[This blog entry has been cross posted from Toxic Free North Carolina's weblog, Fair Ground, where it was originally posted by Fawn.]

A Task Force convened earlier this year by Governor Mike Easley to address pesticide exposure hazards in agriculture has sent its recommendations to the Governor (read the press release). The report contains some good ideas and some welcome changes, to be sure, but misses the chance to bring much-needed basic workplace protections to farmworkers who face the threat of pesticide exposure on the job.

Within the report's recommendations you'll find budget requests for several of the agencies that were represented on the Task Force, ideas for the expansion of many voluntary and educational programs, and very little reform. Only one of the recommendations brought by farmworker advocates, a provision that would outlaw retaliation against workers who report workplace safety problems, was adopted by the Task Force.

The Task Force faced several challenges in its structure, including the absence of any farmworker representatives. Because the recommendations were made by consensus, any Task Force member was able to prevent recommendations from going forward. One Task Force member in particular, Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler, was extremely effective in preventing the Task Force from taking up several of the reform measures they discussed.

There were some key issues exposed by the Ag-Mart case that the Task Force chose to put off for future study:

• Keep workers' names confidential when they report workplace safety problems.
• Require growers to keep records of compliance with Worker Protection Standards by recording when workers are sent back into the fields after spraying.
• Increase minimal pesticide fines and remove the standard of "willful" violations.

Panelists also recommended solutions including: require crop-specific pesticide safety training; redesign pesticide labels and ensure that they are also provided in Spanish; encourage the use of organic farming, Integrated Pest Management and less-toxic alternatives; improve regulations of pesticide drift; require adequate showers and telephones in employer-provided farmworker housing; screen workers regularly for health impacts; increase the number of bilingual pesticide inspectors, and many others. None of these were mentioned in the final report to the Governor.

Whether Governor Easley and the NC Legislature can look beyond the limitations of this report remains to be seen. But they will have to if they intend to fix the problems that Ag-Mart has so painfully pointed out.

You can download the report (PDF, 232 KB) by clicking this link.

Thought I'd share an editorial in today's News & Observer, reflecting on the most recent developments in the Ag-Mart case (see The Tip of the Injustice Iceberg, Ag-Mart Part II, and It's Not Over Till It's Over).

Yesterday I actually went to meeting of the Governor's Task Force on Pesticides, in support of pesticide safety for farmworkers. Activists in the community are urging this Task Force to require employers to keep accurate pesticide records, ensure the anonymity of workers who wish to file a complaint against their employers, require employers to provide phones and adequate showers for workers' safety, and increase the fine of pesticide violations, as triggered by the Ag-Mart case.

We'll keep you posted as the saga continues...

[This blog entry has been cross posted from Toxic Free North Carolina's weblog, Fair Ground, where it was originally posted by Billie.]

I was already a big skeptic of biofuels before today. Using cropland to grow giant monocultures that are then burned as fuel instead of fed to people seems like a not-so-hot idea - think of the pesticides! More mono-cropping means more chemical pesticides and fertilizers that end up harming downwind and downstream communities and ecosystems. Yuck!

Today, I learned that two recent studies confirm that in addition to being a source of pesticide pollution, biofuels aren't actually preventing global warming either. Princeton University and The Marshall Fund published a study in the journal Science, and The Nature Conservancy has put out a study with similar conclusions.

From an article in The Washington Post on these findings:

"(...) As the study from the Nature Conservancy warns, 'converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace.' There are other negative effects. Massive amounts of water are needed to irrigate cornfields, setting up potential competition between farms and homes. The runoff of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers used by farmers could lead to increased pollution and oxygen-depleted waterways. The natural gas used to make the fertilizer adds to the carbon deficit created by biofuels.

An essay in the May-June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs by two professors from the University of Minnesota highlighted still another problem: The biofuels craze could starve people. "By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world," they wrote. "If oil prices remain high -- which is likely -- the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum."

Will someone please get the memo to decision makers in Washington who are pouring money into biofuels right now?? Eep!

Take it from someone with 7 nieces and only 1 nephew, I've often wondered if there really do seem to be more female births recently, or if it's just my own skewed perception. Today I happened to read one of Treehugger's "Quote of the Days," this one by author Devra Davis (The Secret History of the War on Cancer) on declining male births...

"In the United States and Japan, there has been a significant decline in the birth of baby boys. [...] Well, there's a theory of testicular dysgenesis, which means that there is something on the Y chromosome that is transmitted to boys that is affecting their overall health, and it may affect whether or not a boy sperm works to fertilize an egg.

Something is affecting fathers' ability to make baby boys, which may also be affecting the ability of the boys that are conceived to become fathers. It may be affecting sperm count, which is declining. It may also be affecting development of testicular cancer, which peaks in young men in their 20s. And these things are likely to be related to early life exposures to hormone-mimicking chemicals.

Pesticides, alcohol, lead and solvents have all been shown in occupational studies to reduce the ability of men to father boys and to increase the risk of birth defects in the babies that they have, including cancer. [...]"

Check out the full quote and let us know what you think. Have you been buying more "It's a Girl!" cards than ever before?

Oh, the beleaguered frogs. You probably already know that amphibian species are declining around the world. You have probably seen the depressing photos of deformed frogs trying to get through life with too many (or too few) legs. You may even have seen Dr. Tyrone Hayes‘ breathtaking presentation on how the herbicide atrazine turns boy frogs in to hermaphrodite frogs.

This week the N&O ran a story about a new study that reinforces the theory that farm runoff is causing the deformed limbs. Excess nutrients in the water lead to lots more parasites in the water that turn normal tadpoles into sickly, deformed adult frogs.

One of the questions about this research is, how come the trematodes make frogs so sick? They’re not a new pathogen - they’ve always been in the frogs’ environments. It’s just that lately the frogs can’t seem to fight them off. Another stumper: if it’s one disease deforming the frogs, why does it affect so many species? Leopard frogs, bullfrogs, wood frogs, and many others have shown up with the deformed limbs, in many different parts of the U.S. and Canada.

The answer may actually lie in the frogs’ immune systems: one of Tyrone Hayes’ experiments found that wild frogs who live in pristine waters are easily able to fight off common infections, while wild frogs who live in waters containing agricultural runoff die at astonishing rates from the same exposure to disease. Distinguished researchers around the world have pointed at all sorts of explanations for the frog decline, deformities and hermaphrodism: climate change, habitat destruction, parasites, pesticides, and more. The sad answer may be that there is no smoking gun, but that an alphabet soup of environmental changes have over-burdened the frogs’ immune systems to the point of destruction. Parasites and infections that formerly posed little or no threat to amphibian populations become deadly.

Biologists like to call frogs a “sentinel species,” because they are so sensitive to their environments and serve as indicators for problems that can grow to affect other species as well. I hope we’re paying attention.

Cross-posted from PESTed's weekly news commentary, Fair Ground.

In a follow up to a June post on organic standards, the USDA is considering a rule change to allow industrial processors to make organic foods with a long list of non-organic ingredients—undercutting small producers, organic farmers, and consumer confidence.

In 2005 a federal judge ordered industrial food processors to stop using conventional ingredients in foods they labeled “organic.” Rather than comply with the order, the industry petitioned the USDA to add their non-organic ingredients to the “approved substances” list for organic food processing. If this final rule is approved, grocery manufacturers will be able to use 38 conventionally-produced ingredients, including plant colorings, gelatin, and sausage casings in the organic products consumers pay a premium for—it would even allow non-organic hops in certified organic beer!

Consumers put a high value on products made without toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and genetically-modified ingredients, and grocery manufacturers must respect those wishes if they want to serve the organic market.

This week the Triangle will get to hear from Tyrone Hayes, a biologist and herpetologist of UC Berkeley, on his experience with frog populations as an indicator for cancer risks from contaminated water sources.  He’ll be speaking at NC Central University on Thursday thanks to a collaborative effort between the Department of Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences at NC Central and PESTed.  He will also be speaking on the UNC Chapel Hill campus on Wednesday. 

In an online bio, Hayes explains that he is currently assessing the affects in frogs that have been exposed to the world’s most common herbicide and contaminant of ground and surface water:  Atrazine.  According to Scorecard: The Pollution Information Website, Atrazine is a potential carcinogen.  Hayes is interested in effective public policies that address environmental and social concerns and is in particular

concerned about the adverse impacts of Atrazine on endangered species and on racial/ethnic minorities. Prostate and breast cancer are two of the top causes of death in Americans age 25-40, but in particular Black and Hispanic Americans are several times more likely to die from these diseases.

His experience in biology, environmental justice, and the environmental impacts of pesticides should provide for a fascinating lecture.  Be sure to attend and let us know how it goes!

PS. Check out your county’s pollution profile in English or in Spanish! 

We all know that buying organic is good for the earth.  But did you know that growing food organically can actually help ease global warming.  According to an article by Stephen Leahy:

Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is the principal cause of global warming. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air and can put it more or less permanently into the soil under the right conditions.

In a 23-year side-by-side comparison, the carbon levels of organic soils increased 15 to 28 percent while there was little change in the non-organic systems, according to the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trials conducted in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.

If just 10,000 medium-sized farms in the U.S. converted to organic production, they would store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road, Rodale reported in 2003.

Wow!  So every farm that converts is the equivalent to taking 117 cars off the road.  That's pretty amazing.

And not only can organics help lessen climate change, they can also handle the effects better than traditional crops:

Organic agriculture's use of compost and crop diversity means it will also be able to better withstand the higher temperatures and more variable rainfall expected with global warming. [...]

For example, a village in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia that had converted to organic agriculture continued to harvest crops even during a severe drought, while neighbouring villages using conventional chemical fertilisers had nothing, Luttikholt told IPS.

Because compost is used rather than chemical fertilisers, organic soils contain much more humus and organic carbon -- which in turn retains much more water.

"They can also absorb more water faster which means they are less likely to flood," she said.

Impressive.  Another good reason to buy and promote organics.

The state's case against agri-business giant Ag-Mart (grower of "Ugly Ripe" and "Santa Sweets" brand tomatoes, pictured right) regarding 369 violations of NC Pesticide Law and federal Worker Protection Standards by the State of NC recently took a huge step back as the ruling recently found in Ag-Mart's favor. According to information posted by our good friends over at the Pesticide Education Project:

The North Carolina Pesticide Section investigated the company's pesticide use and treatment of workers after three severely deformed babies were born to Ag-Mart employees who'd worked in the company’s North Carolina and Florida tomato fields. It found 369 violations of NC Pesticide Law and federal Worker Protection Standards, and originally sought $184,500 in fines from the company.

Although the ruling is non-binding and the NC Pesticide Board will make the final decision on the case, the Board is in a tight spot since rejecting the decision will most likely lead to a lawsuit carried out by Ag-Mart.

The court said in the ruling that the state cannot fine Ag-Mart for 275 of the individual violations; and instead can only fine them $500 for the whole group. Additional fines could be assessed for the other individual violations, but even those accumulated fines are far less than the over $180,000 the state originally asked for.

And Ag-Mart's compelling defense in this saga? Bad records. They are actually claiming that the records proving that they had workers in the fields immediately after pesticide spraying are negligible, simply because their record-keeping is so bad! Shouldn't they be keeping accurate, up-to-date records since the health of so many workers is at stake?

North Carolina is better than this. We care about the safety of our workers, their families, our food, our health, and our environment. Check out this editorial for more information, and consider writing a letter to the editor--let them know this case is far from over!

Congratulations to our friends and colleagues at the Pesticide Education Project for winning the Independent Weekly's Citizen Award.  The Citizen Awards are given each year to "honor grassroots activists making the Triangle a better place to live, work and learn."

PESTed is celebrating 20 years of fighting for pesticide alternatives in North Carolina, and just this summer won a great victory to protect school children from toxics.   From the Independent:

Pest Ed's accomplishments are all the more notable considering it is at odds with the powerful and politically connected pesticide industry. Consumers, including farmers, spent $11 billion on pesticides in 2001, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That same year, Dow Chemical's political action committee contributed $280,000 to political campaigns and congressional committees. And last month, a former Dow Chemical executive was hired as an EPA regional administrator for four western states.

Nonetheless, in 2005, Pest Ed began crafting its portion of the School Children's Health Act, which later incorporated legislation backed by other nonprofit groups such as Action for Children N.C. and the Conservation Council of N.C. The act requires public schools to implement Integrative Pest Management [pdf background here] by 2011. IPM focuses on such practices as cleaning kitchens and storage areas, sealing cracks in walls and windowpanes and other non-chemical practices to deter pests such as insects and mice. The law also requires parental notification when pesticides are applied in schools; chemicals would be used only as a last resort. Other provisions help protect children from mercury, diesel fumes, arsenic-treated wooden playground equipment and mold and mildew.

Read more about the School Children's Health Act in this handy "What Parents Should Know..." guide.  And congratulations again to PESTed on their award and their great accomplishments.

Our friend and co-conspirator, Billie Karel, is this month's Interactivist in Grist Magazine.  That means she gets her mug and the Pesticide Education Project's message out to thousands of folks in exchange for answering a few questions.

So far, the questions have been pretty tame.  So Billie asked us to ask you to send in a few tough ones.  What do you want to know about Billie, her organizing work, or pesticide reform in North Carolina?

Bad news for plant reproduction.

The National Academy of Sciences released a report yesterday (with a free summary) expressing concern that populations of key pollinators – including honeybees, bumblebees, hummingbirds, and bats – are declining.  These population declines are a problem for the more than 75% of plants that rely on a little help from pollinators to reproduce. 

The report identifies several causes for pollinator declines, including introduced parasites, habitat loss and fragmentation, and global climate change.  The short report summary doesn’t specifically discuss the widespread use of pesticides as a factor, but the US Fish & Wildlife Service certainly does.

The National Academies reports offers a number of recommendations, ranging from inspecting imported insects to stop parasites, to bulking up federal funding for pollinator research, to maintaining Endangered Species Act protections for pollinators (although, by the time a species is on that list, an ecosystem that depends on it will already be in real trouble). 

This is an issue where individual action can make a difference.  The National Academies report advises:

“Landowners such as homeowners and businesses could contribute to the conservation of pollinators by planting wildflowers to provide floral resources for resident and migratory adult pollina¬tors and by providing nesting sites for females.”

Fortunately, a number of wildlife groups provide resources that can help with this.  The NC Wildlife Federation’s backyard habitat program offers great suggestions for creating habitat (click the Program tab, then the link to backyard habitats).  Audubon NC’s website includes links to inform about making yards hospitable to birds.  Finally, for information about bats, we’re big fans of Bat Conservation International, whose website includes a discussion of how putting up bat houses can help these pollinators.  Finally, check out the Pesticide Education Project’s factsheets on good alternatives to pesticides.

We've told you about Ag-Mart and their awful pesticide practices before, and now the saga continues.  According to the News and Observer, Ag-Mart is attempting to have the charges (including misusing pesticides, endangering workers, and exposing tomato-lovers to toxics) dismissed:

The company's lawyers argued in an administrative law hearing in Raleigh that nearly three-quarters of the 369 violations it was charged with by the state Agriculture Department are based on a misinterpretation of Ag-Mart's records.

And they said that, no matter how many violations the Florida-based company is accused of, the state has no authority to fine more than $500.

The Agriculture Department levied the $184,500 fine, the largest in state history, after the department's pesticide section found Ag-Mart endangered hundreds of tomato pickers by forcing them to work in freshly sprayed fields. The agency also says the company harvested tomatoes too soon after spraying, violating rules designed to keep consumers safe from pesticide residue in their food.

Overall, the case against the company is "lacking in common sense," Mark Ash, a Raleigh lawyer hired by Ag-Mart, told the judge.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this big company is going to be able to weasel their way out of poisoning their workers (and some of us).  How can we stop them?

If you ban a chemical for use as a pesticide because it is too dangerous, why would you let it be used as a lice treatment...for kids?

It's a good question, and one that the folks at the Ecology Center have been asking.  They have published studies on the issue and been vocal in their support of legislation to ban the chemical (lindane) in Michigan.  And now, they are being sued. 

From the Metro Times Detroit:

You might say it's a real head-scratcher: Why would the United States ban the use of a highly toxic pesticide on crops and animals yet allow the same substance to be rubbed into the scalps of children?

It's a question that has no good answer, say the folks at Ann Arbor's Ecology Center and others. But, as the Ecology Center found recently when it was hit with a federal lawsuit by the U.S. pharmaceutical company that sells lindane, pointing out the dangers of the substance can be risky business.

Pretty scary -- both the lawsuit and lindane -- especially for groups like ours who push for health protections over corporate profits.  We'll be watching this case, and will let you know what happens.

The EPA thinks it is doing a fantastic job keeping the public safe from pesticides, but thousands of scientists seem to disagree. 

This week the EPA released the results of its 10 year review of all pesticides, in a self-congratulatory statement saying US pesticides meet the highest health and safety standards in the world.   The EPA administrator further states:

“By maintaining the highest ethical and scientific standards in its pesticide review, EPA and the Bush Administration have planted the seeds to yield healthier lives for generations of American families.”

Back in May, however, unions representing 9,000 EPA scientists released a statement calling the EPA’s ethical and scientific standards into question. The statement, picked up this week by the New York Times, sounds the alarm that the pesticide review had essentially been captured by the pesticide industry: 

“We are concerned that the Agency has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those it regulates, and the result is that the integrity of the science upon which Agency recommendations are based has been compromised.” 

The scientists have mainly been concerned about organophosphate and carbamates – an especially toxic class of chemicals.  The EPA’s review did result in banning use of one of these chemicals – carbofuran – which has been linked to many bird deaths, but allowed the continued use of 32 other controversial pesticides.   

The EPA is also recommending stopping the use of lindane, a particularly potent and persistent neurotoxin, in all agricultural uses.  Lindane, however, can still be used in lotions and shampoos used to treat lice and scabbies.  As one advocate points out:

“Lindane is no longer allowed on pets or seeds, why are we still allowing use on kids?”

Meanwhile over in India, the Indian Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) released a study on Wednesday which found high levels of lindane in soft drinks throughout the country.  The Indian government has evidently developed standards to regulate pesticide residue in sodas, but it has been blocked from finalization by industry opposition.  

Same old story.  We gotta get the money out of politics and the politics out of our public health!

Last year, we shared the news that Wal-Mart (yes, Wal-Mart) had big plans to go green.  Well, they are making efforts to live up to that promise, according to the LA Times:

Bentonville, Ark., seemed like an Emerald City of sorts Wednesday as hometown giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. put on display its latest efforts to go green.

The company hosted former Vice President Al Gore's talk on global warming, welcomed an environmental group's plan to locate an office in the corporate neighborhood and talked about the progress it was making to improve the global effects of its worldwide operations.

Not everyone was buying it. But Gwen Ruta with the nonprofit group Environmental Defense said, "We've seen enough movement to convince us that they are serious.

"If they are able to meet their goals, then we are talking about transformational change," said Ruta, the director of corporate partnerships for Environmental Defense, which announced plans to recruit a staff member to work full time in Bentonville starting later this year.

And as the largest private user of electricity in the world (!), their conservation efforts could make a big difference.

They've also started to sell organics, which even environmentalists believe could be good or bad. 

So, is Wal-Mart really going green?  It sure seems like it, but what are we missing?

According to a recent article from Raleigh Eco News:

The EPA adopted a final rule allowing human pesticide tests in January of this year, and the regulation went into effect last month. CropLife America called it a "necessary and appropriate step in risk assessment research." The Clinton administration had placed a moratorium on such research over ethical concerns.

Gee...what "ethical concerns" could they be talking about? I'm guessing that CropLife America's pesticide-testing prospect list doesn't include the Hiltons or Donald Trump.

Here's what I'm thinking: The Body Shop doesn't test their soap on bunnies. Why in the world do some people think it's ok to test pesticides on humans?

You may have seen some of the recent news coverage of the staggering pesticide violations at Ag-Mart tomato farms in NC and FL, and about serious birth defects among farmworkers employed there. Three babies with severe birth defects were all born last year to mothers who worked for Ag-Mart in NC and FL during their pregnancies. At least one of the mothers has filed suit against Ag-Mart, saying the company's misuse of pesticides and mistreatment of its workers caused her son's birth defects, and the NC Department of Public Health is currently investigating possible connections.

This case - whether the birth defects were caused directly by Ag-Mart's negligence or not - is just the tip of a very big iceberg of social and environmental injustice in our agricultural system. Our system relies on the use of thousands of toxic chemicals, pesticides that are known to be eye and skin irritants, respiratory irritants, neurotoxins carcinogens, and/or teratogens (chemicals that cause birth defects). These are applied over hundreds of thousands of acres of cropland in our state each year. From there they run off into our waterways, threaten wildlife, and literally blow in the faces of people who live or work nearby. Farmworkers bear the greatest risk, but their plight remains mostly invisible to the general public.

Let's expose the iceberg, and make sure Ag-Mart doesn't get away with misusing pesticides and abusing their workers. Please consider writing a letter to the editor of your local paper about this important issue - The Pesticide Education Project has compiled links to news stories on this case and other helpful background information. Thank you!

One of our favorite partners, Pesticide Action Network North America, is putting out the call to show support for the folks who grow our Valentine's flowers:

Show the true meaning of love this Valentine's Day - buy organic flowers as an action that supports a healthy, pesticide-free environment for all of our loved ones, and show the workers who grow millions of cut flowers sold in U.S. that you support their right to a healthy work environment.

Ecuadorian flower workers enable millions of cut flowers to be available to U.S. customers. At the Rosas del Ecuador flower plantation, workers were denied wages, and the owners failed to comply with agreements for transportation and food. [...] 

Support and solidarity for these workers is crucial at this time. Without stable jobs, these poor families will not be able to sustain their struggle for much longer.

To read more about their struggle and take action, click here.

To check out some of our favorite sustainable Valentine's Day gifts, read our post from a few weeks ago.

The studies done over the past decade regarding amphibian declines and deformities worldwide have sparked an enormous amount of discussion regarding what the cause or causes could be. The most common theories point to ultraviolet radiation, pesticides, parasites, disease, and loss of habitat. But what if the cause is not so one-dimensional? What if the deformities and disappearances are due to second-hand, harder to trace causes...like the combination of chemicals affecting immune function?

A new study at UC Berkeley has shown that perhaps pesticides do play a role in this "amphibicide"...but not in the traditional sense. They propose that it is not merely the effect of one chemical at a time that harms frogs and other amphibians, but the combination of the effects of multiple pesticides from agricultural runoff that leads to the weakening of the organisms' immune systems. According to a January 24 article from the Oakland Tribune, the findings showed that frogs treated to a mix of pesticides at a relatively low testing level (a level similar to what the frogs might actually deal with in the "wild") had the following characteristics:

• [were, on average], 10 to 12 percent smaller than the untreated control group.
• nearly 70 percent...succumbed to a common pathogen that the control group successfully fought off.
• developed holes, or plaques, in their thymus, an organ crucial for suppressing disease.
• had high levels of corticosterone — a hormone, similar to one also found in humans, associated with stress and known to decrease growth and retard development.

Just what does this mean for human pesticide health-related issues? What if the testing we've been doing, applying high amounts of a single chemical directly to test animals, has not been an accurate representation of what we're dealing with on a day-to-day basis...which is, basically, dealing with a mix of pesticides that affects us in ways we never knew were possible?