4 Ways Eating Organic Reduces Your Kids' Pesticide Exposure

From Beyond Pesticides.

The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) has weighed in on the organic food debate recognizing that lower pesticide residues in organic foods may be significant for children. The Academy also notes that choosing organic is based on larger environmental issues, as well as human health impacts like pollution and global climate change. This is the first time the AAP has made a statement on organic foods, concluding that the most important thing for children is to eat a wide variety of produce, and that pediatricians should talk to their patients about the potential health and environmental benefits of choosing organic.

Here's 4 places where organic helps reduce your kids' risk to pesticides: 

1. On Nutritional Content
In its analysis, the AAP notes that research comparing the nutritional value of conventionally grown produce and organic produce is “not definitive,” citing that nutritional content is affected by various factors including geographic locations, soil characteristics and climatic conditions. The report finds that better quality research that accounts for these many variables is needed to make accurate comparisons, and concludes that at this time, there is no convincing evidence of a substantial difference between the nutritional content of organic and conventional foods.

2. On Milk and Meat
The AAP also notes here that due to variability in cattle breeds and genetics, comparisons of milk composition must be “interpreted with caution.” In reviewing the scientific literature, AAP finds little significant differences in compositions, but organic milk does have slightly more protein than conventional milk, and milk derived from organic and non-organic low input systems yield milk higher in conjugated linoleic acid. AAP also notes that hormone supplementation, which is prohibited in organic, does not adversely impact nutritional composition of conventional milk, but the “biological effects in humans, if any, are unknown.” Furthermore, AAP states that studies are needed to investigate the risks to women who eat hormone-treated animals and the development of breast cancer. The AAP calls for large, well-designed, prospective cohort studies that directly measure environmental exposures, such as estrogen at low levels, to understand the impact of hormonal exposure of children through milk and meat.

3. On Antibiotics
On the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, AAP notes that the evidence is clear that the use of these agents can promote the development in drug-resistant organisms, which can then spread through the food chain. Organic farming, which prohibits the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics, therefore reduces this threat and, by extension, lowers the risk of human disease caused by drug-resistant organisms.

4. On Environmental Impacts
Organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, have soils with higher organic quality and water retention. A review of studies found that organic systems can have comparable productivity to conventional fields, while using less pesticides and reducing environmental pollutions.
health effects resulting from their use.

Fore more information
For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Are Pesticides A Key Driver of Autism Increase?

Forbes Magazine science contributor, Emily Willingham

Here's a thought-provoking article from Forbes' contributing science writer, EmilyWillingham, regarding pesticides and the adverse affects of Autism.  Worth the read - and thought. 

An anti-pesticide manifesto [PDF] from the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) has recently made a few headlines in big papers and nabbed a feature on an NPR member station with claims that “children today are sicker than they were a generation ago” and that pesticides are a “key driver” of the increase in childhood disorders such as “childhood cancers … autism, birth defects, and asthma.” The news reports almost invariably describe the tome in scientific terms without mentioning that it’s self published and not peer reviewed and contains no new data or information. The stories do not fail, however, to mention autism and to mention it early.

The PANNA authors pin their autism claim in part on the much written-about “autism epidemic.” While environmental factors might play some role in a small portion of the increase in autism, as I argue here, the general consensus appears to be that diagnostic substitution and enhanced awareness and recognition are the main drivers. Regardless of whether a genuine increase exists and what environmental factors are key to it, very little published evidence suggests a link between autism diagnoses and pesticide exposures. Yet the two keep popping up together in articles that sensationalize a relationship or posit one from research that doesn’t address autism at all.

Autism, though, sells. It sells stories, it gets attention, it attracts clicks. So let’s take a look at what they’re selling you.

The PANNA report mentions autism 58 times but focuses on it only in one short section of its 40 pages. In this section, called “The Science,” the authors cite a handful of published reports, not all of them studies. One paper is a scientific op-ed of sorts that gained fame for asserting that “10 chemicals”–gotta love numbered lists–need attention in the context of autism, which sounds great except…hardly any of them had been linked to autism in any way. Against the backdrop of this editorial, the authors of the PANNA report then go on to list eight other studies they claim support an autism-pesticide link (I note here that the term “pesticide” is used loosely to encompass herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides). In four of eight cases, they simply mischaracterize the studies they cite.
Among the eight studies, an original research study they reference is a 2006 report assessing links between a pesticide, chlorpyrifos , and developmental delays (not diagnosed autism) in urban-dwelling families. Chlorpyrifos was introduced in 1965 and widely used in households until it was banned in 2001 for home use. It remains in wide use in agriculture. A second study the PANNA authors cite was a 2007 article describing prenatal agricultural exposure to several compounds, including chlorpyrifos. Those investigators found no link between chlorpyrifos and endpoints that were similar to those of 2006 study, but did identify an association between another chemical and pervasive developmental disorders (again, not diagnosed autism). So far, we’ve got two reports with conflicting results that don’t involve diagnosed autism.

The PANNA group then lists what they call a “trio of US studies” from 2012 that “examined links between environmental exposures among parents (including but not limited to pesticides) and the incidence of autism among their children.” The studies in question didn’t examine those links at all and don’t mention pesticides or even environment; the authors of those reports might be surprised to see how their work has been described. All three are genetics studies. One group described finding a greater rate of spontaneous mutations passed along from fathers compared to mothers and that accumulation of these mutations was associated with the dad’s age. Another found an association between an epilepsy-related gene variant and autism. The third identified two other gene variants that are risk factors for autism. These studies weren’t about pesticides and autism and they did not “examine links” in the way described. A fourth study the PANNA authors cite, also from 2012, was another genetics study that confirmed an association between father’s age and accumulated mutations and was not a study of pesticides.

Finally, the PANNA report cites, as its last pillar in its “pesticides as key drivers of autism” argument, a 2012 paper proposing a hazy network between autism and a mishmash of high-fructose corn syrup consumption, mercury, organophosphates, and a host of other chemophobia bugbears. But that paper was a review and contained no new data. At the time of its publication, I analyzed its rationales and conclusions and found that the arguments fell apart from the word go. The authors’ response to that critique and my response to them are here.

In sum, the section from this PANNA report asserting that pesticides are a “key driver” of an autism increase contains eight citations of what they call “The Science.” Two contain no original research, four aren’t related to pesticide assessment at all but are misleadingly described as such, and two address intense pesticide exposure and pervasive developmental disorders and delays but not autism specifically. The case they build to link autism and pesticides is not a compelling one. Why did they build it? I’m guessing because autism gets attention.

They could have built it better, at any rate. They did cite one other relevant research paper in the report, but for some reason, they failed to include it in “The Science.” That 2007 study suggested that maternal residence in the vicinity of pesticide application in the central valley of California might be associated with diagnosed autism, although the work had some pretty significant confounders and limitations that its authors note.

Another citation the PANNA authors included outside of “The Science” was a 2012 review in a peer-reviewed journal, “Tipping the Balance of Autism Risk: Potential Mechanisms Linking Pesticides and Autism.” This review offers up a kitchen sink of animal and cell research–ranging from sea urchins to voles–to weave a plausibility argument associating autism and pesticides. One report its authors highlight describes, ironically, a beneficial effect of chlorpyrifos in “restoring behaviors” in a mouse model (ETA: I don’t know what the specific behaviors were, just that the chlorpyrifos treatment restored them to “normal”). Yet in spite of a host of references, based on a quick assessment, only about seven of the 130+ citations might directly address autism and pesticide exposure, three of them already discussed here.

The authors of the “Tipping the Balance” review argue that we need more studies looking at whether or not our pesticide exposures interact with genes to result in autism, using animals with “autism-like” behaviors and evaluating large numbers of people. That may be the case, although because of the nature of scientific publication, we may not know about negative results researchers have already found. Regardless, current studies–animal or human–showing a link are vanishingly rare, even though six years have passed since the chlorpyrifos/urban families report first appeared. This lack of data again leads to the question: Why bring up autism in the PANNA report at all, much less 58 times, asserting that pesticides are a “key driver” of the condition? And why misrepresent half of the studies cited that pertain to it?

From NYT - Has "Organic" Been Oversized?

From our friends at Beyond Pesticides:

 
(Beyond Pesticides, July 17th, 2012) On July 8, The New York Times ran an article indicting the organic food industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for their involvement in advancing a number of standards, practices, and decisions allowed under the organic label. The Times piece, “Has ‘Organic’ Been Oversized?,” written by Stephanie Strom and featuring organic food industry critic and chief executive officer of Eden Foods, Michael Potter, concentrated on the outsized role large corporations have assumed economically through organic market share, and politically through the decisions of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). While the article reinforces organic advocates’ ongoing call for public vigilance, there is general agreement that organic offers consumers the safest place to spend their food dollars, the best protection for the environment and those who farm, and the highest degree of public input into the standard setting process.
Beyond Pesticides’ Executive Director Jay Feldman, current NOSB member holding an environmentalist seat, wrote a response published in the Times article. Mr. Feldman said,

“The article noted the involvement of big agriculture and food companies in establishing organic standards, as well as in several controversial decisions. But that discussion only diverts public attention from the urgent need to grow organic systems of any size, as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act. The best way to protect our planet is through the exponential, rapid growth of the organic sector, and by rejecting mainstream chemical-intensive agriculture. The nation’s organic law offers a unique opportunity for small farmers and others to ensure adherence to the core values and principles of the organics statute. But it all requires public involvement.”

The focus of the Times article on processed foods and allowed substances is important, but advocates point out that it represents only a small segment of the entire scope of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). An article in Mother Jones Magazine, “How the NY Times Went Too Far in Slamming Big Organic,” looks deeper into the issue and provides a more balanced assessment of the state of organic standards. The piece adds to the criticisms directed towards the USDA for appointing agriculture industry representatives to NOSB seats reserved by law for farmers and environmentalists. While raising the issue of organic integrity, it stops well short of calling organic production “mostly pure fantasy” as the Times piece does.

Grist Magazine also published a response to the Times article titled “The latest New York Times exposé won’t stop me from eating organic.” In it, author Twilight Greenaway gives credence to the charge that consumers should be concerned about the materials being approved in organic food, but also recognizes that this type of coverage could steer people away from organic certified products. Concerning the controversial issues of carrageenan and DHA she notes, “In the case of most conventional food, there is no discussion at all, let alone an intensive investigation.”

Some of the charges that the Times piece levels against the organic industry and organic regulators were recently highlighted by The Cornucopia Institute’s paper “The Organic Watergate.” The report provides an overview of some of the recent contentious issues and looks into the motivations behind industry representatives’ push to have questionable synthetics approved.

It is important that the USDA recognizes and addresses the criticisms of organic advocacy organizations, but consumers should not allow these controversies to overshadow the numerous benefits that come with organic certification. Certified organic production systems represent a striking contrast to conventionally produced foods in terms of both the environment and public health. OFPA was written with the intention of ensuring that organic food embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. All these destructive inputs are allowed in conventional farming. The end result of these practices are apparent from studies of disappearing pollinators, poisoned farmworkers, hypoxic “dead zones”, degraded soil, and antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques, such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting, to produce healthy soil, increase biodiversity, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber. The standards dictate that organic farmers must maintain or improve soil organic matter content, which decreases nutrient runoff and topsoil erosion, and eases the strain on aquatic ecosystems and our water supply. Moreover, the prohibition of petroleum-based fertilizers and increased carbon sequestration in soils rich in organic matter decreases overall contributions to global climate change.

In order to understand the importance of eating organic food, we need to look at the whole picture —from the farmworkers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Organic food offers a vision of a healthy future which doesn’t produce the toxic spillover effects of chemical agriculture. However, this vision cannot be realized without the input of vigilant and vocal consumers. In order to keep organic as a safe place free of harmful synthetic chemicals, we must all participate, and join in its defense.

To this end, Beyond Pesticides encourages concerned citizens to become involved with the organic review process. The NOSB meets two times a year. Each meeting, the topics and materials up for discussion and review are open to public comment. The public comment process represents the best opportunity for consumers, as well as farmers and processors, to have a voice as these standards are debated and adopted by the NOSB. The fall meeting is scheduled to take place in Providence, RI on October 15-18, 2012. The public can submit their comments online, or attend the meeting in person to voice their concerns. Individuals and organizations can also file their own petition to amend the National List of approved substances in organic production.

To read more about Beyond Pesticides’ vision for an organic future, visit our Organic food program page. For our take on recent NOSB decisions, see our page on Keeping Organic Strong.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Pesticides Linked to Sleep Disorder

From Beyond Pesticides:

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2012) New research from the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) in Montreal suggests that pesticide exposure, as well as smoking, head injury, farming, and less education, may be a risk factor for a rare sleep disorder that causes people to kick or punch during sleep, according to a study entitled “Environmental risk factors for REM sleep behavior disorder: A multicenter case-control study” published in the June 27, 2012, online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

People with the disorder, called REM sleep behavior disorder, do not have the normal lack of muscle tone that occurs during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, causing them to act out their dreams. The movements can sometimes be violent, causing injury to the person or their bed partner. The disorder is estimated to occur in 0.5 percent of adults.

“Until now, we didn’t know much about the risk factors for this disorder, except that it was more common in men and in older people,” said study author Ronald B. Postuma, MD, MSc, with the Research Institute at MUHC and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. “Because it is a rare disorder, it was difficult to gather information about enough patients for a full study. For this study, we worked with 13 institutions in 10 countries to get a full picture of the disorder.”

The disorder can also be a precursor to neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and a type of dementia. Studies have shown that more than 50 percent of people with REM sleep behavior disorder go on to develop a neurodegenerative disorder years or even decades later. “Due to this connection, we wanted to investigate whether the risk factors for REM sleep behavior disorder were similar to those for Parkinson’s disease or dementia,” Dr. Postuma said.
The results were mixed. While smoking has been found to be a protective factor for Parkinson’s disease, people who smoked were found to be more likely to develop REM sleep behavior disorder. Pesticide use, on the other hand, is a risk factor for both disorders. Studies have shown that people who drink coffee are less likely to develop Parkinson’s, but this study found no relationship between coffee drinking and REM sleep behavior disorder.

For the study, 347 people with REM sleep behavior disorder were compared to 347 people who did not have the disorder. Of those, 218 had other sleep disorders and 129 had no sleep disorders. Those with REM sleep behavior disorder were 43 percent more likely to be smokers, with 64 percent of those with the disorder having ever smoked, compared to 56 percent of those without the disorder. They were 59 percent more likely to have had a previous head injury with loss of consciousness, 67 percent more likely to have worked as farmers, and more than twice as likely to have been exposed to pesticides through work. Those with the disorder also had fewer years of education, with an average of 11.1 years, compared to 12.7 years for those without the disorder.

For more information on how pesticides affect human health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.
Source: American Academy of Neurology

Updated rankings for pesticides in produce

From The Oregonian:
 Apples again topped the list of foods containing the most pesticides.



An environmental advocacy group has updated its rankings of pesticide-laden produce, and several fruits and vegetables grown in Oregon top the list. Following new data released by the USDA in May, the Environmental Working Group has recalculated its "Dirty Dozen" and "Clean 15" shoppers guides. They also noted that, for the first time, the USDA has included baby food in its testing and detected pesticide residues.

Four of the top five fruits and vegetables testing positive for pesticides are major products of the region listed by the Agri-Business Council of Oregon. Apples maintained the top spot on the list, even when washed for 10 seconds. Celery, sweet bell peppers, peaches, and strawberries rounded out the top five.

Among produce with the lowest measures of detectable pesticides were onions, sweet corn, and cabbage.

Although these fruits and vegetables are all products of Oregon, most of the samples the USDA tested were not sourced from Oregon growers. For example, only one apple out of 744 tested came from Oregon.

The EWG ranked the foods by comparing how frequently pesticides turned up, and how concentrated the pesticides were. With the exception of the so-called "Dirty Dozen Plus", rankings did not account for the type of pesticide or relative toxicity of each. Additionally, rankings weighted the breakdown products of pesticides equally with the original chemicals, although potential danger may not be identical.

This year, the EWG's list of foods with the highest levels of pesticides was renamed the "Dirty Dozen Plus" to highlight a specific class of insecticides called organophosphates. Although some of the "plus" vegetables would not otherwise top the rankings, the EWG emphasized particular concern with organophosphates because of potential toxicity to the nervous system.

Green beans, kale, and collard greens all tested positive for organophosphates. Although levels were below safety thresholds set by the EPA, the group emphasized particular caution for these pesticides.

For produce containing high levels of pesticides, the EWG encourages shoppers to consider purchasing organic versions. Organic farming does not mean food will be pesticide-free, however. The USDA tested for – and sometimes found – organic pesticides as well as synthetic alternatives.

Baby food was no exception to the presence of pesticides. A portion of the baby food made of green beans contained the same organophosphates as whole beans. 3 of the 191 containers of baby food from pears contained a pesticide not registered for legal use on the fruit. Almost half of all tested baby food pears contained detectable levels of spinosad, an organic pesticide.

The latest USDA report only includes testing completed through the end of 2010, and not all types of produce are tested every year. Four fruits and five vegetables grown frequently in Oregon were updated this year.

The newest rankings are available online from the EWG, and the USDA testing results are available online as well.

Updated organic standards become regulation

From our friends at Beyond Pesticides:

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2012) The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) has published a final rule in the Federal Register officially codifying into federal regulations changes to organic standards that were recommended by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) over the past year and a half. The changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List) include the renewal of a number of substances already on the list, the removal of two substances, and specific changes to several others.

Among the more notable changes to the organic standards made by the publication of this final rule is a hard fought victory for organic hops growers in the form of a new requirement that, beginning the first day of 2013, all hops used in organic beer production must be produced organically. Due to the “commercial availability” clause in the organic law, beer bearing the organic seal had previously been allowed to contain conventionally produced hops due to a perception that hops produced organically were not available in the necessary quantities. However, the American Organic Hop Grower Association petitioned the NOSB to remove this allowance on the basis that this would create increased demand for organic hops and their availability would grow. At the November 2010 NOSB meeting, the board agreed and adopted a recommendation to require all hops in organic beer to be produced organically beginning in 2013.

Among the new changes is a compromise among a number of interests in the organic community to extend the phase-out until October 21, 2014 of the antibiotics tetrachycline and streptomycin to control fireblight disease in organic apple and pear production. The allowance of streptomycin and tetratcycline antibiotics in organic fruit production had been scheduled to expire on October 21, 2012 as the result of a previous NOSB recommendation. Environmental and public health advocates had argued at the April 2011 NOSB meeting that current regulations allowing antibiotics to be used in organic fruit production was out of step with organic principles and inconsistent with the prohibition on antibiotics in organic livestock production. However, fruit growers argued that there was no viable organic alternative to fight fireblight and that organic fruit production would suffer significantly if the ban was allowed to take effect. A compromise was reached whereby the allowance was extended by two years until October 21, 2014 to allow for increased research on alternative controls for fireblight in organic fruit trees. The apple and pear producers have indicated that they will submit a petition to the NOSB to extend the phase-out yet again.

Other changes addressed in the final rule include:
• Only non-amidated forms of non-organic pectin, typically added to thicken jams and jellies, will be allowed when organic pectin is not commercially available.
• The listing for iodine, which is used to fortify organic foods, has been clarified.
• The allowed use of chlorine materials in organic crop production has been clarified.
• The allowed use of lignin sulfonate in organic crop production has been clarified.
• The allowed use of non-organic colors in organic processed products has been clarified. Organic colors must be used if they are commercially available.
• Effective October 21, 2012, yeast used in baked goods and other processed organic products must be organic, if commercially available and intended for human consumption.
• Effective October 21, 2012, sulfur dioxide (smoke bombs) will no longer be allowed for rodent control in organic crop production.

The full list of renewals and specific changes to the National List can be found in the appendix to the Federal Register notice. The majority of the changes will take full effect on June 27, 2012 (expiration dates will be added to hops and streptomycin, but the bans will not take effect until those dates are actually reached). Several other potentially significant changes to the organic standards that were recently recommended by the NOSB will be addressed in separate rulemaking actions, according to NOP. These include the NOSB’s recommendation to begin prohibiting the use of sodium nitrate as a fertilizer as well as a recommendation concerning the allowance of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals in processed organic foods.

Source: NOP press release

France considers ban on pesticide linked to Colony Collapse Disorder

From our friends at Beyond Pesticides.


(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2012) France’s Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll announced plans on Friday to cancel Swiss manufacturer Syngenta’s registration to treat canola seed with the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam, a chemical cousin of the bee-killing pesticide clothianidin, in a move to protect honey bees from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). When honey bees are exposed to thiamethoxam, it breaks down in their bodies to, clothianidin, which Beyond Pesticides is petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban due to a preponderance of adverse effects data and inadequate registration safety testing. Both pesticides have been shown in numerous scientific studies to play a key role in CCD. As France acts to protect its pollinators from pesticides, the U.S. continues to allow the uses of theses highly toxic chemicals to continue. Tell Congress and EPA that the U.S. should join France in taking a precautionary approach to our pollinator crisis.

The chemical manufacturer Syngenta has two weeks to report its own evidence before the ban officially goes into effect. If enacted, France’s Agriculture Ministry stated that the ban will take effect before the start of canola sowing season in late summer. Minister Le Foll reinforced the fact that farmers do not need to rely on this product to protect their crop. “To protect rapeseed [canola] plants, there exist alternatives to coating seeds that are already widely used. If the withdrawal of the authorization (for Cruiser OSR) is confirmed, farmers will therefore have solutions to call on,” Minister Le Foll explained.

The decision to ban the coating of canola seeds with thiamethoxam, commercially labeled Cruiser OSR, is based on a late March study in the journal Science, entitled “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees.” In their study, the researchers used Radio-frequency identification (RFID) to test the hypothesis that a sub-lethal exposure to a neonicotinoid indirectly increases hive death rate through homing failure in foraging honey bees. When exposed to sub-lethal doses of thiamethoxam, at levels present in the environment, honey bees are less likely to return to the hive after foraging than control bees that were tracked with RFID, but not intentionally dosed with pesticides. Higher risks are observed when the homing task is more challenging. The survival rate is even lower when exposed bees are placed in foraging areas with which they are less familiar.

The legal petition in the U.S., crafted in collaboration with environmental groups and beekeepers around the county, points to the fact that EPA has failed to follow its own regulations. EPA granted a conditional, or temporary, registration to clothianidin in 2003 without a required field study establishing that the pesticide would have no “unreasonable adverse effects” on pollinators. Granting conditional registration was contingent upon the subsequent submission of an acceptable field study, but this requirement has not been met. EPA continues to allow the use of clothianidin nine years after acknowledging that it had an insufficient legal basis for initially allowing its use. Additionally, the product labels on pesticides containing clothianidin are inadequate to prevent excessive damage to non-target organisms, which is a second violation of the requirements for using a pesticide and further warrants removing all such mislabeled pesticides from use.

A British study, published in the journal Science at the same time as the French study, “Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production,” examines the impacts of another neonicotiniod pesticide imidacloprid on bumble bee colony health. Researchers exposed colonies of the bumble bees to levels of imidacloprid that are realistic in the natural environment, and then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to unexposed control colonies. The study is particularly noteworthy because it shows that bumble bees, which are wild pollinators, are suffering similar impacts of pesticide exposure to “managed” honey bees.

A third recent study in published by Harvard University’s School of Public Health in the June 2012 Bulletin of Insectology reinforces the link between the neonicotinoid imidacloprid and CCD even at sub-lethal doses. The Harvard study provides an in situ look into CCD by performing the experiment in the field following normal commercial beekeeping practices. Researchers looked at the effect of feeding High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) to honey bees, a common practice during the winter months. Results show that 94% of the hives had died after exposure to imidacloprid, at levels hypothesized to have been present in HFCS since the introduction of neonicotinoids.

Neonicotinoids are taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees then forage and drink. Several EU countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia, have put restrictions on the use of these toxic substances. beyond Pesticides and other groups are calling on the U.S. to do the same.

Learn more at Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection webpage.

Sparky's Safe Lawn Tip - How to talk to your neighbors about pesticides

From our friends at SafeLawns.org.

Those other signs are ubiquitous these days. “Caution.” “Warning.” “Danger.” “Keep off the Grass.” Usually in yellow, but sometimes in green, gray, red or black, the flags are nearly as plentiful as lawns themselves.

They are actually legal documents designed to warn pedestrians and homeowners about the very real dangers posed by EPA-registered products known as pesticides — the weed and insect killers and fungicides that are engineered, mostly in laboratories, to keep our lawns lush and green according to the larger society’s aesthetic standards. Depending on where you live, the warning signs are suppose to remain in place until the product is “dry,” or 24, 48 or 72 hours after the application. It’s all determined by the arbitrary whims of local lawmakers.

Of the many questions we receive here at SafeLawns, perhaps the ones that bring the most inherent angst are those concerning how to talk to neighbors who stubbornly refuse to cease applications of these toxic products. These are the people we need to live next to, the folks whose living rooms our children visit and, often, the friends we entrust with having our backs in times of need.

And when these folks apply pesticides themselves, without hiring a licensed lawn care company, they don’t even need to post. They almost assuredly don’t watch the wind speed or pattern, or concern themselves about whether or not it will rain later that day. They just apply the stuff they just bought at Wal-Mart — unaware that the stuff is banned in Canada because it’s so dangerous.

How to hold that most awkward of conversations is a study in nuance. There is no one right way to proclaim to another human being that he or she is doing something that is, at the least, offensive and, at the worst, life threatening.

Here are a few ideas we have found that can help:

BE CALM — Begin by offering to share your knowledge about pesticides with neighbors in non-threatening, friendly terms. Angry approaches rarely work, but chatty banter can get people’s attention: “Say, Joan, did you hear about a report from Cornell University about those products we put on lawns?” Joan shrugs, but she’s not yet on the defensive. “Yeah, I just read a study by Dr. David Pimentel at Cornell University found that as little as one-tenth of one percent of the weed killers we apply ever reach their target weed. That means most of the product is winding up in the wrong destination, maybe inside your house, or on your skin or in your lungs. And it’s costing a lot of money, most of which is wasted.” Really? says Joan. Maybe she shrugs again, but at least you might have her thinking.

THE SCHOOLTEACHER APPROACH — Collect web sites and magazine articles that can be photocopied and disseminated among friends. Some of the best on-line sources are www.BeyondPesticides.org, www.panna.org, www.ehhi.org and (of course) www.safelawns.org.

THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN — Right before an election, those “VOTE-FOR-ME” signs pop up everywhere. Our SafeLawns “Safe to Play” signs, above, are a non-confrontational way to let everyone in our new neighborhood know exactly where we stand on the issue of weed killers — while avoiding the awkward conversation that my wife doesn’t want me to have with people she might need to help her someday when I’m out of town. Everyone on our cul-de-sac either walks or drives by daily and the sign helps explain why ours is the only lawn in the area with dandelions and clover growing freely.

A NIGHT OUT — Organize a local seminar and recruit an expert to speak (I’m asked to present at dozens of these events each year). Invite local garden clubs, watershed alliances, civic organizations and church groups to attend. Offer to buy your neighbor dinner on the way.

THE GIFT — Give your neighbor a book about the dangers of pesticides. One of the best new releases on the market is Dr. Sandra Steingraber’s Raising Elijah, about the challenges of developing a healthy child in an era of environmental crisis. We have begun to give our book, Tag, Toss & Run: 40 Classic Lawn Games as gifts around our neighborhood; the book is 99 percent about games, but it includes a page about the SafeLawns campaign to reduce pesticides. When parents see their children out rolling around in the grass playing all the games, maybe they’ll think twice about coating that grass with poisons.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE — If you grow a beautiful lawn and landscape without using chemicals, your neighbor will willingly follow your example. When we moved into this home last year, the lawn out front was thin, bare and ugly. A year later, we still have a few of what most people would call weeds — and my 5-year-old daughter calls flowers — but we also have one of the most green lawns in the neighborhood thanks to an organic approach that has focused on the soil health.

FIND COMMON GROUND — If your neighbor has children, then you can focus your conversation on the risks associated with pesticides around children. If your neighbor has a dog or a cat, show them studies that associate the health risks of pets around pesticides. Pesticides also affect fishermen, hunters, bird watchers, or the water supply.

The bottom line is that — if you get to know your neighbor — you can usually find a way to bring the conversation back to pesticides. It may not be easy to get them to change, just like it wasn’t easy to get rid of second-hand smoke in restaurants and other public places. But second-hand pesticides are just as bad; we can stop that, too, if we try.

National Stroller Brigade DC Bound for Safer Chemicals

From our friends at Beyond Pesticides.

On Tuesday, May 22, several hundred mothers and fathers joined nurses and cancer survivors at the U.S. Capitol to demand action on toxic chemicals. The group, deemed the “National Stroller Brigade” rallied in support of U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) Safe Chemicals Act, a bill to overhaul antiquated laws governing toxic chemicals. 

“It’s shocking that toxic chemicals end up in everyday consumer products, and in our bodies, without anyone proving that they are safe. The stroller brigade is carrying an important message to Congress that we’re not going to stand by and let our kids continue to be exposed to chemicals that make them sick. Concerned moms are the best weapons we have in this fight. With their help, I will keep advancing the Safe Chemicals Act to reform our broken toxic chemical laws and provide a healthier future for our families,” said U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ).

Read more about this important - rolling - movement here. 

6 Minutes to protect your baby from pesticides

At Natural Turf, we believe in three things: (1) your health, (2) your lawn and (3) your family.

So, this is why we think our friends at Beyond Pesticides have put together a great video on protecting your baby from pesticides.  It's a truly informative, important and responsible way to spend 6 minutes. 

You can watch it here.


If you'd like to learn more about how Natural Turf achieves healthy lawns without pesticides, take some time to checkout our Facebook page.  And, there might also be a coupon in there for you, too. 

;)

Scientists call for ban on bee-killing pesticides

From our friends at SafeLawns.org, checkout their post on Harvard University scientists calling for the international ban of synthetic pesticides responsible for colony collapse of bees. 


According tot the study's author, we've got to act now:

“The data, both ours and others, right now merits a global ban,” said Chensheng Li, lead scientist in the Harvard University study that confirmed neonicotinoid pesticides as a primary cause of CCD. “Our study clearly demonstrated that imidacloprid is responsible for causing CCD, and the survival of the control hives that we set up side-by-side to the pesticide-treated hives augments this conclusion.”

Learn more
http://www.naturalnews.com/035652_pesticides_honey_bees_ban.html#ixzz1ssbggZ9l

To sign a petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/help-bees-ban-imidacloprid-and-other-neonicotinoid-pesticides

The questionable realities of pesticide registration and regulation

Chances are, if you're reading this blog (like us), then you're a believer and practitioner of natural lawn care.  Each of us knows that beautiful, healthy lawns don't need to be a product of dangerous chemicals; but, rather from what Mother Nature intended.  

Unfortunately, we know that the use of dangerous pesticides is a common practice.  But, one thing you might not know is the questionable realities of how private companies and our federal government register and regulate them.  

Here's some sobering facts from Beyond Pesticides, who works with allies in protecting public health and the environment to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides:

The registration system and pesticide regulation

• The health data assessed by EPA for the registration of pesticides comes from the manufacturer of the pesticide. EPA is not obligated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to review peer-reviewed scientific literature.
• The U.S. GAO has told Congress on several occasions that the public is misled on pesticide safety by statements characterizing pesticides as “safe” or “harmless.” EPA states that no pesticide is 100 percent safe. (1)
• Pesticide testing protocol was developed before science fully understood the human immune and hormonal system. EPA still does not evaluate data for several neurological effects or disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system.
• EPA does not evaluate the health and environmental effects of actual pesticide formulations sold on the shelf. Data submitted to the EPA also does not account for low-dose effects, synergistic effects with inerts or combined exposure to more than one pesticide at a time.
• Most states have preemption laws that prohibit localities from passing local pesticide-related ordinances that are stricter than the state policy. (2)

Stay natural.  Stay above pesticides.  Share your thoughts about how you stay natural.  

Sources

(1) U.S. GAO. 1997. Nonagricultural Pesticides: Risks and Regulations. GAO/RCED-86-97; EPA. 2002. Questions and Answers: Pesticides and Mosquito Control. Department of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/pesticides4mosquitos.htm (accessed 7/2/04).

(2) Beyond Pesticides Factsheet. 2005. State Preemption Laws.

 

Fact - Lawn pesticides can linger in your home

Sure, pesticide-users for their lawn may get that emerald green lawn they've craved - but it comes with a price.  Turns out, pesticides are very persistent, and can remain in your home for days, months or even years.  Far from a settling discovery.


How pesticides move
Pesticides can move from their intended targets - typically a lawn - via evaporation through the air, water, food and general surface contact.  Once they evaporate, they become part of the water cycle.  The US Geological Survey (USGS) has found nearly every pesticide they've investigated in the air, snow, rain or fog(1). 

Pesticides in your home
Unfortunately, pesticides can linger even longer inside the home.  If they're not exposed to sunlight or rain, pesticides can last even longer:

• The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) determined that outdoor pesticides residues are tracked indoors by shoes and pets, and can increase concentration in carpets by up to 400 times.  And, they can last for years.(2)  
• A 2003 Silent Spring Institute study (originally funded by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health) proved home owners can be affected by pesticides in their homes for even decades after being tracked in. 

Definitely some sobering statistics when considering the use of pesticides on your lawn.  We'd love to hear your thoughts on the use of pesticides.

Have you tried the natural way?  
 
Sources
(1) United States Geological Survey. 1995. Pesticides in the Atmosphere. United States Geological Survey Fact Sheet. FS-152-95.
(2) New Scientist 5 May 2001 No. 2289.
(3) Nov 1, 2003, environmental science and technology, Kellyn Betts. 409a, Silent Spring Institute

The harmful effects of pesticides on our water supply

We often assume that putting pesticides on our lawns will stop there.  Unfortunately, it's not the case.  The same dangerous chemicals users treat their lawns with eventually find their way into our groundwater supply.  And, that's just not good for anyone.

Beyond Pesticides, a leading policy and action group protecting our health and environment, has a great fact sheet about the dangers of pesticides on our water supply. 




Here's some highlights:

• Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, and 23 have the potential to leach. (xxi)
• Runoff has resulted in a widespread presence of pesticides in streams and groundwater. 2,4-D, found in weed and feed and other lawn products, is the herbicide most frequently detected in streams and shallow ground water from urban lawns. (xxii)
• Of the 50 chemicals on EPA’s list of unregulated drinking water contaminants, several are lawn chemicals including herbicides diazinon, diuron, naphthalene, and various triazines such as atrazine. (xxiii)
• Runoff from synthetic chemical fertilizers pollutes streams and lakes and causes algae blooms, depleted oxygen and damage to aquatic life.

 Sobering stats.  All the more reason to choose and promote natural alternatives to lawn care.  Get involved, get educated, get natural.
 
 

An eye opener - Suburban vs. agricultural pesticide use

When we think of pesticides, we often think of industrial-grade agricultural pesticides. We think: "They use so much pesticide for farming. Personal or suburban pesticide usage must be lower, right? Right?"

Wrong.

According to a historical National Research Council study, suburban lawns and gardens receive more pesticide applications per acre (3.2-9.8 lbs per acre on average) than agriculture (2.7 lbs per acre on average).(1) That's over 3.5 times the amount!

Definitely a sobering thought. Consider your family, your pets, your environment and your lawn this lawn care season. Make the right choice: go pesticide-free.

Source
1. National Research Council. 1980. Urban Pest Management. National Academy of Sciences; Abrams, R. Attorney General of New York. 1991. "Toxic fairways: Risking groundwater contamination from pesticides on Long Island golf courses," Environmental Protection Bureau; Pimentel, D., et. al. 1991. "Environmental and economic impacts of reducing US agricultural pesticide use." Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Florida, p.679.

Five great websites for pesticide info

We all know the dangers of pesticides - bad for your health, your family, your pets and your environment. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declares: "Pesticides can cause harm to humans, animals and the environment because they are designed to kill or otherwise affect living organisms."

However, Americans continue to spend millions of dollars annually to support their production, distribution and eventual use. Unfortunately, current government regulations concerning the marketing of these dangerous chemicals do little to protect consumers.

So how do you stay up to date on the dangers of, regulation of and safety information on pesticides? Here's five great websites to keep in your e-Rolodex:
1. Grassroots Environmental Education - General information on environmental toxin and their effect on human health. www.grassrootsinfo.org
2. Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) - Publications and detailed information about pesticides. www.pesticide.org
3. NCAMP/Beyond Pesticides - Learn about pesticide action groups around the country. www.beyondpesticides.org
4. Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) - A database of pesticide chemicals and scientific information. www.pesticideinfo.org
5. Natural Turf Pro - Professional training course for organic lawn care on DVD. www.naturalturfpro.com

Take advantage of these great resources to educate and empower yourself. Make the right choice for your family, your pets, your health and your lawn: go pesticide-free.

For more information and a personal consultation for your lawn, contact a Natural Turf natural lawn care professional today! We look forward to hearing from you.

Wildlife and your pets want you to go organic

At Natural Turf, we care about three things: your lawn, your family and your health. But, one thing that we also always keep in mind is how our products are safer for preserving natural wildlife and their habitats. And so should you.

Beyond Pesticides has a wonderful fact sheet that outlines many of the real dangers of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Some highlights:
1. Studies find that dogs exposed to herbicide-treated lawns and gardens can double their chance of developing canine lymphoma and may increase the risk of bladder cancer in certain breeds by 4-7 times.(1)
2. Of the 30 commonly used lawn pesticides: 16 are toxic to birds, 24 are toxic to fish and aquatic organisms and 11 are deadly to bees.(2)
3. Pesticides can be toxic to wildlife and cause food source contamination, behavioral abnormalities that interfere with survival, and death.(3)
4. Lawn and garden pesticides are deadly to non-target species and can harm beneficial insects and soil microorganisms essential to a naturally healthy lawn.(4)

Let's respect wildlife and go natural. The way nature intended.


Sources
1. Glickman, Lawrence, et al. 2004. "Herbicide exposure and the risk of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder in Scottish Terriers." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 224(8):1290-1297; Haynes, H., et al. 1991. "Case-control study of canine malignant lymphoma: positive association with dog owner's use of 2, 4-D acid herbicides." Journal of National Cancer Institute. 83(17): 1226.
2. Beyond Pesticides Factsheet. 2005. Environmental Effects of 30 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides.
3. Defenders of Wildlife. The Dangers of Pesticides to Wildlife. April 2005.
4. Restmeyer, S. J. 2003. Ecological Pest Management: Embracing the Organic Approach to Landscape Management. Pesticides and You. 23(1): 11-12. Beyond Pesticides. Washington, DC.

Sparky's Safe Lawn Tip - The 8 critical lawn care areas to protecting your pet

A healthy NJ lawn should be something you and your family enjoy together. That especially includes your pets - who revel in the chance to play fetch, have a run, or take a rest on your emerald-green grass. Hey, don't we enjoy that, too?

Dana Farbman, ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center (APCC) pet poison prevention expert, says "Keeping animals safe from accidental poisonings should not end once you've stepped outside. Protecting your pet from potential hazards is just as critical." Unfortunately, the APCC's expert team fields thousands of calls each year involving pets who've had potentially hazardous contact with insecticides, weed-killers and pet-toxic plants.

According to the APCC, here's the 8 critical areas to watch out for when protecting your family's furry companion:
1. Poisonous plants - When designing your lawn space, remember that many popular outdoor plants (especially sago palm, rhododendron and azalea) are toxic to pets. Checkout the full list of plants here.
2. Fertilizer - The chemicals and fertilizers that keeps plants "healthy" can be particularly harmful to our furry friends. Ingesting large amounts can upset their stomachs, potentially causing life-threatening gastrointestinal obstructions.
3. Cocoa mulch - Although it's popular for it's odor and color to humans, it attracts pets, too who are allergic. Depending on the amount ingested, symptoms can include vomiting, diarrhea, muscle tremors, elevated heart rate and even seizures.
4. Insecticides - This is rough stuff. The most dangerous are snail bait with metaldehyde, fly bait with methomyl; and systematic insecticides with disyston or disulfoton, mole or gopher bait with zinc phosphide and most forms of rat poison. You should always keep these out of Fido's reach.
5. Compost - Food and garden waste make prime additions to the garden soil; but, watch what you put down. Coffee, moldy food and certain fruits and veggies can be toxic. Here's a list on what to avoid.
6. Fleas and ticks - Keep your lawn trim since fleas and ticks hangout in the tall brush and grass. In addition to excessive scratching, hair loss, scabs, hot spots and tapeworms; they can also lead to more serious tick-borne diseases like Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Babesia.
7. Garden tools - Be sure your essential lawn tools are secured safely away. They could cause accidental trauma to your pets, especially dogs who tend to be outside more than cats.
8. Allergy-causing flora - Pets have allergies, too. Yup. Your pets' allergic reactions can cause life-threatening anaphylactic shock of severe enough. Also, try to keep your pet out of other people's yards.

Pesticides impact both outdoor and indoor pets — since a lawn care service using toxic or misapplied chemicals will leave residue that you or your family can track inside. Dogs or cats are then exposed to it, ingesting it as they clean their fur.

The key to avoiding these hazards is to use a natural NJ lawn care company that understands the risks. At Natural Turf, we use organic fertilizers and pesticides that not only guarantee seed germination to make your lawn look its best; but, are also pet safe. Contact us today to learn more - your lawn and your family's furry companion will thank you!

Children and pesticides don't mix

There are some things that go perfectly together: peanut butter and jelly, yin and yang, baseball and spring. But in the case of our kids and lawn chemicals...they don't.

Most of the popular lawn chemicals are dangerous carcinogens and mutagens. Chemically-treated lawn toxins stick to shoes, get tracked indoors and are deposited on rugs, kids’ toys, blankets and clothing. Also, walking barefoot on a chemically-treated lawn affords direct absorption of toxins into the skin through their feet and toes.

Beyond Pesticides has a great fact sheet on why children and pesticides don't mix. Here's some highlights:
1. The National Academy of Sciences reports that children are more vulnerable than adults to the dangerous lawn care pesticides.(1)
2. Studies have linked pesticides to cancer, asthma, hyperactivity and other ailments.(2, 3)
3. A study published in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute finds that household and garden pesticide use can increase the risk of childhood leukemia as much as sevenfold.(4)
4. Scientists believe that the amount of toxic chemicals in the environment that cause developmental and neurological damage are contributing to the rise of physical and mental effects being found in children.(5)
5. A 2005 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that students and school employees are being poisoned by pesticide use at schools and from drift off of neighboring farmlands.(6)

Sobering news. On the other hand, Natural Turf’s organic programs approach is a completely safe, life-affirming process. Compost, seaweed, garlic, corn gluten and other 100% natural products are used to feed the micro-organisms in the soil. These organisms then help make available all the nutrients your lawn – and your family – needs to grow safe and sound.

Contact us to learn more about The Better Way to organic and organic-based lawn care. We look forward to hearing from you.


Sources:
(1) National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 184-185.
(2) Leiss, J., et. al., 1995. Home Pesticide Use and Childhood Cancer: A Case-Control Study. American Journal of Public Health, 85: 249-252.
(3) Repetto, R., et. al., 1996 March. Pesticides and Immune System: The Public Health Risk. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC.
(4) Lowengart, R., et. al., 1987. Childhood Leukemia and Parent's Occupational and Home Exposures. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 79:39.
(5) National Research Council. 2000. Scientific frontiers in developmental toxicology and risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; Physicians for Social Responsibility, The National Environmental Trust, The Learning Disabilities Association of America. 2000.
(6) Alarcon, WA., et. al., 2005. Acute illnesses associated with pesticide exposure at school. Journal of the American Medical Association. 294(4); 455-465.

What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You: Four Dangerous Things Your Lawn Care Company Is Hiding

Contrary to what mega-lawn care companies would have you believe, a lush, green lawn is not necessarily a healthy lawn. The truth is, 78 million U.S. households use chemicals to eliminate pests and beautify their lawn*--and studies show that most of those chemicals are MAKING US SICK.

So, before you hire that lawn company to coat your yard in herbicides and chemicals, check out the dangers they won’t bothering sharing:

1. Over 100 million pounds of pesticides are used EVERY YEAR on American homes and lawns. According to a U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, 100 percent of 9,282 people tested positive for pesticide exposure. The average study subject carried at least 13 of 23 tested pesticides!

2. Most traditional lawn care companies use a toxic soup of fertilizers, weed killers and broad-spectrum biocides to green your lawn and kill off pests. What’s in the soup? Of 30 tested chemicals:

· 19 are carcinogens

· 21 are linked to reproductive effects

· 26 are tied to liver and kidney damage

· 15 are linked to neurotoxicity, and

· 11 are believed to disrupt human endocrine systems.**

3. While your children and pets aren’t actively “grazing” on your lawn, they’re absorbing pesticide poisons through the skin—or by breathing in pesticide vapors. Kids and house pets have a much greater rate of exposure than adults—since they’re frequently found sitting in the grass or playing in “pesticide drift” from neighboring lawns.

4. Many lawn care chemicals contain “inert” substances that aren’t listed on the active ingredients list. Federal law doesn’t require manufacturers to list these inert ingredients, but it’s important to understand that “inert” does NOT mean non-toxic. Some inert ingredients are toxins, and are hazardous to water supplies and to your nervous system.

It’s impossible to prevent exposure to pesticides due to their heavy use on golf courses, school campuses and other public spaces, but you can START WITH YOUR OWN BACKYARD. Here at Natural Turf, we believe that you shouldn’t have to sacrifice safety to enjoy a beautiful lawn and garden. Protect your family!

Call the natural lawn care experts to schedule your free consultation or inquire about CHEMICAL-FREE lawn maintenance.

*Info courtesy Beyond Pesticides (www.beyondpesticides.org).

**Info courtesy National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.