Pesticides and You - Home — Beyond Pesticides and Jim Chuda, Children’s Health Environment...

Volume 20 , Number 1 Spring 2000

New York City’s Organic Gardens • Momentum to ProtectChildren from School Pesticide Use Catches Fire •

The LowDown on DursbanTM • Alternatives to Using Chlorpyrifos

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Pesticides and YouNews from Beyond Pesticides / National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)

The LowDown on DursbanThe EPA phases out chlorpyrifos (DursbanTM), as useand sales in the home use market could continue for

several years to come.

Cultivating the CommunityNew York City’s Organic Gardens

— Jay Feldman is executive director of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP

Letter from Washington

It’s déjà vu all over again. The EPA’s regulatory process isbroken and your help is needed to fix it.

EPA took to the airwaves in June to announce anothersettlement with a pesticide producer on a widely usedand highly toxic pesticide. This time the agency had

reached a negotiated agreement on the insecticide chlorpyrifos,also known as DursbanTM and LorsbanTM, providing for thephase-out of most home uses of the chemical, eliminating itsuse on tomatoes, and adjusting some other uses in what EPAcalls risk mitigation. What we did not hear in EPA Administra-tor Carol Browner’s announcement is that the agreement allowscontinued production of old label Dursban through the end of2000, continued sales of the chemical through the end of 2001,and continued use of existing stocks (including through ser-vices of pest control companies) until supplies are exhausted.

Why is the decision so infuriating from the standpoint ofpublic health, worker health and environmental protection?It makes absolutely no scientific sense to identify risks andhazards as high as they are for the residential uses ofchlorpyrifos, call for these uses to be stopped by virtue ofevery safety threshold being exceeded, and then negotiate anagreement with the chemical manufacturer that allows peopleto be harmed for the next 18 months, in addition to an inde-terminate phase-out period while existing stocks are being usedup. From a worker health standpoint, for those handling andexposed to the chemical in agricultural production, the risknumbers are off the charts. But EPA is silent on these, whiletelling us that the agency will get to these issues during thenext comment period that should go through mid-September.When EPA identifies an imminent hazard like chlorpyrifos,where people’s nervous and immune system are damaged fromexposure, where a child’s brain development is impaired, wherepeople’s health is compromised and lives are ruined, why is itstill negotiating compromises?

EPA says it compromises because any other process it coulduse under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) for cancellation would take longer. Not really! Theagency, using its chemical suspension authority, can and shouldtake immediate action under FIFRA where risks are as high asthey are here. But the agency chooses to negotiate and craft apolitical compromise, despite the resulting compromise topeople’s health and children’s future.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP sued EPA in the late 1980’s whenEPA negotiated an agreement with Velsicol chemical companyto phase-out chlordane use and allow all existing stocks to beused up. Then the issue was cancer and the judge in the casefound that the additional cancers that would be caused byleaving the chemical in commerce for the phase-out period,including the cost to cancer victims, was unacceptable. On aregulatory level, the judge also found that EPA’s failure to evalu-ate the harm caused during the phase-out period was a viola-tion of the agency’s responsibility under FIFRA.

This is what the agency has done again. The risk assessorsfound with chlorpyrifos that continued exposure to most resi-dential uses exceeds the agency’s acceptable risk thresholds,and did not go any further to calculate the real harm caused topeople during the long phase-out period, despite the statu-tory requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act to evaluateaggregate risk (a mixture of residential, food, water and otherexposure). In effect, the agency has no scientific basis for ac-cepting any scenario in which there is continued exposure tothe high short-term risks of chlorpyrifos in a residential andworker setting.

But this is what EPA does. It negotiates bad decisions thatallow people to be hurt. So bad, that the Attorney General ofNew York State, Eliot Spitzer, within hours of the EPA deci-sion, wrote a letter to every major retailer in his state, request-ing that they consider removing Dursban products from theirshelves because of the immediate hazard that they present.

And now on to the insecticide malathion. EPA has just closeda comment period on malathion. We are facing the same prob-lem. Will EPA again negotiate an agreement with Cheminovachemical company that compromises public health?

An article in this issue of Pesticides and You walks youthrough the chlorpyrifos decision, not only because of thechemical’s vast use and wide public exposure, but because ofwhat it tells us about the ineffectiveness of the regulatory pro-cess in protecting public health and the environment.

On an upbeat note, we also in this issue take you on a visitto a couple of really extraordinary community gardens in NewYork City’s Borough of the Bronx. This is the tour that wastaken by participants of the Eighteenth National PesticideForum, which was held in New York in April, 2000. The TaqwaCommunity Farm and The Enchanted Garden of JFK HighSchool, both in the South Bronx, are organic gardens, one runby the community and the other by students, which serve asinspiration and hope for the future.

In more good news, groups across the country are experi-encing tremendous success in their efforts to better protectchildren from pesticide use in schools. This issue brings youup-to-date on several states that have acted recently on schoolsand show us the real potential for change.

Best wishes.

Negotiating the Public’s Health

Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000 Pesticides and You Page 1Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Pesticides and You ©2000 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year by theBeyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides(NCAMP), is a voice for pesticide safetyand alternatives. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP is a non-profit, tax-exemptmembership organization; donations aretax-deductible.

National Headquarters:701 E Street, SE,Washington DC 20003ph: 202-543-5450 fx: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]: www.beyondpesticides.orgPrinted on recycled paper with soy ink

Articles in this newsletter may bereproduced without Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s permission unless otherwisenoted. Please credit Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for reproduced material.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorKagan Owens, Program DirectorGreg Kidd, J.D.Science & Legal Policy DirectorHilary Melcarek, Information CoordinatorJohn Kepner, Program AssociateTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Science ConsultantBecky Crouse, Public Education AssociateLeslie Haug, Intern

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorKagan Owens, Hilary Melcarek,John Kepner, ContributorsFree Hand Press, Typesetting

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP BOARDOF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, MarylandPesticide Network, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas enCalifornia, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s HealthEnvironment Coalition, Malibu, CAMerrill Clark, Roseland Farms,Cassopolis, MIAlan Cohen, Biological PestManagement, Washington, DCShelley Davis, J.D., Farmworker JusticeFund, Washington, DCLorna Donaldson-McMahon, SilvertopFarm, Tiptonville, TNJay Feldman, NCAMP, Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving EarthWorldwide, Plymouth, MNEric Kindberg, Organic FarmersMarketing Association, Fairfield, IAPaul Repetto, Horizon Organic DairyBoulder, COTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,Sierra Club, Lawrence, KSGregg Small, Pesticide Watch,San Francisco, CAAllen Spalt, Agricultural ResourcesCenter, Carrboro, NCAudrey Their, Environmental Advocates, NY

2 Mail

Toxic Wood Utility Poles Must be Phased Out,Student Wants to Make a Difference, PlaneSprays Pesticides on Mother and Daughter.

4 Washington, D.C.

Public Awaits Final National Organic StandardsRule, U.S. Senate Approves School PesticideNotification Language, A Pesticide “Cure” ThatCauses the Illness It’s Marketed to ProtectAgainst, EPA Reverses Decision on Malathion’sCarcinogenicity, EPA Asks Pesticide Manufac-turers to Voluntarily Improve Safety Instructionson Pesticide Labels

6 Around the Country

Schools Adopt IPM Policies, Organic ProduceMore Nutritious than Conventional, Says Aus-tralian Study, Triple Resistant Canola WeedsFound in Alberta, FL Health Department Epi-demiologist Fired After Refusing to AlterMalathion Study Results, Research Shows Dan-gers of Pesticide Combinations, Study FindsPesticides in Babies’ First Bowel Movements

9 Momentum to Protect Children fromSchool Pesticide Use Catches Fire

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Ver-mont pass laws that aim to protect children frompesticides used in schools.

10 Cultivating the Community

New York’s Urban Organic Gardens.

14 The LowDown on Dursban

Provisions of the Agreement & AssociatedEPA Actions.Alternatives to Using Chlorpyrifos

23 Resources

Healthy House Building for the New Millennium:A Design and Construction Guide, Genetic En-gineering, Food, and our Environment, PestManagement in U.S. Agriculture, UnthinkableRisk: How Children Are Exposed and HarmedWhen Pesticides Are Used at School, MultipleChemical Sensitivity: A Survival Guide, The Fateof Frogs: A Closer Look at Frog Deformities

Contents

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover on

Quest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Arkansas Utility Gets theMessage, Wood Utility PolesAre Toxic and Must BePhased OutDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,Thanks very much for the reports yousent. The one about the children [anArkansas study found 100% of childrentested had pentachlorophenol, a highlytoxic wood preservative, in their urine]was interesting and your report PoisonPoles: a Report About Their Toxic Trail andthe Safer Alternatives will be very help-ful. I talked with ConnieWoodard who is with theNorth Little Rock electric de-partment about the utilitypoles. They have already quitputting up the creosote polesand are replacing them withsteel poles and will continueto change them out. I sharedthe information with herabout the creosote on thepoles and the health risks.She is planning to have ameeting with her people thatclimb the poles next weekand again caution them towear their protective gear. Thanks a lot.Shirley SimpsonNorth Little Rock, AR

Dear Ms. Simpson*,I’m very glad that the information we sentyou is helpful. It is shocking that numer-ous studies have found pentachlorophenol(penta), a pesticide considered so toxicthat it has been banned in 26 countries, inthe blood and urine of so many people. TheNational Health and Nutrition Examina-tion Survey II (NHANES II) found pentain 79% of the general U.S. population. Thethree major wood preserving pesticides –penta, creosote and copper chromium ar-senate – all have serious adverse impactson human health and the environment.Each of these pesticides has been shownto impair the immune system, interferewith reproduction and cause cancer.

It is great news that your local utilityhas decided to move away from the poi-son wood utility poles in favor of more en-vironmentally friendly alternatives.

Thanks to people like yourself who areworking to educate utility companies, weare seeing more movement toward steel,concrete and composite poles. These alter-natives do not release toxic chemicals intothe environment, last three times longerthan wood poles, and do not require costlyand hazardous retreatment in the field. Formore information about penta see our lat-est report, Pole Pollution, available on ourwebsite, www.beyondpesticides.org.*Editor’s note: Ms. Simpson is featured ina Video News Release that addresses the

environmental justice issues and the hu-man and environmental health risks asso-ciated with wood preservation plants. Thatvideo is available through Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP.

Student Wants to Make aDifferenceDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,I am a sixth grade student at Sakai In-termediate School on Bainbridge Islandin Washington. In my social studiesclass, we are studying contemporary is-sues. I chose to study the usage of pes-ticides because I am very interested inenvironmental issues and I thought thatit would be interesting to find out howpesticides affect the environment. WhenI am done with this project, I can alertthe community where I live about thedanger of pesticides and how they areharmful to animals and humans. I willalso tell kids at my school about yourorganization so if they want more in-formation, they can write to you. I am

very appreciative of any informationyou send me. I feel that it is my duty asthe next generation to try to educatepeople on the misuse of pesticides.Hopefully, when I am grown, people willrealize how dangerous pesticides areand will stop using them. I hope that Iwill be able to make a difference in thecommunity I live in. Thank you verymuch for your time and help.Janna SanfordBainbridge Island, WA

Dear Janna,We appreciate your commitment to edu-cating your friends and family on the un-necessary use of toxic chemicals in our en-vironment. It takes people like you to makean impact on protecting the environmentand public health. Educating others aboutthe hazards of pesticides and the alterna-tives to their use is one of the greatestthings you can do. Once you’ve educatedyour friends and family, begin talking withmembers of your community and schoolabout adopting policies and practices thatfocus on eliminating the use of pesticidesand provides incentives to use the leasttoxic method of pest control possible.There are several simple steps that every-one can follow to reduce and/or eliminatetheir use of pesticides and still control orprevent pest problems. For example, toprevent pest problems from occurring inlawns it is important to develop a healthysoil, plant well-adapted and pest resistantgrass varieties, aerate the lawn regularly,don’t allow too much thatch to build up,maintain proper soil pH and fertility, keepthe lawn properly watered, and mow thegrass with sharp blades set as high as pos-sible. In your garden, plant pest-repellentherbs and flowers, use mulch to controlweeds, implement intercropping, use croprotations, harness beneficial animals. Inyour home and school, improve sanitation,establish physical barriers like screeningwindows and vents, and modify pests’habitats. In all cases, proper monitoringof pest populations, with action beingtaken only when populations exceed ac-ceptable limits, is key. We are sending youinformation on pesticide hazards, alterna-tive, and model policies.

Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000 Pesticides and You Page 3

edited by Kagan Owens

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Kagan Owens

is Beyond

Pesticides/

NCAMP’s

program

director

Write Us!Whether you love us, hate us or

just want to speak your mind, we

want to hear from you. All mail

must have a day time phone and

verifiable address. Space is limited

so some mail may not be printed.

Mail that is printed will be edited

for length and clarity. Please ad-

dress your mail to:

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP

701 E Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

fax: 202-543-4791

email: [email protected]

www.beyondpesticides.org

Plane Sprays Pesticides onMother and Daughter WhileDriving Across CountryDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,Following is my story of becoming poi-soned by pesticides. In July 1999, mydaughter and I were traveling in south-east Missouri on our way to Tennesseefor a vacation. While driving, we ob-served a crop dusting plane over a fieldto our left flying west. Suddenly ourwindshield was covered with a whitefoamy mist. Not realizing what it wasand being unable to see through thewindshield my daughter, who was driv-ing, turned on the wipers. Immediatelywe heard the plane flying directly overthe car and the windshield was coveredagain. By this time we realized what itwas, as we smelled it coming throughthe air conditioner system, my lungswere on fire, our eyes burned and wefelt like we were choking. We stoppedat a Highway Patrol station a few milesdown the road near Sikeston, MO andreported the incident to a Trooper. Hesaid, “They spray around my place allthe time.” We went on to Sikeston tothe hospital emergency room, where anurse told us, “He sprayed me the weekbefore and I was in a convertible.” Shesaid her eyes and nose burned for anhour or two. Later, I ran an ad in thelocal newspaper and received severalcalls from people with testimonials onthe use of pesticides in that area. Manywho responded lived on small farms ad-jacent to the fields that had beensprayed. Many have had livestock killedand/or they can’t grow gardens or shrubs

in their yards. Pesti-cides sprayed from the

air have damaged theircars and barns with metal

roofs. The following week afterthe air assault I awoke in the middle ofthe night and couldn’t get my breath.My doctor sent me to a lung specialistand after going through a multitude oftests, I was diagnosed with acute inha-lation injury with subsequent airway re-activity. I was treated with steroidinhalants for three months. I have neversmoked nor had any lung problems inmy life. In addition to the breathingproblems, I started having excruciatingmuscle pain in my knees and joints. Anx-ray of my knees revealed nothing toexplain the severe pain and swelling. Icontinue having such stiffness in myjoints - I can hardly walk at times. I ampursuing all kinds of therapy and havegotten some relief. My daughter hasbeen diagnosed with Fibromalgia andsuffers pain every night. On top of myother problems, I have hives every dayfrom an unknown cause, that I neverhad before. I have suffered somememory impairment as the relentlesssymptoms expand to my brain. The Mis-souri Department of Agriculture con-ducted an investigation as a result of myformal complaint, but it was incom-plete. I have appealed to my Senatorswho asked the FAA for a full investiga-tion with no result. I wonder if theAmerican people will ever wake up tothe fact that pesticides and chemicalsare killing and maiming thousands ofunsuspecting people every year.Ruby ClingenpeelJoplin, MO

Dear Ms. Clingenpeel,We are very sorry about you and yourdaughter’s exposure to pesticides. Unfor-

tunately, incidents like yours happenway too often. Incidents like yours re-inforce the need for Beyond Pesticides/

NCAMP to redouble its efforts to stoptoxic poisoning and contamination and

promote safe solutions by working withthe public and policy makers. With your

help, we can evaluate pesticide problemsand pest management practices, documenttheir effects on human health and the en-vironment, and organize for the adoptionof alternatives in our homes, schools,farms, and communities. We will send youour Pesticide Incident Record form for youto fill out so we can document your pesti-cide incident and improve our ability toput pressure on regulators and elected of-ficials to better restrict pesticide use andpromote alternatives. For a copy of thePesticide Incident Record form, seewww.beyondpesticides.org or contact us.

Washington, DC


Public Awaits FinalNational OrganicStandards Rule AfterPublic CommentPeriod ClosesAfter evoking 280,000 public commentsagainst its proposed organic rule in De-cember 1997, the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) is trying its hand atanother proposal to implement the Or-ganic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Thepublic now awaits a final decision fromUSDA after the department closed itspublic comment period on the secondproposed rule on June 12, 2000. OFPArequires that USDA de-velop national standardsfor organically producedagricultural products toensure consumers aconsistent and uniformstandard for organicproducts. USDA’s lastattempt at a rule en-raged the public by allow-ing the use of sewage sludgefor fertilization, geneticallymodified organisms, and irradia-tion (the “Big Three”) in organic foodproduction. The new proposed rule con-tains several problem areas.

Although the revised rule containsseveral improvements from the 1997 pro-posed rule, the continuing problems areserious, according to organic food activ-ists: • Food processors producing prod-ucts labeled “95% organic,” whichaffords producers the premiere front ofthe package organic label, may be al-lowed to incorporate 5% non-organic,synthetic ingredients, although OFPAlimits this percentage to non-organic,non-synthetic. • The revised rule doesnot delineate residue limits for geneticcontamination of organic crops due togenetic drift from farms growing geneti-cally engineered crops, even though thisproblem is one of the most serious envi-ronmental threats to organic agriculture.

Under “excluded methods,” insteadof excluding the practice of geneticengineering and defining geneti-cally modified organisms (GMOs)as a synthetic product, USDAleaves the door open for its use. •The proposal allows residues ofpesticides equivalent to the averageresidues on chemically grown food.Organic food advocates have urged thatUSDA adopt the National Organic Stan-dards Board recommendation of 5% of thelegal residue limit or the average, which-ever is less. • It allows temporary vari-ances from the law, which is a potentialloophole for prohibited practices. • Sew-age sludge in the form of ash may find itsway into fertilizer used in organic opera-

tions under the rule.• Although antibiotics,

growth hormones, andrendered animal proteincannot be administeredor fed to animals, breed-ing cattle could receiveparaciticides while lactat-ing. The proposed rule ad-ditionally does not includeany restrictions on usingmanure from “factoryfarms.” • While the proposed

regulations on organic animal husbandryrequire “access to outdoors,” there is noclear definition of what constitutes “pas-ture” nor does USDA specify exact spacerequirements for humane housing andoutdoor access for poultry, pigs, cattle, andother animals. • Under the proposed rule,private and state certifiers must apply foraccreditation with USDA to continue tocertify organic food. This is to ensure thatthere is a consistent and uniform organicstandard across the country. Many certi-fiers feel that this approach will undercutthe current authority of private certifiersto certify to a higher standard that is de-scribed on the label. Take Action: Writeyour U.S. Representative and Senators andask them to make sure USDA’s final regula-tions conform to the law across the boardand on the above issues and cite docket num-ber TMD-00-02-PR.

U.S. Senate ApprovesSchool PesticideNotification LanguageIn a stunning legislative move, U.S. Sena-tor Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was able to getthe U.S. Senate on record as supporting48-hour notification to parents beforecertain pesticides are used in schools. Shesuccessfully attached her amendment onMarch 2, 2000 to the Education SavingsAccount Bill, S. 1134. The bill faces a cer-tain presidential veto and the Senatorherself voted against the legislation sheamended. That did not stop Sen. Boxerfrom getting the Senate to support noti-fication before application of a pesticidethat is a known carcinogen, a develop-mental or reproductive toxin, or an acutenerve toxin. The amendment, which ispart of the Children’s Environmental Pro-tection Act (CEPA), also asks the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) tohelp schools reduce their toxic pesticideuse and distribute its booklet, Pest Con-trol in the School Environment: AdoptingIntegrated Pest Management (IPM). Be-yond Pesticides/NCAMP supports a de-tailed definition of IPM, because the termhas been abused in the past by the pesti-cide management industry. Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP fears that a severelyabbreviated federal policy in this area,without specifics and clear direction toEPA, will not offer children and schoolstaff adequate protection, and relying onEPA to define this may be problematic.


The School Environment Protection Act(SEPA), S. 1716 and H.R. 3275, is a com-prehensive approach that mandates prioruniversal notification, a clear definitionof least-toxic IPM, and mandated EPAstandard setting to ensure pesticides donot harm children and staff in schools.

In a similar move, Senator Boxer at-tached another amendment aimed at pro-tecting children from the toxic hazardsof pesticides, this time to a military ap-propriations bill, which passed on June13, 2000 by a margin of 84 to 14. Thisamendment prohibits the Department ofDefense’s (DoD) routine use of certainhighly toxic pesticides, specifically thosecontaining a known or probable carcino-gen or an acute nerve toxin and those ofthe organophosphate, carbamate, or or-ganochlorine class, in any area owned ormanaged by the DoD that may be usedby children.

A Pesticide “Cure”That Causes the lllnesslt’s Marketed toProtect AgainstIs the cure worse than the disease or thecause of the disease or both? Decide foryourself — AllerCareTM Dust Mite Car-pet Powder and AllerCareTM Dust MiteAllergen Spray for Carpet and Uphol-stery, products marketed to kill pests thatcould trigger allergy attacks and asthma,have been recalled from store shelves asof January 14, 2000 for causing asthmaattacks, among other symptoms. Theproducts contain the active ingredientbenzyl benzoate and are manufacturedby SC Johnson and Son, Inc. The chemi-cal industry is a big promoter of usingits products to prevent pest-causedasthma. EPA urged the company to ini-tiate this recall of the pesticide due to anexcessive number of incidents reportedby consumers who experienced adverseeffects from using the product. EPA be-gan receiving adverse effect reports fromSC Johnson on the AllerCareTM products

in October, 1999, as required under Sec-tion 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).Over 400 incidents document severe tominor reactions to the products, includ-ing asthma attacks, respiratory problems,burning sensations, and skin irritation.Allergy and asthma sufferers appear tobe most negatively affected by the use ofthe products, and most reactions oc-curred within 15-30 minutes ofproduct application.EPA has also receivedsome reports of reactionsin pets. If you have hadan adverse reaction tothese products, contactJerry Blondell, EPA, HealthEffects Division (7509C),1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,Washington, DC 20460, 1-800-858-7378, [email protected]. If youhave these AllerCareTM products inyour home, contact SC Johnson, 1-877-255-3722, for instructions on where totake the product for recovery, or for a re-fund.

EPA Reverses Decisionon Malathion’sCarcinogenicityMalathion, the pesticide that dousedNew York City residents to combat mos-quitoes carrying West Nile Fever, is onceagain at the center of controversy. OnMay 10, just over a week before the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA)released its revised risk assessment forthe widely used insecticide malathion,the agency was poised to classify this or-ganophosphate pesticide as a suspectedcarcinogen. Reuters newswire reportedthat an EPA source, speaking on condi-tion of anonymity, revealed, “The EPAscientists’ risk assessment finds thatmalathion is a suspected carcinogen.”However, when the final report was pub-lished the next day, the EPA claimedthere was “insufficient evidence” to con-

sider malathion as a carcinogen. Accord-ing to news reports, Cheminova, thepesticide’s manufacturer, objected to thepesticide being labeled as a carcinogenand called for another interpretation ofthe EPA’s data. Responding toCheminova’s grievances, and an analy-sis from its Pathology Working Group

(PWG), which downgradedthe severity of the types of

tumors that were foundin studies, EPA revised its

cancer risk assessment, dis-counted its own scientists’ opin-

ions, and based its determination onthe industry’s analysis. Many envi-

ronmentalists are convinced thatthe EPA’s system of evaluating

pesticides is flawed and possi-bly corrupt. Charging foul

play, citizen groups metwith EPA officials on June28 and have called for an

investigation by EPA’s InspectorGeneral.

In a series of memos, senior EPAtoxicologist, Brian Dementi, questionsEPA’s downgrading of its original diag-noses of tumors found in laboratory ani-mals exposed to malathion. The EPAtoxicologist, in a memo to the Chairmanof the Cancer Assessment Review Com-mittee (CARC), concluded, “[U]nderEPA’s Guidelines in evaluating the tum-origenic response, the PWG reportshould be discounted, and the originaldiagnoses retained.” One of many con-cerns of citizen groups is that former EPAofficials, such as past directors of theOffice of Pesticide Programs and Assis-tant Administrators, are now employedas representatives of the pesticide manu-facturers. In fact, two thirds of the high-est-ranking officials from the EPA’s Of-fice of Pesticides and Toxic Substanceshave left the agency and are currentlyreceiving at least part of their paychecksfrom pesticide interests. For Dr. Dementi’scomments on malathion, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/malathion/cancer_attach.pdf or contact Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP for more information.

Washington, DC


Around the Country

Ventura, CA andAnchorage, AKSchools Adopt lPMPoliciesIn a growing nationwide trend, moreschool districts and states are adoptingsafer pesticide policies. On November 13,1999, the Ventura Unified School Dis-trict (VUSD) school board unanimouslypassed an integrated pest management(IPM) policy that eliminates the use ofdangerous pesticides in Ventura, CAschools. The VUSD policy is simi-lar to San Francisco and Los Ange-les Unified school pesticidepolicies. VUSD’s policy requires allnew school buildings be built toaccommodate least-toxic IPMprinciples. The policy re-quires schools to eliminatethe use of Category I and II(acutely toxic) pesticides,Prop. 65 pesticides (known tothe state of California to causecancer or reproductive damage), and anypesticide identified as a known, probable,or possible human carcinogen by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).It also calls for a six-month phase out ofpesticides identified as neurotoxins orendocrine disruptors. VUSD’s policy re-quires the district to maintain a registryof chemically sensitive individuals andnotify these individuals before pesticide

appli-ca t ions

occur.While this

is an impor-tant first stepin protectingchildren and

staff from pesticides inschools, many believe the establishmentof a registry does not offer adequate pro-tection. The pesticide lobby is promot-ing registries as a way to head offuniversal notification. Universal priornotification of parents and staff is neces-sary because they may not be aware oftheir need to know when pesticides areapplied, and thus may not ask to be puton the registry, according to Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP. Further, universal noti-fication treats pesticide exposure as a

potential public health problemsimilar to other generalized health

threats, such as a lice outbreak.Another policy was

passed in the AnchorageSchool District in late Feb-ruary 2000. The policymandates the use of pro-cedures that safely preventand control pests whileavoiding the unnecessaryuse of toxic chemicals. The

district will use non-chemical preventionmethods first, such as caulking and sani-tizing, and will use pesticides only as alast resort. Under the plan, schools willprovide universal notification to stu-dents, parents, and staff if pesticides areto be used by posting notices and send-ing notices home with students. For moreinformation, contact Californians for Pes-ticide Reform (CPR), 49 Powell St., #530,

San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-981-3939,Pamela K. Miller, Alaska Community Ac-tion on Toxics, 135 Christensen Drive, Suite100, Anchorage, AK, 99501, 907-222-7714, [email protected].

Currently, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPis collecting information on school districtsthat have good pesticide policies. To viewa list of schools with such policies, seewww.beyondpesticides.org. To add yourschool, contact us.

Organic Produce MoreNutritious thanConventional, SaysAustralian StudyA new study showsthat eating organic pro-duce can be better foryou than eating conven-tional produce. Thestudy was commis-sioned by the OrganicRetailers and Grow-ers Association ofAustralia (ORGAA)and shows thatorganic producegrown in soil enhancedwith minerals has up to ten times moremineral content than conventional pro-duce. The Australian Government Analyti-cal Laboratory found that organictomatoes, beans, peppers and beets hadhigher levels of calcium, potassium, mag-nesium, and zinc than the same types ofconventional produce. Calcium levels insome of the organic crops were eight timeshigher, potassium levels were ten timeshigher, magnesium was seven times higherand zinc was five times higher.

Chris Alenson, technical advisor forORGAA, stressed that the study was nota replicated plot experiment with all vari-ables considered and has not been pub-lished in a recognized journal, so theresults “are only an indication and not adirect comparative study.” The resultswere published in the ORGAA newslet-


ter, July 1999. The study indicates thatimprovement of a soil’s mineral contentcan in turn improve the nutritional con-tent of organic produce, according toAlenson. The original soil used in the ex-periment was an acidic, volcanic soil lowin mineral content. It was then mixedwith rock dust (basalt) and mineral fer-tilizer, which contained calcium, magne-sium, potassium, phosphorus, and trademinerals. “A lot more work needs to bedone in this area, and to expand the nu-trient elements to include more mineralelements, proteins, amino acids, andphytochemicals,” said Alenson. For moreinformation, contact ORGAA at 03-9-737-9799 or [email protected]. Send$1.50 to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for asummary of the study.

Triple ResistantCanola Weeds Found inAlberta, CanadaSuperweeds resistant to three herbicidesused in genetically engineered crop pro-duction have been discovered in north-ern Alberta, Canada. The triple resistantcanola weeds have arisen from the cross-ing of three different canola varietiesgenetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant. The superweeds are resistantto the herbicides RoundupTM

(glyphosate), LibertyTM (glufosinate-ammonium) and PursuitTM

(imazethapyr), according to WesternProducer (Feb. 10, 2000). This is thefirst case of natural gene stacking incanola since genetically modified canolawas adopted by farmers five years ago,according to Denise Maurice, agronomymanager with Westco Fertilizers, afertilizer sales company.

The weeds were found in TonyHuether’s field, a farmer who has decidedto stop growing genetically engineered(GE) canola. In 1997, Huether seededtwo fields with canola — one with acanola resistant to RoundupTM and theother with two canola varieties, one re-sistant to LibertyTM and one resistant to

PursuitTM. The two fields were only 30meters apart. The year after he plantedthe fields, he discovered volunteer canolaweeds resistant to Roundup where nonehad been planted. Double resistance wasconfirmed the first year, and the follow-ing year, triple resistance was con-firmed. The mixing of allthree herbicide-toleranttypes has been blamed onbee and wind pollination be-tween the two close fields.Researchers recommend atleast 200 meters betweenfields of GE canola varietiesand any other canola field toprevent genetic pollution. Ac-cording to Huether, Alberta Ag-riculture has been testing hiscrops for herbicide-resistancewithout making the results pub-lic knowledge. “Many plants weretaken and a lot of seeds taken and grownout in the lab and sprayed with the her-bicide, and DNA tests done on it, andthe results are not being made public. Ifeel that should be made public,” he said.

Canola scientist, Keith Downey, whocreated modern canola, stated, “Wehaven’t created a superweed or anythinglike that.” He said that adding 2, 4-D ora similar herbicide to a chemical mix willkill any wayward weeds, noting, “I don’tthink it means anything to consumers,”according to Western Producer. For moreinformation on canola herbicide resistance,contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

FL Health DepartmentEpidemiologist FiredAfter Refusing to AlterMalathion StudyResultsThe Florida Health Department has firedepidemiologist Omar Shafey, who refusedto alter a draft report on pesticide poi-soning attributed to public exposure tothe insecticide malathion, aeriallysprayed in the Mediterranean fruit fly

(Medfly) eradication program. Dr.Shafey’s version of the report linked ill-nesses in the Medfly spray zones in Lake,Manatee, and Highlands counties inFlorida to the use of malathion in 1998and included recommendations to ceasespraying of the organophosphate pesti-cide. The Medfly is a serious crop pest

in the region, and malathion sprayedfrom planes and helicopters is

viewed as the cheapest,most effective solution,despite proven preven-

tion and biologicalmethods. Dr.Shafey’s recom-

mendations werecut from the finaldraft of the study,which went onto say that no

association betweenthe malathion spraying and

the reported rashes, breathingproblems, and other health effects

could be established.According to a March 18, 2000 Tampa

Tribune report by Jan Hollingsworth, Dr.Shafey was fired for falsifying travelrecords, conduct unbecoming of a pub-lic employee, and threatening and/orabusive language, charges that Dr. Shafeycalls “false and malicious.” He plans tosue the agency under state and federal“whistleblower” laws, according to theTribune. In firing Dr. Shafey, the depart-ment made no mention of Dr. Shafey’srole in the Medfly report. “Falsificationof records” charges come from Dr.Shafey’s submission of an expense reportfor a trip to Chicago. State employees areentitled to $50 per day expenses whileon a business trip. An investigation intoShafey’s trip determined that he workedonly three-quarters of one day, resultingin an over-charge of $12.50 to the de-partment, according to the Tribune.“Conduct unbecoming” chargesstemmed from an email Dr. Shafey sentto a colleague at the Center for DiseaseControl in which he noted that potas-sium chloride used in the state’s first

Washington, DC


Around the Country

execution by lethal injection had notbeen approved for that use by the Foodand Drug Administration. Sharon Heber,director of the agency’s division of envi-ronmental health, deemed the email “in-appropriate.” The abusive languagecharge came from Dr. Shafey calling hisboss a “worm” and “the lowest form oflife,” upon learning of the agency’s in-tent to fire him, said the Tribune. Copiesof the Tampa Tribune article are availablefor $1.95 at http://archive.tampatrib.comusing the keyword “Shafey.” For more in-formation, contact Jan Hollingsworth,Tampa Tribune, 813-259-7607 or BeyondPesticides/NCAMP.

Research ShowsDangers of PesticideCombinationsA new study shows that the insecti-cide chlorpyrifos is made more toxicwhen used in combination with otherpesticides. Mohammed Abou-Dania,Ph.D., professor of neuro-biology andneuro-toxicology at Duke University inNorth Carolina, first established the levelat which chlorpyrifos, a commonly usedorganophosphate, had no effect on thenervous system of the lab animals. Dr.Abou-Dania also looked at the pesticidespermethrin and DEET. When applied in-dividually, these chemicals produced noneurological problems at their establishedlevels. However, when combined, theyproduced a toxic effect equivalent to thelethal dose of chlorpyrifos.

There are three reasons why thesechemicals are far more dangerous whenused in combination than when they areused individually, according to Dr. GoranJamal, a neurologist at the West LondonRegional Neuro-Science Centre of theImperial College’s of Medicine in London.First, animals endure stress when exposedto a combination of chemicals, which inturn makes the protective role of the bloodbrain barrier less effective, allowing thelevel of toxics to cross into the brain to be100 times higher. Second, tissue that has

been exposed to a toxin becomes moresensitive and receptive to other toxic sub-stances. Third, certain chemicals bind toenzymes that detoxify the body, makingthe enzymes unavailable to protect thebody from other intruding chemicals. Dr.Jamal makes the following comparison,“It’s like releasing 200 criminals in Lon-don and taking away the police officersthat are usually on duty. There is boundto be some damage.”

The three pesticides used in Dr.Abou-Dania’s study could easily be foundin a typical American home. Chlor-pyrifos, which is sold as DursbanTM, is acommonly used insecticide that can befound in lawn care products, flea

collars, household aerosols, andtermite controls. Permethrin, a syntheticpyrethroid, can be found in lawn careproducts, termite controls, lice controls,household foggers, and in insect repel-lants. DEET is one of the most commoninsect repellants, found in many insectsprays and lotions. (See story on phase-out of chlorpyrifos home and garden useson page 10) For a copyof the study (22pp),send $4.00 to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Study Finds Pesticidesin Babies’ First BowelMovementsA recent study finds that newborn ba-bies’ first bowel movements contain resi-dues of multiple toxic chemicals. Thestudy, “Environmental Pollutants inMeconium in Townsville, Australia,” byL. Deuble, et al., of the Department ofNeonatology, Kirwinwas Hospital forWomen in Townsville, Australia, andDepartment of Pediatrics, Wayne StateUniversity, Michigan, assesses the preva-

lence of pesticides, heavy metals andpolychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) inmeconium, or a newborn baby’s firstbowel movement. Meconium sampleswere collected from August 1998 to No-vember 1998 from 44 newborn babies,frozen, and flown to the Department ofPediatrics, Wayne State University, MI,for analysis for the pesticides dia-zinon, pentachlorophenol, lindane,chlorpyrifos, malathion, parathion, chlo-rdane, DDT, the industrial pollutant PCB,and heavy metals. Results were thenlinked to demographic data of race (ei-ther Aborginal and Islander (AI) or not),birth weight (less than or greater than

2,500 grams, or 5.5 lbs.), ges-tational age, number of mis-carriages, and thyroid status.Of the 44 samples analyzed,21 were from babies weigh-ing less than 2,500 grams. 35(78%) of the total samplescontained lindane, 19 (43%)contained pentachlorophe-nol, 26 (59%) contained

chlorpyrifos, 15 (34%) containedmalathion, 7 (16%) contained chlordane,23 (52%) contained DDT, and 12 (27%)contained PCB. No samples were foundto contain diazinon, parathion or heavymetals. Significantly, all babies less than2,500 grams were positive for lindane,linking exposure to this pesticide withlow birth weight. Additionally, more AIbabies were exposed to chlorpyrifos.While DDT has not been available inAustralia since 1981, lindane since 1985,and chlordane since 1995, these pesti-cides still exist in the food chain and canbe passed from the mother to the fetus,explaining their presence in baby meco-nium. An average of three different pes-ticides was found in each meconiumsample. Although individual pesticideconcentrations were low, many babieswere found to be positive for more thanone pollutant and could have experi-enced additive or synergistic effects, saysthe study. For a copy of the study sum-mary (4pp), send $1.00 to Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP.


Regarding school pesticide notificationprovisions, New York’s Neighbor NotificationBill set up a parent and staff registry for thoserequiring notice before each pesticide ap-plication, in combination with universalnotice sent to all staff and parents three timesa year. For daycare facilities, notice of eachpesticide application must be posted twodays prior to a treatment in a common areafor parents and guardians to see. Pesticideapplications made when a school or daycarefacility is unoccupied for three continuousdays following the application is exempted

from notification requirements. (As of printing, this bill is wait-ing for the governor to sign.)

Vermont passed two acts, the Toxic Materials and Indoor AirQuality in Vermont Public Schools Act and the Pesticide AdvisoryCouncil, Funding and Providing Public Information on the Use ofPesticides Act, which take a different approach to calling fordecreases in school pesticide use. The Toxic Materials and In-door Air Quality in Vermont Public Schools Act directs state agen-cies to create and maintain a clearinghouse of information tohelp schools identify and eliminate potential sources of envi-ronmental pollution in schools, provide technical assistance toschools, give workshops on environmental health for schoolpersonnel, develop a model school environmental health policy,and establish an environmental health certificate to be awardedto schools that have adopted and implemented a plan whichgoes beyond the provision in the model policy. The PesticideAdvisory Council, Funding and Providing Public Information onthe Use of Pesticides Act authorizes the state’s Pesticide Advi-sory Council to recommend benchmarks regarding the stategoal of achieving an overall reduction in the use of pesticidesand to issue an annual report detailing the state’s progress inreaching those benchmarks. (Signed by governor May 2000.)

Although some of these new laws have limitations in theirprotection, all are instrumental in improving protections frompesticides for children while at school. The key to the successof these new laws is going to rely heavily on their implementa-tion and keeping the state agencies and schools accountable.

Across the country, school pesticide laws and policies arebecoming more commonplace and the state and communityefforts to get such policies adopted are becoming more effec-tive. The momentum behind the school pesticide use issue can-not be stomped out– it can only continue to further drive themovement to success for the rest of the nation. For more infor-mation on state pesticide laws, contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPor visit us at www.beyondpesticides.org.

Despite the industry theory of “hotspots,” that good things onlyhappen in certain communities, the

movement to protect children from schoolpesticide use is moving like wildfire acrossthe country. Since the turn of the millen-nium, four states, Massachusetts, Minnesota,New York, and Vermont have passed lawsthat aim to protect children from pesticidesused in schools, exemplifying the momen-tum on this issue. The four new state lawsdemonstrate the varying political climate instate legislatures and industry pressureacross the country. Although these laws are a great victory forchildren, all show some degree of a compromise on providinguniversal prior notification and decreasing and/or eliminatingtoxic pesticide use in schools.

With the recent passage of the Children’s and Families’ Pro-tection Act, Massachusetts becomes the first state in the nationto ban the use of the most dangerous pesticides in and aroundschools. When outdoor pesticides are used, the bill requires48-hour prior universal notification to students, parents andteachers and requires signs to be posted prior to treatment andremain in place for three days following the treatment. How-ever, the bill contains provisions to waive notification require-ments if pesticides are used in a five-day period when school isout of session. Because of long residual lives of many pesti-cides and their by-products, this provision can undermine thevalue of notification in many cases. For indoor school pesti-cide applications, the bill prohibits the use of certain pesticideapplication methods in areas inaccessible to children and whenchildren are on school property. All schools and state agenciesare required to adopt an integrated pest management (IPM)plan. Although this bill has weaknesses, it should be consid-ered, along with Maryland’s school pesticide law, a model forother states as it is a positive improvement and establishes land-mark requirements regarding the use of pesticides at school.(Signed by governor May 2000.)

Minnesota passed the Janet B. Johnson Parents’ Right-to-KnowAct which requires schools using pesticides classified by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as toxicity I, II,or III and all restricted use pesticides to provide notification ofthe school’s pesticide use at the beginning of the school year.The act provides for a notification registry for parents. Althoughthis bill is a victory, parents and school staff consider this bill astepping-stone to more restrictive and protective measures topesticide use in schools and universal notification of their use.(Signed by governor May 2000.)

Momentum to Protect Children from School PesticideUse Catches Fire, Four States Join the MovementBy Kagan Owens

Pesticides and You Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

In 1992, Abu Talib and the oth-ers received permission from thecity to garden half of the vacant lotat 164th Street and Ogden Avenue,which at the time was littered withhypodermic needles and illegallydumped trash. The neighborhoodpulled together, cleaned the lot andplanted for their first season. Theywere told by the city that if the gar-den worked out, the following yearthey could have the rest of the lot.After only six months, they weregiven the full two acres.

Since its start eight years ago, the garden has certainlybeen a success. Upon entering the Taqwa Community Farm,you realize that the gardeners have created an atmosphereof beauty and tranquility. Inside the gate, a path lined withdaffodils and tulips leads to a trellis covered in grape vines,where the young gardeners finish their homework beforestarting their work in the garden. Side paths intersect themain walkway, wandering through the raised beds of woodenplanks and imported soil, growing potatoes, spinach, stringbeans, collards, carrots, squash, peas and cabbage for theseason’s harvest. There are also blueberry, raspberry and mul-berry bushes and recently planted fruit trees. Once, Talibwas challenged by a neighbor who said there was no waythat anyone could grow corn in the middle of the city. Sothat was exactly what he did.

Off to the side, native herbs grow in a pyramid-like raisedbed structure. “I didn’t plant it,” insists Talib, “The birds

ln April 2000, participants ofthe 18th National PesticideForum, Solving a Public

Health Crisis, had the opportunityto visit two community gardens inNew York City, the neighborhood-run Taqwa Community Farm andthe student-run Enchanted Gardenat JFK High School, both in theBronx. Members of the Green Gue-rillas, a non-profit organizationdedicated to the New York Citycommunity garden movement, ledthe tour.

Taqwa Community FarmThe neighborhood surrounding the Taqwa Community Farm,an organic community garden in the South Bronx, is not ex-actly a regular stop for most New York City tourists. But inthis vacant lot where visitors to the neighborhood might haveseen debris and despair, a group of local residents had a vi-sion of hope and saw great resources for the community. “Thiscommunity seemed like it had died; narcotics had taken over,”recalls Abu Talib, one of the head gardeners and founders ofthe Taqwa Community Farm. “Neighbors asked me to getpeople together and do something for the community. Wehad several meetings and we talked, talked, talked and noth-ing happened. Eventually one sister said let’s get us a lot. AndGod bless, there was a lot.”

Cultivating the CommunityNew York City’s Organic GardensBy John Kepner

Head gardener, Abu Talib tells the history of the Taqwa Community Farm to theparticipants of the 18th National Pesticide Forum, New York City.

Daffodils brighten this formerly vacant lot in the South Bronx.

Abu Talib explains the health benefits of mudwort, which can be brewed as an herbal tea.


brought it, squirrels brought it, God brought it. We just culti-vated it.” During the garden tour, Talib, who is also an expe-rienced herbalist, explained the health benefits of several herbsgrowing at Taqwa to the participants of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s National Pesticide Forum. “The knowledge isaround, but it’s not making money for the drug companies.But I’m not into the drug companies. I’m into getting well,and the people here are well.”

In addition to Talib, there are over 100 families that havegarden plots in the Taqwa Community Farm. In 1999 the gar-deners produced over 5,000 pounds of organic food, half ofwhich was donated through Taqwa’s own Grow and Give pro-gram. “We line two long tables with food,” explained Talib.“People who are hungry come in and take what they need.What the heck are people doing hungry in the country withthe best land in the world? It’s not perfect, but I do the best I

can do to change this whole system around.” The Taqwa Com-munity Farm also donates to local soup kitchens and is anactive participant in the City Farms project, a collaborativeprogram consisting of non-profit organizations, communitygardens, and emergency food centers that work together toboost urban food production.

In the summer, the gardeners organize communitybarbeques in the garden, serving food from the season’s har-vest. A mural on the side of an adjacent building depicts theimportant role that the gardenplays in the life of the neigh-borhood. Ximena Naranjo,associate director at GreenGuerillas explains the impor-tance of community gardensbeyond food production, “It’snot Central Park, but peoplecan feel like it’s their CentralPark. The people who buildcommunity gardens are com-munity leaders. They took itupon themselves to revitalizethe community by creating aplace where people can feel

safe. Everyone has a right to open space.” Abu Talib is also afirm believer in the empowerment of working in the garden,saying, “He who controls your breadbasket, controls your des-tiny. I think that one of the things we overlook if we have agarden, is that we’re not just raising food, we’re raising people.”

The Enchanted Gardenat JFK High SchoolFive years ago a group of students from one of the most popu-lated high schools in New York City were tired of looking atgarbage piling up in the vacant lot surrounding their schooland set out to convert it into a green, peaceful and productivegarden. JFK High School, located in the Bronx, is a massivebuilding with eight floors holding 4400 teenage students and

300 teachers. A group of 93 students, who make up the envi-ronmental club, now manage “The Enchanted Garden,” lo-cated next to their school parking lot.

The entrance of the garden brings you to the beginning ofthree paths from which to choose. The right path will takeyou to a small wetland full of cattails; the center path walksyou through a shaded garden to a bridge that crosses a pondwhere goldfish and turtles live. The path to the left leads toeight raised beds for intensive food production. As a member

of the City Farms project,the students established arelationship with a soupkitchen in Harlem, towhich they donate part oftheir harvest. TonyThoman, one of twoteacher advisors to the En-chanted Garden says, “In-volvement with CityFarms has given our kidsa view as to how the gar-den can be a food resourceto the less advantaged inthe community.”

A mural, mounted to the side of an adjacent building, depicts a summer afternoon in theTaqwa Community Farm.

The Enchanted Garden serves as an interdisciplinary learning space forthe students of JFKHigh School.

The students converted a water run-off ditch, once filled with bags of trash, into an aquaticgarden, complete with goldfish and lilypads.


The garden is also a great resource for the students. JoyesBaby, a member of the environmental club recalls, “We plantedan herb garden as part of our summer project. In September,we dried the herbs in our ovens at home and sold them in theteachers’ lunchroomalong with fresh cutflowers. We made$220! Now we’re do-ing research on howto make soaps andcandles with ourherbs.” Throughgrants from theHudson River Foun-dation, the En-chanted Garden pro-vides rewardingsummer jobs to sev-eral JFK High Schoolstudents. Studentsalso conduct research and produce pamphlets on the manybutterfly and bird species living in the garden.

The presence of the Enchanted Garden at JFK High Schoolhas an undeniable, positive impact on the students as well asthe ecological environment it embodies and sustains. The gar-den provides a holistic learning space where students learnto work as a team as well as express their individuality. Theycan enhance their scientific research skills or explore theirartistic creativity. When one walks into the Enchanted Gar-den, there is a magical feeling, not only because the breezecarries a fragrance of roses and sage, but also because of thesense of empowerment and confidence heard in the studentsvoices as they speak with pride and love for their garden.

The City FarmsHunger and unemployment are a reality in New York City’slow-income neighborhoods. From 1980 to 1997, the numberof emergency food centers soared from 50 to over 1,000. While450,000 New Yorkers were served by emergency food centers

every month, 73,000 people were still being turned away.These numbers mushroomed as welfare reform took effect.Simultaneously, the regional agriculture and the capacity toaddress food needs sustainable declined. In New York Statealone, nearly 20,000 farms and over 1 million acres of farm-land have been lost since 1980.

In March of 1996, a number of people gathered at the invi-tation of Just Food and the Green Guerillas to work towards asolution to this urban food crisis and to learn more about thecity’s community gardens and how they could serve as an im-portant component in the process. What they learned was thatalthough there were many independent gardens in the city, theywere primarily ornamental gardens and food production wasminimal. Looking at the tremendous and rising needs that couldpotentially be met by this huge, untapped resource, the orga-nizers explored the role that their organizations could play inhelping community gardens contribute to local food security.

Later that year, five groups consisting of Just Food, GreenGuerillas, CornellCooperative Ex-t e n s i o n - N Y C ,Food for Survival,Inc. and NortheastOrganic FarmingAssociation-NY,formed the CityFarms project. TheCity Farms helpspeople who live inl o w - i n c o m eneighborhoods tocreate an urban ag-riculture networkin New York City

and by helping regional farmers develop long-term relation-ships with New Yorkers and familiarity with urban markets.

The goals of this project include: improving the avail-ability of fresh food in New York City’s low-income neigh-borhoods by expanding the capacity of urban grower to pro-

“He who controls your breadbasket, controls

your destiny. I think that one of the things we

overlook if we have a garden, is that we’re not

just raising food, we’re raising people.”

–Abu Talibco-founder Taqwa County Farm

Nutrients from the “Enchanted Compost” replenish the soil in JFK High’s organic garden.

In 1999, the City Farms Program produced over 10,000 pounds of food for the residents ofNew York City.


duce organic, nutritious food and distribute it to local resi-dents through established food sites; promoting community-based entrepreneurship and economic opportunity throughfood production, processing, and marketing; strengtheningurban markets for farmers by fostering relationships amongcity residents and regional growers; and building public sup-port for the preservation of open space for food production.Currently, there are 15 gardens, located in each of the 5 bor-oughs, participating in the City Farms project. Both theTaqwa Community Farm and the Enchanted Garden are CityFarms members.

Community Gardens Threatenedby DevelopmentCommunity gardens have been slowly losing ground in NewYork City for many years because of development and a lackof support from city hall. However, the fate of the gardenstook a turn for the worse in May of 1999, when MayorGuilliani turned the garden lots over to the Department of

Housing and Preservation. Immediately, 113 gardens were onthe market for development. Today there are over 500 gar-dens in the city that could be bulldozed at anytime. New YorkCity commissioner Richard Roberts claims that developmentof the lots is needed for affordable housing. They dismissclaims that the city is trying to make money in a hot realestate market.

While Ximena Naranjo and most gardeners agree that af-fordable housing is needed in New York, she contends thatthe city’s intentions to sell the lots are not honorable. “Thereare 11,000 vacant lots in the city, but the gardens make thearea more attractive and more profitable for the city.” Naranjoalso points out that the city was not selling the land just to bedeveloped for low-income housing, but to the highest bidder.

One day before the city was going to auction the first 113sites, the Green Guerillas hosted the Save the Gardens benefit

to raise money for the gardens. Author and urban farmer,Michael Abelman explained the importance of the gardens atthe Green Guerillas benefit. “When the food system no longerfulfills the needs of the people, whether for economic or dis-tribution reasons or because of concerns for food safety…they take the opportunity into their own hands. While manypeople may look to a new agriculture as the source of salva-tion, the truth is that the real revolution is taking place in theneighborhoods, backyards, and towns.”

Fortunately, people agreed with the Abelman and the GreenGuerillas. On May 13, 1999, due in part to the support offoundations and celebrities like Bette Midler, the 113 gardensauctioned by the city were bought and preserved. “Commu-nity gardens reflect the personality and character of the neigh-borhoods they’re in and are vital to improving the quality oflife for all the citizens of New York,” Midler told USA Todaylast May. Unfortunately, the fate of the remaining 500 gar-dens, however, remains in limbo. New York State AttorneyGeneral Eliot Spitzer has temporarily protected the gardenswith a lawsuit stating that the gardens cannot be sold with-out an environmental-impact statement. The city is currentlyappealing the restraining order.

For more information on New York City’s communitygardens contact: Green Guerillas, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor,New York, NY 10012, (212) 674-8124,www.greenguerillas.org. For information on the CityFarms contact Just Food at 307 7th Avenue, Suite 120,NYC 10001, 212-645-9880, www.justfood.org. For infor-mation on community gardens across the country or to getin touch with a garden in your area, contact the AmericanCommunity Gardening Association, 100 N. 20th Street, 5thFloor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 988-8785,www.communitygarden.org.

In a collaborative effort with the Cornell Cooperative Extension, gardeners set up a hydro-ponic gardening system in the Taqwa Community Farm.

Gardener Bobby Watson explains the need for the gardens in the community.


The LowDown on Dursban • The LowDown on Dursban • The LowDown on Dursban • The LowDown on Dursban

The LowDown on Dursban;The LowDown on Dursban;The LowDown on Dursban;The LowDown on Dursban;The LowDown on Dursban;MOEdMOEdMOEdMOEdMOEd* Down By EPA Down By EPA Down By EPA Down By EPA Down By EPADo EPA Negotiations With Pesticide ManufacturersCompromise Public Health?By Jay Feldman

Could EPA have struck a better deal with Dow than it did? ShouldEPA have struck a deal that allowed for continued exposure to manychlorpyrifos uses whose risks are off the EPA risk charts? Why doesn’tEPA use it regulatory authority to cancel pesticides like chlorpyrifosand stop exposure as soon as the hazard is fully characterized? Doesnot the data support the conclusion that continued exposure tochlorpyrifos represents an imminent hazard? Why doesn’t EPA just

stop the use of this chemical, institute a productrecall, and move on?

After the EPA press conference, BeyondPesticides/NCAMP was quick to point out thatthe EPA chlorpyrifos announcement beginsthe process of getting high consumer and chil-dren exposure uses of Dursban off the mar-ket, but puts people at risk by not stopping itsuses immediately. The decision allows for an18-month phase-out of sales of deleted uses,and a lengthy period, probably years, duringwhich pest control companies and other ap-plicators can use up existing stocks of thechemical. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP has ex-pressed concern about the extraordinarily highrisks associated with use during the phase-out

period, some that exceed EPA levels of concern by over 100 times.No public notice is required during the phase-out period for

continued retail sales and use of existing stocks. Production ofthe phased-out products can continue until the end of 2000,and in some cases longer.

In a letter to major retailers, Mr. Spitzer said the voluntarypullback agreed to by EPA and chemical manufacturers does notgo far enough in protecting children and pets. “The danger fromthis product is clear,” Mr. Spitzer said in the letter to Wal-Mart,Home Depot, Ace Hardware and other stores. “We must do moreto prevent exposure to this dangerous chemical” by yanking prod-ucts with Dursban off the shelves immediately.5

lt was widely reported in the media as the U.S. banning ofchlorpyrifos (DursbanTM), one of the most widely used homeand garden insecticides. Buyer beware! Public exposure, use

and sales in the home use market could continue for severalyears to come. Agricultural, golf course, mosquito control andcontainerized baits use will continue with no time limit.

On June 8, 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA)announced an agreement it had reached withDow AgroSciences which phases out mosthome uses of the commonly used insecti-cide, but allows sales to continue through2001 and all existing stocks to be used bythe general public and sold by pest controlcompanies for as long as they last.1 This an-nouncement spurred New York State Attor-ney General Eliot Spitzer into action, call-ing on retailers in his state to stop the saleof Dursban immediately.2

Chlorpyrifos is in the family of approxi-mately 40 widely used organophosphate pes-ticides, known neurotoxic chemicals that to-gether can cause cumulative adverse effects.It is the third most commonly used home-use and commercially applied pesticide, with 11 million poundsapplied annually, and is the thirteenth most commonly usedpesticide in agriculture, with 13 million pounds applied annu-ally.3 Chlorpyrifos is the active ingredient in over 800 pesticideproducts including DursbanTM and LorsbanTM. Because of itshigh volume and common uses, chlorpyrifos represents one ofthe most significant sources of organophosphate exposure innon-occupational settings. It is used extensively in commer-cial buildings, schools, daycare centers, hotels, restaurants, hos-pitals, stores, warehouses, food manufacturing plants and ag-riculture. With the exception of uses on tomatoes, agriculturaluses will continue under this decision.

* MOE, EPA’s Margin of Exposure, measures adverse effects on humans interms of effects seen in laboratory animals. Mathematically, it is theratio of estimated actual human exposure to the level that had no ad-verse effect on laboratory animals. The exposure level causing no effectin animal studies may actually cause effects in humans because of fac-tors like the different metabolism of humans compared to mice and ratsand the genetic diversity of humans as opposed to uniform laboratory

strains. Generally, EPA considers MOEs below 100 to be “of concern,”to take into account those factors. Under the Food Quality ProtectionAct, where the agency has a higher degree of uncertainty or inadequatedata with which to make a determination that children will be pro-tected, EPA must apply an additional 10-fold factor, making the MOElevel of concern 1000. That is what EPA has done in the case of Dursban,making any level below 1000 unacceptable.



Commercial Pesticide Sprayers Hail VictoryMeanwhile, in the state of Georgia, the Georgia Pest Con-

trol Association (GPCA) is notifying its members and congratu-lating the industry for limiting the reach of the Dow agree-ment with EPA, explaining that pest control companies couldcontinue to sell Dursban treatments as long as they had stocks.6

One can only suspect that this is going on throughout the pestcontrol industry. On the EPA announcement, GPCA writes,“The National Pest Management Association has done a gar-gantuan job of meeting with EPA, manufacturers, the pressand lawyers. Without their work, our industry would be fac-ing much more stringent restrictions and more threateninglegal issues.”7

On continuing to sell Dursban to unsuspecting customers,GPCA explains that, despite the phase-out period, the pest con-trol industry’s use may go on for many years. GPCA says, “It’simportant to note, however, that any product in channel (inyour warehouse,from distributors,etc.) can be usedaccording to thelabel directionson the package.Distributors cannot sell “old la-bel” Dursban afterFebruary 2001,but you could stilluse what youmight have instock.”8 GPCAalso tells its mem-bers that Dursban will no longer be labeled for use in schools,hospitals, daycare centers and other indoor non-residential set-tings, except bait applications and any formulation in ware-houses, ship holds, railroad box cars, industrial plants, andmanufacturing or food processing plants.

Uses Continue for Golf Courses,Mosquitoes, Fire Ants, in ContainerizedBaits and Food ProductionEPA negotiations with Dow also resulted in the allowance ofcontinued uses that could certainly cause exposure (althoughapplication rates are being reduced through a phase-out pro-cess, allowing for old label stocks to be used up) to thosewho play golf or live near golf courses, live in communitieswith mosquito spray programs, or utilize indoor spaces thatuse containerized baits (those hockey puck-looking contain-ers in the corners of rooms) for cockroach control.

Furthermore, the phase out of Dursban as a termite insecti-cide for new residential construction treatment will not takeeffect until the end of 2005. Nor will the prohibition on pro-duction kick in until the end of 2004. According to Dow, “Thisdate may be extended, however, based on the results of an ex-posure study specific to this application.”9 At this point, Dow

has not submitted to EPA any plan for conducting such a study,which presumably would involve human subjects living in newhomes that had been treated pre-construction for termites. “Spotand local” treatment of existing buildings will not stop untilthe end of 2002.

The Big MOE: EPA Risk AssessmentShows Extraordinary RiskAs part of the ongoing implementation on the Food QualityProtection Act (FQPA), EPA has been working on the revisedrisk assessment for chlorpyrifos. Risk assessments are math-ematical calculations, based on certain exposure assumptions,used to calculate human risk from toxic materials. A reviewof EPA’s risk assessment for chlorpyrifos10 reveals the fact thatthe public and workers face immediate extraordinary dangerfrom continued exposure to the chemical because the riskfactors are far above EPA’s level of concern. This raises serious

health concernsgiven the longp h a s e - o u tperiod, theexisting stockallowance, andc o n t i n u e dworker/applica-tor exposure.

Using EPA’snumbers, manyof the risksthe public andworkers face ex-ceed EPA levels

of concern by over 100 times. For example, while EPA has setan acceptable Margin of Exposure (MOE) for residential expo-sure to chlorpyrifos at 1000, any number below that is definedas unacceptable. Normally EPA sets the MOE at 100, however,under FQPA, the agency has adopted an additional 10-foldmargin of safety. Some of the risks EPA indicates for childreninclude the following MOEs: 7.5-60 for lawn treatment of liq-uid formulation, 73 for lawn treatment of granular formula-tion, 110 for indoor crack and crevice, 360 for adolescent golfer.From a flea collar, a young dog is exposed to an MOE of 140and a young cat 530.

Because FQPA specifically exempts occupational exposure andgiven an EPA history of allowing especially high risks to workerswho use pesticides, the agency sets the worker MOE forchlorpyrifos at 100. Some of the risks EPA indicates for workersinclude the following MOEs: 6-23 for liquid hose-end sprayerfor broadcast turf. 37-15 for liquid low pressure handwand forspot treatment of turf, 17 for hand application of granular forbroadcast turf, and 100 for indoor crack and crevice.

Even some of the retained chlorpyrifos uses result in risksto workers that are very high, such as an MOE of 14 for themixer/loader of spray planes treating for mosquitoes. In agri-culture the risks are even higher. Some of the high risks EPA

Chlorpyrifos is in the family of approximately40 widely used organophosphate pesticides,

known neurotoxic chemicals that together cancause cumulative adverse effects. It is thethird most commonly used home-use and

commercially applied pesticide...



Provisions of the Agreement and Associated EPA ActionsFood Uses

Home Uses

indicates for farmers and farmworkers include the followingMOEs: 23 for cranberries and corn, 34 for citrus, and 38 forsodfarms.

According to EPA, “Risk is measured by a Margin of Expo-sure (MOE) which determines how close the exposure comesto the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) taken fromanimal studies.”11 Because of the uncertainty associated withthe extrapolation of animal data to human effects, additionalmargins of safety are viewed as necessary to setting accept-able human exposure levels. However, when Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP raised the concern of the extraordinarily lowMOE’s associated with continued chlorpyrifos exposure, suchas the 7.5 MOE for one type of exposure to children, an EPAscience staffer said it is “not a level that will cause any effect.”

On the one hand, EPA scientists created the MOE approachto alert regulators to the need for action. On the other hand,EPA staff in a policy discussion with Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP on the MOE for chlorpyrifos diminished the valueof the agency’s scientific standard. In raising the question ofwhether chlorpyrifos presents an imminent threat to publichealth and safety, an EPA attorney told Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP that there is “no clear threshold for imminent haz-ard,” rather it is a policy level decision.

Under the category of ecological risk, EPA has identifiedrisks of concern for nontarget terrestrial and aquatic animals.In EPA’s words, “Chlorpyrifos use poses acute and reproduc-tive risks to many nontarget aquatic and terrestrial animals forall outdoor uses assessed.”12

porC serusaeMnoitagitiM etaDevitceffE

selppA

sinoitacilppamoolb-tsoprofdelebalstcudorpsofiryprolhcfonoitcudorP.)dewollasinoitacilppatnamrod,moolb-erprofnoitcudorpylno(detibihorp

.detibihorpsiesumoolb-tsoP.derewoleblliwsecnareloT

0002rebmetpeS–tsuguA)detibihorpesu(esupotS

00-13-21fosa

seotamoT.detibihorpsiesuotamotrofstcudorpfonoitcudorP

.delecnaceblliwesU.dekovereblliwsecnareloT

0002rebmetpeS–tsuguA00-13-21fosaesupotS

separG .derewoleblliwecnareloT

larutlucirgAllAsesU

.sreniatnocegralniegakcapfoesudetcirtserrofstcudorpesu-dnewenyfissalC.)sIER(slavretnIyrtnEdetcirtseRdesiverraebtsumstcudorpesu-dneweN

00-1-21fosA00-1-21fosA

etiS serusaeMnoitagitiM setaDevitceffE

tsomdnanwalemoHsesuroodtuorehto

egralniegakcaproesudetcirtserrofstcudorpesu-dnewenyfissalC)gnigakcaptnatsiserdlihcnistiabtpecxe(sreniatnoc

.delecnaceblliwesU

00-1-21fosA

00-1-21noitalumrofpotS10-1-2elaspotssrotalumroF10-13-21elaspotssreliateR

dnaecivercdnakcarCsesuroodnirehtotsom

roesudetcirtserrofstcudorpesu-dnewenyfissalC.sreniatnocegralniegakcap

.delecnaceblliwesU

00-1-21fosA


sedicitimreT

egakcaproesudetcirtserrofstcudorpwenyfissalC.sreniatnocegralni

.noitulos%5.0otesutimiL

00-1-21fosA

snoitceridlebalnI00-1-21fosa

reirrablluF)esuohelohw(

esunoitcurtsnoc-tsop.delecnaceblliwesU


lacoldnatopSesunoitcurtsnoc-tsop

.delecnaceblliwesUsselnu00-1-21noitalumrofpotS20-13-21foetadesupotssahlebal

esunoitcurtsnoc-erP .delecnaceblliwesU40-12-21noitcudorppotS

50-13-21esupotS



etiS serusaeMnoitagitiM setaDevitceffE

saeraroodnIdesopxeebdluocnerdlihcerehw

)sloohcssahcus(delecnaceblliwsesU


saeraroodtuOdesopxeebdluocnerdlihcerehw

)skrapsahcus(delecnaceblliwsesU


Non-Residential Uses

porC serusaeMnoitagitiM etaDevitceffE

stiabdezireniatnocfoesulaitnediseR gnigakcaptnatsiserdlihcniydaerlA )eunitnocotdewollaesU(

ebtonlliwnerdlihcerehwsaeraroodnIylnognidulcni,desopxe daorliar,sdlohpihs

gnirutcafunam,stnalplairtsudni,sracxobstnalpgnissecorpdoofro,stnalp

slebaltcudorpesu-dneweNesehtylnotcelfertsum

00-1-21fosasegnahc

ebtonlliwnerdlihcerehwsaeraroodtuO:ylnognidulcni,desopxe

erca/bl1oterca/sbl4morfetarnoitacilppaecudeR slebaltcudorpesu-dneweNesehtylnotcelfertsum

00-1-21fosasegnahc

snaidemdaoR erca/iabl1otetarnoitacilppamumixamecudeR

setistnalplairtsudnI erca/iabl1otetarnoitacilppamumixamecudeR

:gnidulcnistnemtaertdoowlarutcurts-noN,seitdaorliar,selopytilitu,stsopecnefnedoow,stellap,sgol,sremitepacsdnal

doowdessecorpdna,stsop,selop,sreniatnocstcudorp

)etartnerructaeunitnoC(

:sesuhtlaehcilbuPralunargdnahcnerd(sdnuomtnaeriF

)tnemtaertylnoesulanoisseforproF

lortnocotiuqsoM ylnoesulanoisseforproF

Non-Agricultural Uses That Will Remain

The EPA Administrator Double SpeaksWhen EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced theagency agreement with Dow in June, she said, “With today’sannouncement, we are taking the fastest action possible forremoving these household products from the market.”13 In-stead of educating the public on the phase-out and the risksassociated with continuing exposure to existing stocks, Ms.Browner said at the press conference and stated in her pressrelease, “This action will virtually eliminate home, lawn andgarden uses by the end of the year.”14 In fact, this is not fac-tual. While the decision stops labeling of the withdrawn usesby the end of the year, the EPA agreement certainly does noteliminate these uses for many years.

Should EPA Stop Use in the Public InterestWhen the Administrator tells the public that the negotiatedsettlement with Dow represents the fastest action possible toremove chlorpyrifos from the market, it is assumed that EPAhas fully calculated the “aggregate” risks of exposure required

by the Food Quality Protection Act. In fact, according to agencydocuments, the full risk of continued exposure during thephase-out and use of existing stocks has not been calculated.EPA writes, “Aggregate risk is defined as the combined riskfrom exposure through food, drinking water, and residentialuses.” It continues, “The short-term and intermediate-term ag-gregate risks were not originally calculated for chlorpyrifos be-cause the risks from residential exposure alone exceeded theAgency’s level of concern based on currently registered uses.”15

The same is said for long-term aggregate risk.In effect, EPA is saying that it has not calculated the aggre-

gate risks associated with continued exposure to chlorpyrifosduring the period of phase-out and use of existing stocks. Givenhow high the individual exposure risks are for some uses ofchlorpyrifos, it is likely that combined or aggregate exposures(i.e. lawn care, indoor use and food) during the time period ofcontinued exposure qualifies chlorpyrifos, with EPA’s own num-bers, for a faster removal from the market, utilizing the “immi-nent hazard” provisions for pesticide suspension. Beyond Pes-



Endnotes1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Chlorpyrifos Revised Risk Assessment and Agreement with Registrants,

Washington, DC, June 2000.2 The Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, State of New York, Albany, NY, letter to Arthur M. Blank, President/CEO, Home Depot, Inc., June 8, 2000.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage, 1996-1997, Market Estimates, November, 1999, pp21-22.4 Spitzer5 Valera Jessee, Georgia Pest Control Association, GPCA News Alert, June 19, 2000.6 Jessee7 Jessee8 Heather Woolford, Dow AgroSciences, Press Release, Dow AgroSciences Announces Changes in Use of Chlorpyrifos Products, June 8, 2000.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Overview of Chlorpyrifos Revised Risk Assessment, June 8, 2000.10 EPA, Overview, p.8.11 EPA, Overview, p.24.12 The Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, Dursban Announcement, Remarks Prepared for Delivery, June 8, 2000, p.2.13 Browner, p.2.14 EPA, Overview, p.18.15 The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (February 23, 1988), NCAMP v. EPA, 679 F. Spp. 55

(D.D.C.1988), p.60.16 Oberdorfer, p. 59.

Action: You can speak up and let EPA know how you feel about this decision and regulation by industry negotia-tion. EPA has set up a comment period during which the public is invited to comment on the chlorpyrifos decision.It is expected that the comment period will run through mid-September. At the writing the docket has not beestablished, contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for the docket number and send you comments by MAIL: PublicInformation and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesti-cide Programs, USEPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; or by E-MAIL: HtmlResAnchor [email protected] submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file. Tell EPA to stop the poisoning now.

ticides/NCAMP argues that EPA has a duty to at least make thecalculation before negotiating the public’s health.

Analogies to Another Harmful InsecticideChlordane

Environmentalists have criticized a long-standing patternof EPA regulation by negotiation with chemical companies thathas resulted in decisions that allow continued exposure toknown hazards for extended time periods. It was the late-1980’swhen EPA announced a similar agreement on the termiticidesheptachlor and chlordane. In August, 1987, EPA announcedthat Velsicol had voluntarily agreed to cancel the registrationof the termiticide uses of heptachlor and chlordane. WhileVelsicol agreed not to sell or distribute the deleted uses of itsproducts, the chlordane agreement, like the chlorpyrfos agree-ment, allowed all existing stocks to be used in any mannerpermitted prior to the agreement, including the deleted uses.This agreement followed the filing of a lawsuit by NCAMPin July, 1987, challenging EPA’s failure to act on these haz-ardous chemicals. After the EPA agreement was announced,an action was filed in U.S. District Court (District of Co-lumbia), NCAMP v. EPA, challenging the existing stock pro-vision. After considering EPA findings of human health ef-fects associated with continued exposure, Judge LouisOberdorfer ordered in February, 1988 that “commercial useand commercial application of existing stocks of chlordaneand heptachlor which have been the subject of voluntarycancellations shall cease.”16 The court found that theagency’s decision to permit continued use of the chlordane

stocks under the agreement constituted arbitrary and capri-cious action. The court further found that, “EPA’s policy ofexchanging use authorization on existing stocks for volun-tary cancellations . . .does not satisfy the agency’s obligationunder 7 U.S.C. 136(a)(1).”17 During a successful appeal byEPA on questions of acceptable cancer risks, the agency,Velsicol and the pest control industry implemented a stopuse and product recall of heptachlor and chlordane prod-ucts. This approach represents the fastest way that hazard-ous products like chlorpyrifos can, and, according to many,should be taken off the market.

ConclusionMany in the environmental community and those who havebeen the victims of pesticide poisoning and contaminationbelieve that the public should expect more of its Environ-mental Protection Agency than decisions, like chlorpyrifos,which allow continued lengthy exposure to toxic substancesknown to cause harm. To these people, EPA’s agreement withDow AgroSciences reflects the worst of regulation by nego-tiation, compromises with the public’s health, where com-promise is not warranted or acceptable. Should thousands,or perhaps hundreds of thousands, more children have theirnervous system weakened, brain development compromisedor respiratory system injured? Should one more child beharmed? For whose benefit should this be done? There iscertainly agreement that chlorpyrifos is not needed for homeand garden use and wide recognition that there are less toxicways of managing and preventing pests.


atmosphere, it does not have the dangers associated with the useof synthetic pesticides.

Electrical currents can be used to kill insects that nest in thewalls of a structure. The ElectorgunTM uses low wattage, highvoltage, and high frequency to kill the insects. It does not emitmicrowaves, x-rays, ultraviolet rays or other potentially harmful

radiation. Tests have shown thegun to be very effective. Exist-ing pest holes and holes drilledinto the nests by the operator areused as entry points for the elec-tricity. Tests show that whereassome termites die immediately,others may take weeks to die, butthat they all die eventually.

Fatty-acid soap and watercan be used to control pests. The fatty acids in soaps serve as aninsecticide killing pests on contact. Aphids, which attract ants,can be controlled by treating the aphids directly with insecti-cidal soaps. Direct action against individual fire ant nests in-clude pouring boiling or soapy water directly into the hole.

Beneficial nematodes are microscopic soil-dwellingworms that actively search for insects like pre-adult fleas, fireants, or termites in the yard. After invading the larvae or pu-pae, they release a bacterium that kills the host within 48hours. The nematodes then feed on the pest’s body, repro-duce and seek out more pests. When all larvae and pupae arekilled, the nematodes die off and biodegrade. Numerous pestproblems can be controlled or eliminated by using biologicalcontrols that have a minimal impact on non-target speciesand offer long-term solutions.

Milky spore disease, Bacillus popilliae is a nontoxicway to control grubs. Commercial milky spore dust is madeby inoculating beetle grubs with the disease and then ex-tracting the spores, which resemble dust or powder whendry. The spores can be applied any time except when theground is frozen or a strong wind is blowing. Grubs be-come infected when they feed on the thatch or roots ofgrass where the spores have been applied. As the infectedgrubs move about in the soil, then die and disintegrate,they release one or two billion spores back into the soil.This spreads the disease to succeeding generations of grubs.If the conditions are right, grub population high and feed-ing vigorously, and soil is at least 70 degrees F and verymoist, the disease can spread through the grub populationin a week or two. In general, however, the disease shouldnot be thought of as a quick knockdown insecticide. It maytake a season or two before it has a substantial impact.

Chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in over 800 pesticide products, is used to control numerous pest problems. When looking for alternatives to using this chemi-

cal you must remember that one chemical cannot be swiped outfor another. In order to identify an alternative to usingchlorpyrifos it is necessary to first identify the pest problem.

It is important to rememberwhen controlling a pest problemto look for long-term solutionsnot just a temporary control. In-stead of addressing the cause ofpest problems, many pesticidesonly treat the symptoms, withoutchanging the structural problemsthat create an environment con-ducive to their existence. Pesti-cides are often ineffective over the long term and the most com-mon pests are now resistant to many insecticides.

Simple changes in your environment can significantly reducepest populations. Before reaching for a pesticide, monitor thepest population, make structural repairs, use proper sanitationinside and outside, and modify the pest’s habitat. Any openingsthat pests are using to access the structure should be caulked,screened or repaired. Some outdoor pests are attracted to spilledgreasy or sugary liquids, improperly stored garbage, untendedpet foods or explosions of naturally-occurring food sources likeaphids or scale infestations on nearby plants. Efforts to elimi-nate food sources may eliminate the pest problems.

Following is a brief description of some alternatives to usingchlorpyrifos to control common pest problems. Use Table 1 toidentify which alternatives can be used to eradicate a specificpest problem.

Non-Toxic SolutionsNon-Toxic SolutionsNon-Toxic SolutionsNon-Toxic SolutionsNon-Toxic SolutionsHeat treatments are effective in controlling pest popula-

tions for those pests that have minimum and maximum tem-peratures beyond which they cannot survive. Heat treatmentsrequire raising the temperature of a structure to 120 degreesF or more. Special equipment composed of a heating unit,blowers and ducts carries the heat to the locations in the struc-ture where the pests are causing damage. Heat treatment fieldtests have killed insects inside wood without damaging thebuilding or furnishings, although certain sensitive appliancesshould be removed as a precaution.

Cold treatments of liquid nitrogen can also eradicate peststhat live in a narrow temperature range. Liquid nitrogen can bepumped into walls, which freezes the pest, killing them, thenwarms and evaporates. Because nitrogen is a natural part of our

Alternatives to Using ChlorpyrifosBy Kagan Owens


It is important to rememberwhen controlling a pest problemto look for long-term solutionsnot just a temporary control.


Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) is a naturally occurring soilbacterium; it is a spore-forming rod and an insect pathogen.Different strains are toxic to particular kinds of insects. Thereare nearly 400 registered products that have been marketedin the country, providing effective control of such major in-sect pests as gypsy moths, mosquitoes, blackflies, and manyothers. These B.t. strains are only effective against insects intheir larval feeding stages, since B.t. must be ingested to beeffective. Depending on how much B.t. is ingested, insect larvasoon stop feeding andare dead in a few daysto a few weeks. B.t. iscompletely biode-gradable, and doesnot persist in the di-gestive systems ofbirds or mammals.There is no evidencethat B.t. goes on to re-produce in the wild.B.t.’s short biologicalhalf-life and high specificity makes the development of fieldresistance much more unlikely than with chemical pesticidesif used in a targeted fashion.

Least Toxic PesticidesBecause of the high toxicity of conventional pesticides and

the high levels of exposure to people and pests that result fromtheir use, it is wise to avoid them. Pesticides are products thatare designed to kill living organisms and should be treated withcaution. If pesticides are used, it is best to go with baits or crackand crevice spot treatments and use the least toxic pesticide avail-able and only after non-toxic alternatives have been tried.

Boric Acid is a low-toxicity mineral with insecticidal proper-ties. It does not evaporate or volatilize into the air or pose theconsiderable health concerns associated with synthetic pesticides;however it can still pose health hazards and should be used withcare. Insects travel through the boric acid, which adheres to theirlegs. When the insects groom themselves, they then ingest thepoison, which causes death three to ten days later of starvationand dehydration. As long as the material is not allowed to be-come wet, its continuous presence ensures that hatching insects,which sprays commonly spare, are exposed and die. Becauseboric acid is a stomach poison, don’t expect immediate results –it may take weeks or even months to completely get rid of thepest problem. While boric acid is somewhat slower acting thanthe synthetic pesticides, like chlorpyrifos, diazinon, or pyrethrins,it is highly effective over a long period of time. At least one studyhas shown that the combination of heat, 110 degree F for twohours with boric acid, will increase the speed at which the Ger-man cockroach is killed. As with any pesticide, keep boric acidpesticide products out of reach of children and only use it inlocations where it will not come in contact with people or ani-mals, such as in cracks and crevices, behind counters, and inbaseboards.

Diatomaceous earth and silica aerogels are insecticidal duststhat kill pests by breaking through their outer cuticle, whichprotects them from excess moisture loss. When the dust comesin contact with the pest, it abrades their outer shell, dehydratingand finally killing the pest. Because the dusts are inorganic, theycan remain effective for a very long time. Although they are madeof inert material and are relatively safe, care should be taken toavoid inhalation. Be aware that they have been combined withpyrethrin insecticides in various products; and there are serious

health concerns asso-ciated with the use ofpyrethrins. With diato-maceous earth, it is im-portant that natural,not swimming poolgrade, be used. Swim-ming pool grade hasbeen refined in such amanner that makes itmore harmful to hu-man lungs. Silica

aerogels are higher in acute toxicity and tend to kill insects morequickly than diatomaceous earth. Silica aerogels are toxic to fish,so they should not be applied where they could run off into astream, pond or lake.

Botanical pesticides are derived from plants that areknown to have insecticidal properties. It is important to re-member that just because a pesticide is derived from a plantdoes not mean that it is safe for humans and other mammalsor that it cannot kill a wide variety of other life. Many botani-cal insecticides are formulated with synergists. These haveno insecticidal effect of their own, but serve to enhance theinsecticidal effect of the botanicals. Carefully read the labelson all products before use to make sure that they do not alsocontain toxic pesticides. Some botanical pesticides can be quitetoxic to humans and should not be used. Neem oil and garlicoil are two least-toxic botanical pesticides listed below. Oth-ers that can also be used as a last resort are citrus oils, mintoil, pine oil and herbal extracts.

Neem oil, extracted from the tropical neem tree, containsinsecticidal properties that are composed of a complex mix-ture of biologically active compounds. It has a strong, unpleas-ant odor and a bitter taste. Its various active ingredients act asrepellents, feeding inhibitors, egg-laying deterrents, growthretardants, sterilants and direct toxins. Neem has both contactand systemic action in plants. The active ingredients biode-grade rapidly in sunlight and within a few weeks in the soil.

Garlic oil exhibits antibacterial, antifungal, amebicidal andinsecticidal qualities. Although garlic oils kill pest insects andsome pathogens, it also kills beneficial insects and microbes.Thus, it is not recommend as an all-purpose spray for out-door use.

If you have a pest problem, contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPfor a detailed information packet on how to control the pest usingnon and least toxic methods.


If pesticides are used, it is best to go with baits or

crack and crevice spot treatments and use the least

toxic pesticide available and only after non-toxic

alternatives have been tried



AntsHeat treatmentCold treatmentElectrical currentFatty acid soapBeneficial nematodes, Steinernema sp.SpinosadDiatomaceous earthBoric acidBotanical pesticides: d-limonene, mint oil, herbal ex-tracts, orange oil, pine oil, garlic

Chinch BugBeneficial fungus, Beauveria spp.Beneficial wasp, Eumicrosoma beneficumInsecticidal soapSilica aerogel

CockroachesElectrical currentsHeat treatmentBeneficial fungus: MetarhiziumanisopliaeDiatomaceous earthBoric acidBotanical pesticides: orange oil, mint oil, herbal oil,neem

CricketsBeneficial fungal pathogen: Beauveria bassianaInsecticidal soapDiatomaceous earthBoric acidBotanical pesticides: neem

FleasBeneficial nematodesInsecticidal soapBoric acidDiatomaceous earthSilica aerogelBotanical: limonene and herbal oil extract

FliesBeneficial nematodes, parasitoids, parasitic mitesBotanical repellentsDiatomaceous earthSilica aerogels

Gypsy mothsMicrobial insecticide: Bacillus thuringiensisSpinosad

Japanese beetles/grubsMilky sporeBeneficial nematodesBotanical pesticides: neem

MosquitoesCarbon dioxide trapsBat housesPurple martin housesMicrobial insecticides: Bacillus thuringensis Israeliensis,and Bacillus sphaericusMosquito fish, Gambusia affinisBotanical pesticides: herbal extracts, neem

TermitesHeat treatmentCold treatmentTermite shieldElectrical currentsBeneficial nematodes, Steinernema carpocapsaeMicrobial termiticide: Metarhizium anisopliaeSpinosadDiatomaceous earthSilica gelBoric acidBotanical pesticides: neem

Wasp and HornetsPhysical trapsInsecticidal soapBoric acidDiatomaceous earthSilica aerogelsBotanical oil: mint oil

Webworms/Cutworms/CaterpillarsBeneficial NematodesMicrobial insecticide: Bacillus thuringiensisSpinosadBeneficial Endophytic fungiInsecticidal soapsFree roaming chickens

Table 1. Non- and Least Toxic Alternatives to Using Chlorpyrifos


Thank you 18th National PesticideForum Sponsors!

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP joined forces with 22 organizational co-sponsors to make the 18th National Pesticide Forum,Beyond Pesticides: Solving A Public Health Crisis, a huge success!

This year’s conference was held April 7-9, 2000 at the Lighthouse Conference Center in New York City. We would like tothank the organizational co-sponsors, all the conference attendees, the Lighthouse and a special thanks to the sponsorswhose support allowed this event to transpire. Thank you!

Swallow (Major Contributor)

Cascadian Farm

Eden Foods

Horizon Organic

Whole Foods

Praying Mantis (Patron)

Aveda

NaturaLawn of America

Nisus

Seeds of Change

Lady Bug (Major Donor)

Alberts Organics

Environmental & Toxicology International

Frey Vineyards

Long Island Neighborhood Network

Organic valley

Paramount Pest Elimination

Royal Blue Organics

Veritable Vegetable

Lacewing (Donor)

Chartrand Imports

The Country Hen

Organically Grown Co.

Roseland Organic Farms

Stonyfield Farm

Bacillus Thuringiensis (Major Supporter)

Breast Cancer Action

Diamond Organics

E.L. Foust Co., Inc.

Planet Solutions

Nematodes (Supporter)

Everett Ridge Winery

Hawaii Heptachlor Research & Educational

Foundation

Ideal Market

Lake Michigan Inter-League of Women Voters

Nutrition for Optimal Health Association

Vitamin Cottage Stores

Resources


Healthy House Buildingfor the New Millennium:A Design andConstruction Guide

John Bower (TheHealthy HouseI n s t i t u t e ,Bloomington, IN,2000). Homeconstruction haschanged dramati-cally over theyears. But has itbeen a change for

the better? We go to great lengths to pro-tect ourselves from fires, burglary, and otherdangers, but we may have overlooked onevery important aspect of our personal healthand safety. Despite our efforts, we are need-lessly exposing ourselves to 5-10 times moreair pollution within our own homes thanin the streets of a major city. These pollut-ants that are invading our bodies are thechemicals that are released into the air, oroutgassed, from the synthetic materials inour homes, including the building compo-nents of the house itself. To avoid this un-necessary risk in a new home, John Bowertakes the reader through the step-by-stepconstruction of a model healthy house.Healthy House Building for the New Millen-nium covers the design and constructionprocess in great detail, as well as giving anexplanation of the common risks such asoutgassing, pesticides, metals, and radiation.For a copy, send $24.95 (ppd) to the HealthyHouse Institute at 430 N. Sewell Road,Bloomington, IN 47408 or call 812-332-5073.The Healthy House is also available as a 13-episode video series available for $99.95 plusshipping and handling.

Genetic Engineering,Food, and ourEnvironmentLuke Anderson (Chelsea Green Publish-ing Company, White River Junction, VT,1999). Many people became aware ofgenetically engineered (GE) food for the

first time in 1996when soybeansgrown in the U.S.were engineered byMonsanto to be re-sistant to their best-selling herbicide,Roundup. As thesecrops became moreabundant in our

fields and in our supermarket, we began tonotice a few things. We saw butterflies die,heard reports of increased insect resistanceand were introduced to the concept of ge-netic pollution. Since 1996, the EuropeanUnion has rejected GE foods and the U.S.consumers have been voicing their concerns.Food manufacturers are beginning to pullgenetically modified organisms from theirproducts and have left the biotech giantssquirming. In his recent publication, GeneticEngineering, Food, and our Environment, au-thor and activist Luke Anderson presents anideal introduction into genetic engineeringfor the general reader and answers the ques-tions that you may still have on the topic.This short, easy to read book begins byexplaining the concept of DNA, genetic en-gineering, and pest resistance. Other topicscovered include the impacts of genetic engi-neering on agriculture and the environment,a discussion on bio patents, the public’srights, and the power of the biotech compa-nies. For a copy, send $7.95 to Chelsea GreenPublishing Company, P.O. Box 428, White RiverJunction, VT 05001 or order it through theBeyond Pesticides/NCAMP website,www.beyondpesticides.org, under “RecommendedReading.”

Pest Management in U.S.Agriculture

Jorge Fernan-dez-Cornejo and SharonJans (Resource Eco-nomics Division,U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Wash-ington, DC, August1999). This report,published by the

Resource Economics Division of the U.S.Department of Agriculture, examines theuse of various pest management practicesfor major field crops and selected fruits andvegetables. The report includes a break-down of pesticide use by active ingredientand lists the change in number of poundsused per pesticide between 1991 and 1996.The results are mixed. For example, whilethe use of the herbicide Alachor has beencut by about two-thirds, the use of the her-bicide Glyphosate has quadrupled. Of thepesticides used during this time, herbicidesare reported to be the most common. Themain herbicide users are corn and soybeangrowers, while potato growers use the mostfungicides and cotton growers use the mostinsecticides. The study also reports thatcotton and potato growers make more useof Integrated Pest Management (IPM) prac-tices than do producers of any other fieldcrop. However, the goals and objectives ofIPM vary widely among the growers, re-searchers, and activists. For a copy of thisreport, contact the USDA at 1-800-999-6779,ask for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture(AH-717).

“No Pesticides UsedHere” Lawn Signs

To ensure neighbors of yourlawn’s safety and to spread

an important environ-mental message,why not purchasea colorful and du-rable lawn signstating your use ofnon-toxic lawn

care methods? These signs offer a counterto signs warning people to stay off, due topesticide use. Halleck Design’s versionstates, “This lawn uses no chemicals or pes-ticides. It may not be perfect, but it’s notharmful to kids, animals or rivers,” and isavailable in a mix of colors. This sign costs$28.75 (ppd) per dozen or $6 (ppd) each.The Center for Energy and EnvironmentalEducation of the University of NorthernIowa offers three versions stating “Yards forKids,” “Yards for Nature,” and “Yards for

Resources


by John Kepner

Health.” All three state “No Lawn Pesti-cides Used Here” and are available in yel-low, pink, and blue. These signs each cost$2.50 (ppd) and funds generated from salessupport educational programs on ecologi-cal alternatives to pesticides. Contact:Elaine Halleck, Halleck Design, 2120Medford Rd., #35, Ann Arbor, MI 48104,734-677-1933 or Dr. Kamyar Enshayan,Physics Building, University of NorthernIowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0150, 319-273-6895.

Unthinkable Risk: HowChildren Are Exposedand Harmed WhenPesticides Are Usedat SchoolBecky Riley (Northwest Coalition for Al-ternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR, April2000). This new report from the North-west Coalition for Alternatives to Pesti-cides (NCAP) discusses the risks of pes-ticide exposure to children whileat school. Because pesticides persist inindoor air for hours after treatments, onindoor surfaces for days, weeks, andsometimes months, and can drift from thesite of application, they cause unavoid-able contamination, even when productsare used according to label instructions,says the report. Additionally, because oftheir smaller size and developing organs,children are more susceptible to pesticideexposure. Unthinkable Risk, in evaluatingschools, uses documented incidents ofpesticide poisonings as well as informa-tion on how children are exposed, persis-tence of specific pesticides commonlyused, and toxicity of these pesticides toshow how children are affected by pesti-cides used. NCAP recommends that par-ents get involved in this issue and exer-cise their right-to-know when and whatpesticides are sprayed in their child’sschool. The study also recommends thatschools, school districts, states, and thefederal government adopt pesticide poli-cies that eliminate pesticides that arehighly or moderately toxic, pose environ-

mental risks, are known or suspected tocause cancer, or damage the reproductive,nervous, immune, or endocrine systems,or are known to aggravate allergies,asthma or chemical sensitivities. For acopy, send $7ppd to NCAP, PO Box 1393,Eugene, OR 97440-1393, 541-344-5044, ordownload the report for free fromwww.pesticide.org.

Multiple ChemicalSensitivity: A SurvivalGuide

Pamela ReedGibson, Ph.D.(New HarbingerPublications, Oak-land, CA, 2000).According to a1996 study, ap-proximately 4% ofthe U.S. popula-tion is becoming

chemically ill everyday. This extrapolates toover 11 million people having moderate tosevere multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).Author Pamela Reed Gibson, an associateprofessor at James Madison University inHarrisonburg, Virginia, has researched MCSand how it affects people’s lives, careers, andrelationships for over eight years. Through-out this time, she has gained an extensivedatabank of pertinent information and hasused this information to create a handbookfor those who suffer from multiple chemi-cal sensitivity, as well as family members,friends, and professionals who want to help.Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A SurvivalGuide describes the symptoms, details pos-sible explanations, and provides step-by-step instructions for dealing with this ill-ness. This practical guide provides readerswith detailed suggestions on how to maketheir homes and workplaces safe, discussesthe dilemma of medical help, and offers ad-vice for patients to share with their doctors.Having experienced the skepticism and op-position towards recognizing MCS as an ill-ness by much of the medical and scientificcommunity, Dr. Gibson concludes her sur-vival guide with advice on activism, public

education, and understanding the culturalresponse to MCS. For a copy, contact NewHarbinger Publications, at 1-800-748-6273, or order it for $13.56 through theBeyond Pesticides/NCAMP website,www.beyondpesticides.org, under “Recom-mended Reading.”

The Fate of Frogs: ACloser Look at FrogDeformities

Bryan M. Pfeiffer(Vermont PublicInterest ResearchGroup, Montpe-lier, VT, October1999). By now theimages are nolonger surprising,even if they remaingrotesque and dis-

turbing to look at: frogs with missing orextra legs, missing or misplaced eyes andother strange deformities. Ever since chil-dren in Minnesota and Vermont discoveredlarge numbers of abnormal frogs in the mid1990’s, researchers have scrambled for an-swers in what has become an alarming en-vironmental issue. Scientists have proposedseveral potential theories including parasiteinfestations, increased levels of predation,ultraviolet radiation, and toxic chemicals,including pesticides. The Vermont PublicInterest Research Group examines all ofthese possible causes in their 1999 report,The Fate of Frogs. This report concludesthat while a combination of many factorsmay contribute to the deformities in frogs,it would be foolish to say pesticides werenot a factor. Methoprene, diuron, atrazine,diazonin, dithane and temephos have allbeen linked to amphibian deformities. Stud-ies show rates of frog deformities up to 20percent more likely in sites exposed to pes-ticides. The report goes on to examine simi-larities between frogs and humans, and todiscuss the implications of endocrine dis-ruption on humans. For a copy, contact theVermont Public Interest Research Group at802-223-5221 or download a free copyonline at www.vpirg.org.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS

❏ YES, make me a member of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP (includes subscription to Pesticides & You).❏ $25 Individual ❏ $30 Family ❏ $50 Public Interest Organizations ❏ $15 Limited Income

❏ YES, I’d like to subscribe to Pesticides & You.❏ $25 Individual ❏ $50 Government ❏ $100 Corporate

❏ YES, I’d like to receive Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s monthly Technical Report. $20 with membership or subscription.If outside the United States, please add $10.00 each for memberships and subscriptions.

R E S O U R C E ST-Shirts❏ “Pollution Prevention Is the Cure.” full color graphic on 100% natural organic

cotton Beneficial-T’s by Patagonia™ T-shirt. $18 each; two for $30.❏ “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green, blue and peach on 100%

natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.❏ Tell the world that FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT in teal,

purple, and yellow. On 100% natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.Bumper Sticker❏ “Is Your Lawn Toxic Green?” White letters on green background.❏ FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT. White letters on blue.

Stickers $2.00 each ($1.00 each when ordering 100+)Books❏ A Failure to Protect. Landmark study of federal government pesticide use and pest

management practices. $23.00. Summary and Overview $5.00.❏ The Chemical-Free Lawn: The newest varieties and techniques to grow lush, hardy

grass with no pesticides no herbicides, no chemical fertilizers. By Warren Schultz.Published by Rodale Press. $17.95 (14.95 + $3.00 shipping).

❏ Unnecessary Risks: The Benefit Side of the Risk-Benefit Equation.Understand how the EPA’s Risk-Benefit Analyses falsely assume the need for high-risk pesticides. Explains how “benefits” are inflated, how alternatives might beassessed, and the public’s right to ask more from its regulators. $10.00.

❏ Safety at Home: A Guide to the Hazards of Lawn andGarden Pesticides and Safer Ways to Manage Pests.Learn more about: the toxicity of common pesticides; non-toxic lawn care; whycurrent laws offer inadequate protection. $11.00

❏ Voices for Pesticide Reform: The Case for Safe Practices and Sound Policy. Newstudy documenting stories of tragic pesticide poisoning and contamination, andsuccessfully used alternatives that avoid toxic chemicals. $20.00

❏ Poison Poles: Their Toxic Trail and the Safer Alternatives. New study on largestgroup of pesticides, wood preservatives, and contamination associated withtreated wood utility poles, and the availability of alternatives. $22.00

❏ Toxic Deception. By Dan Fagin, Marianne Lavelle and Center for Public Integrity.Published by Common Courage Press. $21.00

Back Issues❏ Back issues of Pesticides and You $2.00 each❏ Back issues of Technical Reports $1.00 eachBrochures ($2.00 each; bulk discounts available)

❏ Pest Control Without Toxic Chemicals❏ Least Toxic Control of Lawn Pests❏ Agriculture: Soil Erosion, Pesticides, Sustainability❏ Organic Gardening: Sowing the Seeds of Safety❏ Estrogenic Pesticides❏ Pesticides and Your Fruits and Vegetables❏ Pesticides: Are you being poisoned without your knowledge?❏ Pesticides in Our Homes and SchoolsTestimony❏ Children & Pesticides, 9/13/90 $4.00❏ Lawn Care Chemicals, 5/9/91 $4.00❏ FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 6/8/93 $4.00❏ Food Safety, 8/2/93 $3.00❏ National Organic Standards Board, 10/13/94 $4.00❏ Food Quality Protection Act, 6/7/95 $4.00❏ Parents: Right-to-Know-Schools, 3/19/97 $3.00Other❏ Getting Pesticides Out of Food and Food Production $5.00❏ NCAMP’s Pesticide Chemical FactSheets; individual: $2.00, book: $20.00❏ Least Toxic Control of Pests Factsheets $6.00❏ Community Organizing Toolkit $12.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance $5.00❏ Pesticides and Schools: A Collection of Issues and Articles $15.00❏ Schooling of State Pesticide Laws $5.00❏ Building of State Indoor Pesticide Policies $4.00❏ The Right Way to Vegetation Management $4.00

Method of Payment: ❏ Check or money order ❏ VISA/Mastercard # ____________________________ Expiration Date: _________

Name Phone Fax Email

Title (if any) Organization (if any)

Street City State Zip

Quantity Item Description (for T-shirts, please note size S,M,L,XL) Unit Price Total

MEMBERSHIP

Mail to: Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Tax-Deductible Donation: ____________

Total Enclosed: ____________Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP adds two pages to our website that provide more resources to find alterna-tives to toxic pesticides in your home, office, school and community.

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDSilver Spring, MDPermit No. 1400

Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street SE, Suite 200Washington, DC 20003202-543-5450

Spring 2000 • Vol. 20, No. 1 a member of Earth Share SM

COMPLIMENTARY COPY

Please Subscribe!

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover onQuest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

Check Out Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s Two New Web Projects

www.beyondpesticides.org

The Getting the Alternatives You Need National Directory ofLeast Toxic Service Providers is Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’snational directory of home and garden, structural, and agricul-tural pest control service providers using least and non-toxicmethods and chemicals. In order to help the public find theseservices, we are developing this national directory on ourwebsite. If you would like to recommend your pest controlservice provider, please let us know. We will then send themthe Getting the Alternatives You Need Survey, which enables usto document the types of methods they employ. You can alsodownload a copy of the survey to give directly to the companythrough the web page. Currently, you need to contact BeyondPesticides/NCAMP for a list of least and non-toxic service pro-viders in your area, but by the end of the year, you will be ableto access this information directly from the web page.

The Local School Pesticide Policies web page identifies the ever-growing list of school districts that have adopted pesticide poli-cies and programs requiring the use of integrated pest man-agement (IPM), prohibit the use of toxic pesticides, and/or pro-vide prior notification of a pesticide application. This webpageis a useful tool to find out where local school policies and pro-grams exist across the country and will be an even more usefultool in the future as it is continuously updated with links tosummaries of the policies, local contact information, links towebsites of grassroots pesticide activists working on the schoolprogram, and a copy of the policy. To help improve this valu-able guide, send us your school’s policy and share the successesor failures of your school’s program.

Local School Pesticide Policies

Getting the Alternatives You NeedNational Directory of Least Toxic Service Providers

Pesticides and You - Home — Beyond Pesticides and Jim Chuda, Children’s Health Environment...

Documents

Transcript of Pesticides and You - Home — Beyond Pesticides and Jim Chuda, Children’s Health Environment...