Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

1/28

Pesticides and YouNews from Beyond Pesticides, formerly the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Winter 2006-2

The Future of OrganicsOrganic values, farmer enthusiasm, rural development

and consumer leadership

Volume 26, Number 4

Silent Summer: Georgia community organizes against pesticide manufacturing waste

Bed Bugs: Back with a Vengeance Fungi To The Rescue: Biopesticide derived

from mold has promise as a greener method for eradicating unwanted insects

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

2/28

Should We Have to Fight EPA on Hexavalent Chromium?

A case study on the politics of EPAs pesticide regulation

Some battles just shouldnt have to be fought. When it comes to

Chromium VI, the chemical Erin Brockovich successfully battled,

EPA expending taxpayer resources to consider its use in a wood

preservative is an expensive waste.

The manufacturing phase-out of CCA-treated (chromated copper

arsenic) wood in January 2004 for residential use eliminated a

substantial amount of arsenic and 64 million pounds of hexava-

lent chromium use as a wood preservative in the U.S. Many in

the wood preserving industry saw this as an opportunity to move

away from the more hazardous materials used in wood preser-

vation at least for residential use. So, Osmose, Inc., one of the

nations largest wood preservers, notified EPA that it was volun-

tarily canceling its registration for acid copper chromate (ACC),

containing hexavalent chromium VI. Not so for all in the indus-try. A company called Forest Products Research Laboratory (FPFL)

[not, but maybe, intended to be confused with USDAs Forest

Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin] applied to EPA to

register its ACC product.

EPA could have said that ACC did not constitute a reasonable

risk, given the availability and new economics of safer alterna-

tive wood preservatives. Instead, the agency in May 2006 granted

FPRL a registration for commercial uses. This move epitomizes the

Office of Pesticide Programs failed implementation of the Fed-

eral Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in allow-

ing the unnecessary use of harmful chemicals. The situation, so

outrageous, enabled Beyond Pesticides and a coalition of nearlya hundred groups to join forces with Osmose and another wood

preserver, Chemical Specialties, Inc. (CSI).

Human testing without societal benefitIn Fall 2006, EPA began considering FPRLs application to ex-

pand its ACC registration to include residential uses, allowing the

chemical to be used on decks and playground equipment. The

company presented EPA with human test data to justify its safety

claim about the chemicals widespread use. With that I went over

to a Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) hearing, as it deliber-

ated the adequacy of the human study protocol did the study

have enough people who had their skin voluntarily wiped with

the chemical (a known carcinogen) and were the reactions serious

enough. EPA officials testified that the study was basically sound,

suggesting minor reinterpretation of the data.

When asked about the basic threshold issue of whether this chemi-

cal has social benefit (and therefore was it ethical to test on hu-

mans and should we be spending taxpayers money on this harm-

ful charade), EPA said, in effect, that the manufacturer believes it

has value and wood preservation is important. When I testified, I

argued that HSRB has a duty, before even considering human test

data to address the basic threshold issue of whether the chemical

in question has societal benefit. EPA had provided the board with

no analysis of the wood preservation market, the chemical uses,

the alternatives, or the economic impact. There was no discussion

of the 2002 CCA phase-out decision, the market adjustment to

other chemicals and materials and the fact that this chemical was

not needed in society and its use would only serve to benefit the

chromium industry, FPRL, and perhaps toxic waste generators.

Politicizing scienceSo, with our backs to the wall and the press focused on Iraq and

Scooter Libby, we started in earnest educating members of Con-

gress. Politicizing science is what EPA understands best. Since risk

assessments are perpetually manipulated by the agency to justify

proposals with faulty risk mitigation measures, it is public pressure

and politics, rarely science, that always tilt the scales in favor ofpublic health and the environment. Then EPA issued its December

21 memo, manipulating its risk numbers to support the position

that yes, indeed, risks of ACC use were acceptable. A close look

at the memo finds that the dermal risk factor used was, without

explanation, weaker by 50 times from a previous analysis, that it

did not take into account intraspecies variability and incorporate

a 10-fold margin of safety, nor did it account for the wide uncer-

tainty in the ACC residues on treated wood. We have asked EPA

to rescind the memo as bad and misleading science.

However, shortly thereafter on January 8, 2007, EPA reversed

itself and announced its intent to deny the registration for the

residential use of ACC, and said it will evaluate the continuedcommercial uses of ACC at the same time that it conducts its reg-

istration eligibility decision (RED) on CCA. The latest RED review

has been ongoing for almost a decade. EPA actually began evalu-

ating CCA under its Special Review program in 1978 and found

in 1986 that it and the other heavy-duty wood preservatives pen-

tachlorophenol and creosote had elevated risk characteristics but

would remain on the market because there were no satisfactory

alternatives a decision that remains in place for the most part

today but is outdated because of new technologies.

EPAs ACC decision, it told us in a letter, is based on the exposure

of workers in the wood treatment process, wood product manu-

facturing, transport and retail sale, as well as public exposure to

treated wood and ultimately hazard-

ous waste treatment. It would be nice

if EPA would apply some of this same

reasoning to the ongoing commercial

uses of ACC, CCA, pentachlorophenol

and creosote. Clearly, we need more

politics for that to happen.

- Jay Feldman is executive

director of Beyond Pesticides

Letter from Washington

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

3/28

Pesticides and You 2007 (ISSN 0896-725is published 4 times a year by Beyond Pestcides. Beyond Pesticides, founded in 1981 athe National Coalition Against the Misuseof Pesticides (NCAMP), is a voice for healtand the environment, promoting protectiofrom pesticides and safe alternatives; donations are tax-deductible.

National Headquarters:701 E Street, SE,

Washington DC 20003ph: 202-543-5450 fx: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]: www.beyondpesticides.org

Articles in this newsleer may be repro-duced without Beyond Pesticides permissunless otherwise noted. Please credit BeyoPesticides for reproduced material.

BEYOND PESTICIDES STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorJohn Kepner, Project DirectorMichele Roberts, Project DirectorEileen Gunn, Project DirectorAviva Glaser, Research Associate

Laura Hepting, Special Projects CoordinatorJane Philbrick, Public Education AssociateTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Science ConsultantKatie Khoury, InternIan Santino, Intern

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorJay Feldman, John Kepner, Jane PhilbrickLaura Hepting, Aviva Glaser, Katie KhouStephen Rier, Alan Cohen, Terry ShistaGeorge Siemon, Cathy Strong, ContributoJohn Kepner, Layout

BOARD OF DIRECTORSAudrey Thier,

president, Williamsburg, MARobina Suwol, vice-president, California SaSchools, Van Nuys, CATerry Shistar, Ph.D., secretary, Kaw ValleyGreens, Lawrence, KSLani Malmberg, treasurer, Ecological Ser-vices, Lander, WYRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, at-large, MarylandPesticide Network, Annapolis, MDCissy Bowman, Indiana Certified OrganicClayton, INAlan Cohen, Bio-Logical PestManagement, Washington, DCCaroline Cox, Center for EnvironmentalHealth, Oakland, CAShelley Davis, Farmworker Justice Fund,

Washington, DCLorna Donaldson, Donaldson Family FarmTiptonville, TNJay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides,Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving EarthWorldwide, Plymouth, MNWarren Porter, Ph.D., University ofWisconsin, Madison, WIRou Riegart, M.D., Medical Universityof South Carolina, Charleston, SCAllen Spalt, Carrboro, NCAndrea Kidd Taylor, DrPH, Morgan StateUniversity, Baltimore, MD

Affiliations shown for informational purposes only.

Contents

Page 16

The Future of Organic

Printed on 100% post consumer waste with soy inks.

Page 9

Page 14

2 Mail Ensuring a Toxics-Free Lawn; Canadian

Pesticide Bylaws and U.S. Preemption

4 Washington, DC Companies Drop Pesticidal Claim, Avoid

Regulation of Nanoproducts; EPA Sued for Side-stepping Review of Pesticides on Water; EPA SaysNo to Wood with Chromium 6 for BackyardUse; West African Plantation Workers Sue Dowand Others for Genocide; Judge Stops USDA onGE Seeds

6 Around the Country Common Antibacterial Agent Found To Be an

Endocrine Disruptor at Low Levels; NJ GroupsDefeat Plan to Lift Gypsy Moth Spray Ban; Wal-Mart Advances on the Environment, Citicized onOrganic; Endocrine Disruptors Linked To Obesity;Farm Pesticides Associated with Risks forCommunity Residents; Pesticide Misting DeviceTaken Off the Market in NY; Campaign Update

9 Silent Summer Georgia community organizes against pesticide

manufacturing waste

12 Bed Bugs: Back with a VengeanceDetection, Prevention and Least Toxic Control of Bed Bugs

14 Fungi to the Rescue Biopesticide derived from mold has promise as a greener method for

eradicating unwanted insects

16 The Future of Organics Organic values, farmer enthusiasm, rural development and consumer

leadership

24 Resources Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

4/28

Pesticides and You

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Ensuring a Toxics-

Free Lawn

I have just purchased a house in Madi-son, Wisconsin. I know that the previous

owners applied lawn chemicals, maybefrom TruGreen. The last application wasat the beginning of May, about threemonths ago. Weve had a couple ofvery hard rains this season and normalthunderstorms over the summer. I will

move with my dog by the beginning ofSeptember and I am worried about ex-posure to any residue. I think they mayhave used chemicals for years.

I have several questions: How long do

these chemicals stay in the soil? Wherecan I have the soil tested? How can I

rid the soil of any chemicals that areleft? Are there chemicals in the blades ofgrass?

Thanks for your help!HollyMadison, Wisconsin

Hi Holly,Thank you for contacting Beyond Pesti-cides with your question regarding chem-ical residue in your lawn. Different chem-icals have different breakdown times and

move at different rates through varioustypes of soil: sandy, silty, etc. In addi-tion, products have active ingredient(s),so-called inert ingredient(s), breakdownproducts (what they degrade into), andsometimes contaminants.

The time it takes for products to degradein your soil depends on many factors, in-

cluding rainfall as you have mentioned,soil structure, and the specific chemicalcharacteristics. Since you mentioned Tru-

Green ChemLawn, they typically broad-cast a weed and feed type product thatcan contain the active ingredients 2,4-D,and Mecoprop (MCPP). Roundup, is alsotypically used for weed control and itsactive ingredient is glyphosate. Glypho-

sate and 2,4 D are two of the most com-monly used active ingredients, accordingto the EPAs latest available usage data.

Fact sheets on all of these pesticides maybe found in our new Pesticide Gatewayon Hazards and Safe Pest Managementon our website (www.beyondpesticides.org) by clicking on Pesticide Gatewayunder the Info Services tab at the top of

the page to see. Click on 2,4-D andglyphosate to view each fact sheet andlinks to more information.

Pesticide degradation in soil is indicatedin a term called soil half-life, the time ittakes for half of the chemical to degrade.2,4-Ds soil half-life is 10 days and MCPPsis 21 days. The inerts are a trade secret,

so no information is available on those.Unfortunately, both 2,4-D and MCPPhave been found to contain TCDD, a

persistent and extremely toxic member ofthe dioxin family, which can cause cancer,birth defects, reproductive effects, liverdamage and chloracne. Glyphosates halflife ranges from 47 days to 174 days, sothat chemical may still exist in your soil.

To really determine if chemical residuesstill persist, you will want to contact asoil analytical laboratory for instructionson taking a pesticide residue sample.Contact your state health department or

state health lab. There are many privatelabs around the country, some of which

test for pesticide residues. For informa-tion on what to look for in a lab, click onthe Find a Lab link under the Emer-gencies tab on our site.

To reduce potential exposure and preventtracking residues inside, spread a layer ofcompost over the grass. Also, you maywant to consider that residues have prob-

ably been tracked indoors. In the absence

of soil, sunlight and water many chemicalsdo not break down readily. 2,4-D, for ex-ample, has been measured in householddust, surfaces and in carpet. Considerhaving the carpets steam-cleaned, andthoroughly clean all surfaces..

For more tips on chemical-free lawns,click on Lawns and Landscapes underthe Issues tab on our website.

Page 2 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

Mail

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

5/28

Canadian Pesticide

Bylaws and U.S.

Preemption

Can you please provide me with themost up-to-date number of Canadianmunicipalities that have enacted a pes-

ticide bylaw as well as the link to whichones have the bylaw? I was searchingthe web, but the website says only 70.I had seen another site which says 122.Please let me know as we are presentingto our council really soon.

MichelleKelowna, British Columbia

Dear Michelle,Its wonderful to hear from a pesticide-free advocate in Canada! As Im sureyoure well aware, Canada has beenquite successful in passing municipal by-laws prohibiting the cosmetic use of pesti-cides on private lawns. According to a listcompiled from information on StatisticsCanadas website, there are currently 125municipal bylaws in place, and anothereight are currently being drafted. Thosepassed include Qubecs province-widePesticide Management Code. The resultof these bylaws is that 38% of all Cana-dians, or 12 million people, are protected

from cosmetic lawn pesticides. The com-plete list is available by visiting the Lawnsand Landscapes page under the Issuestab on our website, clicking on Tools forChange in the left-hand column, thenon Canadian Bylaws Banning PesticideUse, and then Mikes Christies PrivateProperty Pesticide Bylaws in Canada.NOTE: For our U.S. readers, municipalbylaws such as those found in Canada

are difficult to enact in most parts of theUnited States. In all but nine states, lo-cal pesticide ordinances that restrict pri-vate homeowner use of pesticides areprohibited by preemption laws, whichwere successfully passed by the pesticidelobby. In short, local governments arepreempted or prevented from passing

pesticide laws that are stricter than statelaws. States that are free to restrict pes-ticide use on private property are: Alas-ka, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada,South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyomingand the District of Columbia. To view thecomplete list, along with Beyond Pesti-cides State Preemption Fact Sheet, visitwww.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/fact-sheets/Preemption%20Factsheet.pdf. Bycontrast, Canadian municipalities havefree rein to design their own require-ments. Legally speaking, Canadas PestManagement Regulatory Agency says,Cities, towns and municipalities may beauthorized by provincial/territorial leg-islation to further regulate pesticide use,including use restrictions, based on localconsiderations within their jurisdictions.

But all hope is not lost. In lieu of locabylaws, some states have passed requirements for least toxic pest control foschool buildings and grounds (integratedpest management and organic), postingnotification signs, registries of individuals who request prior notice of applications, automatic notification for abutting

properties, or a combination of thoseMunicipalities in the U.S. are also passingordinances and policies for pesticide-freeparks and organic care of their municipalowned properties, and even voluntarycitizen bans, which is legal. For instancefourteen towns have passed PesticideFree Parks bills, including four in California and four in New Jersey. Even morecities have passed Integrated Pest Management/Pesticide Reduction policies andprograms.

For support in beginning your own locacampaign for pesticide use reduction, ourTools for Change page includes a variety of helpful links under How to Organize in Your Community. You can also

join our Policy Workgroup by calling us.

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 3

Speak Your Mind!

Whether you love us, disagree with us or just want to speak yourmind, we want to hear from you. All mail must have a daytime phoneand verifiable address. Space is limited so some mail may not be print-ed. Mail that is printed will be edited for length and clarity. Pleaseaddress your mail to:

Beyond Pesticides, 701 E Street SE #200, Washington, DC 20003fax: 202-543-4791, [email protected]

www.beyondpesticides.org

by Jane Philbrick

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

6/28

Pesticides and You


Page 4 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

Companies Drop

Pesticidal Claim,

Avoid Regulation of

Nanoproducts

You may have heard this one before: Itsonly a pesticide if the company selling itsays that its a pesticide. Sound unbeliev-able? Well, its true. The. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has interpretedthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide andRodenticide Act(FIFRA) to allow prod-ucts without pesticidal claims to escaperegulatory review. Under EPAs new

rules for regulating a large class of con-sumer items made with antimicrobialnanotech silver, referred to as nanosilver,nanotech pesticides will follow the samerules as conventional pesticides. In opt-ing to drop pesticidal claims from theirproducts, companies are avoiding EPAregulation and safety testing require-ments for their products. For instance,

the Sharper Image company, which untilrecently advertised products containingnanosilver (including socks) as anti-mi-crobial, has dropped all such referencesfrom its marketing materials and will notfall under EPAs oversight. Environmen-

tal groups are taking note of this gap innanosilver regulation. Its sounds like a

major legal loophole and is probably

Washington, DC

something that will have to be dealtwith in the courts, said Mae Wu,a lawyer at the Natural Re-sources Defense Council, anenvironmental group that

has been pushing EPAto regulate nanosilver.Other products withthe new nanosilver

include shoe liners,socks, toothpaste,pillows, food storagecontainers, bandagesand air fresheners.

The term nano-technology refers toresearch and technology

that manipulates matterat the atomic, molecular, ormacromolecular levels using alength scale of approximately oneto one hundred nanometers in any di-mension. A nanometer is one billionthof a meter, or around one ten-thou-sandth the diameter of a human hair.Nanotechnology allows certain materi-

als to have different molecular organi-zations and properties because at theirtiny size they have far more surface arearelative to their mass than their larger

counterparts. Silver, for instance, hasbeen known for years for its biocidalproperties in its bulk form, as well as for

its hazardous health effects. It is moreefficient as nanoparticles. Nanosilver isthe first form of nanotechnology to bescrutinized by EPA.

Take Action: Tell EPA Admin-istrator Stephen Johnson ([email protected]) that all toxic chemi-cals should be reviewed and regulated

for potential adverse effects and efficacy,regardless of whether the manufacturermakes pesticidal claims.

EPA Sued for Sidestepping Review of Pesticide Effects on Water

Six environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a decision that weakens theClean Water Act (CWA) by deregulating the spraying of pesticides into the nations waters. The groups filed the suit, Baykeeperv. Johnson, December 12, 2006, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a new rule, which re-defines theword pollutant to exclude pesticides. Of particular concern to the environmental groups are aerial spraying and other directapplications of pesticides to creeks, rivers and wetlands. Pesticide contamination of waterways from such sources would be al-

lowed without agency oversight under the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permit process of CWA.Congress was quite clear in directing EPA to regulate pesticide pollution, said Deb Self, executive director of Baykeeper, one of

the petitioning groups. Rather than enforcing laws as Congress wrote them, once again the Bush administration has simply in-terpreted the law to suit its purposes. According to Beyond Pesticides, this EPA action allows the weaker and more generalizedstandards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to trump the more stringent CWA standards.CWA uses a health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits whenchemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly subjective risk assessment with no at-tention to the safest alternative. The pesticide lobby, led by CropLife America, has also filed suit in the Washington, DC CircuitCourt in an attempt to have the case heard by a more conservative panel of judges.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

7/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 5

West African Plantation Workers Sue Dow and

Others for Genocide

West African plantation workers are suing DowChemical, Shell, Amvac and Dole Food, claim-ing that the pesticide dibromochloropropane(DBCP) caused them to become sterile (Akebo

Abagninin, et al. v. Amvac Chemical Corpora-tion, et al.). DBCP, a soil fumigant sold underthe brand names Nemagon and Fumazone, wasfirst banned by the state of California and thenby EPA 27 years ago because it causes sterility,physical deformities, cancer, and birth defects.

The 668 plaintiffs, represented by the MetzgerLaw Group of Long Beach, CA, claim that the

chemical companies and plantation ownersbroke international law and committed crimesagainst humanity by using a banned pesticideon a plantation in the Ivory Coast. The work-ers were never told about the hazards of DBCP,nor given protective equipment. Half of the workers tested are sterile and manysuffer from other physical injuries, as well. The suit is brought under the Alien TorClaims Act, a federal statute that allows foreigners to seek redress in U.S. courtagainst U.S. corporations for wrongs committed abroad. The violations of interna

tional law are based on the Convention Against Genocide and Crimes Against Hu

manity. These companies have faced similar charges in the past regarding DBCP uson plantations in developing countries. In November 2004, thousands of bananworkers in Costa Rica filed a lawsuit against a similar group of companies. Despitoverwhelming evidence, no U.S. court has ever ordered one of these companies topay compensation to the workers. For the most part, U.S. judges have argued thatheir courts are not the appropriate arenas for trying these cases, and only a verysmall percent of the rejected cases are re-filed in other countries. The complainwas filed in the Los Angeles Federal District Court. View the lawsuit at: www.cor

poratecrimereporter.com/documents/DBCP.pdf.

by John Kepner

EPA Says No to Wood with Chromium 6 for Backyard Use

On January 8, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will reject an industry bid to use acid copperchromate (ACC), which contains the known carcinogen hexavalent chromium and is commonly used as a wood preservativefor residential uses. Although environmentalists are pleased with the decision, some feel that EPA should have never placed itselin the position to consider the industrys bid. According to the Washington Post, industry groups petitioned EPA three years agoto use ACC to treat wood sold in hardware and home and garden stores. EPA decided to reject the bid after a scientific reviewconcluded that the proposed residential uses of ACC would pose cancer and non-cancer risks of concern to workers during themanufacturing process and non-cancer risks to contractors and residential users. In addition to the health impacts, disposal ofthe ACC-treated wood carries a risk of soil and groundwater contamination. In July 2006, a collaboration of environmentagroups, including Beyond Pesticides, wrote EPA expressing disappointment with the agency for approving Forest Products Re

search Laboratorys application to sell ACC for a number of industrial and building related uses. Again in December 2006, thegroups submitted formal comments and petitioned EPA to cancel all uses of ACC.

Take Action:Contact EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at 202-564-4700, [email protected] and urge himto cancel all registrations now in effect for ACC.

Judge Stops USDA

on GE SeedsOn February 13, a 9th Circuit U.S.

District Court judge ruled in GeertsonSeedfarms v. Johanns [C06-1075CRB(EDL)] that the United States Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) violatedfederal environmental law by failingto conduct an environmental impactstatement (EIS) on genetically engi-neered (GE) alfalfa seeds before de-regulating them in 2005. Ruling on a

lawsuit brought by Center for FoodSafety, Beyond Pesticides, Sierra Club,and farm groups, the court found thatUSDA did not adequately defend itsdecision to forgo an EIS on GE alfalfaseeds, primarily marketed by Mon-santo as Roundup Ready, which areengineered with a gene that causes

them to be resistant to the herbicideglyphosate. Among the plaintiffs con-cerns are contamination and cross-pollination between GE and naturalcrops, which can occur at a distance

of up to two miles. Andrew Kimbrell,executive director of the Center forFood Safety, said, This is a majorvictory for farmers and the environ-

ment. Not only has a Federal Courtrecognized that USDA failed to con-sider the threats posed by GE alfalfa,but it has also questioned whetherany agency...is looking at the cumula-tive impacts of GE crop approvals.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

8/28

Pesticides and You


Page 6 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

Common Antibacterial Agent Found To Be

an Endocrine Disruptor at Low Levels

Canadian researchers have found yet another reason to choose good old soap andwater over the majority of antibacterial personal care products on the market thatcontain the active ingredient triclosan. In addition to studies demonstrating thattriclosan is linked to antibiotic resistance, breaks down into hazardous compounds,and does not work any better than regular soap and water, new data shows that itis also an endocrine disruptor. The study, published in the December 2006 issue of

Aquatic Toxicology (Vol. 80, No. 3), shows that at environmentally relevant levels,triclosan interferes with the thyroid hormone in frogs, affecting the timing of meta-

morphosis in tadpoles. This study is the first demonstration of low-level impacts oftriclosan on thyroid hormone function. The study, entitled The Bactericidal AgentTriclosan Modulates Thyroid Hormone-Associated Gene Expression and DisruptsPostembryonic Anuran Development, shows that exposure to as little as 0.15 mi-crograms/L triclosan causes an earlier metamorphosis from tadpole to frog than nor-mal, with effects on the tadpole brain and tail. Results of the study indicate that lowlevels of triclosan can potentially affect the human thyroid gland. The thyroid playsa role in development, body temperature and metabolism. Frogs serve as a very

sensitive sentinel species for chemicals that can actually disrupt thyroid hormoneaction, said University of Victoria molecular biologist Caren Helbing, Ph.D., one

of the authors of study. Triclosan at levels measured in our waterways can actuallyaffect how thyroid hormones work in frogs.Take Action:The use of these antibacterial ingredients is unnecessary in the

home, and constant exposure to them becomes a health and environmental hazard.Make sure you read all labels when buying soaps and other toiletry products, includ-ing cosmetics, to ensure that triclosan and its analog triclocarban are not included.Also be on the lookout for Microban and Irgasan, which can be other names for tri-

closan. Consult Beyond Pesticides triclosan factsheet at www.beyondpesticides.org/gateway#triclosan for a list of products containing triclosan, including some that maysurprise you, and for more detailed information on alternatives to these chemicals.

NJ Groups Defeat

Plan to Lift Gypsy

Moth Spray Ban

On January 29, 2007, the New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protec-tion (DEP) rejected after a month-longreview the New Jersey Department ofAgricultures (NJDA) petition to waivethe states ban on aerial-spraying ofbroad-spectrum pesticides to allow the

use of Dimilin for gypsy moth control.For the past 20 years, in lieu of aerialspraying of Dimilin, containing the ac-tive ingredient diflubenzuron, townshave used bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), abacterial agent. With gypsy moth pop-ulations expected to be higher in 2007than in recent years, NJDA argued thatBt would be insufficient to protect

hardwood trees across the state. In aletter to NJDA, Marcedius T. Jameson,DEPs administrator for pesticide con-trol wrote, The case for Bt being inef-fective was not made since the munici-palities in New Jersey are being offeredBt as a viable option for control in2007. NJDA also argued that the gyp-

sy moth situation in the state could becategorized as an environmental emer-gency. Mr. Jameson responded, Thevariable potential for tree loss and thenuisance that gypsy moth caterpillarspose do not rise to the level of an envi-ronmental emergency. Jane Nogaki ofthe New Jersey Environmental Federa-tion, who fought the NJDA proposal,

explains their opposition to lifting theban, The breakdown product of Di-milin is a probable carcinogen and it

can rob blood cells of oxygen. In ad-dition, as a broad-spectrum herbicide,Dimilin affects both gypsy moths andbeneficial organisms, such as aquaticcrustaceans and other molting insects.

Were pleased that the governor andthe DEP weighed in on the side of thepublic and the environment, said Ms.Nogaki.

Around the Country

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

9/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 7

by John Kepner

Wal-Mart Advances

on the Environment,

Criticized on Organic

On October 30, 2006, Wal-Mart Stores,Inc. announced its Preferred Chemi-

cal Principles campaign to develop agreener business profile and reintroduceitself to customers alienated by its busi-ness practices. According to the compa-ny, the campaign will establish protocolsfor Wal-Marts suppliers to report theirchemical uses and voluntarily replacethem with more sustainable substances.

Wal-Mart says it will work with suppli-

ers to substitute 20 chemicals of concernover two years. The Principles are meant

to establish a clear set of preferredchemical characteristics for product in-gredients. The first three chemicals aretwo pesticides, propoxur and perme-thrin, and a cleaning agent, nonylphe-nol ethoxylates (NPE). Wal-Marts planfor the voluntary phase-out of these

chemicals by suppliers comes in threesteps: 1) Awareness: participating sup-pliers will be given a period to identifyfor Wal-Mart any of their products thatcurrently use one of the priority chemi-

cals as ingredients; 2) Development ofan Action Plan: suppliers communicateto Wal-Mart their plans regarding the

Priority Chemicals intheir products; and,3) Recognition andReward: Wal-Martacknowledges thesuppliers whoparticipate in this

effort. This an-nouncement comeson the heels of aseries of promises bythe company to reduceits greenhouse-gas emissionsand reduce solid waste from storesnationwide. The watchdog group Wal-

Mart Watch says, If Wal-Mart makesgood on its promises to use 100% re-newable energy and produce zero waste

through its supply chain, the positiveeffects on global warming, the use oftoxic chemicals in production, and sus-tainable product sourcing could be tre-mendous.

However, on November 13, 2006,

just days after Wal-Marts chemical prin-ciples announcement, the CornucopiaInstitute, an organic farming watchdogorganization, filed a formal legal com-plaint with the U.S. Department of Ag-riculture (USDA), asking it to investigate

allegations of non-organic food prod-ucts being sold as organic in the mega-chains grocery departments. We first

noticed that Wal-Marwas using in-store

signage to misidentify conventionalnon-organic foodas organic in theiupscale-marke

test store in Plano, Texas, said

Mark Kastel of theCornucopia Institute

Subsequently, Cornucopia staff visited a number of

other Wal-Mart stores in the Midwest and documented similar impropri

eties in both produce and dairy sectionsCornucopia notified Wal-Marts CEOLee Scott in a letter on September 13

2006 of the problem and asked that itaddress and correct the situation immediately. However, in January 2007, foumonths after informing the company othe problems, which could be interpreted as consumer fraud, and two month

after filing a formal legal complaint withUSDA, many of the deceptive signs a

Wal-Mart stores are still in place. Athis point, it seems they are attracted bythe profits generated from the boomingorganic food sector but are not fully in-

vested in organic integrity. Given theisize, market power, and market cloutthis is very troubling, said Mr. Kastel.

Endocrine Disruptors Linked to Obesity

In addition to junk food and too much time in front of the TV, U.S. and Japanese scientists have linked certain endocrinedisrupting chemicals to the possible causes of the international obesity epidemic. A study published in the September 2006

issue ofMolecular Endocrinology (Vol. 20, No. 9), Endocrine-Disrupting Organotin Compounds Are Potent Inducers ofAdipogenesis in Vertebrates, has linked a class of environmental contaminants, organotins, with excess weight gain. Organo-tins are endocrine-disruptors and are persistent compounds found in low concentrations in most humans and animals. The

researchers studied in mice and frogs the effect of organotins, found in pesticides, wood preservatives, textiles and plastics.Several organotins are found to disrupt the normal function of receptors related to fat cell differentiation. Exposed neonatalmice exhibited significant disruption of signaling pathways and aberrant fat cell formation at several sites, including the liver,testis, and epididymis (where sperm are stored and become mature). In utero exposure to mice also leads to greater accumu-lation of fat in several sites after the mice are born. Further, although the birth weight of mouse pups exposed in utero tend

to be normal, at age ten weeks the fat content in their epididymis is 20% higher than normal. Aberrant development of fattissues around the gonads in both males and females also occurs in the frogs. These findings fit with research by other scientistsshowing that humans can be underweight at birth, but can quickly become overweight, possibly because their fat cell contentor function is abnormal.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

10/28

Pesticides and You


Page 8 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

Around the Country

Pesticide Misting

Device Taken Off the

Market in New York

On November 21, 2006, then-NewYork Attorney General, now Governor

Eliot Spitzer and former Departmentof Environmental Conservation (DEC)Commissioner Denise Sheehan an-nounced an agreement that removes adangerous pesticide-misting device fromthe market in New York. The state al-leges that BuzzOff Mosquito, LLC andits authorized dealer in Saratoga Springsunlawfully marketed a pesticide and an

accompanying misting system as safe

and non-toxic. Under the agreement,both companies will stop marketingthe pesticide and the misting system inNew York and will offer full refunds toconsumers who purchased the prod-ucts from them. The companies havealso agreed to a $25,000 penalty. Mr.Spitzer said, Pesticides are toxic chemi-

cals that should not be blindly released

Farm Pesticides Associated with Risks for

Community Residents

A recent study conducted in Manitoba, Canada has found that residents in communi-ties in which agricultural pesticides have been applied heavily are at a higher risk foreye disorders and giving birth to children with abnormalities or birth defects. Signifi-cantly, these results are not confined to those who work with pesticides directly, likefarmers, but are relevant among entire populations. Jennifer Magoon, a graduatestudent from the University of Manitoba, looked at Manitobas database of publichealth records, comparing records from areas of intensive agricultural pesticide usewith areas that use little. She studied 323,368 health records from the years 2001

to 2004, which included pharmaceutical files, physician claims, and hospital separa-tions. What she has found are statistically significant links between higher pesticideuse and health problems. She found that, compared with areas of average pesticideuse, the chance for abnormalities in babies born in high-use areas rose four percent-age points for males and three and a half percentage points for females. Abnormali-

ties include low birth weight, jaundice, and respiratory ailments. Additionally, thechance for eye disorders increased nearly two percentage points and the risk for mildto severe birth defects rose a percentage point in males. Public health officials hopethat this information will help them to continue to make connections between envi-

ronmental exposures and health endpoints. The results are awaiting publication.

into the air by automatic misting sys-tems. We need to work to reduce thepublics exposure to pesticides, andthis agreement will help accomplishthat important goal. Buzz-Off mistingsystems are designed to automaticallyspray a pyrethrin-based pesticide solu-tion at timed intervals from a series ofnozzles installed along the eaves of a

house, perimeter fencing, and aroundlandscaped areas. Automatic pesticidemisting systems can be dangerous topublic health and the environmentbecause they can spray pesticides di-rectly onto nearby people and ani-mals. In addition, the mist can coatthe surfaces of outdoor furniture and

childrens toys. In a January 2005 As-sociated Press article, Joseph Conlon,the technical adviser for the AmericanMosquito Control Association, stated,Would I install one in my back yard?No. He further explained, Our mainissue with misting is that there is nosurveillance driving it that says thatyou should be spraying.

Campaign Update:

National Coalition for Pesticide-

Free Lawns: Over 800 citizens and

organizations have signed the Declara-tion on the Use of Toxic Lawn Chemicals

calling for the aesthetic use of toxic lawn

and landscape pesticides to be replaced

with alternatives. Activists receive bi-

monthly Grassroots Actions to support

a transition to safer landscapes in their

community. Twenty-five thousand Safe-

Lawn Door Hangers, featured in the

Winter 05-06 issue ofPesticides and You,

have been distributed in 38 states. Cur-

rently, grassroots activists are recruiting

local school and park managers to attend

our first online Basic Organic Land Care

Training for Municipal Officials starting

in late February, see www.pesticide-

freelawns.org/training. The coaliton also

has a new Policy Workgroup of citizens

across the country working to pass local

pesticide-free zones and organic land-

care policies. To join, call Eileen Gunn,

project director, at 202-543-5450.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

11/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 9

Silent SummerGeorgia community organizes against pesticide manufacturing waste

by Cathy Strong

Eds. Note:This is the story of the con-tamination of a community, the poison-

ing of people, irresponsible corporatebehavior, the failure of government toeffectively regulate and enforce hazard-ous waste disposal of wash waterfrom pesticide manufacturing and for-mulation, and a community taking ac-tion in response. Moreover, it is a storythat links hazardous pesticide use andhazardous pesticide dsposal, the cradle-

to-grave poisoning outcomes that EPAdoes not consider in its risk assessmentsfor pesticide regulation.

We all want to believe thatour governmental agenciesare protecting us. But in my

community nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. The events that began in

south Fulton and north Fayette Coun-ties, Georgia in May 2006 and havecontinued to today seriously threatenour health and the environment. Thisis a story of poisoning and contamina-tion from hazardous pesticide wasteprocessing that none of my neighbors

or anyone in my family knew was go-ing on right in our community!

Our community is in the south metropolitan area of Atlanta.Ranked the nations 15th most desirable rural county in whichto live, Fayette Countys population is 104,248 and averagefamily income is over $100,000 (2005). The school system israted one of the best in the state. There is no heavy industryaround us. Or rather, we thought there wasnt.

A failure to enforcePhilip Services Corporation (PSC) Recovery Systems is located

in Fairburn, Georgia, South Fulton County, a few hundredyards north of the Fayette County line and about four milesfrom my home. The South Fulton PSC facility was purchasedfrom Fulton County ten years ago and was converted from

a sewage treatment plant into a sewage pre-treatment plant,specifically for non-hazardous materials.For ten years, PSC has held a sewage pre-treatment permitfrom Fulton County and a permit from the Georgia Environ-mental Protection Division (EPD) to treat non-hazardous in-

dustrial waste. The EPD permit establishes specific guidelinesand requires PSC to file an annual report citing the total vol-ume of waste treated, material and/or chemicals handled, andmaterial buried in the regional landfill. The permit specificallyprohibits handling of hazardous materials at the South FultonCounty PSC plant. PSC has never, to date, provided any of itrequired annual reports to EPD. And, EPD has NEVER done

anything to enforce the submission of these reports

In the Spring of 2006, PSC knowingly began accepting fortreatment huge volumes of liquid waste, or wash water,transported by highway from Alabama.

The disasterIn May 2006, people living, working and traveling near thePSC plant were overwhelmed by a putrid stench. This odorbecame stronger near the end of June and even worse in Julyreaching a peak during the July 4th weekend. The odor couldbe detected over a 200-square-mile area. Residents in an area

Protesters talk to an official outside of Governor Sonny Perdues First Annual Georgia EnvironmConference.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

12/28

Pesticides and You


Page 10 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

of approximately 40 squaremiles, labeled the hot zone,were considered most at risk

by Fayette County Emergency Management Services (EMS).

Fayette EMS personnel were the first responders on the sceneand it was they who identified the source of the odor as thePSC plant.

During the early summer and continuing through the present,many people became ill with serious, mysterious complaints.Most of these illnesses were respiratory, leading to difficulty inbreathing and asthmatic attacks. There were severe headaches,

severe chest pains, nausea and vomiting attacks, excessive sali-vating, sweating or tearing, muscle twitching, weakness, trem-ors, lack of coordination, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, abdom-inal cramps, diarrhea, respiratory depression, tightness in thechest, wheezing, cough, fluid in the lungs, blurred or dark vi-sion, kidney failure and bloody urine. There has been one verysad case of a person whose ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)may be a result of organophosphate exposure. Those who

could afford it obtained palliative treatment but no meaning-ful diagnosis or curative care from either their own physiciansor a hospital. Over 750 people documented their complaintsto local officials within the month of July. Ultimately, over1,000 people reported being sickened, including my family.

Heavy rain and winds from May through August did not re-move the odor from the hot zone. The first thing my familynoticed was the disappearance of the frogs. Then we, and the

neighbors, realized that all of the perching birds had died orfled. A beekeeper living next to the PSC plant lost half of hishives, the first time he has ever lost any bees during the sum-mer. The wildlife became silent. The previously healthy petsof many residents near the PSC plant succumbed to illness ordeath, as some veterinarians diagnosed with reasonable cer-tainty the cause as toxic chemical exposure.

Community responseIn early July, affected residents began to gather to protest theunacceptable conditions that they were being forced to live in.This was the birth of the South Fulton and Fayette CommunityTask Force. An exposure report form was created in English and

Spanish. Neighborhoods werecanvassed. Town hall meetingswere held. Petitions for imme-diate closure were signed andforwarded to officials. Fayetteand Fulton County EMS recog-nized that they did not havethe resources for dealing with

this type of emergency, so they joined affected citizens in re-questing assistance from EPD.

After countless telephone calls and several personal visits toEPD headquarters, we finally got Georgia EPD, the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the GeorgiaDepartment of Public Health (DPH) to begin responding toour pleas for air sampling, inspection of the plant, and epide-

miological studies.

Inadequate government responseEPD offered nothing in response to our requests for medicaldiagnosis, advice and treatment. EPD and DPH persistentlychanged the subject whenever we suggested that a dangerousorganophosphate pesticide, related to nerve gases and knownto be a component of the wash water, was the most likelycause of our problems. They focused instead on a less toxic

material with the same odor as the object of their investiga-tions. This negligence corresponded to the tack being taken bythe management of the PSC plant, which continued to pub-licize, even with newspaper advertisements, that the odor,while regrettably unpleasant, was nevertheless harmless.

From July 3 to 6, air sampling for the odorant (not the pesti-

cide) were carried out by EPD, which, despite acknowledgingthe order, said nothing was registering on the equipment!

Response of PSC managementThe source of the odor was ultimately acknowledged by bothPSC and EPD to be wash water from the pesticide manu-facturing process. They also had to admit that it had beentrucked on interstate highways from the manufacturer (BayerCrop Science) and packager (AMVAC Chemical Corporation)in Axis, Alabama. This wash water was purported by PSCto contain small percentages of the pesticide ethoprop, similar

concentrations of the odorant propyl mercaptan, and varying

percentages of chlorides and other chemicals.PSC has not been willing to describe the chemistry of the haz-ardous, volatile threat agents, the way it actually processedthis hazardous waste, or the chemical reactions necessary totruly decontaminate or disarm them. As nearly as we canpiece together from confidential sources, treatment consist-ed largely of bubbling air upward through 20,000 to 30,000

gallons of wash water for seven days at ambient temperatures(Georgia summer temperatures!), while stirring with double-

Citizens picket a state environmental meeting in Savannah.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

13/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 11

decker paddles in an uncovered vat. We have learned thatsymptoms like those described above were common amongplant workers, largely undocumented workers who speaklittle English and were offered little safety instruction and nopersonal protective gear. Vomiting on the floor was routine,but the occasional meeting between management and em-ployees focused on denying to the media that any problemmight exist.

Continuing environmental threatEthoprop (trade name MOCAP) is a very dangerous organo-phosphate insecticide and nematicide compound. Environ-mental Defenses Scorecard ranks ethoprop as one of the mosthazardous chemicals to human health. According to EPA (IREDAddendum, 2006), ethoprop is persistent and does not read-ily undergo photodegradation or hydrolysis. In other words,any amount of ethoprop that was deposited with us last sum-

mer IS STILL HERE and would explain continuing illnesses.

EPA classifies ethoprop as a likely human carcinogen. It is

estimated that approximately one million pounds of ethopropare used in the U.S. annually on corn, potatoes, sugar cane,tobacco and other agricultural crops. Ethoprop and its me-tabolites are acutely toxic to mammals. It is especially toxicto birds.

On September 15, the Task Force received the results of EPAtesting on some of the railcars to which the wash water wastransferred from the tanker trucks. The following chemicalswere found to be present: ethoprop, propyl mercaptan, dipro-pyl disulfide, toluene, and chloroform. It was also confirmedby our State Representative Virgil Fludd that sludge samplesfrom the PSC facility also tested positive for ethoprop. Withno data regarding the PSC wastewater processing system, it isnot possible to determine what amounts of vapors and/or liq-

uids have been released into the surrounding neighborhoods.PSC is not willing to describe their processes, leaving the citi-zens with many unanswered questions.PSC states that it is operatingwithin the limits of its permit,and EPD agrees! PUBLICLY!Both entities state that there

is no scientific evidence thatPSC is responsible for any of

the reported health problems.Our Task Force is demandingthat PSC close and take re-sponsibility for the poisoningand chemical trespass. Manylocal communities, includingthe Fayette and Fulton Coun-

ty Commissions, have passedresolutions demanding theclosure of PSC.

EPA of no helpU.S. Representative David Scott sent a letter to the adminis-trator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)requesting the closure of the plant until it has been determinedto be safe. He got a response from the regional administratoof EPA in Atlanta, saying, [T]he information available to EPAindicates that the PSC facility is moving forward appropriatelywith addressing decontamination, site operation, and othe

issues stemming from the odor incident.

Evolution of the Task ForceOur Task Force continues to advocate for change with somesuccess. We have requested that PSCs county pre-treatmenpermit not be renewed, eliminating the companys ability toutilize our sewer systems for disposal of liquid waste. It hasnot been renewed and PSC has agreed not to re-apply for

a pre-treatment permit from Fulton County for at least sixyears. They can no longer dump from that plant into our rivers and streams. However, some plant activity continues, andthe clean up that will have to take place at the facility has ye

to be determined. We are very concerned.

We are raising funds to continue the work of the Task Forceto ensure the clean up of our community. Our legislative committee will continue efforts to change Georgia laws that allow

big business to dump on us. We will work for pesticide regulation, changes in EPD, and alternatives to pesticide use.The Task Force plans to conduct video interviews with affected families to document the poisoning. Wherever you liveif you have been poisoned by ethoprop or pesticides of anykind, get on the record!

The Task Force also has a protest committee. In addition to oc-

casional picketing, we mount telephone and email campaignto communicate our needs to local, state and federal politi-cians. Other committees focus on media, medical and legaissues.

The Task Force is fortunate to haveexcellent people on all of thesecommittees, as well as dedicated

leadership. We have unintentionally become active stewards of oulocal natural environment while

attempting to protect the healthof our families.

Cathy Strong chairs the media committee for the South Fulton andFayette Community Task Force and

can be contacted at 770-306-1200or [email protected]. For moreinformation visit their website awww.communitytaskforce.org,Chairwoman Constance Biemiller shares her communitys story.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

14/28

Pesticides and You


Page 12 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

Bed Bugs: Back with a VengeanceDetection, Prevention and Least Toxic Control of Bed Bugs

by Katie KhouryBed bugs have recently re-emerged as a common unwanted insect and troublesome infestation problem. Though there is nodefinitive consensus on what sparked this resurgence, increased international travel and resistance to pesticide treatments arethought to be contributors.1

What are bed bugs?There are at least 92 bug species in the family Cimici-dae, some of which are known to feed on humans,

bats, birds and other warm-blooded animals. Allbed bugs are wingless and feed by hematophagy, orblood feeding. Adults are between 1/8 and 1/4 of aninch, reddish-brown in coloration and flat and ellipti-cal in shape, appearing somewhat like a flattened ap-

ple seed. Immature bed bugs, or nymphs, are smallerthan adults (about the size of a pin head) and areyellowish or clear before eating and red or purple af-terwards. Bed bugs antennae are segmented in fourpieces, and the insects bodies are covered in short,golden hairs. Their legs are well-adapted to crawl-ing up vertical surfaces, such as wood, paper, plaster,and with some difficultly, dirty glass.2 Bed bugs can

survive up to one year on a blood meal.3

Are these bed bug bites?Detecting bed bugs may be as easy as realizing youare waking up with sore spots or itchy welts, often ina line. This being said, the offending insect can rarely

be identified solely by the appearance of the bites,since they can resemble bites caused by many otherkinds of blood feeding insects, such as mosquitoesand fleas. Find the insects and identify them, eitherusing the description above or by taking a specimento an entomologist.

Can bed bugs make you sick?Transmission of disease by bed bugs is highly unlikely,though they can harbor pathogens in their bodies.Their medical significance is mainly limited to theitching and inflammation from their bites, which canbe addressed with antihistamines and corticosteroidsto reduce allergic reactions and antiseptic or antibi-otic ointments to prevent infection.

Do you have a bed bug infestation?Bed bugs are nocturnal insects. The night is the time to see them activeand feeding, mostly in the hours before dawn. If attempting to see bed

bugs while active, use a red light.

Bed bugs are most often found in the following places:

In cracks and crevices of bed frames or headboards; and, Along the seams of mattresses, or within box springs.

They may also be found in the following places:

In the cracks and crevices of the floor, plaster or ceiling moldings; Along the edge of carpeting; Under loose wallpaper; behind picture frames, wall hangings,

switch plates and outlets; In drapery pleats, the upholstery of sofas or chairs or the

folds of clothes hanging in the closet;

In the cracks and crevices of night stands or bureaus; Inside clocks, phones, televisions and smoke detectors; and, In the case of more established infestations, bed bugs move

further from the bed.

Tiny white eggs (1mm in length, the size of two grains of salt), depos-ited in batches of 10-50, can be found in these areas.

Bed bugs on the seam of a mattress.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

15/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 13

How do bed bugs get into your home?In the case of apartments and/or adjoining homes, bed bugsare able to travel by way of water pipes, wall voids, guttersand wiring. Rodents, birds, and bats can serve as alternativehosts. If a nearby habitat (see below) is the source of the in-sect, then it should be carefully moved away from the buildingand the bed bugs entryway should be blocked. Otherwise,bed bugs have likely been introduced accidentally or are trav-

eling between homes.

Habitat modificationsExterior Seal up cracks and crevices and fix screens, to prevent bedbug entrance from the outdoors. Remove any animal habitats near, attached to, or insidethe house, such as bat roosts or bird nests in the eaves, roof orattic, and exclude animals from entry. Deal with any rodentinfestations using least toxic management strategies (see Be-yond Pesticides alternatives fact sheets). Move woodpiles and debris away from the structure, and

eliminate all garbage.

Interior

Fill cracks, nooks or crannies in bed frame, floors, walls,the edge of baseboards and moldings with sealant. Re-glueloose wallpaper. Check carefully furniture, linens or luggage brought intothe house for bed bugs or rusty-orange stains from their fecalmatter. Clean up clutter, which serves as a hiding place. Duct tape bed legs (sticky side out), which may trap in-sects for identification.

Mechanical controlsExterior Trap and remove host animals and nests.

Interior

Scrub infested surfaces with a stiff brush to dislodge eggs,then vacuum. If possible, dismantle bed frame, turn over fur-niture and remove shelves from desks and bureaus to look forhiding insects, vacuuming to remove insects from crevices.

Move the bed away from the wall. Encase both the mattress and box spring in zippered (plastic) covers, which deny bed bugs access to inner, hidden areaand trap those already inside. After a year, bed bugs trappedinside will die. Launder bed linens and clothing in hot water (at least120F). Enclose linens and clothes in plastic bags when mov-ing them through the house.

Vacuum walls, floors, carpet, and drapes. In worst cases, duct tape (sticky side out) or smear withpetroleum jelly the legs of the bed or place bed legs in bowl

or jars filled with water to prevent bed bugs from entering thebed from the floor.

Least-toxic chemical controlsInterior

Clean vacuumed areas (see above) with diluted borax (2oz per quart of water). Open wall voids and treat with, sodium borate, foodgrade diatomaceous earth, or other products labeled for thiuse with ingredient disclosure. (Wear a dust mask when han

dling powder formulations.) Seal void completely.

A BEYOND PESTICIDES FACTSHEET A BEYOND PESTICIDES FACTSHEET A BEYOND PESTICIDES FACTSH

END NOTES:1 Nixon, P. 2006. Bed Bug Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides. Illinois Pesticide Review 19(5). hp://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/newsleer/

html/200605e.html; Ogg, B. 2005. Dont Let the Bed Bugs Bite! University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. hp://lancaster.unl.edu/enviro/pest/factsheets/263-95.htm.2 Tvedten, S. The Best Control for Bed Bugs. The Best Control II. hp://www.safesolutionsinc.com/18_ Bed_Bugs.pdf.3 Pollack, R and G Alpert. 2005. Bed Bugs: Cimex lectularius (Cimicidae). Harvard School of Public Health. hp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/bedbugs/

OTHER SOURCES:Jacobs, S. 2005. Bed Bugs. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension, Department of Entomology: Entomological Notes,

hp://www.ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/bed_bugs.htm.Jones, SC. 2004. Bed Bugs. Ohio State University Cooperative Extension. hp://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2105.html.Olkowski, W, S Daar and H Olkowski. 1991. Common-Sense Pest Control. Newtown: Taunton Press, Inc.PAN International. March 2000. Bed bugs least toxic control. Pesticides News (47): 21. hp://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/homepest/bedbugs.htm.Poer, MF. 2005. Bed Bugs. University of Kentucky School of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension. hp://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/

struct/ef636.htm.Tvedten, S. 2002. The Bug Stops Here. Safe Solutions. hp://www.thebestcontrol.com/bugstop/control_bed_bugs.htm.

Be careful when travelingSimple precautions can help to avoid and

stop the spread of beg bugs when traveling

When entering a hotel room, use a luggage stand toelevate belongings off the floor. Do not place luggage orbriefcases on the bed until conducting the following in-

spection: Check the sheets, the upper and lower seamof the mattress and any cracks in the headboard for the

insects. Most headboards in hotels can be removed andinspected easily. Look for rusty-red stains of bug fecal matter, or blood spots. If bed bugs, their fecal spots or eggs are detected, inform the manager and ask for a different room. If bed bug bites are suspected, be sure to wash belongings with hot water (120F minimum) and borax. Thoughit is difficult to detect bed bugs in a suitcase, inspect andvacuum luggage after a trip.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

16/28

Pesticides and You


Page 14 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

Fungi To The RescueBiopesticide derived from mold has promise as a

greener method for eradicating unwanted insects

by Stephen K. Ritter

The following article is reprinted in part from Chemical andEngineering News (December 4, 2006, Vol. 84, No. 49) with

permission from the American Chemical Society.

When Paul E. Stamets, the proprietor of gourmet

and medicinal mushroom provider Fungi Perfecti,Olympia, WA, bought an old farmhouse in the

mid-1980s, he quickly discovered a homeowners nightmare:A wood-digesting fungus known as an artists conk had in-vaded the home and was destroying the floor. The fungus andthe softened wood are favorite foods of some insect pests,and Mr. Stamets soon found his slumping house under attackby carpenter ants that left tiny piles of sawdust all about.

But unlike the average homeowner, Mr. Stamets is a fungusexpert. He took matters into his own hands. The end resultwas his discovery of a now-patented pesticide technology thattakes advantage of chemical cues produced during one stage ofthe life cycle of the green mold fungus Metarhizium anisopliaeto attract carpenter ants and other insect pests and infect themwith the fungus, which later kills them. An additional benefit isthat chemical cues produced by spores in a subsequent stage of

the fungal life cycle help shoo ants and other insect pests awayindefinitely.

The technology is being licensed through Mycopesticide LLC,a company Mr. Stamets created. It could have significant eco-

nomic impact as an alternative to traditional chemical pes-ticides, while reducing harm to human health and the envi-ronment, he believes. For instance, only a teaspoonful of thefungus grown on a substrate such as rice and costing a fewcents to produce is sufficient to treat a single home for years,

Mr. Stamets says. In addition, M. anisopliae and the activecompounds it generates dont appear to be harmful to hu-mans, other mammals, fish, useful insects such as honeybees,or plants.

Mr. Stamets had heard about M. anisopliaeand other moldfungi, called entomopathogenic fungi, that kill insects and usetheir carcasses to disseminate spores. The pesticide industry has

been exploring the use of spores isolated from dead insects asnatural insecticides for some time, but with limited success, henotes. One problem is that insects are sensitive to the sporesand avoid them, and soldier insects guarding nests sense andintercept most spore-contaminated foragers to prevent themfrom entering and infecting the colony.

In search of a possible way to save his home, Mr. Stametsordered a culture ofM. anisopliaeand began to experiment.

Strains of the fungus produce chemical attractants in the my-celial state, the stage of the life cycle when a fuzzy mat ofmycelium protrudes from a dead carpenter ant, making the

mycelium an effective biopesticide.

The spores attach to insects and germinate, using enzymesknown as chitinases to bore through the exoskeleton. Onceinside the insect, the mycelium grows and produces a host ofchemicals. These include destruxins, a class of hexadepsipep-

tides that compromise calcium ion channel function and areimmunosuppressive, and cytochalasins, a class of compoundsthat affect cell mitosis. Other compounds, still being inves-tigated, affect protozoans living in the insects gut that arenecessary to digest cellulose. In the end, the weakened insectsdie as the mycelium takes over.

The dead insects look mummified with the fuzzy mycelium,

and they become a launching platform for more fungal spores.In the sexual form of the fungus, a tiny club-shaped Cordycepsmushroom grows from the insect carcass. The dead insects leftin a decimated colony ward off subsequent insect invasionsbecause the carcasses remain moldy with the repellent spores.

Mr. Stamets reasoned that if termites and ants could be at-tracted to the mycelium well before spores were produced,

he green mold Metarhizium anisopliae turns into a white fuzzy growthuring the mycelial stage of its life cycle. The mycelium produces chemi-als that aract insects and make it a favorite food. But when infected withubsequently produced spores, the insects are overwhelmed by the grow-ng mycelium, as shown protruding from a dead carpenter ant, making the

mycelium an effective biopesticide.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

17/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 15

they would eat it and carry fragments of it back to their nests

without being stopped by the guards. When the spores wereeventually produced, they could fatally infect the colony.

He isolated a small amount of the mycelium from the culturehe ordered. Through several subsequent generations of cul-turing just the mycelium, he was able to create strains of M.anisopliaethat delay spore production for several weeks. Hethen grew some of the modified mycelium on rice and tested

it by placing a small amount of the rice on a foraging path ofthe resident carpenter ants in his house.

That night, about four hours later, my daughter spotted aswarm of ants on the mycelium-covered rice, Mr. Stamets re-calls. The ants became distribution vectors for the myceliumand promptly infectedtheir nest. A week ortwo later, my old de-

composing farmhousewas rid of carpen-ter ants. The house

eventually had to bedestroyed because ofthe previous damage,but Mr. Stamets sawno signs of carpenterants or termites for

four years after his pi-lot test.

Mr. Stamets initiated aseries of research trialscarried out by entomologists Roger E. Gold and Kimberly M.

Engler of Texas A&M University (Sociobiology 2004, 44, 211).Lab and field experiments found that the M. anisopliaemyce-

lium was a preferred food for many insects and more effec-tive against Formosan termites, eastern subterranean termites,and fire ants than a common commercial chemical pesticide.The research also showed that highly diluted water-ethanolextracts of the mycelium can be used to attract insect pests.

The Texas A&M research helped Mr. Stamets patent his discov-ery. The current patents broadly cover using the mycelium ofall species ofMetarhizium and Beauveria fungi directly or a

mycelium extract as an attractant for all social insectsa sig-

nificant milestone because social insects (insects with a queen)encompass more than 200,000 species.

The technology is being promoted by technology brokeragefirm Yet2.com, Needham, Mass., which is working with ahalf-dozen interested companies so far in the U.S. and othercountries to evaluate potential products. Some of the early

M. anisopliaeproducts developed by others have already metwith Environmental Protection Agency approval for pesticideuses, so products derived from Mr. Stamets invention are ex-

pected to gain quick approval, according to Phillip B. Stern

chief executive officer of Yet2.com.

The M. anisopliae mycelium technology is a platform fomultiple applications, Mr. Stern says. One type of producwould be the active mycelium itself, which could attract andkill insects. Another type of product would be the isolatedchemical actives that could be extracted from growing mycelium or synthesized and then used to attract insects to a bait

station to feed. A second component would be used to kilthe insects.

The suite of chemical attractants produced by the myceliumhas not yet been pinpointed, Mr. Stern adds. Research cur-rently being carried out in conjunction with the U.S. Depart

ment of AgricultureAgricultural ResearchService is showing

strong promise, but itin the early stages, hesays.

Mr. Stamets mycopesticide discoverycould become an integral part of the lucrative pesticide market

which is estimated tobe nearly $9 billionper year in the U.S.with biopesticides representing a 5% marke

share, Mr. Stern notes. The biopesticides sector is growing by

approximately 15% per year, he says.

Many insecticides and biocontrol agents are repellent to insects, and therefore the control is poor because the insectsdont come in contact with the product, comments ento-mologist Pamela G. Marrone, who has pioneered commerciaagricultural biofungicides and is CEO of Marrone Organic Innovations, Davis, Calif. The significance of Stamets work isthat it can improve the efficiency and efficacy of fungal-basedbiopesticides and could improve chemical-biopesticide combinations. But many more field trials will be necessary to fully

prove the technology for commercial use, she says.

Paul Stamets spoke at Beyond Pesticides 24th National PesticideForum: Building the Movement and presented his data on theefficacy and applications for his mycopesticide invention. Formore information on his presentation, to view his slideshow ofor information on ordering his presentation on DVD or VHS($20), visit www.beyondpesticides.org/forum. Paul Stamets

latest book, Mycelium Running (2005, Ten Speed Press) is available from Beyond Pesticides for $35 ppd. For more informa-tion, visit Mr. Stamets website, www.fungi.com.

Public Patent vs. Secret Exclusive UseMr. Stamets has decided to patent his mycopesticide, whichprovides for a transparent process that discloses all product in-

gredients (including so-called inerts) and engineering. Mostpesticide manufacturers avoid the disclosure required by thepatent process and instead use the exclusive use provision ofthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),which grants secrecy to chemical companies and only requiresdisclosure of active ingredients. Many inert ingredients, which

can make up as much as 99.9% of a pesticide product, areknown to state, federal and international agencies to be hazard-ous to human health.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

18/28

Pesticides and You


Page 16 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

The Future of OrganicsOrganic values, farmer enthusiasm, rural development

and consumer leadership

by George Seimon

Eds. Note:The following are excerpts of a talk by GeorgeSeimon, CEO of Organic Valley, to the 24th National PesticideForum, on the occasion of Beyond Pesticides 25th anniversa-ry, May 20, 2006 in Washington, DC, in which he discussedthe growth of organic, Organic Valley, the incredible success-

es and the challenges that lie ahead. He was introduced byBeyond Pesticides board member Tessa Hill, director of Kidsfor Saving Earth Worldwide in Minneapolis, MN.

George Seimon has been one of the nations foremost organ-ic agricultural advocates for nearly two decades, and is bestknown for his leadership in organizing farmers and buildingmarket support for organic agriculture. Mr. Seimon, himself anorganic farmer, champions the system of farming that supportsfamily farms, defends the ethical, humane treatment of farmanimals, benefits the environment, and gives consumers high

quality organic food.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

19/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 17

In 1988, Mr. Seimon joined a half doz-en neighboring families in Wisconsinto found the Coulee Region OrganicProduce Pool, expanded to the Co-operative Regions Organic ProducersPool [CROPP], and is now known asOrganic Valley Family of Farms. UnderMr. Seimons leadership, Organic Valley

has become the largest organic farmer-owned cooperative in North America.As chair of the Organic Trade Associa-tions Livestock Committee, Mr. Seimonwas instrumental in developing nationalstandards for organic certification, aprocess directed by the United States De-partment of Agriculture [USDA]. He is apast member of USDAs Small Farm Ad-

visory Committee and served a 5-yearterm, ending in 2006, as an appointeeto USDAs National Organic StandardsBoard. The Board advises the agricul-ture department on matters associatedwith organic industry, including review-ing and selecting acceptable organic in-gredients and establishing standards oforganic practice.

Mr. Seimon and his family have ownedand operated an organic farm since1977. The land is located in one of themany beautiful valleys called the couleesin southwestern Wisconsin. Vegetables,chickens, cows, pigs and horses can all be

found on the Siemon farm. Mr. Seimonis a native of Florida. He received hisbachelors degree in animal science fromColorado State University, Fort Collins.

Its a pleasure and honor to be here. You know, a lot ofpeople do a lot of work and you just heard a lot of creditI get. I think a lot of you here in the room deserve a lot

of credit that organics gets because you are the ones whoare really advocating for us and doing the work behind the

scenes. So, I was glad to come here and present to you aboutorganics. Organics is a big subject and Im going to try to go

through things pretty quickly here.

My family still has a farm. I have a hard time saying Im afarmer, but my family still does run a farm. We have about3,500 organic chickens, and we live in the beautiful part ofthe Midwest where the strip farming is. So, we started a coop.

in Wisconsin, and, being one of the people who was notraised on farms, somehow I got naturally pulled into beingthe business leader. So, while my family still farms, I dont getto spend much time there. Still, its always wonderful to be

able to return to the farm.

Ive spent my time lately with Organic Valley Coop. I justwant to tell our story a little bit and then get into organics

We started a coop in 1988 and have been wildly successfulA lot of that is just the mix of people, the timing, and themovement. It was just meant to be.

Our mission is pretty simple. Use organics as a ruradevelopment vehicle to bring economic stability. We believethat organics is much more than just how you treat the landbut it is a cultural issue and an economic issue too. Its as manyissues as you can imagine. We didnt realize when we startedout that wed be a national coop with regional pools of milkand other products, and operate all around the country. Butthats what evolved because thats what was needed.

As a coop, its just been phenomenal to see the need in thefarm community and in the consumer community. The CROPPproducer pool locations span the country. Its a huge networkof farmers. It is very exciting to have farmers working togetherand to see the differences and yet the commonality, and howexciting organics makes farmers.

Thanks to organic consumersI really have to express the thankfulness from the farmers tothe consumers because its changed their lives to discoverorganics. Its just an awakening. Farmers love farming, but theeconomic treadmill has gotten them down, while organics hagiven them a new life. You can just see it in their vibrancy andyou can see it in the youth.

Dairy is the biggest part of our business, but we do have a mea

business and juice, soy, and vegetable businesses. Its a verycomplex business, but its a lot about people its affected alot of people. I always say I spend a lot of my time just makingsure everybody gets along well and is keeping the faith. Wealso have 330 employees. So, certainly we never had any ideahow much organics would touch so many families when westarted with our little coop.

We work with such a diversity of farmers. Its been quite anexperience, and I think organics is just something thats reallymeant to be.

Part of it is weve always defined organic as more than whahas become the organic U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) standard. Organic has a lot of glorious history. Itsnot a new word. It was a school of philosophy in Greek time

the Organics. Just like there were Cynics. Organics has a lotof meaning and a lot of depth, and I think that the real futureof organics is to go back to that. So, weve always seen it as aphilosophy. Weve talked a lot about: What does it mean tobe an organic business; what does it mean to live an organiclifestyle?

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

20/28

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

21/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 19

ones who are leading. Leadership is defined by those leadingversus a void where other forces will take over. I think itsreal important that we agree to disagree some, but work asa whole. Under my simple definition of organics, integratedparts makes a whole.

Out in the field, so to speak, organics has matured. When wepassed the Organic Foods Production Actin 1990, there were a

lot of commodities we couldnt grow organically. Now theresalmost no commodity we cant grow organically, and verysuccessfully.

We have farmers getting above state average yields with lowerinput costs and receiving a high premium. Its a great story atthe farm level. Its working. Organics is not a marketing ploy;

its an agricultural system that works extremely well.

Were receiving acceptance in the farm community almost.I say almost, but certainly compared to where wewere 15 years ago. People got confused betweenthe word organic and generic at that stage. Now,organics is really an acceptable thing because organicfarmers are now community leaders. These arent

just oddballs. These are people that are the churchleaders and the school board leaders. These are your

community people that are organic now.

The new organic infrastructureThe infrastructure is really solidifying now. We havefeed mills, veterinarians, and fertilizer salespeople.There is just so much more support compared tothe lonely days where you had to look a long, longways.

We are really getting a lot of support from thegovernment, especially USDA extension and theresearch is beginning. They are eager to see organics

thrive as an alternative. Theyre looking for something thatworks to tell their farmers. So, weve really gone through thedark days and now were kind of a darling. The main thing ithat organic really works.

It always comes down to the consumers. We have the brandnew consumers, the first time purchasers, and we have thetrue-blue consumer. We have this whole gamut. But, now we

really have the mass-market, which is bringing in a whole newgroup of consumers in that never would have searched outthe organic foods. Thats very positive because they, then, arebeginning on the organic road, so to speak.

Consumers, including young mothers, are still driving the shipand they dont want slick advertising. They want an educatedpresentation and they want to be treated like they are matureadults that are researching and thinking for themselves. Wal-

Mart isnt talking organic because theyve seen the light. Nono, no, no. Its all about the fact that the consumer is still

driving the ship.

Influence of large corporationsThere is a lot of concern about the corporations and theorganic industry structure. [See flow chart on page 20.] The

chart keeps changing as a lot the founders of the organicmovement and organic food companies have, for whatevereason, ended up selling out. And who has bought them, butstandard, corporate food companies. Theres actually veryfew independent brands left. Again, we have to learn how towork with this. This is not anything we are going to changeexcept through your purchasing habits. If you dont like this

then search out the brands that are still independent. Its prettysimple, but still this is the vehicle. [Yeah, which one is Organic

Valley?] There are still independent brands, but this is the priceof success to some degree.

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

22/28

Pesticides and You


Page 20 Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07

With pioneers selling to food corporations and venturecapitalists, Organic Valley gets calls from big business. Theyhave slowed way down now because you can only acceptno so many times, but we get calls weekly to sell Organic

Valley to some new venture capitalist firm. Weve alreadygone through all the Deans and Krafts, and everybody tryingto buy us. Now, its just like an endless thing. Theyre tryingto get in because investors like growth, and organic has lotsof growth.

Our real concern right now is sourcing overseas. We just cantkeep up in the United States right now and even companies

that dont want to go overseas are going overseas. Overseas isa major issue in the future. Its just part of our success again. Wenow have a lot more manufacturing facilities. At one time, wehad to beg to even get into a plant However, when Wal-Martmeets with its top 70 vendors and tells them we want you tohave an organic line, as they just did, of course, thats verydisruptive. All of the sudden you have a whole new wave of

people trying to have organics. That disrupts the supply train.But nevertheless, thats what were going through right nowthis second. Wal-Mart is engaging on sustainability right now,and low and behold, theyre the largest organic produce mover

in the United States, I understand. The positive, of course, isthat more organic products are going to new consumers.

Organic milk is in high demand now, with over 4% in manymass markets. Thats really high. Its one of these lead itemsfor consumers and basically theres a shortage right now oforganic milk. The intent, of course, is to pull more upscaleshoppers in too. Wal-Mart figures if youre going in there to

buy a lawn chair, they can get you to buy some organic items.They call it leakage. They want that money to stay in theirstore. Theyre after your dollars and theres a blurring line.I dont know if youve heard, I havent seen it yet, but Wal-Mart came out with a natural food store near Austin, Texas.Ive heard a lot of positive things about it but I havent seenit. But its blurring the line. Their way of dealing with the mass

8/2/2019 Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4

23/28

Pesticides and You


Vol. 26, No. 4, 2006-07 Page 21

market, Im happy to say so far, is to raise the bar on standards. If everybody elseis going to carry organic food, how will they differentiate? Theyll do that bybecoming more selective of the brands they carry, and have higher standards, anddo their own research on what their food standards should be. I think youll seethat all over but Whole Foods is certainly taking that strategy to push the bar upand not to be satisfied with USDA standards.

USDAs organic program

Enforcement. Of course, the USDA organic seal is our friendly devil. We need-ed to protect organic, and the way to do that was to go to USDA. I think weall knew how difficult it would be, and its certainly lived up to

our expectations. I couldnt spell bureaucracy, otherwise it wouldbe the first word on my slide about USDAs organic program. Itspretty frustrating. As I say, you have to drive a stake to see if youremoving sometimes. Theres no logic in some of the decisions beingmade. You can make a decision, as we did on the National Organ-ics Standards Board, in 2000 that still isnt implemented today. You

just go, Why - why not? Sometimes you start worrying aboutconspiracy, but you just dont know. I think a lot of it is bureaucra-

cy. More disturbing is the lack of enforcement. There are issues out

there that are clearly violations that theyre just not getting to, andagain you have to wonder whether it is bureaucracy, conspiracy, orwhat is it? I always lean toward bureaucracy, because its just thenature of government agencies in my opinion.

Farm plan. One of the disturbing parts for me is that the farmplan has always been a big part of organics, which is intended toencourage continual improvement. If you have some issues, nextyear, the law says, we want to see you do better. That is being lost now.Thats real disturbing to me. Its not black and white; its supposed to be acontinual process of improvement. So, how we get that back is a real con-

cern I have. I dont think its really gone yet, but its a real concern I have

right now.

Transparency and labeling. Theres a real lack of transparency inlabeling of

Documents

Winter 06-07 Vol. 26 No. 4