Children in rural communities get a “double-dose” of the pesticide chlorpyrifos from food and drift from neighboring fields

Washington, DC — As children settle into the new school year, health professionals are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban the neurotoxic chemical chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used on farms throughout the country and the same chemical that the agency banned some ten years ago for use in homes.

In a letter to be submitted to EPA tomorrow, over two dozen health professionals cite new science showing the health impacts of chlorpyrifos, including lowering IQs and increasing the risk of ADHD and learning disabilities among children.

“EPA should follow the science and take this brain toxin completely off the market” said Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Director Institute for Health & The Environment, University at Albany. “Chlorpyrifos poses serious threats to children’s health and doesn’t belong in our homes, on our farms, or on our cafeteria trays.”

The recent studies show that exposure to chlorpyrifos in the womb and in early childhood, during critical development “windows,” can lead to lasting effects on the brain. Researchers now say that as many as 25% of all U.S. children may have IQs several points lower due to eating foods treated with chlorpyrifos and similar pesticides.

“Fruits and vegetables are essential for healthy children but shouldn’t be grown with chlorpyrifos,”said Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, and one of the letter’s signatories. “Children in rural communities face a double dose of this brain poison. They are exposed to chlorpyrifos drifting from neighboring fields, and again when the pesticide is on their food.”

Chlorpyrifos was banned for use in homes over ten years ago because of it’s potential harm to children. But ten million pounds of chlorpyrifos are still used on agricultural fields each year. Air monitoring, biomonitoringand poisoning data confirm that extensive human exposure to chlorpyrifos is linked to its continued use in agriculture. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control,the vast majority of us — including children — carry breakdown products of the chemical in our bodies.

Children living in farm communities are at especially high risk. In addition to exposure from food they may also be breathing in particles that drift into their classrooms and homes from nearby farms. Farmworker children are exposed even more, as parents sometimes carry residues of the pesticide home at the end of the day on clothing and shoes.

“Chlorpyrifos drift poses serious threats to communities like mine,” said Luis Medellin, of the community organization El Quinto Sol de America. Luis grew up in homes next to farms using chlorpyrifos in California’s San Joaquin Valley. “The realities on the ground show that this brain toxin can’t be used safely and should not be used in the fields.”

At age 17, Luis began using Pesticide Action Network’s Drift Catcher to document chemical drift from neighboring citrus fields, finding that a majority of samples contained chlorpyrifos. Residents also sampled chlorpyrifos in their urine, and all but one had levels above what EPA considers “acceptable.”

In their letter to EPA (pdf), health professionals are demanding that EPA ban all uses of chlorpyrifos. In their letter they state:

We urge EPA to act now on the weight of scientific evidence of health harms of chlorpyrifos for children and fetuses. It is time that EPA take action to protect the public health and provide a healthy legacy for our children and for future generations. We call on EPA to cancel all uses of pesticide chlorpyrifos.

Other letters with a similar demand were delivered to EPA from environmental health groups nationwide, including a petition signed by more than 6,000 concerned citizens across the country.

Author:

PAN, Toxic Brain Chemical Must Be Banned: Health Professionals Demand EPA Take Action, October 5, 2011

Related articles:

• Chemical Threat: Groups call for Pesticide Ban
• Prenatal exposure to Pesticides linked to ADHD
• Anxiety in adult female mice following perinatal exposure to Chlorpyrifos
• Children susceptible to pesticides longer than expected, Berkeley study finds

Drinking water polluted with toxic industrial chemical

The DuPont Company has agreed to pay $8.3 million to install water filters in nearly 5,000 southern New Jersey homes whose tap water is polluted with the toxic industrial chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company settled a class action lawsuit brought by residents of Penns Grove, N.J., who charged that their drinking water had been polluted by perfluorochemicals, including C8, emitted from the company’s Chambers Works facility.

The chemical C8 is a member of a family of synthetic industrial substances called perfluorochemicals, which do not break down in the environment and which pollute drinking water and source water in at least 11 states, according to limited investigations by state water agencies, academic scientists, businesses and journalists.

A byproduct of the manufacture of fluorotelomers, used for stain-repellent textile coatings, non-stick cookware and water and grease-resistant coatings, C8 has been widely found in people and the environment, due to unregulated industrial discharges and leaching from consumer goods and landfills.

Environmental Working Group has campaigned for eight years to restrict perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a likely human carcinogen, endocrine-disrupting chemical and reproductive toxin that for 50 years.

“For years, thousands of people who live in southern New Jersey have been drinking water polluted with the toxic industrial chemical C8,” EWG senior scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D. said. “DuPont has disregarded public health by waiting for a federal court order before providing the community with filtered water. “

On February 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a nationwide plan to require water utilities to test drinking water for 28 contaminants currently unregulated by federal law, including C8 and five other perfluorinated chemicals.

“EPA’s decision to test for C8 in water supplies nationwide is a step in the right direction,” Naidenko said. “We cannot afford to delay protecting Americans from this dangerous chemical any longer.”

-

Literature:

EWG, DuPont to pay $8.3 Million, March 21, 2011

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment and can be found at www.ewg.org

Brussels, 22 November 2010 – The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) welcomes a news report that the European Commission has launched discussions on a ban on Bisphenol A in baby bottles.

In an exclusive report in Food Quality News, European Commission is quoted as saying that it wants to introduce a region-wide ban on the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. (1)

“If this is true, it is a step in the right direction,” says Lisette van Vliet, Toxics Policy Advisor at HEAL. “But this only relates to baby bottles. The ban should be for ALL food packaging for infants under 3 years old – and it should quickly be extended to all food packaging because, if babies during pregnancy are to be protected, consumption by women of child-bearing age should be avoided.”

HEAL was disappointed earlier this month by the outcome of the World Health Organization expert meeting in Ottawa, Canada, 1-5 November 2010 on Bisphenol A. The WHO opinion was that it would be premature to take any action on Bisphenol A on public health grounds. (2)

HEAL board member, André Cicollela, Réseau Environnement Santé (RES) said: “The conclusion is very surprising because it gives the impression that the scientific evidence is not available. This is far from the reality: almost 500 peer-reviewed studies have been published.” (3)

Many of the studies show increased risks for a plethora of health effects from breast and prostate cancer, diabetes and obesity, behavioural and reproductive problems, at doses well below the current ‘tolerable daily intakes’ advised by the US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority. The WHO reasoning is based on a dismissal of the importance of peoples’ daily and continual exposure to this chemical. Moreover, more than 80 studies show that the levels of internal contamination in people are equivalent to levels that produce the mentioned health effects in animal studies. (3)

In September, the European food panel failed to protect EU citizen’s health from plastic component, BPA. (4)

Prior to that HEAL was a signatory to a joint letter sent to EFSA from scientists and organisations across the globe expressed concerns and concluded that. Based on the available scientific studies, reducing levels of human exposure to BPA was necessary.

Contacts:

Lisette van Vliet– Toxics Policy Advisor, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL):

+32 (0)2 234 3643, mobile: 32 (0)484 614 528, lisette@env-health.org

Diana Smith, Press and Communications, Health and Environment Alliance, Mobile: +33 6 33 2943, Diana@env-health.org

Reference: HEAL,  Press Release, Commission confirms intentions on BPA, November 22, 2010

Literature:

1. European Commission wants ban on bisphenol A in baby bottles
2. World Health Organization documentation: Joint FAO/WHO meeting, 1-5 November 2010, Food is a major source of exposure to bisphenol A, 9 November 2010
3. Press release (in French) on WHO opinion and European Commission position
4. Press release and letter available at Chemicals Health Monitor

BERKELEY — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health are getting $16.5 million to support three research centers as part of a federal initiative to examine the environmental factors influencing children’s health.

UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health is receiving $16.5 million to support research on environmental health factors and children’s health.

The grants to UC Berkeley are among $54 million recently awarded to 12 university- based centers across the country by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). UC Berkeley is the only institution to have received awards for multiple centers.

The new grants are part of a program that began in 1998 with eight centers funded by the NIEHS and the EPA. The newest funding incorporates the latest biomonitoring tools and advances in epigenetics, or the study of inheritable genetic changes linked to exposure to chemical and environmental agents.

“These awards give testimony to the school’s leadership in the field of environmental epidemiology,” said Stephen Shortell, dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. “This research will address the environmental health risks of some of the state’s most vulnerable populations, and the knowledge gained will lead to new polices and practices that will help mitigate these risks.”

Of the 12 new centers, six will each receive an average of $7.5 million over five years. An additional six, charged with studying less-established environmental determinants of children’s health, will each receive an average of $1.5 million over three years.

The three UC Berkeley centers to be funded are:

• The Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health, led by Brenda Eskenazi, professor of maternal and child health and of epidemiology. It will receive $7.5 million. The foundation of this interdisciplinary research program, one of the original eight centers funded in 1998, is a longitudinal study of primarily low-income, Mexican immigrant women and their children living in the agricultural community of California’s Salinas Valley. The researchers are studying the health impact of exposures to such chemicals as agricultural pesticides, flame retardants and DDT.
• The Center for Integrative Research on Childhood Leukemia and the Environment, led by Patricia Buffler, professor of epidemiology. It also will receive $7.5 million. The research program in this center is designed to examine the effects of in utero and early life exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals present in homes — including pesticides, flame retardants and secondhand smoke — and these chemicals’ interplay with genetic and epigenetic factors in the development of childhood leukemia.
• The Center for Environmental Public Health, a new formative center led by Dr. Ira Tager, professor and chair of epidemiology. This center will receive $1.5 million. The overall goal of this center, formed in partnership with researchers from Stanford University, is to study the effects of in utero and childhood exposure to ambient air pollutants and bioaerosols on birth outcomes, regulatory T-cell function and the occurrence of asthma in the lower half of California’s Central Valley. The region studied has some of the highest levels of air pollution in the country.

In addition to the centers at UC Berkeley, the NIEHS and the EPA have awarded $1.5 million to UC San Francisco to fund the Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Contaminants Children’s Environmental Health Formative Center, led by Tracey Woodruff, UCSF associate professor of reproductive health and the environment. Researchers at that center seek to study and prevent harmful exposures to environmental contaminants during pregnancy.

Reference:

UC Berkeley, UC Berkeley gets $16.5 million for three children’s environmental health centers, 16 November 2010

Related articles:

• Prenatal exposure to pesticide linked to ADHD
• New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk
• A new pediatrics to heal sick children and keep well kids healthy
• Our planet, our children – How are your children doing?

Consumers, Parents, Health Advocates, Farm Workers and Others Target Widely Used Pesticides Linked to Attention and Learning Problems

(Yakima, WA) 13,000 individuals and organizations from across the U.S. sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today calling for a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides.

Dr. Theo Colborn’s organization TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) concurrently announced the addition of chlorpyrifos to their publicly-accessible on-line database, Critical Windows of Development, spotlighting animal research that links prenatal, low dose chlorpyrifos exposure to altered health outcomes in the brain and other organs.

“Human studies have now linked prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos with mental and developmental delays emphasizing even more the urgency to remove the product from the market,” said Colborn, President of TEDX and a signatory on the letter. “Chlorpyrifos illustrates the urgent need to be cautious, prevent further exposure and protect our children from the time they are conceived onward,” she said.

Dr. David Carpenter, M.D. and Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany said, “It is unacceptable that farm worker children, and children in the general population continue to be exposed to these neurotoxins.”

“As more families cope with the suffering and costs of learning and developmental disabilities and attention problems, EPA must prevent further exposures to neurotoxic pesticides,” said Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. “EPA needs to protect people, especially children and pregnant women, from any chemical that threatens brain development. In addition to banning neurotoxic pesticides, we must reform the Toxic Substance Control Act to require EPA to address the many neurotoxic chemicals in our everyday products,” she said.

“The last time EPA reviewed these pesticides, its own scientists complained that the Agency was not assuring adequate protection of the nation’s children, and that it was unduly influenced by those it regulates,” said Dr. William Hirzy, a professor at American University in Washington D.C. and a former EPA chemist. While at EPA, Hirzy was involved in a letter raising these concerns sent to management by six unions representing 9000 EPA scientists and other staff, as the Agency was finalizing its Cumulative Risk Assessment for organophosphates in 2006. “Five years later, with even more sobering studies in hand, will EPA finally act to protect children?” Hirzy asked.

“The warning signs have been obvious for decades, yet EPA has allowed generation after generation to suffer exposures and consequences,” said Carol Dansereau, Executive Director of the Farm Worker Pesticide Project, a Washington State farm worker organization that initiated the letter to EPA. “EPA is promising to better protect children and other vulnerable people, but that promise is meaningless as long as it keeps reregistering chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates, ” she said. FWPP and others are asking the public to contact EPA and join in demanding a ban, and precaution-based policies.

“Unfortunately chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates do not stay where sprayed. They evaporate and move with wind and fog. That’s how they contaminated our fields,” said Larry Jacobs of Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, an organic grower in California. “There are better ways to manage insect pests than depending on organophosphates like chlorpyrifos. We signed onto the letter to EPA to protect our health and to protect our farm.”

EPA is in the process of considering re-registration for chlorpyrifos, one of the most widely used pesticides in agriculture in the US and worldwide.

More Information:

Fact Sheets: On Health Effects, Industry Influence on EPA, Regulatory Status, Use/Exposures/Alternatives, the Letter and Signers

Literature:

United Farm Workers, Chemical Threat: Groups Call for Pesticide Ban – Consumers, Parents, Health Advocates, Farm Workers and Others Target Widely Used Pesticides Linked to Attention and Learning Problems, 10/13/2010

Related articles:

• Prenatal Exposure to Pesticides linked to ADHD
• Groups Seeking Ban on Organophosphate Pesticide Go to Federal Court
• President’s Cancer Panel: Organic Foods reduce Environmental Risks
• Earthday – Ontarion Lawns and Gardens getting Greener and Pesticide free