Archive for the 'pesticide dangers' Category

Environmental factors likely behind autism epidemic

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

From PANUPS: 

Changes in doctors’ diagnoses cannot explain the sevenfold increase in autism since 1990, a new study shows. Rather, “It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an epidemiology professor at University of California, Davis who led the study.

In California alone, more than 3,000 new cases of autism were reported in 2006, up from just 205 in 1990. The increase had previously been attributed to a change in diagnoses, but the new study concludes that those factors can’t explain most of the increases, reports Marla Cone of the Environmental Health News.

“Mothers of autistic children were twice as likely to use pet flea shampoos, which contain organophosphates or pyrethroids, according to one study that has not yet been published,” says Hertz-Picciota. “Another new study has found a link between autism and phthalates, which are compounds used in vinyl and cosmetics.

Other household products such as antibacterial soaps also could have ingredients that harm the brain by changing immune systems,” she added.

Is it time to kill the lawn? An American icon is losing ground to edible gardens

Friday, April 3rd, 2009
http://www.oregonlive.com/O/relationships/index.ssf?/base/living/1221092733119880.xml&coll=7
Sunday, September 14, 2008STEVE WOODWARD

The Oregonian Staff

No crop captures the American soul more than lawns.

Forget amber waves of grain. Envision, instead, emerald waves of turfgrass that stretch from sea to shining sea, a continental carpet that leapfrogs from home to home, park to park, campus to campus. Unlike amber grain, a green lawn is equally likely to exist in Portland, Maine; Portland, Ind.; Portland, N.D.; or Portland, Ore.

If grass were a food crop, it would be the largest in the United States. Imagine nearly 50,000 square miles of lawn, about the size of Mississippi, often doused in pesticides, fed with chemical fertilizers, protected by weedkillers, drenched in 270 billion gallons of water a week and cut with mowers that emit as much as a third of some types of urban air pollution.

Oregon’s $500 million grass-seed industry has a huge stake in America’s lawns, supplying 99 percent of the nation’s ryegrass seed and more than half of all grass seed.

Since the end of World War II, a perfectly trimmed and watered front lawn has been the homeowner’s declaration of civic responsibility. But several factors — rising food costs, environmental awareness, concerns about food safety and a desire for local food — have caused the pendulum to swing.

“For many years, our ideal was to have a home with a big lawn,” says Julie Nader, a 73-year-old resident of the Woodhaven subdivision in Sherwood. “Now we know it’s ridiculous to pour all this water and fertilizer on it.”

So this weekend, Nader joins a new American lawn ritual. She plans to rip out her green grass and replace it with herbs.

She’s a convert: “I want to encourage other people.”

Nader is hardly alone. We are reconsidering the lawn — back and front — in ever-increasing numbers. Many grow lawns organically. Others let grass go dormant in summer. Some replace grass with native plants and flowers.

But the true pioneers look at their yards and see . . . farms.

To be sure, grass has its place. Kids romp on it, families picnic on it, golfers and ballplayers compete on it. Grass soothes the eye, creates a private space between house and street, and cools the urban landscape as water evaporates.

But many Americans now see lawns as wasted opportunity.

Take a walk in the Woodlawn neighborhood in Northeast Portland, and you’ll see the future in front yard after front yard.

First stop: the Northeast Durham Avenue home of Gregg Lavender, wife Nikki Kress and four roommates.

On a sunny Sunday morning, Lavender putters around the neighborhood of modest homes. His own yard is filled with squash, beets, leeks, peppers, tomatoes, tomatillos, raspberries, cucumbers, pole beans and eggplant. Roommate Kylie Jo Neal tends the garden, and the household shares the harvest. The garden is the legacy of two former roommates — one an erstwhile rice farmer in Indonesia for the Peace Corps and the other a former farmer in southern Oregon.

Second stop: the 50-by-100-foot corner lot next door, where Travis Scrivner lives.

His front yard brims with a variety of salad greens, onions, leeks, brussels sprouts, basil, carrots, tomatoes, beans, beets, shelling peas and berry patches. The parking strip along the side of the house is filled with squash. Scrivner also planted 13 fruit trees in addition to the cherry tree already there when they moved in three years ago.

“My wife is kind of traditional, so she was kind of worried about how it might look on the public edge,” says Scrivner, a landscape designer who does mostly civic and commercial work.

But the neighbors stop not to complain, but rather to talk and seek gardening advice — as well as load up on fruits and vegetables.

With two young children, the couple chose to develop some play space; plans include a grass strip in front and a patio around the side. But the edible garden remains the star of the show. Scrivner says it’s the age-old discussion about form vs. function.

“I don’t think having a lawn just to cover dirt is a good reason for having a lawn.”

Third stop: the terraced front yard of Mark Saldana, a co-owner of Good Neighbor Pizzeria, just down the street on Dekum.

The former French chef picks organic tomatoes and herbs from his garden on his way to work. They’ll find their way into pizzas and salads, as will the ripening sunflower seeds. He also tends 300 tomato plants in the yard of his landlord’s other house, empty during a renovation.

“You could seriously walk around this neighborhood,” Saldana says, “and not starve.”

And so it goes.

Berries. Tomatoes. Herbs. Lettuce. Artichokes. Leeks. Onions.

On the sidewalk across the street from Scrivner’s house, Scrivner and Lavender pause to pick passion fruit from plants grown by Sascha Perrins and Anne Sutherland.

Perrins, principal of Jason Lee Elementary School, and Sutherland, a family doctor, opted not to farm their front lawn. But the backyard provides a variety of fruits and vegetables for the couple, the occasional neighbor and their 2-year-old daughter.

“I wanted her to grow up,” Perrins says, “knowing that she could eat food grown in the backyard.”

Out of this cornucopia, one front yard stands out like a museum exhibit of a bygone era: a brilliantly green, crisply trimmed, fertilized and mown blanket of velvety lawn.

The community aspect of front-yard gardening is what the nationwide food-not-lawns movement is all about: local food, organic farming, productive use of urban land, sharing with neighbors and organizing the community with gardens.

The movement had its origins in the Food Not Lawns grass-roots gardening project in Eugene. The project gained a widespread following with the 2006 publication of “Food Not Lawns: How to Turn Your Yard into a Garden and Your Neighborhood Into a Community,” by co-founder Heather C. Flores.

One of Flores’ disciples is Brian Smith, a computer engineer who farms his front, side and back yards in Southeast Portland. When Smith bought his house about three years ago, red lava rocks covered the small front yard. Weeds covered the narrow parking strip. With his interest in gardening, Smith raked up the red rocks and brought in rhubarb, artichokes, sage, echinacea, motherwort and a cherry tree that yielded about two dozen cherries this summer. The parking strip sprouted cabbage, collard greens, basil, rosemary, chocolate mint and roses.

The first year, he grew corn. After returning from a camping trip, he discovered that a neighbor had harvested every last ear for herself.

“The whole incident with the corn made me give up the idea that this is my stuff,” he says.

Now he encourages neighbors to help themselves — within reason.

“We’re trying to promote this thing about the front lawn,” he says.

The classic suburban lawn arguably was popularized by renowned landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. If the name sounds familiar to Portlanders, it’s because his stepson, John Charles Olmsted, created the famous 1903 plan for the city’s system of parks and boulevards.

In 1868, the elder Olmsted designed one of the nation’s first planned suburbs, Riverside, near Chicago. In an essay, “Why Mow? The Case Against Lawns,” food writer Michael Pollan says Riverside’s homeowners had to maintain lawns that flowed seamlessly from one to the other, “creating the impression that all lived together in a single park.”

The Olmsteds drew on the historical underpinnings of the lawn. British aristocrats began growing grassy front lawns in the early 18th century as a sign of wealth: They were so rich that they could waste their publicly visible land on vegetation that had no purpose other than to look good.

Elizabeth Kolbert, writing recently in The New Yorker, notes that a succession of technologies propelled the growth of lawns: the invention of the mower in 1830, the synthesis of ammonia in 1909 and subsequent development of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. Turf management became a college-degree program.

At the same time, society changed. Architect and artist Fritz Haeg notes several postwar factors that favored lawns in “Edible Estates: Attack on the Front Lawn”: the introduction of the leisure weekend, abundant fresh water, cheap gasoline for lawn mowers, the rise of homeownership and the explosion of suburban housing developments.

“Right now, we think a lawn is beautiful,” says Haeg, whose unrelated exhibit “Animal Estates” is on display through Oct. 5 at Reed College’s Cooley Gallery.

Haeg’s Edible Estates is an independent art project in which Haeg oversees the conversion of typical front lawns into edible landscapes. He’s done six so far.

“It’s not about perfection,” he said recently, while he was in Portland overseeing installation of his exhibit. “It’s changing ideas about what’s beautiful.”

Los Angeles-based Haeg says he’s seen an “exponential increase” in interest in front-yard gardens like those in Edible Estates.

“The project is at the nexus of so many issues,” he says. “Water, community, aesthetics, design. And it’s political.”

Political? Haeg wants people to realize they have choices. A yard doesn’t have to be grass.

Glen Andresen moved into his Northeast Portland house about 21 years ago, when the yard was entirely grass. Today, nearly every square inch of the 60-by-100-foot corner lot produces food. The front yard is jammed with lettuce, tomatoes, broccoli and 40 fruit trees, trained to grow flat on espaliers, and filled with apples, pears, cherries, plums, peaches and figs. Andresen also keeps 30 bee colonies for honey, pollination and entertainment, although 10 of the colonies are loaned out to a blueberry farm.

Walking from front yard to backyard, the 52-year-old host of “The Dirtbag” on KBOO radio passes a big-leaved rhubarb at the side of the house, under an arbor dripping with three varieties of grapes, past beds of strawberries and into a backyard filled with leeks, onions, broccoli, squash, carrots, eggplant, chard, green beans and peppers.

There’s even a patch of grass.

After converting the front yard into a producing garden over several years, he decided to extend the garden onto the parking strip in the side yard, between the sidewalk and the street.

“All I was doing was mowing my lawn,” he says of the strip, “and I thought, ‘Well, that’s ridiculous.’ ”

Andresen says his garden stops many passers-by who want to gawk, kibitz and ask questions. He shares the harvest with friends and neighbors. Three neighbors have even started their own front-yard gardens.

At the end of World War II, Haeg writes in “Edible Estates,” more than 80 percent of Americans grew some of their own food.

Corina Reynolds, 28, says she was raised around grandparents who kept their wartime victory-garden mentality, growing their food in a garden that bordered a big backyard in St. Johns in North Portland.

Now Reynolds looks at gardens through the lenses of economics and sustainability.

“My goal is to grow everything edible,” says Reynolds, who lives in Southeast Portland. “I’d say 90 percent of what we grow we use, even if it’s not something we actually eat.”

The front yard is devoted to edible herbs and flowers. The rest supports corn, beans, squash, eggplant, pumpkins, peas, lettuce, chard, broccoli, cabbage, artichokes, kale, cucumber, potatoes, and hot and sweet peppers. Fruits include raspberries and blackberry starts. She has sunflowers for seeds and grains such as quinoa and sorghum. There are herbs such as amaranth, rosemary and echinacea.

And, naturally, a pear tree.

Donna Smith, a co-owner of Your Backyard Farmer, an urban-farming and teaching business, says one of the hardest tasks is to persuade people to let go of the archetypal image of a green, grassy front yard.

“I’m teaching people not to be fearful of their front space,” the Southeast Portland woman says. “When one neighbor does it, other neighbors do it.”

In “Turf War,” a recent article in The New Yorker, Kolbert writes: “This is perhaps the final stage of the American lawn. What began as a symbol of privilege and evolved into an expression of shared values has now come to represent expedience. We no longer choose to keep lawns; we just keep on keeping them.”

Maybe not so much in Portland, where a company called Edible Skylines even seeks to farm vegetables and fruits on rooftops.

“Once you start landscaping for foodstuff, your neighbors catch on,” Reynolds says. “It’s contagious in a good way.”

Pollution can make you fat, study claims

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/pollution-can-make-you-fat-study-claims-921696.html

Children exposed to pesticide in womb twice as likely to be overweight, refuting idea of sole personal responsibility. Geoffrey Lean reports

Pollution can make children fat, startling new research shows. A groundbreaking Spanish study indicates that exposure to a range of common chemicals before birth sets up a baby to grow up stout, thus helping to drive the worldwide obesity epidemic.
The results of the study, just published – the first to link chemical contamination in the womb with one of the developing world’s greatest and fastest-growing health crises – carry huge potential implications for public policy around the globe. They undermine recent strictures from the Conservative leader, David Cameron, that blame solely the obese for their own condition.

A quarter of all British adults and a fifth of children are obese – four times as many as 30 years ago. And so are at least 300 million people worldwide. The main explanation is that they are consuming more calories than they burn. But there is growing evidence that diet and lack of exercise, though critical, cannot alone explain the rapid growth of the epidemic.

It has long been known that genetics give people different metabolisms, making some gain weight more easily than others. But the new study by scientists at Barcelona’s Municipal Institute of Medical Research suggests that pollution may similarly predispose people to get fat.

The research, published in the current issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica, measured levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a pesticide, in the umbilical cords of 403 children born on the Spanish island of Menorca, from before birth. It found that those with the highest levels were twice as likely to be obese when they reached the age of six and a half.

HCB, which was mainly used to treat seeds, has been banned internationally since the children were born, but its persistence ensures that it remains in the environment and gets into food.

The importance of the study is not so much in identifying one chemical, as in showing what is likely to be happening as a result of contact with many of them. Its authors call for exposures to similar pesticides to be “minimised”.

Experiments have shown that many chemicals fed to pregnant animals cause their offspring to grow up obese. These include organotins, long employed in antifouling paints on ships and now widely found in fish; bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and to line cans of food, among countless other applications; and phthalates, found in cosmetics, shampoos, plastics to wrap food, and in a host of other everyday products.

These pollutants – dubbed “obesogens” as a result of these findings – are so ubiquitous that almost everyone now has them in their bodies. Ninety-five per cent of Americans excrete BPA in their urine; 90 per cent of babies have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb; and every umbilical cord analysed in the new Spanish study was found to contain organchlorine pesticides such as HCB.

Two American studies have implicated phthalates in obesity in adult men, but the new research is much more conclusive, and is the first to show the effects of exposure in the womb, where humans are most vulnerable.

Dr Pete Myers, one of the world’s leading experts on obesogens, told The Independent on Sunday last night: “This is very important. It is the first good study of the effects on the foetus. Its conclusions are not surprising, given what we know from the animal experiments, but it firmly links such chemicals to the biggest challenge facing public health today.”

No one knows how HCB causes obesity. The Spanish scientists speculate that it may have made the mothers diabetic, which would increase the chances of their children becoming obese (see graphic, above).

Dr Myers, who is chief scientist at the US-based Environmental Health Sciences, which helps to increase public understanding of emerging scientific links, says this is “plausible”, but adds that the animal experiments point elsewhere. These have shown that obesogens “switch genes on and off” in the womb, causing stem cells to be turned into fat cells. The children then grow up with a much greater disposition to store and accumulate fat.

Whatever the explanation, the research goes some way to undermining David Cameron’s assertion in a speech this summer that obesity is purely a matter of “personal responsibility”, a view echoed by his health spokesman, Andrew Lansley 10 days ago. The Tory leader said that the obese are “people who eat too much and take too little exercise”.

Dr Myers calls that “wishful ideological thinking which does not accord with biological reality”, adding: “We need to discover ways to reduce exposures to these chemicals so that changing diet and lifestyle has a chance to work.”

Factors that may pile on the pounds

Why is the world getting so fat? Everyone agrees that people gain weight by taking in more calories in their food than they burn off through everyday activities and exercise. But many scientists are coming to believe that changes in diet and exercise do not sufficiently explain the rapid growth of the epidemic. As ‘The Independent on Sunday’ reported last week, there has been no reduction in physical activity in Britain since 1980, while obesity rates have quadrupled.

The genetic make-up of a population does not change rapidly enough to provide an explanation. So the hunt is on for other factors that might show why more people are gaining weight more easily.

Life before birth. Both overweight and underweight babies are more likely to grow up fat. So are those born to smokers. Evidence suggests pollution is also predisposing the unborn to obesity. The introduction and increase in the use of such chemicals coincides with the epidemic taking off.

Age of mothers. The chances of becoming obese increase with maternal age. And the average age of first giving birth has gone up by 2.6 years in Britain since 1970.

Less sleep. Both children and adults are more likely to get fat if they get too little sleep, partly because they become hungrier. Average daily sleep has fallen from nine to seven hours over recent decades.

Temperature. People burn up more calories when they are cold. Central heating has ensured that they spend most of their time in comfortable temperatures.

Prescription drugs. Some drugs – including anti-psychotics, antidepressants and treatments for diabetes – cause people to gain weight.

Stopping smoking. Though mothers who smoke may make their children fat, they – and all smokers – are themselves less likely to put on weight. As the habit has decreased, obesity has soared.

How To Repel Ants So They Don’t Come Back

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

http://dld123.com/q&a/index.php?cid=28We own a small business with office and shop employees. We had ants in the office, lounge areas, restrooms, lunchrooms, etc. Very disturbing to the ladies in the office trying to do their work. My wife is chemical sensitive and we couldn’t even use the baits that you find in the grocery store. Found the following recipe in “Common Sense Pest Control” and modified it slightly. It works overnight and the ants don’t come back.

Mix in a small jar. I use a baby food jar and it keeps in the refrigerator: 1/4 cup of sugar, 3/4 cup of water, 1 tablespoon of borax. Stir and let it sit until it is all dissolved. Soak a piece of homemade bread crust about 1″ square in the liquid until it is saturated. Place the dripping bread crust in the path of where the ants are coming in. In a few minutes the crust is completely covered by ants and you may need to place a couple more pieces in the area to satisfy the amount of ants you have. The next day they are gone and don’t come back.

Feds: Common pesticides jeopardize salmon survival

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20080814-0129-salmon-pesticides.html

By Jeff Barnard

ASSOCIATED PRESS 
1:29 a.m. August 14, 2008 
GRANTS PASS, Ore. – Three pesticides commonly used on farms and orchards throughout the West are jeopardizing the survival of Pacific salmon, the federal agency in charge of saving the fish from extinction has found.Under the settlement of a lawsuit brought by anti-pesticide groups and salmon fishermen, NOAA Fisheries has issued a draft biological opinion that found the way chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion get into salmon streams at levels high enough to kill salmon protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The chemicals interfere with salmon’s sense of smell, making it harder for them to avoid predators, find food, and even find their native spawning streams.

Banned from many household uses, tens of millions of pounds of the chemicals are still used throughout the range of Pacific salmon on a wide range of fruits, vegetables, forage crops, cotton, fence posts and livestock to control mosquitoes, flies, termites, boll weevils and other pests, according to NOAA Fisheries.

Jim Lecky, head of the office of protected resources for NOAA Fisheries Service, said his team has until a court-imposed deadline of Oct. 31 to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to find new ways to safely use the chemicals.

Lecky would not speculate whether the pesticides might ultimately be banned, but acknowledged that scientists have found that even with careful use under current guidelines, the chemicals are finding their way into streams at levels harmful to salmon.

The chemicals are the first of 37 that NOAA Fisheries and EPA must evaluate by 2012 under terms of a settlement reached last week in a lawsuit brought by Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, which represents California commercial salmon fishermen.

A total of 28 species of Pacific salmon are classified as threatened or endangered from overfishing, dams, logging, grazing, urban development, pollution, irrigation, misguided hatchery practices and other threats.

Lecky said he could not say where pesticides rank in the threats to salmon, but eliminating the harm from pesticides would boost efforts to save them.

Dead Zones: How Agricultural Fertilizers are Killing our Rivers, Lakes and Oceans

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/dead-zones

Fertilizer run-off from industrial agriculture is choking the planet’s oceans, rivers and lakes. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution feed explosive algae blooms that suck the oxygen from the water as they grow. These algae blooms result in dead zones that have become a recurrent feature in every ocean and on every continent.

As global warming heats our oceans, these problems will only worsen. Unless measures are put in place to control fertilizer usage, losses to biodiversity will continue to mount, coastal and inland fisheries will suffer and summer beaches could become toxic no-go zones devoid of life.

Pesticide Poisonings in Maryland Show Toxicity of Common Pesticides

Saturday, August 30th, 2008

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=390
(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2008) Showing just how toxic common pesticides can be, six people in Gaithersburg, Maryland who ate potentially contaminated stew have been hospitalized with probable pesticide poisoning. Reports say that mint leaves from a backyard garden that were in a potato stew are suspected to have contained organophosphate pesticide residues.

Unfortunately, the media is reporting this as a case of failing to wash produce properly, which does not address the root of the pesticide poisoning problem—that pesticides are hazardous and their uses cause harm. In fact, when EPA registers pesticides for use in food production, whether in the garden or commercial agriculture, it does not disclose or warn the public about pesticide residues or require the washing of treated food commodities, and it does not point to the availability of nontoxic alternatives.

The Washington Post reports, “In a textbook illustration of the importance of thoroughly washing plants and vegetables before eating them, authorities said the people who ate the potato stew became nauseous and dizzy, in some cases suffering hallucinations and convulsions.” Washing produce may reduce residues and potential exposure to pesticides, however, pesticides are often systemic, either taken up into the plant through the root system or absorbed into the plant tissue after surface treatments. Organic gardening and eating organically grown food are the best solutions for stopping pesticide poisoning and contamination.

Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They act as cholinesterase inhibitors by binding irreversibly to the active site of acetylcholine esterase (AchE), an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission, thus inactivating the enzyme. Poisoning symptoms include numbness, tingling sensations, headache, dizziness, tremor, nausea, abdominal cramps, sweating, lack of coordination, blurred vision, difficulty breathing or respiratory depression, and slow heartbeat. Very high doses may result in unconsciousness, incontinence, and convulsions or fatality.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain. The cancellation of household uses does not restrict, however, the use of remaining stocks. That is to say, homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase out, may still use this product.

Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to the EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion is applied annually for residential uses.

Advocates argue that pesticide poisonings of this sort would not occur if the uses of these highly toxic pesticides were banned completely. Pesticide labels are ineffective in communicating the true toxic nature of products consumers falsely assume are safe. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the nontoxic care of lawns and gardens.

Source: Washington Post

No such thing as “safe” levels of pesticides

Saturday, August 30th, 2008

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20080627/n1

Cross-disciplinary research reveals low-level pesticide exposure linked to myriad of learning, behavioral and medical problems.

By Amanda Kimble-Evans

Rodale Institute’s researchers continue to work with a range of soil and crop scientists to evaluate the dynamics and benefits of regenerative organic farming. To extend our understanding of the benefits of organics for human health, we’re looking at the work of Dr. Warren P. Porter. Officially, Dr. Porter is professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. But the scope of his expertise includes environmental and molecular toxicology, conservation biology and engineering physics. Through a series of life events, a gift of intense curiosity and a willingness to follow the scientific evidence where it leads, he’s discovered disturbing scientific evidence of unacknowledged risks from non-organic farming products and techniques. His research interests include: impacts on organisms subjected to simultaneous changes in climate, topography and vegetation (as is happening due to global warming phenomena); impact of low-level contaminant/pesticide mixtures on organisms and biological communities in terms of reproduction, food-web interaction, developmental processes, neurological function (learning abilities and aggression levels), immune function and endocrine function. He addressed Rodale Institute staff and local health care professionals this week, laying out key research findings pointing to the need for a radical reconsideration of the impact of pesticides on human and wildlife populations. Here’s a bit of background and some of his major talking points.

In 1995, Warren P. Porter, Ph.D., read an article in the Wisconsin State Journal that reported skyrocketing remedial education costs due to an increase in children with disabilities in the Madison school district. The numbers were surprising: an 87-percent jump in children with emotional disturbances, a 70-percent increase in children with learning disabilities and 83 percent more children with physical disabilities between 1990 and 1995. What Dr. Porter noticed as he began to look at other communities, was that there was an epidemic change in these levels worldwide.

“My children are everything to me,” said Dr. Porter. And so he began to ask “Why?” Because he is a professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Dr. Porter attacked this nagging question scientifically. Because he is Dr. Warren Porter, he began to look into the advanced academic research from several disciplines to find the answer. In 1998, Elizabeth Guillette published her finding on the affects of agrichemicals on preschool children in the Yaqui Valley of Sonora, Mexico, the source of much of the U.S. supply of winter fruits and vegetables. Children regularly exposed to pesticides on the farms in the valley displayed classic signs of severe neurological devastation. They also expressed poor coordination, low stamina, poor memory and heightened aggression when compared to the children who lived just a few miles away in the mountains and were not exposed.

In the 10 years since Dr. Guillette published her shocking findings, Dr. Porter and a number of other researchers have begun to take a cross- disciplinary look at the effects common pesticides have on the health and well-being of our communities at levels considered “safe” by the current regulatory bodies in the U.S. According to Dr. Porter, “normal” exposures in food, water and air may be creating many of the serious long-term health problems emerging in humans and wildlife. National and international research projects show that pesticides contribute to an increase in aggressive behavior, birth defects, developmental roadblocks, failing immune function and sexual disorders. And evidence is just surfacing that our fundamental genetic constitution could be in jeopardy. There are no straight lines in nature Dr. Porter cites a number of problems with how the wider scientific community and the Environmental Protection Agency have underestimated the risks associated with pesticides, including herbicides and fungicides. “They assume a linear dose response. In toxicology the size of the dose is what is considered important in determining how poisonous something will be.” Meaning, the more to which you are exposed, the worse the effect. But, says Dr. Porter, a bell-shaped dose response is much more common in real life. “Physiologically, the timing of the dose is often more important than size.” Meaning, it is possible that a very low-level exposure during a particular period of development can have a dramatic affect, whereas the same exposure before or after that period may have no affect at all.

A study by Levin, et al. in 2002 found the learning ability of female rats was affected the most when exposed to the lowest dose of a pesticide called chlorpyrifos during in-utero development. Higher-dose exposure showed much less of a negative response. Another study by Agoos, et al. in 2007 found the very same “inverse dose response” in female mice. As mice are very different than rats physiologically, it was surprising to see a consistent response. The same inverse dose response pattern was seen in a 2002 study by Cavieres, et al. where researchers dosed the drinking water of pregnant mice with a common herbicide at high, intermediate, low and very low levels. The highest degree of fetal losses was at the very low level. And, again, in a 2005 study on another common pesticide’s ability to affect brain function, the inverse dose response appeared. Rodriguez, et al. found 5 mg of atrazine had more of an effect on neurotransmitters in the brain than 10 mg of the very same chemical. “It should be noted that the EPA only tests the effects of intermediate concentrations,” says Dr. Porter, “since the assumption is that there will be less of an effect the smaller the concentration.”

Porter also points to studies by Richard, et al. (2005) and Fan, et al. (2007) that show how two common herbicides effect the levels of testosterone and estrogen in the system at “environmentally relevant levels,” or levels currently found in the environment. They found that atrazine increases the levels of estrogen in the system and glyphosate increases the levels of testosterone. Changes in the levels of these sex hormones feed back to the brain and immune systems leading to other systemic problems, says Porter. “It’s like ripping up telephone cables. The signals get mixed and broken. You end up with serious long-term consequences that are very difficult to diagnose.”

Creating a successful poison

When confronted with these studies, Porter asked himself, “Why do pesticides and herbicides at low-levels have such devastating systemic affects on animals, including humans?” This lead him to the second assumption in our regulatory process that has created a toxic loophole. “It all goes back to the principles of creating a poison that effectively kills,” says Porter. “You want something that is quickly and easily absorbed through the ’skin’ or outer defense system and something that is water- and fat-soluble which gives it a ‘master entry key’ to every cell in the body, brain and/or fetus.” The “inactive” ingredients in Round-up make it twice as biologically active and, therefore, twice as potentially toxic as the potential of it’s “active” chemical parts.

Solvents (organic soaps) and surfactants (that diminish the surface tension of water) are added to pesticide and herbicide formulations to create a product that encourages effective uptake and allows access to all cells of the targeted organism. The problem is that they are also absorbed through our skin and lungs more effectively and they have a master entry key to our cells, says Porter.

Dr. Porter cites two independent studies that determined the “inactive” ingredients in Round-up make it twice as biologically active and, therefore, twice as potentially toxic as the potential of it’s “active” chemical parts. Unfortunately, solvents and surfactants are not tested as part of the EPA registration process. “For example,” says Porter, “the EPA registers glyphosate, the chemical considered an active ingredient in Round-up, not Round-up itself.”

Passing the damage on

Researchers at Washington State University studied DNA of male rats and discovered DNA sequences were altered through methylation (changes in the epigenic pattern) by exposure to the fungicide vinclozolin. “Methylation patterns reflect our environmental history,” says Dr. Porter. “It’s our genetic response to environmental insults.”

Porter points out that early-immune insults have also been linked to asthma, allergies, autoimmune diseases, cancer, cerebral palsy and male sterility. The expression of the NCAM1 gene, specifically, was blocked by exposure to the fungicide. Diseases related to this gene include Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, neural tube defects and various tumors, says Porter. The revealing piece of the Washington State University study was the fact that the DNA alterations caused by exposure to the fungicide were actually passed down four generations.

“The evidence is strong,” says Dr. Porter. “We are compromising our children and our children’s children.” The extent of our exposure Recent studies have begun to capture the true extent of our low-level exposure to pesticides that could be quietly causing serious health problems in our population. The toxins are nearly inescapable in the water we drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe. Lu, et al. (2006) measured organophosphates in the urine of Seattle children and discovered levels of chemical indicators up to 14 parts per billion

“Organophosphates are neurotoxins by design and we’re capable of responding to neurotoxins in the parts per trillion level,” says Porter, “especially during [fetal] development.” “The public has been slow awakening to the danger of low-level pesticide exposure. And the EPA regulatory process doesn’t capture the full and devastating risk of these chemical cocktails.”

And new work by Paul Winchester, et al. is taking a look at the correlation between the amount of atrazine in the water at the time of conception to the math and reading skills of Indiana children. “The public has been slow awakening to the danger of low-level pesticide exposure,” said Porter. “And the EPA regulatory process doesn’t capture the full and devastating risk of these chemical cocktails.”

Dr. Porter suggests we rework the way chemical products are registered to reflect discoveries related to non-linear dose responses, the effects of solvents and surfactants, the compound and synergistic affects of chemical mixtures, and the differences in hormonal and developmental responses between males and females.

In the meantime, the study by Lu, et al. offers a path to reducing our exposure. When the Seattle children were put on an organic food diet, concentrations of the chemical indicators in their urine were undetectable within five days. Porter agrees: “Buy organic or grow your own, and get a really good water filter for your drinking and washing water. It won’t eliminate all your exposure, but it will dramatically reduce your risk.”

Amanda Kimble-Evans is assistant editor at Rodale Institute. She specializes in nutrition issues, recently became a mom and enjoys her organic garden.

Pesticides, chemicals can cause reproductive defects, toxicologist warns

Sunday, July 20th, 2008

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212041468664&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

The incidence of hypospadias - a birth defect of the male urethra in which the opening forms abnormally somewhere along the shaft of the penis instead of at the tip - has increased in Israel by 30 percent in recent years due to exposure to pesticides in food and chemicals in the home environment, according to Prof. Yona Amitai, a veteran toxicologist and pediatrician and former head of the Health Ministry’s Mother, Child and Adolescent Health Department.

Speaking in Herzliya Monday at the first conference of the Environment and Health Foundation, Amitai said that 309 baby boys were born in Israel with this defect in 2001 and that the figure rose to 434 in 2005. Based on similar experience in other developed countries, it is believed that the increase is due to the mother’s exposure to chemicals and toxins during pregnancy that disrupt normal hormonal activity. Another consequence of such exposure, he said, is cryptorchism or an undescended testis, in which they remain inside the body.

Hypospadias is among the most common birth defects of the male genitalia, with cryptorchidism second. Reported incidences range from one in 4,000 to one in 125 male births. Most defects are not inherited and do not run in the family. Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system and interact with steroid receptors are believed to be responsible for most cases. Among the disruptors are DDT, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), common components of most baby bottles. Some research suggests that women who follow a vegetarian diet and eat a lot of food with high levels of phytoestrogens, such as soy, have a higher risk of hypospadias in their sons.

Several teratogenic chemicals and various drugs have been shown to cause hypospadias in animals by interfering with androgen action in the embryo. Some experts believe endocrine disruptors may be interfering with human hormones as well.

Hypospadias usually causes no functional urination problem except that the urine streams to the side rather than straight. The main complaint is esthetic, but it may also interfere with ejaculation and cause fertility problems. Most cases of hypospadias can be corrected in an operation during the first year of life.

The newly formed Environment and Health Foundation will spend about $2 million a year in the next few years on research into the environmental influences on health in Israel.

Amitai said that environmental factors can also be blamed for reducing the amount of sperm in semen and for causing girls to enter adolescence prematurely.

Chemical fertilizers can harm over time

Saturday, July 19th, 2008

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=67aa3b0c6ffc65ef&-session=TheDailyNews:42F946A70ccb8007D9VNG43A704D

By Leigh Jones
The Daily News
Published May 24, 2008

Advertisements for chemical fertilizer started airing on local television stations as soon as spring arrived.

Companies tempt gardeners to buy products that will get them rapid results, with promises to produce exponential growth, lush greenery and succulent fruits and vegetables.

But Bob Webster, a well-known gardening guru, radio host and horticulturist based in San Antonio, warns the short-term payoff is not worth the long-term cost of using chemicals.

Robing The Soil

Plants rely on bacteria in the soil to convert nutrients into a form that they can use, Webster said.

The microbes need an energy source to stay alive and do their work.

Chemical fertilizers do not include any energy source for the microbes, forcing the organisms to break down organic material in the soil to make use of the nutrients, he said.

Over time, using chemical fertilizers will rob the soil of virtually all of its organic material, making it hard-packed, crusted and incapable of holding water or oxygen, he said.

Organic fertilizers include micronutrients and an energy source to feed the microbes that convert the soil’s nutrients for the plant’s use, Webster said.

They also help reduce water use because they reduce the amount of water plants lose into the atmosphere, he said.

Growth Spurts

Gardeners usually love chemical fertilizers because they give fast results, but the growth they produce is not always the best, Webster said.

Rapid growth is usually week and susceptible to insects and disease, he said.

Chemical fertilizers also make plants thirsty, which leads to more water use, he said.

If chemical fertilizers aren’t used with lots of water, they will dehydrate the plant, a condition most often referred to as burning.

Organic fertilizers, on the other hand, contain nutrients that are released slowly into the soil, Webster said.

They do not promote rapid growth or excessive water consumption, he said.

The microbes need an energy source to stay alive and do their work.

Chemical fertilizers do not include any energy source for the microbes, forcing the organisms to break down organic material in the soil to make use of the nutrients, he said.

Over time, using chemical fertilizers will rob the soil of virtually all of its organic material, making it hard-packed, crusted and incapable of holding water or oxygen, he said.

Organic fertilizers include micronutrients and an energy source to feed the microbes that convert the soil’s nutrients for the plant’s use, Webster said.

They also help reduce water use because they reduce the amount of water plants lose into the atmosphere, he said.

Not To Worry

Although local extension agents recommend soil tests every few years to make sure the right products are used, Webster says the tests are only really necessary for farmers.

Most of the soil in the area contains similar levels of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, especially if it’s been treated with chemical fertilizer, he said.

Switching to an organic gardening program will begin repairing damage immediately and boost the micro-organisms in the soil that will help the plant absorb whatever nutrients is has available.

Webster also tells gardeners not to worry about the numbers usually written prominently on fertilizer bags.

“It’s not how much of the material is in there, it’s how much is available to the plants,” he said.