Watch Out for that Falling... Bird?

Critics often point to pesticides as the cause of myriad health problems. Most of these accusations usually stem from misunderstanding and misinformation. However, occasionally, it seems that these critics may validly have something to be concerned about.

Recently in Florida, birds have been dropping out of the sky- literally. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported about 16 different species of birds have been found dead. Conservation groups suspect that a pesticide used to control mosquitoes called “Fenthion” may be the culprit.

Fention is an organophosphate pesticide similar to DDT in that it is fat-soluble. This indicates that the pesticide will often build up in fatty tissue in animals exposed to it. The contamination can eventually move up the food chain as predators prey on species that contain Fenthion in their fatty-tissue. Additionally, while most organophosphate pesticides harm birds when they ingest contaminated food or water, Fenthion is most harmful to birds when it is inhaled or exposed to the skin. Since Fenthion is traditionally applied with helicopters, the chemical tends to stay in the air for a relatively long period of time.

Some of the species of birds that have been most significantly affected are sanderlings, dunlin, black skimmers and endangered piping plovers. All of these species have been found dead where Fenthion has been sprayed. Millions more birds are in danger because many birds utilize Florida’s tropical climate as a migratory habitat where they breed and rest.

Fenthion has already been banned in the majority of states. The EPA has also indicated that it may pose a significant risk to children who often play in grass and rarely wash their hands. However, despite the risks, Florida has continued to spray 222,400 to 333,600 pounds of Fenthion over an area of 2 million acres annually.

The Incredible Edible Eggs?

On September 21, the Environmental Working Group, Beyond Pesticides, and the Fluoride Action Network had challenged the safety of EPA's new food tolerances for a fluoride-based pesticide called sulfuryl fluoride. These environmental organizations fear that based on the EPA's new tolerances, young children and elders will consume an excessive amount of this pesticide through their daily exposure to water, toothpaste, mouthwash, and food.

Primarily, these environmental organizations challenged the EPA's tolerances for sulfuryl fluoride in food. For instance, the EPA's new tolerance for this pesticide in dried eggs is 900 parts per million (ppm). Not only do environmental organizations complain that this tolerance towers over the EPA's 4 ppm tolerance for sulfuryl fluoride in water, but they also protest that this tolerance is extremely close to that for toothpaste (1000 ppm). FDA already considers the 1000ppm from the toothpaste toxic for children when more than a pea-sized amount of it is consumed. In fact, the FDA requires for the following warning label to appear on toothpastes with fluoride levels of 1000 ppm:

"WARNING: Do not swallow. Use only a pea-sized amount for children under six...
If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional
help or contact a poison control center immediately."

Case and point, these environmental organizations are rightfully fearing for our health, which may be possibly harmed by EPA's new tolerance of the harmful surfuryl fluride.

- Mitchell Rubenstein

Pesticides and Parkinson's

Parkinson’s disease is one of the most prevalent disabilities affecting senior citizens with more than 1 million Americans already diagnosed with the disease. Researchers at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia have determined that exposure to a commonly used agricultural pesticide named Rotenone can mimic or even cause Parkinson-like symptoms.

Rotenone is extracted from tropical plants and is a known toxin. Not only does it serve as an agricultural pesticide, but it is also used to kill unwanted fish in reservoirs. Scientists at Emory University implanted pumps in lab rats to administer Rotenone extracts into the jugular vein to observe its effect.

Surprisingly, scientists found that nearly half the rats slowly came down with symptoms similar to that of Parkinson’s. Dr. Tim Greenamyre, a neurologist in Emory University's medical school commented that the rats grew “slow and stiff”. When the brains of the rats were examined, scientists found that dopamine producing cells, which are essential to nerve control, had been destroyed. In addition, they discovered extensive protein deposits in brain matter which resemble “Lewy Bodies”- or the material that deposit in the brain cavity of Parkinson patients. Scientists believe that Rotenone attacks the mitochondria in cells which in turn release free radicals. Free radicals, which cause oxidative stress, are a well known cause of many chronic illnesses.

Dr. Greenamyre also observed,

“Some of the rats even had a little tremor, which is very unusual. We hadn't seen that in a rat before. Together, it's what you see in Parkinson's.”

He also advised that,

“Pesticides are essential for growing crops, but we may need to think about minimizing their environmental impact”.

Many scientific experts agree that this result only confirms the long-held suspicion that the most common form of Parkinson’s result from toxins in the environment such as pesticides.

A Network of Resistance

Pesticide use has been, in recent years, extremely controversial. Consequently, dozens of networks from as low as the local level to as high as the global level work to promote pesticide safety. One such, and arguably the most prominent of these networks, is the Pesticide Action Network (PAN).

According to PAN:

"Pesticides are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local
and global food security and threaten agricultural diversity."

While the network notes the health and environmental hazards associated with applying pesticides, its mainstream agenda is not to protest pesticides. Rather, the network works to prevent multinational corporations and government agencies from abusing pesticides. To PAN, the pesticide industry should not generate more than $35 billion per year that it generates today.

In response to pesticide abuse, PAN works to accomplish the following initiatives: replace pesticides with "ecologically sound and socially just alternatives, ... challenge the global proliferation of pesticides, defend human rights to health and environmental quality, and link local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens' action network."

While PAN is a single global organization, it is divided into 5 regional centers: PAN North America (PANNA), PAN Africa, PAN Asia/Pacific, PAN Europe, and PAN Latin America. Additionally, it collaborates its efforts with many other pesticide networks such as Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR).

To learn more about PAN and its regional network nearest you, access the following link to PANNA's homepage: PANNA.

- Mitchell Rubenstein

EPA's Flawed Endangered Species Program

"We have waited close to 20 years for EPA to protect endangered plants and animals from pesticides. The resulting program is a slap in the face to anyone who wants future generations to enjoy our nation's wildlife and the special places they call home" (Amy Code).

Like Code’s, a member of the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), many other conservationists’ hopes of protecting endangered species and wildlife have been crushed by the new Endangered Species Program. This program, rather than to protect the endangered species, as implied by the name, merely seems to embrace the benefits for pesticide companies instead.

The first major problem of this agenda is, according to conservationists, the “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy. This means that pesticide companies are not required to write restrictions about endangered species on their product labels. Thus, users have to call either the toll free number or search the internet for the specific restrictions for each pesticide. Having to follow a tedious task, many users end up not following the restriction standards that need to be understood and thus the effects of these negligent attitudes are often detrimental.

The second worry of the conservationists is that each pesticide that affects endangered species will be investigated in periods of fifteen years. In between these periods of fifteen years, the U.S. Geological Survey is responsible for taking surface water tests in order to determine the concentration of pesticide residues in the ecosystem. This weak check up process, moreover, is proved to be ineffectual until ten to fifteen years since Congress has not fully registered every pesticide that is currently being manufactured.

Finally, the EPA has also given pesticide industries the right to alter these already weak restrictions to their benefit. Patti Goldman, a member of an environmental organization called Earthjustice commented: "The federal government is giving the green light for the pesticide industry to profit at the expense of our nation's wildlife.” Like Goldman, these unsatisfied conservationists are currently protesting against the EPA and urging that it create and enforce regulations that would protect vulnerable habitats and regulations that would easily inform pesticide users about the products’ restrictions. Groups such as Earthjustice and NCAP are involved in altering this severely flawed Endangered Species Program and the Federal District Judge John Coughenour has already ordered the EPA to review the risks of the 54 potentially harmful pesticides.

A "Bio-Pestical" Revolution

The word “pesticides” often conjures up negative images of bio-hazardous chemicals. Largely, that has been true- up until recently. Scientists at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture developed a new “bio”-pesticide dubbed “The Green Muscle” that has been shown to be highly effective against locusts and grasshoppers.

Swarms of locusts have been recorded since biblical times. Locusts are so detrimental to agrarian societies because they amass in the millions and travel in unpredictable cycles every twenty to thirty years. The last widespread locust infestation was the 1986 West Africa invasion where there was a total of $300 million in damage along with the daily food need of roughly 200 million people. Hence, the need for an effective pesticide that does not have severe negative consequences becomes apparent.

Chemical pesticides have long been used to help treat locust infestations. But there are numerous problems with these chemicals. Entomologist and project leader of the “Green Muscle” program, Jürgen Langewald explains, “Chemical pesticides kill many other organisms that might be beneficial to agriculture.”

The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture points to the large decrease in the number of migratory birds that successfully travel from African to Europe as evidence of the detrimental effects of chemical sprays. The “Green Muscle” however, is engineered so that it only attacks insects of the biological family Arididae. Therefore, it has virtually no detrimental effects on any other species it comes into contact with.

The cost of the “Green Muscle” is about $10 hectare, about the same cost as traditional chemical sprays. But chemical sprays need to be applied several times a year whereas the bio-pesticide needs to be applied only once per season. The “Green Muscle” also poses less of a health risk to nearby communities especially in agrarian societies.

Langewald continues to explain that:

“This is important especially in developing countries, because people do not take precautions like they should. Many people don't wear masks or protective clothing as required by the chemical industry. Leftover barrels of spray can also contaminate ground water."

The “Green Muscle” is actually spores of a fungus called, “Metarhizium anisopliae”, first observed a century ago by a Russian scientist named Metschnikoff. The mechanism by which the fungus kills locusts is relatively simple. When a spore of the fungus lands on the body of any grasshoppers or locusts, it eats through the exoskeleton and infests the tissue inside. From the inside, it rapidly digests the internal tissues.

As Dr. Langewald eloquently puts it, "It ingests the locust from the inside out, if you like."

After the grasshopper dies, it is nearly hollow inside. Furthermore, the fungus persists to live in the carcass. Because locusts often prey on deceased companions, the fungus can rapidly spread from a dead carcass to many more locusts. This in turn, has many potential benefits.

Dr. Langewald explains, "This reduces the amount of the microbial pesticide that needs to be sprayed," Langewald said. This means lower costs for farmers.”

The use of the “Green Muscle” has already begun near Lake Chad in Africa. Many scientists hope to extend the use of bio-pesticides to other species of pests as well. So the next time someone mentions the word “pesticide," think of those little tiny fungi that are efficiently- and more importantly safely pestering the pests.

Conventional or Organic?

''The pesticide issue just scares me -- it wigs me out to think about the amount of chemicals that might be going into my kid."

Like Erin O’Neal, a mother of two daughters, many parents are increasingly seeking more expensive, organic foods than the economical, conventional groceries. This change of food preference stems from the recent study that children who switched from eating conventional to organic food have lost a tremendous amount of pesticide concentration in their bodies. Alan Greene, a pediatrician from California, explains that when children are growing, their organs and brains require more food than the average adults’ and thus eat much more compared to their body sizes. Hence, this over consumption can dangerously increase pesticide concentrations in their bodies. Since then, the production of organic baby food has markedly rose 18 percent and hundreds of organic baby products that have been sold only in a few stores are ubiquitous. For instance, Earth’s Best baby food that has been marketed in Whole Foods is now being sold in common stores such as Babies R Us and Toys R Us.

Yet, those parents who cannot afford daily organic foods can simply purchase foods with mildly sprayed pesticides than those with heavily sprayed pesticides. For instance, the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have announced that foods such as asparagus, avocadoes, bananas, broccoli, and onions have low pesticide concentrations while foods such as apples, bell peppers, cherries, peaches, and strawberries have high pesticide concentrations.

Despite recent findings about the unhealthy levels of pesticide concentrations in foods, many companies deny these claims and announce that organic industries are spreading unnecessary fear without sufficient scientific support. Furthermore, companies such as CropLife America insist that their “products are safe.” Thus, it is up to the parents to balance out both sides of the argument and decide whether a change in diet will be effective for their children.

-So Yeon Kim

The History of Pesticides

Although America's widespread fear of pesticides emerged only about 4 decades ago, people have used pesticides for over 2.5 millennia. Some pesticides used today are the same as the originals; others differ radically. Only the illustrious history of pesticides can explain their modern-day diversity.

Today's pesticides can be categorized into two main groups: first generation and second generation pesticides. First generation pesticides are derived from plants, while second generation pesticides are synthesized in laboratories.

People first applied first generation pesticides around 500 BC, when they used sulfur (the first known pesticide) to protect their crops from damage. By the 1400s, popular pesticides included toxic elements such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. In the 1600s, people began to extract nicotine sulfate from tobacco leaves, to use as an insecticide (In other words, every time you smoke a cigarette, you consume an insecticide). In the 1800s, two more popular first generation pesticides were discovered: pyrethrum and rotenone, which were extracted from chrysanthemum and derris plants.

In 1939, Paul Müller synthesized the world's most widely applied (second generation) pesticide. While famous, it also earned pesticides the infamy with which they are now associated when, during the 1960s, it was accused of preventing fish-eating birds from reproducing and causing human/animal birth defects.

Since 1950, annual pesticide use has multiplied by 50. In fact, nearly 2.5 million tons of industrial pesticides are now used per year. Pesticide use has clearly come a long way since 500 BC.

- Mitchell Rubenstein

To Spray or Not to Spray?

During the summer of 1999, the West Nile Virus made its debut in New York City, infecting thousands of victims and instigating widespread public apprehension. Since then, many counties surrounding the New York metropolitan area including New York City itself have resorted to mass spraying of pesticides to control the mosquito population.

The mass spraying of pesticides, however, has drawn a large crowd of opponents. These critics believe that the spraying of pesticides will cause more irrevocable harm than good. The primary concerns with pesticide spraying are cancer, long term chronic illnesses, and devastating effects on fetuses and adolescent youth. Looking back at the pesticide blog entry previously written regarding the United Nation Environmental Program’s report on the adverse effects of pesticides on adolescents, there appear to be merits to such health concerns.

One such opponent is William Cooke, an official from the National Audubon Society.

Cooke explains,

“Scourge, Anvil [two common mosquito pesticides], this whole family of chemicals contributes to a wide number of illnesses, including cancers…When pregnant women are exposed to pesticides, depending on the time or stage of pregnancy, even a small exposure can have profound health effects on the [unborn] child."

Proponents of spraying pesticides to control the mosquito population argue that pesticides are necessary to prevent the spread of deadly diseases such as the West Nile Virus. Many areas of the US such as Canton, Ohio have periodically sprayed populated areas with pesticides to control the mosquito population. Jim Adama, Canton’s director of environmental health emphasizes: “We don't spray for nuisance mosquitoes. They can be a bother, but we only spray when we think there is a risk of disease transmission.”

In addition, Mr. Adama also recognizes that pesticides do have certain risks, “Certainly [pesticides] are not to be treated lightly. They are effective in controlling a disease that poses a significant public health risk, [but] we try to minimize its use."

Other critics such as Jay Feldman, director of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticide, suggest that spraying simply serves the illusion that it prevents the spread of mosquito transmitted diseases. He argues that killing adult mosquitoes have little if no effect since "mosquitos can can rebound within the next day."

However, scientists may have found a solution that will placate those on both sides of the issue. They have developed a bacteria solution known as BTI that contains natural bacteria which can kill mosquito larva before they mature. Even opponents such as William Cooke agree that it is a reasonable solution to such a divisive issue. For now, BTI promises to be the magic solution to a pervasive problem.

Say Good-bye to Insect Infestation

For the past ten years, locust swarms have been persistent pests in West Africa. These insects obliterated grain crops, worsening food shortages, and adversely affected farming citizens. Though insecticides have been used in the past to mediate locust swarm attacks, they were rather “hazardous to the environment…(and) cause(d) mortality not only in locusts but other insects” (Christian Borgemeister).

Recently, scientists discovered an organic compound called pheromone, which proved to eradicate locust swarms without negatively affecting the environment. The main compound in pheromone, phenylacetonitrile (PAN), produces a scent that breaks up insect groupings, which the pests live within. Thus, without their protective banding, these locus swarms become more vulnerable to predators:

“It destroys the bands. The insects are highly stressed. They suffer high natural mortality and fall victim to many natural enemies like birds” (Borgemeister).

Furthermore, PAN can produce agreeable results if used alone or with another insecticide. When used with another insecticide, the devastating effects previously shown by other insecticides are reduced by even a quarter.

Researchers hope to experiment pheromone in Sudan and further understand whether this pesticide will produce any side effects on non-targeted organisms. Once this inexpensive, readily available compound is marketed within a year, as predicted, it can help resolve the food shortage problems in West African countries.

-So Yeon Kim

Killer Shampoo

Lindane shampoo cures scabies and head lice. However, when applied excessively, this pesticide-based shampoo can also produce fatal side effects.

Consumers use lindane, a white crystalline pesticide, to treat property, pets, and hair alike. Because this pesticide works by killing scabies and their eggs, it is part of a class of pesticides called scabicides. Most commonly, farmers apply lindane to woody crops - including "nut trees, vegetables, timber, and ornamentals" - to protect them from invasive beetles. Likewise, people use lindane lotion and shampoo to kill lice and scabies in animal fur and human hair.

While lindane targets harmful pests, it can also cause unhealthy side effects: particularly in "babies, children, older people, people who weigh less than 110 lbs, and people who have skin conditions such as psoriasis, rashes, crusty scabby skin." According to the EPA, short term side effects of lindane poisoning include "high body temperature and pulmonary edema." Lifetime exposure to lindane (not necessarily to excessive amounts it) has more devastating side effects as well: liver, kidney, and neurological problems, for instance. Consequently, most medical professionals advise lice and scabies patients to treat themselves with lindane lotion/shampoo, only as a last resort.

While using lindane can create gratuitous health problems, it is important to remember that, when used properly, it can be helpful and at the same time essentially harmless. Along with each prescription of lindane shampoo comes a nationally standardized Medication Guide. Following its directions can save a user from both the struggles of headlice/scabies and the side effects that can emerge from lindane's misuse. At any rate, using lindane shampoo/lotion is taking a risk.

- Mitchell Rubenstein