Control, set up a test plot with six small water holes. Copepods were put in four of them and left two as control plots. How many mosquito larvae are eaten and at what stage in their development is being monitored. Mosquitoes hatch from eggs and then go through several stages toward adulthood.

“We’re trying to use our native species and take pesticides out of the environment,” Mr. Bozak said.

The county also put some of the copepods in water-filled tires to see how they do in one of the smaller mosquito-breeding environments, and a batch has been applied to a scour hole filled with rainwater at Middle Township High School. According to a study by the New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board, copepods have proved more effective for practical mosquito control than any other invertebrate predator of mosquito larvae. The most effective copepod species have the capacity to kill more than 40 mosquito larvae/copepod/day, typically reduce mosquito production by 99-100%, and maintain large populations in habitat for as long as there is water. However, while copepods by themselves may not eliminate Culex pipiens production or other mosquito species that transmit West Nile Virus, they can reinforce and augment control by other methods.

Least-Toxic and Cost-Effective

Reducing the use of pesticides is one of the big selling points. Copepods are natural and native to New Jersey, though this is the farthest north they have ever been used for mosquito control. New Orleans was the first to use copepods, and it taught New Jersey its system of growing them in a laboratory. New Jersey is only the second state to use them. They are also inexpensive to produce at the state Department of Agriculture’s Philip Alampi Beneficial Insect Rearing Laboratory in West Trenton. It takes about six weeks to make a batch using distilled water and wheat seed as a medium, feeding them paramecium.

Pesticide spraying for mosquito management is widely considered by experts to be the least effective and most risky response to this important public health concern. Pesticides typically used in mosquito spray programs are synthetic pyrethroids and in some cases organophosphates, both of which are associated with a host of adverse health effects, including neurological disorders and cancers. The frequency of pesticide applications required for aerial applications to be effective, combined with the public health risk caused as a result of these applications, makes aerial mosquito spraying campaigns ineffective both in terms of cost and public safety. In fact, the CDC and many local mosquito abatement districts emphasize public education and the control of larval populations as the first line of defense against mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases. Additionally, there is no credible evidence that spraying pesticides used to kill adult mosquitoes reduce or prevent mosquito-borne incidents or illnesses.

The ideal mosquito management strategy comes from an integrated approach emphasizing education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. The first step in avoiding mosquitoes around your property is prevention. Remove any standing water where mosquitoes can breed around the home, such as potted plants, leaky hoses, empty buckets, toys, gutters, and old tires. When outdoors in the evening, while mosquitoes are most active, the best way to avoid them is to wear long pants and long sleeves and use natural least-toxic mosquito repellents. Burning citronella candles outside also helps repel mosquitoes. It is important to read labels carefully before buying or spraying repellents.

Ontario Family Physicians Warn of Pesticide Dangers

New review of pesticide research shows links between pesticide exposure
and harmful neurodevelopmental, respiratory, and reproductive health
effects

TORONTO, June 19, 2012 /CNW/ – The Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) is strongly recommending the public reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever possible, based on the findings of its second comprehensive review of research on the effects of pesticides on human health. Released today, this review shows associations between pesticide exposure and various neurological and respiratory diseases, as well as reproductive problems. Covering 142 studies, the review also demonstrates that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposures that occur during pregnancy.

“Many of the health problems linked with pesticides are serious,” said Dr. Margaret Sanborn, family physician, Assistant Clinical Professor at McMaster University, and one of the review’s authors. “So it’s important we continue to advocate for reducing exposure as the most effective approach.”

The review’s findings suggest that increased vigilance is needed to minimize the exposure of pregnant women, children, and adults from all potential sources of pesticides, including dietary, indoor and outdoor air, water, and farm exposures. Common pesticides the public should watch out for include glyphosate, pyrethrins and atrazine.

In Canada, several provinces and many municipalities have already mandated bans and phase-outs of various pesticides in the past several years, demonstrating a trend of reducing the public’s unnecessary exposure to these harmful chemicals. The OCFP supports a continuation of these bans as a way of reducing human exposure.

Principle Findings of the Review:
Many of the studies reviewed by the Ontario College show positive associations between pesticide exposure, across a wide age range, and deficits in child neurodevelopment, child and adult respiratory symptoms, and adverse reproductive outcomes.

Some of these outcomes include:
Neurodevelopment

Children are experiencing various neurodevelopmental problems, starting as newborns and continuing throughout childhood, that are associated with prenatal pesticide exposure.
In newborns, signs of exposure include abnormal reflexes, deficits in attentiveness to stimuli and irritability.i
Children up to age three show consistent reductions in the Mental Development Index, part of a scale used to assess development in young children.ii
In older children, attention problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and reduced overall IQ are more common in children who had higher levels of pesticide exposure during their mother’s pregnancy. This can result in reduced school performance, increased behavioural problems, and reduced earnings in adulthood.iii
Respiratory

There is evidence that exposure to pesticides is associated with the development of respiratory symptoms and some lung diseases.
In children, the findings point to an association between asthma and pesticide exposure, specifically maternal exposure during pregnancy.iv
Large studies of male and female farm employees show increased risk of asthma and identify specific pesticides (including 2,4-D and glyphosate) and several insecticides that are most associated with this risk. v
In adults, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is also associated with occupational exposure to pesticides.vi
Reproductive

Pesticide exposure in utero has been associated with lower birth weight.vii
Lower birth weight can be predictive of long-term problems later in life, such as diabetes and heart disease.vii
One study from New York City found a significant increase in the birth weights of infants born after a household ban on two insecticides frequently used indoors.ix This helps illustrate the possible health benefit of pesticide bans within a few years of implementation.
What the Public Should Do:
Given the wide range of commonly used agricultural, home and garden pesticide products associated with health effects, the College’s overall message to patients is to avoid exposure to all pesticides whenever and wherever possible. This includes reducing both occupational exposures, as well as lowering exposure levels at home. The College also advocates exposure reduction techniques such as:

Reduce use of indoor and home and garden pesticides and look for alternative organic methods of lawn and garden care and indoor pest control.
If pesticides are unavoidable (such as in agricultural settings), ensure proper use of personal protection equipment and change clothes before coming into contact with others (so the pesticides do not come into the home, car, etc.).
What Family Physicians Should Do:
The College is advocating that, where appropriate, family physicians counsel patients to prevent or reduce pesticide exposure in several settings:

In preconception and prenatal visits, counsel patients to reduce pesticide exposure and help reduce negative birth outcomes, neurodevelopmental problems, and childhood asthma associated with prenatal pesticide exposure.
Advise parents to minimize exposure of children of all ages by reducing use of indoor and home and garden pesticides.
Alert new parents to the risks of paraoccupational (i.e., take-home) exposures and the protective benefits of wearing personal protective equipment for patients that have unavoidable occupational exposure.
Educate patients in occupations at high risk of pesticide exposure about the health effects associated with these exposures; identify patients, such as those with asthma, sarcoidosis (a disease affecting the lungs) or COPD, who may have special vulnerability to pesticide exposure.
About the Ontario College of Family Physicians:
The Ontario College of Family Physicians is a provincial chapter of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and is a voluntary, not-for-profit association that promotes family medicine in Ontario through leadership, education and advocacy. The OCFP represents close to 11,000 family physicians providing care for remote, rural, suburban, urban and inner-city populations in Ontario. The OCFP is the voice of family medicine in Ontario. At the heart of the organization is the building and maintenance of high standards of practice and the continuous improvement of access to quality family practice services for all residents of Ontario.

NOTE TO EDITORS: The 2012 Systematic Review of Pesticide Health Effects is available on the OCFP’s website at www.ocfp.on.ca.

i2012 Systematic Review of Pesticide Health Effects. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Family Physicians; 2012, Page 52.

iiEskenazi B, Marks AR, Bradman A, Harley K, Barr DB, Johnson C et al 2007. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican American children. Environ Health Perspect 115(5):792-798.
Horton MK, Rundle A, Camann DE, Barr DB, Rauh VA, Whyatt RM 2011. Impact of prenatal exposure to piperonylbutoxide and permethrin on 36-month neurodevelopment. Pediatrics 127(3):e699-e706.

iii Bouchard MF, Beelinger DC, Wright RO, Weisskopf MG 2010. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. Pediatrics 125(6): e1270-1277.
Rauh VA, Arundajadai S, Horton M, Perera F, Hoepner L, Barr DB et al 2011.7-year neurodevelopmental scores and prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos, a common agricultural pesticide. Env Health Perspect 119(8): 1196-1201.

ivDuramad P, Harley K, Lipsett M, Bradman A, Eskenazi B Holland NT et al 2006. Early environmental exposures and intracellular Th1/Th2 cytokine profiles in 24-month old children living in an agricultural area. Health Perspect 114(12): 1916-1922.

v Hoppin JA, Umbach DM,London SJ, Henneberger PK Kullman GJ, Alavanja MC et al 2008. Pesticides and atopic and non-atopic asthma among farm women in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1): 11-18.

viJA, Valcin, M, Henneberger PK, JKullman GJ, Umbach DM, London SJ et al 2007. Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Ind Med 50(12): 969-979.

viiChevrier C, Limon G, Monfort C, Rouget F, Garlantezec R, Petit C et al 2011. Urinary biomarkers of prenatal atrazine exposure and adverse birth outcomes in the PELAGIE birth cohort. Environ Health Perspect 119(7): 1034-1041.

viiiCalkins K, Devaskar SU. 2011. Fetal origins of adult disease. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2011 Jul;41(6):158-76.

ixWhyatt RM, Rauh V, Barr DB, Camann DE, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R et al. 2004. Prenatal insecticide exposures and birth weight and length among an urban minority cohort. Environ Health Perspect 112ArundajadaiS,Horton M, Perera F, Hoepner L, Barr DB et al(10):1125-1132.

al(10):1125-1132.

For further information:

David Mircheff
Environics Communications
416-969-2776
dmircheff@environicspr.com

Jan Kasperski
Ontario College of Family Physicians
416-867-9646
jk_ocfp@cfpc.ca

Source: Canada Newswire

Lack of training in environmental health

By SHARON UDASIN
06/07/2012 04:06

Israeli researchers say doctors worldwide are uninformed about diseases caused by pollutants.

Medical students in Israel, the United States and Europe are not receiving adequate environmental health education, a study sponsored by the Haifa-based Public Health Coalition has reported.

The report, called “Our Health and Environment,” was conducted by Stephanie Rieger, a coalition fellow at the University of Haifa International School.

“Our primary care physicians, no matter what area of the world they are attending, place little emphasis on environmental toxicology in regards to their core and elective courses,” Rieger wrote in a summary editorial printed alongside the study.

Out of the 25 universities that Rieger surveyed — 10 in United States, 10 in Europe and five in Israel — there were only six environmental health courses offered in clinical medicineprograms.

Two of the courses were at Harvard University as electives, one was at University of Chicago as an elective, two were at the University of Iceland as electives and one was at the University of Bologna as an elective.

The sixth, at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, was a required course, where the school “educated clinical physicians about environmental concerns, stating that its ‘curriculum will focus not only on patient care, but also on healthy lifestyles, with specific regard to environmental factors.'” In the United States, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, the University of California, San Francisco, Washington University in Saint Louis, Yale University, Columbia University and Duke University all fail to offer environmental health courses, according to Rieger’s report. The same applies in Europe for the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, the Imperial College of London, University College of London, Trinity College of Medicine, University of Barcelona, University of Gothenburg and University of Athens.

Likewise, in Israel, Ben- Gurion University in Beersheba, the Israel Institute of Technology-Technion’s Bruce Rappaport Medical School in Haifa, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University’s Sackler School of Medicine do not offer environmental health courses, the report said.

Rieger stressed that the findings demonstrate that the globe’s primary care physicians require “a more comprehensive education in respect to environmental health,” especially since environmental concerns are escalating as of late.

In the report, Rieger emphasized how dangerous contaminated soil, dust or water can be, and explained how humans can easily absorb many of these same toxins while they are suspended in the air. Such air contamination can have short-term impacts, such as headaches, nausea, bronchitis and pneumonia, but can also cause long-term problems, like chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease and brain and neural damage.

As testaments to this argument, Rieger brings in examples of the London “Smog Disaster” of 1952, the Southeast Asian Haze Disaster of 1997, the Bhopal, India, Pollution Disaster of 1984, the Yokkaichi Asthma Outbreak in Japan from 1960 to 1972, and closest to home — the Haifa Bay air quality situation, which she attributes to production, transportation and industry.

“As human beings continue to have momentous impacts on the environment and its resources, core education seems to be the best device for providing the public with medical professionals that understand the ramifications human actions and behavior patterns that influence their health and environment,” Rieger wrote.

“Since exposure to air pollutants is largely beyond the control of individuals and requires action by public authorities at the national, regional and even international levels, it is imperative to educate our primary care physicians and health workers about this imminent risk to make certain that when medical attention is needed, it is delivered in an efficient and accurate manner.”

Illnesses caused by environmental factors are often misdiagnosed because it is sometimes difficult to determine which pollutants are causing symptoms and isolate the culprits, the report argues. Therefore, it is crucial to supply primary health providers with the comprehensive knowledge necessary to be able to make as accurate diagnoses as possible, according to Rieger.

To accomplish this, she suggests that medical schools throughout the world lacking environmental health programsshould use the select programs that do exist as models for developing their own. More advocacy for funding to public medical schools is also crucial, she adds. While most of these universities have environmental studies courses within their institutions, they do not incorporate these courses in their medical school curriculums.

“The public relies on primary care physicians to improve their health and well-being, it should be of the upmost importance that the education of these individuals is all-encompassing,” Rieger wrote.

In response to the report, Prof. Dan Blumberg, deputy vice president and dean for research and development at Ben-Gurion University, said that “there is no doubt that environmental factors play a key role in health and wellbeing.

“Educating healthcare providers on the risks and illnesses associated with the environment is much required,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “BGU as a leading institute in environmental research and local and international health schools has always understood that these issues are strongly connected.”

While agreeing that environmental health education is important, Prof. Shmuel Shapiro, deputy director-general of Hadassah University Hospital and director of the School of Military Medicine at the Hebrew University- Hadassah School of Medicine, warned that the report might be blowing the issue out of proportion.

“It is not necessary to get carried away or go into panic. There are many other important fields that students don’t receive [training on] — it is impossible to get everything,” Shapiro told the Post. “Public health issues and prevention are much more emphasized today than they were in the past.”

Prof. Elihu Richter, also of the Hebrew University- Hadassah School of Medicine, said he finds Shapiro’s response to be “disappointing.”

Richter pointed to events such as the Kishon River disaster and the undetected epidemics of cardiovascular disease among munitions workers as evidence that environmental health education for soon-to-be physicians is crucial.

“Teaching the sentinel event is the key to linking one on one clinical medicine to the search for group risks ‘out there,'” he said.

It is necessary to employ tools of environmental epidemiology to both predict and assess illnesses, and “not wait to count the bodies,” according to Richter.

“From 40 years in the field of occupational and environmental medicine, I can say that the systematic failure to educate physicians to search for work-relatedness of illness and morbidity has led to many disasters which were preventable,” Richter said.

Source: Jerusalem Post

Researchers Prove Bed Bugs Resistant to Common Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7th, 2012) A new study confirms several other recent study findings on the inability of commonly used pyrethroid based pesticide products to control bed bug infestations. The study, entitled “Ineffectiveness of Over-the-Counter Total-Release Foggers Against the Bed Bug,” was published in the June issue of the Journal of Economic Entomology.

Researchers from Ohio State University focused on the efficacy of three over-the-counter ‘foggers,’ or ‘bug bombs,’ including Hotshot Bedbug and Flea Fogger, Spectracide Bug Stop Indoor Fogger, and Eliminator Indoor Fogger. Results from the study reveal that bed bugs are not affected by direct exposure to the pyrethriods present in these products. Even long-term laboratory populations of bed bugs, known to be susceptible to pyrethroids, were unaffected by the pesticide when given a thin cloth as cover. This means that even if the current strain of bed bugs in the U.S. were not resistant to pyrethriods, the chemical still would not be an effective method of control because of bed bugs’ propensity to hide in small cracks and crevices in residences and other settings.

“If you use these products, you will not get the infestation under control, you will waste your money, and you will delay effective treatment of your infestation,” says co-author Susan Jones, PhD. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has a consumer alert out against companies misrepresenting claims about pest control and elimination. Consumers beware the use of ‘bug bombs’ and ‘foggers’ could hurt your health, and your wallet.

An over-reliance on pesticide controls over the years pushed bed bugs to evolve a resistance to these chemicals. Research presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene’s 60th annual meeting showed that exposure to treated bed nets and linens resulted in pesticide-resistant bed bug populations.

A previous study by the Ohio State University researchers details the hereditary changes that allowed the bugs to evolve their chemical resistance. The researchers found that the bugs developed the ability to produce certain enzymes, which can break down toxic chemicals, at higher levels of than previous generations. These enzymes allow the chemicals to be easily excreted by the insects without being harmed.

Pyrethroid class chemicals, which also includes permethrin, bifenthrin, resmethrin, cyfluthrin and scores of others, are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural insecticide found in certain species of chrysanthemum. They were initially introduced on the market as ‘safer’ alternatives to the heavily regulated and highly toxic organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon, which were banned for residential use in 2001 and 2004, respectively. However, exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. EPA classifies permethrin and cypermethrin as possible human carcinogens, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC ) Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that widely used pyrethroids are found in greater than 50% of the subjects tested. Ignoring a plethora of data that links pyrethroids to human health effects and insect resistance, EPA has proposed to expand the use of these pesticides.

Last fall, CDC published a study in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report linking pesticides sprayed in attempts to control bed bugs to poisoning incidents and death. Because bed bugs do not transmit disease and can be controlled without pesticides, this risk is completely unnecessary. The study, “Acute Illnesses Associated with Insecticides Used to Control Bed Bugs,” utilized data from California, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, New York, Texas, and Washington. In those seven states, over 100 poisonings, including one fatality, were associated with bed bug-related insecticide use.

CDC’s study reported a total of 111 illnesses associated with bed bug-related pesticide use; although 90 (81%) were low severity, one fatality occurred. Pyrethroids, pyrethrins, or both were implicated in 99 (89%) of the cases, including the fatality. The most common factors contributing to illness were excessive insecticide application, failure to wash or change pesticide-treated bedding, and inadequate notification of pesticide application. Although few cases of illnesses associated with insecticides used to control bed bugs have been reported, these incidents highlight the importance of educating the public about effective bed bug management.

Integrated pest management (IPM) approach can be implemented for managing bed bugs, which includes methods such as vacuuming, steaming, and exposing the bugs to high heat can control an infestation without 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.

The bed bug resurgence in the U.S. in recent years has led to public anxiety about the pests and drastic attempts to stem their spread through various means, often including the use of highly toxic and harmful chemicals.

Source: CBS News

Mothball Pesticide Linked to Chromosomal Aberrations in Children

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2012) A new study finds that children exposed to high levels of naphthalene, a common air pollutant and the active ingredient in mothballs, are at increased risk for chromosomal aberrations (CA’s) that have been associated with increased cancer risk in adults. These include chromosomal translocations, a potentially more harmful and long-lasting subtype of CAs, which are of special concern as they result in a portion of one chromosome being juxtaposed to a portion of another chromosome, potentially scrambling the genetic script. Researchers from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the findings in Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Translocations can persist for years after exposure. Some accumulated damage will be repaired, but not everyone’s repair capacity is the same. Previous studies have suggested that chromosomal breaks can double an adult’s lifetime risk for cancer, though implications for children are unknown,” says first author Manuela A. Orjuela, MD, ScM, assistant professor of clinical environmental health sciences and pediatrics (oncology) at Columbia University Medical Center and a pediatric oncologist at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital.

The researchers followed 113 children, age 5, who are part of a larger cohort study in New York City. They assessed the children’s exposure to naphthalene; a CDC laboratory measured levels of its metabolites—1- and 2-naphthol—in urine samples. (Metabolites are products of the body’s metabolism, and can serve as a marker for the presence of a chemical.) Researchers also measured CAs in the children’s white blood cells using a technique called fluorescent in situ hybridization. Chromosomal aberrations were present in 30 children; of these, 11 had translocations. With every doubling of levels of 1- and 2-naphthol, translocations are 1.55 and 1.92 times more likely, respectively, to occur.

Napthalene is classified as a possible carcinogen by the International Agency for Cancer Research. Inhalation of vapors is linked to nasal tumors in laboratory animals. It has also been associated with non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and blood disorders, including several types of anemia. Studies have shown reactions including acute hemolysis, jaundice and death in infants wrapped in blankets that had been stored with mothballs. German workers exposed to naphthalene were found to have a variety of cancers, including laryngeal, gastric, nasal, and colon cancer.

Napthalene belongs to a class of air pollutants called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Prior research at the CCCEH has established a link between prenatal exposure to PAH and increased risk for childhood obesity, IQ deficits, and CAs. The new study is the first to present evidence in humans of CAs, including translocations, associated with exposure to one specific PAH —naphthalene— ,during childhood.

To obtain a better sense of the long-term consequences of naphthalene exposure, Dr. Orjuela and other CCCEH investigators are following some of the children in the study as they reach fourth grade. While they expect to see further translocations, they do not expect to see any signs of cancer in the white blood cells. “So far, the translocations seem to be random, and there has been no evidence of the specific translocations that are known to be associated with leukemia. This is entirely expected; leukemia is very rare.” Frederica Perera, DrPH, senior author on the paper, adds that, “The findings provide yet more evidence of the vulnerability of the young child to carcinogenic air pollutants.”

Apart from mothballs, crystalline naphthalene is used as a deodorizer for diaper pails and toilets. It is also used as an intermediate in the manufacture of a wide range of products, including phthalate plasticizers, resins, dyes, pharmaceuticals, insect repellents, and other products. Since naphthalene easily vaporizes, its gas has a variety of other fumigant uses, including use as an insecticidal soil fumigant.

Source: Columbia University Press Release

Lyme disease tick study stirs dispute

Maryland families not fully informed of pesticide risks, critics say

By Timothy B. Wheeler, The Baltimore Sun
11:01 a.m. EDT, May 29, 2012

Hundreds of Baltimore-area families have volunteered for a government study to spray their suburban yards with pesticide, which researchers hope can protect them from Lyme disease but that environmentalists warn is unsafe.

The goal, federal and state health officials say, is to find a new way to prevent the widespread illness, which is spread by tick bites and can cause fever, headaches and fatigue — and, if untreated, may even affect joints, nerves and the heart.

Half of the 185 families who’ve signed up this year in Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard counties are having the edges of their yards sprayed with bifenthrin, a chemical pesticide commonly applied around homes to fight ticks, fleas and mosquitoes. The others, without knowing it, are getting their property sprayed with water so officials can judge the effectiveness of the treatment.

“The question is, does it actually prevent a common, sometimes severe disease — and second, what’s the lowest dose you can do?” said Dr. Clifford S. Mitchell, assistant director for environmental health and food protection in the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Environmental activists, though, contend that the study itself is putting the families at risk. Adults and children alike are being exposed to a pesticide that is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a possible carcinogen, critics say, and that is being studied by the EPA for possible harm to reproductive and immune systems, among other things.

“It’s improper to be conducting a human experiment like this,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a national group based in Washington. He and other activists contend federal and state health officials have not adequately informed volunteers about all the potential health risks.

The study, now in its second year, was underwritten by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The pesticide also is being tested on yards in Connecticut and New York. Last year, 440 other Maryland families participated.

Lyme disease, so named because it was first reported in Lyme, Conn., is a bacterial illness transmitted when people are bitten by blacklegged ticks, more commonly known as deer ticks. It has become a major health concern in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, where a burgeoning population of deer have helped spread the disease beyond forests into suburbia.

There were 30,000 cases reported in 2010, according to the CDC, with the vast majority in those two regions. Maryland had 1,600 cases that year, well below the peak of more than 2,500 cases reported in 2007. But health officials believe that doctors often miss or don’t report cases, and the actual number could be 10 times higher.

Many people living in the most affected states already have resorted to spraying their yards with pesticides to get rid of ticks, said Katherine Feldman, the state public health veterinarian. A survey in Connecticut found that 29 percent of homeowners contacted already pay a pest-control company to treat their properties, she said.

Health officials said it appears that a significant number of people do get bitten by infected ticks around their homes, not just when they go hiking through tall grass or a forest.

There’s also evidence, they say, that the number of ticks in a yard can be reduced significantly by applying bifenthrin, a synthetic chemical similar to the natural insecticides produced by flowers like chrysanthemums.

“We know that pesticides are extraordinarily effective against ticks,” Mitchell said. “We don’t know if they result in a decrease in human disease.”

Feldman, the state health veterinarian, said volunteers were recruited for the study by mailing fliers to residents in ZIP codes that have had a high incidence of Lyme disease.

The fliers sought single-family households with at least two people who were willing to have a “single, no-cost, commonly used pesticide application” to their yard and answer “short surveys” about ticks and their yards. For their trouble last year, they were offered $40 gift cards to a local grocery store, paid for by the CDC, according to the state veterinarian. The reward for this year’s recruits has been scaled back to $25 gift cards.

Veronika Carella, who lives in western Howard County, was among those invited to participate last year. She said she was appalled because her two children, now in college, have been registered for years on the state’s list of chemically sensitive people. Though their 3.5-acre yard has woods and five resident deer — and her elderly mother contracted Lyme disease, most likely elsewhere — Carella said she believes the disease can be prevented without resorting to pesticide use.

Carella and others contend that prospective volunteers weren’t informed clearly enough about the potential long-term health risks from being exposed to the pesticide.

“When you get a prescription, you’re told all the things that can happen to you, including perhaps dying,” said Ruth Berlin, executive director of the Maryland Pesticide Network, a coalition that seeks to limit pesticide use. She said the basic message given to prospective volunteers was that the pesticide is safe, which she disputes.

An EPA analysis of bifenthrin notes that there were nearly 1,300 incidents involving the pesticide from 2002 to 2009, and that while most were of “low severity,” it appeared that even low amounts of the chemical can cause skin and respiratory irritation and dizziness.

The agency classifies it as a possible carcinogen based on rat exposure studies. It also has listed bifenthrin among a group of pesticides to be tested for their potential to act as “endocrine disruptors,” which may affect humans or wildlife, even at low doses.

Health officials point out that the pesticide is currently registered by the EPA for use in controlling ticks. Participants are advised not to walk in the sprayed area for 24 hours and to keep pets away. Since the chemical is highly toxic to aquatic life, they’ve ruled out testing it on any yard that’s within 100 feet of water.

And they say the study, as well as the information given to volunteers, was approved by both state and federal agency institutional review boards, which are set up to safeguard people participating in research.

“I won’t say they’re not putting themselves at any risk, because I never say that about anything,” Mitchell said. But he added, “I believe the risks have been adequately conveyed.”

Dr. Robert S. Lawrence, director of the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future, disagreed after reviewing the packet of information supplied to prospective volunteers. Lawrence said the fact-sheet should have spelled out more clearly that, while nothing’s been proven, questions have been raised about the long-term safety and potential impact on humans of bifenthrin.

Preliminary results for all three states from the first year of the study indicate that the yards treated with pesticide had 62 percent fewer ticks overall than the “control” yards sprayed with water, according to officials.

But the people in the treated households reported finding just as many ticks on their bodies as the residents of untreated properties, and there were basically the same number of Lyme disease cases reported in both groups.

Federal and state health officials say that if after a second year and more analysis there’s no difference in tick bites or infection among the two groups, then they’ll advise the public that spraying yards with pesticide really doesn’t help prevent Lyme disease. Mitchell said he, for one, sees a certain irony in that, given the criticism the study has received from pesticide opponents.

But critics say such an outcome — discouraging more pesticide use — would not justify the risks to which they believe the study has exposed human subjects.

“We have no idea if we’ve caused more harm than good,” Carella said.

tim.wheeler@baltsun.com

An earlier version misstated the goals of the Maryland Pesticide Network. The Sun regrets the error.

Preventing Lyme disease:

• Apply tick repellants to skin or clothing
• After being outdoors, check your body for ticks
• Take a shower promptly to wash off any insects that haven’t yet attached themselves

Source: The Baltimore Sun

USF researchers question safety of widespread lawn spray

By LINDSAY PETERSON | The Tampa Tribune
Published: May 22, 2012

TAMPA — Two USF biologists published a study last year showing that a popular spray fungicide wiped out the frog population in their research tanks.

They followed up last week with a study that produced findings even more disturbing.

The chemical, chlorothalonil, affected every creature in the tanks, knocking their environment out of balance.

“Some species were able to recover from the chemical assault, but the ecosystem was fundamentally changed after its exposure to chlorothalonil,” said Jason Rohr, co-author of the study published in the journal Ecology Letters.

In short, the water was sickly.

It’s hard to say how this may harm humans, Rohr said. It’s the first study looking at the system-wide effects of chlorothalonil, sold under the names Bravo, Echo and Daconil and used widely across Florida farm fields, lawns and golf courses.

But it raises a warning, said co-author and USF biologist Taegan McMahon.

“I would love to see EPA re-evaluate the safety of chlorothalonil,” she said.

The chemical, in the same family as the banned DDT, kills molds and fungus by disrupting a process known as cellular respiration, which is essential to nearly all forms of life.

It’s one of the last organochlorines regulated for use in the United States, Europe and Australia, Rohr said.

Its wide use is why he and McMahon began studying it several years ago, along with herbicides and pesticides, such as atrazine.

Chlorothalonil is usually applied in a spray form. It’s heavily regulated because inhaling it can be toxic and if handled improperly it can severely irritate skin and eyes.

Rohr and and McMahon looked at what happens when it collects after rain or irrigation washes it off a field or lawn.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

British Columbia Pesticide Ban Campaign Gains Traction

Beyond Pesticides, (May 10, 2012), British Columbia (BC) may become the eighth Canadian province to ban cosmetic (lawn care) pesticides after the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides submit their recommendations to the legislature later this month. The report will outline the bipartisan committee’s findings from over the last eight months on restrictions for non-essential pesticides use province-wide. Roughly forty municipalities throughout the province already have pesticide bans in place, and a survey found that a majority of Metro Vancouver voters across political party lines endorse a province-wide ban on the sale and use of lawn and garden pesticides. Though it is widely popular, environmental groups and human health organizations are expecting industry backlash and have expressed concern about whether or not recommendations will be strong enough and whether effective legislation will result.

“The poll shows nearly two-thirds of Vancouverites know pesticides are linked to childhood cancer,” said Canadian Association for Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) Executive Director Gideon Forman. “Among people with kids, support for a pesticide ban is at 76 per cent,” said Mr. Forman. “Candidates who endorse a strong provincial pesticide ban will be very popular with families.”

It’s believed to be the first time in British Columbia that the legislation has had such a high level of endorsement from supporters of all three parties. The poll results coincide with the announcement that a network of BC environmental and health organizations has launched a non-partisan voter education project to make pesticides a campaign issue in the Port Moody-Coquitlam by-election. Groups, including Greenpeace, Sierra Club BC and Wildsight, are partnering on the voter education with the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). The project includes a website — IVote4SafeLawns.ca — which helps voters send a pesticide ban message to all candidates.

During the past decade, over 150 municipalities and several Canadian provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, have banned the use of “cosmetic” lawn care pesticides because of health and environmental concerns. The bans have had the support of the Canadian medical community, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

Across the U.S. many communities, school districts, and state policies are now following a systems approach that is designed to put a series of preventive steps in place that will solve pest (weed and insect) problems. The systems approach is based on three basic concepts: (i) natural, organic product where use is governed by soil testing, (ii) an understanding that the soil biomass plays a critical role in soil fertility and turf grass health, and (iii) specific and sound cultural practices. Communities that have recently taken steps to ban or limit pesticide use include the states of Connecticut andNew York, Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, Cape Cod, over 30 communities in New Jersey, and Chicago’s City Parks.

Eliminating toxic pesticides is important in lawn and landscape management, considering that of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, and 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (RoundUp) have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomena.

Beautiful landscapes do not require toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage provides information on pesticide hazards and information on organic management strategies. The site also provides an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to assist in going pesticide-free. With the training, landscapers can learn the practical steps to transitioning to a natural program.

You can order Pesticide Free Zone yard signs to display to your neighbors from the Maryland Pesticide Network.

Sources: Canadian Cancer Society Press Release, Times Colonist

Prenatal Exposure to Insecticide Chlorpyrifos Linked to Alterations in Brain Structure and Cognition

While No Longer Registered for Household Use in the U.S., the Insecticide Is Widely Used Around the World and in U.S. Agriculture

(Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, April 30, 2012) Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child, according to a new brain imaging study by researchers from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health at the Mailman School of Public Health, Duke University Medical Center, Emory University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The changes in brain structure are consistent with cognitive deficits found in children exposed to this chemical.

Results of the study appear online in the April 30 PNAS.

The new study is the first to use MRI to identify the structural evidence for these cognitive deficits in humans,confirming earlier findings in animals. Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of chlorpyrifos, or CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

EPA Publishes Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides in Water

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2012) In the face of widespread pesticide contamination of U.S. waterways and the lack of drinking water standards for hundreds of pesticides, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced new health and environmental benchmarks for acute pesticide effects, postponing action on chronic effects to an unspecified future date. While a step forward in identifying hazards associated with pesticide use and exposure, benchmarks have been notoriously limited in fully assessing risks because of ongoing deficiencies in analyzing the complexities associated with chemical exposure, specifically a failure to evaluate the effects of chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, and health effects associated with consistent low-dose exposure.

EPA notes in a newly released April 2012 factsheet, “Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides,” that, “EPA has developed a table of human health benchmarks for approximately 350 pesticides that are currently registered for use on food crops. The benchmarks are for pesticides for which the agency has not previously issued a drinking water health advisory or set an enforceable federal drinking water standard. These benchmarks for pesticides will enable states, water systems and the public to better determine whether the detection of a pesticide in drinking water or source waters for drinking water indicate a potential health risk.

Previously, water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water were set for only handful pesticides. The new benchmarks are for acute (one-day) and chronic (lifetime) exposures for the most sensitive populations (children, pregnant women) from exposure to pesticides that may be found in surface or ground water sources of drinking water. Concentrations of pesticides in drinking water that have the potential for cancer risk are not currently included in the benchmarks, however, EPA intends to include these concentrations “later.” In an important move to be transparent, the EPA factsheet states, “The human health benchmarks for pesticides table includes mainly active ingredients at this time, and thus inert compounds used in pesticide formulations are not included.”

If a water sample exceeds a benchmark, the state or local water municipality would consider how frequently the benchmark is exceeded and the magnitude of the exceedance in other samples. Read EPA’s factsheet. Exceeding the benchmark consistently means that aquatic life and human health may be at risk from continued exposures. However, despite these new benchmarks, pesticide contamination will continue to plague U.S. waterways since oversight and enforcement are lacking at both federal and state levels. Currently, 56 percent of streams sampled have one or more pesticides in water that exceed at least one aquatic-life benchmark. Similarly, more than 20 percent of private domestic wells sampled nationwide contain at least one contaminant at levels of potential health concern.

Research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) finds that when pesticides are applied on fields, gardens, parks and lawns, a percentage of the chemicals end up running off the treated site. More than 80 percent of urban streams and more than 50 percent of agricultural streams have concentrations of at least one pesticide. Drinking water supplies, including groundwater, have been plagued by pesticide and other chemical contamination. Pesticide compounds analyzed in water by USGS include many of the most heavily used herbicides and insecticides, and one or more pesticides or their degradates are detected in water more than 90 percent of the time during the year in agricultural streams, urban streams, and mixed-land-use streams. Pesticides like atrazine, chlorpyrifos and malathion are routinely detected in waterways. EPA has been criticized by the USGS’ National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) for not setting water quality benchmarks for pesticides. According to NAWQA “standards and guidelines do not completely eliminate risks posed by pesticides in waterways because: (1) values are not established for many pesticides, (2) mixtures and breakdown products are not considered, (3) the effects of seasonal exposure to high concentrations have not been evaluated, and (4) some types of potential effects, such as endocrine disruption and unique responses of sensitive individuals, have not yet been assessed.”

Pesticides in waterways have been attributed to the feminization of male amphibians, and intersex fish- male fish producing eggs in the Potomac. Studies link increased seasonal concentration of pesticides in surface water with the peak in birth defects in infants conceived during the spring and summer months, when pesticide use increases and high concentrations of pesticides are found in surface waters. A 2009 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Poisoning the Well, found that atrazine goes undetected by regular monitoring, and that in the 139 municipal water systems from which EPA collected data on a biweekly basis in 2003 and 2004, atrazine is found 90% of the time. Furthermore, 54 of these water systems had at least one spike above 3 parts per billion, atrazine’s current benchmark. Atrazine in drinking water was recently linked to menstrual irregularities in women.

The publication of the new benchmarks follows the March 22, 2010 announcement by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson of a new drinking water strategy that outlines four principles to expand public health protection. One of the principles is to use the authority of multiple laws to more effectively protect drinking water, by sharing data collected under different statutes. The new benchmarks include those for pyrethroids like bifenthrin, cypermethrin, andpermethrin, dichlorvos, imidacloprid, maneb, naled, propiconazole and triclosan.

Attempts to protect U.S. waterways from pesticide contamination have recently been attacked by industry groups and Congress. The bill H.R. 872, “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011,” sought to revoke EPA’s authority to require permits for pesticide discharges into waterways and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, an attempt to reverse a 2007 federal court order instructing EPA to require permits under the Clean Water Act for pesticide discharges. (See Daily News coverage.) Soon after H.R. 872 was passed, the Republican-controlled chamber passed the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,” H.R. 2018. This act would prevent EPA from stepping in to enforce clean water standards when it deemed that a state agency was not effectively enforcing the law. It would also prevent EPA from refining its existing water standards to reflect the latest science without first getting approval from a state agency. Thus far there have been a staggering 125 pieces of legislation that will reduce environmental protection including 50 bills targeting EPA, 16 to dismantle the Clean Water Act, 31 against actions that can prevent pollution, and 22 to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: EPA Pesticide News

April 11, 2012

Study links autism with industrial food, environment

New research models real-world exposures to environment cause of autism

Contact: Katie Rojas-Jahn, IATP (612) 870-3407 krojasjahn@iatp.org

Renee Dufault, FIHRI, (808) 345-6865 rdufault@foodingredient.info

Minneapolis — The epidemic of autism in children in the United States may be linked to the typical American diet according to a new study published online in Clinical Epigenetics by Renee Dufault, et. al. The study explores how mineral deficiencies—affected by dietary factors like high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—could impact how the human body rids itself of common toxic chemicals like mercury and pesticides.

The release comes on the heels of a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimates the average rate of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among eight year olds is now 1 in 88, representing a 78 percent increase between 2002 and 2008. Among boys, the rate is nearly five times the prevalence found in girls.

“To better address the explosion of autism, it’s critical we consider how unhealthy diets interfere with the body’s ability to eliminate toxic chemicals, and ultimately our risk for developing long-term health problems like autism.” said Dr. David Wallinga, a study co-author and physician at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

Commander (ret.) Renee Dufault (U.S. Public Health Service), the study’s lead author and a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toxicologist, developed an innovative scientific approach to describe the subtle side effects of HFCS consumption and other dietary factors on the human body and how they relate to chronic disorders. The model, called “macroepigenetics,” allows researchers to consider how factors of nutrition, environment and genetic makeup interact and contribute to the eventual development of a particular health outcome.

“With autism rates skyrocketing, our public educational system is under extreme stress,” said Dufault, who is also a licensed special education teacher and founder of theFood Ingredient and Health Research Institute (FIHRI). As part of the current study, the authors found a 91 percent increase in the number of children with autism receiving special educational services in the U.S. between 2005 and 2010.

Key Findings:

• Autism and related disorders affect brain development. The current study sought to determine how environmental and dietary factors, like HFCS consumption, might combine to contribute to the disorder.
• Consumption of HFCS, for example, is linked to the dietary loss of zinc, which interferes with the elimination of heavy metals from the body. Many heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and cadmium are potent toxins with adverse effects on brain development in the young.
• HFCS consumption can also impact levels of other beneficial minerals, including calcium. Loss of calcium further exacerbates the detrimental effects of exposure to lead on brain development in fetuses and children.
• Inadequate levels of calcium in the body can also impair its ability to expel organophosphates, a class of pesticides long recognized by the EPA and independent scientists as especially toxic to the young developing brain.

“Rather than being independent sources of risk, factors like nutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals are cumulative and synergistic in their potential to disrupt normal development,” said Dr. Richard Deth, a professor of Pharmacology at Northeastern University and a co-author of the study. “These epigenetic effects can also be transmitted across generations. As autism rates continue to climb it is imperative to incorporate this new epigenetic perspective into prevention, diagnosis and treatment strategies.”

The picture of how and why a child develops autism is a complicated one influenced by many different factors. The authors of this study have given insight into the complex interplay between several of the factors that may lead to the development of this debilitating neurodevelopmental disorder. In order to curb the epidemic of autism in the U. S., continued analysis of the impact of the industrialized food system and exposure to environmental toxins on ASD must be key areas of research moving forward.

# # #

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. iatp.org

The Food Ingredient and Health Research Institute (FIHRI) is a non-profit organization devoted entirely to food ingredient safety, education, and research. foodingredient.info

Additional study authors:

Raquel Crider, PhD

Shepard University

Roseanne Schnoll, PhD
Department of Health and Nutrition Sciences

Brooklyn College of City University of New York

Walter J Lukiw, BS, MS, PhD
LSU Neuroscience Center and Department of Ophthalmology
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center

Katherine Rojas-Jahn

Healthy Legacy Coalition Coordinator

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

612-870-3407

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Roundup Linked to Animal Shape Changes

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2012) The world’s most popular weed killer can induce morphological changes in vertebrate animals, U.S. biologists studying its effect on amphibians say. University of Pittsburgh researchers have found that the weed killer Roundup, in sub-lethal and environmentally relevant concentrations, causes two species of amphibians to change their shape by interfering with the hormones of tadpoles and potentially many other animals.

The study, “New effects of Roundup on amphibians: Predators reduce herbicide mortality; herbicides induce antipredator morphology” is the first to show that a pesticide can induce morphological changes in a vertebrate animal, biological sciences Professor Rick Relyea, PhD, said in a university release. The study was undertaken using simple created wetlands and introducing tadpoles from three species of amphibians –the leopard frog, American toad, and wood frogs. After three weeks, the tadpoles were examined. The impact of Roundup on the shape of tadpole tails was most noticeable in both the wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles.

According to the study, “In wood frog and leopard frog tadpoles, Roundup induced relatively deeper tails in the same direction and of the same magnitude as the adaptive changes induced by dragonfly cues… [T]his is the first study to show that a pesticide can induce morphological changes in a vertebrate. Moreover, the data suggest that the herbicide might be activating the tadpoles’ developmental pathways used for antipredator responses. Collectively, these discoveries suggest that the world’s most widely applied herbicide may have much further-reaching effects on nontarget species than previous considered.”

The presence of predators can cause tadpoles to change shape by altering the tadpoles’ stress hormones, causing them to grow bigger tails to better escape. But similar shape changes seen after exposure to Roundup suggest the weed killer may interfere with the hormones of tadpoles and potentially many other animals. “It was not surprising to see that the smell of predators in the water induced larger tadpole tails,” Dr. Relyea said. “That is a normal, adaptive response.” What shocked us was that the Roundup induced the same changes. Moreover, the combination of predators and Roundup caused the tail changes to be twice as large.”

Since tadpoles alter their body shape to match their environment, having a body shape that does not fit the environment can put the animals at a distinct disadvantage, the researchers said. “This discovery highlights the fact that pesticides, which are important for crop production and human health, can have unintended consequences for species that are not the pesticide’s target,” Dr. Relyea said. “Herbicides are not designed to affect animals, but we are learning that they can have a wide range of surprising effects by altering how hormones work in the bodies of animals.” This is important because amphibians not only serve as a barometer of the ecosystem’s health, but also as an indicator of potential dangers to other species in the food chain, including humans.”

Roundup is a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by Monsanto. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, 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. Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans, and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year.

The inert ingredient POEA, formulated in Roundup products, has also been shown to kill 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. One study found that Roundup alone is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. Another found that Rana pipiens tadpoles chronically exposed to environmentally-relevant concentrations of glyphosate formulations, containing POEA, exhibit decreased snout-vent length at metamorphosis, increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage, and gonadal abnormalities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its registration documents for glyphosate determined that glyphosate, its salts and metabolites are likely to impact adversely the endangered California red-legged frog based on prey and habitat reduction.

A report released last year finds that industry regulators have known for a long time that glyphosate causes birth defects. The report, “RoundUp and Birth Defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” published by Earth Open Source, says that regulators misled the public about the safety of glyphosate for over 20 years. In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the EPA showing new and emerging science, which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risks to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration. Some of the most widespread uses of glyphosate that have been attracting public attention include its use in invasive weed management and home gardening. The increase of glyphosate use in these areas is directly tied to the larger problem of poor land management, including over grazing, over development, soil compaction, and other stressors.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials have also observed that the heavy use of Roundup due primarily to its use 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. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has detected glyphosate in significant levels in rain and rivers in agricultural areas across the Mississippi River watershed, according to one of their recent reports. The greatest glyphosate use, according to USGS, is in the Mississippi River basin where most applications are for weed control on GE corn, soybeans, and cotton. “Roundup Ready” crops were designed to withstand Roundup herbicide and so, growing Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn has led to greater use of the herbicide. 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. USGS has submitted the studies to EPA to be included in data that is being considered as the agency reviews the registration of glyphosate. EPA expects the review to be complete by 2015, at which point it will issue a decision to either continue to allow unrestricted use of glyphosate or institute limitations or a ban on the chemical in light of emerging science.

For more news and information on “Roundup Ready” and other GE crops, see Beyond Pesticides’ genetic engineering page.

Source: United Press International

Researchers investigating role of pesticides in autism spectrum disorder

By Meredith Cohn, The Baltimore Sun
6:51 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2012

One in 88 American children has an autism spectrum disorder, according to a new estimate from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate is 23 percent higher than one the agency released three years ago. Federal officials said some of the increase is attributable to better diagnoses, though it’s not clear how much.

“We don’t know what causes autism, but a lot of children have autism,” said Li-Ching Lee, a psychiatric epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and the principal investigator for the CDC’s Maryland data.

Maryland is among 14 states researchers sampled for the study, and the state’s incidence of autism is even higher than the national rate. One in 80 of the state’s children is estimated to have the disorder, based on a survey of 8-year-olds in 2008.

That’s up 35 percent from 1 in 109 such children two years earlier.

“One thing the data tells us with certainty: There are many children and families who need help,” said Dr. Thomas Frieden, CDC director, during a news conference Thursday. “We must continue to track autism spectrum disorders because this is the information communities need to guide improvements in services to help children.”

Click here to read the rest of the article

Common pesticide makes honeybees get lost and reduces bumblebee hive weight, new studies say

WASHINGTON — A common class of pesticide is causing problems for honeybees and bumblebees, important species already in trouble, two studies suggest.

But the findings don’t explain all the reasons behind a long-running bee decline, and other experts found one of the studies less than convincing.

The new research suggests the chemicals used in the pesticide — designed to attack the central nervous system of insects — reduces the weight and number of queens in bumblebee hives. These pesticides also cause honeybees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives, the researchers concluded.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Bee research details harm from insecticides

By Marc Kaufman, Published: March 29

New research has begun to unravel the mystery of why bees are disappearing in alarming numbers worldwide: Some of the pesticides most commonly used by farmers appear to be changing bee behavior in small but fatal ways.

Two new studies found that honeybees and bumblebees had trouble foraging for food and returning with it to their hives after exposure to the class of insecticides, which is widely used to protect grains, cotton, beans, vegetables and many other crops.

Ironically, the relatively new pesticides have been welcomed as an environmental plus because they are, by almost all accounts, less harmful to other wildlife than previous generations of pesticides.

Although the authors of the studies published Thursday in the journal Science do not conclude that the pesticides — called neonicotinoids — are the sole cause of the American and international decline in bees or the more immediate and worrisome phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder, they say that the omnipresent chemicals have a clearly harmful effect on beehives.

“People have asked me to sign petitions to ban or limit the use of the neonicotinoids for some time, but I never did because I really didn’t know if they were having a major impact on the bees,” said David Goulson of the University of Stirling in Britain, co-author of one of the studies.

“After seeing what we and the others found, I’m much more inclined to sign.”

Unlike older pesticides, the neonicotinoid pesticides are most often introduced directly into the seeds of crops planted by farmers and thus permeate the entire plant as it grows — including the pollen and nectar the bees feed on.

Spraying of the older pesticides could be halted when plants were flowering so bees and other pollinators would not be harmed. With the neonicotinoids, which kill pest insects by attacking their central nervous systems and are derived from the same nicotine found in tobacco, that kind of timing is not possible.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Environmental Chemicals: Evaluating Low-Dose Effects

Linda S. Birnbaum
Director, NIEHS and NTP, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, E-mail: birnbaumls@niehs.nih.gov

Around the world, large-scale biomonitoring programs have provided extensive information about human exposure to a large number of environmental chemicals (Barr et al. 2010; Bilau et al. 2008; Churchill et al. 2001; Woodruff et al. 2011). As these programs extend to look at vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, fetuses, and the elderly, our knowledge of the widespread distribution of many of these chemicals—including hundreds that have been classified as endocrine disruptors—continues to climb. However, the mere presence of a chemical in humans is not necessarily cause for concern. What is concerning is the increasing number of epidemiological studies showing associations between the concentration of these chemicals in the general population and adverse health end points (Braun and Hauser 2011; Crain et al. 2008). Although high exposures following accidental or occupational exposures to endocrine disruptors, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals have shown striking effects, epidemiological studies suggest that low doses may also be unsafe, even for populations that are not typically considered “vulnerable.”

Making connections between the exposome and risk assessment is a difficult but important venture (Paustenbach and Galbraith 2006; Rappaport and Smith 2010). Risk assessments typically examine the effects of high doses of administered chemicals to determine the lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) and no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs); reference doses, which are assumed safe for human exposure, are then calculated from these doses using a number of safety factors. Thus, human exposures to thousands of environmental chemicals fall in the range of nonnegligible doses that are thought to be safe from a risk assessment perspective. Yet the ever-increasing data from human biomonitoring and epidemiological studies suggests otherwise: Low internal doses of endocrine disruptors found in typical human populations have been linked to obesity (Carwile and Michels 2011), infertility (Meeker and Stapleton 2010), neurobehavioral disorders (Swan et al. 2010), and immune dysfunction (Miyashita et al. 2011), among others.

For several decades, environmental health scientists have been dedicated to addressing the “low-dose hypothesis,” which postulates that low doses of chemicals can have effects that would not necessarily be predicted from their effects at high doses. More than 10 years ago, a National Toxicology Program expert panel concluded that there was evidence for low-dose effects for a select number of well-studied endocrine disruptors (Melnick et al. 2002). Now, a diverse group of scientists has reexamined this large body of literature, finding examples of low-dose effects for dozens of chemicals across a range of chemical classes, including industrial chemicals, plastic components and plasticizers, pesticides, phytoestrogens, preservatives, surfactants and detergents, flame retardants, and sunblock, among others (Vandenberg et al. 2012). Vandenberg et al. selected several examples of controversial low-dose test cases and applied an analytical weight-of-evidence approach to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude that particular environmental chemicals had effects on specific biological end points. Their analysis addresses how experimental design, choice of animal strain/species, study size, and inclusion of appropriate controls affect the outcome and interpretation of studies on bisphenol A (BPA), atrazine, dioxin, and perchlorate. Their study provides important insight into the effects of environmental chemicals on health-related end points and addresses the mechanistic questions of how chemicals with hormonal activity can have effects at external doses that are often considered safe by the regulatory community.

Vandenberg et al. (2012) have also collected several hundred examples of nonmonotonic dose–response curves (representing many classes of environmental chemicals) that have been observed in cultured cells, animals, and even human populations (Vandenberg et al. 2012). Most importantly, they reviewed the voluminous endocrine literature on how and why nonlinear responses manifest at different levels of biological complexity, including the combination of competing monotonic responses (such as enhanced cell proliferation and cytotoxicity), the expression of cell- and tissue-specific cofactors and receptors, and receptor down-regulation, desensitization, and competition. Thus, the question is no longer whether nonmonotonic dose responses are “real” and occur frequently enough to be a concern; clearly these are common phenomena with well-understood mechanisms. Instead, the question is which dose–response shapes should be expected for specific environmental chemicals and under what specific circumstances.

Moving forward, studies of suspected endocrine disruptors need to include doses that result in relevant internal human levels and examine a wide range of biological end points. Dose–response studies should include a range of doses to distinguish between linear monotonic and nonmonotonic responses. Nonlinear relationships should not be dismissed. Collaborations between research scientists in academia, government, and industry should be encouraged to allow for development of more sophisticated study designs to facilitate regulatory decisions. It is time to start the conversation between environmental health scientists, toxicologists, and risk assessors to determine how our understanding of low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses influence the way risk assessments are performed for chemicals with endocrine-disrupting activities. Together, we can take appropriate actions to protect human and wildlife populations from these harmful chemicals and facilitate better regulatory decision making.

SOURCE: Environmental Health Perspectives

Low doses, big effects: Scientists seek ‘fundamental changes’ in testing, regulation of hormone-like chemicals

Small doses can have big health effects. That is a main finding of a new report, three years in the making, published Wednesday by a team of 12 scientists who study hormone-altering chemicals. Dozens of substances that can mimic or block hormones are found in the environment, the food supply and consumer products, including plastics, pesticides and cosmetics. One of the biggest controversies is whether the tiny doses that most people are exposed to are harmful. Researchers led by Tufts University’s Laura Vandenberg concluded after examining hundreds of studies that health effects “are remarkably common” when people or animals are exposed to low doses. “Fundamental changes in chemical testing are needed to protect human health,” they wrote.

By Marla Cone
Editor in Chief
Environmental Health News
March 15, 2012

Small doses can have big health effects.

That is a main finding of a report, three years in the making, published Wednesday by a team of 12 scientists who study hormone-altering chemicals.

Dozens of substances that can mimic or block estrogen, testosterone and other hormones are found in the environment, the food supply and consumer products, including plastics, pesticides and cosmetics. One of the biggest, longest-lasting controversies about these chemicals is whether the tiny doses that most people are exposed to are harmful.

In the new report, researchers led by Tufts University’s Laura Vandenberg concluded after examining hundreds of studies that health effects “are remarkably common” when people or animals are exposed to low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds. As examples, they provide evidence for several controversial chemicals, including bisphenol A, found in polycarbonate plastic, canned foods and paper receipts, and the pesticide atrazine, used in large volumes mainly on corn.

The scientists concluded that scientific evidence “clearly indicates that low doses cannot be ignored.” They cited evidence of a wide range of health effects in people — from fetuses to aging adults — including links to infertility, cardiovascular disease, obesity, cancer and other disorders.

“Whether low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds influence human disorders is no longer conjecture, as epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures are associated with human diseases and disabilities,” they wrote.

In addition, the scientists took on the issue of whether a decades-old strategy for testing most chemicals — exposing lab rodents to high doses then extrapolating down for real-life human exposures — is adequate to protect people.

They concluded that it is not, and so they urged reforms. Some hormone-like chemicals have health effects at low doses that do not occur at high doses.

“Current testing paradigms are missing important, sensitive endpoints” for human health, they said. “The effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.”

The report was published online Wednesday in the scientific journal Endocrine Reviews. Authors include scientists University of Missouri’s Frederick vom Saal, who has linked low doses of bisphenol A to a variety of effects, Theo Colborn, who is credited with first spreading the word about hormone-disrupting chemicals in the late 1980s and University of California, Berkeley’s Tyrone Hayes, who has documented effects of atrazine on frogs.

The senior author is Pete Myers, the founder of Environmental Health News and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the new report is valuable “because it pulls a tremendous amount of information together” about endocrine-disrupting compounds. Her agency is the main one that studies health effects of contaminants in the environment.

Birnbaum said she agrees with their main finding: All chemicals that can disrupt hormones should be tested in ultra-low doses relevant to real human exposures, she said.

In many cases, chemical manufacturers still are asking “old questions” when they test the safety of chemicals even though “science has moved on,” she said. “Some of the testing paradigms have not advanced with the state of the science.” Birnbaum wrote an editorial on Wednesday referencing the new report.

Nevertheless, for most toxicologists, Birnbaum said the report does not offer a big shift from what they are doing. The NIEHS already conducts low-dose testing of chemicals, including looking for multi-generational effects such as adult diseases that are triggered by fetal exposures.

“Some people keep slamming the toxicologists. But you can’t paint everyone with the same brush,” Birnbaum said.

However, the scientists who wrote the report said that low-dose science “has been disregarded or considered insignificant by many.” They seemed to aim much of their findings at the National Toxicology Program and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA in 2008 discounted low-dose studies when it concluded that bisphenol A (BPA) in consumer products was safe. Two years later, the agency shifted its opinion, stating that they now will more closely examine studies showing low-dose effects. The National Toxicology Program in 2008 found that BPA poses “some risks” to human health but rejected other risks because studies were inconsistent.

Several of the report’s authors have been criticized by some other scientists and industry representatives because they have become outspoken advocates for testing, regulating and replacing endocrine-disrupting compounds. The scientists, however, say they feel compelled to speak out because regulatory agencies are slow to act and they are concerned about the health of people, especially infants and children, and wildlife.

Industry representatives say that just because people are exposed to traces of chemicals capable of altering hormones doesn’t mean there are any harmful effects. They say that the studies are often contradictory or inconclusive.

In a statement, the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical companies, said Wednesday that the industry “has committed substantial resources to advancing science to better understand any potential effects of chemical substances on the endocrine system. While we have not had an opportunity to fully review this paper, Michael Kamrin, emeritus professor of Michigan State University, has concluded ‘low dose’ effects have not been proven, and therefore should not be applied to real-world conditions and human exposures.”

“Based on the evidence, it is concluded that these ‘low dose’ effects have yet to be established [and] that the studies purported to support these cannot be validly extrapolated to humans,” Kamrin, a toxicologist, wrote in the International Journal of Toxicology in 2007.

But vom Saal and other scientists have said that tests that do not find low-dose effects of chemicals such as BPA are often industry-funded, and they often have tested the wrong animals or the wrong doses, or don’t expose the animals during the most vulnerable time of fetal growth.

Endocrinologists have long known that infinitesimal amounts of estrogen, testosterone, thyroid hormones and other natural hormones can have big health effects, particularly on fetuses. It comes as no surprise to them that manmade substances with hormonal properties might have big effects, too.

“There truly are no safe doses for chemicals that act like hormones, because the endocrine system is designed to act at very low levels,” Vandenberg, a postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University’s Levin Lab Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, told Environmental Health News.

But many toxicologists subscribe to “the dose makes the poison” conventional wisdom. In other words, it takes a certain size dose of something to be toxic. They also are accustomed to seeing an effect from chemicals called “monotonic,” which means the responses of an animal or person go up or down with the dose.

The scientists in the new review said neither of those applies to hormone-like chemicals.

“Accepting these phenomena should lead to paradigm shifts in toxicological studies, and will likely also have lasting effects on regulatory science,” they wrote.

In the report, the scientists were concerned that government has determined “safe” levels for “a significant number of endocrine-disrupting compounds” that have never been tested at low levels. They urged “greatly expanded and generalized safety testing.”

“We suggest setting the lowest dose in the experiment below the range of human exposures, if such a dose is known,” they wrote.

Vandenberg said that there may be no effect or a totally different effect at a high dose of a hormonal substance, while a lower dose may trigger a disease.

The breast cancer drug tamoxifen “provides an excellent example for how high-dose testing cannot be used to predict the effects of low doses,” according to the report. At low doses, it stimulates breast cancer growth. At higher ones, it inhibits it.

“Imagine taking 100 individuals that are representative of the American population and lining them up in order of exposure to an EDC [endocrine-disrupting compound] so that the person on the far left has the least exposure and the person on the far right has the most. For many toxic chemicals, individuals with the highest levels of exposure, at the right end of the line, have the highest incidence of disease. But for some EDCs, studies suggest that people in the middle of the line have the highest risk,” Vandenberg said.

She compared hormones, which bind to receptors in the body to trigger functions such as growth of the brain or reproductive organs, to keys in a lock.

“The more keys that are in the locks, the more of an effect that is seen. But at some point, the locks are overwhelmed and stop responding to the keys. Thus, in the lower range, more keys equals more of an effect, but in the higher range, more keys equals less of an effect,” she said.

Vandenberg predicted the report “will start conversations among academic, regulatory and industry scientists about how risk assessments for EDCs can be improved.”

“The question is no longer whether these phenomena exist, but how to move forward and deal with them.”

SOURCE: Environmental Health News

Fungus-Derived Biopesticide Shows Promise Against Lyme Disease

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2012) Research on a biopesticide derived from a strain of naturally occurring soil fungus has confirmed the material’s effectiveness at suppressing the most common variety of tick that spreads Lyme disease. Researchers from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station demonstrated a significant reduction in the number of blacklegged, or “deer” ticks, up to five weeks after the material’s application. The biopesticide’s active ingredient, which has been registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is derived from the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. The researchers used two applications of the biopesticide approximately seven weeks apart and at two rates before measuring for blacklegged ticks. There was no significant difference in the number of tick nymphs after the first application compared to the control but both treatment rates showed significantly fewer nymphs both three and five weeks after the second application. During the third week after the second application, 87.1 and 96.1% fewer ticks were collected from lower and higher rate-treated sites, respectively, and after the fifth week, tick reductions were 53.2 and 73.8%, respectively.

Data submitted as part of the registration process also indicates that the biopesticide is less toxic to humans and many non-target organisms than other products currently use to prevent the transmission of Lyme disease. These pesticides include DEET applied as a topical repellent and synthetic pyrethroids including permethrin and bifenthrin which are sprayed in outdoor settings to kill disease-bearing ticks. For years scientists have raised concerns about the use of DEET and seizures among children, even though the EPA says that there is not enough information to implicate DEET with these incidents. DEET is quickly absorbed through the skin and has caused adverse effects including severe skin reactions such as large blisters and burning sensations. Use of DEET by pregnant woman has been linked to birth defects, and laboratory studies have found that DEET can cause neurological damage, including brain damage in children. EPA classifies permethrin as a possible human carcinogen, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to the chemical and also lists it as a suspected endocrine disruptor. In addition to these human health effects, pyrethroids are persistent in the environment and adversely impact non-target organisms.

Entomopathogenic fungi such as Metarhizium anisopliae are promising alternatives to these chemical insecticides because they are generally recognized as less toxic to humans, wild mammals, avian species, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. However, a major hurdle concerning the registration of these fungi as biopesticides has been their potential pathogenicity to a wide variety of insects, including beneficial organisms. The challenge in developing effective materials has been to identify and isolate the compounds that are selectively toxic to the target organism. Studies accompanying the registration review indicate that the biopesticide containing Metarhizium anisopliae posed no hazard to lady beetles, green lacewings, parasitic wasps, honey bee larvae, honey bee adults, and earthworms. However, much of the research supporting these conclusions is derived from laboratory studies and close scrutiny of the material’s performance in the field will be essential for drawing more definite conclusions.

According to Kirby Stafford III, Ph.D., Vice Director of the Experiment Station and the Connecticut State Entomologist, the Danish firm Novozymes is preparing to market a preparation of the Metarhizium anisopliae biopesticide for blacklegged tick control in 2014. The company is conducting additional research in 2013 using registered pesticide applicators to further evaluate the material’s performance in the field. Products containing the biopesticide’s active ingredient are already registered for use on nursery and ornamental crops.

Lyme disease is the most prevalent tick-borne disease in the United States with approximately 30,000 confirmed and probable cases reported in 2010. It is caused by the bacterium Borrelia Burgdorferi that is harbored by several species of ticks, but most significantly the blacklegged tick that is ubiquitous in the northeastern and north central United States. Ticks tend to live on smaller hosts, including mice, rodents, and birds during their nymph and larval stages before feeding on deer or humans as adults, when they can pass on the bacteria.

Symptoms of Lyme disease can vary from person to person, but in most cases a bump that looks like a bulls-eye aong with a possible rash at the site of the bite or elsewhere on the body. The bump will be red on light skin and look like a bruise on dark skin, and will usually occur within 30 days of a bite. In that time, the person may also develop flu-like symptoms: fatigue, chills, headache, muscle and joint aches, and a low fever. In about 25% of cases no rash or bump will develop at all. Anyone bitten by a tick in an area with a high rate of Lyme disease should contact their doctor immediately.

For more information on non-toxic tick control, see our Fact Sheet.

Source: Connecticut Post

Image Courtesy: The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Prenatal Chemical Exposures Linked to ADHD in Boys

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2012) New research conducted in New Bedford, Massachusetts suggests that organochlorine chemicals, which were first linked to learning problems in children more than two decades ago, may play a role in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), especially in boys. Previous research has reported associations between organochlorines and ADHD-related behaviors, but this research found sex-specific effects in children born to mothers who lived near the contaminated harbor and dumpsites in low-income communities. This study adds to a growing body of literature associating learning disorders with prenatal chemical exposures.

According to the study, Neuropsychological Measures of Attention and Impulse Control among 8-Year-Old Children Exposed Prenatally to Organochlorines, boys who were exposed to higher levels of the organochlorines -polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDE (a metabolite of DDT)- in the womb scored lower on focus and concentration tests, which indicates they are more likely to have attention problems often related to ADHD.

In the study, umbilical cord blood was collected from 788 newborns born between 1993 and 1998 from four towns near New Bedford Harbor, Mass., to see what they were exposed to in the womb. Roughly eight years after they were born, almost 600 of these children underwent two tests. One measured their ability to focus on and react to a specific target —in this case, the image of a cat on a computer screen- and to inhibit their response to another animal’s image. The other exam included parts of an IQ test that measured their processing speed and distractability, which tests whether they can maintain attention over time. Boys exposed to the highest levels of PCBs during their mother’s pregnancy failed to press a button for the on-screen cat 12 percent more often than children exposed to the lowest levels. Those same boys also scored slightly lower in the other test. The same link was not found in girls. Animal data suggest that hormone-disrupting chemicals, including PCBs, affect each gender differently, but the connection in humans remains unclear.

All of the children studied were born to mothers who lived near the contaminated harbor and dumpsites in low-income communities, where twice as many people live below the poverty line than the Massachusetts average. Unfortunately, children from low-income families are typically exposed to higher levels of environmental chemicals —some currently used and some long banned— than U.S. children from other socioeconomic backgrounds. The exposures in this New Bedford study were fairly low (median: 0.19ng/n PCB; 0.31ng/g DDE), which is comparable to children’s levels throughout much of the U.S. This means that a connection between PCBs and attention problems in boys could exist in other communities as well. Boys are two to three times as likely as girls to develop ADHD, the most common learning disorder reported in children worldwide. In 2007, U.S. parents reported that nearly 10 percent of children between the ages of 4 and 17 had been diagnosed with ADHD, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Banned in the U.S. more than 30 years ago, PCBs belong to the same class of chemicals as other notorious persistent pollutants, including DDT and chlordane. These chemicals persist in the environment for extraordinarily long periods of time and even accumulate in food chains. Nearly every U.S. resident still has detectable levels of an organochlorine chemicals in his or her blood. PCBs and its chemical cousins have the ability to disrupt hormones, which can alter how the brain develops. One study found a link between organochlorines and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.

Organochlorines 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 are often long-term and multigenerational, with pesticides no longer in use continuing to affect public health. This also 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.

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, is continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

Source: Environmental Health News

Reproductive Health Providers Should Discuss Environmental Exposure Risks with Patients

Released: 3/6/2012 8:00 AM EST
Source: Seattle Children’s Hospital <http://www.newswise.com/institutions/view/5737/>
Newswise — SEATTLE – March 5, 2012 – Remove your shoes at the door of your home to avoid tracking in pollutants. Decrease consumption of processed and canned foods. Avoid the use of plastics with recycling codes #3, #4 and #7. Don’t use chemical tick and flea collars or dips for pets. Reproductive health care providers should share these tips and more scientific information with women who want to become pregnant or who are pregnant, but that does not always happen.

A growing body of evidence suggests that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain environmental toxins can impact fetal development adversely and lead to potentially long-lasting health effects. However, most reproductive health providers are not trained in environmental health and do not have the tools to counsel patients on this topic. Now, a team of researchers, led by Sheela Sathyanarayana, MD, MPH <http://seattlechildrens.org/medical-staff/Sheela-Sathyanarayana/> , of Seattle Children’s Research Institute, have created a guide outlining exposure risks and reduction tips (see below) for some of the most common environmental toxins. The clinical opinion, “Environmental exposures: how to counsel preconception and prenatal patients in the clinical setting,” was published in advance online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology <http://www.ajog.org/> .

“Reproductive health providers have an important role to play in counseling women on environmental health risks,” said Dr. Sathyanarayana of Seattle Children’s Research Institute and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. “Providers can be knowledgeable about these issues and empower patients to make positive decisions to reduce exposure and to prevent adverse health impacts to both mother and fetus.”

The guidelines include evidence-based recommendations on how to talk with patients about environmental toxins like lead, mercury, pesticides and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in a variety of products including canned food linings and cash register receipts. It also includes resources for each toxin area, outlining an easy and consistent way to deliver these important messages to women and their partners.

The guidelines contain helpful information for patients, too. “Women and their partners should be aware that pregnancy is an important time for development, that environmental chemicals can cause harm to a developing fetus, and that this topic is important to discuss with health care providers,” said Dr. Sathyanarayana. “There are simple ways to reduce exposures to lead, mercury, pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as BPA by following the guidelines we have outlined,” she said.

Dr. Sathyanarayana’s co-authors include: Susan Buchanan, MD, MPH, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Tanya Dailey, MD, Alpert Medical School of Brown University; and Judith Focareta, MED, RN, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC.

Additional Resources

*”Environmental exposures: how to counsel preconception and prenatal patients in the clinical setting”: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937812001512?v=s5(The uncorrected, original manuscript is currently available for reference).

*Environmental exposures slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38997016@N03/sets/72157629148746614/

Environmental Exposures: Tips for Reproductive Health Care Providers, Preconception and Prenatal Women

Mercury
*Risk factors: Exposure can come from eating fish, contact with quicksilver, and use of skin-lightening creams. Exposure during pregnancy can lead to adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes that include lower IQ, poor language and motor development.

*Reducing exposure: Pregnant, preconception and breastfeeding women should follow U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state-specific fish consumption guidelines. Avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tile fish and large tuna.

*Resources: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/fish/fishchart.htm, http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/guide.asp

Lead
*Risk factors: Risk factors for exposure include recent immigration to the U.S., occupational exposure, imported cosmetics, and renovating or remodeling a home built before 1970. Lead is neurotoxic to a developing fetus.

*Reducing exposure: Never eat nonfood items (clay, soil, pottery or paint chips); avoid jobs or hobbies that may involve lead exposure; stay away from repair, repainting, renovation and remodeling work conducted in homes built before 1978; eat a balanced diet with adequate intakes of iron and calcium; avoid cosmetics, food additives and medicines imported from overseas; and remove shoes at the door to prevent tracking in lead and other pollutants.

*Resources: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/leadandpregnancy2010.pdf, http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/AAPCC/FindLocalPoisonCenters.aspx

Pesticides
*Risk factors: Exposure can come from eating some produce and from using pesticides in your home or on your pets. Exposure to pesticides in pregnancy has been shown to increase risk of intrauterine growth retardation, congenital anomalies, leukemia and poor performance on neurodevelopmental testing.

*Reducing exposure: Do not use chemical tick and flea collars or dips; avoid application of pesticides indoors and outdoors; consider buying organic produce when possible; wash all fruits and vegetables before eating; and remove shoes at the door.

*Resources: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews (focus on the “Dirty Dozen,” a list of the 12 most contaminated products published by the Environmental Working Group, http://www.spcpweb.org/resources/#factsheets

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals
*Risk factors: Human prenatal phthalate exposure is associated with changes in male reproductive anatomy and behavioral changes primarily in young girls. Animal studies suggest prenatal exposure to BPA is associated with obesity, reproductive abnormalities and neurodevelopmental abnormalities in offspring. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals mimic or antagonize the effects of hormones in the endocrine system and can cause adverse health effects that can be passed on to future generations.

*Reducing exposure: Decrease consumption of processed foods; increase fresh and/or frozen foods; reduce consumption of canned foods; avoid use of plastics with recycled codes #3, #4 and #7; be careful when removing old carpet because padding may contain chemicals; and use a vacuum machine fitted with a HEPA filter to get rid of dust that may contain chemicals.

*Resources: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/sya/sya-bpa, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp9-c1-b.pdf, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/

About Seattle Children’s Research Institute
At the forefront of pediatric medical research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute is setting new standards in pediatric care and finding new cures for childhood diseases. Internationally recognized scientists and physicians at the Research Institute are advancing new discoveries in cancer, genetics, immunology, pathology, infectious disease, injury prevention and bioethics. With Seattle Children’s Hospital and Seattle Children’s Hospital Foundation, the Research Institute brings together the best minds in pediatric research to provide patients with the best care possible. Children’s serves as the primary teaching, clinical and research site for the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, which consistently ranks as one of the best pediatric departments in the country. For more information, visit http://www.seattlechildrens.org/research.

Toxics Linked to Hormone Disruption and Asthma Found In Consumer Products

March 8, 2012
New Peer Reviewed Study Analyzed Broadest Range of Products Ever Tested
Public Health Advocates Support Full Ingredient Labeling and New Safety Rules

(Boston) Toxic chemicals linked to the rising rates of endocrine disruption related disease on the rise were found in a broad array of consumer products and reported in a peer reviewed article in Environmental Health Perspectives <http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/home.action> today. The Silent Spring Institute tested 213 consumer products, including cleaning products, cosmetics, sunscreens, shower curtains, air fresheners, drier sheets, and other household goods made by Colgate, Unilever, S.C. Johnson, Johnson and Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Seventh Generation, and Ecover among other manufacturers.

“These test results show that both conventional and so-called green products contain hidden toxic chemicals that are not on product labels — so consumers have no way of avoiding them,” says Alexandra Scranton from Women’s Voices for the Earth, who recently conducted their own tests for hidden toxic chemicals in 20 top brand-name cleaning products. “Companies need to phase out these harmful chemicals, and we need a policy that standardizes labeling guidelines for cleaning products, so companies can’t keep these toxic chemicals a secret.”

Environmental health advocates across the nation see this new study as confirmation that ubiquitous chemical exposure is playing a factor in adverse health impacts.

Martha Arguello, with Physicians for Social Responsibility — Los Angeles, comments, “Silent Spring used Battelle Labs in Ohio, and they found 55 chemicals associated with endocrine disruption or with asthma, including parabens, BPA, triclosan, Alkylphenols, cyclosiloxanes. It is not good science to assume that cumulative exposure to these chemicals is safe.

“This new study found PVC products, including a pillow protector and shower curtain, contained high levels of the toxic phthalate DEHP,” explains Mike Schade from the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. “Phthalates have been banned in toys, but are widespread in many PVC products children come in contact with in schools and even at home. Phthalates have been linked to asthma, adverse impacts on brain development, and reproductive health problems in baby boys. Thankfully, there are safer cost-effective alternatives to phthalate-laden PVC products for our schools and homes.”

“Many products are targeted to women of color who suffer from high health disparities that can be linked directly to the endocrine disruptors found in these products. We can only hope that studies like this one inspire better policies and regulations of these dangerous chemicals,” says Janette Robinson-Flint from Black Women for Wellness. “Mother shouldn’t have to be a biochemist to protect themselves and their families from toxic chemicals in everyday products.”

“We know many folks have tested positive for BPA and Triclosan in our human biomonitoring studies,” says Sharyle Patton, Director of the Biomonitoring Resource Center at Commonweal, “One has to wonder if rising rates of associated health problems are linked to these exposures.”

Caroline Cox, Research Director, Center for Environmental Health, says, “These unnecessary, untested and unlabeled chemicals in dozens of everyday products threaten our children’s and families’ health. It’s past time for federal action that calls for evaluating chemicals for safety before they end up contaminating our homes and our bodies.”

“This is another example of the failure of federal law to protect workers and consumers,” said Sarah Doll from SAFER States, “States have been acting to protect consumers from toxic chemicals in products for years now, and will continue to move on these issues in the absence of federal reform.”

The products were tested in 2008, and the study authors acknowledge that product samples can vary and that some formulations may have changed.

SOURCE National Work Group for Safe Markets

Scientists link mass death of British bees to farm pesticides

Nicotine-based pesticides in widespread use by farmers are implicated in the mass deaths of bees, according to a new study by US scientists.

Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Herald Scotland
January 15, 2012

The authoritative, peer-reviewed research undermines the pesticide industry’s long-repeated arguments that bees are not being harmed, and piles pressure on UK and US authorities to follow other countries by introducing bans on the chemicals.

Pesticide companies have been trying to protect their multi-billion pound businesses by lobbying internationally against bans on neonicotinoids, a group of toxic chemicals designed to paralyse insects by attacking their nervous systems.

Agricultural crops in Scotland, England and around the world are dosed with the chemicals to prevent insects from damaging them. But evidence has been mounting that they could be to blame for the “colony collapse disorder” that has been decimating bee populations.

The US has been losing one-third of its honeybee hives every year, while beekeepers in Europe say that more than one million bee colonies have been wiped out in France, Germany, Italy and the UK since 1994.

Although neonicotinoids have faced bans or restrictions in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia, regulators in the UK and the US have so far accepted the industry’s contention that the toxins were not poisoning bees.

But that view has now been seriously challenged by a new study from scientists at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. They found neonicotinoids in bees, in pollen, in soil and in dandelions, suggesting that bees could be contaminated in several different ways.

“We know that these insecticides are highly toxic to bees; we found them in each sample of dead and dying bees,” said Christian Krupke, associate professor of entomology at Purdue and a co-author of the study. Bees also suffered from tremors, unco-ordinated movement and convulsions, which are all signs of insecticide poisoning.

“This material is so concentrated that even small amounts landing on flowering plants around a field can kill foragers or be transported to the hive in contaminated pollen,” Krupke said.

“It stands out as being an enormous source of potential environmental contamination, not just for honeybees, but for any insects living in or near these fields. The fact that these compounds can persist for months or years means that plants growing in these soils can take up these compounds in leaf tissue or pollen.”

Krupke’s study, conducted with four colleagues was reviewed for errors by fellow scientists before it was published.

The study has been seized on by beekeepers and environmental groups in Scotland campaigning for a neonicotinoid ban. “We are facing a global ecological catastrophe in which honeybees, bumblebees and butterflies are being wiped from the face of the landscape in every country where neonicotinoids have been introduced,” said Graham White, a beekeeper from the Scottish Borders.

“The appalling truth is that we no longer have a credible regulatory system for pesticides in Scotland or the UK. All of the so-called regulators are so symbiotically and financially dependent on the pesticide industry that they have no independent freedom of action.”

Buglife, which campaigns to protect insects, described neonicotinoids as “massively toxic” to wildlife. “All the evidence indicates that this pollution kills bees, moths, hoverflies and other essential pollinator species,” said Craig Macadam, the group’s Scottish officer. “The government must ban neonicotinoids now before further damage is done to our fragile ecosystems.”

The pesticide industry, however, blamed parasites and diseases for killing bees, and maintained that the levels of neonicotinoids in pollen were too low to damage their health. Restrictions in France, now withdrawn, had made no difference to bee health, it argued.

“Although poorly-targeted insecticides would certainly harm bees, farmers value bees and strict practices are prescribed and followed to ensure that exposure does not occur,” said Dominic Dyer, the chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide companies.

“The use of seed treatments reduces the need for a farmer to spray broad-spectrum insecticides on his or her crop for much of the season and is therefore seen as being more environmentally friendly.”