| Insecticide and Herbicide Information by Pikes Peak Permaculture |
| This picture was taken from a National Geographic magazine dated Feb. 1996. I remember running through these DDT clouds when I was a kid in Okinawa. The sign on the truck reads: Powerful Insecticide Harmless to Humans What don't we know about modern day insecticides & herbicides? How about this one! As part of an agreement between EPA and diazinon registrants to phase out and eliminate all residential uses of the insecticide diazinon, as of December 31, 2004, it will be unlawful to sell diazinon outdoor, non-agricultural products in the United States. EPA is issuing a reminder notice to hardware stores and home and garden retailers to inform them of the December 31, 2004, stop sale date for all outdoor diazinon home, lawn, and garden products. How many people used this product and for how long before it was discovered to be dangerous? What are the long term health consequences for these people? Are you one? |
| Organic Herbicides & Where to Buy Them ALLDOWN by Sommerset Products Nonselective - controls bindweed, common burdock, dandelion, common lambsquarters, common ragweed, chickeed, leafy spurge, smooth pigweed. GROUND FORCE by Abby Laboratories Same as Alldown MATRAN 2 by Ecosmart Same as Alldown & Groundforce except will not control bindweed & leafy spurge. For those in Colorado Springs, try Rick's Garden Center for these products. If they don't carry them, ask them to. For Weed Identification: www.ipm.usdavis.edu/PMG/weeds_common.htm |
Arsenic and lead leach out of popular fertilizer-Ironite
Ironite, a widely available commercial and home plant fertilizer, releases enough lead and arsenic in standard leaching tests to be classified as a
hazardous waste. The fertilizer’s heavy metals also appear to be bioavailable, according to the results of some of the first independently conducted
standard leachability tests, which were published recently on ES&T’s Research ASAP site (ES0493392). These results provide crucial evidence for an
ongoing risk assessment by the U.S. EPA that could lead to nationwide bans or restrictions on such products, according to EPA officials involved with the
assessment.
Ironite is produced from the tailings of a former mine, now a proposed Superfund site, in Humboldt, Ariz. The fertilizer—a mixture of mine tailings, sulfuric
acid, and urea—is popular with gardeners in the United States because the iron in the mine tailings greens up lawns and plants without promoting heavy
growth, according to gardening specialists. A federal exemption allows mine-derived wastes to be sold as fertilizers, and fertilizer producers are only
required to list nutrients on the labels of their products. As a result, gardeners using Ironite and other waste-derived fertilizers are not informed about
potentially hazardous ingredients.
Several other studies have highlighted Ironite’s exceedingly high concentrations of heavy metals—up to 3600 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of
fertilizer (mg/kg) and up to 2900 mg/kg of lead. Bradjesh Dubey and Timothy Townsend of the University of Florida in Gainesville break new ground by
presenting the leaching and bioavailability data.
Ironite’s manufacturer, Ironite Products Co. in Scottsdale, Ariz., has maintained that its products are safe because the lead and arsenic they contain are
not bioavailable. A technical report commissioned by the company indicates that these metals are present in the fertilizer as the minerals galena and
arsenopyrite and that the elements in these forms are “very stable in the environment and not available in a form which is toxic.”
But Dubey and Townsend’s results refute this claim. “Our results show that when Ironite is land-applied under very common, slightly acidic conditions, the
heavy metals do leach out. We’ve also showed that some proportion of the lead and arsenic is bioavailable if the Ironite’s consumed” by a child, says
Townsend, who is a waste engineer.
Bioavailability is one of the main aspects of EPA’s assessment, says an anonymous agency official. “The ES&T study is very valuable to us because it
confirms and expands on some other evidence we have about the bioavailability of heavy metals in Ironite.”
Townsend and Dubey bought Ironite at several local stores and conducted leaching experiments following standard protocols. In addition, they evaluated
the fertilizers for bioavailability using a test designed to simulate the gastric fluid in a child’s digestive system.
Both lead and arsenic showed leaching behavior that varied by pH, with the highest amounts released under low- or high-pH conditions. The fertilizer
itself is acidic, so leaching in water will result in high lead and arsenic concentrations in the leachate.
The fertilizer issue dates back to 1997, when an investigation by The Seattle Times created an uproar among environmental groups and state regulators
by revealing that a number of fertilizers used by farmers and consumers contained high levels of lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals. Ironite contains
the highest amounts of arsenic of all fertilizers tested by EPA as part of a preliminary risk assessment.
The presence of these trace metals has led some state governments, including those of Washington and Minnesota, to investigate potential safety and
environmental concerns associated with Ironite, and EPA is soon to finish its two-year-long risk assessment.
Canada limits toxic metals in fertilizers, and Washington, California, Texas, and Minnesota are among the U.S. states that set limits. U.S. federal law
requires that all hazardous waste be properly disposed of in regulated landfills. But Congress exempted mining-industry wastes from hazardous landfill
disposal laws by means of a 1980 loophole called the Bevill Exemption, which allows mining companies to dispose of waste by turning it into a useful
product—in this case, fertilizer. —REBECCA RENNER
Ironite, a widely available commercial and home plant fertilizer, releases enough lead and arsenic in standard leaching tests to be classified as a
hazardous waste. The fertilizer’s heavy metals also appear to be bioavailable, according to the results of some of the first independently conducted
standard leachability tests, which were published recently on ES&T’s Research ASAP site (ES0493392). These results provide crucial evidence for an
ongoing risk assessment by the U.S. EPA that could lead to nationwide bans or restrictions on such products, according to EPA officials involved with the
assessment.
Ironite is produced from the tailings of a former mine, now a proposed Superfund site, in Humboldt, Ariz. The fertilizer—a mixture of mine tailings, sulfuric
acid, and urea—is popular with gardeners in the United States because the iron in the mine tailings greens up lawns and plants without promoting heavy
growth, according to gardening specialists. A federal exemption allows mine-derived wastes to be sold as fertilizers, and fertilizer producers are only
required to list nutrients on the labels of their products. As a result, gardeners using Ironite and other waste-derived fertilizers are not informed about
potentially hazardous ingredients.
Several other studies have highlighted Ironite’s exceedingly high concentrations of heavy metals—up to 3600 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of
fertilizer (mg/kg) and up to 2900 mg/kg of lead. Bradjesh Dubey and Timothy Townsend of the University of Florida in Gainesville break new ground by
presenting the leaching and bioavailability data.
Ironite’s manufacturer, Ironite Products Co. in Scottsdale, Ariz., has maintained that its products are safe because the lead and arsenic they contain are
not bioavailable. A technical report commissioned by the company indicates that these metals are present in the fertilizer as the minerals galena and
arsenopyrite and that the elements in these forms are “very stable in the environment and not available in a form which is toxic.”
But Dubey and Townsend’s results refute this claim. “Our results show that when Ironite is land-applied under very common, slightly acidic conditions, the
heavy metals do leach out. We’ve also showed that some proportion of the lead and arsenic is bioavailable if the Ironite’s consumed” by a child, says
Townsend, who is a waste engineer.
Bioavailability is one of the main aspects of EPA’s assessment, says an anonymous agency official. “The ES&T study is very valuable to us because it
confirms and expands on some other evidence we have about the bioavailability of heavy metals in Ironite.”
Townsend and Dubey bought Ironite at several local stores and conducted leaching experiments following standard protocols. In addition, they evaluated
the fertilizers for bioavailability using a test designed to simulate the gastric fluid in a child’s digestive system.
Both lead and arsenic showed leaching behavior that varied by pH, with the highest amounts released under low- or high-pH conditions. The fertilizer
itself is acidic, so leaching in water will result in high lead and arsenic concentrations in the leachate.
The fertilizer issue dates back to 1997, when an investigation by The Seattle Times created an uproar among environmental groups and state regulators
by revealing that a number of fertilizers used by farmers and consumers contained high levels of lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals. Ironite contains
the highest amounts of arsenic of all fertilizers tested by EPA as part of a preliminary risk assessment.
The presence of these trace metals has led some state governments, including those of Washington and Minnesota, to investigate potential safety and
environmental concerns associated with Ironite, and EPA is soon to finish its two-year-long risk assessment.
Canada limits toxic metals in fertilizers, and Washington, California, Texas, and Minnesota are among the U.S. states that set limits. U.S. federal law
requires that all hazardous waste be properly disposed of in regulated landfills. But Congress exempted mining-industry wastes from hazardous landfill
disposal laws by means of a 1980 loophole called the Bevill Exemption, which allows mining companies to dispose of waste by turning it into a useful
product—in this case, fertilizer. —REBECCA RENNER
LAWSUITS OVER PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES ALLOWED
By David G. Savage
LA Times
April 28, 2005
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-scotus28apr28,1,6944
888.story
WASHINGTON - The makers of pesticides and weedkillers can be sued and
forced
to pay damages if their products cause harm, the Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday, rejecting the view of the Bush administration and reversing a
series of lower courts.
The 7-2 ruling permits lawsuits by farmers whose crops are damaged by
pesticides, as well as suits by consumers who are hurt by bug sprays.
In its first ruling on the scope of the 1972 federal law regulating
pesticides and related chemicals, the justices said the requirement that
chemical companies submit their products for approval by the Environmental
Protection Agency did not "give pesticide manufacturers virtual immunity"
from being sued if those products proved to be harmful to people, plants or
animals.
Wednesday's ruling restores the law to what it had been before the 1990s.
During most of the 20th century, Americans who were hurt or killed by toxic
chemicals could sue the maker of the product in state court. But more
recently, lawyers for the chemical industry convinced courts in much of the
nation, including California, that the federal law regulating the pesticides
barred such lawsuits in state courts.
Four years ago, the Bush administration adopted this pro-industry position,
saying that once a pesticide or weedkiller had won EPA approval, it had a
federal shield against being sued ‹ even if the product did not work as
advertised.
The case of 29 Texas peanut farmers illustrated the issue. Five years ago,
they were persuaded by agents of Dow Chemical Co. to try Strongarm, a
powerful, newly approved weedkiller. The farmers say Strongarm killed not
just their weeds, but also their peanut plants.
"They just plain withered away," said Ronnie Love, 63, who said he applied
Strongarm to 150 acres when he seeded his fields that spring. Despite a
summer of heavy watering, the peanut plants were stunted and failed to
produce a crop, he said.
Love and the other farmers say Dow reneged on a promise to compensate them
for millions of dollars in crop losses. They notified the company that they
intended to sue in a Texas court under the terms of the state's consumer
protection law, which allows suits for products that are defective or are
deceptively marketed.
But before they could file their claims, lawyers for Dow went to a U.S.
district court in Lubbock and asserted it was shielded from such suits.
A federal judge agreed with Dow and dismissed the farmers' suit. And the
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed as well, saying
federal law that regulates pesticides preempts or bars lawsuits in a state
court. The California Supreme Court handed down a similar ruling five years
ago.
But the Supreme Court took up the case of the peanut farmers -- Bates vs.
Dow AgroSciences -- and ruled Wednesday that the lower courts were wrong to
throw out such claims.
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the EPA did not test products to see if
they were effective. It simply relies on information supplied by the
manufacturer.
After the peanut crops in Texas failed, Dow changed Strongarm's product
label to say the weedkiller should not be used in regions with high-alkaline
soils, which are common in Texas and Oklahoma.
The company did not acknowledge liability for the earlier damage.
Stevens described the 1972 law as an effort by Congress to impose greater
regulation on "poisonous substances." Converting it into a shield against
lawsuits would "create not only financial risks for consumers, but risks
that affect their safety and environment as well," he said.
"This is a huge win for farmers, and I think it will have a big impact in
the agriculture industry," said David C. Frederick, the Washington lawyer
who represented the peanut farmers. "Pesticide makers and farmers have to
work together. And if something goes wrong with a pesticide, the farmers
deserve to be compensated. Now the courthouse door is open to them again
after being closed for the past 15 years."
Patti Goldman, a lawyer in Seattle for the environmental group Earthjustice,
said the ruling would help consumers and workers harmed by pesticides.
She and other lawyers cited cases of children sickened by pesticides that
had drifted from fields into residential areas and that of a young man who
died after riding a horse that had been sprayed with a pesticide. Recently,
such lawsuits had been dismissed prior to a trial.
Wednesday's ruling does not mean the plaintiffs will always win, the lawyers
said, noting that they would have to prove the product was defectively made
or inadequately tested to prevail in court.
"This just means that people will be allowed to sue for compensation when
they are harmed by a pesticide," Goldman said. "The court recognized that
these [EPA-approved] labels are written by the manufacturers."
The Bush administration, the chemical industry and other business groups
joined the case on the side of Dow Chemical Co., arguing that the court
should erect a barrier to such lawsuits.
"This is a complete loss and a big disappointment," said Steve Bokat,
general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Our concern is that this
gives an opening for the plaintiffs' bar to bring more tort claims against
large companies."
In his opinion, Stevens pointed out that the Clinton administration believed
that the federal pesticide registration law did not shield manufacturers
from all lawsuits. The Bush administration reversed course in 2001 and said
the law as originally written did block such claims.
Stevens called the new interpretation "particularly dubious" and not
entitled to much deference from the high court. Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined the court's
opinion.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented in part, criticizing
the court for "tipping the scales in favor of the states and against the
federal government" by allowing lawsuits in state courts.
Thomas said most of the legal claims raised by the peanut farmers should
have been thrown out of court.
By David G. Savage
LA Times
April 28, 2005
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-scotus28apr28,1,6944
888.story
WASHINGTON - The makers of pesticides and weedkillers can be sued and
forced
to pay damages if their products cause harm, the Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday, rejecting the view of the Bush administration and reversing a
series of lower courts.
The 7-2 ruling permits lawsuits by farmers whose crops are damaged by
pesticides, as well as suits by consumers who are hurt by bug sprays.
In its first ruling on the scope of the 1972 federal law regulating
pesticides and related chemicals, the justices said the requirement that
chemical companies submit their products for approval by the Environmental
Protection Agency did not "give pesticide manufacturers virtual immunity"
from being sued if those products proved to be harmful to people, plants or
animals.
Wednesday's ruling restores the law to what it had been before the 1990s.
During most of the 20th century, Americans who were hurt or killed by toxic
chemicals could sue the maker of the product in state court. But more
recently, lawyers for the chemical industry convinced courts in much of the
nation, including California, that the federal law regulating the pesticides
barred such lawsuits in state courts.
Four years ago, the Bush administration adopted this pro-industry position,
saying that once a pesticide or weedkiller had won EPA approval, it had a
federal shield against being sued ‹ even if the product did not work as
advertised.
The case of 29 Texas peanut farmers illustrated the issue. Five years ago,
they were persuaded by agents of Dow Chemical Co. to try Strongarm, a
powerful, newly approved weedkiller. The farmers say Strongarm killed not
just their weeds, but also their peanut plants.
"They just plain withered away," said Ronnie Love, 63, who said he applied
Strongarm to 150 acres when he seeded his fields that spring. Despite a
summer of heavy watering, the peanut plants were stunted and failed to
produce a crop, he said.
Love and the other farmers say Dow reneged on a promise to compensate them
for millions of dollars in crop losses. They notified the company that they
intended to sue in a Texas court under the terms of the state's consumer
protection law, which allows suits for products that are defective or are
deceptively marketed.
But before they could file their claims, lawyers for Dow went to a U.S.
district court in Lubbock and asserted it was shielded from such suits.
A federal judge agreed with Dow and dismissed the farmers' suit. And the
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed as well, saying
federal law that regulates pesticides preempts or bars lawsuits in a state
court. The California Supreme Court handed down a similar ruling five years
ago.
But the Supreme Court took up the case of the peanut farmers -- Bates vs.
Dow AgroSciences -- and ruled Wednesday that the lower courts were wrong to
throw out such claims.
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the EPA did not test products to see if
they were effective. It simply relies on information supplied by the
manufacturer.
After the peanut crops in Texas failed, Dow changed Strongarm's product
label to say the weedkiller should not be used in regions with high-alkaline
soils, which are common in Texas and Oklahoma.
The company did not acknowledge liability for the earlier damage.
Stevens described the 1972 law as an effort by Congress to impose greater
regulation on "poisonous substances." Converting it into a shield against
lawsuits would "create not only financial risks for consumers, but risks
that affect their safety and environment as well," he said.
"This is a huge win for farmers, and I think it will have a big impact in
the agriculture industry," said David C. Frederick, the Washington lawyer
who represented the peanut farmers. "Pesticide makers and farmers have to
work together. And if something goes wrong with a pesticide, the farmers
deserve to be compensated. Now the courthouse door is open to them again
after being closed for the past 15 years."
Patti Goldman, a lawyer in Seattle for the environmental group Earthjustice,
said the ruling would help consumers and workers harmed by pesticides.
She and other lawyers cited cases of children sickened by pesticides that
had drifted from fields into residential areas and that of a young man who
died after riding a horse that had been sprayed with a pesticide. Recently,
such lawsuits had been dismissed prior to a trial.
Wednesday's ruling does not mean the plaintiffs will always win, the lawyers
said, noting that they would have to prove the product was defectively made
or inadequately tested to prevail in court.
"This just means that people will be allowed to sue for compensation when
they are harmed by a pesticide," Goldman said. "The court recognized that
these [EPA-approved] labels are written by the manufacturers."
The Bush administration, the chemical industry and other business groups
joined the case on the side of Dow Chemical Co., arguing that the court
should erect a barrier to such lawsuits.
"This is a complete loss and a big disappointment," said Steve Bokat,
general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Our concern is that this
gives an opening for the plaintiffs' bar to bring more tort claims against
large companies."
In his opinion, Stevens pointed out that the Clinton administration believed
that the federal pesticide registration law did not shield manufacturers
from all lawsuits. The Bush administration reversed course in 2001 and said
the law as originally written did block such claims.
Stevens called the new interpretation "particularly dubious" and not
entitled to much deference from the high court. Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined the court's
opinion.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented in part, criticizing
the court for "tipping the scales in favor of the states and against the
federal government" by allowing lawsuits in state courts.
Thomas said most of the legal claims raised by the peanut farmers should
have been thrown out of court.
| Links to other Articles |
| Human Exposure & Health Hazards-Part 1 Human Exposure & Health Hazards-Part 2 Refuse to Use Lawn Chemicals American Babies Born Polluted, Study Says July 27, 2005 |
| Links to Sites |
| Refuse to Use Chemlawn.org Beyond Pesticides.org Pesticide Action Network Environment & Human Health, Inc. Natural Weed Control www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html www.attra.org/attra-pub/weed.html |
Since 1985, the level of vitamins & minerals has
dropped
60% in Beans
70% in Potatoes
80% in Apples
due to the use of artificial fertilizers.
dropped
60% in Beans
70% in Potatoes
80% in Apples
due to the use of artificial fertilizers.