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

UC Davis scientists have developed a self-cleaning cotton fabric that can kill bacteria and break down toxic chemicals such as pesticide residues when exposed to light.

“The new fabric has potential applications in biological and chemical protective clothing for health care, food processing and farmworkers, as well as military personnel,” said Ning Liu, who conducted the work as a doctoral student in Professor Gang Sun’s group in the UC Davis Division of Textiles of Clothing.

A paper describing the work was published Sept. 1 in the Journal of Materials Chemistry.

Liu developed a method to incorporate a compound known as 2-anthraquinone carboxylic acid, or 2-AQC, into cotton fabrics. This chemical bonds strongly to the cellulose in cotton, making it difficult to wash off, unlike current self-cleaning agents. Unlike some other experimental agents that have been applied to cotton, it does not affect the properties of the fabric.

When exposed to light, 2-AQC produces so-called reactive oxygen species, such as hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide, which kill bacteria and break down organic compounds such as pesticides and other toxins.

Although 2-AQC is more expensive than other compounds, the researchers say that cheaper equivalents are available.

The work was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Jastro Shields Graduate Research Fellowship from the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.

Author: UC Davis, Self-cleaning cotton breaks down pesticides, bacteria, September 27, 2011

Related Environmental Medicine Matters Articles:

• New Blood Test for Newborns to detect Allergy Risk
• Expert discovers simple method of dealing with harmful radioactive Iodine
• New Association between Diabetes, Environmetal Fsctors found by novel Stanford Analytic Technique

The results of a study published this week by environmental health researchers evaluates the types of toxic exposure faced by Veterans with Gulf War illness, and it will hopefully encourage other medical experts to do similar research, West Virginia Veterans’ benefits attorney Jan Dils said today.

The article appears in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and reports that troops were exposed to different toxins depending on if they served in the front lines or in support roles during the 1991 Gulf War.

Forward-deployed troops were exposed to anti-nerve agent pills and Scud missiles, whereas those behind the scenes were commonly in contact with pesticides, according to the study.

Around 25 percent of the 700,000 Veterans with Gulf War illness are plagued by symptoms including chronic headaches, widespread pain, memory and concentration problems, persistent fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, skin abnormalities and mood disturbances, Dils said.

“Gulf War illness can be a truly disabling disease,” said Dils, whose law firm helps Veterans with disability claims in West Virginia and across the country. “Veterans manage these symptoms as best as they can, but more research into the nature of the disease and its causes could create better treatment opportunities for sufferers.

“It could also provide insight into the most dangerous toxins used in chemical warfare so that other avenues could be explored to protect soldiers who continue to serve in the Gulf War,” the Parkersburg attorney added.

Over 110,000 Gulf War Veterans – which the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs classifies as those who participated in Operations Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and a subsequent stabilization period during the early 1990s – are currently receiving VA health care, according to a February report from the VA. That includes treatment for the symptoms of Gulf War illness and other related conditions.

“Unfortunately, those numbers continue to grow, and the VA program is overloaded with Veterans’ claims,” said Dils. “That can make it very difficult for Veterans to receive disability benefits they deserve, so they don’t get the treatment and services they are entitled to.”

But the administrative backlog is only one of the problems Veterans face. It’s not easy to apply for disability benefits in the first place, and many times Veterans must go through a lengthy appeals process, Dils said.

“That’s not to mention that these men and women, who have chosen to serve the country at great personal peril, are often very sick,” she said. “Many times their families cannot take up the cause on their own. That’s where a Veterans’ benefits attorney and claims representatives can step up and help, particularly because egregious cases may end up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Environmental health results like the ones published this week have the potential to provide vital information about how toxins affect soldiers’ bodies. Previous research has focused on exposure to anthrax shots, depleted uranium and psychological issues, but less so on exposure to anti-nerve-agent pills and insecticides.

“The important thing is to build a body of knowledge that examines the medical consequences of military service,” Dils said. “That can educate all of the interested parties – the disabled Veterans and their families, doctors, scientists, the federal government and even lawyers – to provide services that will benefit the country and honor Veterans for their contributions.”

Author: Jan Dils, Attorneys at Law, L.C., Parkersburg, WV (PRWEB), September 26, 2011

Related Articles:

• Environmental Diseases are not unexplained Illnesses
• Research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)
• International Conference: Environmental and chemical Pollution cause health injuries and disabilities
• Sick Building Syndrome: research shows Illness is real and treatable

Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin

An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.

Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board

The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.

A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.

An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.

Asthma attacks caused by pesticides

The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.

Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide

The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.

Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case

The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.

James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011

Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011

Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION

Related CSN Articles:

• Wide range of currently used and globally marketed pesticides contained dioxin impurities
• Organochlorine insecticide exposure and risk of prostate cancer
• Pesticides in kids linked to ADHD- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, study finds
• Pyrethrins and pyrethrosin content in commercial allergen extracts

Environmental contamination from the everyday habits of humans cause “perfumed” fish

We encounter fragrances in everyday situations. We have “our world” scented even if we prefer to live fragrance and chemical-free. These scents come to us via our daily hygiene, food, cleaning products, baby diapers, candles, hotel rooms, and even socks and subway tickets have fragrance added. Mixtures of chemicals usually make up the perfumed ingredients. They accumulate in our fatty tissue, breast milk, and in our environment. A governmental laboratory in Switzerland found fish in high alpine lakes with fragrance ingredients. How did they get there, at altitudes seldom reached by a hiker, in a region where nobody lives?

The dream of clean air and water

Take a look at a peaceful scene in nature… high mountains at two thousand meters, crystal clear air, breathtaking panoramic views with deep blue mountain lakes. This scenery gives one the opportunity to feel one with nature, but appearances can be deceiving. A Swiss government laboratory for analytical chemistry has found samples of fish from the lakes in high mountains and lowlands which contain persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and fragrance ingredients.

Fish repository for insecticides, flame retardants, and fragrances?

Fish were examined from alpine lakes in seven regions above 2062-2637 meters sea level. The scientists found concentrations of old insecticides, and long banned chemicals like DDT, DDE, dieldrin, HPEX, HCB, HCH, PCBs, PCDD / F and PBDE in the fatty tissue of the fish . In addition to these highly questionable chemicals were found seven different artificial musks and Musk xylenes. These chemicals are components in fragrance mixtures, which are found in nursing, cleaning, laundry products and perfume.

Precipitation transports chemicals to the lake fish

Concentrations of PCBs, PCDD / F and PBDE were found in fish from high mountain lakes as well as in the lowlands. Things were very different from the concentration of synthetic musk compounds. These substances which came out of detergents and cosmetics were found in higher quantities in fish of the lowlands than in fish in higher regions. The reason is that the lakes in lowland regions are much more contaminated because sewage treatment plants release water which is still contaminated with these substances. An effect which doesn’t exist in higher mountain regions.

Everyday scents have side effects

According to the Swiss scientists, there is only one explanation for the fragrance ingredients and persistent chemicals in fish found in the high mountains: they come directly from atmospheric precipitation and air pollution. Rain, snow, and fog from our atmosphere in these regions are the cause/source for the contamination of the fish with fragrance ingredients. The environmental contamination from the everyday habits of humans cause “perfumed” fish. This development should show everyone the importance of having a critical mind in a scented world.

This year, which is more recent that this 2007 research, there was also an article in Berner Oberland about the fish in Lake Thun not being good for eating due to the chemical contamination.

Author:

Silvia K. Müller, Seit wann benutzen Fische Parfüm, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network

Translation: Christi Howarth

Literature:

Schmid P, Kohler M, Gujer E, Zennegg M, Lanfranchi M. Empa, Persistent organic pollutants, brominated flame retardants and synthetic musks in fish from remote alpine lakes in Switzerland , Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research Laboratory for Analytical Chemistry Dubendorf, Switzerland. Chemosphere, January 2007

Related articles:

• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• Baby Bathwater contains Fragrance Allergens and Chemicals
• Household detergents, Shampoos may harmful substance in wastewater
• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is

Pesticides – often underestimated

It is annoying when ants suddenly run out halfway across the kitchen, and climb up the kitchen cupboard looking for something sweet. However, street ants and bugs generally die quickly with the grip of poison. It is not a surprise to see a dusty can of pesticides in the home closet or garage, or pesticides offered in the supermarket or hardware store. Recently, however, ant poison is even available in some health food stores.

Although many consumers have become confident in dealing with pesticides, they still question how to treat this ant problem in their kitchens? If the poison kills the ants from the can, is it also possibly that this poison can also affect one’s health? Trivializing descriptions and promises on the box can lead to the underestimation of potential pesticide risks for humans and pets.

Ant poison freely available everywhere

During summer this poison is conveniently available to consumers at checkout counters, especially at the hardware store. Large shelves are built for pesticides of all kinds, to kill mosquitoes, ants, wasps, snails and whatever other pest is unwelcome.

In the summer, it is similar at the supermarket. A large shelf with various pesticides is conveniently and centrally located for consumers. Anyone who knows something about pesticides probably realizes that the products on these shelves are mostly nerve poisons. Among the ingredients are pyrethroids and organophosphates, both classes of pesticides are very harmful. For certain groups at risk, like pregnant women, and those who have chemical allergy-sensitivity, there is an increased danger. This is exactly why German authorities warn the public before they spray these pyrethroids and pyrethrum in the public’s vicinity.

The terms “natural” and “organic” lead to consumer deception

On some pesticide labels it is easy to read “natural pesticides”, “organic”, or “derived from the chrysanthemum” for of the toxic ingredient, pyrethrum. Not all such descriptions however mean that one is dealing with a completely harmless “organic poison.” Although pyrethrum is a contact insecticide derived from chrysanthemum, it has been known since ancient times for its consistent toxicity. Non-hazardous pesticides with natural attractants are rarely found.

Neurotoxic ant poison in the health food stores?

Change of scene: “What do we have here?” I asked myself recently as my eyes fell to the floor at a health food store in the refrigerated section. There was a range of small sized pesticide bottles with a nicely decorated design in pastel colors. “Well, maybe something completely non-toxic, which can be recommended to the neighbors if they have problems with insects,” was my second thought. Then I looked at the list of ingredients on the ant venom spray pump.”Natural pyrethrum” was written there. A toxic nerve agent in the health food store?

“People, who buy ant poison, should already know that!” Really?

The owner of the health food store was not far away, and it was a good opportunity to talk to her regarding the pesticide product line. With a factual explanation of how dangerous pyrethrum can be for health, especially for children, the sick, those with allergies, asthma, and pets, the health food store-owner then answered, “People who buy ant poison, should already who knows that.”

Pesticides assessed by each person, right?

This exact statement was an affirmation that even those who should be familiar with pesticides, sometimes completely underestimate their danger.

Even natural pyrethrum poses significant health risks for humans and pets. Cats can die from it. From the toxicology and medical reports, it is known that pyrethrum is harmful and can trigger allergies and asthma. So for safety sake it is better to leave this “natural” pesticide alone and try a harmless home remedy instead.

Health food stores should offer no pesticides with pyrethrum. The consumer confidence in their health food store drops by having such health hazards available for purchase. The better option, specifies an American organic supermarket chain, is to distribute free brochures with tips for small non-toxic pest control. Toxic items and multi-vitamins do not peacefully coexist in the same store.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 06/26/2011

Free poison tip against ants in the house and garden:

Get a bag of chili seeds from the supermarket and place several tablespoons into a glass with oil. Then wait a couple of hours and sprinkle them outside along the door. This effective barrier is completely toxin-free and one can enjoy watching the ants outside make a U-turn.

Helpful tip: Warm the chili seeds with warm oil on the stove so that the agent responsible for the sharpness of capsaicin passes quickly into the oil. You can also spread the seeds of chili without oil, but the disadvantage is that they may be spread by wind.

Helpful informations about non toxic pestcontrol Steve Tvedten

Related articles:

• Common household Pesticides linked to childhood cancer cases in Washington area
• Children suseptible to pesticideslonger than expected, Berkeley study finds
• Biopesticides Market is growing rapidly
• Chemical Thread: Groups call for Pesticide Ban

Were pesticides to blame for the death of Knut, the polar bear?

Many thousands of people mourn the sudden death of Knut, the polar bear. He was the darling at a German zoo. Why did Knut die? Initial autopsy results showed that Knut, the polar bear, suffered from a brain disease. A former animal keeper at a zoo reported the death of gorilla babies dying from pesticide use. The keeper herself fell ill and nearly died. Were pesticides the cause of death of the polar bear, Knut? Recent scientific research has shown that pesticides cause different brain diseases. What caused Knut’s brain disease will require further investigation. It is possible, because pesticides are used regularly in zoos to keep the zoo animals free of vermin.

All mourn the loss of Knut, the polar bear

In the media, on Twitter and Facebook, the death of Knut, the polar bear , remains the main topic for days now. The sweet polar bear was raised by a nurse with a bottle in the German zoo after his mother abandoned him. The little polar bear in no time, won the hearts of all the visitors. Now the sadness is great, and the cause of Knut’s brain disease is still under investigation. Zoo visitors witnessed the polar bear turning itself around several times and falling into the pond. Over 500 people observed the death of this polar bear and reported that he had an epileptic-like seizure before he sank into the water in his polar bear enclosure. Knut’s keeper also died suddenly at the age of 44 from a heart attack in 2008.

Dream job, but health went downhill

The young woman worked in one of the biggest zoos in Germany. She loved her job as a veterinary nurse above everything. She was responsible for the gorillas. With the bottle, she helped gorilla babies grow when needed. Most of all, she never wanted to go home after work because she loved her job so much. During her training, her health was deteriorating. The reason for her health decline was first discovered years later. Several radiological studies including SPECT, CT, and MRT scans of her brain showed severe brain damage and atrophy. Pesticides were the reason the keeper’s health went downhill.

Gorilla babies dead due to the use of pesticides

During training, the young keeper had to deal with pesticides during the spraying of the gorilla’s sleeping quarters. The pesticide nerve agents, pyrethroids and organophosphates were used. The young woman had to spray the sleeping caves. As she kneeled in front of the caves, she couldn’t avoid breathing in the poison. “The gorilla babies died, and now I know it was because they were exposed to the pesticides,” she told me several years ago when we met at a special clinic. Her immune and nervous system were severely damaged, and she had problems with her muscles and her heart was weakening. Her hair was falling out and she had the typical nerve agent seizures. She stated, “I initiated a workers’ compensation lawsuit and won.” There was no question that the health of the animal keeper was destroyed by pesticides.

Knut died from pesticide exposure?

We do not know exactly which brain disease Knut, the public’s favorite animal in the Berlin Zoo, suffered from, but further studies will hopefully determine the nature and cause of his brain disease. Pesticides may well be on the short list, because they are regularly used in zoos to keep the zoo animals free of fleas and other parasites. Certain herbicides, which are often used on pavements and along roadsides in zoos in order to be kept free of weeds, are quite capable of causing life-threatening seizures.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, March 21, 2011

Translation: Thanks to Christi Howarth.

Related articles:

• Groups seeking Ban on Organophosphate Pesticide got to Federal Court
• Wide range of currently used and globally marketed pesticides contained Dioxin impurities
• Pesticide Exposure linked to sucidial Thoughts
• Common Household Pesticides linked to Childhood Cancer Cases in Washington Area

Global Biopesticides Market to Reach US$2.8 Billion by 2015, According to a New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

GIA announces the release of a comprehensive global report on Biopesticides markets. The global market for Biopesticides is forecast to reach US$2.8 billion by the year 2015. Key factors driving market growth include increasing environmental concerns and consumer inclination towards chemical-free crops. Other factors propelling market growth include introduction of new products, acceptance of substitutes to conventional pesticides, and declining market for harmful organophosphate insecticides.

San Jose, CA (Vocus/PRWEB) January 04, 2011 – Global economic crisis in 2008 and 2009 failed to trouble the world biopesticides market, as demand for the products remained high. Growing environmental concerns and consumer inclination towards chemical-free crops, especially the food crops enabled the market to sustain the growth momentum. Further, several factors such as new products, end user acceptance of substitutes to conventional pesticides, and declining market for harmful organophosphate insecticides, fueled the market growth. Delivering a better alternative to manage harmful insects, weeds and fungal plant-pathogens, biopesticides is poised to witness robust gains in the coming years. Currently, US EPA approves more number of biopesticides annually as compared to conventional chemicals.

The United States represents the largest region for biopesticides worldwide, as stated by the new market research report on Biopesticides. On the other hand, with a CAGR of more than 15% over the analysis period, Europe represents the fastest growing regional market for biopesticides. Europe lags behind the US in terms of registered biopesticides with 77 active substances as of 2008 against 279 in the US. The wide difference between the two leading biopesticides consumers could be attributed to highly fragmented nature of European market and biopesticides being relatively newer concept for the consumers in the region. Further, the government support for capacity development of biopesticides, places the US market ahead of any other region in the world. Asia-Pacific constitutes the other leading market, with biopesticides sales projected to reach US$362 million in 2012.

In North America and Western Europe, the biopesticides market is growing rapidly, due to growing importance for organic farming and chemical-free crops. Retail chains such as Tesco and Walmart are increasingly demanding chemical-free crops, leading to higher demand for biopesticides. The integrated crop management (ICM) and integrated pest management (IPM) programs, using products as well as technical expertise of manufacturers for dealing with plant growers’ problems, are encouraging the adoption of biopesticides, thereby improving market prospects in a major way. In the two regions, demand for biopesticides including beneficial insects, biochemical pesticides and microbial biopesticides, is projected to significantly increase in the coming years.

With the growing acceptance of biopesticides as an efficient crop protection alternative with eco-friendly footprint, several leading agrochemical companies are increasingly leaning towards biopesticides sector. With increasing demand for biopesticides, noticeably eating into the market share of their conventional pesticide products, the major players are readily willing to include biopesticides in their portfolio. Majority of the companies are seen forming licensing agreements with startup companies or acquiring products rather than investing in R&D projects. Major players profiled in the report include AG Biotech Australia Pty Ltd., AgraQuest Inc., Amit Biotech Pvt. Ltd., BionTech Inc., Certis USA LLC, Embrapa Milho E Sorgo, Greeneem, Isagro SpA, Kumiai Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH, San Jacinto Environmental Supplies, Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd., Syngenta International AG, Troy Biosciences Inc., and Valent Biosciences Corporation.

The research report titled “Biopesticides: A Global Strategic Business Report” announced by Global Industry Analysts Inc., provides a comprehensive review of the Biopesticides markets, current market trends, key growth drivers, recent product overview, product introductions, recent industry activity, and profiles of major/niche global as well as regional market participants. The report provides annual sales estimates and projections for Biopesticides market for the years 2007 through 2015 for the following geographic markets – US, Canada, Europe, Asia-Pacific (including Japan), Latin America and Rest of World. Also, a seven-year (2000-2006) historic analysis is provided for additional perspective.

For more details about this comprehensive market research report, please visit Biopesticides Market Report

About Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

Global Industry Analysts, Inc., (GIA) is a reputed publisher of off-the-shelf market research. Founded in 1987, the company is globally recognized as one of the world’s largest market research publishers. The company employs over 800 people worldwide and publishes more than 1200 full-scale research reports each year. Additionally, the company also offers thousands of smaller research products including company reports, market trend reports, and industry reports encompassing all major industries worldwide.

Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

Web Site: http://www.StrategyR.com/

Urgent action needed on dioxins, says toxicologist

The environmental scientist whose work on dioxins last year prompted governments around the world to suspend the use of some pesticides says there is more to the problem and authorities need to act urgently.

Although dioxins have been banned from the ingredients of pesticides in Australia for more than a decade, many dioxins emerged in the manufacturing process and there was no end-stage monitoring to protect consumers and the public, said University of Queensland scientist Dr Caroline Gaus.

Numerous environmental and health issues were associated with undeclared dioxin impurities, said Dr Gaus, an environmental toxicologist with the National Research Institute for Environmental Toxicology (ENTOX).

Little information was available about the impurities because they were created during the production process so were not original ingredients.

“We estimate that the amount of these impurities is relatively high compared to other current dioxin sources, but this cannot be adequately quantified due to the commercial protection of data on pesticides use in Australia and internationally,” Dr Gaus said.

She said pesticides with impurities used in high volumes represented a previously neglected but significant and concerning source of dioxins in the environment. They also posed a risk to the health of people handling pesticides, and to consumers.

“Some of these pesticides contained high concentrations of dioxins, comparable to those known from pesticides which are banned or restricted for use in most countries since the 1980s and 90s,” she said.

Dioxins are linked to a range of cancers and are considered one of the most toxic man-made chemicals. They can cause adverse health effects in humans and wildlife including cancer, and act on development, reproduction and the endocrine system.

Research by Dr Gaus and PhD student Eva Holt last year showed that a wide range of currently used and globally marketed pesticides contained dioxin impurities, despite the widespread belief that modern pesticides were no longer a significant dioxin source.

As a result of their work, a new wave of suspensions, recalls, restrictions and government reviews on pesticide formulations is under way worldwide, including in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The study analysed 23 different pesticide formulations, containing 15 different active ingredients currently used in Australia (plus four formulations that are no longer registered for use in Australia), including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. Dioxins were detected in all samples, including some commonly used products. Researchers estimate approximately 200 pesticides have the potential to contain dioxins.

The pesticides are used on crops including cotton, potatoes, lettuce, tomatoes, beans and peanuts, as well as in parks and recreation areas, at turf farms and plant nurseries.

“In view of the global manufacturing, distribution and use of pesticides, international regulation and monitoring strategies should be developed and implemented to identify, evaluate, and target pesticide dioxin sources at the manufacturing stage,” Dr Gaus said.

Some Recent Restrictions

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) suspended all formulations containing quintozene (pentachloronitrobenzene) from use in April this year due to risk to workers applying the pesticide, which was commonly used on golf courses. The fungicide is under review in New Zealand where it is used on bulbs and turf. The manufacturer recently initiated a voluntary recall of product containing quintozene. The APVMA has recently suspended the pesticide PCNB from sale and a stop sale order has been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

About Dioxins

• Dioxins are toxic compounds which have adverse health effects in humans and wildlife. They can elicit adverse health effects at low levels (cancer, immunotoxicity, reproduction, endocrine function, development).
• These toxicants are managed under the international Stockholm Convention treaty which aims to protect human health and the environment by reducing and eliminating dioxin release to the environment. More than 150 countries, including Australia, have ratified the Stockholm Convention treaty since 2004.
• Most chlorinated pesticides have the potential to contain dioxins if manufactured under certain conditions and processes (e.g. > 150 ºC, alkaline conditions, process including chlorine) – the US EPA lists 161 chemicals (but it is not complete – PCNB for example is not listed). Thus, pesticides were considered historical sources of dioxins and contemporary monitoring data in most current-use pesticides are lacking.
• Dioxin impurities can vary between manufacturing facility, batch, year and country due to variations in production processes and conditions.

About the Research

• 23 different formulations containing 15 different active ingredients currently used in Australia (plus 4 formulations that are no longer registered for use in Australia), including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, were analysed. Dioxins were detected in all samples. These include commonly used pesticides, such as PCNB, MCPA, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil and triclopyr/picloram. Others are Fluroxypyr, Mecoprop, Flumetsulam, Imazamox, Prochloraz, Fenamisphos, Chlorpyrifos, Lindane; 2,4-D; 2,4-DB; Chlorthal amd Quintozene.
• Some of these pesticide formulations contained high concentrations of dioxins, comparable to those known from pesticides which are banned or restricted for use in most countries since the 1980/90s.
• Highest dioxin (1,100-2,000 mg/tonne AI) and TEQ (2,400-5,700 µg/tonne AI) concentrations were found in the fungicide quintozene (also known as pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)).
• Dioxin concentrations in PCNB are comparable to those known from the banned pesticides 2,4,5-T (trichlorophenoxyacetic acid; the key ingredient of Agent Orange). Note: TEQ concentrations in PCNB are at the lower end for those known for 2,4,5-T (approaching the 7,000 µg/tonne used under the Stockholm Convention to estimate historical dioxin releases via past use of 2,4,5-T).
• There are about 6000 pesticide products on the market in Australia (containing ~2000 different active ingredients) – the UQ/ENTOX scientists analysed only a small proportion (0.4 per cent) of these.
• Dioxin concentrations in other pesticides analysed ranged from 61-190 ug TEQ/tonne AI. Impurity concentrations may vary considerably depending on the conditions employed during pesticide production and should therefore be monitored regularly.
• As many pesticides are used in high volumes, they can represent previously neglected but important sources of dioxins to the environment and pose a risk to the health of people handling pesticides.
• Based on these findings, the APVMA have recently suspended the pesticide PCNB, due to dioxin contamination and the associated risks to pesticide applicators. Similarly, the US EPA have issued a stop sale order for PCNB.
• The estimated release of dioxins from the use of PCNB is 27 g TEQ/year (10-90th percentile range: 14-110 g TEQ/year). The dioxin release from this pesticide alone ranks among the top 5 dioxin sources to land in Australia (range 28-110 g TEQ/year).
• The greatest source of uncertainty with these estimates is the lack of information on pesticide use volumes in Australia, which is commercial in confidence and thus not publicly available. This is why the dioxin release associated with many of the pesticides analysed by the UQ/ENTOX scientists could not be estimated to date (has to be modelled)
• The cumulative dioxin release associated with high volume-use of different pesticides may be an important source of dioxins, even if pesticides contain lower dioxin levels than PCNB, e.g. if all pesticide products were contaminated at levels ranging from 100-10,000 µg TEQ/tonne AI and used at a total of 200,000 tonnes per year, then the annual dioxin release would be between 20 and 2000 g TEQ/year.

Note: data on the amount of pesticides used in Australia is not publicly available (commercial in confidence), total pesticide use may be considerably higher than 200,000 tonnes (approximately 2.25 million tonnes of pesticides a year are used in the USA, including 1.18 million tonnes per year of chlorine and hypochlorite pesticides).

The study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant and undertaken by the National Research Institute for Environmental Toxicology, University of Queensland (Eva Holt, Caroline Gaus) in collaboration with the National Measurement Institute in Sydney (Gavin Stevenson) and collaborators from Germany (Roland Weber).

The United Nations Environmental Protection Agency has used the data from the study to develop a burden of toxicology measure for use worldwide. It helps identify and prioritise dioxin sources.

Reference:

University of Queensland, Urgent action needed on dioxins, says toxicologist, December 6, 2010

Related Articles:

• Submissions sought on review of Organophosphate Insecticide Dichlorvos
• Chemical Threat: Groups call for Pesticide Ban
• Anxiety in adult female mice following perinatal exposure to Chlorpyrifos
• EFSA publishes European overview of Dioxin Levels in Food and Feed

The reassessment is part of an ERMA New Zealand Chief Executive-initiated programme to review hazardous substances.

Dichlorvos is an organophosphate-based insecticide used to control insects on fruit, vegetables and flowers. It is also used to control cockroaches and fleas in commercial and domestic settings.

ERMA New Zealand staff have compiled detailed information on the risks, costs and benefits associated with use of dichlorvos in New Zealand in a reassessment application document.

Members of the public and interested parties are now invited to make submissions.

ERMA New Zealand’s Hazardous Substances Reassessments Manager, Lynne Waterson, says dichlorvos targets pests through the nervous system. It also has the potential to affect the nervous systems of people, birds and honeybees and may harm the aquatic environment.

The staff’s preliminary recommendation is to significantly tighten the controls on certain formulations of the substance.

Ms Waterson says the staff recommendation is not the final outcome of the reassessment.

“The information we receive through submissions about the use of this chemical, and its risks and benefits, is an important part of the reassessment process,’’ she says.

A decision will be made by a committee of the Environmental Risk Management Authority once all the information from the public submissions has been evaluated and considered, along with the information already present in the application.

Submissions can be made in writing, either by letter or email, or through the ERMA website.

Submissions close on, 18 February, 2011.

Click to read the application

Reference:

Erma, Submissions sought on review of insecticide dichlorvos, 25 November 2010

Related Articles:

• Informations about Dichlorvos
• Chemical Threat: Groups call for Pesticide Ban
• Prenatal Exposure to Pesticides linked to ADHD
• Groups Seeking Ban on Organophosphate Pesticide Go to Federal Court