EPA report finds pesticide poses risks to workers, spurs calls for ban. An insecticide used on corn and other U.S. crops poses health risks to workers who mix and apply it and also can contaminate drinking water, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report released this week. Environmental Health News

Report: Transatlantic trade agreement could increase toxic pesticide use. International trade agreement proposals could roll back protections from harmful pesticides in the U.S. and EU, according to a new report expected to be released Wednesday. The Guardian

EU banned pesticides to help bees, but now other bugs are invading. After regulators in late 2013 banned pesticides called neonicotinoids, linked in some studies to the unintended deaths of bees, farmers across the continent applied older chemicals to which many pests had developed a resistance, allowing them to survive. Bloomberg News

Groups sue to force EPA's hand on oil and gas emissions. The way environmental groups see it, there’s a gaping hole in what the public knows about toxic chemicals released into communities. A wide range of factories and facilities must report to a key federal inventory, but not the companies that extract oil and gas. Center for Public Integrity

New antibiotic teixobactin kills drug resistant superbugs, study says. Using soil from a grassy field in Maine and a miniaturized diffusion chamber, scientists have cultivated a microbe that could help tame the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Los Angeles Times

Why Bill Gates is drinking water made from human waste. If you thought Bill Gates' contribution to everyday computing was impressive, his latest project could be revolutionary. The husband and wife team are backing a pilot project that hopes to turn human feces into clean drinking water in some of the poorest regions of the world. The Independent, United Kingdom

Environmental science: Pollution patrol. In collaboration with the Earth Journalism Network, an international group of environmental journalists, Munkhmandakh Myagmar and her colleagues distributed five devices, each about the size of a child's lunch box, around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, the one of the world's most polluted cities. Nature

Inslee's pollution solution: Tackle water toxics at source. Washington state Governor Jay Inslee is proposing legislation to protect state waters by tackling pollution at its source and giving a state agency the authority to potentially ban the worst chemicals in products before they get into the environment. Associated Press

Breathing diesel exhaust induces DNA changes, study finds. Asthmatics who inhaled diesel exhaust fumes for two hours in a study booth experienced effects on a micro level as genes associated with inflammatory and oxidative stress processes were altered. Vancouver Sun, British Columbia

Are oil and gas industries behind rare Texas earthquakes? A rare series of earthquakes in northern Texas has residents asking if oil and gas activities are responsible for the shaking, which has left people rattled but did not cause significant damage or injuries. National Geographic News

New research links scores of earthquakes to fracking wells near a fault in Ohio. A detailed study has concluded that two mild earthquakes were not isolated events, but merely the largest of scores of quakes that rattled the area around the Ohio wells for more than a week. New York Times

Scientists say fossil fuels must go untapped. Canada's tar sands need to stay in the ground, the oil beneath the Arctic has to remain under the sea, and most of the world's coal must be left untouched in order to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2°C, a study released Wednesday says.National Geographic News

Major setback for Cape Wind project. Future of Nantucket Sound turbine project in doubt as purchase contracts are terminated. Boston Globe, Massachusetts

Niger delta communities to sue Shell in London for oil spill compensation. Locals to bypass Nigerian courts and look to UK for justice after $84 million settlement is awarded to Bodo people. The Guardian

Harmful chemicals found in swimming pools, including flame retardants and insect repellant. A new study has found that urine could be the least of your worries, as more harmful chemicals could be floating around in your local swimming haunt including insect repellant, caffeine and flame retardants.Huffington Post United Kingdom, United Kingdom

West Virginia officials deal with late inspections, troubled tanks. As key requirements take effect in a law to protect water supplies, state environmental officials still haven’t received inspection certifications for 20,000 aboveground tanks statewide that were due New Year’s Day. Associated Press

Environmental groups seek to force federal regulation of clean water in Kentucky, West Virginia.Environmental groups are seeking a court order that would force federal regulators to answer a demand that they stop letting state officials enforce federal clean-water rules in Kentucky and West Virginia, the groups announced Wednesday. Lexington Herald-Leader, Kentucky

Report: Pennsylvania needs to step up farm runoff, stormwater controls for Bay cleanup. Efforts to reduce farm runoff and urban stormwater in Pennsylvania are lagging behind the state's vow to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Pennsylvania

Ships, cargo trucks ‘next’ as Shanghai builds on air pollution successes. Reducing pollution caused by heavy trucks and ships will be a priority for Shanghai this year, an environment official said yesterday. Although the city has far fewer vehicles than Beijing, the amount of pollution they create is much higher. Shanghai Daily, China

Albany County, New York, bans toxics in children's products. County Executive Dan McCoy signed into local law Wednesday the first-in-the-state ban on children's products containing toxic chemicals. Albany Times Union, New York


More news from today

• Survey finds doctors concerned about impacts of climate change on patient health
• Climate: Survey finds doctors concerned about impacts of climate change on patient health
• Stories from UK, Japan, China, Australia, Canada
• US stories from CT, NY, SC, OH, IA, MO, NE, CA
• Editorials: Energy issues won't go away; Natural solution for water safety a winning idea

Shortcuts to stories from today about EHN's Winged Warnings, EHN on Env Justice, Air quality,Asthma, Bee Colony Collapse, Bird Flu, Bisphenol A, Cancer, Children's health, Climate Change, Coal's future, Coal slurry, Cosmetics, Distorting science, Endocrine disruptors, Environmental justice, Faith and environment, Fertility, Flame retardants, Fracking, Solutions, Green chemistry, Green chemistry drivers, Hurricane Sandy, Lead, Male reproduction, Marine, Mercury, Pesticides, Phthalates,Perchlorate, Water quality, Water quantity, Women's health.
Read today's editorials.

Don't miss the link to today's good news.

You can also read last weekend's news.

Popular Picks: What's trending with our readers.

Would you like to display the news stories from EnvironmentalHealthNews.org on your own web site? Check out our RSS feeds.

 













We all like honey. It is super-sweet, delicious and makes our tea taste better. Next time you spend some time in the honey aisle wondering whether you should buy a pricy premium, artisanal honey and store-brand nectar in a plastic bear, think twice before making a decision based on the price.
Food Safety News did a searing investigation and found that 76% of the honey sold in grocery stores is treated with “ultra-filtration,” a process that not only removes impurities like wax, but also pollen traces. Taking all brandsinto consideration, generic brands were the most likely to be ultra-filtered.

Ultra-filtration brings different issues. Many agree that pollen, and other “impurities,” are actually good for our health, making honey a much better choice than its rivals like sugar, for example.

This process does not bring many important benefits. On the contrary, it is expensive, does not improve the shelf-life, despite the fact that manufacturers say it does.

They say the ultra-filtration should be avoided mostly because the pollen is the only way to trace the source of the honey and its location. Ultra-filtered honey is often used to mask shady origins, especially Chinese honey, subjected to heavy import tariffs because of the contamination with heavy metals and illegal antibiotics.

Chinese ultra-filter honey, ship it through byzantine paths, and put their product on the shelves, without any tariffs, of course.

Honey samples were sent to Vaughn Bryant, a premier melissopalynologist and professor at Texas A&MUniversity. He found that three fourths of the honey had no pollen, meaning it was unidentifiable and unsafe. Here are some of his findings:
§  - 100% of Winnie the Pooh in Walmart stores had the pollen removed.
§  - 100% of the honey from individual packets from KFC and McDonald’s had also all the pollen removed.
§  - 77% of the honey from big box stores like Sam’s Club, Costco, and Target had no pollen.
§  - 100% of the honey from drugstores like Walgreen’s and CVS Pharmacy had all the pollen removed.
His testings showed that honey from co-ops, farmers markets and stores like Trader Joes had the full amount of original pollen.

Many have presented their concernes to the FDA, trying to stop adulterated and smuggled honey from standing on the grocery shelves, but with no success, as it seems.

The EU changed the labeling regulations, and required that honey containers had “pollen” added as an ingredient, even though some honey farmers objected, mostly those who call pollen intrinsic to their product.
One ounce of raw honey has 20 vitamins, 18 amino acids, 16 minerals and lots of antioxidants and phytonutrients. It has strong antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal properties, and is highly nutritious.
Raw honey is packed with significant amounts of B2, B3, B5, B6, C, magnesium, potassium, calcium, sodium chlorine, sulphur, and phosphate.
if you are worried about the quality of the honey you are buying, make sure you always buy honey from trusted markets and natural food stores. FSN also found that there are hardly any ultra-filtered honeys in these places.

When it comes to pretty well every health-related alternative media platform, the agricultural mega-giant Monsanto is more than a recurring subject. On Collective Evolution alone you’ll find over 9 pages worth of articles at least loosely addressing the company by simply typing “monsanto” into our embedded search.

The reasoning as to why this multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation is such a hot topic is more than well-documented by this point. It’s so well-documented that an entire global march has been founded in protest to the stance and actions taken by this company, the March Against Monsanto. However the focus of this article is to shed some light on some of the most harmful products that Monsanto has had at least a part in bringing to market, some of which they still stand by to this day.

Originally put together by GMO Awareness, here are the 12 most awful products made by Monsanto:

1. Saccharin What is it? – Plain and simple saccharin is an artificial sweetener. Around since the 1800’s, saccharin did not become widely popular as an alternative to sugar until the 20th century -thanks in large part to the efforts of Monsanto whose initial intention as a corporation was to produce saccharin for Coca-Cola. (1)(2)

Why is it bad? – Initially praised for its ability to provide sweetness without the calories, saccharin fell under fire in the 1970’s when a study revealed that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice -causing it be listed on the NIH’s carcinogen list. However, after mounting pressures, the study was disregarded as flawed in its conclusions, the sweetener was removed from the list and can to this day be found in a lot of what we consume. (1)

Where is it being used? – Drinks, candies, cookies, medicines, gum, fruit spreads, toothpaste and more.

2. PCB’sWhat is it? – PCB’s (polychlorinated biphenyls) belong to a family of manmade organic chemicals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons. They were first used by Monsanto in the 1920’s to produce coolant fluids for widely used electric transformers, capacitors and electric motors. They were domestically manufactured from 1929 to 1979 at which point they were banned. (1)(3)

Why is it bad? – PCB’s have been linked to causing cancer as well as contributing to a number of adverse health effects on the human immune systems, reproductive systems, nervous systems and endocrine systems. (3)

Where is it being used? - Banned since 1979, PCB’s are no longer being used, but their damage continues to persist as a 2011 study showed that it is still being found in the blood of pregnant women. (1) Prior to the ban PCB’s were found in widely used items such as, but not limited to: cable insulation, caulking, plastics, adhesives and oil-based paints. (3)

3. Polystyrene What is it? – Still widely used to this day, polystyrene is a synthetic polymer. Polystyrene production became a focus of Monsanto’s in 1941. (1)

Why is it bad? – Polystyrene is non-biodegradable and is responsible for the most total hazardous waste worldwide. Chronic exposure to it has also been tied to depression, headache, fatigue and weakness. (4)

Where is it being used? – Literally everywhere, but most commonly in food packaging where it is known as styrofoam. It has solidified its place in the market as being more durable than paper products and most cost efficient than plastic (which isn’t much better for the environment).


4. Nuclear Weapons I don’t think these need much of an explanation as to what they are, why they are bad or where they are being used, but it is interesting to know Monsanto’s involvement. Shortly after they acquired Thomas & Hochwalt Laboratories, Monsanto developed a department that played a key role in the Manhattan project from 1943 to 1945. The Manhattan Project was responsible for producing the first atomic bombs for the second world war. (1)

5. DDT What is it? –  DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was a commonly used pesticide designed to combat malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. Monsanto just happened to be one of the first manufacturers of the insecticide that would fall under heavy scrutiny. (1)(6)

Why is it bad? – Banned in 1972, DDT has been linked to damaging the liver, reducing reproductive success and temporary damages to the nervous system amongst others. (6)

Where is it being used? – Unfortunately DDT can often take more than 15 years to break down and is still being found in some soils and many waterways. Our exposure to it would more than likely come through consuming contaminated fish, crops, or through atmospheric deposition. (6)

6. DioxinWhat is it? – Dioxins are a group of chemically-related compounds that some see as amongst the most toxic chemicals known to science. Monsanto found themselves involved in 1945 when they began promoting the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. (1)(7)

Why is it bad? – Dioxins are most notably bad for their ability to accumulate in the food chain, and an EPA report once confirmed dioxins as a cancer hazard to humans. (7)

Where is it being used? – Rather than used, dioxins are primarily being found in meat and dairy products due to how integrated they have become within the food chain. (7)

7. Agent OrangeWhat is it? – A herbicide/ defoliant primarily used as a form of chemical warfare during the Vietnam War.  Monsanto conveniently happened to be one of the two major manufacturers of the lethal weapon. (1)

Why is it bad? – Agent Orange is said to be responsible for over 400,000 deaths and 500,000 birth defects with over a million suffering from health problems of some kind. Agent Orange’s issue lay in its dioxin contamination -something that Monsanto apparently knew about when it sold it to the US Government for use in war. (1)(8)

Where is it being used? – The implications of Agent Orange in Vietnam are still being felt with a formal clean-up effort not beginning until 2012. A shocking side note is that some chemicals found in Agent Orange can still be found in certain herbicides being used today. (1)

8. Petroleum-Based Fertilizers What is it? – As the name suggests, petroleum-based fertilizers are a type of material applied to soils or plant tissues to aid in their development. Monsanto got themselves involved in 1955 after purchasing a major oil refinery. (1)

Why is it bad? – Petroleum-based fertilizers have been known to destroy beneficial soil micro-organisms. This destruction eventually sterilizes the soil making it fully dependent on an external stimulant to produce. (1)

Where is it being used? – In farms across the globe since they are noted to give farmers a greater degree of control of what they grow and how it turns out. (9)

9. RoundUpWhat is it? – RoundUp herbicide, also known as Glyphosate (a major component of Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide) is the most widely used herbicide around the world. (10) It was in 1970 that Monsanto founded their agricultural chemicals division with RoundUp being their prized herbicide. (1)

Why is it bad? – Glyphosate has been linked to cancer in several studies due to its properties as a potential endocrine disruptor -chemicals that can interfere with the hormonal system of mammals. These disruptors can cause development disorders, birth defects and cancerous tumours. (10)

Where is it being used? – RoundUp is approved and still widely used today to destroy and control weeds. It can be found in our groundwater, soil, streams and even in the air. (1)(10)

10. Aspartame What is it? – Like saccharin, aspartame is another artificial sweetener used as a sugar substitute in food and drinks. Monsanto managed to get themselves involved in 1985 when they acquired the primary company responsible for aspartame’s manufacture. (1)(11)

Why is it bad? – Rather than delve into this I highly suggest you check out any of the following articles related to aspartame that we have already released:

1. Aspartame: The Bitter Truth Behind This Toxic Sweetener
2. The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal
   
3. Aspartame Damages The Brain At Any Dose

Where is it being used? –  Aspartame is still widely used and can be found in diet sodas, yogurts, gum, sauces, drink powders, cereals and much more. (12)

11. Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) What is it? – Developed by Monsanto rBGH is a genetically modified hormone that is injected into dairy cows to produce more milk. (1)

Why is it bad? – By artificially increasing milk production, rBGH also raises the levels of pus, antibiotic residues and a cancer accelerating hormone called IGF-1.  When consumed by humans it continues to act as a cancer accelerator and has been linked to breast, colon and prostate cancer. (1)(13)

Where is it being used? – rBGH is still being used to this day and is normally injected into dairy cows every other week. (13)

12. GMOs What is it? – This certainly requires no explanation and it’s widely known that Monsanto is at the foundation of it. In the early 1990’s, Monsanto began their initiatives that still continue to this day under the belief that they help “feed the world.”

Why is it bad? – As I did with aspartame, I will instead give you a series of articles to look at rather than delve into the depths of what make GMOs bad:

1. 5 Myths That GMO Companies Want You To Believe
   
2. 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health
3. New Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Where is it being used? – GMOs are prevalent in many crops but most notably in sugar beets, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, squash, golden rice, soybeans, salmon and animal feeds.

Original article found at http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/07/monsantos-dirty-dozen-the-12-most-awful-products-made-by-monsanto/

The United States Geological Survey has released another fascinating batch of macro photos offering intimate portraits of bees. The often-feared insects are photographed against black backgrounds in great detail, revealing large, shimmering eyes and rainbow-colored wings. One bee is even seen covered in flecks of vibrantly golden pollen dust. Up close, the bees take on a fluffy, and even cuddly, appearance.

Researcher Sam Droege created the photos by programming a camera with a macro lens to take sets of photos of varying focal depth. In Photoshop, he blended several exposures together to create one incredibly clear image. The colors are not manipulated, so the insects’ natural hues are represented honestly.

The macro photos, captured as part of the USGS Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Program, generate valuable public interest in the insects that people commonly run from. “Once you blow [the bees] up to the size of a German shepherd and they have good hair, people start paying attention,” Droege says. “They’re like aliens from another world.”

Article found at http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/sam-droege-macro-bee-portraits

Stacey Harper has never been a farmer. In wooded Alsea, Oregon, Harper is more likely to be found hunting elk than sowing seeds.

Rather, it’s Harper’s work in the laboratory that links her to the soil.

A scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Harper is doggedly researching tiny, human-made substances called nanoparticles, with the goal of identifying which will be a boon and which a bane for farmers, consumers and the environment. Nanoparticles, which are the size of molecules, are already used in everything from sunscreen to biomedical devices. Their minuscule size makes them efficient, but also unpredictable. That’s what worries Harper: The first nano-formulations of pesticides are quietly making their way onto agricultural fields, and she wants to know what happens next.

More ModFarm

Landmark 20-Year Study Finds Pesticides Linked to Depression In Farmers
The Post-GMO Economy
Wine With a Side of Pesticide


An engineer as well as a toxicologist, Harper holds a unique perspective. She believes nanotechnology could help revolutionize farming just as it has medicine. But she sees the potential as well as the risks of nanopesticides. “I think the vast majority of nanopesticides will not be toxic” — or, at least, no more toxic to non-target organisms than current pesticides, says Harper. “We just need a way to identify that handful that may be hazardous.”

By shrinking the size of individual nanopesticide droplets, there is broad consensus — from industry to academia to the Environmental Protection Agency — that the total amount of toxins sprayed on agricultural fields could be significantly reduced. Smaller droplets have a higher total surface area, which offers overall greater contact with crop pests. As well, these tiny particles can be engineered so that, for example, a physical shell called a capsule can better withstand degradation in the environment, offering longer-lasting protection than conventional pesticides. But that shell can alter what had been predictable physical properties, such as how soluble the pesticide is in water.

And Harper is also well aware that the unique physical properties of the nano-scale call into question the particles’ environmental fate. Once they’re sprayed on fields, will they clump on crops or slide through the soil into water bodies? Most worrisome, Harper wonders whether they will be readily taken up by organisms that aren’t pests (such as bees or fish), and how long they will persist in the environment — properties that could radically change with size. “We just don’t know,” she says.

“The potential for nano-enabled pesticides is unbelievable, but it’s still a dream at the moment,” says Sonny Ramaswamy, director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. And the dream goes beyond pesticides. He describes plans for nano-sized sensors that can detect low nitrogen and send a message to a farmer’s cell phone or nanosensors in plastic food packaging that lights up when it comes into contact with listeria or salmonella. “The concern is that there might be unintended consequences associated with nanoparticles — that’s the big question being looked at by federal agencies,” he adds. “People like Stacey Harper are providing that yeoman service in making sure we are addressing any potential unintended consequences.”

“The potential for nano-enabled pesticides is unbelievable, but it’s still a dream at the moment.” 


Harper remembers the first time she heard the term “nanotechnology.” It was a decade ago during a meeting at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Las Vegas, where she worked as a postdoctoral student. Her team was tasked with assessing the health risks of nanomaterials. “The big discussion was ‘what are they and why are we concerned about them,’” she recalls.

Intrigued, Harper dove all-in, focusing initially on biomedical applications such as gold nanoparticles used to target drug delivery (one of the first products that adopted the technology). Eco-conscious companies were soon flooding her lab with products — ranging from sunscreens to acne medicine to compounds that fight methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, a flesh-eating bacteria) — for feedback on safety. She soon realized that with this new technology, an infinite number of nanoparticle types could be created, and that traditional risk assessment approaches, which would test individual nanoparticles, weren’t going to keep up with the challenge. “It’s really about figuring out what physical or structural properties would make one nanoparticle toxic compared to others,” she says.

Finding these answers has been anything but easy. One problem is a lack of funding. Over the last 13 years, the U.S. government has funneled billions into the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a coordinated R&D program that spans 20 federal departments and agencies and aims to spur nanotechnology across sectors. In 2008, the NNI took an unprecedented step and also began funding environmental health and safety research. “The need to assess new technology risks is one of the lessons learned from the GM (genetic modification of food) backlash,” says Harper. So far, however, the small fraction of this money available for risk testing has focused largely on workers who may inhale nanoparticles.

Scientists realized they needed faster, more efficient ways of assessing the risks of nanoparticles. Harper, for example, developed a test to assess the toxicity of nanomaterials on zebrafish, an aquatic version of a lab rat, one that can inform impacts to human health as well as the environment. Ramaswamy calls it “a really cool model system.”

“Of the hundreds of nanotech compounds we have tested, only a few are raising red flags,” Harper says. “It often boils down to whether the particle’s surface chemistry has an overall positive charge,” meaning, for example, that they could be attracted to negatively-charged cell membranes if they got into the human body. To keep track of the trouble-making nano-features, she helped create an international database of the physical structures and their toxicity. The goal is to determine which nanoparticle designs should be avoided, then share that information with industry.

It was Harper’s husband and current lab manager, Bryan, who turned her attention to the environmental impact of nanopesticides. Years ago, he worked at the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC), a federally funded hotline housed on OSU’s campus that handles the public’s questions about pesticide health risks. Bryan was caught off-guard when calls starting coming in seeking information about the environmental risks of nanosilver, the first nanopesticide to hit the market. It’s an anti-bacterial compound used in a wide range of consumer products, from clothing to dietary supplements.