Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Whole Foods to stop giving out plastic grocery bags by Earth Day

Friday, January 25th, 2008

Natural foods retailer Whole Foods has announced it will stop giving out plastic grocery bags by Earth Day due to the bags’ ubiquity and associated environmental problems. The company is opting instead for bagging customers’ groceries in 100 percent recycled paper bags and/or encouraging customers to bring their own reusable sacks. “More and more cities and countries are beginning to place serious restrictions on single-use plastic shopping bags since they don’t break down in our landfills, can harm nature by clogging waterways and endangering wildlife, and litter our roadsides,” said Whole Foods’ A.C. Gallo. The grocery chain estimates that the plastic-bag ban at all its 270 stores in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. will eliminate the use of about 100 million plastic sacks between Earth Day and the end of 2008. All together, Americans throw away about 100 billion plastic bags each year.

Source: www.grist.org

California Lindane Ban Proves Successful

Monday, December 31st, 2007

According to a study published December 11, 2007 in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, banning lindane is a viable solution to protecting health and the environment without resulting in increasing problems with head lice and scabies. In 2002, California banned pharmaceutical use of lindane due to concerns about water quality, when high levels of this treatment for head lice and scabies were found to be impacting wastewater quality.

The study, “Outcomes of the California Ban on Pharmaceutical Lindane: Clinical and Ecologic Impacts,” describes the effects the ban has had on wastewater quality, unintentional exposures, and clinical practice. This is the first time that a pharmaceutical has been outlawed to protect water quality. As such, this ban provides a rare opportunity to evaluate the possible or potential outcomes of future public health interventions aimed at reducing pharmaceutical water contamination.

The study authors compiled data on lindane in wastewater treatment plant effluent for several large plants in California and one outside of California. Data on exposures to lindane were obtained from records of the California Poison Control System. The impact on clinical practice was assessed via a survey of 400 pediatricians.

Wastewater treatment plant monitoring showed that lindane declined in California after the ban. Similarly, unintentional exposure calls declined. Most physicians were aware of the ban (81%) and had used lindane previously (61%), but did not notice any difficulties with the ban (78%).

According to the study’s authors, the California experience suggests elimination of pharmaceutical lindane produced environmental benefits, was associated with a reduction in reported unintentional exposures and did not adversely affect head lice and scabies treatment. This ban serves as a model for governing bodies considering limits on the use of lindane or other pharmaceuticals.

Depending on its use, lindane is considered a pesticide or a drug. As a lice or scabies product intended to be used on the human body, it is registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a drug. When it is applied in other ways, it is typically registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as a pesticide.

The greenwashing of toxic consumer products

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

Have you noticed over the last year how virtually every large corporation is trying to make consumers believe their products are “Earth friendly?” Everything from toxic cosmetics to smog-producing cars are now being positioned as “green” products, and just recently I actually saw a package of mercury-containing compact fluorescent lights with a marketing logo that claimed the product was, “Helping protect the planet!” I have yet to understand the logic of how buying and throwing away mercury-contaminated products has any real benefit to the planet.

Defenders of CFLs claim these lights are good for the environment because even though they contain toxic mercury, they use less energy than incandescent lights. And since coal-fired power plants release mercury into the atmosphere, the use of less energy means less overall mercury is being introduced to the environment. While this sounds sensible at first, it’s still junk logic: How does harming the planet slightly less than before deserve a “green” claim of any kind? If I poke you with ten sharp sticks, and then reduce it to just five sharp sticks, I cannot claim that my actions are suddenly “good for your health!” It’s still a harmful action with negative consequences.

Corporations, it seems, can claim that practically anything is eco-friendly or environmentally friendly, regardless of all the toxic chemicals it contains or produces. That’s what this article is all about: “Greenwashing” or the practice of corporations claiming their products are green when, in reality, they’re not at all impressive as eco-friendly products.

I recently saw paper plates positioned as “eco-friendly biodegradable tableware.” I remember when we used to just call them “paper plates” and we avoided buying them because we wanted to save the trees. But today, paper plates are positioned as green living products. Fascinating how things shift so quickly, isn’t it?

Nowhere is greenwashing more overhyped than in the ethanol biofuels industry, where gullible consumers are being told that we can simply farm our way out of an oil crisis by — get this — converting most of our food into fuel! Ethanol from corn is so energy inefficient that it takes almost exactly one barrel of oil from somewhere else to farm, harvest, process and produce one barrel of oil equivalent energy from corn. In other words, it’s just a massive U.S. energy shell game with absolutely no net gain in energy production, but a huge net loss in food production. Corn prices are already skyrocketing because of the ramp up in ethanol production from corn.

The only people promoting ethanol production from corn are corn farmers, politicians or complete idiots. Some people are all three.

But let’s face it: Consumers like to buy products that they think are “green” in some way, even if the green-ness of those products is highly exaggerated or even entirely fictitious. Why? Because it removes their guilt for driving SUVs, eating meat products and spraying pesticides on their lawns. Somehow, buying a little corn ethanol and a few packages of paper plates puts it all back into balance for these people — folks who live remarkably unsustainable lifestyles that would require five Earths to support if everyone lived that way. Simply eating meat products is so destructive to the environment that you could actually do more to reduce global warming by going vegetarian than by ditching your car.

Magically, the purchasing of a handful of green products each week causes all that guilt to just melt away. The more green products we buy, many consumers believe, the greener the planet will be! Americans are the only people in the world who believe we can save the Earth by going shopping.

Be skeptical of manufacturers’ claims

It’s more important now than ever to be skeptical of “green” claims by product manufacturers. Everybody’s on the green bandwagon, it seems, and even products that are extremely hazardous to the environment often carry some type of green claim. Consumers need to be sharp and do their research on these corporations before blindly buying into their claims of being Earth friendly.

Most fabric softener products (dryer sheets), for example, are positioned as being at least somewhat Earth friendly thanks to a claim in the ingredients list that reads “Biodegradable fabric softeners.” Unfortunately, the second ingredient in fabric softeners is “fragrance,” and the fragrance chemicals are so highly toxic that they cause cancer in humans and are extremely destructive to aquatic ecosystems downstream. Merely drying your clothes with common dryer sheets, then washing them the next time you do laundry unleashes a chemical tidal wave of toxicity that is shockingly harmful to the environment. But that doesn’t stop these companies from positioning their fabric softener sheets as being green, does it?

There are too many examples to cover here, but they’re easy to find if you just look around with some degree of intelligent skepticism. Many products that carry “green” claims may in fact be slightly less damaging to the environment in one particular and narrowly-defined way, but if you look at the overall product and consider where it came from, how it was manufactured and what impact it will have downstream, you’ll realize it’s actually quite harmful to the environment.

No regulation of “green” claims

Today, there is absolutely no regulation of claims of “green” or “Earth friendly” products in the U.S. marketplace. Manufacturers can essentially print anything they want on their products, and there’s no requirement that such claims reflect reality.

Some certification companies are trying to change all that, but none have yet achieved a critical mass of consumer recognition. GreenSeal is one such organization (www.GreenSeal.org) that’s trying to publicize its certification of environmental responsibility, but many corporations don’t like to participate in the GreenSeal program because they don’t want to have to reformulate their products using more environmentally responsible (and more expensive) chemical alternatives. The current list of GreenSeal-approved products and companies is frighteningly short: http://www.greenseal.org/findaproduct/index.cfm

The FDA, for its part, has no interest whatsoever in requiring that the products it regulates are Earth friendly. And you know why? Because the fastest growing source of harzardous consumer products are, in fact, pharmaceuticals, and if the FDA admits it needs to start enforcing environmental safety in food and drug products, it would have to face up to the fact that medications are now a primary source of global pollution of rivers and oceans. (Take a guess what all those HRT drugs are causing down stream…)

So what about the EPA? Why doesn’t the EPA regulate pharmaceuticals as environmental pollutants? The answer is obvious: Because the EPA mirrors the FDA in its kow-towing to the financial interests of powerful corporations, and it’s far easier for the EPA to bury its head in medication-contaminated sand than to take meaningful action to protect the environment from Big Pharma.

Greenwashing is big business, and so is pushing more toxic products to consumers that they will spray on their lawns, shove down their throats, put in their cars or pee away into the sewer system. Most consumer products are highly toxic for people, animals and nature, and before long, nearly all of them will likely carry some kind of greenwashing claim that declares how good they are for the environment.

It’s the Big Lie of consumerism, and the American economy depends so much on the continued purchasing of throwaway products that it simply cannot survive unless people keep buying — and tossing — products that are mostly harmful to the environment. We’ve already sent the climate into a tailspin with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, but that’s only the beginning of this story. The Earth is being poisoned, day by day, by greenwashing corporations and gullible consumers, and it’s only a matter of time before it all comes back to bite us so hard that we become a race of chemically-induced genetic mutants.

Mike Adams

www.Newstarget.com


There are many toxic substances, like mercury and asbestos, which continue to cause cancers like mesothelioma in many individuals. Living with cancer due to exposure to toxins is very difficult, so if you’ve been affected, contact a personal injury or mesothelioma lawyer for medical compensation.

Eagle Bluff Environmental Learning Center

Friday, October 5th, 2007

28097 Goodview Drive
Lanesboro, MN 55949
www.eagle-bluff.org
 888-800-9558

Eco Business Links

Thursday, October 4th, 2007

Environmental Directory
+7,000 Earth-friendly Links!
 www.ecobusinesslinks.com

The Perfect Time for Lawn Care Is Now

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007

As temperatures drop and the leaves start to fall, it is quickly becoming the perfect season for organic lawn care. Whether you want to transition a chemically-maintained lawn or keep your organic turf looking healthy, the work you do now will pay off next spring. From television networks to national newspapers to lawn care companies, making residential lawns ready for winter is the topic du jour, and for good reason: the healthy soil you promote this fall will better support healthy and weed-resistant grass in the future. As David Miller, owner of Nature’s Way Pest Control in Florida, said, “It’s all about soil health and you shouldn’t treat your soil like dirt. “So what should you do? Read our factsheets for complete summaries of fall lawn care. The most important things you can do are:

  • Test your soil. Knowing what balance of nutrients exists will help you plan what to apply, and when, to your lawn.
  • Aerate your lawn. Soil compaction fosters weed growth and makes it harder for fertilizers and water to penetrate to your lawn’s roots. Aerators can be rented; once microorganisms return to your soil, they will help aerate it for you.
  • Fertilize moderately - and according to what a soil test says you need. Look for slow-release fertilizers that do not overload your soil, altering the pH and running off into nearby waterways. Leaving grass clippings on your lawn after mowing is an easy way to supply 58% of the nitrogen added by fertilizers.
  • Add organic matter. Compost and compost tea can be added after aeration, by spreading a quarter-inch layer over your lawn. They suppress pathogens and feed your lawn.
  • Overseed your lawn. Choose a native and pest-resistant type of seed (free from pesticides) that will offer the best ability to thrive in your area.

Lawn care trends are starting to move this way. According to the National Gardening Association, the number of people caring for all-organic lawns is expected to double in the next five years, and the sale of organic products is rising 27 percent each year. It is a trend with resources growing steadily, making it easier to convert.

As Murray Goff, a customer of Mr. Miller, said, “I have a daughter and a granddaughter. They can walk out on my lawn. I don’t have to worry about it. None of those things. It’s all organic and it makes so much sense.” Mr. Miller concurred. “We simply can’t keep polluting our earth. What I’m trying to do is a first step in one small way.” Todd Harrington, another business owner, agreed, “With chemicals, you’re not really doing anything beneficial; you’re polluting and you’re taking risks. With organics, you’re creating a sustainable environment.”

www.beyondpesticides.org

Find Out What’s in Your Tap Water and Move Beyond Toxic Plastic Bottles

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

Although it’s common knowledge that industry, factory farms, government agencies (especially the military), and municipalities are polluting our drinking water supply, this awareness has led to a widespread phobia of tap water that is ironically exacerbating the water pollution problem. It takes five times as much water to make the plastic bottle than the amount of water the bottle actually holds. Last year, Americans consumed 1.5 million barrels of oil to make disposable water bottles. That’s enough to take 100,000 cars off the road and 1 billion pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The average American adult spends nearly $200 each year on bottled water. And of course recent scientific studies indicate that hormone disrupting chemicals are steadily leaching out of those billions of non-recycled plastic water bottles that Coke and Pepsi are selling us, slowly and poisoning us. But how do you know if the water coming out of your home or workplace’s faucet is actually okay to drink in the first place? Obviously, in some cases it’s not, but here are some links to help you find out if your fear of your tap water is really justified:

OCA REVIEW OF TOP TAP WATER SAFETY TESTING OPTIONS

1) Water suppliers are required to supply their customers with an annual consumer confidence report (drinking water quality report). The report you tells where your water comes from and what’s in it. To get your local municipality’s report, check here: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/
Advantages: The report is free and relatively thorough.
Disadvantages: Water suppliers aren’t required by law to test for all types of contaminants.

2) The Watersafe Test Kit is an affordable tool that identifies harmful levels of eight different common contaminants in water: bacteria, lead, nitrates, nitrites, chlorine, pH, hardness and two common pesticides.
Advantages: It’s only $20, and it’s a home kit that you can use anytime and anywhere you like.
Disadvantages: Although the kit tests for the 8 most ubiquitous types of contaminants, there are other less common pollutants it does not assess. http://www.nextag.com/watersafe-test-kits/

3) NTlabs provides consumers with the most thorough laboratory analysis of drinking water we can find at such an affordable rate.
Advantages: The Watercheck includes a 75 item check for: bacteria, heavy metals, inorganic chemicals, trihalomethanes, 44 volatile organic chemicals, and 20 pesticides, herbicides and PCB’s.
Disadvantage: The cost is $159, but you may actually save money if you find out you don’t need to be investing in bottled water and filters http://www.ntllabs.com

www.organicconsumers.org

Pesticide Exposure Linked to Asthma in Farmers

Wednesday, September 19th, 2007

On September 16, 2007, researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences presented findings to the European Respiratory Society Annual Congress in Stockholm showing that exposure to several commonly used pesticides increases the risk of asthma in farmers. Pesticide exposure is a “potential risk factor for asthma and respiratory symptoms among farmers,” lead author Dr. Jane A. Hoppin told Reuters Health. “Because grains and animals are more common exposures in agricultural settings, pesticides may be overlooked. Better education and training of farmers and pesticide handlers may help to reduce asthma risk.”The study consisted of 19,704 farmers, 441 of which had asthma. Farmers who have experienced high pesticide exposure were twice as likely to have asthma. Sixteen of the pesticides studied were associated with asthma. Coumaphos, EPTC, lindane, parathion, heptachlor, 2,4,5-TP, DDT, malathion, and phorate had the strongest effect.“This is the first study with sufficient power to evaluate individual pesticides and adult asthma among individuals who routinely apply pesticides,” Dr. Hoppin said.

Asthma is a serious chronic disorder of the lungs characterized by recurrent attacks of bronchial constriction, which cause breathlessness, wheezing, and coughing. Asthma is a dangerous, and in some cases life-threatening disease. Researchers have found that pesticide exposure can induce a poisoning effect linked to asthma in both adults and children.

In the U.S. alone, around 16 million people suffer from asthma. Since the mid-1980s, asthma rates in the United States have skyrocketed to epidemic levels, particularly in young children. Nearly 1 in 8 school-aged children have asthma and is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness. Every year, asthma accounts for 14 million lost days of school. The rate is rising most rapidly in pre-school aged children.

The number of children dying from asthma increased almost threefold from 1979 to 1996. The estimated cost of treating asthma in those younger than 18 years is $3.2 billion per year. Low-income populations, minorities, and children living in inner-cities experience disproportionately high morbidity and mortality due to asthma.

www.beyondpesticides.org

1000 Americans will Fast for Climate Change

Wednesday, August 29th, 2007

Nearly One Thousand Americans will Fast to Pressure Congress for Climate Change Legislation

Dear Friends,

The September 4th (and beyond) Climate Emergency Fast keeps growing and building! A week ago there were 350 of us; today there are 667. Some of those who’ve joined include Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Indian author and activist Vandana Shiva, South African poet Dennis Brutus, Jared Duval, former National Director of the Sierra Student Coalition, Rev. Charles Morris of Michigan Interfaith Power and Light and Step It Up leaders Will Bates and Jeremy Osborn. They’re joining people like Bill McKibben, Rev. Bob Edgar, Van Jones, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Sally Bingham, Medea Benjamin, Adrienne Maree Brown, Mike Tidwell, Brent Blackwelder, Ilyse Hogue, Billy Parish, Liz Veazey and many more.

And we’ve looked more closely at where we’re all from. We’re from 46 states, the District of Columbia and, so far, ten countries: USA, Bolivia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, India, Germany, Colombia, Puerto Ricoand Australia. If you live in or know anyone in Delaware, Nebraska, North Dakota or South Dakota who appreciate the urgency of the climate crisis, please consider joining or take a minute to reach out to others in those states. They’re the only states where we still do not have any fasters. You sign up for the fast by going to www.climateemergency.org http://www.climateemergency.org .

45 of those signed up so far are fasting for from 2-6 days, 12 are fasting for from one to three weeks, and four of us are open-ended.

The primary purpose of this action is to bring political pressure on the U.S. Congress, demanding that they pass strong climate legislation. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are committed to trying to get climate legislation passed this fall. We are focusing on three main demands, which are:

  • no new coal or coal-to-liquid plants
  • freeze and major reductions in carbon emissions
  • a $25 billion downpayment in the 2008 fiscal year for conservation, efficiency and renewables

We urge people, whether fasting or not, to take action on September 4th, to apply pressure on local Congresspeople and the U.S. Senators in your state. You can organize a vigil outside one of their offices. You can set up a meeting with their staff people (since they’ll be in D.C. on this day). You can get your friends, co-workers, colleagues and anyone else you know to make phone calls or send emails or faxes urging that they support our demands and take strong action to address the climate crisis.

Finally, along those lines, below is information about “1 Sky,” an important initiative with which we are involved.

Let’s keep spreading the word and building this action!

Ted Glick Coordinator, U.S. Climate Emergency Council, http://www.climateemergency.org

www.organicconsumers.org

Common crop herbicide Atrazine linked to reproductive mutations in amphibians

Tuesday, August 28th, 2007

Pollutants such as pesticides and toxins damage the ecosystem and cause a variety of damaging ailments in humans. One particular herbicide, Atrazine, has now been found to turn male frogs into hermaphrodites, rendering them impotent by causing their gonads to produce eggs.

A subject of great scientific and political controversy, Atrazine was first introduced in 1958 and today is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. It is a potential carcinogen and has a half-life in soil of anywhere from 15 to 100 days. This time allows for Atrazine biodegration, during which the chemical is dechlorinated until it produces a an end product of cyanuric acid, a toxic compound.

Atrazine is also used throughout the world in the production of maize, sorghum, sugar cane, pineapples, chemical fallows, grassland, macadamia nuts, conifers forestry, roses and grassland. Its most common application is for use in conservation tillage systems to prevent soil erosion and runoff, and to prevent weeds from growing in major crops. As a result, a good deal of the Atrazine applied to crops is washed into rivers, streams, lakes and municipal drinking water supplies.

A scientific study revealed the truth

In 2002, a breakthrough study on the environmental effects of Atrazine was led by Dr. Tyrone B. Hayes, an associate professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley. The research revealed that Atrazine not only contaminates ground and surface water, but also is an endocrine disruptor — chemically castrating all male amphibians by stripping them of a key hormone. This appears to have had a major impact on wild amphibians and is likely to be an important contributor to this species’ global decline.

What struck us as unbelievable was that Atrazine could cause such dramatic effects at such low levels,” said Hayes. “If you take five grains of salt, divide this weight by five thousand, that is the amount of Atrazine that causes these abnormalities. Atrazine-exposed frogs don’t have normal reproductive systems. The males have ovaries in their testes and much smaller vocal organs.

The use of Atrazine in the environment is basically an uncontrolled experiment — there seems to be no Atrazine-free environment. Because it is so widespread, aquatic environments are at risk. It is obviously affecting frogs. We have shown serious effects on their sexual development. Some had three ovaries and three testes, some had ovaries on one side and testes on the other, one animal even had six testes…We need to ask the questions, ‘What are the environmental costs of using Atrazine? What diversity have we lost?’”

Evidently, however, hermaphroditism in frogs is a well-known phenomenon that has been monitored and studied for decades all over the world. The study claims that even at low concentrations (1/30th the dose deemed safe by the EPA), Atrazine may cause hermaphroditism in North American frogs. It has also been shown to lower hormone and testosterone levels in sexually mature male frogs to much lower than normal female frogs. At this point, it is still unclear whether Atrazine leads to reduced fertility, but the likelihood seems to be that this would impair a frog’s ability to breed and produce offspring.

The study research was done without any industry financing provided to Dr. Hayes and his coauthors. Hayes originally had been hired as a consultant by Ecorisk (now Syngenta) in order to conduct research on Atrazine and its effects on the environment. The results of the study were later published in April 2002 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and in October 2002 in Nature magazine.

This is very important and elegant work,” said Theo Colborn, Ph.D.,a senior scientist at the World Wildlife Fund. Colborn is recognized worldwide for his expertise with endocrine disrupting chemicals. “Tyrone’s work demonstrates the need to do research on the safety of chemicals in the field where the animals live and at the levels to which they are exposed. The changes he found in the gonads were not discovered with the traditional high-dose Atrazine experiments used in the past. In addition, microscopic examination of the internal organs of the frogs is required to detect the hidden effects from low-dose exposure.”

Results of the EPA investigation

Atrazine has been widely used by approximately 80 countries over the last 40 years. However, it has been recently banned in several countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Norway. The weed killer is still on sale in the UK, as well as in the U.S.

The EPA and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) scrutinized this study in 2003, concluding there was not enough information or data to determine if amphibian development was affected by Atrazine. They classified this herbicide as “not likely” to be carcinogenic in 2003, even recommending that the chemical’s registration be renewed. According to the EPA, they did “not find any results among the available studies that would lead us to conclude that a potential cancer risk is likely from exposure to Atrazine.”

However, the EPA also claimed in 2003, based on Hayes’ research, that there was “sufficient evidence” to conclude there is a definite chance that Atrazine does affect amphibian reproduction and reproductive organs. The EPA was unwilling to concede —stating that these results were not consistent enough to justify a national ban on the chemical.

In August of that year, The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought forth a lawsuit against EPA. The council charged that the EPA had failed to protect endangered species and the environment from the toxic effects of Atrazine. This was due to statements made by the EPA that this chemical has the potential to cause harm to endangered species, even though it was allowed to remain on the market.

In October 2007, the EPA will release their evaluation on the validity of Atrazine research and the effects this chemical has on amphibian gonadal development. These findings will be presented to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). These findings will include newer scientific research that was conducted in 2005/2006 by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and any open literature studies that were evaluated by the EPA.

Atrazine is just one of a long list of pesticides thought to have hormone disrupting effects and many of these turn up in our food as residues,” said Sandra Bell, a pesticides campaigner with the Friends of the Earth environmental organization. “In fact, we’ve seen recent evidence that farmers are finding that the pesticides that the bio-tech companies sell to them to go with the GM crops are just not effective — they’re not working — and therefore the farmers are actually resorting to older very toxic chemicals. Gender bending effects on fish and frogs raise serious concerns about the impact such chemicals are having on our wildlife, especially as the effects were found at such low levels. But even more alarming is the potential for these products to affect human health.

I think it’s clear that people don’t want pesticides in their food but also that it’s not just a simple issue of banning all pesticides overnight. Clearly that would be very difficult for our farmers and farmers in other countries. So what we need is a process of phasing out these chemicals and replacing them with safer alternatives and replacing them with different methods of farming. For that we do need a commitment of resources from the Government and from the retailers to carry out research and development into different ways of farming, but also into safer products that don’t leave residues in our food.”

In addition to the work conducted by Professor Hayes, similar research conducted by Warren P. Porter of the University of Wisconsin at Madison claims that Atrazine may also disrupt other hormonal systems in amphibious creatures.

Denying the problems with Atrazine

There are still those, however, who refuse to take these findings as fact. According to Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education at the Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI), there are many other variables that could easily be responsible for and explain amphibious hermaphroditism, such as parasites, viruses, temperature and any number of other natural factors. “Hayes’s latest study is reminiscent of recent peer-reviewed studies that tried to link pesticides to frog limb abnormalities, but were debunked after further studies found natural parasitic flatworms to be the cause. Until this work has been corroborated by other labs, it must be considered preliminary and inconclusive,” said Avery

Amid recent concerns about human and ecological health, environmental campaigners are calling for a ban on Atrazine. Due to the research done on this chemical by Hayes and others in the field, Atrazine now has been banned or restricted in Austria, Slovenia, Germany, Denmark, Italy, France and the UK.

The effects of Atrazine on frogs were examined prior to Hayes’ work, but similar abnormalities had not been reported. This is what is primarily fueling the debate over these findings — that Hayes and his colleagues are the only ones so far willing to state these findings as fact. So far, no other independent studies have found anything similar.

The reason, according to Hayes, is that “they were looking for the wrong things. Most people were looking for external deformities, mortality or cancer. Atrazine-induced abnormalities are subtler — it took a year of experimentation before even we noticed the consequences.” Since then, more independent and industry research has been conducted on Atrazine; many of the current conclusions are very similar to those previously made by Hayes.

Other names used by chemical companies and pesticide manufacturers to designate the herbicide “Atrazine” include: 2-chloro-4-(2-propylamino)-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-chloro-4-(isopropylamino)-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, Ortho St. Augustine Weed and Feed, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N-isopropyl-s-triazine-2,4-diamine, A 361, AAtrex, AAtrex 4L, AAtrex 80W, AAtrex Nine-O, Actinite PK, Akticon, Aktikon, Aktikon PK, Aktinit A, Aktinit PK, Argezin, Atrazinax, Atranex, Atrasine, Atrataf, Atratol, Atratol A, Atrazine, Atrazine 4L, Atrazine 80W, Atrazines, Atred, Atrex, Attrex, ATZ, Azinotox 500, Candex, Cekuzina-T, Chromozin, Crisamina, Crisatrina, Crisazine, Crisazina, Cyazine, Extrazine II, Farmco, Fenamine, Fenatrol, Fogard, G30027, Geigy 30027, Gesaprim, Gesaprim 50, Gesaprim 500, Gesoprim, Griffex, Griffex 4L, Hungazin, Hungazin PK, Inakor, Laddock, Maizina, Mebazine, Oleogesaprim, Oleogesaprim 200, Pitezin, Primatol, Primatol A, Primaze, Radizine, Radazine, Scotts Bonus Type S, Strazine, Triazine A 1294, Vectal, Vectal SC, Vectral SC, Weedex, Weedex A, Wonuk, Zeaphos, Zeapos, and Zeazin.

www.newstarget.com