Archive for the ‘Pesticides’ Category
In an extraordinarily rare move, an industrial-scale dairy has been stripped of its organic certification due to serious violations of organic standards. Organic, Inc. author Samuel Fromartz broke the story at Chews Wise blog:
In a sign that pressure is mounting on big confinement organic dairy farms, Quality Assurance International, a major organic certification agency, has yanked certification for the Case Vander Eyk organic dairy in California, an operation with an estimated 3,500 cows.
This dairy in the central valley of California has been the subject of complaints by the advocacy group, Cornucopia Institute. But QAI’s decision marks the first time a certifier has suspended a big confinement dairy, though these farms have been criticized for years.
Reasons for the drastic measures include insufficient record-keeping in terms of verifying that Case Vander Eyk’s cows were managed in compliance with the USDA’s National Organic Program’s livestock standards, which apply to animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products represented as organically produced. Read the rest of this entry »
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that given a choice, a majority of the public would prefer to ingest less pesticides. This is of course one reason for the growing popularity of the organic food market, but the reality is that access to organics remains somewhat limited to the consumer and the products generally wear a higher price tag.
Here’s something that may be useful. TheEnvironmental Working Group, a public interest watchdog, has released a list of 43 popular fruits and vegetables ranked by pesticide load. Read the rest of this entry »
Celsias blogger Craig Mackintosh pulled himself away from his research of Mexico’s masked wrestlers, (a project mandated by the Lazy Weekend Staff), and has delivered another must read piece, Pesticides and You. This is a follow-up to his earlier article, Which Came First – Pests, or Pesticides?
Mackintosh is becoming one of the truly vital voices in the green blogosphere. Bookmark.
First, let’s look at the inarguable good that has come from DDT: Not one, but two great songs from The Ramones.
Next, let’s look at the arguable good that has come from DDT: Mullet-sporting-snake-toting pro-wrestler Jake “The Snake” Roberts was known for a finishing move called “The DDT”.
Sadly, there’s more to DDT than punk rock and pro-wrestling. Here are the items that the EPA list under the heading “What harmful effects can DDT have on us?” Probable human carcinogen. Damages the liver. Temporarily damages the nervous system. Reduces reproductive success. Can cause liver cancer. Damages reproductive system.
Apparently it’s also got real staying power.
Fish caught off Los Angeles County’s coast still contain high levels of banned DDT decades after a manufacturer dumped tons of the pesticide into sewers, creating a toxic plume on the ocean bottom.
A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency survey shows there has been no improvement since the last regional fish survey was conducted in the late 1980s.
Montrose Chemical Co. near Torrance manufactured DDT from 1947 to 1971, releasing about 2,000 tons of the pesticide into sewers that flowed to the ocean. DDT, banned 35 years ago, adheres to sediment and continues to infect marine creatures.
It’s still relevant in Africa too as there is currently a movement among some African countries to erase DDT’s jilted-ex status in the interest of reducing deaths caused by malaria.
According to a statement issued by Storn Kabuluzi, manager of the National Malaria Control Programme in Malawi recently, scientists, researchers and environmentalists met in Lilongwe, the capital of Malawi, and discussed the risks and benefits of DDT.
“DDT is one of the most affordable ways to fight malaria,” the statement added.
In September 2006, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued guidelines stating that DDT, which was implicated in extensive long-term environmental damage, could be used under restricted conditions, such as indoor spraying.
Rwanda is looking at a less risky alternative, opting to invest in a Cuban technique where commercial fish farms are created so that the fish will eat mosquito eggs.
Let’s conclude with a snapshot in DDT history featuring that enduring symbol of American patriotism; the bald eagle.
The bald eagle historically ranged throughout North America except extreme northern Alaska and Canada, and central and southern Mexico. Prior to 1940, the eagle population began to decrease. This decrease was directly related to the decline in numbers of prey species, as well as direct killing and loss of habitat. In 1940, the Bald Eagle Protection Act was passed. This law made it illegal to kill, harm, harass, or possess bald eagles, alive or dead, including eggs, feathers and nests. As a result of the passing of this law, the bald eagle began to partially recover. However, this was just the beginning of what this remarkable creature would have to endure that brought it to the brink of extinction. Subsequent to World War II, the use of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) to control mosquitos became very widespread along coastal and wetland areas. This had a drastic effect on the bald eagle, and as a result of foraging on contaminated food, the species’ population plummeted. It was determined in the later 1960’s and early 1970’s, that DDE, the principal breakdown product of DDT, built up in the fatty tissues of adult females. This prevented the calcium release necessary to produce strong egg shells, and consequently, caused reproductive failure. In response to the decline, the Secretary of the Interior, on March 11, 1967, listed those populations of the bald eagle south of the 40th parallel as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. However, the decline continued until DDT was banned from use in the United States on December 31, 1972.
Doug Snodgrass
dsnodgrass@ecotality.com