Pesticides and You...Boulder, CO Terry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter, Sierra Club, Lawrence, KS...

Volume 21, Number 4 • Winter 2001

Pesticides and YouNews from Beyond Pesticides / National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)

Schools Give Pesticides a Failing Grade • Good Riddance to Roaches • HowPesticides and Chemicals Can Affect Children and Adults • Economic and

Ecological Costs of Weed Control • Alternative Weed Strategies

Letter from Washington

“If [children’s] schools make them sick, no measure of educationreform will improve their learning.”

—Senator Edward Kennedy at a press conference with BeyondPesticides and congressional supporters of the School Environ-ment Protection Act (SEPA), November 27, 2001.

The fight for children and a clean learning and living en-vironment is just beginning. The School Environment Pro-tection Act (SEPA) came up for a vote in the joint House-

Senate education conference committee on November 30, 2001and did not make it —by one vote. One vote. Although the com-mittee vote for the most part was along party lines, it is importantto note that one Republican Senator, Mike DeWine from Ohio,was willing to break ranks, and another Republican legislator, Rep-resentative Marge Roukema from New Jersey, abstained. The voteoverall in the committee was actually 20-18 in favor of SEPA(See story and vote count on page 6.), but because the Senate andHouse members vote separately as a block, the Republican major-ity against the bill on the House side of the committee stoppedSEPA. In conference committee, a majority of House members anda majority of Senate members have to support legislation in orderto move it back to their respective chambers for a final vote.

We have brought the issue of pesticides, children andschools to the front burner of American politics. And it is sim-mering. There is no question that there is broad support forthis legislation.

We are building a solid base for reform. We have now solidi-fied a base of support in Congress that is strong and growing.Some have been asking me why bother with Congress? Whilepeople and the groups we work with have had important successat the local and state level, all children deserve protection. De-spite the fact that many in pest management adhere to soundIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) principles, the practice is stillnot implemented in schools as widely as it should be. Schoolpest management plans, as required in SEPA, make this happen.

Of the 29 states that have adopted pesticide laws that have oneor more of the major provisions in SEPA (posting, notification andintegrated pest management), 15 states require written notifica-tion, either by universal notice or a registry, and 7 states requireschools to use IPM. Then there are other SEPA provisions, such asthe one that outlaws the practice of spraying pesticides while chil-dren are in the classroom or area being sprayed –a practice that ispermitted under EPA-approved pesticide labels, as the U.S. Gen-eral Accounting Office pointed out in its report, Pesticides: Use,Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools, November 1999.

Forging coalitions is a big part of our process for reform. Wehave developed a coalition with many in the pest managementindustry, led by the National Pest Management Association. Theyhave joined with organizations representing parents, teachers,and health professionals. We will continue this. On the otherhand, SEPA’s primary sponsor, Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ),

who originally brokered an agreement with the chemical in-dustry to support the bill through the legislative process, saidafter the vote that the only way to explain the defeat is “theinfluence of the chemical industry itself.”

The supporters of SEPA have vowed to find another legisla-tive vehicle to get the bill enacted into law. They are workingon it as you read this! To all those who have joined the effort onSEPA, THANKS! To all those planning to join, THANKS! Wecan and will win!

Beyond SEPA and its possibili-ties, this issue of PAY is testimonyto key activities that are going onto reduce pesticide use nationwide.The feature pieces in this issue onweed management show that alter-natives to pesticides are taking hold.

Best wishes for a healthy andhappy new year.

—Jay Feldman, executive directorof Beyond Pesticides

Education Committee Blocks Pesticide BillCongressional leaders vow to get it passed

Excerpts from Senator Kennedy’s statement, made at a No-vember 27, 2001 Press Conference in Washington, DC.

“In recent weeks, the nation has been gripped by thefear of biological and chemical attack. But, every day inschools across the nation, children are exposed to dan-gerous pesticides that can make them sick.

We know that in too many school districts across thecountry, untrained people are making critical decisionsday in and day out about the use of pesticides in schoolbuildings and on school grounds.

We know that children may be especially sensitive toeven low levels of dangerous substances. We need to takespecial precautions to protect the development of theirimmune systems and their nervous systems.

We know from sad and harsh experience the danger-ous consequences for children from exposure to lead inpaint. We shouldn’t have to learn these lessons again forthe exposure of children to dangerous pesticides.

We cannot allow schools to be chemical death traps forour children for our children. If their schools make them sick,no measure of education reform will improve their learning.

It is long past time for Congress to take this importantstep to protect schools and classrooms from the danger-ous use of pesticides.”

For Sen.Kennedy’s full statement, contact Beyond Pesti-cides or see www.beyondpesticides.org.

Senator Kennedy Speaks Out for SEPA

Contents

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of PesticidesVol. 21, No. 4, 2001 Pesticides and You Page 1

ContentsPesticides and You ©2001 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year byBeyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP),is a voice for pesticide safety and alterna-tives. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership organiza-tion; donations are tax-deductible.

National Headquarters:701 E Street, SE,Washington DC 20003ph: 202-543-5450 fx: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]: www.beyondpesticides.orgPrinted on recycled paper with soy ink

Articles in this newsletter may bereproduced without Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s permission unless otherwisenoted. Please credit Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for reproduced material.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorKagan Owens, Program DirectorToni Nunes, Special Projects DirectorJohn Kepner, Program AssociateTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Science ConsultantBecky Crouse, Public Education CoordinatorMeghan Taylor, Public Education Associate

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorKagan Owens, EditorMeghan Taylor, IllustratorFree Hand Press, Typesetting

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP BOARDOF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, Maryland PesticideNetwork, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas enCalifornia, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s HealthEnvironmental Coalition, Malibu, CAAlan Cohen, Bio-Logical PestManagement, Washington, DCLorna Donaldson-McMahon, Donaldson-McMahon Family Farm, Tiptonville, TNJay Feldman, NCAMP, Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving Earth World-wide, Plymouth, MNLani Lamming, Ecological Services,Alpine, WYNina Powers, Sarasota County PublicWorks, Sarasota, FLPaul Repetto, Horizon Organic DairyBoulder, COTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,Sierra Club, Lawrence, KSGregg Small, Washington ToxicsCoalition, Seattle, WAAllen Spalt, Agricultural ResourcesCenter, Carrboro, NCAudrey Thier, Environmental Advocates,Albany, NY

Affiliations shown for informational purposes only

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover on

Quest™, both 100% post-consumer waste and processed

chlorine free.

page 5

page 13

page 19

2 MailA Surplus of Spiders; Pesticides in Groundwa-ter; Cancer Occurring on Former Orchard Site

4 Washington, DCAgencies Ordered to Resist Freedom of Infor-mation Act Releases; EPA Removes ChemicalData from Website; Arsenic Limits Tightenedby EPA; Bush Backs Senate Conservation Farm-ing Plan; Genetically Engineered Bt CornApproved by EPA; Chemical Companies Vol-untarily Request Cancellation of Benomyl Fun-gicide; Restrictions Placed on Phosmet andAzinphos-Methyl; House Education Confer-ence Committee Kills SEPA

6 Around the CountryYou’re Tracking In More Than Dirt; TerrorismScares Temporarily Ground Crop Dusters; BugSpray and Mosquito Pesticide Make a DeadlyCombination; Study Finds Catnip Oil MoreEffective Mosquito Repellent Than DEET;Citizens Sue for Damages from State-Spon-sored Malathion Spraying; HerbicidesThreaten Recycling lndustry

9 Schools Give Pesticidesa Failing GradeBy Becky Crouse

10 Good Riddance to RoachesA guide to home cockroach managementBy Becky Crouse

11 How Pesticides and Chemicals CanAffect Children and AdultsA quick guide to identifying and treatingchemical sensitivityBy Doris Rapp, M.D.

13 Economic and Ecological Costs ofWeed ControlPutting lnvasive Species Management in Per-spective By David Pimentel, Ph.D.

Dead Weeds or Healthy Ecosystems: Settingand achieving goals the ecological wayBy Tim Seastedt, Ph.D.

17 Alternative Weed StrategiesBiological Control of Noxious Weeds: Usinginsects to manage invasive weedsBy Tim Seastedt, Ph.D.

Successfully Controlling Noxious Weeds withGoats: The natural choice that manages weedsand builds soil health By Lani Lamming

24 ResourcesHaving Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey toMotherhood

Original artwork in this issue byMeghan Taylor, copyright 2001.

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Vol. 21, No. 4, 2001Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

A Surplus of SpidersDear Beyond Pesticides,My husband and I have just bought ahouse in Anacortes, Washington. We arecurrently using it as a vacation housein preparation for moving there as ourpermanent residence next spring.We have noticed the house has a hugenumber of spiders of allvarieties. We are particu-larly concerned aboutthe spiders on thelower level, wherewe regularly findthem in the bed-rooms and guestbath. Additionally,we have a profu-sion of spiders allaround the exteriorof the house andgarage. I am solidly middle-aged andhave owned a number of houses, but I’venever seen anything like this. Do youhave any ideas?

Sara LongworthAnacortes, WA

Dear Ms. Longworth,There are certain spiders that you should bemore concerned about than others. The firstthing to do is to identify which kind is occu-pying your yard and home. If you are bittenand suspect it may be a poisonous spider, seekmedical attention. If you have them, bringthe remains of the killed spider for identifi-cation purposes. Two spiders that are morelikely to bite humans are the black widowand the brown recluse. Black widows tend tostay in dark protected corners and crevices.The brown recluse will hide in shoes andclothing. Shake out all clothing, and regu-larly clean and vacuum debris that accumu-lates indoors to get rid of these spiders. Inorder to kill either of these spiders, vacuumthem up, or use a tool to squash them. Fur-thermore, you should take steps as directedfor general spider control described below.

Most other spiders, while rather unnerv-ing to look at, actually provide quite a ben-efit to humans without doing us much harm.Their presence offers us natural insect con-

trol, as they feed on flies, fleas, cockroachesand other nuisances around the home. Ifthere is an over-abundance of these benefi-cial creatures and they become a nuisance,there are several non-toxic alternatives tochemical control that you can employ. First,reduce the spider’s food source; meaning youshould get rid of other insects within yourhome. Figure out how these other insects

might be getting inside andblock their entry points.

Repair all screens.Caulk all cracks andopenings in thestructure and blockthem with steel wool.Periodically vacuumyour carpeting aswell as any storage

areas. Also reduce themoisture within your

house, as spiders prefer damp ar-eas. Repair all roof and window leaks. Ad-equately ventilate damp areas such as base-ments and crawl spaces. Properly grade soilaround the home to drain water away fromthe structure.

There are some actions you can take tomanage spiders that are outside the home aswell. Try to remove or at least subdue out-door lighting. Light attracts flying insects,which in turn attract spiders. Keep away aspiders meal by keeping the curtains closedand using low wattage light bulbs outside.Move firewood and other clutter away fromthe foundation of the house. You should alsotrim all grass, weeds and shrub-bery against the house.

Least-toxic control of spi-ders includes methods used tocontrol the spider’s foodsource. Boric acid is effectiveagainst ant and cockroaches.Apply a 99% formulation tocracks and crevices, wallcavities, and dark corners.Use boric acid with care, andkeep it away from children andpets. Desiccating dust, such as diatoma-ceous earth or silica gel can be blown intovoids through small holes drilled into thewalls. Be sure to choose a dust that is notmixed with a pyrethrin. Use these prod-ucts with care as well, as they can cause

respiratory irritation if breathed in.Efforts to use chemical control directly

against spiders will most likely be futile. Be-cause of their long legs, the body of a spiderwill usually not even come in contact withan insecticide sprayed on a surface. Spidersare more adept at shutting down their res-piratory system than other insects, andthereby are much less susceptible to pesti-cide vapors and dusts. The most effectivemeans of controlling spiders is to decreasetheir food supply. For more information re-garding least-toxic control of spiders, pleasecontact Beyond Pesticides ($4 ppd).

Pesticides inGroundwaterDear Beyond Pesticides,I am contacting you in regards to an im-portant matter in Downeast, Maine.Groundwater tests have been conductedand showed the presence of the chemicalVelpar. I was wondering what informa-tion you could provide regarding the tox-icity and long term effects of Velpar. Is itappropriate and legal to apply this chemi-cal on sandy, well-drained soils? It is well-documented that Velpar leaches directlythrough sandy soil into ground water.Why does the label not acknowledge this?There is a possibility there will be a pub-lic information meeting for communityawareness on this topic. Please provideany feedback that you feel would help.

Dwayne Shawvia email

Dear Mr. Shaw,The active ingredient in Velparis hexazinone. This is a broadspectrum, systemic triazine her-bicide. EPA rated hexaz-inone tobe of moderate acute toxicity,

with symptoms including irrita-tion of the skin, eyes, nose and

throat. There is little data available concern-ing the long-term toxicological effects ofhexazinone, and its environmental fate. Ani-mal testing does bring up concerns. Lab ani-mals exposed to hexazinone at high doses de-veloped liver abnormalities. Exposed preg-

edited by Meghan Taylor

Vol. 21, No. 4, 2001 Pesticides and You Page 3Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

nant rabbits bore several pups with skeletalabnormalities (extra ribs) and delayed bonedevelopment. There is also worry regardinghealth effects of hexazinone since a chemicalcousin, atrazine, is carcinogenic. EPA regardshexazinone as “not classifiable” as a humancarcinogen, stating “animal data… is notentirely negative, but not convincingly posi-tive.” This uncertainty is a concern becausehumans can and are exposed to hexazinone.

While it is legal to use, you should still beconcerned about its health and environmen-tal effects. As you mentioned, this chemicalreadily leaches into groundwater, especiallyin sandy soils. It is extremely water solublewith a relatively long half-life. Accordingto an Alaska Railroad environmental as-sessment, hexazinone can persist in soilup to a year. It has also been found ingoat and cow milk.

EPA requires the label of productscontaining hexazinone to advise thatthe use of the product in permeablesoils “may result in ground water con-tamination.” Also concerning ground-water, EPA requires that registrantsof pesticides containing hexazinonereport any detection of this chemicalin domestic ground water and take spe-cific follow-up actions. A copy of the testsfrom the groundwater in your town shouldbe sent to both the manufacturer of Velparas well as to EPA.

A public informational meeting is an ex-cellent opportunity to educate the commu-nity regarding the toxic effects of pesticidesused in their neighborhood, as well as to iden-tify alternative practices. Try to find out whereVelpar is being applied, and for what pur-pose. See if the person or group applying thispesticide has explored alternative least-toxiccontrols for the pest they are trying to man-age. Contact Beyond Pesticides for further in-formation regarding hexazinone, or for in-formation about organizing for pesticide re-form in your community.

Cancer Occurring onFormer Orchard SiteDear Beyond Pesticides,My daughter lives in a neighborhood de-veloped on land that was formerly used

to grow cotton and peach trees. It is ap-proximately five years old and in the lastyears five people have come down withtumors or some sort of cancer. How canwe investigate whether or not there isresidue from the pesticides or somethingelse that is causing this? We live northof Atlanta, Georgia. I would appreciateany information you can give to us.Thank you.

Linda HowardAlpharetta, Georgia

Dear Ms. Howard,Unfortunately cotton orchards are some ofthe highest pesticide-use sites in agricul-ture. Many of the pesticides that have beenused in the past are currently banned, buthave left residues in the soil and ground-water. Possible pesticides that may be caus-ing problems in your daughter’s neighbor-hood include arsenic and chlorinated hy-drocarbons such as DDT and chlordane.The latter two chemicals are both classi-fied by EPA as probable human carcino-gens, and both are persistent in soil.

There are many studies that show the linkbetween cancer and various types of pesti-cides. One study in particular, published inCancer Research in May 1992, looked atfarmers in Minnesota and Iowa. Their find-ings pointed to “an elevated risk for non-Hodgkins lymphoma among farmers,” and“strongly suggested a relationship with cer-

Write Us!Whether you love us, hate us or

just want to speak your mind, we

want to hear from you. All mail

must have a day time phone and

verifiable address. Space is limited

so some mail may not be printed.

Mail that is printed will be edited

for length and clarity. Please ad-

dress your mail to:

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP

701 E Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

fax: 202-543-4791

email: [email protected]

www.beyondpesticides.org

tain pesticides exposures.” Aaron Blair et al.conducted a study entitled “Clues to canceretiology from studies of farmers” and foundthat “significant excesses occurred forHodgkin’s disease, multiple myeloma, leu-kemia, …and cancers of the lip, stomach,and prostate” among farmers. Anotherstudy, this one from the University of Cali-fornia Los Angeles, determined that pesti-cide exposure might increase a child’s riskof developing cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

To figure out exactly what residual chemi-cals are left, have the site tested. Tests

should be conducted to detect contami-nation levels in soil, air as well as wa-

ter. Residents can go a step further bytaking diagnostic medical tests.These can include residues in bloodand urine, nerve conduction timingtests, biochemical screens, and rou-tine liver profiles. If there is a can-cer cluster, it may be possible for EPAto conduct the testing. I recommendthat you contact EPA and the Geor-gia Department of Health and ex-plain the cluster situation, as well asthe history of the land use before theneighborhood development. A toxi-

cologist may also be able to provideyou with assistance. For more informa-

tion, please contact Beyond Pesticides.

Washington, DC


Agencies Orderedto Resist Freedom oflnformation ActReleasesExtraordinary times call for more gov-ernmental secrets, at least according toAttorney General John Ashcroft. In amemorandum dated October 12, 2001,Mr. Ashcroft issued a new statement ofpolicy encouraging federal agencies toresist Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)requests whenever they have legalgrounds to do so. This statement rejectsthe standard of “foreseeable harm” set byAttorney General Janet Reno in a 1993memorandum, which promoted disclo-sure of government information throughthe FOIA unless it was “reasonably fore-seeable that disclosure would be harm-ful.” Mr. Ashcroft, instead, is encourag-ing government agencies to withholdinformation whenever there is a “soundlegal basis” to do so. The Attorney Gen-eral advised, “When you carefully con-sider FOIA requests and decide to with-hold the records, in whole or in part, youcan be assured that the Department ofJustice will defend your decisions unlessthey lack a sound legal basis...” Amongother things, the new Ashcroft FOIAMemorandum cites national security, lawenforcement effectiveness, and businessconfidentiality as reasons for the issuance.The Attorney General’s FOIA policy state-ment is available atwww.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost 2001foiapost19.htm. Janet Reno’s1993 FOIA memorandum is available atwww.fas.org/sgp/clinton/reno.html. For moreinformation, contact Beyond Pesticides.

EPA RemovesChemical Datafrom WebsiteCiting risks to national security, the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA),along with several other governmentagencies, including the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) and the Depart-ment of Transportation, have removed“sensitive documents” from their

websites in response to the Septem-ber 11th terrorist attacks. Among thedismantled websites is EPA’s RiskManagement Program site, whichwas used to inform communities ofthe dangers posed by 15,000 chemi-cal plants and other industrial facili-ties nationwide. EPA emergency co-ordinator Jim Makris explained to thepress that he personally made the deci-sion to remove information about risk-management plans submitted by indus-trial facilities, as required by federal law.“This has received so much publicity thatwe decided to take [the information]down,” Mr. Makris told the WashingtonPost. “We’re trying to decide whether itwas the proper thing to do.” Many envi-ronmentalists and community activists,who fought hard battles for the public’sright-to-know, disagree with thegovernment’s decision and have chas-tised industry for using anti-terrorism asan excuse to avoid discussion of its short-comings. “We should be pushing forimprovements in site security, not figur-ing out how to hide information,” saidFred Millar, toxics consultant and formertoxics director of Friends of the Earth.“Keeping the public in the dark is a pre-scription for anxiety.” Beyond Pesticideshas said that if the chemicals are a threat,they should be eliminated or restricted,especially when viable alternatives exist.

Arsenic LimitsTightened by EPA

In an attempt to heal an agency black eye,on October 31, 2001, the Bush Adminis-tration announced that it would reinstatea Clinton Administration plan to reducethe amount of arsenic allowed in drink-ing water from 50 parts per billion (ppb)to 10 ppb. EPA Administrator ChristieTodd Whitman was sharply criticized forsuspending the regulation last March and,under pressure, called for a NationalAcademies of Sciences (NAS) study toreview the issue. In particular, Ms.Whitman requested an evaluation of thecancer risk posed by daily consumptionof water with specific arsenic levels. The

NAS study found that men and womenwho daily consume water containing even10 ppb of arsenic have a greater than 3 in1,000 increased risk of developing blad-der or lung cancer during their lifetime.At 20 ppb, it is close to 7 in 1,000. “I saidin April that we would obtain the neces-sary scientific and cost review to ensure astandard that fully protects the health ofAmericans,” said Ms. Whitman. “We didthat, and we are reassured by all of thedata that significant reductions are nec-essary. As required by the Safe DrinkingWater Act, a standard of 10 ppb protectspublic health based on the best availablescience and ensures that the cost of thestandard is achievable.” The new standardmust be met by 2006. Arsenic, a knownhuman carcinogen and endocrinedisruptor, is found as an ingredient in pig-ments and wood preservatives. The fulltext of Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001Update is available for free on the NASwebsite at www.nap.edu/catalog 10194.html?onpi_newsdoc91201. Printed copiesare available for purchase from the NationalAcademy Press by calling 1-800-624-6242.

Bush Backs SenateConservationFarming PlanOn October 17, 2001, the Bush Admin-istration endorsed the Conservation Se-curity Act, a plan by Senator RichardLugar (R-IN), the ranking minoritymember on the Senate Agriculture Com-mittee, that would double federal spend-ing on conservation farming. Environ-mentalists believe a shift toward larger


by John Kepner

conservation spending will help farmersimprove drinking water quality, protectopen space and enhance wildlife habi-tat, while boosting farm income for themajority of family farmers, whose cur-rent subsidies pale in comparison to largecorporate agriculture. According to ananalysis by the Environmental WorkingGroup, the Senate plan will make For-tune 500 corporations like Chevron,Caterpillar, Dupont and InternationalPaper ineligible for federal farm subsi-dies, and will preferentially supportsmall to medium size farm operations.The proposal also reverses currentpractices that funnel two-thirds offederal subsidies to 10 percentof the very largest operationsproducing grains, rice, soybeansand cotton. At the same time, thebill increases investment in con-servation programs like the Con-servation Reserve, EnvironmentalQuality Incentive Program, andWetlands Reserve, and gives pref-erence for conservation bonus pay-ments to farmers and ranchers whohave been good stewards in thepast. Current conventional farmingpractices cause environmental con-tamination due to the use of pesti-cides as well as a devastating loss ofprecious topsoil. The U.S. House ofRepresentatives earlier rejected a simi-lar measure in the Farm Bill in a close226 to 200 vote.

GeneticallyEngineered Bt CornApproved by EPAEPA is putting corporate profits beforepeople and the planet. On October 16,2001, the agency gave the OK to the con-troversial genetically engineered corn thatproduces the biological pesticide Bacillusthuringiensis (Bt) within its cells, allow-ing its use for the next seven years. EPAclaims the corn is safe, but environmen-talists are skeptical. “The use of geneti-cally altered Bt crops raises serious safetyconcerns for agriculture in at least threekey areas: gene flow to wild relatives; risks

of insect resistance; and risks to non-tar-get species,” Beyond Pesticides said in apublic comment to EPA. “Until thesequestions are answered, EPA is allowing,contrary to law, the release of a technol-ogy that may have serious ramificationson agricultural production down theroad.” Larry Bohlen, Director of Healthand Environment Programs for Friendsof the Earth said that EPA has had the

ability to design and conduct allergy test-ing for several years, yet has turned a“blind-eye” on the issue. According to Ge-netically Engineered Food Alert, a coali-tion of grassroots environmental groupsbased in Washington, DC, EPA has notcollected or evaluated current health orecological data on Bt crops, and EPA’s ownscience advisors recently reviewed twostudies on Bt crops that suggest that all Btcrops may be allergenic. Organic farmers,who rely on Bt as a means of controllingpests in its traditional spray form, are con-cerned that the overuse of Bt, which isinevitable when Bt is genetically engi-neered into every cell of a plant, will leadto insect resistance and leave many farm-ers without an important tool of organicagriculture. Currently, the companies

holding registrations for Bt corn areMonsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer/DuPont andMycogen/Dow. For more information ongenetic engineering and its link to pesticideuse, or for information on organic agricul-ture, contact Beyond Pesticides.

Chemical CompaniesVoluntarily RequestCancellation ofBenomyl FungicideIn a move to thwart future lawsuits, chemi-cal companies holding registrations for

benomyl voluntarily canceled all usesregistered by EPA of the once popu-

lar fungicide, which is used prima-rily on fruits and vegetables.DuPont, the technical registrant,made the initial request last Aprilafter citing the high costs of defend-ing itself in court. Over the pastyear, DuPont paid more to coverlegal fees than it gained in sales;while litigation fees cost $1.3 bil-lion, sales of the chemical onlyamounted to $96 million. Benomylhas been tied to chronic birth de-fects and cancer, and it is listed as

an endocrine disruptor. Plaintiffswho have sued DuPont include par-

ents whose children were born with-out eyes or with abnormally small eyes af-ter prenatal exposure to a formulation ofbenomyl. This chemical is also toxic to fish,although EPA had placed it in a categoryof low acute toxicity. Additionally,benomyl, the active ingredient in Benlate,has been linked to crop damage in 23 states.The Florida Department of Agriculturefound it was conclusively linked to “sig-nificant to substantial” crop damage, in-cluding stunted, distorted leaf growth andinterference with root growth. All regis-trants, including the American MushroomInstitute, Amvac Chemical Corporation,Pursell Industries, Inc., Scotts Company,Value Garden Supply LLC and VoluntaryPurchasing Groups, Inc., have requestedcancellation of all registered benomyl prod-ucts. For more information on benomyl andits alternatives contact Beyond Pesticides.

Washington, DC


Restrictions Placedon Phosmet andAzinphos-MethylCiting dangers to farmworkers, EPA an-nounced new restrictions on the useof two agricultural organophosphateinsecticides, azinphos-methyl andphosmet, yet allows manyuses to continue. Althoughpleased that progress is be-ing made, environmental-ists are cautious to ap-plaud any agreement thatdoes not completely banall uses of a dangerousproduct and allowsfor use during alengthy phase-outperiod. Similar dealsare often struck withpesticide manufac-turers, such as EPA’sagreement to phase-out the organophos-phate pesticides chlorpyrifos (retail salesare required to stop December 31, 2001)and diazinon. For azinphos-methyl, 28crop uses are being canceled, seven cropuses are being phased-out over fouryears, and eight crop uses will be allowedto continue “time-limited” registrationfor another four years. For phosmet,three uses are being voluntarily can-celed, nine crops are being authorizedfor use under specific terms for fiveyears, and 33 crops are being approvedfor continued use.

EPA claims it is enhancing protectionof agricultural workers during thephase-out and time-limited registrationperiods, through a variety of new pre-cautions being implemented to reduceexposure, including longer periods be-fore a worker can enter a treated area,significantly limiting the number of ap-plications, and prohibiting aerial appli-cation for almost all uses. Take Action:Now that EPA has completed risk assess-ments for these pesticides, the InterimReregistration Eligibility Documents(IREDs) for both azinphos-methyl andphosmet are now being issued.

On November 30, 2001, thepeople narrowly lost a votein the Education Conference

Committee to include the School En-vironment Protection Act (SEPA) in theEducation Bill. Beyond Pesticideswould like to thank all those whocontributed to moving this bill towithin a single vote of passage andwould like you to know that we arenot giving up the fight on behalf ofchildren and teachers nationwide.Note that we actually won the voteby 20 to 18, but conference votes aretaken by Senate and House membersseparately, allowing one side to vetothe other. We won the Senate sidevote 14 to 11 and lost the House sidevote 7 to 6, with one abstention.

Thanks are due to SenatorTorricelli (D-NJ) and Representa-tives Rush Holt (D-NJ) and RobAndrews (D-NJ) for their hard workand dedication to SEPA. SenatorKennedy, who chairs the Educationand Labor Committee, has alsostepped up and become a real cham-pion of SEPA. Mr. Kennedy said overand over on November 30, and at apress conference earlier that weekthat SEPA will not go away and willbe attached to other legislation at ev-ery opportunity. Thanks to all of youfor your support through the processof developing this legislation and forthose of you who worked so hard togenerate support of the legislation.We could not have gotten as far aswe did without you! If you havemore energy, we would love to con-tinue to work with you when SEPAis attached to its next vehicle.

Senators Voting Yes (14):Kennedy (D-MA), Dodd (D-CT),Harkin (D-IA), Mikulski (D-MD),Jeffords (I-VT), Bingaman (D-NM),Wellstone (D-MN), Murray (D-WA),

Reed (D-RI), Edwards (D-NC),Clinton (D-NY), Lieberman (D-CT),Bayh (D-IN), DeWine (R-OH)

Senators Voting No (11):Gregg (R-NH), Frist (R-TN), Enzi (R-WY), Hutchinson (R-AR), Warner (R-VA), Bond (R-MO), Roberts (R-KS),Collins (R-ME), Sessions (R-AL),Allard (R-CO), Ensign (R-NV)

Reps Voting Yes (6):Miller (D-7th CA), Kildee (D-9th MI),Owens (D-11th NY), Mink (D-2nd HI),Andrews (D-1st NJ), Roemer (D-3rd IN)

Reps Voting No (7):Boehner (R-8th OH), Petri (R-6th WI),McKeon (R-25th CA), Castle (R-Atlarge DE), Graham (R-3rd SC), Hilleary(R-4th TN), Isakson (R-6th GA)

Rep Abstention:Roukema (R-5th NJ)

Sample “Thank You” and “Disappoint-ment” letters to send members of theconference committee, are availableon the Schools alert page at www.beyondpesticides.org, or contact BeyondPesticides.

House Education ConferenceCommittee Blocks SEPA


by John Kepner

You’re Tracking InMore Than DirtDon’t forget to wipe your feet! A newstudy published in the November is-sue of Environmental Health Perspec-tives (Vol. 109, No. 11) finds that 2,4-D, one of the most commonly usedlawn herbicides in the country, is eas-ily tracked indoors contaminating theair and surfaces inside homes, schoolsand other buildings. The study findsthat children are exposed to the herbi-cide at ten times the preapplicationlevel. Distribution of 2,4-D in Air andon Surfaces Inside Residences after LawnApplications: Comparing Exposure Esti-mates from Various Media for YoungChildren finds that a homeowner ap-plicator and an active dog are the great-est contributing factors to tracking theherbicide into homes. 2,4-D has beenlinked to elevated rates of cancer instudies of exposed farmers and dogs.2,4-D is irritating to the eyes, skin andmucous membrane and, since it is eas-ily absorbed dermally or by inhalation,can injure liver, kidney, muscle andbrain tissues. Acute symptoms of ex-posure include chest and abdominalpain, vomiting, dizziness and muscletwitching, tenderness or stiffness. Formore information on 2,4-D or its alter-natives, contact Beyond Pesticides.

Terrorism ScaresTemporarily GroundCrop Dusters

In the aftermath of the September 11thterrorist attacks, the federal governmentgrounded crop dusters for a nine-day pe-riod on September 16, 2001, and indefi-nitely stopped all crop dusting near ma-jor cities. This action was taken after in-vestigators found that one of the suicidehijackers had previously inquired aboutpurchasing a crop duster, which the gov-ernment warns could be used in a chemi-cal or biological at-tack. Accord-ing to the As-sociated Press,Will Lee, gen-eral manager ofSouth FloridaCrop Care in BelleGlade, reported thatgroups of men came by almost everyweekend for six or eight weeks before theSeptember 11th terrorist attacks, includ-ing the weekend just before the assaults.They asked how many gallons of chemi-cals and fuel the planes could hold, theirspeed, and if they are difficult to fly. JamesLester, an employee of South Florida CropCare, identified the group’s leader asMohamed Atta, the same person the FBI

believes hijacked and flew one of theplanes that hit the World Trade Center.The nation’s 4,000 cropdusters, many ofwhich are used to combat mosquitoes, canhold 300 to 800 gallons of chemicals. Mr.Lester, who loads crop dusters for a liv-ing, describes the mix of pesticides andfuel as a “bomb ready to explode.” Manyreports of unlocked, fully loaded cropdusters have raised additional concernsamong residents living near thesegrounded airplanes. Some communitiesalso had a temporary ban on pesticidespray tracks.

Bug Spray andMosquito PesticideMake a DeadlyCombination

As if they weren’t bad enough on theirown, a Duke University study, publishedin the June 22, 2001 Journal of Toxicol-ogy and Environmental Health (Vol. 63,No. 4), shows that combined exposureto DEET, the active ingredient in mostinsect repellants, and the synthetic pyre-throid insecticide permethrin, the activeingredient in mosquito sprays and manyhousehold pesticide products, causeeven more damage when used in com-bination. According to the study, thecombination of DEET and permethrin

i n d u c e dapoptosis, orcell death, inl a b o r a t o r yrats. Environ-mentalists andmembers of themedical com-munity are es-

pecially concernedbecause many areas fighting West Nilevirus, including the state of Maryland,are using this very combination ofchemicals in their mosquito preventionprograms. While community govern-ments are fogging their streets withpermethrin, they are also advising thatcitizens wear DEET to protect them-selves from mosquito bites. Dr.

Around the Country by John Kepner

Around the Country by John Kepner


Mohammed Abou-Donia, a Duke Uni-versity pharmacologist and co-author ofthe study, warns that DEET should notbe mixed with any chemicals, includ-ing medications. Rather than usingrepellents containing DEET, Beyond Pes-ticides recommends products containinggeraniol (MosquitoSafe), citronella(Natrapel), or a combination of soybean,geranium and coconut oils (Bite Blocker).A new study (see below) finds catnip oil tobe an effective mosquito repellant. These aresafer, effective mosquito repellants, but mayneed to be reapplied throughout the day.

Study Finds CatnipOil More EffectiveMosquito RepellentThan DEETThat’s right, the same stuff that getsyour cat rolling around the living roomcan also serve as a great mosquito re-pellant. Researchers from Iowa StateUniversity and the U.S. Forest Serviceannounced at the 222nd NationalMeeting of the American Chemical So-ciety that nepetalactone, the essentialoil in catnip, can be used as a very ef-fective mosquito repellent. The authorsof the study, which is awaiting publi-cation, discovered that it takes only onetenth as much catnip oil to have thesame repellency as DEET, the active in-gredient in most over-the-counter in-sect repellants. “In other words,nepetalactone is about 10 times moreeffective than DEET,” explains ChrisPeterson, one of the study’s lead re-searchers. “Most commercial insect re-pellents contain about 5 to 25 percentDEET. Presumably, much less catnip oilwould be needed to achieve the samerepellency as a DEET-based repellent.”Why catnip repels mosquitoes remainsa mystery. The researchers believe it isprobably an irritant. DEET, or N,N-di-ethyl-m-toluamide, has been associatedwith dermal reactions, weakness, dis-orientation, loss of coordination, sei-zures, coma, and in three cases resultedin death.

Citizens Sue forDamages fromState-SponsoredMalathion SprayingIn July 2001, a federal class action law-suit was filed on behalf of Tennessee resi-dents who have been harmed by expo-sure to the organophosphate pesticidemalathion, sprayed as part of the state’sboll weevil eradication program. Accord-ing to the Jackson Sun, attorney HoustonGordon, who maintains that the sprayprogram violates the civil and constitu-tional rights of residents by subjectingthem to the pesticide, filed the lawsuit inU.S. District Court in Memphis, Tennes-see. The lawsuit names over 40 defendantsincluding state Agriculture CommissionerDan Wheeler, state ad-ministrator Boyd Barkerand the SoutheasternBoll Weevil Eradica-tion Foundation. Ac-cording to the law-suit, as a result of thespraying, plaintiffsexperienced irritationand injury to theireyes, ears, head,lungs, blood, skin,swelling of tissues,suppression of im-mune systems, loss ofenjoyment of life, phar-maceutical costs, and ag-gravation of preexistentmedical conditions, as well as pain, suf-fering, discomfort, fear, anxiety, propertydamage and displacement. The suit alsostates that the pesticide label instructionswere not followed during application.Under federal law, pesticides may only beapplied in a manner consistent with thelabel. The plaintiffs are asking for com-pensatory and punitive damages as deter-mined by the jury. Take Action: Write toTennessee State Agriculture CommissionerDan Wheeler, Ellington Agricultural Cen-ter, P.O. Box 40627, Nashville, TN 37204,requesting that pesticide spraying be stoppedand alternative practices adopted.

Herbicides ThreatenRecycling lndustry

Dow Chemical Company CEO, MichaelParker, is the target of an e-mail cam-paign demanding that Dow’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Dow Agro Sciences,take Confront and other persistent,clopyralid-containing herbicides off themarket until DOW can demonstratetheir safety to both backyard and cen-tralized compost ing processes. Theweb-based campaign has been launchedby the Athens, GA-based GrassRootsRecycling Network (GRRN). “Confrontis totally contradictory to all of our goalsfor recycling, resource conservation andsustainability,” said GRRN presidentAnne Morse. “Dow’s proposal that the

solution lies in educatingcomposters and making

composters pay forexpensive laboratorytesting is completelyunacceptable. Dowmust follow the Pre-cautionary Principleand withdraw Con-front immediatelyuntil it can beproven safe for or-ganics recycling.And Dow must takefull financial respon-sibility for damage

caused by its prod-ucts.” Losses in Washing-

ton State, particularly in theSpokane and Pullman area, due to un-marketable compost, are significant, ac-cording to state and industry officials.Recently, a class of extremely persistentherbicide products in turf and agricul-tural applications, of which clopyralidis a member, has been detected in fin-ished compost in Washington State,Pennsylvania and New Zealand.Clopyralid is an eye and skin irritant,and is slightly toxic to mammals, fishand aquatic organisms. For informationon the campaign, contact GRRN at 706-613-7121 or [email protected].


Every time you turn your head, another school hasadopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and/orright-to-know policy. What’s going on? Could it be that

schools today are finally recognizing that children are not littleadults and have much greater risk from pesticide exposure? Couldit be that they finally see the need to cut pesticide use and pro-tect their students, staff and the environment? Holy cow!

Now an ideal school pest management policy would include:1) restricted spray (buffer) zones to address drift issues, 2) signposting for indoor and outdoor pesticide applications, 3) priorwritten notification for pesticide use, 4) guidelines for whenand where pesticides can – and can’t — be applied, and 5) therequirement that the school adopt an IPM program. But idealsare hard to come by. Most policies don’t include every compo-nent when they are first adopted, but most do improve withtime and as the policy proves itself effective.

Honestly though, is this movement towards less-toxic pestmanagement really that much of a miracle? The fact that thesepolicies are lighter on the pocketbook and more effective thanconventional pest management policies is obvious — justlook at the number of new policies that have been adoptedthis school year alone! Here are some examples of recentlyadopted pest management policies from around the country.None of them are completely comprehensive, but they allcontain a right-to-know provision — an invaluable tool forparents, an important first step for the communities involvedand a positive step in the growing movement of school IPM.

Hopkins School District 270, Hopkins, MN■ Defines IPM as a pest control approach that empha-

sizes using a balanced combination of tactics to reducepests to a tolerable level, while using pesticides andherbicides as a last resort;

■ Defines what pesticides may be used and mandates thatthey can only be applied by certified applicators when thebuilding will be clear of students for at least 48 hours;

■ Provides notification of outdoor pesticide use with signsat the application site, and 48-hour pre-notification ofindoor pesticide use via signs posted at the site; and,

■ Requires that records of pesticides and herbicides used bekept for the purpose of public review.

Larkspur School District, Larkspur, CA■ Defines IPM, calling for the use of chemical controls as a

last resort;

■ Lists criteria for which pesticides are deemed unaccept-able for the approved product list;

■ Designates a staff person to coordinate the IPM program

Schools Give Pesticides a Failing GradeBy Becky Crouse

and establish an IPM committee, consisting of the Super-intendent, the District IPM Coordinator, one parent ofenrolled student(s), and one community and/or organi-zation representative (to provide guidance, education andadvice regarding IPM policy and procedures);

■ Requires annual written notification addressing expected useof pesticide products not on the approved use product list;

■ Provides for a registry for any individuals who wish to re-ceive notification of planned pesticide applications at theschool site. Notification will occur at least 72 hours beforethe application, exempting approved use products; and,

■ Requires posting of warning signs at the pesticide appli-cation site at least 72 hours before the application anduntil at least 72 hours after the application, exemptingapproved use products.

Five Town Community School District,Camden, ME■ Uses IPM procedures to determine when to control pests

and with what methods, utilizing least-toxic pesticidesonly as a last resort;

■ Requires that all staff and students be notified of upcom-ing pesticide applications through postings in designatedareas at the school and notices sent home to parents;

■ Mandates that pesticide use records be maintained onsite; and,

■ Requires anyone applying pesticides in schools to be li-censed as a commercial applicator through the Board ofPesticide Control.

Beyond Pesticides can equip you with the organizing toolsnecessary to help your school district improve its pest man-agement policy. Contact us for copies of our Survey of Pest Man-agement Practices at Schools and Daycare Facilities; ExpellingPesticides From Schools, a comprehensive book of informationabout school IPM, or a model school pest management policy,or visit our website, www.beyondpesticides.org.

lllllntegrated Pest Managementntegrated Pest Managementntegrated Pest Managementntegrated Pest Managementntegrated Pest Management

1. Eliminates or mitigates economic and health damage causedby pests;

2. Minimizes the use of pesticides and the associated risks tohuman health and the environment; and,

3. Uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections, monitoringof pest populations, an evaluation of the need for pest con-trol, one or more non-chemical pest control methods and, ifnontoxic options have been exhausted, least-toxic pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of PesticidesPage 10 Pesticides and You Vol. 21, No. 4, 2001

Roaches commonly radiate out from areas providing asteady food source, such as kitchens, pantries, restau-rants, cafeterias, and garbage collection or disposal ar-

eas. They can travel up elevator shafts and drains, throughheating and air vents, in tiny cracks and crevices in walls andabove false ceilings. In warm weather, they migrate betweenstructures along the outsides of buildings and from dumpstersto nearby living units.

Roaches generally prefer carbohydrates to protein and fat.When hungry, they will eat almost anything containing car-bohydrates, such as starch-based paints, wallpaper paste, en-velope glue and bar soaps. Infestations often begin when eggcases are introduced in shipped materials, groceries, bever-age cases, or used appliances, rugs and furniture.

HabitatThe Australian roach is more vegetarian than other speciesand common in greenhouses. The American roach enjoysmoisture—it is common on ships, and in basements and sew-ers. The smokybrown roach also can be found in sewers, butprimarily lives outdoors. Oriental roaches are moisture lov-ers, while brownbanded roaches prefer warm, dry environ-ments, such as closet shelves and the upper stories of houses.

German roaches have the widest distribution of all domesticroaches, are often found in dead leaves and garbage piles, readilyinvade cartons, sacks and containers, and will enter empty oropen bottles. They invade the indoors from outdoor habitats inthe summer, and are usually found in basements and on firstfloors, having a preference for the warm area around furnacesand heating ducts. This is the most common roach found infood preparation areas, where the combination of food, mois-ture and warm temperatures mimic their native East Africa.

German roaches prefer squeezing into small cracks wheretheir backs and undersides make contact with other surfaces.They are often found backed into cracks with their antennaeand heads sticking out, picking up chemical signals from theair, which their behavior is more dependent upon than visionor sound. They become active 20 minutes to two hours beforedark, and will only be active during daylight when popula-tions are very high.

PreventionStructural

■ Caulk, weather-strip, and repair any holes larger than 1/16”around water pipes, baseboards, electrical fixtures, outlets,switches, doors and windows.

■ Screen over windows, vents, floor and sink drains, and ducts.

Good Riddance to RoachesA guide to home cockroach management

By Becky Crouse

■ Keep trash, leaf piles and woodpiles away from the building.

■ Fix leaky faucets and drains.

■ Insulate pipes to prevent condensation.

Cultural

■ Eliminate newspapers, magazines and paper bags.

■ Inspect all food brought into the building.

■ Store food in tightly sealed containers or in the refrigera-tor and put pet food away overnight.

■ Clean all spills immediately, wipe all counters and tablesafter use, and keep the stove grease and food free.

■ Rinse food and drink containers before disposal, emptytrash and recycling frequently, use trash cans with tight-fitting lids and avoid placing them under sinks.

■ Avoid soaking dishes overnight, place sponges and dishragsin an airtight container, and avoid overwatering plants.

Monitor■ Once a month, place two sticky traps per room where

roaches tend to travel (where floor meets wall orcountertop, inside cupboards, under sink, behind appli-ances) and leave them for 24 hours.

Control■ Boric acid is the most effective direct control method.

Apply boric acid (a 99% formulation) to cracks and crev-ices where roaches hide – inside and behind cabinets andappliances, wall cavities, under the sink, etc… Roachesare killed in three to ten days.

■ Dessicating dust, such as diatomaceous earth or silica gelcan be blown into voids through small holes drilled intothe walls. Be sure to choose a dust that is not mixed withpyrethrins. Dusts placed in wall voids or cracks and sealedcan be effective for many years if they are kept dry.

■ As with any pesticide, keep these products out of reach ofchildren and only use them in locations where it will notcome in contact with people or animals. Use these prod-ucts with care, as they can cause respiratory irritation ifinhaled, and always wear a dust mask and goggles and coverany electronic equipment that could suffer dust damage.

For more information, contact Beyond Pesticides.


What can cause achemical sensitivity?

W hen I approach achemical sensitivityproblem I ask, is it due

to something inside, outside, afood or a chemical. If you seesomebody that suddenly doesnot feel well, they cannot write,

they cannot draw, and they cannot behave correctly, you havegot to ask what did they eat, touch or smell. If it is some-thing they ate or something in the room, it may take up toan hour for a reaction to become apparent. If it is an odor, itmay take seconds before you feel sick, you just walk by itand you can be sick immediately.

You can spot problems by using a peak flow meter. If youare blowing 400 liters per minute (L/min) (4 minutes) be-fore you come into this room and then fifteen minutes to anhour later you blow 300 L/min, there is something in thisroom affecting your lungs. If your pulse changes, your cir-culation is off. If your brain has been altered, you would notbe able to think clearly. So you keep asking, is it inside yourhome, school or work area. Is it outside? Is it a food or achemical in or on a food? Or is it chemical exposure or pol-lution? What was different just before you had the change.Did you move, did your furnace break down, did you changeyour diet, did you have someone come to apply pesticidesto your house, did you have an infection, or was there stress.There is a reason why you suddenly get sick. You can figureout the reason if you just spend the time thinking about it.

Who has chemical problems?People who smell chemicals before anyone else frequentlyare chemically sensitive. Anybody can have a toxic reac-tion to a chemical. Chemical sensitivity means that a minuteamount of something makes you very, very ill. Any area ofyour body can be affected. Chemical exposure can causefatigue, dizziness, weakness, irritability, depression, head-aches, nasal problems, hoarse voice, muscle aches, burn-

A Quick Guide To ldentifying andTreating Chemical SensitivityBy Doris Rapp, M.D.

ing muscles, burning mouth, burning eyes, one infectionafter another, moodiness, crying, irregular heartbeat,memory losses, joint pain, spasms, ticks, panic reactions,cystitis, and intestinal problems.

We have to start figuring out what is making people sick.We have to find fast, easy, inexpensive, effective and safeways of turning it around. Solutions are available, but theseare not known and many of them need more scientificevaluation. In our world, if you do not have a double blindstudy, no one is going to believe you. Well I say that if Ican make you sick, produce your symptoms, and theneliminate them in eight minutes, I do not care if I do nothave a double blind study. I would feel better if we hadone. But, if I have to have one, you might not be able towait until we get the funding.

Clues to chemical sensitivityThere are several clues to knowing if you have chemicalsensitivity. For example, you can smell odors before any-one else, you know the odors are making you ill, you getsleepy or ill in cars, buses or planes or you either crave ordetest odors. Usually, the things that you crave or detestare frequently the things that bother you. You can be ex-posed to chemicals on a daily basis at a low level and de-velop symptoms gradually. Or you can have a massive ex-posure and become ill right away and stay ill forever, orgradually get better. One of the worst things about chemi-cal sensitivity is the spreading phenomenon. At first oneexposure makes you sick. From then on, any chemical thatis in tiny amounts will cause the same illness.

■ hold breath

■ mouth breathe

■ leave odor area

■ use charcoal mask

■ oxygen 4L/min, 10” from face 3-5Xday

■ take bicarbonate (baking soda)

Chemical Odor Problem

PESTlClDES AND CHEMlCALS AFFECT CHlLDREN AND ADULTS

This article is from a transcript of Dr. Rapp’s presentation to theNineteenth National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Ecosystems,Healthy Children, Boulder, Colorado, May 18-20, 2001.


Typical characteristics of chemical sensitivity include redearlobes, red checks, glassy eyes, wiggly legs, abnormally rednose tip, modeled tongue, rash around mouth, rapid speech,pail faces, tics, and muscle spasms.

lmmediate actionIf there is a chemical odor problem hold your breath then runout of the area. If you have to breathe, hold your nose and breathethrough your mouth, because your nose is a direct line to yourbrain. Use a charcoal mask. Use a personal air purifier if you arenot sensitive to ozone. Take baking soda if you become alkaline.

I have too many families calling me everyday because theydo not know where to go, where it is safe, how to get foodwhen they cannot afford organic food, or how to get a waterpurifier when they cannot afford it.

There are plenty of people who finally find the answers towhy they are sick, but cannot afford to change it.

PESTlClDES AND CHEMlCALS AFFECT CHlLDREN AND ADULTS

There is no doubt that children in schools where pesti-cides have been applied have brain changes. We have to be-come more active and complain about it. We have to marchon Washington and say enough already; you cannot keep pol-luting our air, our food, our water, our homes, our schools,our workplaces, and our clothing. The human body cannottake it. We cannot tolerate it anymore.

How do we treat chemical sensitivities?Drink pure water, get a water purifier, do not drink out ofplastic bottles, and drink it out of glass. Eat organic foods,wear natural cotton and silk. My book, Is This Your Child,talks about what tests to order, where to order them, to findout what chemicals are in your blood so you can documentit. My book also tells you how to document it legally so thatyou can win a case. Then you have to correct your nutritionand detoxify. You have to get those chemicals out of the fat,circulation, gut, perspiration, and urine.

The Big Five

1. Appearance2. Act/Behave/Feel3. Pulse up 20 points4. Breathing down 15%5. Write or Draw

How bad does it have to get?You have to watch how you look, act, behave, feel and think.Watch your pulse. If your pulse is up 20 points and becomesirregular, you probably were exposed to a chemical. Your cir-culation is telling you something. If your breathing goes down15% on a peak flow meter, it means that something has af-fected your lungs.

Try to figure out what is causing the problem. Checkyour writing and drawing before you eat, after you eat,before you go in every room in your house, every room atschool, and every room at work. Check the Big Five (seebox), before and after you go inside versus outside, beforeand after you eat, and before and after you are exposed tochemicals. You can find the answers. You do not have to bea rocket scientist. You do not have to be a physician, if youstart to pay attention. Check the Big Five before you go ineach room or before each meal, morning versus evening,outside versus inside. Look at chemical exposures, allergyextract treatments, drugs and immunizations. Go to an en-vironmental medical specialist.

If you want to check a meal, and any of the Big Five change,do not eat any of them for four days. Then check the Big Fiveas you eat one food at a time every two hours. This helpsdetect problem foods or beverages.

Doris Rapp, M.D. has a medical degree from New York Uni-versity, Bellevue Medical College. After graduation she wenton to study pediatrics and pediatric allergy and immunology inBuffalo, New York, where she later founded the Practical Al-lergy Foundation. Dr. Rapp is the author of several books, in-cluding Is This Your Child: Discovering and Treating Unrec-ognized Allergies in Children and Adults and Is This YourChild’s World: How You Can Fix the Schools and Home thatAre Making Your Children Sick, which can be purchased fromthe Practical Allergy Foundation at 1421 Colvin Boulevard,Buffalo, NY 14223, (716) 875-0398 phone, (716) 875-5399fax, http://www.drrapp.com or [email protected].

Treatment ofChemical Sensitivity

lf Chronic …

■ drink pure water

■ eat organic foods

■ wear natural everything■ check blood and urine■ identify chemicals – correlate

with exposure■ correct nutrition – vitamins,

minerals, trace metals, essen-tial fatty acids

■ detoxification units – sauna,niacin, water, exercise, vitamins


There are more than six billion people on earth. We adda quarter of a million people every 24 hours. The WorldHealth Organization reported recently that more than

three billion people are malnourished on earth, or more thanhalf of the world’s population. But that is not our problemhere in the U.S. because we have an abundance of high qual-ity, diverse foods. If there is any problem, it is eating too much.The average American consumes over a ton of food per per-son per year. Where do we get our food? More than 99.7% ofour food in the U.S. and in the world comes from the land.Less than 0.3 of 1% comes from the oceans or other aquaticareas. We demand more and more on our land for food.

Costs of managing invasivesThere are good invasive species. For example, 100% of ourlivestock are introduced species and 99% of our crops, suchas corn, are introduced species. We have insect problems,weeds, plant pathogens, and rodents that share our food withus. We use large quantities of pesticides.

In the U.S. we use more than one billion pounds of pesticidesper year on our lands. Worldwide we use about five billion pounds.Nearly 80% of the pesticides are actually used in the developedcountries, with two billion people, whereas, four billion peopleare using about 20% of the pesticides applied worldwide.Despite the use of one billion pounds of pesticides, we lose nearly40% of all potential food production in the U.S. to pests.

From 1945 to date, there has been a ten-fold increase ininsecticide use in the U.S. The United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) reports that we were losing 7% of ourpotential production to insects in 1945 before we started us-ing large quantities of synthetic pesticides. Today USDA re-

ports that we are losing 13% of our crops to insects, with aten-fold increase insecticide use.1

World Health Organization data reports that pesticidespoison 26 million people annually. Of these, three millionresult in hospitalization and 220,000 result in death, many ofthese in developing countries. In the U.S., about 110,000 pes-ticide poisonings occur annually and 25 result in death. Allthese numbers are conservative.2

The honeybee is one of the invasive species in the U.S. Theuse of pesticides and loss of habitat has caused the bee popula-tion to decline rapidly. Pollination has a value in the U.S. of $40billion annually. You have heard the expression “a busy bee.” Abee on a bright sunny day will visit 1,000 blossoms. That is anenormous effort that we humans do not appreciate. My calcula-tions show that on a bright sunny day in New York State beespollinate 12 trillion blossoms a day. If we used all the man andwomanpower in New York State to pollinate blossoms, we couldnot even do oneone-hundredth of1%. I can also tellyou it is damnboring, but not tothe bees.

We poison ourbirds, including the common loon, which is a threatened spe-cies. We are also poisoning our fish. Due to the contamina-tion in New York State, it is recommended that pregnantwomen should not eat any fish, and anglers are limited toone fish per month. Roughly, we have estimated that the pub-lic health cost of pesticide use is one billion dollars annuallyand the environmental cost of pesticides is eight million dol-lars annually. These are very conservative estimates.

The evaluation of invasivesThe Japanese beetle was introduced years ago. We have intro-duced in the U.S. either intentionally or unintentionally 50,000species of plants, animals, and microbes. The numbers of pestsassociated with the introduction of these pests are causing $137

ECONOMlC AND ECOLOGlCAL COSTS OF WEED CONTROL

Putting lnvasive SpeciesManagement in PerspectiveBy David Pimentel, Ph.D.

David Pimentel, Ph.D. is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the ecological and economic aspects ofpest control, soil and water conservation, and natural resource management. He is a Cornell Universityprofessor in the Departments of Entomology and Limnology. He also served as the director of the U.S.Public Health Service Tropical Research Laboratory in Puerto Rico. Nationally, Dr. Pimentel served asthe consulting ecologist in the White House and as chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Envi-ronmental Studies Board.

The following article is taken from Dr. Pimentel and Seastedt’s tran-script of Economic and Ecological Costs of Weed Control presen-tations to the Nineteenth National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Eco-systems, Healthy Children, Boulder, Colorado, May 18-20, 2001.For a videotape please send $12 to Beyond Pesticides, 701 E Street,S.E., Washington DC 20003.

Pesticide Use CostsPublic Health = $1 billion

Environmental = $8 billion


billion in damages annually. That is a conservative estimatebecause we cannot put an amount on extinction.

In Florida alone, they have introduced 25,000 plant spe-cies. Their native plants number only 2,500 plant species. Ofcourse, these new introductions have negative impacts on theenvironment in many cases.

In the U.S., for example, the purple loosestrife that was intro-duced as a plant in vegetable gardens causes $45 million in dam-ages annually. Aquatic weeds cause $110 million in damagesannually. The melalecuca tree that was intentionally introducedas an ornamental cost six million dollars in damages annually.73% of the weeds in our crops are introduced species causingapproximately $33 billion in damages and control costs, mostlydamages despite the use of all the herbicides we are using. (I amnot counting the negative impact of the herbicides but only theapplication of herbicides.) In crop disease, for example, 65% ofplant pathogens are exotic and are costing approximately $23billion annually. Weeds, plant pathogens and insects, native andintroduced, cost $100 billion in the U.S. despite the applicationof one billion pounds of pesticides. This is a serious problem.

Only 40% of insect pests are exotic species. Most of the insectpests are actually native insects that moved from feeding on na-tive vegetation to feeding on introduced crops. An example is theColorado potato beetle, a native insect. It was feeding on a weedcalled the wild sand bur, before the potato’s introduction in theU.S. After the potato was introduced, the beetle found it moretasteful than the sand bur so it moved on to the potato. The Colo-rado potato beetle is now the number one pest of the potato.

We examined the number of introduced crops in the U.S. andthen determined how many crops we intentionally introducedthat actually became pests. It turned out that 128 weed specieswere intentionally introduced as crops which finally became listedas pests. Johnson grass is the number one weed in the southernU.S., and it was introduced as a forage crop. Even though youhave an organism, in this case a plant, you do not know what it isgoing to do when you release it in the environment.

Pigeons and starlings, primarily starlings, are causing $2billion of damage annually in the U.S.

We have introduced 4,500 species of primarily insects, someintentionally, some by chance. Someone who was interested indeveloping a better silk worm unintentionally introduced thegypsy moth. A windstorm knocked over one of the cages andthe moth escaped. The investigator realized how serious this

was and told the politicians that they should try to get rid ofthose that escaped, but they put it off and now the gypsy moth isthe number one pest. We have introduced 40 natural enemies toattempt to control this pest, but none are doing an effective job.

Secondary impacts of chemical controlsWhen you use herbicides to control weeds, in some cases, youcan end up with an insect or plant pathogen problem. I chaireda study for the U.S. EPA on the environmental impact of herbi-cides. I suggested that 2,4-D and its use on corn might be havingan impact on insect and plant pathogen problems. My herbicidecolleagues who were on the committee said absolutely not. So,I went back to Cornell and ran tests using the corn leaf aphid,the corn borer, the southern corn leaf blight and the corn smutdisease. All four organisms increased on the corn when exposedto 2,4-D, in contrast to the untreated corn. With the aphids alone,we had three times as many on the treated corn in contrast tothe untreated corn. These findings were published in Science.3

We were hoping to encourage other entomologists, plant pa-thologists and weed specialists to look at the non-target effectwhen you use these chemicals. I must admit it has not happened.

Now one seriousproblem we have withall these invasive speciesis that they are compet-ing with and preying onour native species. Thebest data we have indi-cate that these invasive

species are the reason why we have endangered species. Thisis a serious issue since 42% of all endangered species are dueto invasive plants, animals and microbes.

Pesticide reduction paysThe first case of biological control in the world is working. Thecotton crushing scale introduced in California was devastatingcitrus trees. They introduced beetles that feed on the scale. Itcost $5,000 and is now saving us about $170 million annually.

We should reduce the use of pesticides in the U.S. Severalcountries have reduced the use of pesticides by at least 50% ormore. It was one of my former students that became in chargeofall pest control in Indonesia. He was able to reduce pesticideuse on rice by 65%, while increasing rice yields 12%. You donot need a big economist to tell you that you are doing theright thing. We could reduce pesticide use in the U.S. by 50%without any reduction in yields and without any change incosmetic standards. The question is why aren’t we doing it.

For more information, contact Dr. David Pimentel, Depart-ment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, 607-255-2212 or Beyond Pesticides.


1 Pimentel, David and Hugh Lehman (1993). The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics, Excerpt: Environmental and Economic Impact ofReducing United States Agricultural Pesticide Use.

2 World Health Organization (1992). Our Planet, Our Health: Report of the WHO Commission on Health and the Environment.3 Oka, I. N. and David Pimentel (1976). Herbicides (2,4-D) Increase Insect and Pathogen Pests on Corn. Science, Vol. 193, 239-240.

Aphids on CornUntreated 6182,4-D 1,679

50% Reduction in Pesticides

Sweden Denmark, NetherlandsOntario, Canada, and lndonesia


The problems with ecologi-cal and environmentalcosts of invasive species or

weed control have been summa-rized very well. Here we have toaddress one environmental prob-

lem without contributing to the problems of excessive pesti-cides in the environment. There does exist a body of knowl-edge that can be used to address the problem if we could justget folks to realize it is out there and get them to use it.

For the last 20 years, a number of ecologists from acrossthe country and I have had the delightful job of finding outhow ecosystems work. Our job has been to explain why inva-sive species are out there and how they respond to environ-mental change and human insults. This group has been amongthose who have noticed a change in the landscape.

Certainly, most of the threats to our native species have to dowith simple habitat destruction. Second, invasive species are outthere. This group of ecologists has begun to consider the why andwherefore of this transformation in the landscape. Turns out thereis no one simple generalization you can give. But there is a ten-dency for many if not most of these invasive species to be associ-ated with changes related to human impact, even though thosechanges may be indirect to some changes on our natural land-scape. Indeed, in the West, during the last 150 years since the Eu-ropeans have taken over the area, the European flora was lonely athome and wanted to come to join us. It is dealing with this realityand the causes that is essential in addressing these problems.

Four concerns for ecologicalweed managementI got involved directly in trying to manage invasive species,the actual on the ground management, in 1997. I contactedfolks around the country, other ecologists, saying, what shouldI expect and what should I know. This bit of advice showedup that I want to emphasize.

1. Managers, for the most part, are trained to kill weeds,and this, they are quite convinced, is management. A localexample is a quote from the Camera, a local Boulder news-paper, from a weed manager saying, “Without the herbi-cide component we would have to multiply our staff force


Dead Weeds or Healthy EcosystemsSetting and achieving goals the ecological way

By Tim Seastedt, Ph.D.

by more than 15 times.” I think the implicit analysis is thatthis individual sees their main job as weed kill. Ironically,in this particular case, there may have been some data tosuggest that weed kill was not necessary.

2. Weed management has evolved from agronomy not fromecology. Agronomists say it was a simple job: you killedyour weed and grew your plant. There were no concernsabout the non-target organism out there. There essentiallywere not any non-target organisms except what you weregoing to put out on the landscape. That rule simply doesnot apply in natural ecosystems. And to be honest, we donot know what these herbicides do to our native speciesin terms of the complete list of what is sensitive to themand what the mutagenic effects of these chemicals are.

3. You are either for killing weeds or you are un-American.That really is the aura that exists in this.

To use another quote from the local paper, a county com-missioner said, “Certainly we cannot stand by while ournative grass lands are destroyed by foreign weeds.”

4. I think what may be the most unsettling of the advice Ireceived is that science has not been brought and ap-plied to this issue the way it potentially should have been.It is more your tenancy than your technique if you wantto deal with these issues, implying that if indeed you optfor non-chemical methods than you stick with it. Suchmethods are very feasible.

Tim Seastedt, Ph.D. is a professor in the Department of Environmental, Population and OrganismicBiology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The message must be:

■ Dead weeds do not define success

■ A successful program is one thatproduces healthy ecosystems

■ Few argue about what’s healthy,everybody argues about how toget there


Criteria for success: killing versus preservingI honestly believe weed managers are very dedicated peopleand they do what they do to be successful. But the question iswhere are they getting their criteria for success. This is wherewe need to intervene. The message that the ecosystem scien-tists, ecologists, and the stakeholders certainly need to exudeis that we are not looking to kill something, we are looking topreserve something. The idea is that restoration ecology em-phasizes enhancement of the desirable components. Certainly,weed management has in its body of knowledge techniquesto do the same.

As I mentioned, weed management certainly evolvedthrough agronomy. Coming from the field of biology and ecol-ogy is the concept of ecosystem management, and ecosystemmanagement subsumes integrated pest management. Underthe context of ecosystem management, the program we de-veloped has three components: (i) minimize the risk to hu-man health; (ii) minimize the risk to native species; and, (iii)realistic implementation.

ldentifying goalsA booklet by Reed Noss, A Citizens Guide to Ecosystem Man-agement (1999. Biodiversity Legal Foundation. Boulder, CO),is an excellent manual, if followed, for invasive species man-agement. Because of the techniques and requirements of theprogram, it simply defaults to a minimal chemical use ap-proach. Essentially, the scientists are employed to assist ingetting from point ‘a’ to point ‘b.’ The stakeholders need toweigh in to select the goals.

It is very important to realize that our world is chang-ing outside of the changes we have been talking about here.We are going to use management techniques that are notnecessarily traditional or that did not necessarily work 20years ago. This seems fairly simplistic, but if this mini-mum requisite is used in developing control proceduresfor invasive species or weed management, good things hap-pen. You recognize that the world is site specific. Noxious

lethal species in Montana are not necessarily the lethalspecies in Colorado. It may need control in some areas; itmay not need control in others. By putting things in writ-ing and putting things up front, you can actually see whereyou can monitor and see if you are actually getting there.If these three goals are followed, I sincerely believe thatpesticide use would be significantly reduced in the weedmanagement arena.

Local case in point, I believe this procedure was followedby the City of Boulder, Colorado recently with some weedcontrol issues, but was not followed by another componentof local government. The City chose to not use chemicalsand the other component did use chemicals. So, the battleout there does continue.

The message is simple. What we want is not necessarilydead weeds, we want healthy ecosystems. Healthy ecosys-tems provide those essential ecological services, maintainand enhance biological diversity and the quality of humanlife. The management activities must be consistent and com-patible with these goals. We need to get the public to buy inon these procedures.

For more information, contact Dr. Tim Seastedt, Professor ofEPO Biology, INSTAAR, CB 450, University of Colorado, Boul-der, CO 80309-0450, (303) 492-3302 phone, (303) 492-6388fax, [email protected].

Minimum Requirementsfor Management

1. Site specific goals identified &agreed upon by stakeholders

2. Written management plan to ob-tain goals

3. Monitor results to evaluate man-agement activities


Weed Management WithinContext of Eco-system

Management

A program that:■ Minimizes human health risks,■ Minimizes risks to other species,

and■ Has realistic and acceptable

economic costs.

The message is simple. What we want is

not necessarily dead weeds, we want

healthy ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems

provide those essential ecological

services, maintain and enhance biological

diversity and the quality of human life.


There are two types of biological controls out there.There are the fuzzy loveable kinds and then there isthe kind I use.

Diffuse knapweed covers 3.2 million acres in the west. It isthe target of extensive chemical use by public and private landmanaging agencies. In 1997, I went to the local county com-missioners and said, in response to an aerial spray program,“Yes, you can kill this weed, but all the literature says it justcomes back; so it is pretty much just treating the symptoms.”They responded by challenging me to coordinate a test plotand show there is a way to control diffuse knapweed without

chemicals, essentially telling me to prove that alternative ac-tivities work. As a field scientist, I said okay. We got 160 acresfor our test plot and attempted a variety of non-chemical tech-niques. The one I want to briefly discuss is the addition ofbiological control insects.

The gall fly, Urophora quadrifasciata and its sibling species,U. affinis, are probably responsible for 70% of seed mortality indiffuse knapweed. That is a lot but not enough to stop the weed.It was introduced by the Colorado Department of Agriculturein about 1988 in the Front Range and was essentially alreadyout there when we started our study.

We introduced a beautiful little bronze beetle, Sphenopterajugoslavica. It is a root feeder and attacks the rosettes of the knap-

weed plant. The combination of Sphenoptera and the gall flieselsewhere occasionally slows the growth of this plant; however,once you have a developed knapweed population, these two alonedo not seem to reduce the populations of knapweed.

Therefore, we added Cyphocleonus achates. This insect isdeath to the plant and probably death to itself, as it eats itway out of food and home. Cyphocleonus has been establishedin low numbers. At these levels, we are still uncertain exactlyhow useful it is in stopping knapweed.

The last bug we added was the seed head feeder, Larinusminutus. This weevil makes its living by attacking and totallyconsuming the seed head. We added 200 of these in 1997.We estimate that there were about 20 million of these seedhead feeders last year.

So how are we doing? The white bars (see figure 1) repre-sent the insectary. We do have a reference or a control, butunfortunately, we were not quite smart enough to put ourreference far enough from the insectary. Now our reference isbeing attacked by the insects as well. Nonetheless, if you usethe reference data in the year 2000 we had fewer than 25% ofthe weed population that we had in 1997.

The insects are doing quite well. Rosette densities, which arean index of the future abundance of the plant, also showed re-markable reduction (see figure 2). Things are looking quite good.

ALTERNATlVE WEED STRATEGlES

Biological Control of Noxious WeedsUsing insects to manage invasive weeds

By Tim Seastedt, Ph.D.

1997 1998 1999 20000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Reference

Mowed

Insectary

Figure 1. Diffuse Knapweed

This and the following article is from Dr. Seastedt and Mrs.Lamming’s transcript of the Alternative Weed Strategies pre-sentations at the Nineteenth National Pesticide Forum, HealthyEcosystems, Healthy Children, Boulder, Colorado, May 18-20,2001. For a videotape please send $12 to Beyond Pesticides, 701 EStreet, S.E., Washington DC 20003.

y

Tim Seastedt, Ph.D. is a professor in the Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology at the University ofColorado, Boulder.

Diffuse knapweed covers 3.2 million

acres in the west. lt is the target of

extensive chemical use by public and

private land managing agencies.


Here is what I predict in June of 2002. Our 20 millionLarinus minutus are going to find only one million knapweedplants. The adults feed on the flowering knapweed before theybegin laying eggs within the seed heads. These seed headswill then produce new weevils rather than knapweed seed. Ihave high hopes we will demonstrate control of this weed asof this year. There is an anecdotal account that says this iswhat is going to happen, but we are waiting to prove it.

This provides you with an example of how to develop a spe-cific insect biological control program. The approach is particu-larly relevant to weeds that now occupy large areas and cannot beeffectively controlled by other methods. We add a biological con-trol food web, in this case a group of non-natives, and we wantthat group to stay and attack the invasive plant species, diminish-ing that population, allowing competition of the natives to be-come enhanced and slowly returning the system to some sem-blance of balance. You probably want to eradicate that species butin terms of threats to native biological diversity and loss of eco-system values, if we can knock it back down we would succeed.

This summer we have two students to check the dash line(see figure 3) between the biological control food web and na-tive plant species, to assess the extent to which the biologicalcontrol might attack the native plant species. Because of theunique chemistry of diffuse knapweed, we doubt this will hap-pen. Elsewhere, these insects have been around for an averageof 20 years and have not been reported to harm other plantspecies. One student will check to see if these insects use otherplants. The second student will study how native insect preda-tors such as spiders feed on the introduced insects.

SummaryTo briefly summarize this technique, biocontrol of invasiveplant species is the only practical, feasible and sustainable


solution that seems to be out there. “To claim that no risksare involved would be irresponsible, but these risks are smalland must be weighed against those of alternative control meth-ods, in a context in which ecosystems and livelihoods arebeing destroyed.” (R.E. Cruttwell McFadyen, 1998)

Epilogue: Dr. Seastedt and his students evaluated the plots thissummer and found that the knapweed had totally disappeared fromportions of the area. Overall, knapweed now constitutes less than5% of plant cover. Knapweed seed production in 2001 was 2% of1997 values. None of the introduced insects have shown interest infeeding on native plants. All five of the insects are doing well andare moving into adjacent pastures that were previously treated withherbicides that failed to control the knapweed.

Figure 2. Rosette Densities

1997 1998 1999 20000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference

Insectary

For more information, contact Dr. Tim Seastedt, Professor of EPOBiology, INSTAAR, CB 450, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO80309-0450, (303) 492-3302 phone, (303) 492-6388 fax,[email protected].

Figure 3:Biological Control Program

biocontrol of invasive plant species is the

only practical, feasible and sustainable

solution that seems to be out there.



Successfully Controlling NoxiousWeeds with GoatsThe natural choice that manages weeds and builds soil health

By Lani Lamming

I am a displaced cattle rancher. I bought a hundred headof cashmere goats to eat weeds in 1997 because I couldnot find a job that I wanted or that suited me. I now have

2,000 head of goats and have 12 people working for me. Thegoats are used as a tool in intensive grazing and short dura-tion schemes under holistic resource management principles.

The goal of the land is to build the soil so it can producethe kinds of plants that we want to grow there. What weneed to be looking at is the water cycle, mineral cycle, en-ergy flow and succession. Weeds are symptomatic of a prob-lem. The problem is sometimes poor soil having no organicmatter that cannot support good growth. We want to makethe grass the best competitor and stress the weed at everyturn. Goats help with this problem because everything theyeat is then recycled as fertilizer and laid back down on thegrasses. As the goats graze, they trample in the fertilizer.

We worked last year in seven states. I keep working andmoving from job to job, migrating north to south, and up anddown in elevation; working all the time. I have federal con-tracts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Rec-lamation, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. ForestService. I have state, county, and city contracts in several states.But, most of my business is on private land. The smallest areaI have grazed was a 12-foot by 60-foot backyard. I grazed 30baby goats there for three days. The biggest job I have donewas 20,000 acres in Montana.

We take a lot of data while we are herding goats. We use avideo camera with a GPS unit hooked into it. I am able tocreate a noxious weed layer that can go into any governmentdatabase for their noxious weed inventory.

Problems with pesticidesTo a cattle producer there is no production on land that iscovered with noxious weeds. Therefore, he/she has to rent

property to feed his cattle. Because the law requires him toclean it up, he will probably spray Tordon (picloram and 2,4-D) on it, costing him about $100 an acre. I have seen patchesof land sprayed with this pesticide, killing everything but thediffuse knapweed it was meant to kill. Now the cattle pro-ducer has got two-fold costs and no production.

When you introduce humans after weed problems, you tendto have lots of trouble with human error. First, they have to rec-ognize the weeds, which they probably will not be able to dounless it is in full flower. Then, they have to get the right eradica-tion method on the right day and at the right time to get it done.

One problem with using chemicals to control weeds is thatthey are trying to kill the symptom. Pesticides never take careof the problem. The problem is that there is a stress or a nicheopen on the land that needs to be filled with something good,something productive that you want.

Goats prefer weeds to grasses. One of their favorites is leafy spurge.

Lani Lamming is the owner of the goat grazing business, Ecological Services based in Alpine, Wyoming,and is a Beyond Pesticides board member. Ms. Lamming has a M.S. in weed science from Colorado StateUniversity in Ft. Collins, Colorado.


A lot of things happen when you spray pesticides. For one,the weeds can mutate and become deformed. I have seen thishappen to common mullein. The spray boom along the high-way got the plant and half of it deformed while the other halfkept on growing. I have seen deformed prickly lettuce that wasvery thick stemmed and curvy. The Roundup (glyphosate) thatwas sprayed on it did not kill it. Instead, it came back andmade full seed. Another example is of Dalmatian toadflax, whichis normally tall and whisky. It was sprayed with a chemicalcalled Curtail (clopyralid, 2,4-D) and it mutated to a ribbon. Itwas three inches wide and almost six feet tall and still had fullflower. I wonder what the genetics are on these plants.

On my master’s research plots in Wyoming there are deadtrees as a result of Tordon being sprayed ten years ago. Thespraying also made a pure monoculture of Russian knapweedacross the valley. The plot was then sprayed with a chemicalto kill the Russian knapweed and reseeded with grasses. Ev-ery time a chemical was used to kill the Russian knapweed,white top, another noxious weed, began to grow there.

For some noxious weeds, chemical sprays are ineffective.One example is oxide daisy, which has no leaf surface for thechemical to be absorbed. But, goats love it.

Goats – the natural choiceMy goat grazing service benefits are three-fold: environmental,economical and social. Of course, environmental, because youcan reduce chemicals or get rid of them completely. Economi-cal, because we have put a lot of people to work, young kids,college students, high school kids, elementary students, andtransients. And social, because there is nothing like a 1,000head of goats to draw people in to the land to learn about weeds.

Goats prefer weeds, like the knapweeds and yellow star thistle.They do not like grasses; it is their last choice. A goat has a verynarrow triangular mouth and they pick, nibble and chew veryfast. The shape of their mouth and how they chew crushes most


Canada thistle

Cheat grass

Common candy

Common mullein

Dalmatian toad flax

Dandelions

Downy brome

lndian tobacco

Knapweeds

Larkspur

Leafy spurge

Loco weed

Musk thistle

Oxide daisy

Plumeless thistle

Poison hemlock

Purple loostrife

Scotch thistle

Snapweed

Sweet clover

Yellow star thistle

Yucca

Examples of weeds goats like:

The electric fence used to manage the goats divided this patch of musk thistleand dandelion, the right side shows how effective goats are at grazing weeds.

For some noxious weeds, chemical

sprays are ineffective. One example

is oxide daisy, which has no leaf

surface for the chemical to be

absorbed. But, goats love it.


everything they eat as far as weed seeds go. In the case of leafyspurge, a journal article says, when a goat eats 100% viable leafyspurge seed, 99.9% is destroyed.1 Most is crushed by the teethand chewing action, the rest through the digestive system.

Goats eat all poisonous plants, which does not seem tobother them. They have an interesting array of enzymes intheir gut that other animals do not. In the case of poison hem-lock, goats have an enzyme in the saliva that detoxifies thetoxin before they swallow.

The first thing goats do when they walk through the pas-ture is snap off all the flower heads. Then they pick the leavesoff one at a time, very quickly, leaving a bare stock. Once thegoats graze the weed, it cannot go to seed because it has noflower and it cannot photosynthesize to build a root systembecause it has no leaves. The plant’s stalk and the ground isleft undisturbed. The canopy has been removed allowing sun-shine to hit the ground. The goats are fertilizing the ground,and the grasses remain untouched by the goats. Our workinggoats know when they are done and ready for the next job.

It is well-documented in research that if you cut the stems offof most weeds with a sharp blade the plant will quickly respondby making just as many seeds if not more, actually making theplant denser. But because of the way a goat eats, the plant isstopped. It cannot make any seeds or photosynthesize. I thinkthe plant is fooled that everything is okay, so it does nothing.


Teasel and poison hemlock grow so high, left, that the goats in the background are hidden. The goats eat the teasel and poison hemlock’s flowers and leaves,allowing sunlight to reach the ground, right.

The white latex from leafy spurge oozes from where the goats have snappedoff the tops of the plant. An enzyme in the goats saliva detoxifies the latexbefore they swallow it.

Once the goats graze the weed, it cannot

go to seed because it has no flower and it

cannot photosynthesize to build a root

system because it has no leaves.

The grazing selectivity is the goats diet preference. One thingwe have learned is that goats have great diet specificity by ageand gender. The older males preference for what they eat firstdiffers from the baby goats, the nannies, and yearlings. If avail-able, the older males prefer Russian thistle and Russian oliveand elm trees, while the babies’ first choice is field vine weeds.At one of our jobs in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, we had twonoxious weed problems, Musk thistle and Lupin. The oldermale goats started grazing the Musk thistle and the youngergoats started grazing the Lupin, a poisonous plant.

Timing must be rightTiming of when to graze a weed is important to making the big-gest impact. If wildflowers are your goal for the land, yet youhave to control your noxious weeds by law, I would graze tostress the weed when the wildflowers were not yet in bloom. For


diffuse knapweed, the optimum time to graze is the first of June.For Canada thistle, the perfect time to graze would be right

when it is in full bud before it flowers. At this time, the planthas put all of its energy into getting ready to make a seed, soit has spent a lot of its root reserves. Over time, the thistlecannot compete with the grasses. Every time I stress the plantby grazing the goats, it will spend more energy trying to growback. If you do this for a deep rooted perennial for three timesa season or over three years in a row, that plant has spenteverything it has and will die.

Handling goatsWhen you are managing a 1,000 head of goats, you have to beable to handle them. We manage the goats by herding them withinelectric fences. Once the goats accept the fence as its boundary,it is magical stuff. On occasion, we do not turn them on.

Another way we handle the goats is by walking them. Forone job, we walked 1,000 head of goats 35 miles down the right-of-way of Highway 287 on our way to a ranch in Enis, Montana.Every landowner along the way came out, saw what we weredoing and hired us. So we stopped one day here, two days there,three weeks there. On our way, we grazed the goats on threeislands in a river that was filled with spotted knapweed.

Goats do not like water. It is a natural fence. The only timethey will step into it is if a predator is in hot pursuit. Therefore,we had to figure out how to get the goats to the islands to graze.We found some picnic tables and placed them end-to-end acrossthe river. Sure enough, that 1,000 head of goats used the picnictables to get to each island and back to the mainland.

Leafy spurge – goats first loveNoxious weeds are extremely aggressive and invasive andare very difficult to control. Leafy spurge is a deep-rootedperennial and has an extensive root system. The seed cap-sules dry and shoot the seeds eight feet in all directions.


Goats grazing scotch thistle at the University of Colorado, Boulder campus grounds in late November 2000, left, stress the weed so much that grasses cansuccessfully grow on the site the following May, right.

Goats graze a site covered with spotted knapweed.

Another way we handle the goats

is by walking them. For one job,

we walked 1,000 head of goats 35

miles down the right-of-way of

Highway 287 on our way to a

ranch in Enis, Montana. Every

landowner along the way came out,

saw what we were doing and hired us.



The extensive underground root system is also a spreadingthreat at the same time. Leafy spurge is capable of makingan identical new plant far away from the mother plant. Theroot system goes down about 30 feet. It can grow in a crackin a rock, side of a cotton wood tree in the bark, or top of acottonwood tree about 20 feet off the ground. What is thesolution to leafy spurge in the cotton wood tree? Goats! Ofcourse, leafy spurge is almost the goat’s favorite food andthey do climb trees.

The goats seek out leafy spurge and eat it because theylike it. When you look at a leafy spurge plant after the goatshave grazed it, you can see where they have bitten the floweroff, releasing a white latex substance. This white latex issupposed to make people go blind, cause rashes on hands,and cause blister on horses’ feat. A little girl was sent to thehospital with third degree burns from the white latex get-ting on her legs. This substance is the reason why cattle andhorses will not eat it. Cattle will not even walk into the

patches of leafy spurge. For some reason, it is the reasonwhy goats eat it, and love it.

Christmas tree recyclingA great way for communities to recycle Christmas trees is tohave people pay $2 to have goats recycle them. Any moneygenerated could then be used for weed control in that com-munity the following summer.

The goats love Christmas trees, they clean it up, strip allthe bark off. The remaining tree trunk could be sold to ayouth group, to be cut, packaged and sold as firewood. Sothe recycling keeps going on and on through all levels ofinsects, birds, people and different groups of people.

Goats can be used all year round to control noxious weeds. Here they digout leafy spurge from under a snowdrift.

Goats will eat leafy spurge anywhere, even when it is growing out of thetrunk of a cottonwood tree.

1 Sedivec, K. et al. 1995. Controlling Leafy Spurge Using Goats and Sheep. North Dakota State University Extension Service, Fargo, North Dakota.

Goats graze a site covered with spotted knapweed.

A great way for communities to

recycle Christmas trees is to have people

pay $2 to have goats recycle them.

Any money generated could then be

used for weed control in that community

the following summer.For more information, contact Lani Lamming, Ecological Servicesat PO Box 3253, Alpine, WY 83128, 307-654-7866 or [email protected].

Resources


by Toni Nunes

Having Faith: An Ecologist’sJourney to MotherhoodSandra Steingraber (Perseus Publishing,Cambridge, MA, 2001). Through poeticand clear prose, Steingraber shares startlinginsights about the impacts of toxins onunborn and breastfed infants, and comi-cally relates her personal experiencesthroughout each pregnancy phase. Shewrites a well-researched scientific discus-sion about the dangers of toxic chemicalsand advocates what must be done to pro-tect fetuses and infants from these hazards.

In an early chapter entitled SapMoon, Steingraber offers four major in-sights that are later expanded upon: 1)Nature is an alchemist—nature canchange seemingly nontoxic chemicalsinto potent fetal toxicants; 2) Unin-tended consequences are not alwaysunpredictable consequences—if persis-tent pollutants are released into thewater, they can contaminate fish eatenby pregnant women; 3) Of all membersof a human population, fetuses are mostvulnerable to toxic harm—the placentacan magnify levels of toxic chemicalsand developing organs are more sensi-tive to damage than adult ones; and 4)Threshold levels of toxic chemicals maynot exist for fetuses.

While pregnant women are told to

avoid coffee, alcohol, sushi, and even catfeces, she argues they are not well ad-vised about the dangers of pesticides orother toxic chemicals. Steingraber is con-cerned that popular pregnancy booksand magazines do not adequately discussenvironmental issues. “It is time formothers around the world to join thecampaign for precaution, which is fun-damental to our daily lives as parents orexpectant parents and about which weare all experts.” She uses the quote ofVoltaire several times throughout herbook: “In ignorance, abstain.”

Steingraber raises an important con-cern about the narrow focus of prenataltesting: “[There is a] single-mindedsearch for rare genetic defects and theconcomitant disregard of environmentalthreats to pregnancy.” She argues thatpregnancy is not an isolated event, butpart of water cycles and food chains. Forexample, chemicals like DDT that arebeing discovered in human amnioticfluid are also found in the tissues of mi-grating and resident birds.

“Whatever is inside hummingbird eggsis also inside my womb. Whatever is inthe world’s water is here in my hands.”

Birth defects is the number one causeof infant death. The majority of birth de-fects have unknown origins and only 20percent have identifiable causes. Yet,Steingraber found that there is no na-tional system to track birth defects andreport on trends. Consequently, it is dif-ficult to determine the role that environ-mental contaminants have on birth de-fects. Steingraber also sounds the preg-nant mother’s alarm when stating thatover 75 percent of the high-production-volume chemicals have not beenscreened for possible developmental ef-fects on fetuses and children. She cites aJohns Hopkins report that concludes,“[S]ome pesticides currently being usedmay be developmental toxicants.” Whatis worse, she points out, is that pesticidesare not governed by right-to-know lawsin most states, meaning that publicrecords are not kept on their release intothe environment. Furthermore, shefound no studies that directly measurepesticide exposure.

“[Breast milk has] become the mostchemically contaminated human food onthe planet.”

In the final section of the book,Steingraber discusses the dilemma ofbreastfeeding her newborn with milkthat is highly contaminated with pesti-cides and other chemicals. Although itis the perfect human food that providessuperior nutrition and important immu-nities, Steingraber states, “Breastfed ba-bies also experience greater dietary ex-posures to certain toxic chemicals thantheir formula-fed counterparts.” She ad-vocates protecting the environment out-side our bodies in order to protect thehabitat within.

Steingraber also authored LivingDownstream: An Ecologist Looks at Can-cer and the Environment and has beenselected as the 2001 recipient of the RachelCarson Leadership Award. She holds a doc-torate in biological sciences and is on thefaculty at Cornell University.

For a copy, contact Lissa Warren,Director of Publicity, Perseus Publishing at(617) 252-5212, fax (617) 252-5265 or e-mail her at lissa.warren @perseusbooks.com. This book is also availablethrough the Beyond Pesticides website(www.beyond pesticides.org) where, for noadditional cost, your purchase triggers a do-nation to our organization.

While pregnant women

are told to avoid coffee,

alcohol, sushi, and even cat

feces, she argues they are

not well advised about the

dangers of pesticides or

other toxic chemicals.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS❏ YES, make me a member of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP (includes subscription to Pesticides & You).

❏ $25 Individual ❏ $30 Family ❏ $50 Public Interest Organizations ❏ $15 Limited Income❏ YES, I’d like to subscribe to Pesticides & You.

❏ $25 Individual ❏ $50 Public Interest Organizations ❏ $50 Government ❏ $100 Corporate❏ YES, I’d like to receive Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s monthly Technical Report. $20 with membership or subscription.

If outside the United States, please add $10.00 each for memberships and subscriptions.

R E S O U R C E ST-Shirts❏ Beyond Pesticides’ Dragonfly T-shirt. Printed on sage green, 100% organic

cotton with soy ink. Sizes S-XL. $15 each; 2 for $25.❏ “Pollution Prevention Is the Cure.” full color graphic on 100% natural organic

cotton Beneficial-T’s by Patagonia™ T-shirt. Sizes S-XL. $10 each; 2 for $15.❏ “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green and blue on 100% natural

organic cotton. $10 each; 2 for $15.❏ “Freedom from Pesticides is Every Body’s Right.” Black letters with teal, purple and

yellow accents, 100% natural organic cotton. Size S only. $10, 2 for $15.

Books❏ A Failure to Protect. Landmark study of federal government pesticide use and pest

management practices. $23.00. Summary and Overview $5.00.❏ Unnecessary Risks: The Benefit Side of the Risk-Benefit Equation.

Explains how the EPA’s Risk-Benefit Analyses falsely assume the need for high-risk pesticides, how “benefits” are inflated, how alternatives might be assessed,and the public’s right to ask more from its regulators. $10.00.

❏ Safety at Home: A Guide to the Hazards of Lawn andGarden Pesticides and Safer Ways to Manage Pests.Learn more about: the toxicity of common pesticides; non-toxic lawn care andwhy current laws offer inadequate protection. $11.00

❏ Voices for Pesticide Reform: The Case for Safe Practices and Sound Policy. A studydocumenting stories of tragic pesticide poisoning and contamination, andsuccessfully used alternatives that avoid toxic chemicals. $20.00 Summary:Voices for Pesticide Reform $5.00

❏ Poison Poles: Their Toxic Trail and the Safer Alternatives. A study on the largestgroup of pesticides – wood preservatives, the contamination associated withtreated wood utility poles and the available alternatives. $20.00

❏ Pole Pollution. Deals specifically with the wood preservative pentachlorophenol,and the EPA’s shocking findings about its toxicity. $7.00.

Back Issues❏ Back issues of Pesticides and You $2.00 each❏ Back issues of Technical Reports $1.00 each

Method of Payment: ❏ Check or money order ❏ VISA/Mastercard # ____________________________ Expiration Date: _________

Name Phone Fax Email

Title (if any) Organization (if any)

Street City State Zip

Quantity Item Description (for T-shirts, please note size S,M,L,XL) Unit Price Total

MEMBERSHIP

Mail to: Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Tax-Deductible Donation: ____________

Total Enclosed: ____________Vol. 21, No. 4, 2001

Brochures ($2.00 each; bulk discounts available)

❏ Pest Control Without Toxic Chemicals❏ Least Toxic Control of Lawn Pests❏ Agriculture: Soil Erosion, Pesticides, Sustainability❏ Estrogenic Pesticides❏ Pesticides and Your Fruits and Vegetables❏ Pesticides: Are you being poisoned without your knowledge?❏ Pesticides – Warning: These Products May Be Hazardous to Your Health❏ Pesticides in Our Homes and Schools

Testimony❏ Lawn Care Chemicals, 3/28/90 or 5/9/91, $4.00❏ Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 4/23/91 or 6/8/93, $4.00❏ FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 6/8/93 $4.00❏ Food Safety, 10/19/89, 8/2/93, or 6/7/95, $4.00❏ School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) 7/18/01, $4.00❏ School IPM, 6/20/91, 3/19/97, or 3/30/99, $5.00❏ New York City’s Response to the Encephalitis Outbreak, 10/12/99 $4.00❏ Parents: Right-to-Know-Schools, 3/19/97 $3.00

Publications❏ Expelling Pesticides from Schools: Adopting School IPM $20.00❏ Beyond Pesticides’ West Nile Virus Organizing Manual $15.00❏ Beyond Pesticides’ChemWatch Factsheets: individual: $2.00, compilation: $20.00❏ Getting Pesticides Out of Food and Food Production $5.00❏ Least-Toxic Control of Pests $6.00❏ Community Organizing Toolkit $12.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance, Model School Pest Management Policy, Model State

School Pesticide Law $5.00 each❏ Schooling of State Pesticide Laws (with 2000 update) $5.00❏ Building of State Indoor Pesticide Policies $4.00❏ The Right Way to Vegetation Management $4.00

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDSilver Spring, MDPermit No. 1400

Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street SE, Suite 200Washington, DC 20003202-543-5450

Winter 2001 • Vol. 21, No. 4 a member of Earth Share SM

COMPLlMENTARY COPY

Please Subscribe!

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover onQuest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

20th National Pesticide ForumStreams to Schools: Finding Alernatives to Pesticides

Bastyr UniversitySeattle, WA

April 26-28, 2002

Mark Your Calendars! BeyondPesticides is teaming up with theNorthwest Coalition for Alternativesto Pesticides (NCAP) and the Wash-ington Toxics Coalition for the 20th

National Pesticide Forum.

Topics to be covered include: Impactsof pesticides on endangered salmon,Pesticides and children, Organic gar-dening, Least-toxic weed control, Ge-netic engineering, Wood preserva-tives, and much more.

The latest information, including a list of speakers and an online registration form, is posted on the National Pesti-cide Forum page at www.beyondpesticides.org. Watch your mailbox for preliminary brochures early this winter.

Pesticides and You...Boulder, CO Terry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter, Sierra Club, Lawrence, KS...

Documents

Transcript of Pesticides and You...Boulder, CO Terry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter, Sierra Club, Lawrence, KS...