Archive for the ‘Pesticides’ Category

11 Oct

Endangered Species Act “Mega-Lawsuit” Seeks EPA Review of 300+ Pesticides

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Endangered Species Act, Environmental Enforcement, EPA, Litigation, Pesticides.

Photo by C. G. P. Grey. Some rights reserved.

Southwest Farm Press reports that the Plaintiffs and Defendants in Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al have filed a joint status report requesting a 30-day continuation of the stay of the litigation and the postponement of the October 14 status conference until November 18.

The lawsuit kicked off in January of this year, when the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed a complaint against the EPA for “its failure to consult with federal wildlife agencies regarding the impacts of hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 endangered and threatened species,” according to a CBD press release. The press release calls the lawsuit “the most comprehensive legal action ever brought under the Endangered Species Act to protect imperiled species from pesticides.”

The specific relief requested by the plaintiffs is as follows:

1. Declare that EPA is violating Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by failing to consult with the Service [United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively “Service”)] concerning effects of pesticides on the endangered and threatened species and critical habitat identified herein;

2. Order EPA to begin or reinitiate consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on the effects of pesticides identified herein on the endangered and threatened species and critical habitats identified herein in an expeditious fashion;

3. Order appropriate restrictions on the use of the identified pesticides where they may affect endangered and threatened species and critical habitats until the consultation process has been completed and EPA has brought its pesticide registrations into compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA;

4. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees; and

5. Grant Plaintiffs such additional and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

In June more than 130 organizations and business banded together with CBD and PANNA and sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson echoing the demands of the lawsuit:

“Specifically, we ask the EPA to immediately initiate formal consultations under the Endangered Species Act with federal wildlife agencies regarding the impacts of pesticides known to be harmful to hundreds of federally threatened and endangered species.”

Yet the letter also implores the EPA to take action without being compelled: “Rather than waiting for a court order, the EPA should comply with its statutory responsibility and revise its pesticide review program to incorporate input from federal wildlife agencies.”

The parties in the lawsuit have been exploring the possibility of settlement since May, but as of now, no substantive agreements have been reached.

18 May

New Studies Link Prenatal Pesticide Exposure to All Sorts of Upsetting Things

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Pesticides.

Photo by davhor. Some rights reserved.

Late last month, a trio of studies linking prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides with child development issues were unleashed in California and New York, causing an understandable stir. The class of organophosphate pesticides, commonly used on food products, has been thought in the past to be preferable to organochloride pesticides, because of its faster degradation rate. However, these studies, which were undertaken by researchers at Colombia University and Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York and at UC Berkley in California, indicate that overexposure to these pesticides, in situations where they were used in apartment buildings and residences and when used in agricultural centers, relates directly to lower IQ scores and attention disorders.

Researchers at UC Berkley’s School of Public Health monitored 329 children living in the Salinas Valley for their study, where agriculture is a key component of everyday life. The researchers found that every 10-fold increase in the internal measure of organophosphate pesticide levels corresponded directly with a 5.5 point drop in intelligence. This troubling information comes almost exactly a year after the results of a similar study showed that higher levels of organophosphate pesticides found in children age five and under results in significantly higher risk of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), a study that itself corresponds with the findings of a 2010 study by Harvard University’s Health department that linked pesticide exposure to “high blood pressure and a decreased neurological ability to copy shapes.”

The studies at Colombia and Mount Sinai, meanwhile, also seem to speak for themselves, boasting similar findings in children 8 to 9 living in inner city neighborhoods such as the South Bronx and Harlem. According to these studies, any significant increase in prenatal exposure to pesticides corresponds with an average 1.4% drop in IQ and a 2.8% drop in working memory.

The California Birth Defects Monitoring Program reports that three out of every four women are exposed to pesticides around the home, a frightening statistic to say the least. While the American Pregnancy Association recommends avoiding pesticides in general when pregnant, for many of the women participating in these studies who live in dense urban or agricultural areas, this is simply not an option. While pesticide-apologists argue that these studies are inconclusive because of other factors surrounding their population base, the EPA is currently reviewing policy on organophosphate pesticides to make sure that regulations are tight enough. However, these studies are sure to bring out the skeptics, and perhaps rightly so.

6 Apr

EPA Reconsiders Its Stance on Methyl Iodide

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Agriculture, Pesticides.

Photo by flickr user Lee Jordan. Some rights reserved.

Methyl iodide, also known as iodomethane, is a chemical compound that was first sanctioned for use as a pesticide, fungicide, herbicide, etc. in a controversial October 2007 decision by the EPA. No sooner had the use of the chemical been proposed than over 54 scientists nationwide, including five Nobel laureates in chemistry, wrote in to the EPA urging them to reconsider. In a letter to the EPA’s Stephen Johnson dated September 24, 2007, UC Berkeley’s Dr. Robert G. Bergman expresses his concern that “pregnant women and the fetus, children, the elderly, farm workers, and other people living near application sites would be at serious risk if methyl iodide is permitted for use in agriculture,” and that “because of methyl iodide’s high volatility and water solubility, broad use of the chemical will result in exposures for many people.” On the EPA’s fact sheet on the chemical, it is mentioned that exposure to the chemical by inhalation can “depress the central nervous system, irritate the lungs and skin, and affect the kidneys.”

In an interview on KQED news, current EPA administrator Lisa Jackson brought up the potential for re-evaluation but emphasized that her organization had made no new decision as of yet, stating that the EPA “did take a long, hard look before approving the use of methyl iodide” originally. Susan Kegley, consulting scientist for the Pesticide Action Network of North America, disagreed in a press release distributed last week, stating that “an immediate withdrawal of methyl iodide from the market is the best strategy for preventing adverse effects from this highly toxic pesticide.”

Today, methyl iodide use has been banned in Washington and New York states, but the compound is still consistently used elsewhere, especially in the agricultural centers of California, where it is commonly used as a pesticide for strawberries. In response to continued concerns, the EPA has decided to reopen the public comment period regarding the toxic chemical, encouraging scientists, doctors, and anyone else passionate about the issue to write in with their opinions. The deadline for comments is April 30th, 2011. Pesticide Action Network have also drafted their own petition letter, which they hope supporters will sign.

25 Jan

The EPA’s Rules for Intentionally Dosing Human Test Subjects with Pesticides

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Human Subject Testing, Pesticides.

On January 19th, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule intended to strengthen protections for human test subjects in third-party studies. The proposed rule updates and “tightens” the existing regulations that govern the protection of human subjects, which are codified at 40 CFR Part 26.

Photo from af.mil. Some rights reserved.

This particular set of proposed changes was required under the terms of a 2006 settlement with the NRDC and other health advocates. The initial lawsuit was filed in response to the EPA final rule – published earlier that year – that makes up the current set of protections.

While the EPA had previously accepted such studies, in 2001 the EPA issued a press release stating that they would not consider or rely on “third-party intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides” until the National Academy of Sciences provided them with ethical guidance on the topic.

However, shortly thereafter, the pesticide industry sued the EPA over the press release, arguing that its seemingly casual “interim policy” constituted a “binding regulation, […] which should not have been issued without notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment.” The court agreed, and reinstated the EPA’s practice of considering, on a case-by-case basis, some third-party human studies.

Between 2002 and 2006 the EPA drafted, solicited comments on, and eventually finalized a rule that attempted to “formalize and further strengthen existing protections for subjects in human research conducted or supported by EPA, and to extend new protections to adult subjects in intentional dosing human studies for pesticides conducted by others who intend to submit the research to EPA.”

But this rule still left something to be desired, and NRDC et al. stepped in with their aforementioned lawsuit. According to the NRDC, the human testing rule, which generally prohibits pesticide testing on pregnant women and children, still “allows parents or other authority figures to allow pesticide testing on their children in some circumstances.” These “circumstantial” exceptions, NRDC argued, violated the 2006 Appropriations Act because they “did not bar all pesticide research with pregnant women and children.” Luckily the EPA’s recent proposed rule eliminates this “loophole.”

You may submit comments on the proposed rule within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected soon.

 

Pop Culture Trivia: The EPA, noticeably sensitive about the human subject testing regulations after so many lawsuits, found it necessary to post a response on their website after an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit aired that depicted research involving pesticide testing and was “filled with factual inaccuracies.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers

%d bloggers like this: