BIDAS
ORGANIC NEWS
| M E M O R A N D U M Methyl Bromide and the New Proposed National Organic Program Area of Concern 5 April 2000 Introduction. In the new proposed National Organic Program, the USDA has outlined standards pest control in facilities handling organic food. A thorough reading of the proposal raises a significant concern about the possible use of pesticides in organic food facilities for pest control. Issue of Concern: USDA's Ozone Layer Loophole for Methyl Bromide. In addressing facility pest control, the USDA's proposal states: If the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are not effective to prevent or control facility pests, a nonsynthetic biological or botanical substance or a synthetic substance may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests: Provided, That, the substance is applied in the manner consistent with its label as approved by the Federal, State, and local regulatory authorities.65 Fed. Reg. 13617, Proposed § 205.271(c). This proposed regulation grants food handlers the broad discretion to determine that organic pest controls are "not effective" and turn immediately to synthetic pesticide usage. The Center for Food Safety believes that this loophole will allow food handlers to violate organic principles by consistently using synthetic pesticides. One such pesticide of concern is the fumigant methyl bromide. Methyl bromide is a powerful destroyer of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer. It is regulated under the US Clean Air Act, classified as a Class Ozone Depleter and is scheduled to be banned by January 1, 2005. It is also classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Category I Acute Toxin, the most deadly category of substances. The acute effects of methyl bromide exposure include headaches, drowsiness, lethargy, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, blurred vision, twitching and convulsions, seizures, psychosis and death. The Center for Food Safety believes there should be no broad loophole for methyl bromide or other pesticides usage in pest control. The USDA needs to revamp this proposal to ensure that handlers are not allowed to use synthetic pesticides for pest control. |
| Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) Organic Crops Competitive with Conventional Systems August 9, 1999 Farm profits from organic cropping systems can equal or exceed profits from conventional rotations in the Midwestern United States, according to a new study by the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. The report, The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States, reviews past and current research on conditions that make growing organic crops profitable, as well as studies that compare organic grain and soybean production with conventional production. There has been dramatic growth in the U.S. and worldwide in the production of and demand for organically produced food and fiber. At the same time, consumers around the world have been willing to pay premium prices for organic products. For example, farm prices for organic corn were on average 35% higher than U.S. cash prices for conventionally grown corn in 1995, 44% higher in 1996 and 73% higher in 1997. Prices for organic, cleaned Clear Hilum soybeans (the type used by the Japanese for tofu) were more than twice the U.S. cash price for conventionally grown soybeans in 1995 and 1997, and almost twice those levels in 1996. Nonetheless, the study found that premiums are not always necessary for organic systems to outperform conventional systems. To illustrate the potential profitability of organic agriculture, Rick Welsh of the Wallace Institute analyzed a diverse set of academic studies comparing organic and conventional grain cropping systems. Among the data reviewed were six land-grant university studies that compared organic and conventional grain cropping systems; studies were conducted in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska and two in South Dakota. Following a comprehensive review of the "best science" available on the subject, Dr. Welsh determined that when organic systems were more profitable than conventional rotations, it was usually due to one or more of the following factors: * lower production costs; * higher net returns for crops grown in the organic rotations; and * drought hardiness, allowing higher performance in drier areas or during drier periods. In addition to these economic benefits, the report found that organic systems in the U.S. Midwest produce benefits for the natural environment and workers' health. The report's recommendations call for a greater U.S. public policy commitment to organic agriculture, especially in areas related to research, investment and education. Several European countries have already instituted policies that support organic farming. Denmark, for example, has enacted financial support policies, including information and marketing support and financial assistance during the transition to organic farming. Other countries with similar policies include Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, Austria and Switzerland. Efforts have paid off: the organic farming sector in these countries has increased dramatically since the programs were initiated. There has been some support for organic agriculture in the United States. In Iowa, for example, a state-level program supports organic farming through the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) that provides targeted financial incentives to farmers. Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EQIP is designed to promote adoption of particular conservation management practices. EQIP is a federal-state cost-share program in which states designate a list of conservation management practices. If EQIP funding is increased and other state legislatures list certified organic production as a conservation practice, EQIP could play a significant role in increasing the number of acres farmed organically in the U.S. |
| Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) Endosulfan Deaths in Benin June 13,2000 Official sources in Benin state that at least 37 people died due to endosulfan poisoning during the 1999/2000 season in northern Borgou province. Another 36 were poisoned and became seriously ill. These cases of death and poisoning can be directly linked to the fact that decisions about pesticide use in cotton production in the region are made without adequate consideration of the wider context in which pesticides are managed and used. Endosulfan, a highly toxic pesticide, is particularly dangerous when used without proper equipment and protective clothing. A number of countries, including Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belize and Singapore, have banned the chemical; Colombia and Indonesia are in the process of banning it. Many other countries severely restrict the use of this chemical. During the 1999/2000 season, endosulfan was introduced in cotton production throughout Francophone West Africa as part of a regional program to combat the American bollworm's resistance to pyrethroids. American bollworm is the main cotton bollworm pest in West Africa, as is the case in many cotton-growing countries worldwide. The pest's resistance to pyrethroids was reported in numerous countries during the 1980s. In West Africa, farmers first reported the pest's decreasing sensitivity to pyrethroids during the 1996/97 season. In 1998, national cotton research institutes in West Africa, the French cotton company CFDT, CIRAD (Centre de coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement) and the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC)* of the Global Crop Protection Federation started a project to deal with the growing resistance to pyrethroids. A report produced by the project called for countries in the region to use endosulfan during the first two sprayings over a period of 40 days, corresponding to one generation of American bollworm. In Benin, the cotton research institute supported adoption of this program, and in early 1999, endosulfan (Callisulfan 350 EC TBV made by the French company Calliope) was distributed to cotton farmers throughout the country. The first reports of cotton pesticide poisonings were published in August and September 1999. The extension service in Borgou claims that 37 people died in that province between May and September due to Callisulfan use, while another 36 suffered serious health effects. Deaths and poisonings were reported from 16 villages in seven out of 12 districts. Borgou represents approximately 50% of the total cotton growing area of Benin. If poisonings occurred at the same rate throughout all cotton growing areas, at least 70 people may have died as a result of endosulfan use. In one village in Borgou province, three brothers between the ages of 12 and 14 were weeding in their father's field planted with cotton and corn that had been sprayed with endosulfan the previous day. When they finished their work, they ate some of the corn. Within 15 minutes, the boys began vomiting. In spite of being hospitalized, one of the children died. It is common practice for farmers in Benin to grow other food crops around cotton fields, to leave voluntarily emerging food crop seedlings in cotton fields, to spray food stocks and to re-use pesticide containers. Farmers cannot afford and do not have access to proper protective clothing for pesticide application, and tend to spray barefoot or in sandals and without use of safety goggles, gloves, long sleeves or respirators. Men, women and children, as well as sheep, goats and chickens, can be in the field during spraying. In addition, many farming families live on diets low in protein which often results in a higher susceptibility to pesticide poisoning. Cotton insecticides are virtually the only pesticides available in the rural area of northern Benin and the only ones delivered on a credit loan basis. This may account for some of the hazardous uses of the insecticides, such as on food crops or in storage. In addition, farmers are not adequately informed about the hazards associated with the products they use. Such inappropriate uses of cotton pesticides in West Africa are well known to cotton research institutes and should have been taken into account when selecting insecticides for large-scale application. The project should re-examine the problem and invite other stakeholders to participate in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of strategies to manage cotton pests, pesticides and pesticide resistance. * IRAC was formed by the world's agrochemical companies in 1984 to assess the growing threat of pest resistance around the globe. |
| Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) 1998 Top Ten Agrochemical Companies May 7, 1999 Nearly all the major agrochemical companies increased sales in 1998, according to Agrow: World Crop Protection News. DuPont's combined agrochemical and biotechnology sales increased by over 25%, the highest rate of increase for the top ten corporations. DuPont recently announced that it had agreed to acquire the outstanding 80% stake in Pioneer HiBred International that it did not already own. Pioneer, the world's largest seed company with sales of US$1,835 million in 1998, controls about 42% of the U.S. maize seed market. Monsanto's growth rate was a close second with combined agrochemical and seed sales increasing by more than 23% in 1998. This was due to a 25% increase in volume sales of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) and a tripling of the area planted with Monsanto's genetically modified crops. Novartis was the overall sales leader in 1998 with pesticide sales reaching US$4,152 million and seed sales at US$1,005 million. Novartis, as well as Cyanamid, DuPont, Rhone-Poulenc and Zeneca were all hit by lower than expected herbicide sales in the U.S. due to low commodity prices and weather conditions as well as other factors. Agrochemical and seed sales in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America were generally lower due in part to economic problems in these regions. However, Cyanamid, Dow AgroSciences, Novartis, Rhone-Poulenc and Zeneca all reported increased sales in Latin America. Cyanamid, Dow and Novartis also had high sales in Asia.
|
