Volume 20 , Number 2 Summer 2000 Pesticides and You€¦ · Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the...

Volume 20 , Number 2 Summer 2000

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

Congress Wants to Weaken Children’s Provision ofPesticide Law • Lawn Mowers and Leaf Piles • Wood PreservativesCause lllnesses • The Schooling of State Pesticides Laws — 2000

— Jay Feldman is executive director of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP

Letter from Washington

One of the most difficult and perhaps most importantchallenges we face in forcing better regulation ofpesticides is capturing the adverse human health

effects associated with pesticide use. It is difficult for a vari-ety of reasons, starting with inadequate medical diagnosis ofpoisoning incidents and ending with no effective monitoringof incidents that are diagnosed or suspected. Our failure toassociate major illness trends, such as increasing childhoodasthma or childhood leukemia, with widespread use of pesti-cides leaves our children and families increasingly threatened.Once a pesticide is released into the air, water or land, thereis no question that it is difficult to show, beyond a shadow ofa doubt, that it is a contributor to national trends in illness.So, even if a pesticide is known to be a hazardous materialwith widespread exposure to the public, the lack of informa-tion on individual human effects or incidents allows it to es-cape adequate regulation.

If you look back at many of the major actions banning pesti-cides, you will see documented human or wildlife impacts be-hind the decision. Eggshell thinning doomed DDT, worker ste-rility forced the fungicide DBCP off the market, and miscarriagesstopped the herbicide 2,4,5-T. When EPA staff identify hazard-ous pesticides like the wood preservatives, without reportedadverse effects the agency can delay for years. Who says we donot experiment with pesticides on humans?

In this issue of Pesticides and You, we begin to take on thechallenge of expanding our documentation of adverse effectsassociated with wood preservatives. There is no disputing thatwood preservatives are among the most toxic substances knownto humankind. They have created a trail of contamination. Con-sider the fact that, together or independently, wood preserva-tives, including pentachlorophenol, creosote, arsenic, copperand chromium, fill a majority of our nation’s most hazardousSuperfund toxic waste sites. Yet, we continue to put chemical-soaked wood products in the ground around our homes, allowthem to dot our communities in utility poles, use in sensitivehabitat and waterways for building, allow them to be recycledfor use in gardens and as wood for decks, and then dispose ofthem in municipal landfills. For the third year in a row, EPAhas just notified us that its review of wood preservatives willtake another year, which means that the original completiondate of 1998 is now 2001, maybe later.

Meanwhile, people continue to get sick. It comes as no sur-prise that illness will show up first in those who are in closestcontact with treated wood, or who live near wood preservingfacilities. We are receiving information on second generationaleffects, learning disabilities and birth defects. We are told ofunregulated and uncontrolled uses of treated wood. One situ-ation described in this issue is of a family that bought a homewith a deck made out of the crossarms of old utility poles thathad been milled. The children got sick and the family is leftwith an estimated $80,000 in clean up costs to remove andproperly dispose of the deck. EPA, with the data it has, should

stop these exposures, and put an end to many of these unnec-essary chemical uses, allowing the alternative materials andnaturally resistant woods to take their place.

It should not go unnoticed that EPA today is still strugglingwith pesticide mistakes of the past. It is trying to “cap” 17square miles of ocean floor contaminated with DDT off thecoast of Los Angeles, 100 feet below the surface. Wood preser-vatives, such as pentachlorophenol, an organochlorine likeDDT, will some day join the list of banned materials. But, when?And, how will we answer our children when they ask, why didwe allow the contamination of so much land and the poison-ing of so many people for so long after we had identified theharm and found safer, economical alternatives.

School Action ShowsPotential for ChangeThe wave of activity on schools continues across the country.At this writing, California’s Governor has pledged to sign TheHealthy Schools Act of 2000, AB 2260, which will, like otherstates, provide for posting and notification of pesticide use andseek to implement a pest management strategy not reliant onhazardous pesticides. The trend in local action to protect chil-dren is incredibly important. While we recognize that politicalrealities differ from state to state, we will continue to push foruniversal notification rather than notification for only thosewho get themselves on a registry. The universal notificationprovision, contained in Maryland and Arizona law, treats allpesticide exposure in the school as a potential public healththreat that requires comprehensive right-to-know in advanceof pesticide use.

Putting Alternatives into ActionAs we face the challenges of continued public exposure to pesti-cides, particularly involuntary exposure, we can all play our partin doing without pesticides. One important place to begin is inour garden. This issue contains a colorful piece by our neweststaff member, Becky Crouse, public education associate, on Falllawn care. If you thought you were going to get some rest from

the garden, not just yet. Fall isthe most important time to workon your lawn, thereby avoidingproblems that are harder to cor-rect in the Spring.

Best wishes.

Putting a Human Face on the Pesticide Threat

Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000 Pesticides and You Page 1Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Pesticides and You ©2000 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year by theBeyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides(NCAMP), is a voice for pesticide safetyand alternatives. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP is a non-profit, tax-exemptmembership organization; donations aretax-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 DirectorGreg Kidd, J.D.Science & Legal Policy DirectorJohn Kepner, Program AssociateTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Science ConsultantBecky Crouse, Public Education AssociateLeslie Haug, Intern

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorKagan Owens, Becky Crouse,Leslie Haug, Greg Kidd, andJohn Kepner, ContributorsFree Hand Press, Typesetting

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP BOARDOF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, MarylandPesticide Network, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas enCalifornia, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s HealthEnvironment Coalition, Malibu, CAMerrill Clark, Roseland Farms,Cassopolis, MIAlan Cohen, Biological PestManagement, Washington, DCShelley Davis, J.D., Farmworker JusticeFund, Washington, DCLorna Donaldson-McMahon, SilvertopFarm, Tiptonville, TNJay Feldman, NCAMP, Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving EarthWorldwide, Plymouth, MNPaul Repetto, Horizon Organic DairyBoulder, COTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,Sierra Club, Lawrence, KSGregg Small, Pesticide Watch,San Francisco, CAAllen Spalt, Agricultural ResourcesCenter, Carrboro, NCAudrey Thier, Environmental Advocates, NY

Affiliations shown for informational purposes only

2 Mail

Limonene Really Less Toxic? Pesticides in Schools,A Frustrating Battle, Poison Poles Kill Dogs

4 Washington, D.C.

National Academy of Sciences Urges Biotech-nology in Developing Countries, U.S. RejectsPesticide Testing on Humans, Loophole Re-mains, EPA Investigates Illegal Pesticide Salesto Poor Communities, EPA Asks PesticideManufacturers to Voluntarily Improve SafetyInstructions on Pesticide Labels

6 Around the Country

Research Shows Dangers of Pesticide Combina-tions, 20/20 News Reporter John Stossel AdmitsHis Anti-Organic News Story Was a Fraud, Resi-dential Pesticide Exposure Linked to Parkinson’sDisease, Doctors Encourage Consumers to StopUsing Antibacterial Soaps and Cleansers, TwinStudies Show that Cancer Has Stronger Link toEnvironmental Factors than Genetics, NeighborNotification Bill Passes in New York State

9 Congress Wants to WeakenChildren’s Provision ofPesticide Law

Effort underway to pass amendments before endof session

10 Lawn Mowers and Leaf Piles

Fall is prime time for lawn care

12 Wood Preservatives Cause lllnesses

Victims stories tell of trail of poisoning

16 The Schooling of StatePesticide Laws – 2000

A review of state pesticide laws regardingschools

24 Resources

Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the GlobalFood Supply, Pesticide Data Program: AnnualSummary Calendar Year 1998, State of theWorld 2000

Contents

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

Quest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Limonene Really Less Toxic?Dear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,I just received a copy of your newsletterand, to be honest, one thing has me ex-tremely puzzled — your recommenda-tion to use limonene for fleas, etc…TheEPA a while ago put out a reporton the top 20 chemicals in fra-grance products, and here’s whatit says about limonene:LIMONENE (in: perfume, co-logne, disinfectant spray, bar soap,shaving cream, deodorants, nailcolor and remover, fabric softener,dishwashing liquid, air fresheners,after shave, bleach, paint and var-nish remover) Carcinogenic. “Pre-vent its contact with skin or eyes becauseit is an irritant and a sensitizer.” “Alwayswash thoroughly after using this materialand before eating, drinking…applyingcosmetics. Do not inhale limonene vapor.”

Based on this information, why areyou advocating its use, especially sincefleas tend to reside in the home wherepeople attempt to eradicate them? All ofthe other alternatives are so much saferand this was so dangerous that it stuckout like a sore thumb.Keep up the GREAT work.

Angel CohenLas Vegas, Nevada

Dear Angel,Limonene is a naturally occurring chemi-cal used in many food products, perfumesand soaps for its citrus-like flavor andodor. It is also a registered active ingre-dient in pesticides products, and classi-fied as a List 4B inert according to theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

website’s List of Other (Inert) PesticideIngredients (“inerts which have sufficientdata to substantiate they can be usedsafely in pesticide products”). At thepresent time, the EPA R.E.D. Facts (Sep-tember, 1994), states that, “A subchronic

study by the National Toxicology Pro-gram (NTP) using rats and mice resultedin decreased body weights, kidney dis-ease and mortality at the highest dosetested. A chronic toxicity study done byNTP using rats resulted in decreasedbody weight, kidney disease and kidneytumors, which occurred due toa species-specific mechanism. Limoneneis not considered a human carcinogen, adevelopmental toxicant, or mutagenic.”Limonene is also listed as a volatile or-ganic compound (VOC) by the EPA,which can be associated with irritation,odors and other health and comfort con-cerns. Those with existing sensitivitiesshould be extremely careful when usinga product containing limonene, or con-sider using another alternative. Evenleast- or less-toxic pesticides should beused with extreme caution, as they arestill made to kill a living organism. Allwarnings on the label should be takenseriously, and all precautionary mea-sures should be followed. Thank you foryour heads-up on the hazards of li-monene and your support of our work.

Pesticides in Schools,A Frustrating BattleDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,As a physician (pediatric anesthesiolo-gist) and the mother of a cancer survi-vor, I have always been acutely aware ofthe threat to our environment and healthfrom the use and misuse of toxic sub-stances, including pesticides and herbi-

cides. For a number of years, I have beena member of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP(formerly NCAMP) and have always ap-preciated Pesticides and You, the Techni-cal Report, and the information andliterature I have requested and received

from your organization.Four years ago, I began a two-

year-long advocacy attempt foruse of Integrated Pest Manage-ment in my children’s privateschool, but was consistently metwith angry resistance. (Perceivedaesthetics took precedence.) Fi-nally, due to personal time con-straints and lack of assistance, Igave up. Mothers gave me verbal

support from behind the scenes, butwould not join in my mission for fear ofantagonizing the school administrationand the social cliques. Later, the schooldid claim that it initiated a less toxic, butcertainly not an IPM, program. I do notreally know for certain. Further pursuitwould necessitate a huge time commit-ment and would result in ostracism ofmy children.

At home, we have never hadChemLawn type services. We just maxi-mize flowerbeds and let the crabgrassand weeds live in the grass. They are allgreen and look the same from a distance.My husband has always had an organicgarden and orchard. So, it especially dis-appoints us to have our children in atoxic school, playground, and sports fieldenvironment. Maybe, someday…

I thank you, your staff, and your vol-unteers for your informed, conscientious,and tireless efforts for humanity and ourplanet. In the future, I hope I can be ofvalued assistance to your mission.Elizabeth C. Jantzen, M.D.Phoenixville, PA

Dear Dr. Jantzen,We know how frustrating it is to encoun-ter resistance in the fight to reduce or haltpesticide use, especially in our schools.Every parent wants his or her children tohave the best possible education in the bestpossible learning environment. Unfortu-nately, many people do not understandthat the learning environment extends be-

Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000 Pesticides and You Page 3

edited by Becky Couse

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

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

yond the quality of school supplies,class size and location of the schoolbuilding. In addition to childhoodcancer, pesticides are increasinglybeing linked to learning disabilities,behavior problems and asthma.Safety at school now extends far be-yond hall monitors, metal detectorsand crossing guards; it includes thepest management practices of theschool districts both inside and out-side of the schools. In Pennsylva-nia public schools, pesticide appli-cations are prohibited in “commonaccess areas” during normal school hoursor extracurricular activities, and there isa required 7-hour restricted entry after apesticide application. Pennsylvania alsohas a registry for chemically sensitive in-dividuals, for indoor and outdoor pesti-cide applications and for those within 500feet of school property, with a 12 to 72hour warning. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s toolkit, Children, Pesticides andSchools: Adopting School IPM, for teach-ers, administrators and concerned parentsexplains the hazards of pesticide use andhow to implement an IPM program inyour school. We also have severalfactsheets about children and pesticidesthat can serve as a great attention getterfor those who aren’t aware of the poten-tial damage of pesticide exposure to chil-dren. Thank you for your letter of appre-ciation and support. Please let us know ifyou would like us to write a letter to yourchildren’s school. Good luck to you!

Poison Poles Kill DogsDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,I am researching for a legal case my fam-ily is filing against our local power util-ity company after some of our showgolden retrievers ingested coppernaphthenate soaked drapes that hadbeen wrapped around power poles in ouryard. Three of our dogs were affected andone died. I am seeking as much infor-mation as possible on coppernaphthenate — and it seems you maybe the people to call upon. Your atten-tion would be most appreciated.Richard PerryAustralia

Dear Mr. Perry,Chemical wood preservatives pose a tre-mendous threat to public health and theenvironment. The copper naphthenatesoaked drapes were wrapped around theutility poles in your yard in order to re-treat the wood poles. Such external treat-ments are usually applied using formula-tions of copper naphthenate, which pro-vide good surface protection, but does notmigrate very deeply into the pole. Coppernaphthenate is one of the many wood pre-servative chemicals that are complex com-binations of chemicals, whose preciseidentity is generally unknown. Coppernaphthenate is a copper salt of naphthenicacid. Naphthenic acid is a complex natu-ral mixture of fatty acids found in petro-leum. It is a byproduct of petroleum refin-ing and has a variable composition. Atypical copper naphthenate product wouldbe about 19% copper naphthenate and 81%secret ingredients. The coppernaphthenate may be contaminated up to25% with hydrocarbons, such as benzenefrom the petroleum source. The toxicologyof copper naphthenate has not been well-documented. The U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) reports that little ofthe required data has been submitted —very little acute toxicity data, no chronictoxicity data, and no inhalation data.Similarly, the Canadian Centre for Occu-pational Health and Safety has no infor-mation for most health effects of coppernaphthenate. Inhalation of copper salts industs can lead to congestion of nasal mem-branes, congestions of the upper digestive,and perforation of the nasal septum. Veryhigh concentrations can cause severe

symptoms of irritation. Chronic ex-posure to copper salts may result inanemia. Exposure to naphthenic acidincreases the permeability of mem-branes, which could increase uptakeof other toxic substances. Studiesshow that chronic exposure to cop-per salts has produced lung and liverdamage, which sometimes progressedto cancer. Also, tests submitted to theEPA found copper naphthenate in-duces DNA damage. The hazards as-sociated with such wood preservativechemicals and the use, storage and

disposal of the preservative-treated prod-ucts is unnecessary, given that alternativematerials to treated wood are available formany uses. Utility companies play a cen-tral role in either continuing or stopping thepoisoning and contamination of the environ-ment, their communities, and, ultimately,their customers. Utility companies in theU.S. and worldwide can and should take anew path and use safer alternatives to chemi-cally treated wood, such as recycled steel,composite, or cement. For more informationabout wood preservatives used to treat util-ity poles, contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPfor a copy of Poison Poles, $22ppd or PolePollution, $7ppd, or visit our website atwww.beyondpesticides.org.

Washington, DC


National Academy ofSciences UrgesBiotechnology inDeveloping CountriesOver 30 years after the GreenRevolution’s assault on indigenous agri-culture, U.S. scientists are back at itagain. This time they’re pushing poten-tially profitable genetically modifiedcrops, once again with claims of feedingthe world. Despite the growing opposi-tion to genetically modified food in theU.S., the National Academy of Sciences(NAS), along with six foreign academies,have urged the increased developmentand use of genetically modified crops tosolve hunger and poverty problems indeveloping nations. The Academies ofSciences in Brazil, China, India andMexico, the Royal Society in London andthe Third World Academy of Sciencesbacked the NAS proposal which was re-leased July 11, 2000. The supporters ofbiotechnology argue that it is an impor-tant tool for farmers in developing na-tions, but opponents cite food allergies,increased pesticide use, genetic pollutionand loss of indigenous knowledge as rea-sons to halt this agricultural takeover. Dr.Bruce Alberts, President of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, told the New YorkTimes that he believed the backlashagainst genetically modified foods indeveloped nations was threatening theiruse elsewhere. “It’s easy for the UnitedKingdom and the United States to say wedon’t need more food, but this is the voiceof the developing world that has faced agreat deal of starvation in the past.” Op-ponents believe these claims, reminiscentof the failed Green Revolution strategy,are an attempt to drum up domestic sup-port for a threatened industry.

Environmentalists find it difficult tobelieve that the industry that developedterminator seeds, a technology that ren-ders second generation seeds sterile, andRound-Up™ (resistant crops, geneticallymodified plants specifically designed tobe doused with large quantities of herbi-

cides, could be concerned with thehealth of the developing world. Ac-cording to Genetically EngineeredFood Alert, a national biotechnol-ogy umbrella group, 71% of all ge-netically modified crops areengineered to be herbicide resis-tant, and 22% are modified to con-tain pesticides within their cells.Even scientists involved with biotech-nology have begun questioning its rolein agriculture. Ingo Potrykus, the devel-oper of an altered rice strain, believes thatwhile biotechnology could be harnessedfor the good of humankind, he questionswhether humanity will have the “collec-tive will” to do so.

U.S. Rejects PesticideTesting on Humans,Loophole RemainsShould humans be used as guinea pigswhen chemical manufacturers test thesafety of pesticides? This isthe question that the Environ-mental Protection Agency(EPA) was trying to answerwhen it created a scientific ad-visory committee to look intothe issue. After mulling it overfor two years, the panelshocked environmentalistsand human rights activistswhen it said yes, humansshould be used under certaincircumstances. Specifically,the draft report released bythe panel supported limitedhuman testing in experimentsintended to study how the hu-man body processes pesti-cides. Despite therecommendations of the sci-entific advisory panel, topEPA officials restored somelevel of hope when they announced onJune 7, 2000, that they would go againstthe recommendation and adopt an offi-cial policy of ignoring human pesticidestudies in establishing legal limits for

pesticides exposure. EPA insists that thedecision overrides the advisory panel’srecommendations. “There is nothing inthis report that will change our policy,”Steven Galston, director of scienceand policy in EPA’s Office of PesticidePrograms, explained to the Washing-ton Post.

Since the 1960’s, pesticide compa-nies have quietly submitted data fromhuman studies to EPA, to replace regu-lations based on animal data, which

many manufacturers claim tobe too strict. Past studies haveinvolved volunteers in prison,and in some cases even preg-nant women in hospitals.Most experiments conductedin recent years have involvedpaying students and otherpeople in need of money a fewhundred dollars to be testsubjects in the experiments,if they are willing to waivetheir right to sue.

Given the nature of thesestudies, EPA’s recent public re-jection of human testing mayappear promising. However,the issue is not as straightfor-ward as it may seem. It’s truethat EPA will not use datafrom human experiments todetermine the specific “no ob-

servable effect level” (NOEL), whichis the level EPA uses to set the refer-ence dose, but EPA does accept humandata on a case by case basis to deter-mine the final safety factor applied to


the NOEL in setting the reference dose.For example, earlier thisyear, EPA cited data from ahuman study to justify low-ering the children’s safetyfactor mandated by theFood Quality Protection Act(FQPA) from 10-fold to 3-fold for the organophos-phate insecticide ethion.Take Action: Write to CarolBrowner, Administrator,EPA, 401 M Street, SW,Washington, DC 20460 andlet her know how you feelabout chemical companiestesting pesticides on humans.Urge the EPA to reject hu-man experimental data un-der all circumstances, sinceit will only stop when the EPA refuses toconsider such data.

EPA lnvestigateslllegal Pesticide Salesto Poor Communities“Tres Pasitos - three little steps, that’s allyour mouse will be able to take,” explainsa man peddling the illegally importedpesticide Tres Pasitos to a group of low-income residents in New York City. Highlytoxic pesticides like Tres Pasitos, whichcontains the active ingredient aldicarb, arebeing sold illegally as a quick fix forroaches, rats and other urban pest prob-lems in low-income communities. EPA iscurrently investigating these illegal pesti-cide sales, primarily in New York and NewJersey. Many of the pesticides under in-vestigation are manufactured legally, butregistered for use in agriculture or by li-censed pest control operators. Becauseprofessional extermination can be expen-sive and least toxic remedies are notreadily available, these cheap and highlypotent pesticides are often sold to andapplied directly by residents in low-in-come neighborhoods. When used incor-rectly, these chemicals can be deadly.

Another pesticide under investiga-tion is the insecticideTempo, manufactured byBayer Corporation. Tempo,which is sold as a powdercontaining the syntheticpyrethroid cyfluthrin, issupposed to be diluted inwater and sprayed only bylicensed pest control op-erators. However, whenTempo is purchased on thestreet without proper in-structions or instructionslisted only in English, itis often spread on floorsand othersurfaces as apowder, ex-posing chil-

dren to up to 400 times thedose acceptable to EPA.Several formulations of me-thyl parathion, an organo-phosphate insecticide usedprimarily in the U.S. to con-trol boll weevils on cottoncrops, have also been foundin people’s homes and clos-ets. (See the August – Sep-tember, 2000 issue ofTechnical Report.) EPA plans to run a large-scale public education campaign to warnthe residents of targeted communitiesabout the dangers of pesticides.

EPA Asks PesticideManufacturers toVoluntarily lmproveSafety lnstructions onPesticide LabelsWhile all pesticides have the potentialto harm human health, recent data com-piled by the American Association of Poi-son Control Centers indicates that 90%of all reported accidental pesticide ex-posures are from residential applications,with half of those involving indoor in-

secticides. In response to the center’s sta-tistics, EPA has asked pesticide manu-facturers to make changes to the labelinstructions of indoor residential insec-ticides, with more specific use restric-tions. Although the changes arevoluntary, EPA requests that changes aremade to the labels of all qualifying in-door insecticides that are released forshipment by the registrants after Octo-ber 1, 2001. The agency believes that thelabel changes will improve its ability toestimate pesticide exposures as requiredby the Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA). The label changes do not applyto residential insecticides formulated as

baits, resin strips, im-pregnated tapes or othersimilar products.

Suggested labelchanges include state-ments regarding: whenoccupants should leavea treated area and whenthey can return, removalof children’s personalitems before spray appli-cations, removal of ex-posed food and eatingutensils, the removal ofstatements that instruct

users to “repeat as necessary,” and plac-ing the statement “READ ENTIRE LA-BEL BEFORE EACH USE” in bold capitalletters on all indoor residential insecti-cides. The agency also discourages theuse of concentrated insecticide productsthat must be diluted by the user, whichincreases the risk of accidental exposure.Although environmentalists have beenasking EPA to improve pesticide labelsfor years, they are critical of the volun-tary nature of this action. Moreover, thereis a concern that EPA has found throughits research that the majority of peopledo not read product labels, which is sig-nificant in the case of toxic chemical use.Overall redesign would better addressthis underlying problem, such as usinga large stop graphic, a skull andcrossbones or another symbol that wouldattract the user’s attention.

by John Kepner

Washington, DC


Around the Country

Research ShowsDangers of PesticideCombinationsImagine the following scenario: Yourneighbor has just begun an afternoonof yard work. She’s wearing a layer ofDeep Woods OFF (to protect herselffrom mosquitoes and has just applied acoating of Dursban™ (to the grass totake care of any potentially threateninglawn pests. Before continuing with theday’s work, she decides to get rid of thetrail of ants on her back porch withsome Raid™ Ant and Roach Killer.While you may already know the dan-gers of these pesti-cides individually,new research showsthat using the activeingredients of thesechemicals togetherputs her at even greater risk. Thestudy led by Mohammed Abou-Dania, Ph.D., a professor of neuro-biology and neuro-toxicology atDuke University in North Caro-lina, reveals that chlorpyrifos, soldas Dursban, is even more deadlywhen used in combination withthe pesticides permethrin and DEET,found in the ant killer and insect repel-lant, respectively. In his study, Dr. Abou-Dania first established the level at whichchlorpyrifos has no effect on the ner-vous system of the lab animals. Then

the levelwas deter-mined forpermethrinand DEET.

When ap-plied indi-

vidually, these chemicals produce noneurological problems at the establishedthresholds. However, when com-bined, they produce a toxiceffect equivalent to the le-thal dose of chlorpyrifos.

According to Dr. GoranJamal, a neurologist at theImperial College of Medi-cine in London, there arethree reasons these chemicalsare far more dangerous whenused in combination than when used in-dividually. First, the stress endured byanimals when exposed to a combination

of chemicals underminesthe brain’s protective layer,allowing 100 times moretoxics to reach the brain.Second, tissue that hasbeen exposed to a foreignchemical becomes moresensitive and receptive toother toxic substances.Third, certain chemicalsbind to the enzymes thatdetoxify the body, makingthe enzymes unavailable toprotect the body from

other intruding chemicals. Dr. Jamalmakes the following comparison, “It’slike releasing 200 criminals in Londonand taking away the police officers thatare usually on duty. There is bound tobe some damage.”

20/20 News ReporterJohn Stossel AdmitsHis Anti-Organic NewsStory Was a Fraud

On February 4, 2000, ABC News corre-spondent John Stossel shocked viewerswhen he reported that organic food is nothealthier than conventional produce, andmay actually be dangerous. Mr. Stosseleven went as far as saying that organicfood could kill you. Citing research hesaid was commissioned by ABC News,Mr. Stossel told the viewers that organicfood was more likely than conventionalfood to be contaminated with E. coli bac-teria and that conventional produce had

no more pesticide residue than or-ganic produce. “Our tests, sur-

prisingly, found no pesticideresidue on the conventionalsamples or the organic,” hesaid in his news report. Per-haps this was a little too

surprising for environmen-talists, who know that pesti-

cide residues often persist longafter harvesting. After the report aired on20/20, the Environmental WorkingGroup (EWG) launched an investiga-tion. Upon contacting the two research-ers that were identified as havingconducted the tests, EWG said Dr.Michael Doyle, a scientist with the Uni-versity of Georgia, and Dr. LesterCrawford, director of GeorgetownUniversity’s Center for Food and Nutri-tion Policy, both confirmed that theyhave never tested produce for pesticideresidue for ABC. However, Dr. Crawfordreported that he did test chicken for pes-ticide residues, and found pesticide resi-dues only on the conventional meat. Mr.Stossel did not mention this finding inhis report.

Despite repeated efforts by environ-mentalists to keep the story off the air,ABC rebroadcast the segment on July 7.At the end of the July re-airing, Mr.Stossel chided ABC correspondent


Cynthia McFadden, who anchored thatnight’s 20/20 show, for buying organicproduce to avoid pesticide residues. Heonce again angered environmentalistswhen he told Ms. McFadden, “It’slogical to worry about pesticideresidues, but in our tests wefound none on either organicor regular produce.” EWGpresident Ken Cook stated,“The chain of eventsmakes it clear that Stosselknew there were no ABCNews tests of produce forpesticides, but made uptest results to sharpen his at-tack on the safety of organic food. Anyrespectable newspaper would fire a re-porter for fabricating material on whicha news product was based, and couplethat action with a front-page apology.”Mr. Stossel did apologize for the false labresults to the 20/20 audience on August11, 2000, however he did not retract hisstatement claiming organic food couldkill you. Most environmentalists did notthink this was enough and are still call-ing for his resignation. For more infor-mation on the safety of organic food versusconventionally produced food, contact Be-yond Pesticides/NCAMP. Take action:Senda letter to David Westin, President, ABCNews, 47 West 66th Street, New York, NewYork, 10023, asking for Mr. Stossel’s resig-nation. For a copy of the EnvironmentalWorking Group investigation, visit theEWG website at www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/givemeafake/home.html or call Be-yond Pesticides/NCAMP for a copy of ourletter to ABC.

Residential PesticideExposure Linked toParkinson’s DiseaseNew research conducted by LoreneNelson, Ph.D., a neuroepidemiologist atthe Stanford University School of Medi-cine, adds Parkinson’s disease to the longlist of problems, disorders and illnessesthat have been linked to pesticide expo-

sure. Her study of almost 500 people re-cently diagnosed with Parkinson’s dis-ease is the largest study ever of its kind,and is the first to examine the connec-

tion between home pesticide useand Parkinson’s disease. Dr.

Nelson and her colleaguescompared the lifetime histo-ries of Parkinson’s patients

with randomly selectedcontrol subjects. The re-sults show that peopleexposed to in-home in-secticides are 70 percentmore likely to develop

the disease than thosewho have not been exposed. Exposureto garden insecticides carries a 50 per-cent increased risk of disease. Amongherbicide users, risk of developingParkinson’s disease increases as the num-ber of days that people are in contact withherbicides accumulates. Respondentswho report handling or applying theseproducts for up to 30 days are 40 per-cent more likely to develop the disease,whereas respondents that report higherlevels of exposure, an average of 160days, have a 70 percent increased risk ofdeveloping Parkinson’s disease. Exposureto fungicides, whilelinked to other healthproblems, is not foundto be a risk factor forParkinson’s disease inthis study.

According to Dr.Nelson, damage tonerve cells in a part ofthe brain that producesthe neurotransmitterdopamine leads to thebalance and movementdifficulties characteristic of Parkinson’sdisease. Therefore, people exposed topesticides and other chemicals that havea particular affinity for this region of thebrain are at greater risk for developingthe disease. Parkinson’s disease occursmost commonly in people over 60 yearsof age. The Parkinson’s Institute reportsthat the disease affects more than one

million people in the United States alone.Although the findings of this study werereleased on May 5, 2000 at the Ameri-can Academy of Neurology’s 52nd AnnualMeeting in San Diego, the full report willnot be released until early 2001.

Doctors EncourageConsumers to StopUsing AntibacterialSoaps and CleansersAntibacterial cleansers are everywhere,from soaps and hand lotions to floorpolishes and dishwasher detergent.You’ve got to rummage around theshelves at the grocery store just to finda bar of soap that isn’t anti-bacterial.While these products claim to rid ourlives of germs, cleaning with antibacte-rial cleansers can actually compromiseour health. In July at the InternationalConference on Emerging Infectious Dis-eases, Dr. Stuart Levy, a microbiologistand physician at the Tufts UniversitySchool of Medicine, insists that weeliminate the widespread use of antibac-terial products. Dr. Levy explains thatbacteria are a natural and needed

part of human life.Dousing our living en-vironments with anti-bacterial soaps canupset the balance ofmicroorganisms, leav-ing behind only thestrongest, most devel-oped strains of bacte-ria. “By encouragingthe unnatural selec-tion of bacteria thathave grown immune

to most, if not all, of today’s antibiotics,we unwittingly endanger global health,”Dr. Levy reports. According to findingspresented at the conference, there areat least five organisms with strains thatare already resistant to all antibiotics,including vancomycin, which inthe past was considered a last lineof defense.

by John Kepner

Washington, DC


Around the Country

Dr. Levy explains that we do not needto live in sterilized homes, and that a rea-sonable level of germs actually strength-ens the immune system. In fact, aninfant’s immune system cannot developproperly when raised in an environmentsterilized with antibacterial cleansers, hesays. During the first year of life, if theimmune system is not properly stimu-lated, the cells that make antibodies tofight bacteria will be underdeveloped,and the cells that produce antibodies tofight allergens will be overactive, result-ing in increased susceptibility to disease,allergies and asthma. Dr. Levy adds thatantibacterial cleansers only make sensewhen somebody in the family has a com-promised immune system. He recom-mends returning to the basics - soap andwater.

Twin Studies Showthat Cancer HasStronger Link toEnvironmental Factorsthan GeneticsScientists have long debated the role thatgenes play in human health. With theHuman Genome Project recently com-pleted, many people are looking to ge-netics to cure diseases. However, a recentstudy by epidemiologist PaulLichtenstein at Sweden’s Karolinska In-stitute, suggests that focusing on genet-ics as a cure for cancer may not be ourbest course of action. The study, whichexamined 44,788 pairs of twins, revealsthat the likelihood of developing cancerhas far more to do with exposure to pol-lutants in the environment than genet-ics. Dr. Lichtenstein’s results reveal thatenvironmental factors are linked to twiceas many cancers as genetic factors. Infact, only three types of cancer show asignificant genetic correlation. Evenprostate cancer, which carries the stron-gest genetic link, is only controlled 42%by genetic factors and 58% by environ-

mental factors. The other types of can-cer showing a genetic link, breast andcolorectal cancer, have less than a 35%link to genetics in the study.

The study, which was published inthe July 13, 2000 edition of the New En-gland Journal of Medicine (Vol. 343, No.2), confirms what many physicians, sci-entists and public health advocates haveknown for years. For example, past stud-ies have shown that people living in ru-ral Asia have historically had a very lowoccurrence of breast andcolon cancers. However,upon moving to the U.S.,where these types of can-cer are very common,their cancer rates increasedramatically. This knowl-edge of the environmen-tal link to cancer has leftmany questioning U.S.policies on cancer pre-vention. “This raises thequestion of why aren’t wedoing more to identifyavoidable risk factors for cancer, includ-ing occupational exposures,” Devra LeeDavis, a cancer epidemiologist atCarnegie Mellon University, told theWashington Post. “You can’t choose yourparents. What you can do is control yourexposures in your environment.” Formore information or a copy of this article,contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Neighbor NotificationBill Passes inNew York StateDespite discrepancies in the New YorkSenate and Assembly versions of theState’s Neighbor Notification Bill (S.8223/A.1461-A), sponsored by Senator CarlMarcellino and Assemblyman ThomasDiNapoli, the two houses reached anagreement and a pesticide notification billpassed on June 22, 2000. The bill, whichis a compromise between the more strin-gent Assembly bill and the weaker Senate

version, is far from perfect, but a goodstart. The final version requires statewidenotification of pesticide applications indaycare centers and schools, but providesonly county opt-ins, meaning the mea-sures must be passed by individual countylegislatures, for commercial and residen-tial lawn applications. This has alreadybeen done in Suffolk County. The state-wide provisions for daycare centers in-clude 48-hour prior notification postedat drop-off locations, listing the pesticide

to be used, how to getmore information, and awarning statement. Thebill also establishes a par-ent registry and requiresthat schools provide no-tification to all parentsand staff three times ayear, after the pesticidesare used, including acomplete listing of allpesticides applied in theschool and the date andthe location of applica-

tion. If counties choose to adopt the resi-dential opt-ins, homeowners would berequired to post signs in their yards not-ing that pesticides have been applied tothe lawn, similar to the signs already usedby commercial applicators. In addition,commercial applicators would have tonotify the owners of abutting property48 hours prior to an application. “Par-ents and homeowners have the right toknow when pesticides are being used sothat they can take reasonable and neces-sary precautions to safeguard their chil-dren, pets and themselves fromunnecessary exposure to these chemi-cals,” Senator Marcellino told Reutersnewswire. Take Action: Residents of NewYork, because much of this bill is depen-dent upon your counties, it is important towrite or call your county government tolet officials know how you feel about theNeighborhood Notification Bill. For moreinformation, contact Environmental Advo-cates, 518-462-5526, and Long IslandNeighborhood Network, 516-541-4321.


Congress Wants to WeakenChildren’s Provision of Pesticide Law

Effort underway to pass amendments before end of session

lf you think the risk assessment-based health standardof the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) is bad policywhen it comes to protecting people from hazardous

pesticides in food, water and around living spaces, notethat things could get a whole lot worse under a bill nowpicking up steam in Congress. A majority in Congress hasbeen convinced by the pro-pesticide lobby that decisionslike the one recently announced by EPA on chlorpyrifos(DursbanTM) and others pending on organophosphate pes-ticides take the idea of protection of children and otherliving things a bit too far. So, 234 U.S. Representatives and39 Senators have signed on to the Regulatory Fairness andOpenness Act of 1999 (H.R. 1592/S. 1464), which wouldprevent the use of a higher safety standard in the face ofinadequate health and safety information.

Despite the number of supporters, the bill, popularlyknown as the “Pombo Bill” in the House after its sponsorRichard Pombo (R-CA), and sponsored in the Senate bySenator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), is not without its opponents.A vote in the House Agriculture Committee was canceledon September 7, 2000. Fortunately, Representative TomBliley (R-VA), chairman of the House Commerce Com-mittee and the original sponsor of FQPA, has voiced hisopposition to H.R. 1592. Speaking to the American BarAssociation’s Special Committee on Pesticides, ChemicalRegulation and Right to Know on June 27, Rep. Bliley hadthis to say about H.R. 1592: “The administration is op-posed. The environmental community is opposed. It is notgoing to become law this year. I’m not going to drag it upand have my guys cast as anti-environmentalists.”

Nevertheless, the bill could still make its way throughcommittee to the House floor before the end of the con-gressional session. Recently, some lawmakers in the Househave suggested attaching H.R. 1592 to a must-pass fiscalyear 2001 appropriations bill. The vast majority of thebill’s cosponsors are Republicans –in the House, 71% Re-publicans vs. 29% Democrats, and in the Senate, 85%Republicans vs. 15% Democrats.

What is the Pombo Bill?If passed into law, H.R. 1592 would effectively block theimplementation of the most health-protective provisionsof FQPA. Despite FQPA’s weaknesses (See PAY, vol. 16, no.3 & 4, Winter 1996-97 for a more complete analysis of theFQPA), H.R. 1592 would remove what teeth FQPA does

have. FQPA was adopted unanimously in 1996 in responseto the 1993 National Academy of Sciences report, Pesti-cides in the Diets of Infants and Children, that called atten-tion to the specific vulnerability of children to pesticideexposure, and in exchange for the repeal of the DelaneyClause provisions in the Federal Food, Drug and CosmeticAct, which banned cancer causing pesticides in processedfood. Under FQPA, EPA is required to include an addi-tional ten-fold margin of safety for children. This 10x safetyfactor can be lowered or eliminated only if the agency has“reliable data” in setting its acceptable risk levels.

Section 4 of the bill requires EPA to develop, for everydecision on a pesticide, a lengthy report on the assump-tions, models and any additional safety factors used in placeof data that “are being developed” or “could be obtained.”Then, section 5 of the bill prohibits the issuance of a moreprotective tolerance if it is based on “any information, cal-culation, or assumption described” in that report. In otherwords, the additional safety factors that are required un-der FQPA, when there are safety information gaps in thedatabase, would be prohibited under H.R. 1592 becauseof the gaps in the data. H.R. 1592 will delay EPA actionindefinitely as industry is given time to develop data whilethe current less protective standards remain in place.

That same report required under section 4 must iden-tify risks based on “information that otherwise is not rea-sonably representative of risks to consumers or to majoridentifiable subgroups of consumers, on a national or re-gional basis.” Again, section 5 of H.R. 1592 prohibits theissuance of a more protective standard based on those risks.That requirement and prohibition would reestablish thepre-FQPA process whereby small highly vulnerable sub-populations, such as infants and children, were not con-sidered when setting standards. Requiring these reportsbefore any action can be taken would bury EPA in paper-work that could delay action for years.

Write your U.S. Representative and Senators and tell themwhat you think about H.R. 1592 and S. 1464.

For more information about H.R. 1592/S. 1464, includ-ing the status of the legislation, list of cosponsors, and thecomplete text of the bill, visit the Thomas website at http://thomas.loc.gov/. Type in H.R. 1592 or S. 1464 in the slotprovided for searching by bill number and click on “search.”For sample letters that you can send to your Congress peopleand Representative Bliley, visit Beyond Pesticides’ websiteat www.beyondpesticides.org.

Pesticides and You Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Lawn Mowers and Leaf PilesFall is prime time for lawn careby Becky Crouse

We are nearing the end of summer. Already you canfeel your calloused hands starting to soften withthe thoughts of the upcoming mower-free winter.

Before you get ahead of yourself, remember that autumn lawncare is vital to your lawn’s health. It also requires some rak-ing, so put down the hand lotion, stop gazing at the plum-meting thermometer, and let’s get your lawn ready for theimpending winter.

Keep on MowingI know, Labor Day has passed, you have put away yourpatio furniture and traded your beach outings andbarbeques for apple picking and baking, but your lawn isstill growing. It doesn’t know that Labor Day signals changefor humans, and it doesn’t care. As long as it is warm out-side, your lawn will continue to remind you that it is there.This means you need to mow. Don’t cringe, the frequencyof your mowing should reduce as the temperature contin-ues to drop, and you can finally use that handy leaf-mulch-ing attachment for your mower. In the fall, the energy pro-duced by photosynthesis is redirected for root growth andstorage, which means that you can mow the grass a littleshorter — to about 2 inches — to promotethe production of new grass stems. Thismay help thicken your lawn and fill insome of those bare spots that form asthe weeds die out. (The sensitivegrowing point for most weeds isnear the top of the plant, whereasthe sensitive growing point forgrass is near the soil. Choppingthe tops off the weeds will helpto get rid of them.)

Leaving the shredded leavesand grass clippings on thelawn, as long as they don’t ac-cumulate to more than about ahalf-inch, will form a naturalcompost and feed the grass withmineral nutrients as they decompose. Unless you have thathandy mulching attachment, you will want to rake up thefalling leaves. OK, maybe you don’t want to, but you willdefinitely need to. Allowing the leaves to sit on your lawndoesn’t allow enough sunlight or oxygen through, and maylead to outbreaks of disease during the upcoming wet sea-son. That will mean even more work for you later.

Thatch TherapyYour next step: Dealing with thatch. Thatch is the layer ofdead and living stems and roots that accumulate on the soilsurface. When the thatch layer becomes thick, the roots willgrow within the layer of thatch instead of establishing them-selves deeply in the soil. The result is a lawn that is subject tomoisture extremes with roots that aren’t protected from tem-

perature extremes and a thick layer that is harboring infec-tious fungi and disease. In short, your lawn isn’t happy. Whatis the lawn keeper to do? Dethatch and aerate!

Dethatching involves removing that unsightly build upof decomposed stems and leaves sitting on the soil’s surfaceand allowing fertilizer and water to penetrate and feed yourstarving soil. If you only have a few problem patches of thatchin your lawn, a thatching rake may be sufficient. You canbuy one at your favorite lawn and garden store, and maybe

even pick up some other fun tools while you’re at it. (Itis the fall sale after all.) If you are looking at your lawn,

glassy-eyed at the thought of using a rake on all ofthat, there are also vertical mowers that cut through

the thatch down into the soil surface. You shouldbe able to rent one at that favorite store, so you

still get to go. If it is all still sounding a littleintimidating, you also have the option of hir-

ing someone to do it for you, but that takesaway all the fun.

Aerating will also help to de-compose thatch. It loosensyour soil, allowing air, waterand nutrients to reach theroots of your grass that you

have so effectively starved until now. Lawn grasses alsoroot better in aerated soil, and oxygen will help the grassgrow. Earthworms are your best soil aerators, but if theydon’t seem to be doing the job, or if you’ve killed them offby unwittingly applying a pesticide during the course ofthe summer, you’re going to have to help out. If you onlyhave a small area of lawn that has become compacted by

...remember that autumn lawn

care is vital to your lawn’s health.


traffic, a special hollow-tined tool made especially for thispurpose can be picked up at that lawn and garden supplystore. If the job is a little large to be done by hand, rent acore aerator, a lawn-care machine that removes small plugsof soil, or call up your last-resort organic lawn care com-pany to give you a hand. Your lawn will be much happierin the spring if you take these steps now.

Proper FeedingFertilization will be your next concern. Your lawn may havebeen sending you signals about its needs all summer withoutyou even realizing it. For example, grass loves nitrogen. Clo-ver gets its nitrogen from the air, and grass from the soil. Ifclover starts taking over your lawn, chances are that your soilis nitrogen deficient. Dandelions love soil with a pH of 7.5,while grass loves a pH of 6.5. If your soil is alkaline, you willnever conquer your dandelion problem. You can have yoursoil tested to determine its nutrient content and pH at yourlocal cooperative extension.

If your soil is too acidic, add limestone to raise the pH.Limestone will also add calcium, which deters those peskydandelions. (If you happen to like your dandelions, then youcan skip this part.) You will need to wait about a week afteradding lime to fertilize. If it is too alkaline, gypsum, sulfur, orpeat moss will lower the pH.

Once your pH problem is solved, it’s time to choose afertilizer. By applying fertilizer in the fall, you give it plentyof time to settle into the soil before the spring when yourgrass will need its nutrients. You will want to select a fertil-izer with nitrogen (to help grass grow), potassium (to givegrass strength to survive the winter), and phosphorus (tofoster strong root systems and aid in seedling germination)at levels corresponding with yourlawn’s needs. Be careful, becausemore is not better, and too muchfertilizer can burn your lawn,which you have been so diligentlycaring for. Your fertilizer shouldrelease nutrients slowly, andshould not be water soluble oryou will lose most of your nutri-ents after the first rain. We, ofcourse, recommend a good or-ganic fertilizer or compost, whichare both great sources of naturalnutrients, easily “eaten” by yourlawn as it needs sustenance, andharmless to microorganisms andearthworms. You can spread yourfertilizer either by hand or with amechanical distributor, purchasedat that lawn and garden store again.

Now, amidst the flurry of your fall lawn chores, you mayoccasionally look around and notice your neighbors peer-

October is the best month to take care of your fall lawn-care chores. Here is a quick checklist to be sure thatyou are doing all that you can to keep your lawn healthyand happy.

O Continue to MOW through the fall, keeping theblade height slightly lower and using shreddedgrass clippings and leaves as mulch.

O RAKE your leaves if you don’t have a mulching at-tachment for your lawn mower or if the layer ofshredded clippings and leaves become more thana half-inch thick.

O DETHATCH your lawn if it has built up a layer ofdead stems and leaves at the soil surface.

O AERATE the soil to allow oxygen, water, and nu-trients to circulate.

O TEST the nutrient and pH levels of your soil to findout how to properly fertilize.

O FERTILIZE according to your soil’s needs.

O SEED your lawn’s bare spots, or overseed the en-tire lawn, if necessary.

O MAINTAIN your lawn until the cold really hits bycontinuing to mow and rake, making the final mowfairly short — about 1 1/2 inches.

O ENJOY your peace of mind knowing that, in thespring, your yard work is going to be reduced andyour lawn is going to be healthier and thicker.

ing at you curiously, weed killer in hand, andscratching their heads in wonderment at yournifty new collection of lawn-care contraptions.This may be the ideal time to approach thesefolks and give them a little advice on achiev-ing a healthy lawn without the herbicides andsynthetic fertilizers. Maybe you can invitethem to accompany you to the lawn and gar-den store and point out all the fun tools andnifty organic products that they, too, could bethe proud owners of. If you could use sometips on effectively talking to others about re-ducing or eliminating their pesticide use, con-tact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for its guide,Getting the Message Across (4 pp).

After the brief detour with your neighbors,take a step back; look proudly at your happy,

healthy soil, and smile, because you only have one morestep. Yup, you guessed it. It’s time to seed.


Becoming Seed SavvyAre you confused byyour choices in thegrass seed aisle? Don’tfret. Most of us are.Here are some basicguidelines for choos-ing a seed variety thatwill thrive in yourlawn’s conditions.

There are two major groups of grasses: cool season and warm season.Cool-season grasses, which include fine fescues, Kentucky bluegrass, andperennial ryegrass, are best for the northern half of the country. They typi-cally grow in the spring and fall, when the ground is moist, and becomedormant midsummer. Warm-season grasses, as you might guess, are moreheat and drought tolerant than cool-season grasses and will do better inthe Sun Belt or desert southwest. They typically start growing in the earlysummer. Warm-season grasses include St. Augustinegrass, bermudagrass,and zoysiagrass. If you live in a transition zone, you will want a mixture ofcool- and warm-season varieties that will suit your climate.

You will want to take a look at that bag of seed before you haul it to thecheckout counter. Be sure that your seed contains only fine-textured grass,check for a variety of names, and make sure that your mixture does notcontain annual grasses, as they will not be back next year. You will alsowant the upgraded names of grasses, such as ‘Merion’ Kentucky bluegrassas opposed to plain old Kentucky bluegrass or common Kentucky blue-grass. WARNING: These days, many conventional seeds are also coated withfungicides that may put poisons in your soil, the very thing you have beenworking so hard to avoid. If you are having trouble finding fungicide-freeseed at the local lawn and garden store, you can contact Seeds of Change (1-888-762-7333) for a catalog.

The Chemical-Free Lawn by Warren Schultz (Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA,1989) offers these recommended mixes for some typical lawn conditions:

O A good general-purpose turfgrass for cool-region lawns is a mix ofnamed Kentucky bluegrass and red fescue.

O For shade, a mix should include more fescue than bluegrass. Anotheroption is a 40-40-20 mix of named Kentucky bluegrass, red fescue,and perennial ryegrass. For heavy use, plant 95 percent named turftype tall fescue with 5 percent Kentucky bluegrass.

O For open, sunny locations, a good mix of 40 to 60 percent ‘Merion’Kentucky bluegrass, with the remainder made up of other improvedbluegrasses.

O An equal mix of improved red fescue and improved Kentucky bluegrassis also good for the sun.

For a copy of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s least-toxic lawn care informationpacket, send $4 ppd to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street, SE, Wash-ington, DC 20003, 202-543-5450, or through our website,www.beyondpesticides.org.

Seed SavvyFall is the best time for seeding. You canfill in those ugly bare patches that havebeen mocking you all season and thenlook forward to a full, lush spring. Toreseed, you need to roughen up the sur-face soil of those bare patches with arake or shovel. (You must own one ofthose by now with all those trips you’vemade to your now least-favorite store,the local lawn and garden center.)Spread the grass seed over the loosenedarea evenly, and gently rake it to makesure that the seeds are actually comingin contact with your happy soil. Nowapply a light layer of mulch or fertilizerand give your seedlings a nice drink.However, if you are looking over yourlawn thinking that it is more of a barepatch than an actual lawn, you maywant to reseed the entire thing. This canbe accomplished by either overseeding(spreading grass seed over the grass youalready have) or starting from scratch,tilling you entire lawn, and then spread-ing new seed. You can also hire some-one to do this for you.

UpkeepKeep an eye on your lawn, and be sureto keep it trimmed and leaf free as wehead towards the end of fall. Give it anice, short haircut as the final mow(about 1 1/2 inches), and then sit backin front of the fireplace with your hotchocolate and fresh-baked apple pie,think about those weekends that youwon’t be stuck doing yardwork, andlook forward to spring.

It seems like a lot of work, and, ifyou are doing it for the first time, itis. But, if you keep your lawn up withproper maintenance year round, it willbe thicker, healthier, happier, and re-quire much less work in the end.


Wood Preservatives Cause lllnessesVictims stories tell of trail of poisoningby Greg Kidd, J.D.

W ith wood preservatives being among the most toxicchemicals known to humankind and representingover 30 percent of all pesticide use, the eerie silence

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on woodpreservative poisoning and contamination represents alongstanding failure to act in the public interest. The lack ofadequate government attention to this means that people arehurt and children are made sick year in and year out. Thestories recounted here describe the dimensions of the prob-lem. They are the tip of the iceberg, where most of the harmand suffering remains uncollected, unreported, undiagnosedand unstudied. This occurs despite findings of widespreadcontamination with wood preservatives like pentachlorophe-nol (penta) in children. It occurs despite the knowledge thatpenta treated utility poles record the largest reservoir any-where of the chemical’s contaminant, dioxin. It continues eventhough penta can be banned without economic impact onutility companies, given the availability of cost effective alter-natives. Similarly, railroad ties made out of recycled materialscan be used at a competitive cost. Looking at wood preserva-tives takes us through a trail of horror stories from their pro-duction, to use in wood treatment facilities, to exposurethrough utility poles, to their disposal. At each one of thesepoints, there are stories of poisoning and contamination.

Given that EPA does not operate a pesticide incident moni-toring system, and instead relies on manufacturer reports ofpoisoning incidents, it is essentialthat Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPbuild a database of its own. We dothis on all pesticides by collectingPesticide Incident Report forms,which can be found on our website,http://www.beyondpesticides.org.In the case of wood preservatives,EPA has failed to move ahead ex-peditiously with a regulatory re-view of wood preservatives towhich it committed itself over threeyears ago. This followed an agencyfinding in 1981 that wood preser-vative uses should only remain onthe market because less hazardoussubstitutes could not be identified.However, in a preliminary risk assessment of pentachlorophe-nol released in 1999, EPA found excessive risks to children

exposed to penta treated utility poles.1 In a Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP survey, we found that 69 percent of respond-ing utilities are in the practice of giving away utility polestaken out of service.2

There is no question that public exposure to wood preser-vatives is widespread and uncontrolled. People receiving freewood from utility companies seeking to avoid proper disposalof contaminated material do not suspect the hazards whenthey handle it and use it around their home and garden. Thosepurchasing lumber treated with copper chromium arsenate(CCA) at their local hardware store do not receive warningson wearing protective equipment when handling the woodand proper disposal of the contaminated sawdust. As a resultof widespread exposure, people are getting sick. This piecediscusses some of the sicknesses that are being attributed tothese chemicals.

If you think you have suffered adverse effects associated withwood preservatives in your home, community or workplace, orknow of someone who has, please notify Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.3 This information can be used as part of our effort tostop the use of hazardous wood preservatives.

BrightSpirit, Davenport, WAAs a cable TV installer for Cox Cable Company in Spokane,WA, BrightSpirit climbed 10 to 30 utility poles a day. When

she began in 1982, at age 18,BrightSpirit was not familiar withthe names or hazards of the chemi-cals that are pumped into the polesthat she climbed, but she soon be-came very familiar with the strongchemical smell that stuck to herclothes and skin. The smell waspenta, one of the three most com-monly used wood preservatives.Penta is absorbed readily by thelungs, skin and stomach. Workershandling penta treated wood re-ceive the most significant expo-sure first through skin contact andsecond through the air.

According to EPA the risk ofcancer faced by people like BrightSpirit, who work with andclimb on penta treated poles, is astronomical. For example,

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Science Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Pentachlorophenol (PC Code: 063001,Registration Case Number 2505).2 Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP. 1999. Pole Pollution: New Utility Pole Chemical Risks Identified by EPA While Survey Shows Widespread Contamination.3 While we focus here on wood preservatives, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP collects information through its Pesticide Incident Report form on all pesticides.

BrightSpirit (right) with daughter Erin.


EPA has calculated that the people whose job it is to retreatpoles in the field with a fresh dose of penta face a risk ofcancer that is 3.4 million times higher than acceptable. An-other huge risk comes from the contaminants of penta, diox-ins, furans and hexachlorobenzene. EPA has determined thatpenta treated wood represents one of the largest reservoirs ofdioxins in the environment.

BrightSpirit suffered from a consistent rash on her skinduring her time as a pole climber. Skin contact with penta isknown to cause both contact dermatitis and chloracne. WhenBrightSpirit realized that she was pregnant, she wisely took adesk job. Studies show that penta accumulates in fatty tissueand breast milk. BrightSpirit’s daughter, Erin, was slow to learnto crawl. As she grew, it became clear that Erin was learningdisabled. Now 18 years old, Erin suffers from serious short-term memory problems. She reads on a fifth grade level andsimple math causes her stress. BrightSpirit is convinced thather exposure to penta, and dioxins during pregnancy is linkedto her daughter’s condition.

Shirley Simpson, North Little Rock, ARAs a result of the contamination caused by their neighbor,one of the largest producers of chemically-treated woodproducts, Koppers Industries, Inc., Shirley Simpson andother members of her community are working to force thecompany to clean up its act. Koppers produces chemicallytreated railroad ties and utility poles. Studies conductedby both EPA and the Arkansas Depart-ment of Environmental Quality(ADEQ) have found elevated levels ofcreosote, penta and arsenic, one of theconstituents of CCA, in the localground water. All of these chemicalsare linked to cancer, while arsenic is aknown human carcinogen.

Ms. Simpson can recount many hor-rible stories about the emissions com-ing from the Koppers plant. One re-cent example of a poisoning incidentwas on a clear day in August 1999,when Ms. Simpson and a neighborwere walking through the neighbor-hood collecting signatures on a peti-tion for a drainage project. When theywere about a block away from Ms.Simpson’s home, they were over-whelmed with fumes coming from the plant. It instantlyburned their eyes, nose and throat. By the time they ar-rived at her house, Ms. Simpson could hardly talk. Thedoctor stated that from all indications it was clear that shewas chemically poisoned, but could not verify the chemi-cals without extensive testing.

Ms. Simpson’s symptoms are consistent with dermal expo-sure to coal-tar creosote. Creosote can enter the body throughthe lungs, stomach and the skin. Skin contact with a few dropsof creosote irritates and burns the skin and eyes. Ms. Simpson

has noted a large number of respiratory problems in her com-munity. She has also noted elevated incidences of nerve dis-orders and cancer, both associated with chronic exposure tocreosote and the other wood preservatives.

Ms. Simpson has discovered that grassroots action can makea difference. A public relations official of the ADEQ told herthat the agency would not have become involved without Ms.Simpson’s letter writing and organizing. In her effort to pro-tect the health of her community, she initiated a lawsuit againstKoppers. She has also decided to run for Alderman in herward. One of the planks in her platform is to work towards acleaner, safer and more prosperous community.

Steve Yokom, Lincoln, MlSteve Yokom and other active members of his community havebeen working to get a power generating plant that burnschipped, treated wood to stop polluting the air. Most of thechipped wood that is burned is treated with creosote and somewith penta. The plant also burns huge amounts of chippedtires that have been sprayed with insecticides in mosquitoabatement programs. As a result of their efforts, Viking En-ergy stopped the wood chipping operation at the plant in early2000 and has not received a permit to burn CCA treated wood,along with other demolition and construction waste. How-ever, even without the chipping operation, massive amountsof toxic wood dust from the huge pile of chipped wood isblown across the area. It is not uncommon for the area around

the plant to have a strong chemical smell,so strong that people riding down theroad alongside the plant report that it cantake their breath away.

Since Consumers Power beganburning treated wood in 1997, the resi-dents of Lincoln have experiencedwhat appears to be an elevation in ail-ments linked to acute and chronic ex-posure to creosote and penta, as wellas other pesticides. People suffer fromburning eyes and irritated skin. Theasthma rate has increased dramaticallyin recent years. A large number ofpeople in the community regularlyexperience cluster headaches, an inca-pacitating type of migraine.

The storage pile of wood chips andtires often grows above 40 feet in

height. The pile sits uncovered in a wetland were rain cancause chemicals to leach out of the pile into the soil andground water. One time the pile caught fire and burnedout of control for four days before firefighters were calledin. Mr. Yokom remembers the cloud of caustic smoke thatirritated the eyes and lungs of the residents of Lincoln whilethe fire raged. Mr. Yokom is concerned about other com-munities that are facing similar situations, including theMcBain power plant in Cadillac, MI that received a permitto burn CCA treated wood.

Caption: Shirley Simpson from her campaign literature.


J.D. Morris, Billings, MTDuring the summer of 1997, after J.D. Morris, his wife andfour children moved into their home, they noticed that thewooden deck attached to the back of their house gave off achemical stink. The warm weather heated the deck and vola-tilized the chemicals in it. The Morris children began to com-plain about irritated, watering eyes, headaches and feelingsof nausea as the fumes came in through their open windows.Mr. Morris put two and two together after seeing a programon PBS about toxic chemicals and environmental contamina-tion and talking with a friend who smelled the fumes andwas reminded of a transformer fire. On closer inspection, Mr.Morris determined that his deck was constructed of milledcross-arms from utility poles. Some of the planks of wood

still had the aluminum tags that had been attached to thecross-arms and the drill holes from the bolts used to hold thecross-arms to the utility poles.

Mr. Morris decided to have a sample of the wood takenfrom his deck and analyzed by a laboratory that tests for pes-ticides and other types of synthetic chemicals. The lab foundhigh levels of phenolic compounds (over 150,000 ug/kg),components of the wood preservative creosote in the woodsample. The levels in the wood prompted the lab to write toMr. Morris with the following recommendations:1) Discontinue use of the deck under circumstances where

skin contact is possible. Avoid spreading the tar-like ma-terial to other surfaces exposed to human contact, espe-cially inside of your home; and

2) Consider removing the source of the exposure by remov-ing the deck and associated stained or contaminated ma-terials and disposing of them properly.

Since then, Mr. Morris’s twelve-year-old son has been sufferingfrom headaches and regular bouts of nausea for which he hasto take daily medication. In addition, a dermatologist has rec-ommended that Mr. Morris have a biopsy conducted on aninch wide discolored and swollen persistent sore on his hand.

The Morris’s cannot afford at this time to have the deckremoved and disposed of (a local environmental organiza-tion estimated that it would cost approximately $80,000 to

clean up the mess created by the wooden deck). Mr. Morris ispursuing a legal solution to his problem, asking that the localreal estate interests take responsibility for removing the deckand cleaning up the environment. Mr. Morris notes that his isnot the only family in his community that is facing healthrisks because toxic, chemically treated wood was used to builddecks on other houses as well.

Johnny Shelton, Cullman, ALJohnny Shelton beganworking with woodpreservatives in 1993.For one year heworked at a small fac-tory in Electric Mills,Mississippi that pro-duced wood polespressure treated withpenta. The company,which has since goneout of business, pro-duced between 100and 300 poles eachday. Mr. Shelton wasresponsible for climb-ing into the retortchamber to hook thecable to the cars loadedwith freshly treated wood. As Mr. Shelton puts it, “I was wastedeep in the stuff.” When climbing over the poles, the strongchemical fumes that would burn his lungs often overwhelmedhim. The fumes often caused Mr. Shelton to feel dizzy andvomit. He generally felt sick and run-down.

His employers never provided him with protective cloth-ing, or even suggested that he wear any protection, and neverstressed the risks associated with his exposure to penta. Mr.Shelton was told in an offhand way that if he got penta onhimself or his clothing, a daily occurrence, that he shouldsimply wash it off. At that time, he was told that penta couldmake him sterile, cause birth defects and cancer.

Mr. Shelton left the employ of the treatment plant and nowworks for a cable company, climbing poles and replacing oldpoles that are being taken out of service. He recognizes thesame strong smell of penta as he climbs the poles and experi-ences skin irritation when his wrist touches the poles. Whenreplacing old poles, he cuts the poles into six-foot lengths sothat people can take them away to use around their homes. Itis not uncommon for him to see all the plants die within asix-foot circle around the piles of cut up poles.

Mr. Shelton’s son, Taylor, was born in November of 1998with severe birth defects in his leg. The bones in young Taylor’sankle will not harden and he has swapped toes on that foot.The doctors have told Mr. Shelton that if his son’s conditiondoes not change by October of 2000 then his son’s leg willhave to be removed. Mr. Shelton is convinced that his expo-sure to penta is responsible for his son’s birth defects.

The Morris children playing on the back deck before the family became aware of the hazards.

Taylor Shelton at 18 months.


The Schooling of StatePesticide Laws – 2000A review of state pesticide laws regarding schoolsEditor’s note: This report updates an earlier report released in Pesticides and You, volume 18, no. 3, 1998.

by Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman

Pesticides are poisons, designed to kill and harm livingorganisms. You, your children, and school personnelare exposed to hazardous pesticides in the school set-

ting. Many schools routinely apply pesticides in classrooms,gyms, playgrounds, athletic fields, cafeterias, and offices.Most schools do not have pest management or pesticidepolices. Rather, they contract out for routine spraying ofthese hazardous chemicals or they use inadequately trainedcustodial staff. When pesticides are applied on a routinebasis, they are often needlessly applied and are frequentlyoverapplied. Children’s health and worker safety concernshave caused parents and school employees across the coun-try to take action to reduce pesticide use in the schools.Because of the inadequacies of protection on the federal level,state governments have, in some cases, attempted to stepinto the breach by regulating pesticide use and in some casestype of pesticide used.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP first surveyed state pesticide lawsregarding pesticide use in schools and states that have passedlaws attempting to curtail potentially dangerous exposure inthe report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws (1998). Sincethe publication of this report, several states have passed lawsthat have addressed one or more of the following five criteria:(i) restricted spray (buffer) zones to address chemicals driftinginto school yards and school buildings; (ii) posting signs forindoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior writtennotification for pesticide use; (iv) prohibiting when and wherepesticides can be applied; and, (v) requirements for schools toadopt an integrated pest management (IPM) program. Thesefive criteria are essential ingredients in a program to protectchildren from pesticides used in schools.

Although there continues to be growing movement on thisissue, pesticide use policies and practices remain deficient inthe protection of children. Without minimum federal stan-

SPRAY FREE

ZONE


dards, the protection provided children is uneven and inad-equate across the country. Just over half of the states, or 31states, have adopted pesticide acts and regulations that ad-dress the protection of children by specifically focusing onpesticide use in, around or near schools.1 Of these, only 20states address indoor use of pesticides.2

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s survey of state requirements andrecommendations regarding pesticide use in schools show that:

O Six states recognize the importance of controlling driftby restricting pesticide applications in areas neighbor-ing a school;

O Twelve states require posting of signs for indoor schoolpesticide applications;

O Twenty-one states require posting of signs for pesticideapplications made on school grounds;

O Fifteen states require written notification to students, par-ents, or staff before a pesticide application is made toschools; and,

O Thirteen states recommend or require schools to use IPM.

These laws are a great victory for children and are instrumen-tal in improving protections from school pesticide use. How-ever, to the extent that these laws do not prohibit the use oftoxic pesticides around children and do not treat pesticideexposure as a public health issue by providing universal priornotification of pesticide use, they all to some degree compro-mise the protection of children. Massachusetts is the first statein the nation to prohibit the use of the most dangerous pesti-cides in and around schools. Although the Massachusetts’ lawhas some weaknesses, it should be considered, along withMaryland’s state school pesticide law, a model for other states,as it is a positive improvement and establishes landmark re-quirements regarding the use of pesticides.

Federal Role in SchoolPesticide Use LackingThe variety of legislative and administrative responses by stateshas been prompted by concerns about the known and un-known hazards of pesticide use, as well as deficiencies in thefederal regulatory review of pesticides. The vast majority ofall pesticides registered for use by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and state governments have neverbeen fully tested for the full range of potential human healtheffects, such as cancer, birth defects, genetic damage, repro-ductive effects and neurological disorders. Indeed, pesticidescan be registered even when they have been shown to causeadverse health effects. Due to the numerous pesticide formu-lations on the market, the lack of disclosure requirements,insufficient data requirements, and inadequate testing, it isimpossible to accurately estimate the hazards of pesticide

products, much less lifetime exposure or risk. Active ingredi-ents are tested individually and are rarely tested in combina-tion with other ingredients, even those identified as syner-gists. In combination, ingredients can produce synergistic ef-fects, making the particular mix of chemical many times moretoxic than individual chemicals. Pesticides can “breakdown”when used to chemicals that are more toxic than the parentcompound. Further, we have little control over or knowledgeof many of our exposures, thus making determinations of ourrisks and hazards even more complex.

Many people consider pesticides “safe” because EPA regis-tered the chemicals and allows the public and certified appli-cators to use it. According to the U.S. General AccountingOffice(GAO) report, Nonagricultural Pesticides: Risks and Regu-lations (1986), “EPA believes that no pesticide can be consid-ered ‘safe.’”

After 30 years on the market, EPA found in 2000 thatone of the most commonly used pesticides in the country,chlorpyrifos (DursbanTM), poses a significant risk to chil-dren, even if used according to the label directions3. Andeven though EPA and the manufacturers of chlorpyrifosagreed to phase-out its use in many settings, includingschools, it can continue to be used until existing stocks areused up. The EPA chlorpyrifos announcement begins theprocess of getting high consumer and children exposure usesof DursbanTM off the market, but puts people at risk by notstopping its uses immediately.

All data available to us today suggest that children facehazards from pesticide use at school that are unacceptable.The U.S. General Accounting Office report, Use, Effects, andAlternatives to Pesticides in Schools (1999), confirms that ourfederal government is not doing enough to protect our nation’smost precious resource, our children. The standard that EPAhas principally used, according to GAO, “that school class-rooms should only be treated when students are not presentand that all treated surfaces should be dry before the studentsare allowed to return,” is not a safety standard.4

Just over half of the states, or 31 states,

have adopted pesticide acts and regulations

that address the protection of children by

specifically focusing on pesticide use in,

around or near schools.1 Of these, only 20

states address indoor use of pesticides.2


Based on Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s state survey in 1998,we wrote EPA requesting that it consider rulemaking to pro-tect children from pesticides use in schools. Senator JosephLieberman (D-CT) wrote EPA after the publication of the GAOreport in January 2000, requesting that EPA collect and re-view data on school exposures and develop a plan for a com-prehensive survey on the use of pesticides in schools to bettergauge the threat to students and staff. Today, more than a yearand a half since our letter to EPA and nine months since Sena-tor Lieberman’s request, the evidence of EPA taking action toreduce exposure to children while at school is not any moreclear.

Currently, federal legislation, the School Environment Pro-tection Act (SEPA), has been introduced in both the U.S. Houseof Representatives and U.S. Senate, which establishes a verystrong definition of IPM for schools and requires national stan-dards on school pesticide use. In March 2000, the U.S Senatewent on record as supporting protection of children from schoolpesticide use through prior notification (for those pesticidesassociated with specific adverse effects) to all parents and theuse of IPM.5

The Case for Protecting ChildrenThe particular vulnerability of infants and children to theharmful effects of pesticides has garnered nationwide atten-tion. In its ground breaking report, Pesticides in the Diets ofInfants and Children (1993), the National Research Council,an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed that,“infants and children differ both qualitatively and quantita-tively from adults in their exposure to pesticide[s]…”6 Thisis because children are not merely “little adults.”7 They aregrowing and developing. Their metabolic rates are differentthan adults. There are differences in their ability to process,detoxify and excrete these compounds.

Children are more sensitive to pesticides because of theirphysiology and behavior. Children take in more pesticidesrelative to body weight than adults and have developing or-gan systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxifytoxic chemicals.8 Children also have behaviors that exposethem to higher levels of toxics than adults. They play on thefloor inside and the ground outside. Unwashed hand to mouthactivity is frequent. Children ingest dirt accidentally and pur-posefully. And, they are unlikely to understand or fully ap-preciate warning signs, even when they can and do read them.

Low levels of pesticide exposure can adversely effect achild’s neurological, respiratory, immune and endocrine sys-tem. Some of the most commonly used insecticides in schoolsare nervous system poisons. These pesticides, most of whichare in the organophosphate pesticide family, poison childrenby reducing the body’s production of the enzyme cholinest-erase, necessary to the transmission of nerve impulses, trig-gering a range of symptoms from nausea, dizziness, head-aches, aching joints to disorientation and inability to con-centrate.9 Other widely used insecticides, synthetic pyre-

throids, stimulate nerves causing hypersensitivity and are as-sociated with asthma. Many pesticides affect the immune sys-tem, which can result in increased problems with allergies,asthma, hypersensitivity to chemicals and a reduced abilityto combat infections and cancer.10 Many pesticides are linkedto cancer. The commonly used weed killer 2,4-D has beenlinked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in scientific studies offarmers.11 Studies show that children living in householdswhere pesticides are used suffer elevated rates of leukemia,brain cancer and soft tissue sarcoma.12 The probability of aneffect such as cancer, which requires a period of time to de-velop after exposure, is enhanced if exposure occurs early inlife.13

GAO documented over 2,300 reported pesticide poison-ings in schools between 1993 and 1996.14 Because most ofthe symptoms of pesticide exposure, from respiratory distressto difficulty in concentration, are common in school childrenand may be assumed to have other causes, we suspect thatpesticide-related illness is much more prevalent than pres-ently indicated. Of the 48 most commonly used pesticides inschools: 22 can cause cancer, 26 can adversely affect repro-duction, 31 are nervous system poisons, 31 can cause liver/kinder damage and 16 can cause birth defects.15

Children’s exposure to pesticides at school occurs as a re-sult of applications made before children enter the buildingand sometimes while they are present. The chemical fills theair in the room and settles on desks, counters, shades and walls.Exposure occurs from breathing contaminated air or touchingcontaminated surfaces. The residues can remain for days andsometimes break down to other dangerous compounds.

School is a place where children need a healthy body and aclear head in order to learn. Teachers and other staff are oftenforgotten when pest control operators arrive to make treat-


ments after schools. The school buildings and grounds arealso used after school, on weekends, and during vacations bychildren and others involved in sports, music, and other ex-tracurricular activities.

Schools often provide an excellent habitat for certain pests.Roaches find a lot of good food stuffed away in forgotten lunchbags. Head lice find it easy to move from host to host where chil-dren and their clothing are kept close together all day. Weeds thatprefer compacted soils and out compete healthy grasses thrive onschool athletic fields. Fortunately, learning to solve pest problemswithout chemical dependency also teaches students valuable les-sons about health, their environment, and decision making.

Many times, if pest control is contracted out, school ad-ministrators or facility managers are unaware of the pesti-cides that are being applied in their schools. Despite all of theevidence, most school administrators are still unaware of theharm to children.

Restricted Spray (Buffer) ZonesAround School PropertyPesticides move off the target site when they are sprayed,whether inside or outside. When sprayed outside, pesticidesdrift on to nearby property resulting in off target residues.Buffer zones can eliminate exposure from spray drift on toschool property. As a result, states require buffer zones aroundschools. In order to adequately protect against drift, bufferzones should, at a minimum, be established in a 2-mile ra-dius around the school’s property. Aerial applications shouldhave a larger buffer zone, at least 3 miles encircling the school.Buffer zones should be in effect at all times of the day.

Six states have recognized the importance of controlling driftby restricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring aschool. These states, Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, New Hamp-shire, New Jersey, and North Carolina, create spray restrictionzones that range from 300 feet to 2 1/2 miles. Only in the caseof gypsy moth spraying does New Jersey require the largestbuffer zone of 2 and 2 1/2 miles, depending on the grade levelsof the school. Otherwise, New Jersey sets a 300-foot bufferaround schools. Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey andNorth Carolina buffer zones are in effect for specific hours,either during commuting hours or regular school hours.

Posting Notification Signs forlndoor Pesticide ApplicationsStates use different approaches in providing school pesticideuse information to parents, students and staff. Some forms in-clude the posting of notification signs and/or the distributionof notices directly to the affected population. Posted notifica-tion signs warn those in the school when and where pesticideshave been or are being applied. This is a vehicle for basic right-to-know if the posting occurs in an area where it is easily seenby parents, students (old enough to understand, perhaps 12 or

older) and staff. It is important to post signs for indoor pesti-cide applications because of the extensive period of time stu-dents and school employees spend in the school building. Signsposted days before, rather than simply at the time or just aftera pesticide application, are more protective. Prior posting mayenable people to take precautionary action. Because of the resi-dues left behind after an application, signs should remain postedfor 72 hours. Signs should also be posted at all main entrancesof the buildings and the specific area treated. Posted signs shouldstate when and where a pesticide is applied, the name of thepesticide applied, and how to get further information, such asa copy of the material safety data sheet (MSDS)16 and product(s)label. Signs should be posted when a hired, commercial appli-cator, or school staff applies pesticides.

Twelve states require posting of signs for indoor schoolpesticide applications. Four states require posting before com-mencement for a specific time period. New York and Texas,the two strongest states in this regard, require posting warn-ing signs at least 48 hours in advance of the application. Fivestates require signs to remain posted for a specific amount oftime following the application. California has the strongestrequirement, requiring signs to remain posted for 72 hoursafter the application. Virginia does not require schools to postnotification signs, but does have a resolution recommendingschools adopt such a provision.

Posting Notification Signs forOutdoor Pesticide ApplicationsFor a wider range of protection, states should require postingpesticide notification signs for outdoor pesticide applicationsas well. Students who play sports or people continually onthe lawns are at high risk when pesticide applications occur.

Twenty-one states have posting requirements when pesti-cide applications are made on school grounds. Massachusettsrequires signs to be posted 48 hours in advance of the pesticideapplication in school buildings and on school grounds. NewYork requires signs to be posted 48 hours in advance, at childdrop-off points, prior to pesticide applications in daycare cen-ters. States should require signs to remain posted for at least 72hours, as California and Rhode Island do. Seven states do nothave any other requirements except posting requirements forschool lawns. Nine states require posting for both indoor andoutdoor pesticide applications. Connecticut and Georgia lawspecifically state that posting warning signs is required out-doors when a structural application continues outside the build-ing. Massachusetts and Wisconsin require signs to be postedwhen pesticides are applied on nearby property.

Prior Written NotificationWritten notification prior to each pesticide use is a good wayto make sure that all parents, children and staff are aware andwarned. Limited notification-based registries, as contrastedwith universal notification for everyone, is a less effective


How States Around the Country Protect Children from Pesticide Exposure in Schools

StateStateStateStateState Buffer ZonesBuffer ZonesBuffer ZonesBuffer ZonesBuffer Zones Posting SignsPosting SignsPosting SignsPosting SignsPosting Signs11111 Prior NotificationPrior NotificationPrior NotificationPrior NotificationPrior Notification lllllPMPMPMPMPM Prohibition of UseProhibition of UseProhibition of UseProhibition of UseProhibition of Use

Alabama

Arizona

California2

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

lllinois

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

New Hampshire

Aerial application, 400 feet.

Ground & aerial Indoor & outdoor, school Parent & staff, universalapplication, 1/4 mile, certain district establish posting 48 hour notice.odoriferous & highly requirements.toxic pesticides. .

Indoor & outdoor, post Parent & staff registry, Recommends.sign 24 hours prior to 72 hour notice.application, remain72 hours.

Outdoor & structural Parents & staff registry, Recommends.3

Pesticide applicationsapplications made to 24 hour notice. prohibited duringperimeter of building. operating hours.

Outdoor, post sign Recommends.4

beginning of application,no specifics on time toremain posted.

Indoor, prior posting,remain 24 hours.Outdoor,prior posting, remainuntil the following day.

Defines.5

Outdoor, post sign, Parent registry or universal Requires.6

remove following day. notification, schooldecision, 48 hour notice.

Aerial application, Parent registry, medical Requires.7

Pesticide applications of1000 feet, during verification required, restricted use pesticides,school hours. no time specified. entry restricted for 8 hours

after application

Indoor & outdoor, post Recommends.8

prior to application,remain 48 hours.

Indoor & outdoor, Parent & staff, elementary Requires.“in-school notification” school, universal 24 hourfor all pesticide use in notice. Parent & staff,secondary schools. secondary school, registry,Indoor,“in school 24 hour noticenotification” for baitstations in elementary .schools. Outdoor, postsign at time of application,remain 48 hours.

Indoor, post prior to Parent & staff, universal Requires. Pesticide use prohibitedapplication. Outdoor, notification, outdoor when children present.post sign 48 hours prior applications. Parent & staff Outdoor, pesticides that areto application, remain registry, indoor application, known, likely or probable72 hours. Aerial agricultural no time specified. carcinogens, contain a “Listapplications within 500 feet I” inert ingredient or forof school, post sign 10 hours aesthetic reason alone areprior, remain 48 hours. prohibited from use.

Indoor, certain pesticidesare prohibited from use.

Indoor, post sign after Parent registry, Requires.9

Indoor, spray or aerosolapplication, remain 48 24 hour notice. insecticide, entry restrictedhours. Outdoor, post sign for 4 hours after application.after application, remain Outdoor, prohibits spray24 hours. insecticide, 100 ft outside

occupied area.

Parent registry, notification Defines.10

at “reasonable” timebefore application.

Indoor, post sign at time Recommends.11

of application, remain“until dry.”

Aerial application, during Outdoor, post sign, Pesticides cannot be appliedcommuting hours & outdoor remain 24 hours. “where exposure may haveactivity in sensitive areas. an adverse effect on human

health.”12


New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

How States Around the Country Protect Children from Pesticide Exposure in Schools

StateStateStateStateState Buffer ZonesBuffer ZonesBuffer ZonesBuffer ZonesBuffer Zones Posting SignsPosting SignsPosting SignsPosting SignsPosting Signs11111 Prior NotificationPrior NotificationPrior NotificationPrior NotificationPrior Notification lllllPMPMPMPMPM Prohibition of UseProhibition of UseProhibition of UseProhibition of UseProhibition of Use

Ground & aerial gypsy moth Indoor, permanent posting at Parent & staff registry, Pesticide applicationapplication, during commuting central bulletin board, no time specified. prohibited during normalhours, 2 miles grade school, states next application date. school hours or when area will21/2 miles high school. Outdoor, post sign at start of be occupied within time forAerial application, 300 feet. application, remain 24 hours. product to dry.

Parent registry, no time Prohibits use of certainspecified. Parent and staff pesticides when area occupieduniversal notification, or will be for next 6 hours.childcare center, Licensed childcare centers48 hour notice. use of pesticides prohibited

when children on premises.

Indoor & outdoor, daycare Parent & staff registry, no time Recommends.13

center, post sign 48 hours specified. Parent & staff,prior to application.Outdoor, automatic notification 3 timespost sign, remain 24 hours. a year, after application.

Aerial application, 300 feet,when school occupied.

Defines.14

Parent & staff registry, medical Defines. No applications in “commonverification required, school access areas” during normalapplication & within 500 feet school hours or extra-of school property, 12 to 72 curricular activities, restrictedhour notice. entry 7 hours after application.

Indoor, post sign 48 hours Parent registry, indoor Requires. Pesticides are grouped into lists.prior to application, no application, no time specified. No indoor application ofspecifics on time to certain Green List whenremain posted. students in area. Other Green

List & Yellow & Red List,restrict entry for 12 hours afterapplication.Outdoorapplications, Green List –students must be 10 feet away,Yellow List - 10 feet away,12 hours restricted entry, Redlist 50 feet away, 12 hourrestricted entry.

Resolution recommending Resolution recommendingschools adopt posting. schools adopt prior notification.

Defines.15

Indoor, day care center, post Day care employees, automatic Requires. Pesticides are grouped intosign 24 hours prior to 24 hour notice, level 3 or 4 levels. Students & employeesapplication, no specifics on pesticide. Parent registry, restrict entry for 4 hours aftertime to remain posted. schools & day care centers, level 3 pesticide & 8 hours

24 hour notice of level 3 after level 4 pesticide.or 4 pesticide.

Outdoor, post sign prior toapplication, remain untilsunset following day. Farmswithin 300 feet of school,during duration of restrictedentry pesticides.

1 Seven states require posting notification signs for outdoor lawn applications: Colo-rado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. These statesare not included because this is the only requirement the states have adopted toprotect children and staff while at school.

2 At printing time, the California law regarding school pesticide use, the HealthySchools Act, is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

3 Connecticut recommends schools develop IPM plan and requires technical schoolshave an IPM plan.

4 Florida State Board of Education Administrative Rules states that school boardsshould adopt policies and procedures for pest management programs that are inaccordance with U.S. EPA, Pest Control in the School Environment: Adapting Inte-grated Pest Management, August 1993.

5 Hawaii state agencies are required to establish guidelines and review IPM procedures.6 Illinois requires IPM for structural pest management only. Law has a strong defi-

nition of IPM.7 Louisiana requires schools to have IPM polices. State law recommends the use of

least toxic option, but definition does not state priority to use least toxic option.

8 Maine does not define IPM in its laws, but states that state “agencies shall pro-mote the principles and implementation of IPM.”

9 Michigan requires IPM plans be developed for indoor pest management only.10 Minnesota law states that if a school is going to tout having an IPM program, it

must fit the definition in the law.11 Montana law does not define IPM. The regulation discusses IPM, stating, “When

pesticide treatment is necessary, the least toxic and most target-specific pesticideis chosen.” The state has developed a model policy that defines IPM as using allmethods.

12 Although this language is open to interpretation, it is a stronger safety standardthan that contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)which protects for “unreasonable adverse effects.”

13 New York State Board of Regents, State Education Department, adopted recom-mendations that incorporated the essential elements of an IPM plan and notifica-tion.

14 Oregon only requires IPM for state agencies and higher education facilities.15 Washington only requires IPM for higher education and state agencies.


means of notifying people and does not qualify as right-to-know because of its limited scope. Requiring that individualsplace themselves on registries, sometimes only with a doctor’sletter, affords only those who already understand concernsabout toxic exposure the opportunity to be informed aboutpesticide use in the school. Registries also tend to be morecostly and time consuming for the school to operate. For largeschool districts, it may require an extra staff person to keepthe registry up-to-date and coordinate the notification. Priornotification should be 72 hours in advance to make sure theinformation has been received, to get further information re-garding the pesticide, and to make arrangements to avoid theexposure, if necessary. Notification should state when andwhere a pesticide is to be applied, the name of the pesticide,the pesticide’s adverse effects and how to get further informa-tion, such as a copy of the MSDS and product label.

Fifteen states have requirements to notify parents or schoolstaff in writing before a pesticide application is to occur. Of these,seven states have provisions for universal notification. Six stateshave provisions for universal notification prior to the applica-tion, and one state, New York, requires notification three times ayear, after the application has taken place. Arizona requires uni-versal notification to all parents and staff in both primary andsecondary schools. Maryland, Massachusetts and New Mexicorequire universal prior notification for only certain pesticideapplications, depending on either type of school or where theapplication is to occur. Illinois leaves the decision to establish aregistry or provide universal notification to the school. Thirteenstates have provisions for prior notification for individuals listedon a registry. Louisiana and Pennsylvania require medicalverification to be listed on a registry. Ten states’ prior notifica-tion requirements, whether universal or registry, provide noticeto both parents and school staff. Seven states require the postingof signs for indoor and outdoor applications and provide priornotification of a school pesticide application, which constitutesthe widest range of notification activities. Arizona is the onlystate that makes provisions for students and staff who are notable to attend school because of the pesticide application. Vir-ginia addresses the issue of pre-notifying people when pesticidesare used in schools, but does not require it.

Prohibitions on UseLimiting when and what pesticides are applied in and aroundschools is important to the reduction of pesticide exposure. Pes-ticides should never be applied when students or staff are, or arelikely to be, in the area within 24 hours of the application. Ninestates restrict the type and/or timing of pesticides that may beused in a school. In reality, certain types of pesticides, such ascarcinogens, endocrine disrupters, reproductive toxins, devel-opmental toxins, neurotoxins and pesticides listed by EPA as atoxicity category I or II pesticide, should never be used aroundchildren. Massachusetts is the only state that bans the use ofcertain pesticides by schools. Connecticut, New Jersey and NewMexico prohibit applying pesticides during school hours. Loui-

siana, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and WestVirginia have established entry restrictions for hours followingan application. Texas has the strongest of such re-entry restric-tions, requiring that the area treated with certain pesticides re-main unoccupied for 12 hours after the application.

lntegrated Pest ManagementA good integrated pest management (IPM) program can elimi-nate the unnecessary application of synthetic, volatile pesti-cides in schools. The main elements of a good IPM programinclude: 1) monitoring to establish whether there is a pest prob-lem, 2) identifying the causes of the pest problem, 3) address-ing the cause by changing conditions to prevent problems, 4)utilizing pest suppression techniques, if necessary, that are basedon mechanical and biological controls, and 5) only after non-toxic alternatives have been tried and exhausted, use the leasttoxic pesticide, as clearly defined. An IPM program should in-clude a written policy guide and a prohibited and acceptablematerials list. Monitoring eliminates the need for scheduledpest control visits and thus the unnecessary use of chemicals.A successful school IPM program relies heavily on good com-munication between all school users and personnel.

Least toxic control products are a major growth area andnew materials and devices are increasingly available in themarketplace. Materials that could be considered after usingother nontoxic methods include boric acid and disodiumoctobrate tetrahydrate, silica gels, diatomaceous earth, non-volatile insect and rodent baits in tamper resistant containersor for crack and crevice treatment only, microbe-based insec-ticides, botanical insecticides (not including synthetic pyre-throids) without toxic synergists, biological, living controlagents, such as parasites and predators, soap-based products,and products that do not contain hazardous inert ingredientsor contaminants listed on the pesticide label.

It is important to remember when controlling a pest prob-lem to look for long-term solutions not just a temporary con-trol, a key ingredient to cutting pest management costs. In-stead of addressing the cause of pest problems, many pesti-cides only treat the symptoms, without changing the struc-tural problems that create an environment conducive to theirexistence. Pesticides are often ineffective over the long termand the most common pests are now resistant to many insec-ticides. Any openings that pests are using to access the struc-ture should be caulked, screened or repaired. Efforts to elimi-nate food sources can eliminate the pest problems.

Eighteen states define, recommend or require IPM in theirstate laws. Of these, only seven states require that schools adoptan IPM program. Six states recommend that schools use anIPM program. And, five states’ laws define IPM, but do notrequire or recommend implementation in their schools. Un-fortunately, IPM is a term that is used loosely with many differ-ent definitions. More and more, we hear pest control programsinaccurately described as IPM. Of the eighteen states, Califor-nia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota, have


comprehensive definitions of IPM, and allow only the least toxicpesticide to be used as a last resort. Connecticut, Florida, Loui-siana, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washing-ton, define IPM as using all methods of pest management thatare available, giving equal emphasis to pesticides, usually statedas the “judicious use of pesticides.” And four states, Hawaii,Maine, Montana and New York, fall somewhere in-betweenbecause the law does not clearly, if at all, define IPM in the law.For effective, least-hazardous pest management to occur, it isimportant that IPM is clearly defined.

ConclusionRaising the level of protection across the nation to meet thehighest possible standard of protection for children is essen-tial. Where a state offers protection not provided by your state,advocate for it. Where policies exist, make sure that they areenforced. Enforcement of existing pesticide laws is also criti-cal and often the most difficult phase of community-basedefforts. Both the adoption of laws and ensuring their enforce-

1 This review is intended to determine what each state’s provisions areunder its statutes and regulations regarding school pesticide use. It doesnot evaluate the enforcement or quality of the program that may be inplace. This report does not fully examine all the administrative materi-als that have been developed or policies that may be adopted on thelocal level. This survey includes California and the provisions of theHealthy Schools Act 2000, which is expected to be signed by the Gover-nor at time of publication.

2 States that “address” indoor use of pesticides are based on whether thestate recommends or requires schools post notification signs for indoorpesticide applications, provide prior notification of an indoor pesticideapplication, establish IPM program, or prohibit the use of certain pesti-cides in school buildings. States include: Arizona, California, Connecti-cut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachu-setts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, NewYork, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and ToxicSubstances, Chlorpyrifos revised Risk Assessment and Agreement with Reg-istrants, Washington, DC, June 2000.

4 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Use, Effects, and Alternatives toPesticides in Schools, RCED-00-17, November, 1999, p. 4.

5 The U.S. Senate unanimously approved an amendment to the EducationSavings Account Bill. S-1134 by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on March2, 2000.

6 National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Pesticides inthe Diets of Infants and Children, Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1993, p.3.

7 Id, p. 4.8 Calabreses, E.J., Age and Susceptibility to Toxic Substances, John Wiley

& Sons, 1986; Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), IntolerableRisk: Pesticides in Our Children’s Food, February, 1989; Spyker, J.M. andD.L. Avery, “Neurobehavioral Effects of Prenatal Exposure to the Orga-nophosphate Diazinon in Mice,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmen-tal Health 3:989-1002, 1977; Paigen, B., “Children and Toxic Chemi-cal,” Journal of Pesticide Reform, Summer 1986.

9 Volberg, D.I., et al., Pesticides in Schools: Reducing the Risks, RobertAbrams, Attorney General of the New York State, New York State De-partment of Law, Environmental Protection Bureau, New York, March1993; Bushnell, P.J., et al., “Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of

Acute Chlorpyrifos in Rates: Tolerance to Prolonged Inhibition ofChloinesterase,” Journal of Pharmacology. Exper. Thera. 266(2):1007-1017, 1993.

10 Paigen, B., “Children and Toxic Chemical,” Journal of Pesticide Reform,Summer 1986.

11 S.K. Hoar, et al., “Agricultural Herbicide Use and a Risk of Lymphomaand Soft-Tissue Sarcoma,” Journal of the American Medical Association,256(9):1141-1147, 1986; Wigle, D.T., et al., “Mortality Study of Cana-dian Farm Operators: Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Mortality and Agri-cultural Practices in Saskatchewan,” Journal of the National Cancer Insti-tute 82(7):575-582, 1990; Woods, J.S. “Non-Hodgkin’s LymphomaAmong Phecoxy Herbicide-Exposed Farm Workers in Western Wash-ington State,” Chemosphere 18(1-6):401-406, 1989; Zahm, S.H., et al.,“A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and the Herbicide2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in Eastern Nebraska,” Epidemi-ology 1(5):349-356, 1990.

12 Gold, E. et al., “Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Children,” AmericanJournal of Epidemiology 109(3):309-319, 1979; Lowngart, R. et al.,“Childhood Leukemia and Parents’ Occupational and Home Expo-sures,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 79:39, 1987; Reeves,J.D., “Household Insecticide-Associated Blood Dyscrasias in Children,”(letter), American Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 4:438-439,1982; Davis, J.R. et al., “Family Pesticide Use and Childhood BrainCancer,” Arch. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24:87-92,1993; Leiss, J.K. and D.A. Savitz, “Home Pesticide Use and ChildhoodCancer: A Case-Control Study,” American Journal of Public Health85:249-252, 1995.

13 Vasselinovitch, S.D., et al., “Neoplastic Response of Mouse Tissues Dur-ing Perinatal Age Periods and Its Significance in Chemical Carcino-genesis,” Perinatal Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute Monograph51, 1979.

14 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Use, Effects, and Alternatives toPesticides in Schools, RCED-00-17, November, 1999.

15 Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesti-cides in Schools, factsheet, August 2000.

16 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are regulated by the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration and detail the hazards of the productingredients. MSDS’s are sometimes limited by the fact that they are com-pleted by the product manufacturer.

Endnotes

ment once adopted, require vigilant monitoring and publicpressure. Exemptions that waive notification requirementsbefore or after pesticide use, such as during school vacations,undermine protection.

While this review shows that over half the states have takensome action, it describes limited action. Nearly half the states aresilent on these critical issues. The degree of state activity suggestsa level of concern that can and should lead to increased protec-tion in the future. Parents and community members can helpschool districts improve their pest control practices by contactingthe district and encouraging the implementation of an IPM andnotification program. School administrators will be more con-scious of their pest control policy if they know parents are con-cerned about this issue and tracking their program.

For information on state pesticide laws, local government andschool districts that have passed school policies, and tools onhow to get such policies at the federal, state and local leveladopted, please contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP or seewww.beyondpesticides.org.

Resources


by Leslie Haug

Stolen Harvest: TheHijacking of the GlobalFood Supply

Vandana Shiva(South End Press,Cambridge, MA,2000). Will geneti-cally altering ourfood supply solveglobal hunger andlift struggling farm-ers out of poverty?Or will it further en-

slave small farmers of developing coun-tries to corporate agriculture? Biotechnol-ogy companies are spending millions toconvince us that genetic engineering is inour best interest and will improve thequality of life in developing countries.Despite their best efforts, many people,including author Vandana Shiva, disagree.In her latest book, Stolen Harvest, she ex-plains the reality of globalized, corporateagriculture. While third world farmersmight be growing larger quantities of foodunder the new agricultural system, theyhave replaced a more sustainable, variedharvest with pesticide-intensive monoc-ulture operations, which are immediatelyexported to industrialized countries, ac-cording to the author. With fields of crops,but little to eat, the farmers are more de-pendent than ever.

Ms. Shiva also attacks the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),based upon its institutionalizing and le-galizing “corporate growth based on har-vests stolen from nature and people.” Sheexplains why the globalization of agricul-ture and the introduction of free tradehave, in fact, taken much needed foodaway from the world’s poor and starving.Prior to GATT, it was a punishable crimein many countries, such as India, to al-low corporations to export a harvest,while the people of the country are in needof food. Now the needs of the people arepushed aside in the name of free trade.She also points out that 32% of the world’scommercial seed market, along with thewhole of the genetically altered market,

is owned by ten large companies. For acopy, contact the South End Press at 1-800-533-4002 or [email protected]. Order di-rectly from their website at www.lbbs.org/sep/sep.htm.

Pesticide Data Program:Annual SummaryCalendar Year 1998Robert L. Epstein, Pesticide Data Program

(United States De-partment of Agri-culture, Washing-ton, DC, 1999).U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Pes-ticide Data Pro-gram (PDP) hasreleased its latestreport on pesticideresidue sampling

taken from a variety of crop foods. The datareported by PDP is used by a variety of or-ganizations and agencies, including the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA),which uses it in dietary risk assessmentsand pesticide registration processes. Using1998 data, PDP reports a total of 8,500samples of 16 commodity groups takenfrom 40 states and 25 foreign countries.Of this, 7,017 are fruit and vegetables, 595whole milk, 590 soybeans, and 298 cornsyrup. Approximately 84% of all samplesare domestic while 15% are imported. Outof all of the samples analyzed, more thanhalf are found to have pesticide residuespresent. In fruits and vegetables alone, outof the 7,017 sampled, 61.2% contain pes-ticide residues, which has dropped from65% in 1995. These commodities, alongwith the pesticide residues tested for, werechosen based on the EPA’s data needs andthe USDA’s food consumption surveys. PDPalso found that out of 8,065 samples tested,approximately 3% contain DDE, a metabo-lite of the infamous organochlorine DDT.While a small number of samples are foundto exceed the EPA’s tolerance on pesticideresidues, attention is still not being paid

to aggregate exposure or the reactions be-tween different chemicals. This documentis a resource for those who wish to under-stand the level of pesticide residue the U.S.government finds acceptable on the foodwe eat. For a copy, contact the ResidueBranch, USDA at (703) 330-2300 or e-mailthem at Dawn. [email protected].

State of theWorld 2000

Lester R. Brownet al. (TheWorldwatch In-stitute, Washing-ton, DC, 2000).OK, so we’ve sur-vived Y2K…nowwhat? As we raceinto the new mil-lennium, the

Earth can no longer handle the consump-tion of our global society. Until the hu-man race reaches ecological sustainability,our fate is sealed. Something has to bedone to return our lifestyle to harmonywith our environment. Lester Brown ofthe Worldwatch Institute has proposed ageneral way of life that could merge in-dustry with environmental stability sothat these terms would no longer be mu-tually exclusive. Issues addressed in hislatest State of the World range from thephasing out of toxic chemicals in ourfoods and atmosphere to preserving whatremains of our natural resources. His bookhighlights successful attempts currentlyin place, such as the 2000 Olympics, or“Green Games,” which are using solarpanels to supply a majority of the elec-tricity for the buildings of the OlympicVillage. At the close of the summer games,the village will be converted into a 1500-residence “solar-suburb,” which willeliminate an estimated 7,000 tons of car-bon pollution from our atmosphere eachyear. For a copy, contact the WorldwatchInstitute, or order it directly from theirwebsite at www.worldwatch.org.

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❏ “Pollution Prevention Is the Cure.” full color graphic on 100% natural organic

cotton Beneficial-T’s by Patagonia™ T-shirt. $18 each; two for $30.❏ “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green, blue and peach on 100%

natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.❏ Tell the world that FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT in teal,

purple, and yellow. On 100% natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.Bumper Sticker❏ “Is Your Lawn Toxic Green?” White letters on green background.❏ FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT. White letters on blue.

Stickers $2.00 each ($1.00 each when ordering 100+)Books❏ A Failure to Protect. Landmark study of federal government pesticide use and pest

management practices. $23.00. Summary and Overview $5.00.❏ The Chemical-Free Lawn: The newest varieties and techniques to grow lush, hardy

grass with no pesticides no herbicides, no chemical fertilizers. By Warren Schultz.Published by Rodale Press. $17.95 (14.95 + $3.00 shipping).

❏ Unnecessary Risks: The Benefit Side of the Risk-Benefit Equation.Understand how the EPA’s Risk-Benefit Analyses falsely assume the need for high-risk pesticides. Explains how “benefits” are inflated, how alternatives might beassessed, 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; whycurrent laws offer inadequate protection. $11.00

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

❏ Poison Poles: Their Toxic Trail and the Safer Alternatives. New study on largestgroup of pesticides, wood preservatives, and contamination associated withtreated wood utility poles, and the availability of alternatives. $22.00

❏ Toxic Deception. By Dan Fagin, Marianne Lavelle and Center for Public Integrity.Published by Common Courage Press. $21.00

Back Issues❏ Back issues of Pesticides and You $2.00 each❏ Back issues of Technical Reports $1.00 eachBrochures ($2.00 each; bulk discounts available)

❏ Pest Control Without Toxic Chemicals❏ Least Toxic Control of Lawn Pests❏ Agriculture: Soil Erosion, Pesticides, Sustainability❏ Organic Gardening: Sowing the Seeds of Safety❏ Estrogenic Pesticides❏ Pesticides and Your Fruits and Vegetables❏ Pesticides: Are you being poisoned without your knowledge?❏ Pesticides in Our Homes and SchoolsTestimony❏ Lawn Care Chemicals, 5/9/91 $4.00❏ FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 6/8/93 $4.00❏ Food Safety, 8/2/93 $3.00❏ National Organic Standards Board, 10/13/94 $4.00❏ Food Quality Protection Act, 6/7/95 $4.00❏ Parents: Right-to-Know-Schools, 3/19/97 $3.00Other❏ Getting Pesticides Out of Food and Food Production $5.00❏ NCAMP’s Pesticide Chemical FactSheets; individual: $2.00, book: $20.00❏ Least Toxic Control of Pests Factsheets $6.00❏ Community Organizing Toolkit $12.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance $5.00❏ Children, Pesticides, and Schools: Adopting School

Integrated Pesticide Management $10.00❏ Schooling of State Pesticide Laws $5.00❏ Building of State Indoor Pesticide Policies $4.00❏ The Right Way to Vegetation Management $4.00

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. 20, No. 2, 2000

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

Summer 2000 • Vol. 20, No. 2 a member of Earth Share SM

COMPLIMENTARY COPY

Please Subscribe!

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

Are You Doing Your Earth Share?This Fall you can support Beyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) in the fight for ahealthier planet, through your workplace charity campaign.

You have the opportunity to help protect the environment and your family from dangerous chemicals by supporting Beyond

Pesticides/NCAMP and other environmental groups through your workplace giving campaign. There are two ways you can

help:

FIRST, if you are an employee of the federal government or a company that includes Earth Share member groups in its workplace

giving program, indicate that you would like to make a contribution to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP by checking the appropriate

box. If you are a federal employee, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP is number 0923 in the Combined Federal Campaign.

SECOND, if environmental groups such as Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP are not included in your workplace giving program —

or if your workplace has no giving campaign at all — urge your employer to allow Earth Share to expand its charitable

options. Earth Share is a charitable federation of over forty acclaimed environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides/

NCAMP. Earth Share allows companies to expand its traditional payroll deduction charity drives to include environmental

groups. Please consider trying to get Earth Share into your workplace. Thanks!

Why support Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP?O Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP reduces our dependence on hazardous pesticides

by providing alternatives for the home, garden and community.

O Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP is fighting to protect our children by workingfor tougher pesticide legislation in schools.

** Please help Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP by posting in the workplace

Volume 20 , Number 2 Summer 2000 Pesticides and You€¦ · Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the...

Documents

Transcript of Volume 20 , Number 2 Summer 2000 Pesticides and You€¦ · Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the...