Weeding Out the Pesticide Myths

Watch Out for that Falling... Bird?

2005-11-09T10:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-11-09T05:15:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-09T04:56:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-09T04:20:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-08T07:31:00.000-08:00

"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

2005-11-04T03:54:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-11-03T16:15:00.000-08:00

''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

2005-11-03T06:48:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-10-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-27T15:11:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-25T12:48:00.000-07:00

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

Judge Mandates Harsher Labeling on Pesticides

2005-10-21T08:49:00.000-07:00

In January 2004, Judge Coughenour urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review hazards caused by everyday pesticides such as 2,4-D on insects and triclopyr and trifluralin on endangered fish. The Washington District Judge also made it crucial for pesticide selling stores such as CropLife to effectively put up signs about pesticides, including the potential hazardous effects. However, such retail stores failed to cooperate and a report in July documented that only one out of eight retail stores like Home Depot had posted warning signs.

Due to the stores’ failures to comply with the judge’s orders, Coughenour amended his previous orders into much harsher ones. On October 17, Coughenour executed a law that requires the EPA to:

“Send letters about the policy to retailers in urban areas with more than 50,000 people, and to provide the stores with a list of the chemicals and the products that contain them.”

In addition, the EPA is now responsible in modifying the pesticide industries’ websites that were previously hard to navigate. Moreover, the judge requires the Agency to confer with reliable industries such as the Washington Toxics Coalition and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) before posting warning signs necessary in retail stores. Currently, these strict laws are applied to all stores in urban cities of Washington, Oregon, and California.

Being Safe with Pesticides

2005-10-21T08:27:00.000-07:00

It certainly is no secret that pesticides can be harmful and instigate long term chronic illnesses, especially in third world countries. Therefore the recent United Nations Environmental Program report entitled “Childhood Pesticide Poisoning” enumerated a set of guidelines on both the local and national level to minimize risks of childhood pesticide poisoning.

The UNEP report recommendations begin with, “The risks posed by pesticides can be best avoided by minimizing the use of pesticides, especially the most hazardous ones, and by taking measures to reduce exposures where it is not practical to eliminate use altogether. Everyone responsible for caring for children or who is involved with pesticide use should be aware of the problems caused by pesticides”.

Even though many of the recommendations are directed at situations primarily found in third world countries, several points can also be applied to more developed countries as well. Some of these more applicable recommendations include:

• Reduce and eliminate possible sources of pesticide exposures to children (in food, water, dust, and soil and in the home and the work environment).

• Ensure hygienic conditions, especially when storing food and water, and wash food prior to eating it.

• Minimize the unnecessary use of pesticides around children by practicing integrated pest management in homes and schools. Where pesticides are used, strictly follow instructions about application rates and re-entry intervals.

•Pesticide users and their families need to be better educated about how to recognize, prevent and treat pesticide poisoning, in particular mothers with small children who live in areas where pesticide exposures may be high. Such information could be included in school curricula.

The report concludes by advocating community awareness of the problem. Health care providers locally must be knowledgeable regarding the symptoms and treatment of pesticide poisoning. Another point brought up by the report is that every community should have trained pesticide applicators with the proper equipment so the chemicals can be applied as safely as possible. On the national level, especially in developing countries, the government must regulate pesticide usage and pass laws that ensure the maximum security for workers and communities.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what country one is in, pesticides are always used whether it is for agricultural or home lawn-care purposes. Therefore, even in countries such as the United States, people should heed the advice aforementioned. As the adage goes, “Better safe than sorry”.

-Tianyang Sun

More than a Worm May be in your Apple

2005-10-17T16:53:00.000-07:00

Thanks to government-funded research, the UK now knows that 1/3 of its marketed food contains traces of pesticides.

The research project, which tested 3,854 food samples from 24 UK cities, discovered that pesticides contaminate approximately 31% of the UK's fruits, vegetables, meat, bread, and beverages. Nobody can deny that this finding is alarming.

However, only about 42 of the 3,854 food samples contained illegal amounts of pesticides. According to the UK's Pesticide Residues Committee, the group that conducted this research project, its "findings were reassuring."

From health's vantage point, the results were extremely reassuring. Only a minute percentage of the 3,854 food samples contained potentially unhealthy pesticide levels. According to the Pesticide Residues Committee's annual report on the subject: "In these [potentially unhealthy samples], if the food had been eaten without any preparation there could have been a small risk of mild, reversible health effects."

Out of the 42 tested food samples that contained illegal pesticide levels, 1 was a sample of baby food and 2 were samples of oats. Not surprisingly, the 39 remaining food samples with illegal pesticide levels were fruits and vegetables. For this reason, the healthiest precautions anybody could practice against eating unhealthy pesticide levels in food are clearly washing and peeling fruits and vegetables before eating them.

- Mitchell Rubenstein

Pesticides: The Double Edged Sword

2005-10-13T23:42:00.000-07:00

Pesticides have had myriad contributions to mankind. In fact, if it were not for pesticides, it is unlikely that farmers are able to grow enough crops to continually feed the exponentially growing population. However, pesticides do represent the proverbial double edged sword. While pesticides benefits the human race, there are also well documented drawbacks to its use, specifically regarding its adverse effects on infants especially in developing nations which include cancer, birth defects, damages to the nervous system, and functioning of the endocrine system.

In 2004, the United Nations Environmental Program, part of the World Health Organization, compiled a comprehensive report documenting the incidences of worldwide childhood pesticide poisoning and advocating for reform. According to the report,

“Pesticides are known to cause millions of acute poisoning cases a year, of which at least one million require hospitalization. The number of children involved in such incidents is unknown but, based on the experience of many countries, likely to be large. Between one and three agricultural workers per 100 worldwide suffer from acute pesticide poisoning, and adolescents are often the victims. It has been reported that an estimated 1 million to 5 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in 20,000 fatalities among agricultural workers…taking place mostly in developing countries.”

The risk of diseases come when people are exposed to high levels of pesticides through food, soil, water or air, or directly coming into contact with deleterious pesticides. Pesticides function by shutting down the nervous or reproductive systems in insects, which are similar between different species including humans.

Children, however, present an even greater vulnerability to the adverse effects of pesticides. Children in developing nations are often exposed to pesticides while still in the womb when pesticides are transferred to the fetus via the placenta. In the case of infants, breastfeeding also exposes the child. Also, children are more susceptible than adults because children under the age of one who are fed formula consume more than twice the amount of water as adults. This means that if water is contaminated with pesticides, a baby will receive twice the dosage as an adult. The same holds true for the consumption of food in which case babies often consume much more on a per body weight basis than adults. The WHO also reports that children are found to breathe more frequently than adults and play closer to the ground where pesticide levels may be higher. Children also engage in activities that leave them at a higher risk such as playing in the soil or normal hand-to-mouth activity. Finally, simply by the virtue that children are continuously developing and scientists are not sure if the metabolic processes in children can readily break down some pesticides as adults can. Their lack of maturity physically leaves them at a higher risk for chronic neurological and other diseases later on in life if exposed to pesticides at an early age.
The WHO Reports concludes with recommendations to both the national and local governments of developing nations to disseminate education regarding pesticide use while also to reform and create stricter pesticide control legislation.

Pesticides must certainly be used cautiously, and it definitely causes problems when improperly handled or stored. But ultimately, it rests on the responsibility of each individual to ensure that people, especially children are not harmed by the use of pesticides.

Natural Pesticides to the Rescue

2005-10-13T19:38:00.000-07:00

Lately, toxicologists have looked to nature for powerful, environmentally friendly pesticides. Over 500 natural pesticides are on the market, where plenty more will surely arrive.

While synthetic chemicals have dominated the pesticide market, interest has increased in natural pesticides. According to the EPA, "Biologically based pesticides...are becoming increasingly popular and often are safer than traditional chemical pesticides." That is, they have commonly been linked to fewer health/environmental hazards than have traditional synthetic pesticides. As a result, the pesticide market now features natural alternatives to synthetic pesticides: including microbial pesticides, horticultural oils, insecticidal soaps, and alcohol.

Microbial pesticides constitute one category of natural pesticides. Simply put, these pest cripplers harm their targets with diseases that microbials, such as fungi and bacteria, naturally produce. Like synthetic pesticides, these natural pesticides can be applied as sprays, dusts, or granules.

Horticultural oils, comprising another group of natural pesticides, target insects and mites. Typically used as sprays, these pesticides kill insects and mites by clogging their breathing holes, or spiracles. While effective, horticultural oils have a downfall; they can kill plants to which they are applied in excess. Luckily insecticidal soaps, which also target insects and mites, do not endanger plants to the extent of horticultural oils.

Like horticultural oils, insecticidal soaps also cripple insects and mites. Rather than clogging their targets' breathing passages, these natural pesticides, which are typically sold as sprays, damage their targets' cell membranes. While these oils do not kill plants as commonly as horticultural oils, they do endanger weeds.

Alcohol also kills many insects: in its case, by drying them out. Unlike horticultural oils and insecticidal soaps, it poses a minor threat to most plants. While it is an effective pesticide, companies tend not to market it individually as a pesticide; often, insecticidal soaps feature it as an active ingredient.

While the pesticide industry has pursued natural products, it only markets around 400 natural insecticies/miticides, 30 natural herbicides, and 20 natural nematicides. Clearly, with over 1.5 million species of fungi alone to choose from in preparing its products, the industry could do better.

- Mitch Rubenstein

A Revolution in Toxicology

2005-10-13T18:40:00.000-07:00

Pesticides have been feared more than ever because of their dioxin composition, a toxic chemical that has proven to pose serious health issues such as significant weight loss, liver problems, and even deaths. In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency verified the dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, as a Class 1 carcinogen, a known human carcinogen, and in 2001, the National Toxicology Program removed this dioxin from "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen" to "Known to be a Human Carcinogen." Aware of this evidence, many people are left with the impression that all toxic chemicals, no matter what dose, are harmful to the body. However, Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist working at the University of Massachusetts believes in the contrary.

Calabrese and other toxicologists believe that for toxins, small dosages can be actually helpful than harmful to the body. Though this theory has been for long ignored because of its relationship with homeopathy, the process of using extremely dilute natural substances as medicine, hormesis involves the use of not great, but a regular amount of toxins people encounter daily. One example in which hormesis can be applied is UV radiation. While a small dose of sunlight can help provide the formation of vitamin D and other melanin formations that can protect future UV stress, very high exposure can cause skin damage, which can lead to skin cancer.

Why this theory is revolutionary in the 21^st century is not because of its late discovery, but because toxicologists usually test only very high doses to estimate the risks of a certain toxin and not the doses of everyday human contact. Calabrese asserts that, “The central pillar of toxicology is the dose response. I'm telling them that they got the most fundamental aspect of their field wrong." This summer, Calabrese proposed that the government change the model of environmental chemical effects on environment using the hormesis model. Yet, despite the fact that the hormesis model is gaining respect from most toxicologists, many environmentalists are wary about the application of hormesis in society. Today, many scientists are still researching whether toxins at low levels can paradoxically have the opposite effects of providing advantages to humans.

-So Yeon

Out Goes the Weed- With Herbicides

2005-10-06T23:19:00.000-07:00

Pesticides have long been the root of myriad controversy as captivatingly described by Dr. Joe Schwarcz in the article “Weeding Out the Pesticide Myths”. But after all, if an unfortunate insect that comes in contact with some of the pesticide products out there shrivels up and drops dead in a matter of minutes, there may be some understandable trepidation and valid concerns by the increasingly health-conscientious public.

But while pesticides draw the majority of public attention and concern, few people recognize that along with pesticides, herbicides also are applied to agricultural products. Dr. Schwartz delicately draws herbicides into his article- highlighting the first successful herbicide developed known as Herbicide 2, 4-D and the unfounded rumors that have been linked with this effective and economical agricultural tool.

Herbicide 2-4, D was the first selective herbicide developed. It targeted only broadleaf weeds (dicots) in diverse types of crop fields while leaving grasses and other monocots completely unperturbed. The discovery of 2, 4- D came in 1943, when Dr. Franklin D. Jones was looking for substances that would speed up food production. He came up with Indoleacetic acid (IAA), a natural growth hormone found in plants. But proving to be too unstable, Dr. Jones synthesized IAA into 2, 4-D. He soon found that 2, 4-D did not induce more rapid plant growth- but instead at high doses it destroyed dicots, such as broadleaf weeds without harming agricultural monocots. Dr. Jones was awarded the patent for 2, 4-D on December 12th, 1945 and by 1946, it was the most widely used herbicide in the United States in numerous types of crop fields. Additionally, 2, 4-D was found to increase the effectiveness of other herbicides when used together.

Today, 2, 4-D is used primary for wheat and small grains, sorghum, corn, rice, sugar cane, low-till soybeans, rangeland, and pasture. In addition, it is also used for forestry, aquatic weeds, and everyday lawn and turf care. 2, 4-D is the third most popular herbicide in the United States and Canada today, and the most popular worldwide. Additionally, in a recently published 8 year study of 2, 4-D by the Department of Agriculture, it was concluded that should 2, 4-D would cease to be available on the market, US consumers would pay a sum of $1.7 billion more annually and close to a third of a billion more in Canada. In 2004, the Henry Ford Foundation listed 2, 4-D as one of the top 75 innovations in the last 75 years.

There have also been controversies involving 2, 4-D in the past years. Studies in Sweden and the United States suggest a connection between 2, 4-D and cancer. Studies of populations in Kansas and Nebraska indicate a connection between spraying and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma where farmers who handle 2, 4-D 20 times or more a year reveals the development of lymphomas increased eight fold while the report also admits that the effects of the herbicide at low doses are inconclusive. On the other hand, studies done in New Zealand, Washington, New York, Australia, and Vietnam all showed negative results. By the same token, the USDA concluded in NAPIAP Report NO. 1-PA-96 that after 50 years of use:

"The phenoxy herbicides are low in toxicity to humans and animals. No scientifically documented health risks, either acute or chronic, exist from the approved uses of the phenoxy herbicides."

Dr. Schwarcz also cites a study in which "Workers who manufactured 2, 4-D and had huge exposures over many years showed no increase in the incidence of cancer" In addition, he states that studies at Guelph University in Canada "have shown that even walking barefoot on a lawn an hour after treatment leads to no detectable levels of 2, 4-D in urine". But he does admit that "home gardeners who purchase pesticides and use them improperly can put themselves and others at risk". This goes back to Dr. Schwarcz's original statement that anything can have adverse effects when excessively used. But nonetheless, numerous scientists wade through the battle on both sides and question the methods used in the study of their opponents.

While some may express concern over 2, 4-D and its possible negative side effects, it is safe to conclude that at least at the moment, science has been unable to find any evidence supporting any substancial claim that 2, 4-D is deleterious. 2, 4-D has however, shown the enormous benefits it has manifested towards mankind, allowing for the efficient and economical production of crops that feed the masses. To this point, most scientific literature have concluded that 2, 4-D exhibits no to low toxicity, commonplace for any pesticides or herbicides used in the market today. In the words of Dr. Schwarcz, "The best we can do is evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of each substance and make appropriate judgements". The bottom line is, that while 2, 4-D may ultimately, like anything else used in excess, possibly have miniscule adverse effects, the benefits it endows far outweigh any potential costs as have been demonstrated in the last six decades of its use.

-Tianyang Sun

The Better Way to Pester your Pests

2005-10-06T17:49:00.000-07:00

Before pestering your insects with pesticides, consider practicing Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM might spare your health and your lawn.

In Weeding out the Pesticide Myths (an article featured by a book entitled The Fly in the Ointment), chemist Dr. Joe Schwarcz writes:

"Asking if it is safe to use pesticides is like asking if it is safe to take medications. The answer can be either "Yes" or "No" depending on which medication is taken and in what dose, and how, by whom, and for what reason it is taken."

In other words, the harmfulness of a pesticide depends on its strength, the amount of it used, and the people to whom it is exposed. As follows, Dr. Schwarcz concludes, like most reputable scientists who research the problem, that pesticides are best used in moderation - if at all. Thus today, as mentioned in Schwarcz's article, insect regularity agencies such as Canada's PMRA research Integrated Pest Management: biological, chemical, and physical means by which pest problems are managed with reduced reliance on pesticides.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "IPM is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common sense practices." Since common sense, as it applies to pest problems, only resides in property owners who understand their pests, IPM is firmly rooted in knowledge: the life cycle and environmental effects of an insect, for instance. Knowledge of these details, combined with an understanding of available pest management plans can fuel the quick creation of an economical, efficient, and environmentally friendly IPM program, with which you can more safely prevent pests from invading your property.

An effective IPM program includes four main steps. First, a property owner must determine the economic and environmental threats posed by his pests - whether his pests must be controlled. Second, a property owner must identify which pests threaten his property. While some insects and weeds may be harmless, others may be a problem's cause - an IPM program's target. A property owner should execute step two to ensure that he does not unreasonably "treat" his lawn with an incorrect type or amount of pesticide. Third, comes prevention. Once a property problem's culprit is found, it is time to prevent the problem from recurring. In this stage of an IPM program, the property owner determines an efficient, economical, and safe way to manage his pests. In stage four, the problem is controlled. That is, the property owner determines whether his pest management program is effective. At this point, prevention is either continued using the original method or an improved version of it.

To learn more about IPM programs, click the following link to an article about IPM by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), entitled Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Food Production. It is important to remember that excessive pesticide use increases both a lawn's toxicity and a pest's immunity to management. Equally notable is that IPM can be practiced on a garden, a farm, or any property type between. Applicable to any piece of land under the sun, IPM may be the best cure to your lawn's pest problems in sight.

- Mitch Rubenstein

Who Controls the US Pesticide Regulations?

2005-10-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

If there is a Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in Canada, there is an Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) in the United States. In chemist Dr. Joe Schwarz’s article "Weeding out the Pesticide Myths", Dr. Schwarz assures readers who are wary about the purported, harmful effects of pesticides by explaining the rigorous regulations in Canada that pesticides have to adhere to before they are marketed. The PMRA makes sure that their agency tests short term risks as well as long term risks through toxicology studies involving the damages to the nervous system caused by carcinogenic compounds. The studies not only branch out into effects upon people through inhalation, digestion, and skin, but also into effects upon the environments and other animals. Thus, it usually takes years of cautious studies before a new pesticide is manufactured.

Similarly, in the United States, Pesticide regulations are controlled by the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials. Formed in 1947 after Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the AAPCO was formed in order to regulate uniform restrictions and guidelines about pesticide use throughout the US and has been working to mutually solve pesticide problems in both the state and national levels. Though the main goal of the AAPCO is to maintain similarities in pesticide regulations, the restrictions are made flexible to make up for the differences in population, geography, and climate in various states. In addition, the AAPCO sponsors the most effective pesticide analysis, enforcement, and legislation, and it interacts with federal and local industries in exchanging information about pesticide products.

Members for the AAPCO are usually state or federal pesticide officials, though Canadian pesticide officials as well as agricultural researchers are eligible. Each state agency chooses one representative who has the privilege to vote on various issues concerning both pesticide policies and the agency’s cabinet elections. These elections are held annually to vote on cabinet positions such as President, Secretary, and Treasurer.

The members of AAPCO usually convene biannually, once in Washington D.C. during spring and once in another city during August. Officials of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discuss in Washington the current issues in pesticide enforcement, registration, and legislation with representatives from the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While this meeting is held usually for three days, the meeting in spring is held for only a day for elections.

Since the 1970s, however, the AAPCO agreed to convene periodically per year in order to improve communication and today, the Association works harder than ever to ensure pesticide safety throughout the United States.

-So Yeon

So Yeon Kim, Mitch Rubenstein, Tian Yang Sun

2005-09-29T18:52:00.000-07:00