Volume 18 , Numbers 1 & 2 Double Issue Spring / Summer ......Pesticides and You News from the...

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

Volume 18 , Numbers 1 & 2 Double Issue ■ Spring / Summer 1998

TOXIC WARNING SIGNALS

The Environmental Risks of Transgenic Crops: An AgroecologicalAssessment ■ What’s Coming to Market? ■ Toxic Warning Signals ■

How to Avoid Pesticide Injury (and what to do if you can’t) ■ BeyondPesticides, Getting the Alternatives You Need ■ The War on Weeds ■

Pressure Building to Stop Implementation of Food Quality Protection Act

Warning to Parents, see page 6

Jay Feldman is ExecutiveDirector of NCAMP

Letter from Washington

Local and State Efforts Win Big as Fed Fumbles

Congratulations to all those who participated in ourcampaign to stop the proposed USDA organic rulesfrom going forward with standards that would un-

dermine the meaning of organic and the protection it nowaffords our health and environment. USDA has said clearlythat the big three issues—irradiation, fertilization with sew-age sludge, and bioengineered inputs—will not be includedas allowable in certified organic agriculture and food prod-ucts when the new rule is issued. Similarly, USDA acknowl-edged that it erred in ignoring the National Organic Stan-dards Board determination of acceptable materials in organicas defined by the Organic Foods Production Act. (See more onpage 7 in this issue.) Of course, the battle is not over. It is juststarting over with a new proposal expected before the end of1998; a lot of issues regarding synthetics are still on the table.

In May, I attended the Governor's signing of landmarkschool pesticide law in the state of Maryland and stood withgrassroots leaders from parent, teacher and environmentalgroups in the state which together successfully supportedthe legislation, led by Ruth Berlin, NCAMP vice presidentand coordinator of the Maryland Pesticide Network. The lawsignals a willingness at the state level to: (i) codify languagethat only allows pesticide use "when other reasonable non-toxic means have been exhausted;" and, (ii) treat exposureto pesticides as a public health issue (and adopt the precau-tionary principle) by providing universal notification andadverse effects information to all parents of elementary schoolage children before pesticide use occurs in the schools (ad-vance warning). This expands notification beyond the typethe pesticide industry advocates --where a registry systemonly notifies specific people.

In this issue, there are three stories of note along theselines, with NCAMP members leading the charge in similarsuccess stories. In Ohio, with the leadership of long-timeNCAMP members, a local school district stopped using pes-ticides on all their grounds (page 2). In San Francisco,NCAMP board member Gregg Small, director of PesticideWatch, working with CALPIRG and other groups, was suc-cessful in the adoption of a broad IPM and pesticide notifi-cation law (page 8). In North Carolina, NCAMP board presi-dent Allen Spalt, director of the Agricultural Resources Cen-ter, working with other environmental groups, negotiatedan agreement with the state's utility companies to allowpeople living along rights-of-way to opt out of spray pro-grams (page 8). All these policies show real progress and ashift in public understanding and action on pesticides andthe promotion of alternatives.

This is all happening in direct distinction to what is goingon in our nation's Capital. Efforts are underway from every

quarter to undermine the promising provisions in the FoodQuality Protection Act, particularly specific language whichallows additional protections for children and requires at-tention to cumulative effects of pesticides in the body (page31). While the law is always left open to interpretation andnew definitions, scientific methods and risk assessment cal-culations, industry is pressuring EPA, USDA and the WhiteHouse to slow down the process and adopt the weakest pos-sible standards and risk assessment assumptions.

Meanwhile, as the state of Maine blocked genetically en-gineered corn from being used there (page 9), transgenic ag-riculture is picking up steam nationwide without adequateregulation. An article by University of California-Berkeleyprofessor Miguel Altieri explains the serious ramificationsof genetic engineering in agriculture, which is increasinglyusing herbicide and insect resistant crops (page 10).

From Washington, DC, there is a revival of The War onWeeds with a growing hysteria pushing for massive herbi-cide spray programs in the West and throughout the country(page 30). Both Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of Inte-rior Bruce Babbitt have weighed in and sound an alarm thatrequires more public attention and involvement. In a relateddevelopment, NCAMP challenged the Drug EnforcementAgency's draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposalto approve widespread herbicide use (2,4-D, glyphosate andtrichlopyr) for cannabis and ditchweed eradication (page 5),although we are pleased that paraquat is no longer a part ofthe program.

A special section on NCAMP's Toxic Warning Signals andAlternative's Project, with a full explanation of our newwebpage, shows dramatically why we must push on with theadoption of alternatives. With this issue, we launch our ef-fort to develop the new directory, Beyond Pesticides-Gettingthe Alternatives You Need: A directory to provide a comprehen-sive listing of least and non-toxic services covering home andgarden, structural pest control, agriculture, extension services

and product suppliers. Seepage 28 and see how you canhelp NCAMP to effectivelymove the alternative agenda.

Thanks for helping moveNCAMP ahead. As always,we look forward to hearingfrom you.

Spring / Summer 1998 Pesticides and You Page 1

Pesticides and You ©1996 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year by theNational Coalition Against the Misuse ofPesticides (NCAMP), is a voice forpesticide safety and alternatives.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]

Printed on recycled paper with soy ink

Articles in this newsletter may bereproduced without NCAMP’s permis-sion unless otherwise noted. Pleasecredit NCAMP for reproduced material.

NCAMP STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorBeth Fiteni, Program CoordinatorKagan Owens, Information CoordinatorTerry Shistar, Ph.D.,Science Consultant & WebmasterKara King, Intern

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorMiguel Altieri, Ph.D., Beth Fiteni,Kara King, Kagan Owens, TerryShistar, Ph.D., ContributorsFree Hand Press, TypesettingEric Cline, Cover Art

NCAMP BOARD OF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, Maryland

Pesticide Network, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas

en California, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s

Health Environment Coalition,Malibu, CA

Merrill Clark, Roseland Farms,Cassopolis, MI

Shelley Davis, J.D., FarmworkerJustice Fund, Washington, DC

Lorna Donaldson-McMahon, SilvertopFarm, Tiptonville, TN

Jay Feldman, NCAMP, Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving Earth

Worldwide, Plymouth, MNEric Kindberg, Organic Farmers

Marketing Association, Fairfield, IAKenuel Okech Ogwaro, Ph.D., ECO-

CARE International, San Diego, CATerry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,

Sierra Club, Lawrence, KSGregg Small, Pesticide Watch,

San Francisco, CAAllen Spalt, Agricultural Resources

Center, Carrboro, NCJohn Wargo, Ph.D., Yale University,

New Haven, CTDaniel Wartenberg, Ph.D., R.W.

Johnson Medical School,Piscataway, NJ

Affiliations shown for informationalpurposes only

page 10

2 MailNursery Educates, Student Tests Efficacy ofNatural Alternatives, NCAMP Members StopHerbicides, Pesticide Applicator Worries AboutHis Health, Alternative Flea Control, A Call toStop Local Utility Herbicide Spray in PA

5 Washington, D.C.Eradicating Cannabis with Herbicides, MorePesticide Residues Found on Food, BiologicalGypsy Moth Control, False Safety Claims AboutDisinfectants in Plastic Toys

8 Around the CountryNC Landowners to Say No to Herbicides onRights-of-Way, Methyl Bromide Victims FileLawsuit, “Toxic Avenger” Cindy Duehring,School Pesticide Reform, Children’s CancerCluster Identified in FL, CA ReportsIncrease of Pesticide Related Illness, Geneti-cally Engineered Corn Blocked, OnceBanned Pesticide in Use Again in LA

10 The Environmental Risks of TransgenicCrops: An Agroecological AssessmentIs the failed pesticide paradigm being geneti-cally engineered?

16 What’s Coming to Market?An update on commercializationof transgenic crops

18 Toxic Warning SignalsHow to Avoid Pesticide Injury

26 Beyond Pesticides, Getting theAlternatives You Need

29 The War on WeedsWhy Alternatives To Herbicides ShouldBe Used, On Earth Day and Everyday

31 Pressure Building to StopImplementation of the FoodQuality Protection Act

34 Resources

Contents

page 18

page 29

page 31

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Spring / Summer 1998

Nursery EducatesCustomers on PesticideHazards andAlternativesDear NCAMP,

We are in the retail nursery and gardencenter business, as well as landscapingand irrigation contracting. Much of ourtime is spent educating customers as tothe dangers of commercial pesticide andfertilizer usage. We sell only non-toxicalternatives to these products. Responseto the alternatives has been good and weare finding people to be more and moreconcerned about products they haveused in the past.

Bryanne HamiltonSouthern HorticultureSt. Augustine, FL

Dear Bryanne,Kudos to you for the work that you do. Youand your business are vital in moving ourcommunities away from pesticide depen-dency. Thank you for making safe, alter-native pest management services and prod-ucts available to the public and promotingawareness of the problems with pesticides.We, too, see more and more people con-cerned about pesticide hazards and look-ing for alternatives. In fact, we are assem-bling a new directory of businesses like yoursthat are offering alternatives. We are send-ing a form to complete with specific infor-mation. To our readers: Please provide uswith information on alternative productsor services by completing the form on page29 in this issue.

Student Tests Efficacyof Natural AlternativesDear NCAMP,

I am finishing up my science fair projectfor my 9th grade science class. The mainpoint of my project concerns botanicalpesticides. I made three different pesti-cides: a jalapeno pepper concentration, agarlic and mineral oil mixture, and a lemonpeel mixture. Each of these pesticides wasapplied to the source of food for the pests Iwas testing, tobacco hornworms. 20 ml ofthe pesticides I made was poured onto thehornworm’s growth medium, and within24 hours, there were significant results.Some of the hornworms under the garliclabeled containers were dead, and otherswere sick and listless. Currently, the garlicpesticide has proven to be more efficientthan the others. Why was the garlic pesti-cide so efficient?

Kristen EttensohnCumberland, RI

Dear Kristen,We are glad to know that you have soughtout research on botanical pesticides. Moreresearch is definitely warranted on them.We checked Common Sense Pest Control,published in 1991 by Taunton Press inNewtown, CT, which states that organicgardeners have been using homemade gar-lic preparations as insecticides for years.Garlic oil is also known for its antibacte-rial, antifungal, and amebicidal effects.Unfortunately, garlic oil can also kill ben-eficial insects and microbes and is there-fore not recommended for an all-purposespray in gardens. Garlic oil’s qualities areattributed to its volatile compounds alliin,allicin, citral, geraniol and linalol. Kiallyldisulfide and diallyl trisulfide, also presentin garlic, have been identified as causingmortality in mosquito larvae. Extracts ob-tained with a water and alcohol mixtureappear to have more fungicidal and bac-tericidal effects than does the essential oil.Garlic solutions have been reported todestroy 4 species of larvae mosquitoes and

larvae of the Colorado potato beetle. Gar-lic, in a variety of forms, is also recom-mended as repellents for ants, beetles, cat-erpillars, grasshoppers, grubs, leafhop-pers, moths, spidermites, thrips, andwhiteflies. And garlic tablets are recom-mended as a flea control for pets.

NCAMP MembersStop Herbicides AtTheir Local SchoolDear NCAMP,

I am a long-time subscriber and sup-porter of NCAMP. I just wanted to let youknow that my husband and I with ahandful of other parents recently stoppedthe Worthington Ohio School districtfrom applying herbicides on all schoolgrounds for weed control. We are alsolooking into alternatives to pesticides forindoor use and on athletic fields.

Dessie KardarasWorthington, Ohio

Dear Dessie,Thanks for keeping us updated. Congratu-lations to your family and all the otherparents that helped stop the school’s appli-cation of herbicides for weed control. Or-ganizing with others is the key to success.Caring parents like yourselves help to de-crease our children’s exposure to pesticidesat school. Keep up the good work to elimi-nate the threat of pesticide exposure


edited by Kagan Owens

throughout all the school’s buildings andgrounds! NCAMP continually catalogs lo-cal pesticide ordinances, school board poli-cies and the like. Please send us a copy ofyour policy, or let us know how we can geta copy, so we can pass it to others as anorganizing tool!

Keeping NCAMPEnvironmentally CorrectAll the Way AroundDear NCAMP,

Please stop using carbonless paper forinvoices. It is hazardous to human healthand uses formaldehyde. Thank you.

Carol WestinghouseBurlington, VT

Dear Carol,Thank you for noting the problems withcarbonless paper. NCAMP tries to takeadvantage of the most efficient and envi-ronmentally sound office products avail-able. We are currently in the process ofupdating our database program so that wewill eliminate the need for carbonless in-voices. We have also converted the paperused for NCAMP’s letterhead to processedchlorine free! So look for it in the future.We’ve been using 100% post consumer re-cycled paper for years.

Pesticide ApplicatorWorries About HisHealth and Memory LossDear NCAMP,

I am a sprayer of pesticides includingMosquitomistTM. I am worried aboutthe use of this chemical. While spray-ing this chemical, I was exposed to itquite frequently and now have amemory loss. I was exposed to thechemical by having it sprayed over myhead while I was shutting it off. I amworried about my health.

Larry SchaughnessySt. Peters, Missouri

Dear Larry,When handling any pesticide, it is neces-sary to be extremely careful and avoid ex-posure to the extent possible.

If you think that your loss of memorymay be linked to a pesticide exposure, getm e d i c a l t re a t m e n t i m m e d i a t e l y.Mosquitomist’sTM active ingredient,chlorpyrifos, listed on the product’s label,is a chlorinated organophosphate that iswidely used as a mosquito larvicide,against fire ants and in structural pest con-trol. Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic to bees,birds, mammals, aquatic life and certainspecies of algae. Acute exposure to this ner-vous system poison can result in symptomslike nausea, stomach cramps, headaches,vision disturbances, muscle twitching, andin extreme cases, respiratory arrest.Chlorpyrifos has also been linked to de-layed peripheral neuropathy, alteredbrainwave and sleep patterns and behav-ioral changes. Because we have been ex-posed to varying levels of toxic materialsover our lives, at different vulnerable pointsin our lives, live in communities and homeswith multiple pesticide use patterns andhave unique genetic make-ups, the effectof pesticide exposure incidents will differ.Pesticide exposures may also make youmore sensitive to chemicals over time. As apesticide applicator you are in a higher riskthan the average population and shouldhave a physician monitor your health. Un-fortunately, for applicators such as your-self and those handling pesticides, EPA al-lows far greater exposure and hazard thanfor the general public. Overall, EPA nowacknowledges that it has dramatically un-derstated the hazard of multiple exposureto organophosphate pesticides. (See storyon pesticide law, page 31.)

Alternative Flea Controlfor Dogs ReportedDear NCAMP,

My dog, a German Shorthair Pointer,has a severe allergy to fleas, while I haveproblems with pesticides. I havesearched for less toxic alternatives to

reduce the inflammation from her reac-tion to flea bits. Recently, I found a non-toxic remedy that not only reduced in-flammation, but also deters fleas. Theessential oil, Rosemary - 4 drops to 8ounces spring water. Chamomile andcalendula (marigold) in the same pro-portion created sort of a synergistic ef-fect in that it helped the deterrence andhealing process even more. I keep thecup refrigerated in a plant mister. Themixture keeps its potency for only 24hours, when refrigerated. When I check

my dog daily for fleas, I spray her coatwith the mixture to reduce any inflam-mation. My veterinarian, who stronglybelieves in chemical controls, was as-tounded when he could not find a singleflea on my dog and all the swelling wasgone. Rubbing fresh pennyroyal insideher leather collar has also worked. I canno longer get pennyroyal in essentialoils because it is so toxic. Fresh penny-royal is toxic, but using one sprig is allthat is needed to deter fleas. ThoughtI’d share this finding, in case others havea similar problem.

Bunny SnowLafayette, LA

Dear Bunny,Thank you for sharing your alternative pestmanagement success with us. NCAMP col-lects information on alternative pest man-agement success stories so that we can shareit with others. To our readers: If you wouldlike to share your successful pest or lawncare management successes, please con-

Mail


tact NCAMP and we will send you anAlternative Success Form.

Pesticide AdvertisingMisleads the Public onSafety QuestionsDear NCAMP,

I am a member of NCAMP and feel I mustcomment about some of the lawn chemi-cal advertising I have seen on TV thisspring. The advertising I am talking aboutare Preen commercials and Scott’s com-mercials. One commercial shows a manlying on the lawn using abag of lawn chemi-cals as a pillow. An-

other

one shows what looks to be a teenage boypushing a chemical spreader wearingshorts and sandals! Yet another one showschildren playing on a lawn barefoot whilethey talk about getting rid of dandelionswith this particular lawn pesticide.

I used to own a small lawn care busi-ness: I was a certified applicator and Ilearned when applying chemicals to wearappropriate clothing. Shorts and sandalsare not appropriate clothing. You shouldavoid contact with these chemicals. WhenI was in business some of the chemicals Iwould buy from a commercial distributorhad the exact same active ingredients thatany homeowner can purchase. The com-mercial applicator is supposed to wear pro-tective clothing - why not the homeownerwhen applying chemicals? Consumersshould not be misled into thinking thesechemicals are harmless to apply.

As you have said before, and I agreewith you, the chemical industry wants togive the public a false sense of safety aboutpesticides. I would also like to say that I

have used no pesticides on my lawn foryears and it looks fine. I went out of thelawn care business because of health andenvironmental concerns of using lawnpesticides. Thank you for allowing me tocomment about this very important issue.

Allen TorkHastings, NE

Dear Allen,By law, pesticide use must be in accordancewith the product label. Unfortunately, the la-bel is usually inadequate in conveying safetyconcerns about a pesticide and the limitationsof risk assessments used to register it. Thereare laws and regulations against misleadingthe public on the safety of pesticides. It doesseem that some of the commercials you writeabout teeter on this border. The commercialsare not directly saying that they are safe, butit certainly seems as though they are imply-ing that they are, as it is easier to attract

potential customers in this manner.Pennsylvania and New York havesettled lawsuits against pest controland lawn care providers that havemade broad false and misleading

safety claims regarding their pesticides.NCAMP believes that commercial applica-tors and lawn care service providers shouldimplement least and non-toxic pest manage-ment strategies that do not rely on the use ofchemicals. Thank you for your work to alertthe public to the dangers of pesticides.

A Call to Stop LocalUtility Herbicide SprayProgram in PennsylvaniaDear NCAMP,

I am worried about a spray programthat is being implemented by my localpower company. This so called ‘herbi-cide solution’ will be implementedthroughout our entire county to elimi-nate foliage under the power lines.They actually knocked on my door andasked my permission to spray on myproperty. Ours is a rural area in whichmost residents rely on well water and Iam worried about the effects. I hope

you can advise me of a way that I canstop this program and advise others inmy area. I am hoping to find out asmuch as I can and put together someinformation that I can pass along toneighbors and anyone else who is in-terested. I hope you can help.

Marti CraigNorth Strabane, PA

Dear Marti,NCAMP provides individuals, communi-ties and organizations with informationon pesticides and alternatives as well ashow to use this information as organiz-ing tools. We have helped numerouspeople stop hazardous pesticide sprayprograms and put alternatives in place.NCAMP can send you factsheets on com-monly used pesticides, alternatives tousing chemicals on rights-of-way, andyour state’s pesticide rules and regula-tions regarding spraying rights-of-way—information useful to a campaign. En-vironmentalists and power company of-ficials in North Carolina recently com-pleted an agreement to allow for non-spray areas along rights-of-way. (Seepage 8 in this issue.) Pennsylvania is ac-tually only one of six states that requiressome sort of notification of rights-of-wayspraying. By knowing your rights and byknowing what other community and stateregulations are doing, you can more ef-fectively organize.

Write Us!Whether you love us, hate us, orjust want to speak your mind, wewant to hear from you. All mailmust have a day time phone and averifiable address. Space is limitedso some mail may not be printed.Mail that is printed will be editedfor length and clarity. Please addressyour mail to:

NCAMP • 701 E Street, SEWashington, D.C. 20003fax: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]


Washington, DC

Drug EnforcementAgency Readies Itselfto Eradicate CannabisWith HerbicidesIn April 1998, the Drug EnforcementAgency (DEA) released a Draft Supple-mental Environmental Impact State-ment (DSEIS) regarding a change in itsefforts to eradicate the weed cannabis.The agency has been trying to rid theU.S. of cannabis since the 1980s by us-ing 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat.This year, DEA decided to replaceparaquat with Garlon (trichlopyr). Thelabel for this product says it should notbe used near waterways or where ani-mals graze, and it is toxic to fish. How-ever, one of the forms of cannabis be-ing targeted is called ditchweed, whichgrows along waterways. Why is the DEAinvolved in weed control? Because can-nabis is in the marijuana family, andthough ditchweed is not the kind culti-vated for use as a drug, its growth is stillillegal in the U.S. The DEA program isnot mandatory for states, but is availableto them for their nonfederal land and forIndian land. DEA is free to spray on fed-eral land without states’ permission. Pub-lic comment on the DSEIS was not so-licited widely by the agency, so manygroups found out late in the process ofits existence. For this reason, NCAMPwrote to Rep. D. Scaggs (D-CO), who sitson the DEA Appropriations Committee,and Rep. P. DiFazio (D-OR), a consistent

pesticide control sup-porter, asking them tourge the agency to ex-tend their 45 day com-ment period to 90 days.The agency did reply thatcomments would be ac-cepted through June, and

NCAMP wrote detailedcomments pointing out the

dangers of the chemicals, espe-cially to children, encouraging the use

of alternatives (and common sense aboutthe illegality of ditchweed) instead. Con-tact: Jack Edmundson, USDA/APHIS, Unit149, 4700 River Rd, Riverdale, MD, 20737,301-734-8274, fax 301-734-5992.

States say ConsumerSafety InformationProgram on PressureTreated Wood is a FailureAt a May 1998, meeting of the StateFIFRA Issues Research and EvaluationGroup (SFIREG), state pesticide officialsreported the failure of a program that wasestablished to inform the public of thedangers of treated wood. The programbegan in 1985 through a voluntary agree-ment between EPA and the wood treat-ment industry. The two parties agreedthat the wood treatment industry wouldproduce Consumer Information Sheets

(CISs) and ensure that they reached pur-chasers of treated wood productsthrough retail stores. The CISs instructpeople to wear protective gear when saw-ing, and how to properly dispose of saw-dust containing cancer causing inorganicarsenicals. However, state agencies saythat these sheets are not being distrib-uted, and that many retail store employ-

ees are not even aware of the safetysheets’ existence. For this reason, someEPA officials believe it is time for thevoluntary agreement to become a man-datory requirement. In 1999 the Antimi-crobials Division of EPA is also expect-ing to complete the Registration Eligi-bility Decision (RED) for wood treatmentchemicals, which also include potentialcarcinogens pentachlorophenol andcreosote. Contact: Nader Elkassabany,Chemical Review, Manager (Wood Preser-vatives), Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA,401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,703-308-8783.

Pesticide Data ProgramFinds More PesticideResidues on FoodThe most recent Pesticide Data Program(PDP) summary by USDA reports that71.8% of food samples tested in 1996 hadat least one pesticide residue. This is a6.8% increase over 1995. The agencyanalyzed 4,856 food samples includingfresh and frozen fruits and vegetables,frozen canned items, apple juice, wheat,and whole milk. The food had originatedfrom 35 states and 10 foreign countries.In total, 9,217 individual pesticide resi-dues were detected, and of these, 243were presumptive violations— 9 inwhich the tolerance for that particularfood was exceeded and 234 in which noestablished tolerance exists for thatchemical/food pair. Processed foodtended to show fewer residues than didfresh produce. The PDP was establishedin 1991 to collect data on pesticide resi-dues on food, and the reports are usedby EPA when performing risk assess-ments. While industry cites few toleranceviolations as proof of safety, safety activ-ists point out the weak data available forcreating the tolerances. Contact RobertEpstein, Associate Deputy, Administratorfor Science and Technology, AgriculturalMarketing Service, USDA, PO Box 96456,Rm 3522-S, Stop Code 0222, Washington,DC 20090.

Pesticides and You Spring / Summer 1998

Washington, DC

USDA Biological GypsyMoth Control in OH & WIAt first, NCAMP was dismayed to findout that the Animal and Plant Health In-spection Service (APHIS) decided to by-pass a public comment period regardinga gypsy moth spraying in parts of Ohioand Wisconsin. But, APHIS relieved theconcern when it informed us that thespray material would be solely Bt (Bacil-lus thuringiensis), whereas Dimilin™ hadbeen used in the past. When all life stages

of the moth were dis-covered in these

two states, thee m e r g e n c y

spraying wasdeemed nec-essary toprevent thef u r t h e rspread ofthese pests.The mothsd a m a g etrees andalready in-fest 17states andWashing-

ton DC. Interestingly, APHIS said spray-ing will be less extensive in NJ and sur-rounding states this year because a treat-ment of entomophaga mai maiga fungusfrom about 40 years ago suddenlyresurged and negatively impacted themoth population. Contact: CoanneO’Hern, Plant Protection & Quarantine,APHIS, 301-734-8247. See www.aphis.usda.org, and Federal Register online atwais.access.gpo.gov/docket #98-025-1.

Progress Made onPhaseout of PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs)In response to the international recogni-tion of the harm caused by persistentorganic pollutants (POPs), the UnitedNations sponsored an Intergovernmen-

tal Negotiating Committee (INC) meet-ing in Montreal, Canada from June 29-July 3, 1998. The meeting is one of fourwhich will produce an internationalbinding treaty on POPs phaseout by theyear 2000. The June INC meetingadopted the report of the Intergovern-mental Forum on Chemical Safety thattook place in Manila in 1996 and theUnited Nations Environment Program

Governing Council Decision 19/13C asits guiding documents, which providesa strong basis for action toward reduc-ing POPs. A contact group convened todiscuss the Criteria Experts Group whichwill be responsible for determining thecriteria for adding new chemicals to thelist of POPs to be phased out. POPs are ahealth and environmental concern be-cause they persist in the environment for

WARNING TO PARENTSYou will not see this in your local store!

When using the repellent DEET on children, BEWARE!

In April 1998, EPA quietly announced that products containing the popularinsect repellent, DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) can no longer be la-beled as “child-safe,” and must contain new restrictions when using on chil-

dren. The only problem is that EPA has allowed 26 months for product manu-facturers to apply the new label restrictions, while retail stores may continue tosell products with the old label for another 50 months. In other words, youwon’t hear about this in your store or from the manufacturer for a long time.Activists believe this time period is too long, considering the product’s poten-tial health hazards. Most repellents contain 15% or lower DEET concentration.Even at this level toxic ecephalopathy has been reported—symptoms includeweakness, disorientation, seizures, coma, and even death. DEET is used byone-third of the U.S. population and has gained popularity due to publicityabout encephalitis and Lyme disease caused by mosquitoes and ticks, respec-tively. The agency says, “Where appropriate, consider non-chemical ways todeter biting insects—screens on windows and doors, netting when camping,and long sleeves and slacks.” Activists note that this is more than the agencyhas said in the past about the use of alternatives.

New Broad Restrictions The new DEET label will inform users to take the following precautions.• Do not allow young children to apply this product• Do not apply near children’s hands or face• Apply only enough to cover exposed skin and/or clothing• Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin• Thoroughly wash all treated skin with soap and water after

returning indoors• Wash treated clothes before wearing again• Do not spray aerosol forms insideThis said, EPA studies also show that people generally do not follow label di-rections. Seemingly unaware of these developments, the National Consumer’sLeague issued a press release in April 1998 that said DEET is “the most effec-tive repellent.” and said the higher the concentration, the longer it works.For a copy of DEET’s Registration Eligibility Decision (RED), Questions and An-swers—Reregistration of the Insect Repellent DEET, contact EPA, Office of Pesti-cide Programs, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, 703-305-5805.

by Jay Feldman & Beth Fiteni


long periods and can travel via wind andwater across national boundaries. Thereare 12 specifically under scrutiny, mostof which are pesticides. When ingested,they tend to bypass the liver andbioaccumulate in fat tissues. They maybe neurotoxic, carcinogenic, and/or dis-ruptive of the endocrine system. Manygroups have convened to address thisissue over the past decade, including oneamong the U.S., Canada, and EuropeanUnion which took place in June 1998. Alot of work has been done in the GreatLakes region because POPs contamina-tion of fish and water is high. Contact:Karen Perry, International POPs Elimina-tion Network Coordinator, c/o Physiciansfor Social Responsibility, 1101 14th St, NW,Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, 202-898-0150, and see their webpage at http://www.psr.org.

EPA Takes Action onFalse Safety ClaimsAbout Disinfectants inPlastic ToysNew “germ fighting” toys were recentlyintroduced onto the market with claimsthat parents do not need to worry abouttheir kids getting germs from toys be-cause of a pesticide in them. EPA hasfound that these claims are illegal. Theagency issued a civil administrative com-plaint charging Microban Products Co.of Hunterville, NC with making unsub-stantiated public health claims. The

Big Win on First Roundof Organic Standard

S T A Y T U N E D F O R S E C O N D R O U N D

As a follow-up to our last issue of Pesticides And You which was spe-cifically dedicated to USDA’s recently proposed Organic Rules (De-cember 1997), NCAMP is happy to report that through efforts of

activists around the country, the proposed rule was retracted and is expectedto be re-proposed within several months. USDA received over 260,000 publiccomments. It was an unprecedented response level for a USDA proposed rule,and clearly far more than the agency expected. In a press statement on May 8,1998, Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman stated, “USDA is committed todeveloping national organic standards that organic farmers and consumerswill embrace.” He assured consumers that none of the “big three” issues—irradiation, genetic engineering, and biosludge—would be considered as ac-ceptable organic practices in the revised rule. He even went on to say that it ispart of USDA’s task to “stimulate the growth of organic agriculture, and de-velop export markets for this growing industry.”

NCAMP, along with the Organic Farmers Marketing Association and othergroups, submitted 75 pages of comments on the rule. NCAMP proudly re-ceived notice that our campaign to rally public input, through a radio appear-ance and distribution of a two-sided pre-made comment sheet, generated10,000 standardized responses and thousands of comments—the fifth mostcomments from any one campaign! Much thanks to those who took the timeto respond!

On July 22, 1998, Keith Jones, recently appointed Director of the NationalOrganic Program, invited the National Organic Standard Board (NOSB) andthe public to a meeting regarding the new standards. At the meeting, SecretaryGlickman stated that the agency will only consider those materials recommendedby the NOSB for inclusion on the National List of substances acceptable for usein organic agriculture. He also indicated the agency’s support of a rule moreconsistent with the spirit of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, and ac-knowledged that organic production is a mainstream concern of the Americanpublic. NCAMP anticipates an improved rule that will be more satisfactory toall parties involved. A short public comment period will accompany the releaseof the new proposed standards, so get your pens ready!

manufacturer and toy companies that usetheir pesticide additive had claimed thatthe treated toys would protect childrenfrom bacteria such as E. coli, staph andstrep. Hasbro’s Playskool division intro-duced 15 toys with the pesticide. Thecompany sites a tremendous interest inits highchair with an antibacterial tray.EPA says the pesticide is registered “toprotect the plastic in the products from

deterioration” or “inhibit bacterialgrowth in plastic.” EPA is seeking$160,000 in civil penalties and issued awarning to others to stop unapprovedpublic health claims associated withgoods such as toys, cutting boards andsponges. The Federal Insecticide, Fungi-cide and Rodenticide Act makes it illegalto issue claims about pesticide uses thathave not been approved.


Around the Country

NC Utilities AllowLandowners to SayNo to Herbicides onRights-of-WayEnvironmentalists and private landown-ers in North Carolina have been victori-ous in an agreement reached with utilitycompanies concerning rights-of-wayspraying on over 75,000 miles of powerlines. Landowners may now opt out ofthe spray program and flag their prop-erty as a no-spray area to be maintainedmechanically at no extra charge. Origi-nally the utilities had decided to beginbroadcast spraying. Duke Power, Caro-lina Power and Light, and NantahalaPower will use inserts in customers billsto describe the agreement, chemicalsused, application methods, and resourcesfor more information but will not dis-close spray schedules. Allen Spalt, direc-tor of the Agricultural Resources Cen-ter, NCAMP president and a central par-ticipant in the negotiations, says, “Imple-mentation of this will depend on theirgood will and our vigilance in monitor-ing.” Contact Allen Spalt, AgriculturalResources Center, 115 W. Main St.,Carrboro, NC 27510, 919-967-1886,[email protected]

Methyl BromideVictims File LawsuitNine injured people have joined a law-suit against Archer Daniels Midland(ADM) for its methyl bromide use.Santos Fernandez died from indirect ex-posure to the chemical in October of1997 when it traveled through vents intohis art studio. The plaintiffs include in-vestigators of Fernandez’s death whosuffered nausea, fatigue, and headachesafter visiting the art studio, a formerADM employee who was hospitalized forintense symptoms and a coma after mul-tiple workplace exposures, and workersat the Northern State’s Power Companyhydroelectric plant who experiencedheadaches, blackouts, and loss of

memory from the odorless methyl bro-mide that seeped into their workspace.ADM claims it met all legal safety require-ments. The plaintiffs claim that tunnelswere not sealed, no smell agent wasadded to the chemical, and state authori-ties were not notified as required. Con-tact NCAMP.

Activist Cindy DuehringCalled “Toxic Avenger”by People MagazineOnce described as “lively,” she neverleaves her foil-lined house in LoCreek,North Dakota, must filter the air, hasonly three visitors who bathe withdetox soap before entering, andcannot even use her own voice, lestthe sound sends her into a seizure.This story of Cindy Duehringwas featured in the February9, 1998 issue of People maga-zine. Duehring, founder of En-vironmental Access ResearchNetwork (EARN) in 1986, anNCAMP seed grant recipient,was exposed to pesticides dur-ing a routine exterminator’svisit 12 years ago. She becameextremely sensitive to various stimulisuch as perfumes and bright light, andhas gotten progressively worse symptomssince then. She continues to respond toinformation requests from people aroundthe world, and received Sweden’s RightLivelihood Award. People magazine notesthat an estimated 15% of Americans suf-fer from a form of chemical sensitivity,though patients’ illnesses are often dis-missed as psychosomatic. Contact EARN,PO Box 1089, Minot, ND 58702.

San Francisco &State of MarylandLead the Way in SchoolPesticide ReformStanding as a model for all other schools,the San Francisco Board of Education

unanimously adopted a new policy thatforces Integrated Pest Management (IPM)to be the first option of pest control. Thenew policy requires notice of intent to sprayand completely bans carcinogenic pesticideuse. Chemical pesticides are allowed onlywhen alternative methods fail. Parents andteachers became alarmed when aCALPIRG/Californians for Pesticide Re-form report, Failing Health: Pesticide Usein California Schools, issued in January dis-cussed the lack of safety precautions inCalifornia schools. A similar measure wasput in place in 1996 for the city’s munici-pal property.

A state law passed in Maryland onApril 14, 1998, requires schools to use

pesticides only “when other reason-able non-toxic means have been ex-

hausted.” It also requiresthat parents of elemen-

tary school childrenare notified 24hours prior to pes-ticide applicationand given their ad-verse effects infor-mation. This land-mark legislation isthe first statewideschool notification

and alternatives system of its kind in thenation. Legislation of this type had beenblocked in the state legislature by schoolboards and industry for over a decade.The bill does contain compromises, in-cluding a registry notification system formiddle and high schools and exemptionfor pesticides use on the grounds out-side of school buildings. Contact Pesti-cide Watch, 450 Geary St., Ste 500, SanFranscisco, CA 94102 415-929-1486 orNCAMP.

Survey Finds 3 Outof 10 ShoppersBuy Organic FoodThree in ten shoppers buy organic food,concludes a national survey of shoppinghabits conducted for Shopping for Health,

by Jay Feldman & Beth Fiteni


co-released by the Food Marketing In-stitute and Prevention Magazine. Of the1005 shoppers surveyed, 42% look fororganic claims on food labels, and 35%are willing to pay higher prices for or-ganically grown food. Shoppers chooseorganic food for positive health effects,nutritional value, and reduced environ-mental impact from growing practices.Over 50% surveyed said they would bemore willing to buy organic food prod-ucts that had an official organic seal,ironic in light of recent controversy onthe USDA proposed organic rule (See or-ganic update page 7). Shoppers expressedconcern with organic food prices and

food quality, though price ranked low-est in importance in a list of characteris-tics including taste, freshness, health ef-fects, and nutrition. Contact KaiRobertson, Food Marketing Institute, 800Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC20006, 202-429-4590 or Staci Foley, Pre-vention Magazine, 33 E. Minor St.,Emmaus, PA 18098.

Children’s CancerCluster Identified inFlorida, PesticidesSuspectedThirty-four cases of childhood brain, ner-vous system and other cancers have beendiagnosed in St. Lucie County, Florida,reported The Stuart News/Port St. LucieNews in June. Parents have directed their

concern at pesticides. In early 1998, statehealth officials were to begin a study look-ing at a number of environmental factorsincluding: air contamination in homes,contamination of canals and waterways,pesticides from citrus groves, buried con-struction material, abandoned cattle vats(pits dug on cattle ranches and filled withpesticides for cattle dips), and leaking un-derground gas tanks. Contact NCAMP.

California ReportsIncrease of PesticideRelated IllnessThe California Department of PesticideRegulation released a report at the endof 1997 saying that reports of pesticide-caused illnesses increased from 1300 in1994 to 1600 in 1995, a 23% increase.Incidents linked to agricultural pesti-cides increased by 46% and nonagricul-tural pesticide incidents rose by 6%. Thisinformation ends a decreasing trend ofreported incidents in the early 1990’s.The U.S. General Accounting Office hassaid that California has the most com-prehensive system for reporting pesticideillnesses in the nation. Even so, state of-ficials say that the reporting systemcatches only a small portion of actual poi-sonings, possibly only 1% of all poison-ings in the state.

Genetically EngineeredCorn Blocked in MaineMaine is the first state to prohibit the useof genetically engineered corn. The cornincorporates a gene added from Bacillusthuringiensis (Bt) that produces endot-oxins that kill the European corn borer.Maine law requires proof of need beforea pesticide can be registered and the com-panies (Novartis Seeds and DeKalb) didnot show data on European corn borerproblems in Maine. Due to unansweredquestions about the role of geneticallyengineered plants in promoting insectresistance to Bt pesticides, organic farm-

ers and environmentalists opposed theproposed registration. The Maine GreenParty testified, saying it was time forstates to, “Step into the breach” left by alax EPA registration process that “reliesway too heavily on industry informa-tion.” In September a petition was filedby an international collection of groupsseeking to cancel EPA registration of Btcrops. Contact Sharon Tisher, Chair, Pub-lic Policy Committee, Maine OrganicFarmers and Gardeners Association, POBox 2176, Augusta, ME 04330, 207-622-3118 or NCAMP.

Once Banned Pesticidein Use Again in LouisianaEPA approved in June the use of the toxicinsecticide carbofuran despite a 1991agreement between the agency and FMCCorporation, the chemical’s manufac-turer, to phase out most of its uses, in-cluding rice, by 1994. 39,000 pounds ofcarbofuran were approved for use on75,000 acres of rice. The 1991 agreementended an EPA Special Review that foundthe chemical caused unreasonable risksto birds — one granule can kill a smallbird. The agreement was very specific —2500 pounds of granular carbofuran forcontinued use on five crops, includingbananas, cranberries, cucurbits, spinachfor seed, and pine progeny. Then thepressure on EPA increased. Risk analy-sis aside and without considering organicmethods, EPA extended carbofuran useon rice to August, 1996 because no reg-istered chemical alternatives were avail-able. It then allowed the State of Louisi-ana to issue a “Special Local Permit” for1997-98, and raised the production capto 250,000 pounds. Carbofuran’s historyagain took a turn when a 1997 requestfor an extra 30,000 pounds was denied.However, due to “refined” dietary riskassessments and lower risk calculations,the agency reversed its position again in1998. This is even a lot for NCAMP toswallow. Contact: Dan Helfgott, OPP, EPA,Special Review Branch, 703-308-8054.


The Environmental Risks of TransgenicCrops: An Agroecological AssessmentIs the failed pesticide paradigm being genetically engineered?

Miguel A. Altieri

Genetic engineering is an application of biotechnologyinvolving the manipulation of DNA and the transferof gene components between species in order to encour-

age replication of desired traits (OTA 1992). Although there aremany applications of genetic engineering in agriculture, the cur-rent focus of biotechnology is on developing herbicide tolerantcrops and on pest and disease resistant crops. Transnational cor-porations such as Monsanto, DuPont, Norvartis, etc., which arethe main proponents of biotechnology, view transgenic crops asa way to reduce dependence on inputssuch as pesticides and fertilizers. Whatis ironic is the fact that the biorevolutionis being brought forward by the sameinterests that promoted the first wave ofagrochemically-based agriculture. Butthis time, by equipping each crop withnew “insecticidal genes,” they are prom-ising the world safer pesticides, reduc-tion in chemically intensive farming anda more sustainable agriculture.

As long as transgenic crops followclosely the pesticide paradigm, suchbiotechnological products will donothing but reinforce the pesticidetreadmill in agroecosystems, thus le-gitimizing the concerns that many scientists have expressedregarding the possible environmental risks of genetically en-gineered organisms. The most serious ecological risks posedby the commercial-scale use of transgenic crops are (Risslerand Mellon 1996; Krimsky and Wrubel 1996):L The spread of transgenic crops threatens crop genetic di-

versity by simplifying cropping systems and promoting ge-netic erosion;

L The potential transfer of genes from herbicide resistantcrops (HRCs) to wild or semidomesticated relatives thuscreating super weeds;

L HRC volunteers become weeds in subsequent crops;L Vector-mediated horizontal gene transfer and recombina-

tion to create new pathogenic bacteria;L Vector recombination to generate new virulent strains of

virus, especially in transgenic plants engineered for viralresistance with viral genes;

L Insect pests will quickly develop resistance to crops with

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin;L Massive use of Bt toxin in crops can unleash potential nega-

tive interactions affecting ecological processes and non-target organisms.

The above impacts of agricultural biotechnology are hereinevaluated in the context of agroecological goals aimed atmaking agriculture more socially just, economically viableand ecologically sound (Altieri 1996). Such evaluation is

timely, given that worldwide therehave been over 1,500 approvals forfield testing transgenic crops (theprivate sector has accounted for87% of all field tests since 1987),despite the fact that in most coun-tries stringent procedures are not inplace to deal with environmentalproblems that may develop whenengineered plants are released intothe environment (Hruska and LaraPavón 1997). A main concern is thatinternational pressures to gain mar-kets and profits is resulting in com-panies releasing transgenic cropstoo fast, without proper consider-

ation for the long-term impacts on people or the ecosystem(Mander and Goldsmith 1996).

Actors and Research DirectionsMost innovations in agricultural biotechnology are profitdriven rather than need driven, therefore the thrust of thegenetic engineering industry is not really to solve agriculturalproblems, but to create profitability. This statement is sup-ported by the fact that at least 27 corporations have initiatedherbicide tolerant plant research, including the world’s eightlargest pesticide companies Bayer, Ciba-Geigy, ICI, Rhone-Poulenc, Dow/Elanco, Monsanto, Hoescht and DuPont, andvirtually all seed companies, many of which have been ac-quired by chemical companies (Gresshoft 1996).

In the industrialized countries from 1986-1992, 57% ofall field trials to test transgenic crops involved herbicide tol-erance and 46% of applicants to the U.S. Department of Agri-culture (USDA) for field testing were chemical companies.

As long as transgenic crops

follow closely the pesticide

paradigm, such biotechnological

products will do nothing

but reinforce the pesticide

treadmill in agroecosystems.


Crops currently targeted for genetically engineered toleranceto one or more herbicides includes: alfalfa, canola, cotton,corn, oats, petunia, potato, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarbeet,sugar cane, sunflower, tobacco, tomato, wheat and others. Itis clear that by creating crops resistant to its herbicides a com-pany can expand markets for its patented chemicals. Themarket for HRCs has been estimated at more than $500 mil-lion by the year 2000 (Gresshoft 1996).

Although some testing is being conducted by universitiesand advanced research organizations, the research agenda ofsuch institutions is being increasingly influenced by the pri-vate sector in ways never seen in the past. Forty-sixpercent of biotechnology firms support biotech-nology research at universities, while 33 of the50 states have university-industry centers for thetransfer of biotechnology. The challenge for suchorganizations will not only be to ensure that eco-logically sound aspects of biotechnology are re-searched and developed (nitrogen-fixing,drought tolerance, etc.), but to carefully moni-tor and control the provision of applied non-proprietary knowledge to the private sector,so as to ensure that such knowledge willcontinue in the public domain for the ben-efit of all society.

Biotechnology andAgrobiodiversityAlthough biotechnology has the capacity tocreate a greater variety of commercial plants,the trends set forth by transnational corporations create broadinternational markets for a single product, thus creating theconditions for genetic uniformity in rural landscapes. In addi-tion, patent protection and intellectual property rights containedin GATT, inhibiting farmers from re-using, sharing and storingseeds, raises the prospect that few varieties will dominate theseed market.

Although a certain degree of crop uniformity may havecertain economic advantages, it has two ecological drawbacks.First, history has shown that a huge area planted to a singlecultivar is very vulnerable to a new, matching strain of patho-gen or pest. And, second, the widespread use of a single cul-tivar leads to a loss of genetic diversity (Robinson 1996).

Evidence from the Green Revolution leaves no doubt thatthe spread of modern varieties has been an important causeof genetic erosion, as massive government campaigns encour-aged farmers to adopt these varieties and abandon many lo-cal varieties (Tripp 1996). The uniformity caused by increas-ing areas sown to a smaller number of varieties is a source ofincreased risk for farmers, as the varieties may be more vul-nerable to disease and pest attack and most of them performpoorly in marginal environments (Robinson1996).

All the above effects are now ubiquitous to modern vari-eties and it is expected that, given their monogenic natureand fast acreage expansion, transgenic crops will only exac-erbate such effects.

Environmental Problemsof Herbicide Resistant CropsAccording to proponents of HRCs, this technology representsan innovation that enables farmers to simplify their weed man-agement requirements, by reducing herbicide use to post-emergence situations using a single, broad-spectrum herbi-cide that breaks down relatively rapidly in the soil. Herbi-

cide candidates with such characteristics include glyphosate,bromoxynil, sulfonylurea, imidazolinones among others.

However, in actuality the use of herbicide-resistantcrops is likely to increase herbicideuse as well as production costs. It isalso likely to cause serious environ-mental problems.

Herbicide ResistanceIt is well documented that whena single herbicide is used repeat-

edly on a crop, the chances of herbi-cide resistance developing in weed popu-

lations greatly increases (Holt et al. 1993).The sulfonylureas and the imidazolinones are

particularly prone to the rapid evolution of re-sistant weeds and up to now fourteen weed spe-

cies have become resistant to sulfonylurea herbi-cides. Cocklebur, an aggressive weed of soybean and corn inthe southeastern U.S., has exhibited resistance toimidazolinone herbicides (Goldburg 1992).

The problem is that given industry pressures to increaseherbicide sales, acreage treated with these broad-spectrum her-bicides will expand, exacerbating the resistance problem. Forexample, it has been projected that the acreage treated withglyphosate will increase to nearly 150 million acres. Althoughglyphosate is considered less prone to weed resistance, theincreased use of the herbicide will result in weed resistance,even if more slowly, as it has been already documented withpopulations of annual ryegrass, quackgrass, birdsfoot trefoil,and Cirsium arvense (Gill 1995).

Ecological Impacts of HerbicidesCompanies affirm that bromoxynil and glyphosate, whenproperly applied, degrade rapidly into soil, do not accumu-late in groundwater, have no effects on non-target organismsand leave no residues in food. There is, however, evidencethat bromoxynil causes birth defects in laboratory animals, istoxic to fish and may cause cancer in humans. Becausebromoxynil is absorbed dermally, and because it causes birth


defects in rodents, it is likely to pose hazards to farmers andfarm workers. Similarly, glyphosate has been reported to betoxic to some non-target species in the soil —both to benefi-cial predators such as spiders, mites, carabid and coccinellidbeetles and to detritivores such as earthworms, as well as toaquatic organisms, including fish (Pimentel et al. 1989). Asthis herbicide is known to accumulate in fruits and tuberssuffering little metabolic degradation in plants, questionsabout food safety also arise.

Creation of “Super Weeds”Although there is some concern that transgenic crops them-selves might become weeds, a major ecological risk is thatlarge scale releases of transgenic crops may promote trans-fer of transgenes from crops to other plants, which may thenbecome weeds (Darmency 1994).The biological process of concernhere is introgression, that is, hy-bridization among distinct plantspecies. Evidence indicates thatsuch genetic exchanges amongwild, weed and crop plants alreadyoccur. The incidence of shattercane(Sorghum bicolor), a weedy relativeof sorghum and the gene flows be-tween maize and teosinte demon-strates the potential for crop rela-tives to become serious weeds. Thisis worrisome given that a number of U.S. crops are grown inclose proximity to sexually compatible wild relatives. Thereare also crops that are grown near wild/weedy plants thatare not close relatives but may have some degree of crosscompatibility, such as the crosses of Raphanus raphanistrumR. X Sativus (radish) and Johnson grass X Sorghum corn(Radosevich et al. 1996).

Reduction of Agroecosystem ComplexityTotal weed removal via the use of broad-spectrum herbicidesmay lead to undesirable ecological impacts, given that an ac-ceptable level of weed diversity in and around crop fields hasbeen documented to play important ecological roles such asenhancement of biological insect pest control, better soil coverreducing erosion, etc. (Altieri 1994).

HRCs will most probably enhance continuous croppingby inhibiting the use of rotations and polycultures suscep-tible to the herbicides used with HRCs.

Such impoverished, low plant diversity agroecosystemsprovide optimal conditions for unhampered growth of weeds,insects and diseases because many ecological niches are notfilled by other organisms. Moreover, HRCs, through increasedherbicide effectiveness, could further reduce plant diversity,favoring shifts in weed community composition and abun-

dance, favoring competitive species that adapt to these broad-spectrum, post emergence treatments (Radosevich et al. 1996).

Environmental Risksof Insect Resistant CropsAccording to the industry, the promise of transgenic cropsinserted with Bt genes is the replacement of synthetic insecti-cides now used to control insect pests. Since most crops havea diversity of insect pests, insecticides will still have to beapplied to control pests other than Lepidoptera not suscep-tible to the endotoxin expressed by the crop (Gould 1994).

On the other hand, several Lepidoptera species have beenreported to develop resistance to Bt toxin in both field andlaboratory tests, suggesting that major resistance problemsare likely to develop in Bt crops which through the continu-

ous expression of the toxin create astrong selection pressure (Tabashnik1994). Given that a diversity of dif-ferent Bt-toxin genes have been iso-lated, biotechnologists argue that ifresistance develops alternative formsof Bt toxin can be used (Kennedyand Whalon 1995). However, be-cause insects are likely to developmultiple resistance or cross-resis-tance, such strategy is also doomedto fail (Alstad and Andow 1995).

Others, borrowing from past ex-perience with pesticides, have proposed resistance manage-ment plans with transgenic crops, such as the use of seedmixtures and refuges (Tabashnik 1994). In addition to re-quiring the difficult goal of regional coordination betweenfarmers, refuges have met with poor success for chemical pes-ticides, due to the fact that insect populations are not con-strained within closed systems, and incoming insects are ex-posed to lower doses of the toxin as the pesticide degrades(Leibee and Capinera 1995).

Impacts on Non-Target OrganismsBy keeping pest populations at extremely low levels, Bt cropscan starve natural enemies as these beneficial insects need asmall amount of prey to survive in the agroecosystem. Para-sites would be most affected because they are more depen-dent on live hosts for development and survival, whereas somepredators could theoretically thrive on dead or dying prey.

Natural enemies could also be affected directly throughinter-trophic level interactions. Evidence from studies con-ducted in Scotland suggest that aphids were capable of se-questering the toxin from Bt crops and transferring it to itscoccinellid (lady beetle) predators, in turn affecting repro-duction and longevity of the beneficial beetles (Birch et al.1997). Sequestration of plant allelochemicals by herbivores

Total weed removal via the

use of broad-spectrum

herbicides may lead to

undesirable ecological impacts.


which then affect parasitoid performance is not uncommon(Campbell and Duffey 1979). The potential of Bt toxins mov-ing through food chains poses serious implications for natu-ral biocontrol in agroecosystems.

Bt toxins can be incorporated into the soil through leafmaterials, where they may persist for 2-3 months, resistingdegradation by binding to soy clay particles while maintain-ing toxin activity (Palm et al. 1996). Such Bt toxins that endup in the soil and water from transgenic leaf litter may havenegative impacts on soil and aquatic invertebrates and nutri-ent cycling processes (James 1997), all aspects that deserveserious further inquiry.

Downstream EffectsA major environmental consequence resulting from the mas-sive use of Bt toxin in cotton or other crops occupying a largerarea of the agricultural landscape, is that neighboring farm-ers who grow crops other than cotton, but that share similarpest complexes, may end up with resistant insect populationscolonizing their fields. As Lepidopteran pests that developresistance to Bt cotton, move to adjacent fields where farmersuse Bt as a microbial insecticide, may render farmers defense-less against such pests, as they lose their biologicalcontrol tool (Gould 1994). Who will beaccountable for such losses?

Impacts of DiseaseResistant CropsScientists have attempted to engineerplants for resistance to pathogenicinfection by incorporating genes forviral products into the plant genome.Although the use of viral genes for resistancein crops to virus has potential benefits, there aresome risks. Recombination between RNA virus and a viralRNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new patho-gen leading to more severe disease problems. Some research-ers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plantsand that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strainwith altered host range (Steinbrecher 1996). The possibilitythat transgenic virus-resistant plants may broaden the hostrange of some viruses or allow the production of new virusstrains through recombination and transcapsidation demandscareful further experimental investigation (Paoletti andPimentel 1996).

The Performance ofField-Released Transgenic CropsUntil early 1997, thirteen genetically modified crops had beenderegulated by the USDA which were already on the marketor in the fields for the first time. Over 20% of the U.S. soy-bean acreage was planted with Roundup (gylphosate) toler-

ant soybean and about 400,000 acres of maximizer Bt cornwere planted in 1996. Such acreage expanded considerablyin 1997 (transgenic cotton: 3.5 million acres, transgenic corn:8.1 million acres and soybean: 9.3 million acres) due to mar-keting and distribution agreements entered into by corpora-tions and marketers (i.e. Ciba Seeds with Growmark andMycogen Plant Sciences with Cargill).

Given the speed with which products move from labora-tory testing to field production, are transgenic crops livingup to the expectations of the biotechnology industry? Ac-cording to evidence presented by the Union of ConcernedScientists, there are already signals that the commercial-scaleuse of some transgenic crops pose serious ecological risks anddo not deliver the promises of industry (Table 1).

The appearance of “behavioral resistance” by bollwormsin cotton, that is the herbivore was capable of finding planttissue areas with low Bt concentrations, raises questions not

only about the adequacy of the resis-tance management plans beingadopted, but also about the way

biotechnologists underestimate the ca-pacity of insects to overcome genetic re-

sistance in unexpected manners (The GeneExchange 1996)

Similarly, poor harvests of herbicide resis-tant cotton due to phytotoxic effects ofRoundup™ (glyphosate) in four to five thou-sand acres in the Mississippi Delta (New YorkTimes 1997) points at the erratic performanceof HRCs when subjected to varying

agroclimatic conditions. Monsanto claims thatthis is a very small and localized incident that is

being used by environmentalists to overshadow thebenefits that the technology brought on 800,000 acres. Froman agroecological standpoint however, this incident is quitesignificant and merits further evaluation, since assuming thata homogenizing technology will perform well through a rangeof heterogeneous conditions is incorrect.

ConclusionsWe know from the history of agriculture that plant diseases,insect pests and weeds become more severe with the develop-ment of monoculture, and that intensively managed and ge-netically manipulated crops soon lose genetic diversity (Altieri1994, Robinson 1996). Given these facts, there is no reason tobelieve that resistance to transgenic crops will not evolve amonginsects, weeds and pathogens as has happened with pesticides.No matter what resistance management strategies will be used,pests will adapt and overcome the agronomic constraints (Greenet al. 1990). Diseases and pests have always been amplified bychanges toward homogeneous agriculture.

The fact that interspecific hybridization and introgression


are common to species such as sunflower, maize, sorghum,oilseed rape, rice, wheat and potatoes, provides a basis to ex-pect gene flow between transgenic crops and wild relatives tocreate new herbicide resistant weeds. Despite the fact thatsome scientists argue that genetic engineering is not differentthan conventional breeding, critics of biotechnology claimthat rDNA technology enables new (exotic) genes intotransgenic plants. Such gene transfers are mediated by vec-tors that are derived from disease-causing viruses or plasmids,which can breakdown species barriers so that they can shuttlegenes between a wide range of species, thus infecting manyother organisms in the ecosystem.

But the ecological effects are not limited to pest resistanceand the creation of new weeds or virus strains. As arguedherein, transgenic crops can produce environmental toxinsthat move through the food chain and also may end up in thesoil and water affecting invertebrates and probably ecologicalprocesses such as nutrient cycling.

Many people have argued for the creation of suitable regu-lation to mediate the testing and release of transgenic cropsto offset environmental risks and demand a much better as-sessment and understanding of ecological issues associatedwith genetic engineering.This is crucial as manyresults emerging from theenvironmental perfor-mance of released trans-genic crops suggest that inthe development of “resis-tant crops,” not only isthere a need to test directeffects on the target insector weed, but the indirecteffects on the plant (i.e.growth, nutrient content,metabolic changes), soiland non-target organismsmust also be evaluated.

Others demand contin-ued support for ecologicallybased agricultural research,as all the biological prob-lems that biotechnologyaims at, can be solved usingagroecological approaches.The dramatic effects of ro-tations and intercropping oncrop health and productiv-ity, as well as of the use ofbiological control agents onpest regulation have beenconfirmed time and time

again by scientific research (Altieri 1994, NRC 1996). The prob-lem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflectsthe interests of private funders at the expense of public goodresearch such as biological control, organic production systemsand general agroecological techniques (Busch et al. 1990). Civilsociety must demand a response to the question of whom theuniversity and other public organizations are to serve and re-quest for more research on alternatives to biotechnology. Thereis also an urgent need to challenge the patent system and intel-lectual property rights intrinsic to the GATT, which not onlyprovide transnational corporations with the right to seize andpatent genetic resources, but also accelerates the rate at whichmarket forces already encourage monocultural cropping withgenetically uniform transgenic varieties.

Among the various recommendations for action that non-governmental organizations, farmers organizations and citi-zen groups should bring forward to local, national and inter-national fora include:L End public funded research on transgenic crops that en-

hance agrochemical use and that pose environmental risks;L HRCs and other transgenic crops should be regulated as

pesticides;

Table 1. Field Performance of Some Recently ReleasedTransgenic Crops

Additional insecticide sprays needed due to Bt cotton failing tocontrol bollworms in 20,000 acres in eastern Texas. The GeneExchange, 1996; Kaiser, 1996.

Bt transgenic cotton.

Cotton inserted withRoundup Readgô gene.

Bolls deformed and falling off in 4-5 thousand acres in Missis-sippi Delta. Lappe and Bailey, 1997; Myerson, 1997.

Bt corn. 27% yield reduction and lower Cu foliar levels in Beltsvilletrial. Hornick, 1997.

Herbicide resistantoilseed rape.

Pollen escaped and fertilized botanically related plants 2.5 kmaway in Scotland. Scottish Crop Research Institute, 1996.

CROP PERFORMANCE

Virus resistant squash. Vertical resistance to two viruses and not to others transmit-ted by aphids. Rissler, J. (Personal communication).

Early FLAVR-SAVRtomato varieties.

Roundup ReadyCanola.

Did not exhibit acceptable yields and disease resistance per-formance. Biotech Reporter, 1996.

Pulled off the market due to contamination with a gene thatdoes not have regulatory approval. Rance, 1997.

Bt potatoes. Aphids sequestered the Bt toxin apparently affecting coccinellidpredators in negative ways. Birch et al., 1997.

Herbicidetolerant crops.

Development of resistance by annual ryegrass to Roundup.Gill, 1995.


L All transgenic food crops should be labeled as such;L Increase funding for alternative agricultural technologies;L Ecological sustainability, alternative low-input technolo-

gies, the needs of small farmers and human health andnutrition should be pursued with greater vigor than bio-technology;

L Trends set by biotechnology must be balanced by publicpolicies and consumer choices in support of sustainability;

L Measures should encourage sustainable and multiple use

of biodiversity at the community level, with emphasis ontechnologies that promote self-reliance and local controlof economic resources as a means to foster a more equi-table distribution of benefits.

Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D. is a professor in the Department of En-vironmental Science, Policy and Management, University of Cali-fornia, 201 Wellman, Berkeley, CA 94720. He can be reached at510-642-9802 or email: [email protected].

References

Alstad, D.N. and D.A. Andow 1995. Managing the Evolution of Insect Re-sistance to Transgenic Plants. Science 268: 1894-1896.

Altieri, M.A. 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems.Haworth Press, New York.

Altieri, M.A. 1996. Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture.Westview Press, Boulder.

Biotech Reporter 1996. (Financial Section, page 14, March 1996).Birch, A.N.E. et al. 1997. Interaction Between Plant Resistance Genes, Pest

Aphid Populations and Beneficial Aphid Predators. Scottish Crops Re-search Institute (SCRI). Annual Report 1996-1997, pp. 70-72.

Busch, L., W.B. Lacey, J. Burkhardt and L. Lacey 1990. Plants, Power andProfit. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Campbell, B.C. and S.C. Duffy 1979. Tomatine and Parasitic Wasps: poten-tial incompatibility of plant antibiosis with biological control. Science205: 700-702.

Darmency, H. 1994. The Impact of Hybrids Between Genetically ModifiedCrop Plants and their Related Species: introgression and weediness.Molecular Ecology 3: 37-40.

Fowler, C. and P. Mooney 1990. Shattering: food, politics and the loss ofgenetic diversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Gill, D.S. 1995. Development of Herbicide Resistance in Annual RyegrassPopulations in the Cropping Belt of Western Australia. Australian Jour-nal of Exp. Agriculture 3: 67-72.

Goldburg, R.J. 1992. Environmental Concerns with the Development ofHerbicide-Tolerant Plants. Weed Technology 6: 647-652.

Gould, F. 1994. Potential and Problems with High-Dose Strategies for Pesti-cidal Engineered Crops. Biocontrol Science and Technology 4: 451-461.

Green, M.B.; A.M. LeBaron and W.K. Moberg (eds) 1990. Managing Resis-tance to Agrochemicals. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

Gresshoft, P.M. 1996. Technology Transfer of Plant Biotechnology. CRC Press,Boca Raton.

Holt, J.S., S.B. Powles and J.A.M. Holtum 1993. Mechanisms and AgronomicAspects of Herbicide Resistance. Annual Review Plant Physiology PlantMolecular Biology 44: 203-229.

Hormick, S.B. 1997. Effects of a Genetically-Engineered Endophyte on theYield and Nutrient Content of Corn (Interpretive summary availablethrough Geocities Homepage: www.geocities.com).

Hruska, A.J. and M. Lara Pavón 1997. Transgenic Plants in MesoamericanAgriculture. Zamorano Academic Press, Honduras.

James, R.R. 1997. Utilizing a Social Ethic Toward the Environment in As-sessing Genetically Engineered Insect-Resistance in Trees. Agricultureand Human Values 14: 237-249.

Kaiser, J. 1996. Pests Overwhelm Bt Cotton Crop. Science 273: 423.Kennedy, G.G. and M.E. Whalon 1995. Managing Pest Resistance to Bacil-

lus thuringiensis Endotoxins: constraints and incentives to implemen-tation. Journal of Economic Entomology 88: 454-460.

Krimsky, S. and R.P. Wrubel 1996. Agricultural Biotechnology and the En-vironment: science, policy and social issues. University of Illinois Press,Urbana.

Lappe, M. And B. Bailey 1997. Genetic Engineered Cotton in Jeopardy.www2.cetos.org/1/toxalts/bioflop.html.

Leibee, G.L. and J.L. Capinera 1995. Pesticide Resistance in Florida InsectsLimits Management Options. Florida Entomologist 78: 386-399.

Lipton, M. 1989. New Seeds and Poor People. The John Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore.

Mander, J. and E. Goldsmith 1996. The Case Against the Global Economy.Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

Mikkelsen, T.R., B. Andersen and R.B. Jorgensen 1996. The Risk of CropTransgenic Spread. Nature 380: 31 32.

Myerson, A.R. 1997. Breeding Seeds of Discontent: growers say strain cutsyields. New York Times (11/19/97 Business Section).

National Research Council 1996. Ecologically Based Pest Management.National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.

Office of Technology Assessment 1992. A new Technological Era for Ameri-can Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Palm, C.J., D.L. Schaller, K.K. Donegan and R.J. Seidler 1996. Persistence inSoil of Transgenic Plant Produced Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kustaki d-endotoxin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology (in press).

Paoletti, M.G. and D. Pimentel 1996. Genetic Engineering in Agricultureand the Environment: assessing risks and benefits. BioScience 46: 665-671.

Pimentel, D. et al. 1992. Environmental and Economic Costs of PesticideUse. BioScience 42: 750-760.

Pimentel, D., M.S. Hunter, J.A. LaGro, R.A. Efroymson, J.C. Landers, F.T.Mervis, C.A. McCarthy and A.E. Boyd 1989. Benefits and Risks of ge-netic engineering in Agriculture. BioScience 39: 606-614.

Radosevich, S.R.; J.S. Holt and C.M. Ghersa 1996. Weed Ecology: implica-tions for weed management (2nd edition). John Wiley and Sons. NewYork.

Rissler, J. and M. Mellon 1996. The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops.MIT Press, Cambridge.

Robinson, R.A. 1996. Return to Resistance: breeding crops to reduce pesti-cide resistance. AgAccess, Davis.

Scotish Crop Research Institute 1996. Research Notes, Genetic Crops Com-munity Institute.

Steinbrecher, R.A. 1996. From Green to Gene Revolution: the environmen-tal risks of genetically engineered crops. The Ecologist 26: 273-282.

Tabashnik, B.E. 1994. Delaying Insect Adaptation to Transgenic Plants: seedmixtures and refugia reconsidered. Proc. R. Soc. London B255: 7-12.

Tabashnik, B.E. 1994. Genetics of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. An-nual Review of Entomology 39: 47 79.

Tripp, R. 1996. Biodiversity and Modern Crop Varieties: sharpening thedebate. Agriculture and Human Values 13: 48-62.

Union of Concerned Scientists 1996. Bt Cotton Fails to Control Bollworm.The Gene Exchange 7: 1-8.



When NCAMP launched its Toxic Warning Signalsand Alternatives Project we wanted to put a hu-man face on the pesticide poisoning epidemic in

the U.S. Regulatory agencies prefer to deal in statistics of ac-ceptable risk and harm. They rationalize the numbers of pes-ticide-caused cancers, neurologial disorders, organ failures,behavioral effects, reproductive problems and deaths as rea-sonable in light of pesticide benefits. We thought if we couldput the poisoned human faces before state and federal regula-tors and politicians we might begin to get somewhere.

Often poisoning incidents are dismissed by EPA as a mat-ter of misuse perpetrated by bad actors in an otherwise soundpesticide use and regulatory system. What emerges, however,from the daily public reports are unrealistic and unfoundedregulatory assumptions regarding (i) how pesticides are typi-cally used, (ii) user and public understanding about the po-tential hazards of pesticides, (iii) theinability to control pesticide drift, (iv)the unresponsiveness of state enforce-ment agencies, and (v) user and pub-lic knowledge of the alternatives totoxic chemicals for pest management.

The continued rationalization of 4.5billion pounds of pesticide use annu-ally makes the Toxic Warning Signalsand Alternatives Project absolutely nec-essary on an ongoing basis. We collectthe sad facts on our Pesticide IncidentReport form. We take the facts andpublicize them, share them with regu-latory officials and the media, helppeople find more facts, litigate, andbuild a base of political power to turnthis situation around.

We are now reaching out to peoplewith NCAMP’s new website andwebpage How to Avoid Pesticide Injury(and what to do if you can’t), which is published here. Thanksto long-term NCAMP board member Terry Shistar, who her-self endures the frequent assault of pesticides while living withher family in Kansas, we are effectively reaching out with thewebpage she designed. Shortly, we will post NCAMP’s inci-dent forms, as a means of collecting an even greater volumeof reports. On the flip side, NCAMP is collecting AlternativeSuccess Reports, which illustrate that the hazards people en-dure are unnecessary in light of the viability of alternatives.

It is painful to hear all the stories that people bring toNCAMP, not being able in most cases to offer adequate relief,not being able to fix the serious adverse effects. With Toxic

Warning Signals we believe that we can together amass thestrength as a nation to stop the daily assault and begin toprevent pest problems and when they occur address them ina safer way.

What follows are some of the reports we have received re-cently. Let us hear from you or someone you know.

Here is what we are hearing:

Homeowners in rural Louisiana were poisonedafter their home was treated for termites.“I need to get my voice heard on the matter of pesticide poi-sonings. We were exposed to Dursban™, permethrin and oth-ers we have not identified due to the company not furnishingus with the application slips when the chemicals were ap-plied. A national pesticide treatment company (Terminix)

treated our home for termites. The per-son told us that there was no problemand that we could stay in the house dur-ing and after the treatment. This guytrenched around the outside perimeterof the house and sprayed these chemi-cals from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. What hereally did was flood the underneath ofthe house until the fumes entering theinside overcame me. He was too large aperson to crawl around the piers and thebond beam around the perimeter of thehouse. We called the LA Department ofAgriculture. No one wants to listen. Wefinally found the company franchiseowner who flew out to meet with us.He had an attorney draw up a purchasecontract to buy our home and 2 1/2acres. After receiving these documentshe wanted us to sign a document releas-ing him of all liability. We then refusedthe sale. This occurred back in 1993 and

now we are being forced to settle the claims on our house andtort damages in arbitration hearing. My wife and I have beenfound to have medical problems including chemical encepha-lopathy, visual and strength loss and other findings. I am nolonger able to handle this and am in a state of depressionwith no more strength to continue fighting.”

A New York homeowner also writesabout a termite application gone bad.“Your organization has provided me helpful, relevant infor-mation regarding our situation, for which we are grateful!



We had our residence treated for termites by Terminix twicein 1996. To make for a good story, we now have a major infes-tation. At first we had what appeared to us as flying ants, ahalf dozen or so. Saw the commercial for a free inspectionand took them up on it. Naturally the sales pitch had ourhouse falling down if we didn’t get treatment immediately.We bought it hook, line and sinker, to preserve the value ofour property. After each treatment, injected through/in cin-der blocks, we had leakage of thechemical the following day and astrong odor (particularly in thewinter of 1996-97) that still issporadically present in our home.We were given a product label forEquity™. With a 3-year-old sonI am phobic of any toxic sub-stances and told the salesmansuch. Cleverly, he said one thingand did another. Numerous calls,over 50 during that period, leftme assured that the chemical washarmless because of its innocu-ous inert ingredients. Numerous swarms were noticed in Janu-ary, which had never occurred prior to the [initial] treatments.After a month or so of re-inspections, the regional managementreferred us to a local company and Orkin, [who] would takecare of the problem. The Orkin rep walked in and with his twenty-five years in the business immediately identifies a “misapplica-tion.” Told me, by the odor, Equity™ was not used but DursbanTC™. Our cinder block foundation was pumped full from theinside, which is illegal in New York State, and no ventilation wasinstalled or plastic covering laid in an elevated sub-floor area, toprevent the chemicals from coming up into our living quarters.We got in touch with our Department of Environmental Con-servation/ECON. We still [had] no resolution, living in the homebecause ECON does not have enough “factual” information tosay it’s unsafe. Air testing this past summer found we have asmuch as 720 ppm of chemicals like benzene, xylene and tolu-ene, just to name a few of those “innocuous inerts.” My wife hashad two miscarriages and my son now is a likely candidate forleukemia. We are preparing a civil lawsuit for the toxic tort as-pect of this offense. The numerous violations documented bythe state official who inspected our property will result in noth-ing more than Terminix doing what they should have done dur-ing the initial treatment (plastic & ventilation, which I have al-ready installed). We still have the chemical odor and are cur-rently in the process of moving out.

I am sure this is not the first horror story you have heardand most likely not the last. But to my family and me it hasdisrupted our life and most certainly our future. Keep up thegood work on behalf of those ‘unheard voices’.”

Office workers in Virginia got sick aftera termite treatment of their building.An office worker on the first floor of a building, built on aslab, inhaled vapors from a termite application to the build-ing with Dursban TC™. She reports that, “People were drill-ing holes in concrete sidewalks and applying pesticide. Westarted feeling ill for days afterwards.” There was no warn-

ing, no precautions taken. Acomplaint was filed with theVirginia Department of Agri-culture. Another worker writesthat she has been tested, andthe test shows “below normalcholinesterase levels in bloodserum eight weeks after appli-cation.” She reports having flu-like symptoms since the inci-dent. The chemical was de-scribed as drifting in from out-side and possibly seeping intothe flooring of the ground floor.

Another worker reports that she “began choking and feelingmentally disoriented, burning eyes and throat.” She smelledthe product. She says, “I was sick for about a month and ahalf with intermittent nausea.” When the state enforcementagency was called, she was told that they couldn’t sample theair, only soil, and that “their job is to protect consumers fromfraudulent business claims, such as saying they usedDursban™ when they really used water.” She was also toldby a state official that the “odor we kept smelling for weekswas “only the petroleum distillates used as solvents.” No in-vestigation was done by the state.

A homeowner in New Jersey developed skinproblems after using a weed chemical.He applied a herbicide in a spray bottle and was exposed onhis skin. Although he used rubber gloves, there was a pin-hole in one finger that allowed the chemical into the gloveand in contact with the skin. Now he reports, “I have a chronicskin inflammation on my right thumb and forefinger.” He isunder doctor’s care and indicates that he was led to believethat pesticides were safe.

A woman in upstate New York reportsroutine spraying by “ChemLawn and smalloperators” resulting in sickness.She reports spraying by lawn care companies under all weatherconditions, including windy days. She is not notified beforeor when pesticides are being used. She says she “smelled it inand outside of the house and was made ill upon breathing the

The continued rationalization of 4.5

billion pounds of pesticide use annually

makes the Toxic Warning Signals and

Alternatives Project absolutely

necessary on an ongoing basis.



fumes.” The spraying has caused her to get dizzy and weakand suffer heart irregularity. While she is reporting a specificincident, she describes this as a daily occurrence.

Past pesticide use reported inNorth Dakota continues to poisonAn NCAMP member writes, “When I was growing up on ourfarm in northeast Ramsey County, North Dakota, in the mid-40s, it was common throughout our community to spray themilk cows daily during the fly season. It was done with akerosene-based DDT pesticide solution to control the fly prob-lem. I have just found out recently that instead of using theoil, or kerosene spray solution regularly, we should have onlyused it infrequently.

In their book, DDT-Killer or Killers, published in 1946, au-thors O.T. Zimmerman and Irvin Lavine (formerly head ofChemical Engineering, UND) advise on page 111 as follows:“For direct application to the animals, theoil solution, of course, should not be used,but either the emulsion or the dispersion ofwettable powder, applied as a spray at therate of about one quart per adult horse orcow, will effectively control the horn fly aswell as other flies for a few weeks or more.”

So beginning in about 1946, and con-tinuing for a period of several years, I andall other children in my farming commu-nity were exposed to a potent toxic sub-stance on a daily basis during the fly sea-son. It would enter our bodies through ourskin, because the organic solvent dissolvesthe natural oils that protect against dermaltransmission. We drank it in our milk, weate it in our butter, we ate it in the meat,and we breathed the spray mist.

Since 1977, many friends from my ru-ral childhood community have died. Sev-eral from various types of cancers, othersfrom liver problems, heart disease andbrain aneurysms. DDT was banned in 1972. Now, whethermy friends’ deaths were related to our misuse of DDT whenwe were children or not I don’t know, but I suspect so andwish someone would take a look at the possibility. By con-trast, not a single city friend of my approximate age who wasnot exposed to DDT regularly as a child has died.

Before closing, I must make one important point. None ofthe adults in our community, of course, knew that we werecausing harm to our animals by spraying them with kerosene-based DDT. If anyone had suspected that was the case, theyalso would have then understood that doing so would harmpeople, and it would have stopped. If anyone is responsible for

our misuse of DDT, it would have to be the manufacturer.”The poisoning continues. He writes, “If you live on a farm

that has a barn on it that was used to house milk cows between1946 and 1972, then you should know that it might be con-taminated with the pesticide DDT. DDT has a half life of be-tween 2 and 20 years. So, if the barn on your farm was sprayedwith DDT, you might want to keep anyone, especially smallchildren, from entering these barns until the EnvironmentalProtection Agency has tested it to see if it is still toxic.”

A man in Philadelphia, PA tells of sprayingin his apartment.The spraying with diazinon for cockroaches in his apartmentbuilding has resulted in a strong persistent odor and healthproblems. The strong odor and resulting health problems pro-vided the only notification of the pesticide’s use. He reports,“The label says to dilute with water for residential use. I found

full strength in a spray bottle used in thebuilding.” He was lead to believe that thepesticide was safe when he inquired.

Teachers in a Florida schoolreport spraying of schoolbuilding and resulting illness.Several teachers report that the insideof their school was sprayed for roaches,ants and lice. When they returned toschool after vacation, dead roaches wereobserved everywhere in the building.Teachers report being poisoned by get-ting pesticides on their skin, by breath-ing vapors and through the ingestion ofresidues on utensils. Individuals suf-fered from coughing and headaches.Five teachers are diagnosed as chemi-cally sensitized. Three were approved forworkman’s compensation. Cans ofmalathion were observed in the build-ing and a questionable combination of

pesticides were admittedly used within the school. Whileinitial investigative reports by the state were released, thefinal report was not.

An individual in Pennsylvaniareports contamination and poisoningafter using moth repellents in home.After being led to believe that the pesticides he was about touse as a moth repellent in his home were safe, he used twochemicals that together formed a very toxic vapor. The chemi-cals were reported as naphthalene and paradichlorobenzene.According to the individual, “Both products (in fine print)



say do not use with another moth preventive chemical. It doesnot say that if you do, you create a lethal nerve gas whichpermeates everything and has no antidote.” Scans on the in-dividual reveal brain damage. “We have lost everything weowned, our house and all our personal belongings.”

From the malathion spray area for medfly inFlorida, there are many reports of illness.On the morning of June 10th, those of us who live on 29th

Street, NW, considered in the buffer zone because of its prox-imity to the Manatee River, were sprayed with hoses full ofmalathion. Malathion was on everything including lawnchairs, cars, our children’s toys. The stench of garlic was sostrong that we had to cover our mouths and noses outside.My three neighbors and I happened to be there at the timeand ran out to try and stop the sprayers. Some of us hadplaced “No Spray” signs on our doors which were ignored.Three of the adults exposed fell ill. We ex-perienced tightness of chest, partial loss ofvision, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, burningsensations on our tongues and skin.

The children arrived home from school afew hours later. The same children whostarted “Kids Who Care,” a group of gradeschool age children who rallied to educate thecommunity on malathion, fell ill that night.What happened on 29th Street and to all ofBradenton and Palmetto? What can we do toprotect our children?

Children sickened by the application ofmalathion in Bradenton, Florida in the at-tempt to eradicate the medfly included 428complaints that were called into the Depart-ment of Health. They dismissed many of themas being the “flu.” Interestingly enough, these “flu-like” symp-toms are standard for organophosphate exposure. People re-spond to malathion exposure differently as is noted below ina small group of children chosen over the many who fell ill.J Sean, age 8, came home from school after all the trees and

bushes had been hosed down with malathion. He playedfor a while outside but began to feel sick. By late afternoonhe was sick to his stomach. His tongue began to burn andhe developed a rash all over his body.

J Matthew, age 12, arrived home from school 3 hours afterhis home and the lot next to it were hosed down withmalathion. He played outside for a while. As the night woreon he began to have flu-like symptoms with wheezing.

J Steven, age 10, played outside with his two brothers afterschool. By early evening, however, he felt so tired (extremefatigue) that he cancelled his end of school overnight and

went to sleep at an unusually early hour.J Eric, age 13, went swimming a few hours after his home

was ground sprayed with hoses full of malathion. Byevening he had developed a bad headache which was fol-lowed immediately after by a nosebleed.

J Samuel, age 10, played in a yard where the trees and busheshad been sprayed a few hours earlier with malathion. Symp-toms a few hours later included a headache, sore neck andextreme fatigue.

Farmworker death linked to pesticideexposure on the farm.While riding his bike to the orchards where he worked, 17year old Jose Antonio Casillas collapsed and died. When dis-covered by emergency workers he had white foam runningfrom his nose and mouth, reported the Salt Lake Tribune onJuly 5, 1998. Casillias’ uncles say that he was sprayed with

pesticides on June 20 while he was workingin a peach orchard and complained of an in-tense headache. He was soaked again by pes-ticides from a spray tractor on June 26, theday before his death. After the last exposure,Casillas’ uncle said the boy began “vomit-ing, sweating, suffering from diarrhea andcomplaining of more headaches.” The symp-toms he experienced are consistent with pes-ticide poisoning. Todd Grey, the state’s chiefmedical examiner who performed the au-topsy said, “Exposure to various pesticidesis very hard to prove…I may get a negativetoxicology report, but it does not prove thatsomeone did not die from exposure to pesti-cides.” Casillas had no training about thedangers of pesticides and did not know that

they are poisonous. Antionio Guerra, an outreach worker forthe Utah Farmworker Health Program said, “He was sohealthy, he was strong…He lifted weights, he rode his bike;after work when everyone else was exhausted he played soc-cer. Then one day he just dies?”

Send in your experiences to NCAMP.Together change will happen.

Please help us prevent more harm to people and the environ-ment. Send NCAMP your story or the story of someone youknow by using NCAMP’s Pesticide Incident Form, EcologicalEffects Report or Alternative Success Report. Contact NCAMP,701 E Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003, 202-543-5450, 202-543-4791(fax), e-mail: [email protected], or find the formson NCAMP’s website: http://www.ncamp.org.


How To Avoid Pesticide Injury(and what to do if you can’t)

1 Notify people who might be spraying in your area.Tell them you don’t want to be exposed to pesticides throughdrift, runoff, or vaporization. You might tell people about anydisabilities (chemical sensitivities, allergies, and asthma, forexample) that might cause their spraying to deny you accessto your own property and the use of public facilities. (This isan approach that is successful for some people.) If you have afarm that is certified organic where the certification is in dan-ger, some people respond to lost money. Similarly, bees arevulnerable to insecticides. (On the other hand, some peopleworry that notifying people about such things will provokespiteful pesticide attacks. Use your best judgment on this.)

2 Ask those people who might spray near you to notifyyou in advance so that you can protect yourself, yourfamily, and your property.

Unfortunately, the experience of many people is that the timesthat they don’t notify you are the times when the spraying isworst—for example, when they’ve been waiting for days forthe wind to die down, and they finally give up. However, ifyou are notified in advance, it will help in several ways.

Some communities have laws requiring notification of im-pending pesticide applications in some or all cases. Some stateshave passed laws that prohibit communities from passing suchordinances. NCAMP is currently compiling a list of statutes andordinances concerning notification. Contact us for information.

3 If county or township roadside spraying is a problem,post your roadside with “do not spray” signs and notifythe appropriate county/township personnel.

That may not be as easy as it sounds. For example, in sometownships, the road grader is the one who sprays. He maynot work in an office. You have to reach him at home, and hemay not return messages.

4 If you know that there will be spraying in your area:• Try to find out what chemical will be sprayed, and get

a copy of the label.If the sprayer won’t give you a copy, get the name of theproduct as completely as possible, and call the state en-forcement agency and ask for a label. Or check out ourmanufacturer links for label files. (See page 25.)

• If it’s possible, get sensitive individuals out of the area

during and immediately after the spraying.Ha! Where to? Usually when they are spraying one place,they are spraying all over. That’s why we said, “If it’spossible...” If you can’t, stay inside during the sprayingand immediately after, with the windows closed. Thenit gets tricky. At what point is it better to open the win-dows and let in fresh air? That will depend on a lot ofthings, including the temperature (chemicals vaporizefaster in hotter weather), rain (some will wash off, butsome will be activated by rain), wind direction (towardsyou or away), and, of course, what was sprayed. If thestuff is smelly, then your nose can be a guide, but some-times the smell comes from stuff that’s added to the ac-tual poison—you don’t know that the poison is gonejust because the smelly stuff breaks down.

• When driving through an area that has been sprayed,close your windows and vents, putting your car’s fanon maximum recirculation.

• Don’t allow pets to run through sprayed areas.Besides the hazards to them, they can track pesticidesinto the house, where they last longer than they wouldoutside.

5 When they spray:• Protect yourself. Don’t forget things like clothes hang-

ing on clotheslines!• Gather information and write it down:

• Date and time.• Description and/or photos of plane, truck, or other

application device:• Plane: number, color, flight pattern, how turns were made• Truck: license number, business name.• Other: type of device, identification, how far away,

how was spray directed?• Can you see spray being released off target?• Weather conditions:• Wind direction and speed. If you don’t have an an-

emometer, you can call the nearest airport and/or lookat clues like how smoke rises, do leaves rustle, doflags extend, do branches move, etc.

• Temperature• Humidity and sky conditions.• Any effects you notice immediately: smell, strange

behavior of bees, irritation to eyes or mucous mem-branes, headache, nausea, other symptoms.

The first three steps are actions you can take ahead of time to avoid pesticide driftand injury. If spraying is about to occur or has already occurred, skip to step 4○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Terry Shistar



• What property is being sprayed?6 If there is drift, or you suspect drift, of the pesticide onto

you or your property, call the state agency and EPA tofile a pesticide misuse complaint. Ask them to send aninvestigator.

In addition, you should report any application that drifts intoa body of water (in many cases, this is illegal) and anythingthat appears unsafe (spraying around a school bus stop, forexample.)7 After the most urgent steps have been taken care of:

• Call the landowner, farmer, or pesticide applicator tofind out what pesticide was used.

The name could be given as a trade name or a commonname (“active ingredients”). Try to get both. Other impor-tant identifiers are the Chemical Abstracts System (CAS)numbers for the active ingredients and the manufacturer.• Find out possible ill effects of

exposure and what you can doto mitigate them.

An important source of information isthe pesticide label. The label is some-what useful as a source of informationabout the pesticide hazards, but it isalso a legal document that prescribesapplication methods and precautions.It may be available from the applica-tor, the state agency, NCAMP, or themanufacturer’s web page.

The product’s material safety datasheet or MSDS may be obtained fromthe applicator, state agency, or throughthe links on NCAMP’s website.

Additional information is availablefrom several sources, including theNCAMP: 202-543-5450 http://www.ncamp.org, [email protected])and the Northwest Coalition for Al-ternatives to Pesticides (NCAP: 541-344-5044 http://www.ncap.org,[email protected])• Take recommended medical mea-

sures.Wash herbicide residues off valuable trees and shrubs af-ter taking samples.• Document the damage.In the case of herbicides, it is important to document thecondition of susceptible plants before and after the dam-age is apparent. Most herbicides will show their effects 1-7 days after the application. Take photographs immedi-ately after the application to show condition of plants be-fore the chemical affects them, and later take follow-up

shots from the same angles. (Take notes.) Try to take pic-tures or a series of pictures that focus on leaves and grow-ing tips of plants, but which also establish their locationrelative to some recognizable landmark. Take samples ofvegetation near and at several distances from the site ofapplication. Place in separate, clean, tightly sealed plasticbags (double-bagging is better) in the freezer.

In the case of physical illness of people or animals, see aphysician or veterinarian to confirm symptoms, obtain a di-agnosis, and receive treatment. Get a written report signedby the physician or veterinarian. (Note: Many physiciansand veterinarians are not familiar with the symptoms ofpesticide poisoning, many of which resemble symptoms ofa cold or flu. Tell them about your exposure, and ask themto check the symptoms. Blood tests may be necessary.)In the case of a bee kill, examine the hives immediately.

Unusual behavior, lack of bees in thehive, and unusually high mortality(more than 100 bees per day) are goodindications of pesticide poisoning. Callthe state agency to arrange for a hiveinspection. Collect a handful of deadbees and put them in the freezer in aclean tightly sealed plastic bag for pos-sible analysis.

Try to eliminate other possible causesfor the damage: disease, pest damage,drought, low oxygen levels in ponds, etc.

It is always helpful to have an im-partial witness accompany you in col-lecting the evidence. (Note: If the stateagency sends an investigator, he/she willdo these things. However, the investi-gator often arrives too late—two weeksor more after the incident—to docu-ment the damage.)

Write all this down as soon as pos-sible. Keep a record of every phone calland conversation regarding the incident(name, date, time, and substance).Write letters confirming your under-

standing of the substance of the phone call when you re-ceive important information—state the major points of theconversation and request a response within five days if theother person disagrees with your statements.

8 Legal recourse.There are two main avenues of legal recourse—action takenby the state or EPA against the applicator because of viola-tions of the law and civil action to recover compensationfor damages.

Continued on page 25



Using Links from NCAMP’s New WebpageHow to Avoid Pesticide Injury (and what to do if you can’t)

GO TO NCAMP’s Website WWW.NCAMP.ORG and look for this page.

This page has tools that will help empower you by accessing infor-

mation about chemicals, who to contact, questions you should be

asking, and how to find assistance with pesticide problems.

How to contact your regional EPAOn the menu bar at the top of the page is a link entitled EPAlinks. By clicking on this link you will receive a page with theaddresses of the ten regional Environmental Protection Agen-cies (EPA) headquarters. The page presents the regions by num-ber and lists all states in that particular region in case you donot know what EPA region your state is in. You can also accessthis information from the EPA link under the section “Use in-consistent with the label is a violation of state and federal law,”and “If there is drift, or you suspect drift…”

How to contact your StatePesticide Regulatory AgencyThis link, State Agencies, is also located at the top of the firstpage. This link takes you directly to a page within the NationalPesticide Telecommunications site that allows you to find theaddress of your state pesticide agency. A map of the U.S. isdisplayed and you simply click on your state. You will then begiven the name, address, phone number of the agency and adirect link to the agency’s home page. The page also discussesreasons why you should contact your state agency and whatinformation you may be able to receive. This link is also locatedunder the section “If there is drift, or you suspect drift, ontoyour property…”

How to find a specimen label for a specific chemicalThe third link at the top of the page is entitled Labels. To accessa label using this link you need to know the manufacturer thatproduces the chemical of interest. When you click on this linkyou go to a page where you will scroll through names of manu-facturers until you find the one you want and click on that name.You will be connected to either the exact page from thatmanufacturer’s web page where you access the labels by brandname or you will go to their home page and will need to findthe information about labels from there. This link is also listed asmanufacture’s web page available under the section “Find outpossible ill effects of exposure and what you can do to mitigatethem.”

How to find a Material SafetyData Sheet (MSDS) for a specific chemicalLinks to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are located atthe top of the page and under the section “Find out possibleill effects of exposure and what you can do to mitigate them.”This link will take you to a C & P Press page where you typein the brand name of the chemical you are looking for and ifyou know the manufacturer, you can also specify that informa-tion. It will give you a listing of links to all the products underthat name and who manufactures them. You can then choosea link for a MSDS or a label for that chemical.

How to contact your State Health DepartmentThe link entitled State Health Departments is on the menu atthe top of the page. When you click on this link you will beconnected to a page within the Association of State and Terri-torial Health Officials website. This page allows you to click onyour state and be directly connected to their home page whereyou can find an address and other information about the agency.This link is also located under the section “ You may recovercompensation for damages.”

Help with finding an attorneyThis link, Find an Attorney, is located at the top of the pageand under “You may recover compensation for damages.” Ei-ther link takes you to a page compiled by NCAMP that dis-cusses issues such as past successful litigation strategies, whatbackground information you should be collecting, who youshould sue, public disclosure and costs. The page also includescommentary from an attorney that covers issues such as at-torneys being paid off by industry, what kinds of cases arepotentially successful, and what to look for in a lawyer.

How to find a testing laboratoryThis link connects you to a page of information from NCAMPconcerning testing laboratories and what they can do to helpyou. The Find a Lab link is on the menu bar and under “Youmay recover compensation for damages.” The page evaluateswhy you might need a lab, what kind of testing should bedone, what type of methodology the lab must perform, whatyou should know about their methods, and how the resultsshould be presented to you.



• Use inconsistent with the label is a violation of stateand federal law.

Many labels prohibit drift or use in ways that will injurepeople, non-target plants, endangered species, water re-sources, etc. There are also other provisions of the statepesticide law (of which you should get a copy from thestate agency) that may apply. This is what the state agencyinvestigator is supposed to do. You may need to be asqueaky wheel to keepthe process moving. Ifthe department doesnothing for 120 days,then EPA may step in.(Of course, by that time,most pesticide residuesare long gone.) We sug-gest you call EPA imme-diately, even thoughthey will just refer youto the state. At least theywill be aware of the in-cident.• You may recover

compensation fordamages.

You should file a pesti-cide complaint with thestate agency and askthem whether you needto take any other steps if you think you might be seeking torecover damages in court. In some states, failure to file aform with the state can weaken your case. In addition, theinvestigation can provide valuable information. Some thingsto do if you may pursue this route:

Estimate the value of the damage and notify the appli-cator. Many settle quickly because they want to avoid courtcosts and additional insurance costs. (But don’t forget tofile the forms, etc. with the state agency meanwhile.)

If you hire an attorney, try to find one who is familiarwith this area of law. We have heard many stories of peoplewho suspected that their attorneys were being paid off bythe pesticide applicator, especially in rural areas. NCAMP,NCAP, other pesticide-related organizations, or your chap-ter of the Sierra Club can try to help you locate someone.Contact NCAMP for advice or see our website.

Above, we mentioned asthma as a disability. Chemicalsensitivity is now recognized by some agencies (eg, HUD)as a disability protected by the Americans with DisabilitiesAct. This is a possible way of protecting you in the future.

If you go to court to recover damages, you will needto show two things: (1) that the damage was caused bythe applicator’s use of a pesticide, and (2) the amountof the damage.• Documentation that the damage was caused by the

applicator’s use of a pesticide:• The documentation above.• The report of the state agency investigation.• Residue analyses. These should be performed by the

state agency, but if they do not respond promptly, thenthe analyses won’t beworth anything. In thatcase, the samples you col-lected may need to be ana-lyzed. The state healthagency can supply a list oflaboratories that can dothe analysis. Be sure thatthe lab tells you the detec-tion level for their method.Be sure that the lab cananalyze for the pesticideinvolved in the type of ma-terial (soil, plant or animaltissue, water) that youhave. More informationabout choosing labs isavailable directly fromNCAMP on our website.• Documentation of theamount of the damage.

• County agents can give an estimate of the value of shadetrees and ornamentals.

• Estimates of past yields and yields of unaffected fieldsare useful in estimating crop damage.

• Keep records of visits to doctors, time missed from work,medication, etc. for health-related injuries. If the attor-ney is experienced in personal injury cases, he/sheshould know the right questions to ask.

• Keep track of the costs of determining the damage.9 Tell us what happened.

NCAMP monitors the effectiveness of state and federal en-forcement programs, so we will know the real risks associ-ated with pesticides. Please tell us what happened and howwell the state agency and EPA responded.

0 Join NCAMP and help eliminate pesticide problems.NCAMP works to help you and others when you have beeninjured by pesticides. We also work to eliminate these prob-lems by demonstrating to decision-makers the real costsassociated with pesticide use. You can help us by joiningus today.

Continued from page 23

10


Beyond Pesticides:Gett ing the Alternat ives You Need

A national directory to provide a comprehensive listing of

least and non-toxic services covering home and garden,

structural pest control, agriculture, extension services

(that are working with alternatives) and product suppliers.

O.K. You’re concerned about pesticide hazards and want to use alternative prac-

tices and/or products and services. You care about the global environment

and getting your community and communities across the nation and any-

where in the world off the pesticide treadmill. Where do you go? You or

someone you know has identified a problem — termites, ants, an array of

weeds. It may be that your school, city parks and recreation areas, or neighbor is

using pesticides. If you don’t want to do it yourself, where can you find the local, regional

and national assistance to turn this situation around?

Everyday at the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) we hear from people who

want to do the right thing when facing an existing or preventing a potential pest problem. To better promote

alternative pest management methods, NCAMP is assembling a national directory that will help increase

local and national efforts to take the pesticides out of pest control and identify local service providers who

are doing it right. Our list is already growing, but it needs your input.

We would like to know what has worked for you so that we can pass it on to others. Tell us what you are

doing and how you have succeeded by putting us in touch with local or national companies, a pest control

advisor (could be an extension agent or private company), and/or a supplier. Provide us with examples of

sites that have had success with alternative approaches —your school, golf course, parks, home, city, etc.

In this day and age where businesses want to project a “green” image, it is important to evaluate exactly

what is going on with companies that are providing the alternatives to pesticides.

Help us move beyond pesticides.Attached you will find a survey form that can be used to ensure that the directory contains accurate and

complete information. Please either fill out the form or pass it directly to the company being listed. We have

set the end of 1998 as the publication date for the first edition, so please return the form as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please contact NCAMP at 202-543-5450 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Kagan Owens

Information Coordinator

[


DEAR PEST MANAGEMENT/LAWN CARE SERVICE PROVIDER,

The National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) is a national membership organization of grassroots groups andpeople established to identify hazards of commonly used pesticides, and reduce and where possible eliminate unnecessary use ofpesticides through the adoption of safe alternatives.

NCAMP receives thousands of calls a year from people seeking advice about pest problems. In many cases, they cannot locate a pestmanagement or lawn care operator willing to offer them a least or non-toxic method of control or prevention. NCAMP would like tolink this large number of people with companies and services that can provide these alternatives, and for this reason we are compiling anational directory entitled Beyond Pesticides: Getting the Alternatives You Need. This directory will help companies advertise their alternativesto the people who are concerned about pesticide use and exposure and its impact on public health and the environment.

It is in the public’s interest to see the growth of businesses committed to environmentally sound practices and information.Help us spread the word and promote alternatives in communities across the country.

If you have any questions please call NCAMP at (202) 543-5450. We look forward to hearing from you soon!

Beyond Pesticides: Getting the Alternatives You Need(Please attach additional sheets with responses. Thank you.)

Name _____________________________________________ Title ________________________________________________

Company Name _____________________________________ Office/Department ____________________________________

Address ____________________________________________ City/State/Zip ________________________________________

Phone Number _______________________________________ Email/Website _______________________________________

I. Services/Product/IPM Description

How would you describe the full range of your company’s products and/or services?Please describe your business in 200 words or less, to be printed in the directory listing.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please indicate whether you provide services/products in the following categories:❑ residential; ❑ school; ❑ commercial; ❑ landscape; ❑ structural; ❑ golf course; ❑ other (please list)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is your definition of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is pest management performed on a specific schedule? If so, what specifically is done on a schedule, how often, and for what pest problems?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How are pest problems identified? Are pest populations monitored before and after implementing controls? If yes, how are they monitored?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

,


II. Tools and Practices/Materials that You Use/Sell.

What practices do you use to prevent and/or control pests? ___________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you use biological controls? If yes, what kinds?___________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you use borates? If yes, in what capacity? ______________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you use synthetic chemicals? If yes, please list them. _____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What are the top ten pesticides that your company uses/sells/recommends? _______________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If pesticides are used, how much is used per year of each, and how are they applied?_________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you do habitat modification? If so, please provide an example. _______________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you use any physical or mechanical controls? If so, please provide an example. ___________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

III. Approach to Specific Pest Problems

What does your company usually use/sell/recommend for addressing:

❑ Subterranean and/or drywood termites

________________________________

❑ Cockroaches ____________________

❑ Fleas __________________________

❑ Ants (indoors) __________________

❑ Carpenter Ants __________________

❑ Fire Ants _______________________

❑ Crabgrass ______________________

❑ Dandelions _____________________

❑ Other _________________________

IV. Lawn Care only

Please list the type of fertilizers your company uses/sells/recommends. _______________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

V. Evaluation

How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your pest management systems? ____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

VI. References

Please provide at least two references for your company from your customer list. ______________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please return this form to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides,701 E Street, SE, Washington DC 20003 as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation.

,


The War on WeedsBattle brewing across the country on controlling invasive weeds with pesticides

A Proponent of Herbicide UseCindy Owsley, Boulder County Parksand Open Space Weed Management Coordinator(Excerpt from Why I Sprayed Herbicideson Earth Day, Images, BCPOS, 1998)

“Because most private and public land mangers utilize herbi-cides within their noxious weed management program it ishelpful for everyone to understand the issues that surroundthis use.” Owsley states that, “[A]ll pesticides which are regis-tered by the EPA are evaluated for their effects on animals inmany different toxicology studies” and, “The herbicides ap-plied to noxious weeds areextremely low in toxicity tohumans and animals.”Owsley proceeds to remarkthat, “ A prerequisite for anypesticide is that it must beable to degrade under mi-crobial activity and/or sun-light within an expectedtime frame. When applica-tors use the products ac-cording to the labeled in-structions, there is little pos-sibility of the herbicidereaching non-target plantsor water resources.” She also states, “[W]e must realize that ittakes a unified effort that integrates all appropriate tools, in-cluding the use of mowing, pulling, biological control, grazingand yes, herbicides.”

An Ecologists Viewpointon Non-chemical ControlTim Seastedt, Professor of Biologyat the University of Colorado, Boulder

Professor Seastedt states, “Noxious weeds are just the tip ofthe iceberg of current changes in natural areas. The ‘noxiousweeds problem’ is simply an economically visible componentof much larger shifts in plant species in abundance due tohuman impacts. The extent to which new species are invad-ing natural areas is the result of a) climate change, b) changes

in atmospheric chemical composition, in-cluding but not limited to enhanced carbondioxide concentrations and increased inor-ganic nitrogen deposition, c) drasticchanges in the natural disturbance cycles(e.g. fire return intervals, grazing intensi-ties and frequencies, flooding, etc.), and d)the presence and abundance of seeds of non-indigenous species capable of exploitingthese changes.” He continues, “Chemicalcontrol of invasive species in natural areasis seldom a viable option due to the pres-ence of native species that are also sensitiveto the chemicals. Effective nonchemicalcontrol procedures remain underutilized.

Enhanced use of biocontrols remains promising and appearssufficient for controls of weeds in some cases, however, un-der current management regimes, biocontrols alone may beinsufficient.”

At the National Weed Symposium sponsored by the Bureau of Land Management in April, Interior Secretary BruceBabbit called for a national strategy to control noxious weeds, invasive and non-native weeds that are defined as highlydestructive to agriculture, rangeland and natural habitat. The Secretary points to a list of 350 noxious weeds in all areas

of the country. According to the Secretary, farmers and ranchers lose up to $7 billion a year because of the problem. Hecompares the problem in some states, such Oregon and North Dakota, to economic devastation that rivals the impact of theDust Bowl of the 1930’s. The truth is, land managers have been addressing the issue for quite some time. Management practiceshave caused controversy for years as attempts have been made to solve the problem in the same way - with herbicides. Andnow, with this national priority, Vice President Gore has also weighed in. It is feared that the development of a national strategywill only lead to a massive herbicide spraying in the West and across the country, despite the availability of alternative biologi-cal methods.

Scientists say the use of herbicides does not provide solutions to the underlying causes. If anything, the use of herbicides inthe attempt to eradicate noxious weeds, making them stronger and more tenacious.

Weed managers have typically over-utilized the chemical strategy for weed control, dismissing the hazards known aboutherbicides and the lack of full information on herbicide inert ingredients, ecological effects and impact on human health andwildlife habitat. As Professor Seastedt states, “The solution, of course, is to fix the ecosystem, not just focus on killing weeds.Unfortunately, that’s not what weed managers are paid to do, and their bosses are not trained to see the bigger picture. Chemi-cal or nonchemical means of weed removal only fight symptoms. The solutions involve an important management decision: 1)we invest the time, energy and resources to restore native species or 2) we opt to create a more desirable non-indigenous plantcommunity that is capable of keeping the weeds under control.”


Why Alternatives To HerbicidesShould Be Used, On Earth Dayand EverydayA Response to a Weed Manager\Jay Feldman

It is often the case that those who use pesticides use them

with the belief that they are safe because they are regis-teredby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state inwhich these toxic chemicals are used. However, when publicofficials who coordinate weed management programs professthis safety myth about pesticides they strike a blow to publictrust and understanding of the real risks, known and un-known, of chemicals that happen to be in wide useand result in widespread human and environmen-tal exposure.

The Boulder County, Colorado Weed Managercommitted this violation of public trust when shewrote in the summer issue of the BoulderCounty Parks and Open Space publica-tion Images, “Why I Sprayed Herbicideson Earth Day. . ,” (see excerpts on page29 of this issue) and seriously misled thepublic on critical questions of publicand environmental safety. Here CindyOwsley, in defense of pesticide use, ismisinformed, and, as a result misin-forms.

Adverse Effects ofPesticidesIn fact, investigation after investigation,which should be known to a public offi-cial of Ms. Owsley stature, say quite the op-posite. Of the 18 most commonly used her-bicides (herbicides are weed killers, a largeand growing part of the family of pesticides),seven are cancer causing, six cause birth defects,six cause reproductive effects, eight are neurotoxic,nine damaging to the kidney and liver, and 14 are irritants,according to EPA and National Institutes for Health data. Andthat’s just health effects. When considering environmentaleffects, such as ability to contaminate groundwater and tox-icity to fish, bees and birds, the majority are culprits.

Comprehensive Testing Is DeficientEven worse, we do not know what we should about the pes-ticides. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found inits 1990 report, Lawn Care Pesticides: Risks Remain UncertainWhile Prohibited Safety Claims Continue, that the public ismisled on questions of pesticide safety. While eight years havepassed since this finding, not much has changed. The major-

ity of weed killers today have not been fully tested in accor-dance with modern safety standards. Moreover, the EPA hasstated clearly that numerous tests are not even been performedas part of the pesticide registration that should be —tests forendocrine disrupting effects (impacts of these chemicals onfetal development, sexual traits and cancer later in life) andimpacts on children generally. In addition, pesticides are notcurrently tested in mixtures with other chemicals for theiradditive, cumulative or synergistic effects.

Toxic Inert Ingredients Are Not DisclosedThe majority of pesticide formulations are comprised of so-called “inert” ingredients that are often more toxic than theparent compound and not disclosed on the product label. They

have been protected as trade secret information.Neither Ms. Owsley nor the public generallycan fully identify what solvents, mixing

agents, or adjuvants are contained in the prod-ucts used.

False Safety Claims AboundIn its report, GAO said, “The lawn care pesti-cides industry [which uses the chemicals weare talking about here] is making claims thatits products are safe or nontoxic. GAO’s re-view found nine instances of safety claims,such as “completely safe for humans,” madeby manufacturers, distributors, and profes-sional applicators. EPA, using its standardsfor pesticide labels, considers that theseclaims, when made by manufacturers and dis-tributors, are false and misleading.” New YorkState last year reached a settlement with

Monsanto requiring the company to cease its mis-leading advertising campaign. In that case, New

York Attorney General Dennis Vacco calledMonsanto’s ad campaign “particularly troubling,” and

forced the company to remove certain “health and envi-ronmental claims, similar to Ms. Owsley. Monsanto claimed

that RoundupTM, which contains the active ingredientglyphosate, is “safer than table salt,” that it “can be used wherekids and pets play, and breaks down into natural material,”despite the warning label which clearly states environmentalhazards. Sound familiar?

Having an InformedCommunity Debate Is CriticalLet ‘s get the truth out and have an informed community de-bate about the health of families, children and the environ-ment, rather than belittle the meaning, importance and legacyof Earth Day. Maybe then, as a community and as pest man-agers, we would decide to adopt the nonchemical option thathas worked successfully time and time again.


C O M M E N T A R Y

Jay Feldman and Beth Fiteni

With industry breathing down the Administration’sneck and pressure from the leadership on CapitolHill, Vice President Gore sent a directive to Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, CarolBrowner, and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, on April8, 1998 signaling possible delays in the implementa-tion of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). In re-sponse, the agencies established a 45-member Toler-ance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC)which is predominantly industry and industry-supportedgroups, thus raising serious concerns about the fur-ther politicizing of EPA science. At issue is imple-mentation of key FQPA provisions: the 10-foldextra margin of safety for children (in caseswhere EPA does not have complete healthdata), the so-called “common mechanism ofeffect” clause (which requires that EPA calcu-late the multiple effects of pesticides with simi-lar toxic properties), and the definition of “reliable”science. These issues were raised in a letter from in-dustry to EPA in March, which voiced concernabout imminent agency action to remove numer-ous pesticides (priority is organophosphates) fromthe market by revoking their food tolerances. Toensure a “transparent” process,Gore called for the creation ofthe advisory committee whichwould meet four times over thesummer.

“Sound Science,”“Safety”Factors, and RiskAssessmentThe recurring problem is thatEPA must make decisions aboutprotecting human health with-out the benefit of extensive data.

The law requires EPA to use “reliable” and “available” data,but often these do not exist. Industry stresses the need for“sound science,” but setting an “acceptable” level of harm

or risk is a policy not a science question.This is where risk assessment comesin. Risk assessments are mathemati-cal calculations, based on certain ex-

posure assumptions, used to calculatehuman risk from toxic materials. A

10x factor (10-fold additionalmargin of “safety”) is re-

quired when existingdata are insuffi-

cient to deter-mine risk lev-els for chil-dren. How-

ever, in a

Pressure Building to Stop Implementationof the Food Quality Protection ActAdditional Margin of Safety for Children andConsideration of Multiple Chemical Exposure Attacked


failure to properly implement FQPA, only nine out of 91tolerances set since the passage of the Act have includedthis ten-fold safety factor. Industry says that this 10x factoris unnecessary because exposure estimates are conservativeenough to protect both children and adults.

EPA Preliminary Assessments ShowOrganophosates Exceed Acceptable LevelsThe four TRAC meetings in June and July were productivebut frustrating. In the second meeting, EPA released sum-mary preliminary assessments on 40 organophosphate pes-ticides, showing that at least 20 exceed EPA’s current thresh-old for either acute or chronic effects from dietary expo-sure. At that time, EPA failed to release the names of thechemicals associated with the preliminary assessment,though the information is discloseable through the Freedom

of Information Act. Industry representatives say broad dis-closure will blacklist their products before EPA reaches itsfinal determinations. The industry is pushing hard to forcemore “refined” risk assessments, dramatically reducing riskson paper by getting EPA to use lower public exposure as-sumptions, e.g. a smaller percentage of crops treated. Thethird TRAC meeting focused on when to release informa-tion during the risk assessment process. Should agenciesallow the chemical registrants prior access to agency deci-sions before the public is allowed to comment? After muchdiscussion and debate, the agency proposed a compromisein which the registrants would have first review and be al-lowed to make only technical corrections before public dis-closure, subjecting questions of reformulating underlyingassumptions in evaluating human risk to a public commentperiod.

E V E R P L A Y E D M O N T E C A R L O ?

EPA plays gambling games with our lives every day.Monte Carlo is a statistical tool used by EPA inperforming its risk assessments on pesticide

chemicals when setting acceptable pesticide residues onfood (“tolerances”). It is an attempt to methodically dealwith lack of scientific data. Basically, the agency willcreate a plot of points on a graph, which shows percentof population on the Y axis and likelihood of exposureon the X axis. Most likely, estimates about food resi-dues, for example, would show a curve sloping down-ward to the right, showing many people with low expo-sure and a minority of people with high exposure. Forexample, EPA may make the assumption that the aver-age American eats 5-15 avocados per year, while a fewpeople may eat 50 or more per year. The basic equationfor calculating risk from residue exposure is HAZARDx EXPOSURE= RISK. The hazard of a chemical may beknown or estimated, and is represented as a numericalfigure. The agency must attempt to achieve a numeri-cally quantifiable exposure level and plug it into theequation to calculate risk. This is where many assump-tions come into play. A computer chooses 1000 pointsoff the original graph (it will often choose the morecommon points, thus eliminating the extreme cases),plug these numbers into the risk equation, and run it1000 times. Then the results are plotted on a second

graph. From this graph, the agency attempts to regu-late the chemical in a way that will protect the 99.9thpercentile, or 99.9 percent of the people at risk. For anation of roughly 270 million people, the small per-centage left out is still 270,000 people. The policy rea-sons for using this percentile, rather than the 95th or90th percentile are now being subjected to intense lob-bying by those in industry seeking to allow an evengreater degree of harm/risk.

Sound good?Convinced that you’re safe?Monte Carlo is basically a method of being more pre-cise and objective about imprecision and possibly falseor inaccurate assumptions. It is a fancy way of express-ing the uncertainty that is unavoidable until morechemical evaluations and exposure assessments arecompleted. The underlying problem is that risk assess-ment policy accepts that certain people will be at risk,though risk may be defined as low. It also does notaccount for multiple, additive, and synergistic expo-sure. It allows chemicals on the market assuming in-nocence until proof of guilt. It rejects the notion ofprevention and the precautionary public health prin-ciple. Unfortunately, human suffering is the price topay for this policy.


Congress Prepares To Step InOn June 25, 1998, the Department Operations, Nutrition, andForeign Agriculture Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives Agriculture Committee held a hearing to chal-lenge the agencies on the imple-mentation of the FQPA. The hear-ing opened with Deputy EPA Ad-ministrator Fred Hansen andDeputy Secretary of AgricultureRichard Rominger fielding oftenhostile questions from membersof Congress concerned aboutFQPA’s impact on chemical inten-sive agriculture, then continuedon to a full day of testimony frompro-chemical constituents. TheHouse Agriculture Subcommittee did not allow any represen-tatives of the public interest community the opportunity tospeak, though requests to do so had been submitted. It is be-lieved that the Senate Agriculture Committee will also hold ahearing soon. Hearing speakers raised concern about othercountries having economic advantages over the U.S. becausethey may continue to use pesticides banned in the U.S.

Chemical Industry Coalition Releases“Road Map” for Implementing LawIndustry hearing testimony was a re-vocalization of theconcerns listed in its recently released “Road Map” or Sci-ence-Based, Workable Framework for Implementing the FoodQuality Protection Act. This document was produced bythe Implementation Working Group (IWG), made up ofpesticide industry and agribusiness representatives, inearly June 1998.

IWG urges EPA to:J reduce delay in the registration of new “safer” pesticides;J allow adequate transition time to adjust to new practices,

and;J ensure availability of realistic alternatives to phased-out

chemicals.

The “Road Map” cites concern that sudden loss of pesticideswill cause devastating crop loss, and is critical of what is per-ceived as a lack of comment opportunities afforded the in-dustry during the decision making process. IWG does notbelieve that all organophosphates should be treated as a groupalthough they all inhibit cholinesterase in nerve function,because there is no established methodology by which EPAdetermines how a group of chemicals displays a “commonmechanism of toxicity” (language in the law).

TRAC Meets in September, Public CommentSought on Preliminary Risk AssessmentsThere are many more issues that need to be addressed by theTRAC. For this reason TRAC members added a fifth meeting,

scheduled for September 15-16,1998 at the Ramada Inn, NewCarrollton, MD. Until then, workwill continue with two “workinggroups” formed to address someof the technical issues; one groupfocuses on risk assessment andthe other on risk management.There are nine separate science-policy issues being addressed bythe risk assessment group. Theyare: the ten-fold safety factor, di-

etary exposure assessment, interpreting “no residue detected,”dietary exposure estimates, drinking water exposure, assess-ing residential exposure, aggregating exposure from non-oc-cupational sources, cumulative risk assessment for commonmethod of toxicity, and selection of toxicity endpoints (or criti-cal effects). These nine separate issues will be compiled into asingle paper with a target completion date of February 1999.The risk management group faces the task of creating a realis-tic phaseout process for the high-risk chemicals. Public com-ments can be submitted on the work group issues.

NCAMP points out the need for attention to issues re-garding drift, frequency of chemical toxicity misclass-ification, training of applicators, impact of inert ingredients,reliance on information extrapolated from animal tests tohumans, and other real world use problems that impact onrisk assessments. Though EPA was supposed to have dis-closed by name in early July the forty priority organophos-phates for which preliminary risk assessments are beingdone, it finally released the names of the first nine in theAugust 12, 1998 Federal Register (63FR43175). Public com-ment is being solicited on each until October 13, 1998. Areport on the final outcome of the TRAC meetings will beprinted in the next issue of PAY.

Submit comments on risk assessments to Information Resourcesand Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA,401 M Street SW, WDC 20460. For more details and background onTRAC meetings, including the preliminary risk assessments (avail-able in September), go to the EPA website at www.epa.pesticides/trac.htm. General TRAC questions should be directed to MarjorieFehrenbach, EPA, [email protected], 703-308-4775, fax 703-308-4776. Organophosphate questions should be di-rected to Karen Angulo, EPA, [email protected], 703-305-5805. For a copy of the industry “Road Map” (133pp), send$16.00ppd to NCAMP.

Industry stresses the need for

“sound science,” but setting an

“acceptable” level of harm or risk

is a policy not a science question.

Resources


Unreasonable Risk:The Politics of PesticidesCharles Lewis et al.(Center for Public Integrity 1998)

“Congress has, time and time again, putthe economic interests of the pesticideindustry ahead of the safety of the Ameri-can public,” reports the Center for Pub-lic Integrity, a nonpartisan group with noagenda in the area of pesticides. After in-vestigating data from the Federal Elec-tion Commission, EPA, and House andSenate financial records, CPI discoveredthat pesticide industries have a large im-pact on Members of Congress throughcampaign contributions. Tables disclose(by name) industry contributions to po-litical campaigns, their lobbyists, and thecongressional recipients of industrymoney. CPI cites NCAMP’s research andquotes executive director, Jay Feldman,saying, “Risk mitigation at EPA is com-pletely theoretical.” For a copy, send $10to CPI, 1634 I Street, NW, Washington, DC20006, 202- 783-3900.

Same As It Ever WasRichard Wiles, et al. (Environmental Work-ing Group, 1998).This publication is full of frighteningdata that show how the Clinton-Gore Ad-ministration has failed to fulfill its 1993promise to create a new national policyto curb pesticide use and emphasize pro-tection of children from toxic chemicals.

Same As It Ever Was reports that since1993, agriculture has increased pesticideuse and children’s risk of exposure hasnot been reduced. During this periodonly one chemical has been removedfrom the market while a record 81 newpesticides have been added. In 1996,more than half of the apples, carrots,grapes, peaches, and spinach eaten in theUS were contaminated with 2-12 pesti-cides, according to the report. For a copy,send $24.38 to EWG, 1718 ConnecticutAve. NW, Ste 600, Washington, DC 20009or see www.ewg.org.

Environmental HealthPerspectives(National Institute for EnvironmentalHealth Sciences Vol. 106, No. 1. Jan 1998).This issue of Environmental Health Per-spectives discusses the problem of thechemical chlopyrifos (Dursban™), andthe need for reevaluation of its ability toaccumulate on toys and residential sur-faces. The report finds that chlopyrifos, anervous system poison, can remain onsurfaces for up to two weeks after indoorapplication, resulting in exposure for bothchildren and adults through inhalation,ingestion and adsorption. Children are es-pecially at risk of exposure through toysand sorbent surfaces like pillows. Also in-cluded in this issue is “Childhood Cancer,a Growing Problem,” by Charles Schmidt.

This article ranks cancer as the leadingcause of disease- related childhood deaths.For a copy, send $4(ppd) to NCAMP; ar-ticles are also available at http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs.

Indifference to SafetyShelley Davis (Farmworker Justice Fund)and Rebecca Scheleifer (MigrantFarmworker Justice Project) 1998.This investigation finds systematic ne-glect of Florida farmworkers by theFlorida Department of Agriculture &Consumer Services (FDACS) and givesmany examples of FDACS failure to pro-vide adequate attention to pesticide ex-posure problems. For example, one mansuffered a full body rash after workingin a field sprayed with three separatechemicals. He was allowed back to workin violation of one of the chemicals Re-stricted Entry Interval and was misdiag-nosed because of lack of considerationof two chemicals that cause skin irrita-tion. Even a farmworkers death was notfully investigated by the FDACS, nor wasa penalty issued. The report states, “Ev-ery aspect of [the states] enforcementeffort was marred by serious shortcom-ings.” For a copy, send $15ppd toFarmwoker Justice Find, 1111 19th Street,NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20036,202- 776-1757.

Putting Children First:Making Pesticide Levels inFood Safe for ChildrenDavid Wallinga, MD (NRDC 1998).This publication serves as a guide tochildren’s issues addressed in the FoodQuality Protection Act (FQPA). The studyinvestigates the adequacy of current ef-forts to protect children. The NationalResources Defense Council (NRDC) rec-ommends immediate implementation ofthe law’s additional ten-fold safety fac-tor in cases where full risk informationis not available on children. The reportshows that children require additional

Resources


safety because they are exposed to somany chemicals in different ways. NRDCrecommends that EPA gather a panel ofpediatric experts to determine how “re-liable” information must be before over-ruling the ten-fold factor. For a copy, send$13.50 to NRDC Publications, Dept 40, 40West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011.

Now or Never:Serious Plans to SaveNatural Pest ControlJane Rissler, ed., et al. Union of ConcernedScientists (USC Publications, 1998).Transgenic crops that incorporate vari-ous Bt genes are of serious concern. Bt isa useful natural toxin derived from bac-terium that the report says faces seriousinsect resistance problems when geneti-cally engineered into plants. Three cropshave been approved for use in the U.S.:

cotton, corn and potatoes. Nearly 9 mil-lion acres of these crops were planted in1997. Six university scientists broughttogether by Union of Concerned Scien-tists recommend crop rotation, resistancemonitoring, and strategies to preserveBt’s efficacy. Authors urge that EPA notapprove any more crops until field-vali-dation resistance strategies have beenproven. “EPA’s actions have put Bt on ahigh trapeze before the nets have beeninstalled” according to the report. For thereport, send $14.95 plus 20% shipping/han-dling to UCS Publications Dept. N, 2Brattle Square, Cambridge, MS 02238-9105, 617- 547-5552.

Our Children at Risk:The Five WorstEnvironmental Threatsto Their HealthLawrie Mott (NRDC, November 1997).This informative report lists pesticides asone of the five worst environmental threatsto children’s health along with tobaccosmoke, air pollution, water contamination,and lead. An entire chapter is dedicated tochildren’s unique susceptibility to pesti-cides. Some pesticide related health effectsinclude leukemia, brain tumors, sarcoma,lymphoma, and nervous and immune sys-tem damage. An alarming list of exposuresources include schools, parental occupa-tional exposure, food, water, pets, surfacesin homes and treated wood used in play-grounds. Recommendations of how tolimit a child’s exposure involve eliminat-ing home pesticide use, eating organic foodand working to implement IPM in schools.For a copy, send $17.50 to NRDC Publica-tions Dept. 40, 40 West 20th St., New York,NY 10011.

Reducing PesticideUse in Schools: AnOrganizing ManualGregg Small (Pesticide Watch, December 1997).This manual is a functional tool for people

who want to take action against pesticideuse in schools. The manual describes theoverall problem with pesticide use inschools, children’s high susceptibility, adefinition of IPM (Integrated Pest Man-agement) and its economic benefits. Theappendix contains a model IPM programand other resources that might be of help.The manual presents a ten step agenda toreducing pesticide use in schools and de-scribes successful case studies. In orderto prepare for predictable questions thatmay be asked, one section addresses com-mon concerns expressed by school offi-cials. For a copy, send $5 to Pesticide Watch,450 Geary Street, Suite 500, San Francisco,CA 94102, 415- 292-1486.

Overexposed:OrganophosphateInsecticides inChildren’s FoodRichard Wiles, et al. (Environmental Work-ing Group, January 1998).The authors conclude that 3.6 millionchildren under the age of five are nowbeing exposed to illegal pesticide residuelevels. They point to a provision in theFood Quality Protection Act (FQPA)which requires EPA to use an additionalten-fold safety factor for children - butonly in cases where there is not reliabledata. This report finds that apples andapple products account for over half ofthe unsafe organophosphate (OP) expo-

Resources


sures for children under six and almostall bread and pasta have low levels of con-tamination. Recommendations to EPAinclude banning the five worst OPs andprohibiting all OPs in commercial babyfood. For a copy, send $20ppd to EWG,1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200,Washington, DC 20009, or seewww.ewg.org.

Failing Health:Pesticide Use inCalifornia SchoolsJonathon Kaplan et al. (California PublicInterest Group Charitable Trust & Califor-nians for Pesticide Reform, January 1998).

This report lists which pesticides are usedin California schools, the health effectsof exposure to them and children’s

unique vulnerability. “Of the 46 schooldistricts responding to our request for in-formation, 87% are using one or more of27 particularly hazardous pesticides thatcan cause cancer, affect the reproductivesystem, mimic the hormone (endocrine)system, or act as nerve toxins,” states thereport. Like many other states, the stateof California does not require schools tonotify parents before spraying. The re-port discusses alternative pest manage-ment strategies and how all parties in-volved can improve the situation. Sur-vey responses are listed by each schooldistrict that replied. Contact: CALPIRG,450 Geary St., Suite 500, San Francisco,CA 94102, (415) 292-1487 or CPR, 116New Montgomery, Suite 800, San Fran-cisco, CA 94105, 888-CPR-4880.

Grow Smart, Grow Safe:A Consumer Guide toLawn and GardenPesticidesPhilip Dickey (Washington Toxics Coali-tion, June 1998).

This handy guidebook rates common in-secticides, herbicides, and slug/snail con-trols by their shelf product name. Theratings are based on six criteria: theirshort term and long term human healthhazards, toxicity to fish, toxicity to birdsand bees, persistence in soil, and waterpollution hazard. It lists the percentageof inert ingredient in products, whereavailable, and if the product may have

endocrine disrupting effects. The infor-mation is displayed in an easy to usechart format. The booklet suggests leasttoxic methods of controlling pests, andinformation about fertilizers and variousname brand weeding tools. Resourcesabout lawn care information for the Se-attle area are listed. For a copy, send $7.70to Washington Toxics Coalition, Suite 540-E, Department nm, 4649 Sunnyside AvenueN, Seattle, WA, 98103, (206) 632-1545.

ChemicalScorecard Website(Environmental Defense Fund, 1998)

For those who have access to theinternet, there is now a website that liststhe top industries that are pollutingyour area, and what chemicals are be-ing released into your local environ-ment. The site is based on informationfrom the federal government’s 1995Toxic Release Inventory. Type in the zipcode of the area you are interested in(within the U.S.), and then click on vari-ous options to find out more informa-tion. The site ranks chemicals by hu-man health effect, and displays maps tosee exactly where the polluters are lo-cated. It is somewhat tricky to navigate,but once you get the hang of it, this in-formative (and sometimes shocking)site exemplifies Freedom of Informationat work for the public good. Site allowsuser to fax concerns directly to pollut-ers and offers contact information forlocal environmental organizations. Goto http://www.scorecard.org.

NCAMP MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS

❏ YES, make me a member of NCAMP (includes subscription to Pesticides & You).❏ $25 Individual ❏ $30 All Volunteer Organizations ❏ $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 NCAMP’s monthly Technical Report. $20 with membership.If outside the United States, please add $10.00 each for memberships and subscriptions.

R E S O U R C E ST-Shirts❏ NEW – “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green, blue and peach

on 100% natural organic cotton. $18 each; two for $30.❏ 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 $2.00 each ($.50 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 WarrenSchultz. 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 forhigh-risk pesticides. Explains how “benefits” are inflated, how alternativesmight be assessed, 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

Compilations❏ Pesticides and You, 1981 - 1991

450 pages, with comprehensive index. $50.00❏ NCAMP’S Technical Reports, 1986-1990. $50.00Brochures ($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 $4.00Other❏ NCAMP’s Pesticide Chemical FactSheets; individual: $2.00, book: $20.00❏ Least Toxic Control of Pests Factsheets $6.00❏ Taking Action to Control Pesticides and

Promote Alternatives – “How-To” series $5.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance $5.00❏ Pesticides and Schools: A Collection of Issues and Articles $15.00

Method of Payment: ❏ Check or money order ❏ VISA/Mastercard # ___________________________ Expiration Date: ________

Name Phone Fax

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: NCAMP, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Tax-Deductible Donation: ____________

Total Enclosed: ____________Vol. 18, No. 1 & 2

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDDulles, VA

Permit No. 056

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

Printed with soy inkon recycled paper

Vol. 18, No. 1-2

Beyond Pesticides:Gett ing the Alternat ives You Need

A national directory to provide a comprehensive listing of

least and non-toxic services covering home and garden,

structural pest control, agriculture, extension services

(that are working with alternatives) and product suppliers.

Help us move beyond pesticides.

Attached you will find a survey form that can be used to ensure that the directory contains accurate

and complete information. Please either fill out the form or pass it directly to the company being

listed. We have set the end of 1998 as the publication date for the first edition, so please return the

form as soon as possible. See pages 26-28 in this issue of Pesticides and You.

[ If you have any questions, please

contact NCAMP at 202-543-5450

or [email protected].

a member of Earth Share SM

Volume 18 , Numbers 1 & 2 Double Issue Spring / Summer ......Pesticides and You News from the...

Documents

Transcript of Volume 18 , Numbers 1 & 2 Double Issue Spring / Summer ......Pesticides and You News from the...