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

1. Personal Health

Eating organic prevents exposure to agricultural pesticides known to disrupt neurological development in infants and children, increase the risk of prostate cancer, and double the incidence of childhood lymphoma.

The President’s 2010 Cancer Panel Report urges consumers to choose “food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers” and to limit “exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots” “by eating free-range meat raised without these medications.”

2. Nutrition

An organic diet increases exposure to health-promoting CLAs, flavinoids, antioxidants.

3. Water Quality

Organic cropping systems can prevent nitrogen losses to groundwater and the atmosphere and keep drinking water from being contaminated with nitrates, which can cause blue baby syndrome and other negative health impacts.

4. No Genetic Engineering

Genetically engineered Bt corn harms aquatic insects and disrupts stream ecosystems.

Genetically modified plants have already established themselves in the wild. One study found 86 percent of plants collected outside of agriculture fields in North Dakota tested positive for genetically engineered herbicide tolerance, including combinations of transgenes that are unique to the feral varieties.

5. Soil Quality

Organics are shown to increase soil organic matter, enhance microbial activity and reduce soil acidity, all of which are linked to greater yields.

6. Biodiversity

Organic farming increases biodiversity at every level of the food chain, from bacteria to mammals.

7. Climate Change

The UN-WTO’s International Trade Center found, “organic agriculture has much to offer in mitigation of climate change through its emphasis on closed nutrient cycles and is a particularly resilient and productive system for adaptation strategies.”

8. Feeding the World

Research summarizing 293 published comparisons found a 30% increase in world-wide yields using organic methods.

Source: www.organicconsumers.org

New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.

“These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals,” said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.

The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.

Deet’s popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.

In spite of the chemical’s long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.

Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects’ nervous systems.

“We’ve found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals,” the researchers said.

In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.

Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.

Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.

Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.

The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.

Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.

“Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects,” Abou-Donia said. “But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications.”

The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet’s potential to cause neurological harm.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet’s safety planned for 2012.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/029136_deet_toxic.html

Tis that time of year when more than 20 million Americans are buying sweets and flowers for their loved ones on Valentine’s Day. Unfortunately, these tokens of love aren’t as sweet or pure as they may appear. Over 40 percent of the world’s conventional chocolate (i.e. non-organic and non-Fair Trade) comes from Africa’s Ivory Coast, where the International Labor Organization and US State Department have reported widespread instances of child slavery. Meanwhile, commercial flowers, most of which are produced in countries such as Colombia, are the most toxic and heavily sprayed agricultural crops on Earth. In order for you to deliver your bouquet to your beauty, poorly paid workers in Third World countries put in up to 18 hour work days for poverty wages during peak flower buying times such as Valentine’s Day. But don’t let the bad news squelch your Valentine’s plans. Show your love by choosing Fair Trade and organic flowers and chocolate for your Valentine’s Day gifts.

Check out OCA’s Buying Guide, watch an entertaining flash movie and take action against the 5 major chocolate and flower corporations: http://www.organicconsumers.org/valentines/

A study to be published in the February 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives finds that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. The study is entitled “Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children” (Chensheng Lu, Dana B. Barr, Melanie A. Pearson, and Lance A. Waller) and includes authors from Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.According to the authors, “The objective of this article is to present the data of assessing young urban/suburban children’s longitudinal exposure to OP [organophosphate] pesticides in a group [of] young children participating in the Children Pesticide Exposure Study (CPES). The results from this study identify not only the predominant source of OP pesticide exposure but also the profile of exposures in children that are vital in formulating the strategies, both from the regulatory policy and personal behavior change perspectives, in reducing children’s exposures to OP pesticides.”

The study design included 23 children, male and female, from the Seattle area, ages 3-11 years who only consumed conventional diets and were recruited for a one-year study conducted in 2003-2004. Of the 23, 19 completed the study. Children switched to organic diets for five consecutive days in the summer and fall sampling seasons. The authors measured specific urinary metabolites for malathion, chlorpyrifos and other OP pesticides in urine samples collected twice daily for a period of 7, 12, or 15 consecutive days during each of the four seasons. According to the authors, “By substituting organic fresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventional food items, the median urinary metabolite concentrations were reduced to non-detected or close to non-detected levels for malathion and chlorpyrifos at the end of 5-day organic diet intervention period in both summer and fall seasons. We also observed a seasonal effect on the OP urinary metabolite concentrations, and this seasonality is correspondent to the consumption of fresh produce throughout the year.” And, “Considering the lack of residential use of OP pesticides among the families of CPES-WA children, consumption of conventional diets is likely to be the sole contributing factor to the seasonality effect of pesticide exposures.”

The authors point out that few studies evaluate the longitudinal exposure to pesticides that all children experience. According to the authors, “Most of the studies published in the literature have either targeted children living in agricultural environments or have used a cross-sectional design with spot sample collection.”

The authors raise concerns about inadequate attention being given by regulators to chronic low-level exposures to pesticides, such as those found in their study. They point out that, “Using spot biomarkers [one-time measurement of urinary metabolites] of OP pesticide exposure to examine the link between adverse health outcomes and cumulative OP pesticide exposure is obviously an inadequate approach.”

Corresponding author: Chensheng Lu, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, (404)727-2131, (404)727-8744 (fax), clu2@sph.emory.edu.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=275

The second circuit federal appellate court on Thursday will hear a challenge to an EPA rule that allows people to be used as guinea pigs in tests of toxic pesticides. The lawsuit, NRDC V. EPA, was brought before the court by a coalition of environmental, farmworker and health groups in 2006. The groups contend that the agency’s human testing rule violates a law passed by Congress in 2005 mandating strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. At the time, the House Committee on Government Reform found “the actual experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed and rife with ethical violations.”

“Testing poisons on people is unethical and against the law,” said Shelley Davis, Beyond Pesticides board member and deputy director of Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy and education center for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, based in Washington, D.C.“The EPA should stop accepting these industry funded tests.”

Previous human testing by industry produced serious ethical and scientific problems including one instance in which a company told participants they were eating vitamins, not toxic pesticides. In other instances citied in the lawsuit, researchers ignored the adverse health effects reported by the participants.

“The only people who get what they want out of these immoral tests are the chemical companies,” said Aaron Colangelo, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior attorney representing the petitioners. “Their testing methods are questionable at best, the only purpose they serve is to weaken pesticide safety standards, and ultimately the people who grow and harvest our food suffer the consequences. This practice must end.”

In 2005, Congress passed a law strictly forbidding the use of pregnant women and minors in pesticide tests. A loophole in the new EPA rule will allow testing of pregnant women, infants and children. Low-income people and students are the most likely to participate in these dangerous experiments, for which they usually receive a few hundred dollars. However, participants injured in the studies are not guaranteed medical care outside of the testing period.

The groups contend the EPA rule violates international ethical standards enumerated in the 1947 Nuremburg Code by permitting the EPA to set safety standards based on tests conducted with only a handful of healthy people. In most tests, participants are not representative of the U.S. population, the test period is scientifically problematic, and group size is not large enough to detect potential harmful health effects.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of NRDC, Pesticide Action Network North America, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, Pineros y Campesinos del Noreste, and Migrant Clinicians Network. Attorneys for the petitioners are NRDC, Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice.

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances.EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here. For more information on the lawsuit, view the Petitioners’ brief and Reply brief.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=267

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has struck an arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in four states a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant a majority of Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. Farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota need to plant 75-80% of their crops with Monsanto’s (and only Monsanto’s) GM seeds to receive the “premium rate discount”. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that promotes herbicide use; the Monsanto brands are resistant to Roundup (main ingredient, glyphosate) and contain chemicals that kill insects and other plants.

Monsanto’s deal is legal, according to USDA officials, who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance passed by Congress. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and show resistance to insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies. “We knew it would look that way,” said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for USDA’s Risk Management Agency, which administers federal crop insurance. “But other companies can come and do the same thing. We are making the discount available because the corn has shown the traits necessary to reduce the risk.”

The deal with St. Louis-based Monsanto was approved September 12, 2007 under a provision called the Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE) program, which is part of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. No other companies have taken advantage of the program, Pugh said. The insurance premium benefit to farmers, according to USDA, will be about $2 per acre, or $2,000 for a typical 1,000-acre farm. Crop insurance prices have skyrocketed for farmers as corn prices have reached near-record highs in recent months. Today, corn trades at about $4 a bushel, double the price of about two years ago. Those prices have continued to stay high because of increased demand from the ethanol industry, which uses the grain to make fuel, as well as increased corn exports and demands from cattle-feeding businesses. Crop insurance rates can be as high as $50 an acre, according to Kurt Koester, a vice president and co-owner at AgriSource Inc., a crop insurance agency in West Des Moines, Iowa, involved in the pilot program. Several years ago, Koester said premiums were about $15 to $20 an acre. “Farmers are going to face some really tough decisions here,” Koester said. ‘They’ve got this high-value corn sitting out in their fields. When you take the cost of this crop insurance, even with government subsidies, there’s going to be sticker shock.”

The pilot program with Monsanto covers the country’s four most productive corn states. It involves corn that contains YieldGard Plus (which protects against corn borers and rootworms) with Roundup Ready Corn 2 (which tolerates the herbicide Roundup) or YieldGard VT Triple technology from Monsanto, the company said. The deal with the Agriculture Department was finalized this month. The corn grown is generally used as cattle feed and as raw material for ethanol plants. Monsanto won the BYE designation by providing three years’ worth of research that convinced the USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board that its triple-stack corn variety produces higher yields under difficult conditions, such as weeds and corn borer.

“It really bore out what we’ve heard from our farmers, saying over and over again that these triple-stack technologies in the corn plant help protect against weeds and root worms,” said Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesman. “What this does is reduce the risk for the farmers.”

Monsanto, however, has earned the wrath of organic agriculture and environmental groups, mostly for promoting the growth of genetically altered crops. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, characterized the USDA-Monsanto BYE arrangement as one of many examples in which the department has sided with big agribusinesses instead of smaller farmers and farm groups. He said the BYE program will leave farmers with little choice but to buy Monsanto seed. “We definitely have a problem with all the benefits that [Monsanto] gets,” Cummins said. “If you really look at our crop subsidy program and what’s given to farmers, you really see a lot of those subsidies going to purchase genetically engineered crops.”

Cummins also said that the USDA-Monsanto arrangement excludes organic farmers. Most of the corn acreage in the four states involved is insured, according to USDA figures. Of the 11 million acres planted in corn in 2006 in Illinois, about 9 million acres, or 79 percent, had federal crop insurance, according to USDA. In Indiana, 68 percent of corn acres were insured, in Iowa, 87 percent and in Minnesota, 89 percent.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=256

Autism is on the rise, both in prevalence and incidence, and there is growing evidence that environmental insults, such as pesticides, are linked to this developmental disability. According to the latest study, published in the October issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, children born to mothers living near fields where pesticides are applied are more likely to develop autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The authors ofMaternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the California Central Valley compared maternal pesticide exposure for 465 children with ASDs and 6,975 children without ASDs living in the same area. The research reveals that mothers who lived within 500 meters of fields sprayed with organochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan and dicofol, during their first trimester of pregnancy had a six times higher chance of having children with autism compared to mothers who did not live near the fields. Mark Horton, M.D., director of the California Department of Health, said the findings are exploratory and indicate that more research of the relationship between organochlorines and ASDs is needed. (See Daily News Blog posting from July 31, 2007 for further reactions from health care officials and more details about this study.)

ASDs include a range of developmental disabilities that are characterized by substantial impairments in social interaction and communication and the presence of unusual behaviors and interests. The symptoms range from mild to very severe, appearing before the age of 3 and lasting throughout a person’s life. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of every 150 eight-year old children has an ASD, a prevalence rate of almost 7 per 1,000 children that is the same across multiple areas of the US. ASD prevalence shot up in 1990s, reaching levels of 2.0-7.0 per 1,000 children, greater than a tenfold increase from the prevalence rates identified in the 1980s, 0.1-0.4 per 1,000 children. There are indications that the rates, while still rising, may be leveling off at present, but this may reflect improvements in diagnostic screening and increased parental awareness as much as changes in the underlying factors. ASDs were first identified as a specific disorder in 1943, and since then the criteria for diagnoses have changed many times. Comparisons of rates over time may not be entirely consistent or thoroughly systematic, but the prevalence has reached a point where it is a condition of concern for parents and school officials.

Federal health authorities believe that ASDs probably result as an interaction between genetics and environmental factors. Despite the high degree of heritability of ASDs, genetic factors cannot completely account for the incidence of autism. After extensive genetic testing, researchers have not been able to pinpoint a specific genetic locus or set of genes linked to autism. Among identical twins, if one child has autism, there is a 75% chance that the other child is affected, but there can be significant differences in the symptoms displayed in twins. Because the concordance rate among identical twins is not 100% and the number of autism cases is rising, it seems likely that environmental causes are key factors. A 2000 report by the National Academy of Sciences indicates that as many as 25 percent of all developmental disabilities in children may be caused by environmental factors.

The relative rarity of autism in the Amish community around Middlefield, Ohio, where only one per 15,000 children has an ASD, provides promise for uncovering environmental factors that cause the disorder. One explanation for the lower prevalence was that Amish children, who are religiously exempt from immunizations, were not exposed to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in vaccines. While the CDC acknowledges the possibility of a link between thimerosal and autism, they point out that there have been studies that discredit this causal relationship. (See Daily News from June 13, 2005 for more on Amish rates of autism).

Other substances that have been implicated as risk factors for autism include viruses, industrial chemicals and electromagnetic radiation. A few individual cases of ASDs have been linked to prenatal exposure to valproic acid, as well as to infectious agents such as the rubella and influenza viruses. Some drugs taken by mothers during pregnancy are also linked to a higher risk of autism in children, especially the prescription drug thalidomide, which in the past was administered as a sleeping pill and used to treat morning sickness. Yet, for all these factors, there is less than perfect concordance, which suggests that a genetic predisposition is necessary for the chemical or microbial factors to lead to autism.

However, the role of environmental insults in the development of autism has been documented and cannot be ignored in future research. Research of autistic children in the San Francisco Bay area,Autism spectrum disorders in relation to distribution of hazardous air pollutants in the San Francisco bay area, found a potential association between autism and concentrations of mercury, cadmium, nickel, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride in ambient air around birth residence. A 1998 article in Toxicology and Industrial Health,Autism: xenobiotic influences, looked at 18 autistic children and found that 16 of these children had levels of toxic chemicals in their blood that exceeded the adult maximum tolerance. Similarly, the authors ofPorphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: implications for environmental toxicity describe how urninary levels of porphyrin, a biomarker of environmental toxicity, were elevated in autistic children relative to control groups. Porphyrin levels were not significantly different in children with Asperger’s disorder, distinguishing it from autism.

Men, Boys and Environmental Threats, a 2007 report by the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment, highlights how boys are more susceptible to environmental risks than girls, which is especially relevant to autism. Boys are four times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism, in addition to outnumbering girls in the incidence of learning disabilities overall, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy and dyslexia. For several reasons, boys brains may be more vulnerable during development to damaging substances found in the environment, including lead, mercury, arsenic, radiation, dioxins, PCBs, solvents and some pesticides, and (See Daily News from July 16, 2007 for more information on why boys are more prone to environmentally related health conditions.)

Gustavo C. Roman, M.D., suggests that substances that interfere with thyroidal activity may produce morphological brain changes leading to autism, in a 2007 article,Autism: transient in utero hypothyroxinemia related to maternal flavonoid ingestion during pregnancy and to other environmental antithyroid agents. Scientists have identified specific changes to brain cells during development that are particular to autism, and these processes are regulated by hormones produced by the mother’s thyroid gland. Dr. Roman notes that environmental contaminants interfere with thyroid function, including 60% of all herbicides, in particular 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), acetochlor, aminotriazole, amitrole, bromoxynil, pendamethalin, mancozeb, and thioureas. Other antithyroid agents include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perchlorates, mercury, and coal derivatives such as resorcinol, phthalates, and anthracenes. Mercury acts as an antithyroid substance by causing inhibition of deiodinases and thyroid peroxidase. A leading ecological study in Texas,Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas, correlated higher rates of autism in school districts affected by large environmental releases of mercury from industrial sources.

Warren Porter, Ph.D. argues that the connections among the nervous, endocrine and immune systems need to be looked at when asking how do pesticides affect learning and behavior.Studies show that pesticides can function as nerve poisons and as pseudo hormones, modify hormone levels, and/or impact immune system function, he writes. Learning is dependent on immune system processes & hormonal changes, so any changes to these systems could lead to developmental disabilities. Dr. Porter was first drawn to the relationship between pesticides and learning when he looked at a 1997 survey of student disabilities in the Madison Metropolitan School District (WI). From 1990-1995, the number of children in Madison with learning disabilities increased 70%, children that were emotionally disturbed increased 87%, and children with birth defects increased 83%. Dr. Porter writes that similar changes are seen globally, and that the data from Madison are indicative of a worldwide phenomenon of increasing behavioral and learning disabilities among children, who face more and more contaminants and toxic chemicals in the environment.

To address the public health concern that autism has become and explore the potential environmental factors related to the developmental disorder, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created four new children’s environmental health research centers in 2001. Over the past five years, twelve such research centers nationwide were funded $1 million a year. Additionally, CDC’s Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) have teamed up on a large, population-based study, the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), to uncover the risk factors for and causes of autism. If successful, researchers will better know how to develop strategies to prevent this complex disorder.

Irva Hertz-Picciotto, epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, and a member of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) panel, believes that the government’s proposed projects can provide some answers, but not a definite cause for autism. I’m optimistic that we will have identified some environmental risk factors, and may have excluded a few others, between 2008 and 2010, but by no means will we have the final word. The genetics and the gene environment interactions may be even tougher. Unfortunately, I don’t see enough groups working on the environmental contribution to autism, so it may be slower than projected, she says. Mark Blaxill, vice president of SafeMinds, a parent-led advocacy group, also thinks that more attention should be paid to environmental risk factors.The CDC has not addressed the crisis in autism responsibly, he says.They should be raising the alarm, and they have failed to do so. They should be asking why so many children are sick. Instead, they’ve tried to suggest a degree of doubt about the increases, and that diverts attention and funding from environmental causes.
 www.beyondpesticides.org

---

There’s no doubt that pesticides and chemicals like benzene are harmful to our health. Water contamination cases have been filed all over the country, and have caused serious health problems in their wake. There are many lawyers, from personal injury attorneys to mesothelioma attorneys, who can handle cases such as these and help victims receive compensation.

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

The widespread presence of pesticides and other agricultural runoff has been confirmed in the world’s largest coral reef system. Degradation of the system threatens not only a natural treasure but also the region’s economy.

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is the subject of a recent report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Entitled the “Annual Marine Monitoring Report 2006,” the study confirms extensive contamination in eight of the ten major tributaries into the marine park, much of which is fertilizer and pesticide runoff from the area’s farmland. Local environmental groups are calling for government protection of the reef from these pollutants, and tourism interests worry that damage to the reef will reduce the number of visitors to Australia. According to World Wildlife Foundation-Australia program leader Nick Heath, “Reducing pollution load is possible and will help us save the Reef, as well as the 60,000 tourism jobs based around the Reef.”

According to the report, “Water quality in the Great Barrier Reef is principally affected by land-based activities in its adjacent catchments, including vegetation modification, grazing, agriculture, urban development, industrial development and aquaculture. Nutrients, sediments and pesticides are the pollutants of most concern for the health of the Great Barrier Reef.”

Among the pesticides found in the waters sampled are diuron, which is found at the mouth of each tributary year round, atrazine, the other most commonly-applied pesticide, and other herbicides. Herbicides are also routinely found in inshore reef water samples.

Mr. Heath cited a 2004 report that found sugar cane farmers were over-applying pesticides by 75 percent as a contributing factor to the study’s results. “These pesticides are used on the ground to kill weeds and will have the same effect in the ocean,” he said.

Mud crabs were also tested for bio-accumulation of persistent organic contaminants like PCBs, dieldrin, and DDT, which is present in 33 percent of the crabs tested. While the concentration of these chemicals is relatively low and not in commonly eaten parts of the crab, the results indicate that long-since banned chemicals are still affecting the ecosystem.

In response, activists call for the Australian government to invest in protection of the Reef. “If nothing is done it’s quite a grim future for the reef,” said Mr. Heath. “Pollution will continue to stress corals, continue to feed wave after wave of crown of thorn starfish outbreaks, reducing coral cover and probably even worse reducing the resilience of the reef to be able to deal with the increased temperatures expected from climate change.”

Mr. Heath’s concern for the Reef’s future is corroborated by a University of North Carolina study, which found that over the past 20 years the Reef has reduced in size at five times the rate of the rainforests.

The continued documentation of environmental degradation throughout the globe in conjunction with pesticide contamination reinforces the need in a global economy to buy certified organic products and vote with your dollar by refusing to support companies that are not socially and environmentally responsible.

www.beyondpesticides.org

For the first time, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report in July on children’s heightened vulnerability to chemical exposures at different periods of their growth and development. The organization cites over 30% of the global burden of disease in children can be attributed to environmental factors, including pesticides.

The report, Principles for Evaluating Health Risks in Children Associated with Exposure to Chemicals, is a new volume of the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria series. It highlights the fact that for children, the stage of their development when chemical exposure occurs may be just as important as the magnitude of the exposure. In respect to pesticides, the report cites several studies that tie pesticide exposure during key periods of development to neurobehavioral problems, Parkinson’s disease, and immunotoxicity, including respiratory diseases.

“Children are not just small adults,” said Dr. Terri Damstra, Ph.D., WHO’s team leader for the Interregional Research Unit, in WHO’s press release. “Children are especially vulnerable and respond differently from adults when exposed to environmental factors, and this response may differ according to the different periods of development they are going through.”

Air and water contaminants, pesticides in food, lead in soil, as well many other environmental threats may cause or worsen disease and induce developmental problems. The report notes that children have different susceptibilities during different life stages, referred to as “critical windows for exposure” or “critical windows of development,” due to their dynamic growth and developmental processes, as well as physiological, metabolic, and behavioral differences. Exposure can occur:

• In utero through transplacental transfer of environmental agents from mother to fetus or in nursing infants via breast milk.
• Through diet - children consume more food and beverages per kilogram of body weight than do adults, and their dietary patterns are different and often less variable during different developmental stages.
• Through inhalation and absorption - children have a higher inhalation rate and a higher body surface area to body weight ratio, which may lead to increased exposures.
• Through behavior - children ’s normal behaviors, such as crawling on the ground and putting their hands in their mouths, can result in exposures not faced by adults.
• Other physical factors - children’s metabolic pathways may differ from those of adults, and children have more years of future life and thus more time to develop chronic diseases that take decades to appear and that may be triggered by early environmental exposures.
• Also, children are often unaware of environmental risks and generally have no voice in decision-making.

Some examples of health effects resulting from developmental exposures prenatally and at birth include miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight and birth defects; in young children, infant mortality, asthma, neurobehavioral and immune impairment; and in adolescents, precocious or delayed puberty. Evidence also suggests that an increased risk of certain diseases in adults such as cancer, chronic respiratory disease and heart disease can result in part from exposures to certain environmental chemicals during childhood.

Traditional risk assessment approaches and environmental health policies have focused mainly on adults and adult exposure scenarios, utilizing data from adult humans or adult animals. The report highlights there is a need to expand risk assessment paradigms to evaluate exposures relevant to children from preconception to adolescence, acknowledging each developmental stage.

The study, while pointing out risk assessment is flawed and encouraging new and improved research, also states “A lack of full proof for causal associations should not prevent efforts to reduce exposures or implement intervention and prevention strategies.”

Real world exposure is indeed complicated and makes it difficult to conclusively draw causal associations, especially taking into account synergistic effects, etc., leaving a clear and vital need to exercise the precautionary principle. The easiest and safest solution regardless of risk assessment methods is to avoid chemical use and exposure by using alternative, non- and least-toxic management methods for species that can cause economic and health problems, being more tolerant of species that are solely a nuisance or aesthetically displeasing, and using organic products, especially foods.

Due to the large amount of time children spend in schools, Beyond Pesticides’ Healthy Schools Project aims to minimize and eliminate the risks posed by pesticides through the adoption of school pest management policies and programs at the local, state, and federal level, thereby creating a healthier learning environment. Central to this effort are activities aimed at public education on pesticide hazards and efficacy of alternatives, and the continued development of model communities that serve as examples.

TAKE ACTION: Find out what laws your state has enacted to protect children from pesticide exposure. Learn about model policies your state and community can work toward adopting.

www.beyondpesticides.org