Is Organic Food Healthier?

A new meta-analysis of the benefits of organic food was released July 11, 2014 open source by the authors and will be published in the British Journal of Nutrition on Tuesday. The study from Newcastle University in the United Kingdom team included one American, Charles M. Benbrook an agricultural economist from Washington State University. The study looked at 343 peer-reviewed publications comparing the nutritional quality and safety of organic and conventional plant-based foods, including fruits, vegetables and grains. The study team applied the most current meta-analysis techniques to quantify differences between organic and non-organic foods.

According to Dr. Benbrook the researchers found that (1) organic crops have, on average, higher levels of antioxidant than conventional crops (on average 17% higher), (2) organic crops have lower cadmium levels than conventional crops, and (3) pesticide residues are present much more frequently in conventional crops than organic ones. Whether these findings would translate into better health outcomes from the long term consumption of organic food is not known. There have never been long-term dietary intervention studies on organic food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

While there have been studies that have found an association between some antioxidants and decreased risk of cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, there is no evidence of a causal link. According to Dr. Benbrook antioxidants protect our cells against the effects of oxidation. While oxidation is a normal chemical process that takes place in the body, it can be accelerated by many factors, such as exposure to UV light, exposure to pollution, stress, processed food, and smoking. The oxidation process can trigger the formation of free radicals, which can damage cells in the body and trigger diseases.

A Stanford University meta-analysis study published in 2012 found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

There are health and environmental risks associated with pesticide exposure. Even at low doses, pesticides can act as an endocrine disruptor and can pose development risks to infants and children. Developmental and other health risks are higher for infants and growing children, because children eat more relative to their body weight than adults, and a child’s organs are less efficient in detoxifying pesticides than adults. Exposure to pesticides for women and men of reproductive age can undermine reproductive health and may increase the risk of spontaneous abortions, certain birth defects, and undermine long-term neurological health of the child. In addition, pesticides can impact the environment and other animals.

Organic food sales in the United States have grown to more than $28 billion in 2012. Traditionally, before the government stepped in to regulate the market, organic foods were grown under “natural conditions” (without the use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides; and either not processed, or processed without the use of additives) there is now an industrial organic food complex. You may think that you intuitively know what organic means; however, under standards adopted by the U.S. Agriculture Dept. (USDA) in 2000 there is a legal definition. Organic food is food grown, raised and processed without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and antibiotics may not be used in raising organic foods. In addition, the use of irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer is also banned. Food whose ingredients are at least 95% organic by weight may carry the "USDA ORGANIC" label; products containing only organic ingredients are labeled 100% organic. So now you have certified organic processed junk food.

However, organically produced food is not entirely free of pesticide residues. A large, high-quality U.S. Department of Agriculture database reports pesticide residues in several dozen organic and conventionally grown foods on an annual basis. A study was performed to evaluate the presence of synthetic pesticides in Organic food and found while organic food significantly reduces pesticide exposure, organic farming does not eliminate pesticide risk. Risk levels arising from pesticide residues in organic food differ by over 1,000-fold, with most posing very modest risks and a limited number associated with possibly worrisome exposure levels.

Most pesticides in organic food tested by the USDA were detected at very low levels and were assumed to be incidental and inadvertent from pesticide drift, pesticide carry over in soil, contaminated compost or organic soil amendments, and contamination of irrigation water. Drift is a widely recognized environmental problem. Aerial application, air blast sprayers, and micro-droplets are application technologies that increase the risk of drift from conventional crops. Legacy contaminants in soil were another cause of pesticides, and without testing the soil it is not possible to predict what levels of contaminants will occur in crops. Not much can be done in the immediate future about legacy contaminants, although organic farmers can avoid problems by planting crops not prone to the uptake of legacy chemicals bound to the soil. More than a third of the pesticide contamination was found to be caused by post-harvest pesticides picked up when the food was processed, packaged etc. Most pesticides in organic food tested by the USDA program were detected at very low levels.

Organic food offers consumers fruits, vegetables and grains that dramatically reduces dietary exposure to pesticide residue compared to industrial farming. There are low use pesticide farming practices that also reduce pesticide exposure. In addition, total antioxidant levels were a 17% higher in organic versus the conventional crops. The levels for much greater — 69% higher levels of flavanones, 28% higher levels of stilbenes, 50% higher levels of flavonols, and 51% higher levels of anthocyanins. Whether this will have any impact on long term health is not known. Also, organic foods were found to have higher levels of phosphorus, but similar levels of vitamins to conventional food. Cadmium exposure is reduced in organic food.

Putting the information together from all these studies I still believe that organic practices are good for the planet, but so are modern conservation farming practices. I am sticking with my mix of organic and conservation farming produced food from my neighbors whose farming practices I know. I avoid distribution networks and food processing exposures to pesticides and everything is fresh.

Stink Bugs Congregating on Your House

Image from Oregon State Extension

It is not your imagination, the brown marmorated stink bug officially known as Halyomorpha halys is trying to get into your house. The large bug appears to be almost waiting for you to open your garage or any other door to slip into the house. The adult stink bugs congregate in early fall in the afternoon waning sun and seek sites to spend the winter especially inside buildings. The stink bugs will occasionally reappear during warmer sunny periods throughout the winter, and then as it emerges in the spring to mate. The stink bug is not harmful to people, houses, or pets, they do not bite, sting, suck blood or carry disease. They do not eat wood or bore into it so they do not damage your house, but they are large bugs, a little less than ¾ of an inch, can fly and are seemingly relentless.

The stink bugs are not native to the United States they arrived from China in the late 1990’s or around 2000 when they were first noted in Pennsylvania. In the United States they do not yet have any natural enemies and they have spread widely in the Mid-Atlantic States causing crop damage. In its native range of China, Japan, Korea it is known as an agricultural pest and has become a serious threat to the fruit, vegetables and farm crops of the Mid-Atlantic region here and is still spreading to other regions of the United States. Pesticides have very limited effect on the bugs. The economic damage that the shield shaped bugs are causing the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Land Grant Universities to study and research a solution. Studies are now underway at the USDA’s Biological Control Research laboratory to develop a biological control using egg parasites. However, that is not going to help with the invasion of your home.

Exterior applications of insecticides may offer some very short lived relief from infestations. A synthetic pyrethroid (i.e. deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, sumithrin or tralomethrin) are reported by the USDA to have some effectiveness on stink bugs. Unfortunately, because these insecticides are broken down by sunlight and the effectiveness of the treatment will not last more than a few days or up to a week. Although using an insecticidal dust treatments to voids where stink bugs emerge from may kill hundreds of bugs, there is the possibility that carpet beetles will feed on the dead stink bugs and create a larger problem. Carpet beetles attack woolens, stored dry goods or other natural products in the home. By using the insecticidal dust you may add a carpet beetle problem to the stink bug invasion. Although aerosol type pyrethrum foggers will kill stink bugs that have amassed on ceilings and walls in living areas, it will not prevent more stink bugs from emerging shortly after the room is aired out.

Mechanical exclusion is the best method to keep stink bugs out of your house. If the bugs get into your home they have been reported to emerge from behind baseboards, around windows and doors and around exhaust fans, dryer vents or ceiling fans and lights in massive swarms. The degree of invasion into your home depends on how well you have sealed your house. The bugs are good flyers and once inside their ability to launch in a dive bomb move when disturbed is a bit scary. Pesticides are generally ineffective against stink bugs. The only way to deal with them is mechanical- keep them out and I kid you not vacuum them up if they get in. WARNING: the stink bugs get their nickname from the unpleasant order they emit if squished or annoyed and be aware that the vacuum will acquire the pungent and unpleasant smell of the stink bugs for a period of time. If the bugs get into the house vacuum them up with a shop vacuum or an old vacuum cleaner. The smell will go away quickly. Dump the bugs into a bucket of soapy water to die.

The same techniques that keep mice from entering the home and seal your home rigorously from the elements will keep most stink bugs from entering your home. First of all, there is no way to prevent stink bugs from getting into the garage because garage doors just do not seal that tight in their tracks. Instead, it is necessary to sweep the bug out of the garage in the cold mornings when they are inactive and seal all entries to the house. Steel wool and lath screening should be pushed into every crack; the area caulked with an all-weather caulk and sealed using spray insulation. New weather stripping should be placed on every exterior door. All the kitchen pipes, the dryer vent pipe, the gas pipe to the fireplace the pilot light and valve to the fireplace should be fitted with lath screening. The space between the foundation and siding should be carefully caulked and sealed. Attic vents should be screened. Windows should be caulked and weather stripping on the windows checked. All exterior holes for electrical, plumbing, and gas lines should be carefully sealed with Duxseal. This will keep not only the stink bugs out of the house but prevent invasion of mice.

Endocrine Disruption and What’s in the Potomac River Watershed

Recently in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, smallmouth bass have been found with benign skin tumors. Two skin samples of lesions from fish removed from the river were sent to Dr. Vicki Blazer a mairine biologistand researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS. Dr. Blazer who received the American Fisheries Society 2010 Publications Award for her article investigating the mortality of fish in the Potomac River basin and is a fish biologist at the West Virginia Science Center studying the impact of contaminants of emerging concern in rivers and streams of the lifecycle and health of fish,  found that one of the samples  tested positive for a type of benign skin tumor. These samples were sent to the USGS because an ongoing collaborative effort between the USGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies in West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, and the Potomac Riverkeeper has been studying the impacts of trace contaminants on fish health. Areas of study have been endocrine disruption, immune system impact, cancer/neoplasia promotion, secondary sex characteristics, oxidative damage and behavior. I follow Dr. Blazer’s talks at conferences.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife. Research evidence suggests that these chemicals, can mimic hormones or interfere with the function of the body’s own hormones. Endocrine disruptors are found in many of the everyday products we use, including some plastic bottles and containers, food can liners, detergents, flame retardants, toys, cosmetics, and pesticides. These hormones and hormone like substances are typically highly soluble in water and are easily transported in the blood. These compounds are of particular concern because they can alter the critical hormonal balances required for proper health and development. The glands that make up the endocrine system are: pituitary gland, thyroid glands, adrenal glands pancreas, ovaries, testies, pineal gland and the thymus.

The marine life work in this area began with the studies of fish kills more than 15 years ago. Preliminary analysis at that time did not find any chemicals or pesticides in concentrations that were sufficient to stress fish and be a cause of the fish kills. Yet there were fish kills. As Dr.Blazer pointed out in a recent conference almost all of our knowledge about concentrations likely to cause a health impact are based on acute toxicity or gross impact such as size. In most cases there are no criteria for sub-lethal effects such as immune modulation or endocrine disruption. Dr. Blazer and others believe that methodology used to detect these chemicals in recent studies may not have been sensitive enough, and may indeed be above the concentration thought to impact these fish. Two examples given by Dr. Blazer at a recent conference were that based on research studies in more than 25 fish species, scientists have suggested that 1 ng/L (parts per trillion) may be the “no effects level” for natural estrogen concentrations on fish. Unfortunately, all the river studies performed in the Potomac River and Shenandoah River passive sampler studies use 1.3 ng/L as the lower detection limit. The detection limit for Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers studies for ethynylesradiol is almost twice the level recently set as the aquatic “no effects” level. Studies along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers have only studied smallmouth bass that were found to be intersexed and have measurable amounts of vitellogenin (a protein that is a precursor to egg yoke) in their blood. Vitellogenin is normally only found in the blood of sexually matures egg-laying females, though males typically carry an inactive gene that is “turned on” by the presence of estrogen. Further research is necessary to not only determine if the problem is more widespread geographically and among species, but to identify the mode and mechanism of impact.

Fish health turns out to be a way to track ecosystem health. The smallmouth bass population has been presenting a variety of skin lesions, bacterial, viral and fungil infections, high parasite loads and intersex in normally gonochorist fish ( where embryonic gonad subsequently divides into ovaries or testes). The findings are not at all consistent, but show wide spread biological impact. Scientists like Dr. Blazer are looking to determine if these impacts to fish are being caused by something being put in or released from wastewater treatment plants, farms, or storm water runoff. Until the cause is identified, nothing can be done to stop them and prevent impact to animal and human populations.

Slide taken from Dr. Viki Blazer of USGS presentation

The Potomac fish kills studied by Dr. Blazer and others suggest that there are stressed populations of fish that at some point are overwhelmed by environmental stressors such as increased water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients, high pH, or chemicals that cause immuno-supression leading to a wide variety of opportunistic infections and the large fish kills. There is increasing evidence that estrogenic chemicals and other endocrine disrupting substance modulate the immune response and disease resistance. In a study of female bass from the Shenandoah River south fork scientists found the BDE (a flame retardant), triclosan (an antibacterial and antifungal agent used in a wide variety of consumer products including toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant and cleaning supplies) and pesticides had accumulated selectively within the endocrine system with lower concentrations in the brain, skin, kidneys. In talking about the bass, it is reported by Marcia Moore of the Daily Item that Dr. Blazer said, “The good news, for people anyway, is the muscle has the lowest concentration,” indicating that the fish could be eaten. “It’s not such good news for the fish because we’re finding it in the brain, ovaries, kidneys and skin.” The location of the increased concentrations seen in Dr. Blazer’s slide and potential sources of contaminants raises questions about potential human exposure.  

All water on earth is part of the hydraulic cycle and is reused over the course of time. These traces of chemicals have managed to slip through the earth’s natural filtration and some of them through treatment systems to be released into rivers and consumed by humans. Finished and source water (as well as food and beverages) have been found to have low levels of these emerging chemicals, but whether this low level of exposure is bio-accumulating in humans and can cause any health or developments effects is yet unknown. Endocrine disruptors can sometimes affect reproduction, development, and behavior, certainly these impacts on fish is being studied. These potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals come from a variety of sources and have diverse molecular structures. If these chemicals are introduced into water systems from human waste and food, then it is possible that human tissues might also contain detectable levels of contaminants. We might be experiencing subtle population impacts from chemical exposure during fetal and newborn development. Potential human effects from chemical contaminants in tissues of the endocrine system are cancer (particularly breast cancer and testicular cancer), infertility, disorders of sex development, asthma and other immune related syndromes, autism, ADHD, learning and behavioral disorders, diabetes, thyroid disorders, and testicular dysgenesis syndrome (poor semen quality, testis cancer, undescended testis and hypospadias).

The endocrine system of fish bears some similarity to the human endocrine system, but we do not live our lives in the waters of the Potomac. Two million people rely on the Washington Aqueduct for their drinking water and millions of people in other parts of the country drink source water with similar observed occurrences of endocrine disruption. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these emerging contaminants is not known, but now is the time to find out the impact from the substance we’ve been allowing to enter the waters of the earth. We need to determine the impact and fate of these micro pollutants before we implement the watershed cleanup plans to make sure we are implementing the right strategies for the health of the entire ecosystem which may include eliminating the use of certain chemicals.  

National Groundwater Week

It is National Groundwater Awareness Week March 11-17, 2012, and apparently Awareness Week is in its second decade of existence. Who knew, and that’s the problem, most people are unaware of groundwater despite its importance and impact on our lives. Recently, the US Geological Survey, USGS, reported that in 2007 105 million people, about a third of the population receive their drinking water from one of the 140,000 public water systems across the United States that use groundwater as their source. In addition, 15% of the population obtains their water directly from groundwater using private drinking water wells. Groundwater is also used for irrigation. Groundwater is an important natural resource, especially in those parts of the country that don't have ample surface-water sources, such as the arid West. Groundwater is a renewable resource, but not unlimited. Groundwater recharges at various rates from precipitation and other sources of infiltration.

Unlike other natural resources or raw materials, groundwater is present throughout the world varying from place to place, depending on rainfall conditions and the distribution of aquifers (rock and sand layers in whose pore spaces the groundwater sits). Precipitation and soil type determines how much the shallower groundwater is recharged annually. However the volume of water that can be stored is controlled by the reservoir characteristics of the subsurface rocks. Generally, groundwater is renewed only during a part of each year through precipitation, but can be abstracted year-round providing a reliable and clean source of drinking water to much of the population provided there is adequate replenishment, and it is protected from pollution. We need to be aware of the source of our groundwater it’s natural recharge rate and protect our aquifers from over use and contamination.

Groundwater is usually cleaner than surface water and as source water for drinking water supplies it is often superior to surface water. Groundwater is typically protected against contamination from the surface by the soils and rock layers covering the aquifer. This water is the only available clean drinking water in many areas. However, rising population, changes in land use, agriculture and industrialization increasingly place groundwater in jeopardy of contamination. Once contaminated, groundwater is very difficult to clean and often after removal of contaminated plumes only long term abandonment of use to allow for natural attenuation is the only possible course of action. Precious groundwater resources increasingly need to be protected from contamination and well managed to allow for sustainable long-term use.

Though the water quality of the public water supply systems is regulated by the US EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), drinking water supplies are only tested for slightly over 90 contaminants (many of them natural impurities) when there are over 80,000 chemicals known in the United States. In addition, the US EPA only regulates the finished water delivered to consumer through public water supply systems. The underlying groundwater quality often has not been tracked by the US EPA. In their study of the quality of groundwater sources in the United States, the USGS found trace levels of pesticide compounds (not regulated under the SCWA) or VOCs in 64% of the groundwater samples taken from public water supply wells. Three-quarters of the organic-contaminants contained an herbicide (atrazine or simazine) or an herbicide degradate (deethylatrazine), and about 40% contained the solvents perchlorethene or trichloroethene. Pesticides and VOCs were detected in a significantly greater proportion of samples from unconfined aquifers than in samples from confined aquifers. The groundwater with the greatest number of contaminants was consistently from shallower unconfined aquifers demonstrating the natural protection provided by a confining geological layer.

Groundwater typically contains geological trace elements such as arsenic, manganese, strontium, iron, and boron and radionuclides (radon, radium, and gross alpha-particle radioactivity). These contaminants originate from the rocks and sediments that contain the aquifers and are entirely natural, but there are health related maximum contaminant level standards for these elements within the SDWA. For groundwater supplies, the concentration of these geological contaminants does not change quickly over time and remains rather constant in any given region. What is changing is the appearance of modern pesticides and herbicides, substances atrazine or simazine and their breakdown products in groundwater. These chemicals slowly percolate into groundwater from land application of pesticides and herbicides used for greener lawns and gardens or for agriculture. They appear in shallower groundwater supplies. Another source of contamination of groundwater is our septic systems. It is estimated by various sources that 25-35% of all US homes use septic systems.

There are many different types of septic system designs. The most common type used for single family homes consists of a septic tank and leach field. A septic tank can be an anaerobic (without air) tank or an aerobic tank (with air). The anaerobic system is a single chamber tank that receives the toilet and drain waste from the house and allows the solids to settle down to the bottom of the tank where the anaerobic bacteria that live in the tank digest the organic materials while the effluent (water around all that stuff) flows out to the leach field to be purified by passing through soil until it reaches the groundwater. The final finishing for septic waste is the leach field or other soil absorption system, where it percolates into the soil, which provides final treatment by removing harmful bacteria, viruses, and nutrients. This is a natural process requiring suitable soil for successful waste water treatment, but even with the most suitable soil septic systems cannot remove chemicals from the water. Household cleaners, fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products will just pass through the system and begin to appear in the recharge to the groundwater.

As our homes are filled with ever more powerful and chemical laden cleaners, antibacterial soaps, pesticides, herbicides, paints, petroleum products, insecticides and drugs-all the wonders of modern life, these things find their way into our waters. Through stormwater runoff and waste water treatment plants these things easily find their way to our surface waters. Waste water treatment plants are no more equipped to treat waste water for these chemicals than a septic system is and quite frankly none of these public supplies of water are routinely tested for these substances. Waste water treatment plants do not have chemical removal processes. Through our septic systems, and gardens and yards these contaminants are appearing in our groundwater. Although each septic system and yard can make an insignificant contribution to ground water contamination, the sheer number of such systems and their wide spread use of pesticides and herbicides in every area make them serious contamination sources. What goes down the drain or is sprayed and spread in the garden goes into the groundwater. To make a difference we all need to protect our groundwater.

The following actions to protect groundwater from contamination and are based on recommendations from the National Groundwater Association:
1. Properly store hazardous household substances like paints, paint thinners, petroleum products, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and cleaning products in secure containers
2. Mix hazardous household substances over concrete or asphalt where they can be cleaned up or absorbed onto disposable media like paper towels and then properly disposed of with hazardous material waste.
3. Dispose of hazardous household wastes at an appropriate waste disposal facility or drop-off. Most landfills and city trash programs have these drop-offs.
4. Do not put hazardous household wastes down the drain or in the toilet ever,
5. Do not put any wastes down a dry or abandoned well or use sinkholes as waste disposal holes.
6. Service your septic system regularly at a minimum service it according to local health department recommendations
7. Check your private drinking water well annually to make sure the sanitary seals are intact.
8. Decommission abandoned wells on your property using a qualified water well contractor
9. Fix or replace any leaking aboveground or underground tanks storing hazardous substances. All underground storage tanks should have secondary containment to prevent contamination of the subsurface. All tanks will eventually fail.

Backyard Best Management Practices

It is reported by the Department of Agriculture that 70% of all land in the United States is privately owned and the majority of that land is managed by farmers and ranchers. A small fraction of the privately owned land (under 100 million acres) is associated with private homes. Farmers and ranchers use conservation plans and best management practices (BMPs) to meet their production objectives and protect soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources. Though, they represent a small fraction of total land in the nation, in suburban areas homes, neighborhoods and small commercial properties represent a significant portion of the land area and sources of nutrient and sediment run off impacting our water resources. In densely populated areas BMPs must be applied to homes and small commercial developments to protect our water resources.

Riparian buffers are the forested and vegetated areas adjacent to streams and wetlands that prevent erosion and sediment run off. These riparian buffers represent a basic BMP for preventing run off containing nutrients and sediment from flowing into streams, rivers and lakes. BMPs are the name given to these effective, practical, methods which prevent or reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants from the land to surface or ground water.

The most basic BMPs is a forested buffer or backyard wetland that performs many ecological functions, that go well beyond clean water, erosion control and control of runoff. The presence of properly vegetated buffers provides biologically diverse habitats both in the water and on land. I maintain a seven acre forested buffer beyond my mowed yard. Watching the wildlife on the edge of the forested zone has provided hours of peaceful pleasure. The buffers are complex ecological systems that connect the upland areas with surface waters providing a transitional area through which both the surface and ground water flow.

These forested buffers are noted for their ability to protect and enhance water quality. A properly planted and healthy riparian zone can trap sediment, and reduce or remove nutrients and sediment from precipitation, surface waters and ground waters. Once sediment has entered the system it can be continually re-suspended as it travels downstream and should be prevented from washing into storm sewers and streams. However, one need not have acres of land to have a backyard BMP. Many yards can support a backyard wetland that benefits you and your community. Letting runoff from your roof, driveway, and lot slowly filter through a mini-wetland helps prevent pollution of neighboring creeks and may help prevent flooding.

Although it is unrealistic to expect that all nonpoint source pollution can be eliminated, BMPs and common sense can be used to minimize the impact of suburban homes on water quality and the environment and create a natural Eden around your home. Simple reasonable and cost effective steps can make your backyard home to many different types of birds, butterflies, beneficial insects, bats, and other wildlife. Trees, shrubs, and other plants provide both food and shelter for wildlife. The types of plants you use for food and cover will help determine the wildlife species attracted to your backyard. Windbreaks and tree plantings slow the wind and provide shelter and food for wildlife. Native plants will thrive with the least effort.

The flowers and lavender in my garden have clouds of butterflies, humming birds and bees. However, butterflies, birds, bees, and all wildlife are very vulnerable to many pesticides and other chemicals. Probably the best single thing you can do for wildlife is to minimize or eliminate chemical use. Pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides, used to simply prevent blemishes and other imperfections on private and public lands are merely for cosmetic (or ornamental) purposes and truly pointless. The time has come to question the use of pesticides cosmetically. Our desire for yards containing uniform green carpets and perfect flowers needs to be questioned. Having come to live in a house late in life, I have never felt this compulsion.

Another blemish to the immaculate and synthetic garden is natural plant succession. Many people are not aware of the value of dead, dying, and hollow trees, as well as logs on the ground, for wildlife. Dead trees provide homes to over 400 species of birds, mammals, and amphibians. Fish, insects, plants, and fungi also benefit from dead and dying trees. Consider leaving standing dead and dying trees in your yard unless they pose a human safety or property hazard, and use downed woody materials in gardens and landscaping.

Clean, fresh water is as important to birds, bats, and other wildlife as it is for people. I am fortunate in having plentiful, natural flowing water on my land. Water in a saucer, bird bath, or backyard pond gives wildlife the water they need. Remember to change the water every few days to keep it fresh. In hot weather, it may be necessary to refill the container every day. Logs and rocks in the water provide drinking and basking habitat for turtles, butterflies, and songbirds. Stones with depressions that collect water will help attract butterflies. Saving the world and sustainable living begin in your garden.

Sustainable Garden Maintenance

First of all, I am not a gardener. I have no natural gift for it and limited inclination and experience. However, as time goes on, am developing a deep affection for my garden. I am attempting to develop a flourishing and sustainable organic ornamental garden surrounding my house. I am trying to concentrate on native species assuming they will be the most likely to flourish with my form of benign neglect. I did not originally start out to be organic, I actually never thought about it until faced with a nursery consultant wanting to sell me bags of chemicals the year I began planting my garden. The groundwater that I drink is very shallow with limited soil overburden to protect it. In addition, nutrient runoff is a major problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For the most part, the back seven acres of my property are part of the Resource Protected Area under the Chesapeake Protection Act. Anything that goes into my septic system, is spread on my lawn, or sprayed around my house could easily find its way into my water or the water shed (someone else’s water). My first reaction to the offer of fertilizer and weed killers was no. Since that time the more I read about pesticides, herbicides and insecticides derived from naturally occurring substances that are now commercially available, the less I am inclined to use any synthetic chemical products in the garden. Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. At the moment I am practicing a form of feeding the soil through composting. I try to always use the least toxic method to address any pest issues. This requires an integrated pest management approach that includes a series of methods for preventing and managing pest populations based on an ecological understanding of the problem. Time, patience and diligence are necessary for the success of any natural program of sustainable garden and pest management. Chemical annihilation of pest colonies and weeds are not an option.

These older, methods and naturally occurring chemicals are a step back, but believed to be safer than the new generation of pesticides and herbicides developed during last quarter century (encouraged by the US EPA to replace the first round of pesticides banned by the agency). The lower concentrations of the new chemicals and their breakdown products rendered them virtually invisible in water. We could not detect them and assumed they were not present. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new chemical herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped. Recent studies have documented endocrine disruption in a wide variety of marine gastropods, frogs, and fish associated with exposure to low levels of non specific endocrine disrupting chemicals of unknown sources. The current state of analysis only allowed the documentation of EDC presence. EDCs are a structurally diverse group that includes natural and synthetic estrogens, alkyl phenols surfactants, phthalates, bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants and some pesticides.

Pesticide' is a broad term, covering a range of products that are used to control pests. The slug pellets, ant powder, weed killers, and rat and mouse baits that you may use in your everyday life are all pesticides. Other pesticides you may have heard of including: insect killers (insecticides), mould and fungi killers (fungicides), weed killers (herbicides), slug pellets (molluscicides), plant growth regulators, bird and animal repellents, and rat and mouse killers (rodenticides). Often people only think of pesticides as chemicals, but they include a very large range of different types of products. Some as described above are natural, while many are altered versions of natural chemicals. I choose to stay away from the synthetic chemicals. My organic garden requires me to weed the beds on a regular basis, where spraying 2, 4-D, commonly found in household weed killers is certainly much easier. However the more chemical pesticides are investigated the more questions are raised. For example, in a 1991 National Cancer Institute study examined dogs whose owners' lawns were treated with 2,4-D four or more times per year. The study found those dogs had double the risk of developing canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Our knowledge of the consequences of pesticide use is really so limited considering the widespread use of the substances. I think just doing without pesticides and weed killers in my garden are best. There is simply no justification for adding chemical contaminants to the earth and the watershed for a greener lawn and prettier flowers.

Without the need to spread fertilizer or weed controlling chemicals, my spring clean up of my garden involved, edging, weeding and mulching the beds, replacing the shrubbery that the deer pulled out and the snow crushed and replacing the snowplow damaged sections of the lawn with sod and calling it a day. (It was actually 5 man days and 50 bags of mulch.) For full disclosure purposes I still have one of the worst lawns in my neighborhood, I apply no chemicals to my lawn and never water. However, I do hope to improve the lawn by continuing my fall program of aerating and over seeding and applying my limited amount of compost. So far, not so good despite soil analysis that showed decent soil composition. I may not have a great garden, but at least it is a neat one. Next we are onto assessing the condition of my dozen hollies trees that appear to have been severely damaged by the harsh winter we just had. The arborist will be out to determine what can be saved and what needs to be replaced and I will plant some saplings on the forest edge to increase its footprint.

Agricultural Run Off and Nonpoint Source Pollution

National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress was intended to identify widespread water quality problems of national significance. This has served as a proxy for the quality of the waters of the nation despite a non systematic approach to identifying water quality by the states. Many states target their limited monitoring resources to waters they suspect are impaired and, therefore, assess only a small percentage of their waters. These may not reflect conditions in state waters as a whole and tend to reflect areas of concern in the “water community.” The US-EPA in its report to Congress in 1994 identified agriculture as the leading cause of water quality impairment of rivers and lakes in the United States. Agriculture is also cited as a leading cause of groundwater pollution in the United States. In 1992, forty-nine of fifty states had identified that nitrate was the principal groundwater contaminant, followed closely by the pesticides in the samples taken. The US-EPA (1994) concluded that: "more than 75% of the states reported that agricultural practices posed a significant threat to groundwater quality." The way to reduce impact of these non point source pollution on the environment is to implement what has been called “best management practices.”

Agriculture contributes significantly to water pollution problems in many areas of the United States. Many synthetic pesticides (organic chemicals) behave largely in an unknown fashion in nature; their persistence, transport through food chains, and degradation patterns are often not well-understood. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watershed. In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors.

The current generation of herbicides and pesticides were developed with the encouragement of the US EPA. These newer herbicides were encouraged by the US EPA because they are applied at much lower levels, were broken down more quickly in the environment and were less toxic to animals. The new generation of herbicides was based on sulfonylurea and imidazolinone, but unintended consequences have come to light. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped. Pesticide runoff may be carrying undesirable nutrients and endocrine disruptors to the waters of the nation and now we should again examine older, natural pest solutions.

Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are based on, pyrethrum which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. Others like boric acid (used to kill amongst other pests termite colony invasion inside homes and ant hills) and soap salts are just older and though modesty less effective are believed to be far less toxic. These older, naturally occurring pesticides based on, pyrethrum and rotenone both derived from plants are not as effective, but believed to be safer than the new generation of herbicides developed during last quarter century.

The state of Washington has performed private well testing in various regions of the state over the years. In the 1980’s their sampling program in Yakima, Franklin, and Whatcom Counties, which are strongly agricultural tested 81 wells for 46 pesticides and nitrate contamination. Of the 81 wells tested, 23 tested positive for at least one of the pesticides and seven exceeded drinking water standards. Sixty-one of the wells tested positive for nitrates, at concentrations ranging from .10 to 24.4 mg/L, and 18 exceeded the 10 mg/L standard for drinking water. Additional testing in the 1990’s found ethylene dibromide at 62% of the sites and nitrate plus nitrite-nitrogen in all tested wells though only a few of the wells tested exceeded drinking water standards. None of the wells were tested for endocrine disruptors because at the time even proxy testing was not done for these things. The point is that the agricultural and routine use of pesticides needs to be reexamined in the light of increasing use of groundwater and growing populations. The risks involved with biocides and toxics impacting our water may be large and are uncertain, but could impact current and future generations.

Pesticides and Ornamental Gardens

On Thursday, July 30th the Wall Street Journal published an article by Gwendolyn Bounds entitled “Death by Mint Oil: Natural Pesticides.” As Ms Bounds points out more and more pesticides, herbicides and insecticides derived from naturally occurring substances are now commercially available. Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are based on, pyrethrum which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. Others like boric acid (used to kill amongst other pests termite colony invasion inside homes and ant hills) and soap salts are just older and though modesty less effective are believed to be far less toxic. These older, naturally occurring chemicals are a step back, but believed to be even safer than the new generation of herbicides developed during last quarter century encouraged by the US EPA. Those newer herbicides were applied at much lower levels, broke down more quickly in the environment and were less toxic to animals. The new generation of herbicides was based on sulfonylurea and imidazolinone. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped and we are looking once more at older, natural solutions.

Pesticide' is a broad term, covering a range of products that are used to control pests. The slug pellets, ant powder, weed killers, and rat and mouse baits that you may use in your everyday life are all pesticides. Other pesticides you may have heard of including: insect killers (insecticides), mould and fungi killers (fungicides), weed killers (herbicides), slug pellets (molluscicides), plant growth regulators, bird and animal repellents, and rat and mouse killers (rodenticides). Often people only think of pesticides as chemicals, but they include a very large range of different types of products. Some as described above are natural, while many are altered versions of natural chemicals.

In Canada there is a growing movement to ban the use of pesticides for ornamental use. Town by town, Provence by Provence bans are appearing. Ontario and Quebec have banned the pesticides use for cosmetic purposes on lawns, vegetable and ornamental gardens, patios, driveways, cemeteries, and in parks and school yards. There are no exceptions for pest infestations (insects, fungi or weeds) in these areas, as lower risk pesticides, biopesticides and alternatives to pesticides exist. More than 250 pesticide products are banned for sale and over 95 pesticide ingredients are banned for cosmetic uses. Pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides, used to simply prevent blemishes and other imperfections on private and public lands are referred to as the cosmetic (or ornamental) use of pesticides in these regulations. The question is should we be following the Canadian lead in this?

Though there has been no direct evidence linking pesticides with the exception of nitrogen to diseases in humans, an increasing number of health and environmental groups are claiming that these chemicals do indeed impact human health. A wide range of chemicals are used to treat everything from pests to mold in household gardens. One of those is 2, 4-D, used by cereal crop producers and commonly found in household weed killers. It has been the subject of an extensive study by Health Canada which determined that, when used properly, it is safe. Organizations like the Sierra Club and the Canadian Cancer Society, which strongly support a ban on cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides, disagree. However, no specific research linking the currently used ornamental pesticides to disease in humans was found.

The only documented study to find a disease link to 2,4-D was done in the United States, a 1991 National Cancer Institute study examined dogs whose owners' lawns were treated with 2,4-D four or more times per year. The study found those dogs had double the risk of developing canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Overall, it appears that the Canadian ban on cosmetic use of herbicides and pesticides is based on an emotional and logical belief that cchildren may be more at risk of developing health problems from pesticides because:

• Their activities lead to more exposure e.g., playing in the grass, putting their hands or toys in their mouths.
• They are closer to the ground and breathe in higher amounts of pesticides.
• Proportional to their weight, they breathe in more air and consume more food and drink than do adults.
• Their immature metabolic systems cannot break down toxins as effectively as adults.
• Their bodies are rapidly growing and developing and potentially impacted more strongly by endocrine disruptor effects.

While I certainly do not know if a ban on ornamental use of pesticides will prevent disease in children, I wonder what the downside of reducing use would be. (For full disclosure purposes I have the third to worst lawn in my neighborhood, I apply no chemicals to my lawn and never water. However, I do hope to improve the lawn by aerating and over seeding annually and applying my compost. So far, not so good despite soil analysis that showed decent soil composition.)

How Green is Your Lawn- The Use of Pesticides

From the beginning of recorded time humans have utilized pesticides to protect their crops and food stores. Humans tried many substances as pesticides; toxic chemicals were tried in the 1600’s. Arsenic, mercury and lead were applied to crops to kill pests; the fact that these substances also killed larger animals including humans resulted in their abandonment for use as pesticides. One of the results of chemical development during World War II was the widespread manufacture and use of pesticides after the war. With the use of pesticides and herbicides to control unwanted pests came dramatic changes in agriculture and the agricultural business model and increasing crop yields in excess of 10%. Pesticides including herbicides and insecticides are used to control harmful and annoying organisms. They can be used to protect from diseases carried by mosquitoes or parasites. Herbicides can be used to kill invasive weeds in gardens, parks and public spaces, to clear roadside weeds, trees and brush. They are also used to prevent algae from taking over ponds and pools. Pesticides are used to control termites and mould that can damage buildings and homes. Pesticides are used in grocery stores and food storage facilities to prevent mice and insects that infest food such as grain. Much of our very clean and sanitary American life is the result of pesticide use. Each use of a pesticide carries some associated risk and controlled and limited use of these pesticides is believed to reduce the risks to a level deemed acceptable by the US EPA.

DDT became the most widely used pesticide in the world in the 1950’s. It’s potential to do harm was not fully recognized until, the 1960’s when it was identified as the cause of diminished populations of eagles, hawks, gulls and other birds. DDT use was banned. The recent reemergence of support by the World Health Organization for the use of DDT to prevent malaria is an example of the questions raised by pesticide use. The WHO argued that used sparingly DDT was the most effective method to control the spread of malaria and that saving human lives from malaria was more important than potential impact to lesser species. DDT’s potential as an endocrine disruptor was not full appreciated at that time and it has recently been implicated in increased incidence of breast cancer in women exposed before or at puberty in the California study. The wide spread use of herbicides and their potential presence in water resource was also ignored. The fate and transport model for understanding chemicals added to the environment has not always been fully appreciated. However, by the 1980’s alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine and metolachlor (all common corn and soybean herbicides) were being detected in surface water and near surface groundwater. The US EPA began to restrict use of these herbicides, too, and they were phased out over the next decade.

A new generation of herbicides was developed during the phase out period encouraged by the US EPA. The newer herbicides were applied at much lower levels, broke down more quickly in the environment and were less toxic to animals. Applying ounces of herbicides per acre that broke down in days rather than pounds of chemicals that persisted for weeks or months was a victory to the US EPA. These new herbicides were based on sulfonylurea an imidazolinone. The lower concentrations of the new herbicides and their breakdown products rendered them virtually invisible in water. We could not detect them and assumed they were not present. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped.

Recent studies have documented endocrine disruption in a wide variety of marine gastropods, frogs, and fish associated with exposure to low levels of non specific endocrine disrupting chemicals of unknown sources. The current state of analysis only allowed the documentation of EDC presence. EDCs are a structurally diverse group that includes natural and synthetic estrogens, alkyl phenols surfactants, phthalates, bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants and some pesticides. Studies in recent years have documented a wide occurrence of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) throughout aquatic ecosystems. This could indicate non-point sources of contamination from run off or an additive effect, which may have serious implications for US water quality. Suspect EDCs are used in large quantities by consumers and industry. Domestic and industrial wastewater and agricultural run-off are believed to be the major sources of EDCs today. The impacts of trace concentrations of EDC on wildlife do beg the question about the potential effects on humans. Drinking water is not tested for minute quantities of endocrine disrupting chemicals; we simply do not have the knowledge of what to look for nor the technical ability to identify all the trace contaminants of that nature.

In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watershed. Maybe we should be re-examining the risks associated with what is now known as conventional agricultural practices, and embrace (at the very least) the best management practices for controlling environmental release of agricultural chemicals and waste. Several Provinces in Canada are in the process of banning the use of herbicides for ornamental lawn use.

Endocrine Disruptors in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Chemicals are a fact of modern life they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. There are some chemicals that can mimic, block, or otherwise alter animal hormone responses, sometimes affecting their reproduction, development, and behavior, this is actually, how some pest control treatments are designed to work. A diverse group of chemicals called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) come from a variety of sources. These chemical have vastly different molecular structures. These chemicals become of great concern when they are discovered to be human endocrine disruptors as DDT, dioxin, the drug DES and PCBs were in the past. Traces of endocrine disrupting chemicals are seemingly found in every part of our world, including dust, soil, water, air, food, manufactured products, wildlife, and even ourselves.

There are countless natural occurring phytochemicals so far thousands have been isolated from plants in addition there are estimated to be over 80,000 artificial chemicals in the world today. The structural diversity is enormous and it is not known which of these substances might adversely affect living things in subtle ways. Testing for new chemicals is for gross and acute impact, subtle impact is very difficult to identify. One thing is certain, the growing class of known endocrine disrupting chemicals can disturb a staggering range of hormonal processes. Like natural hormones, some EDCs bind directly with hormone receptors. The impostors can mimic or block hormone messages with the same, weaker, or stronger responses. Others are more subtle, they interfere with hormone maintenance to prevent or enhance hormones from being made, broken apart, or carried in the bloodstream.

When the USGS began looking into skin lesions on bass in the southern branch of the Potomac River, they found fish suffering from a variety of lesions. Some fish had bacterial lesions, some fungal lesions, and some fish had parasite. The USGS concluded that there was no specific cause of the lesions and that the fish appeared to be immunosupressed so that any pathogen in the water could attack the fish. A series of studies were performed over a period of years. During the investigation it was discovered that male fish had immature female egg cells in their testes and the females had lowered levels of an essential protein in the formation of eggs. The bass suffering from lesions were intersexed. It had previously been demonstrated that estrogen and estrogen mimicking compounds can cause intersex. The occurrence of intersex among the lesioned fish prompted further studies. How estrogen related compounds could be impacting the immune systems in these fish was studied by one group while several groups within the Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey studied the relationship between waste water treatment plants, other chemicals, and the impacted fish.

The study found the problem of endocrine disruption in fish to be widespread in the limited study area of a portion of the Chesapeake Water Shed, but increased in proximity to and downstream of the waste water treatment plants. Chemical sampling that took place along with the fish sampling found higher concentrations of waste water chemicals near the waste water plants. Pesticides currently used in agriculture were detected at all locations. Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals at all locations their specific source is not yet known. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the US FW and US GS have embarked on further study to gain greater understanding of the implications to the earth’s ecosystem.

The implications to the fish populations are apparent, but the waters where the study took place are part of the water supply for the region. The impact on human health and the ecosystem needs to be discovered. In addition to finding intersexed fish, the researchers have found male amphibians with ovaries and female frogs with male genitalia and frogs with six legs and other mutations. The endocrine system of fish is similar to the human endocrine system. The US FW and US GS research on the Potomac River poses some troubling questions for the 2 million people who rely on the Washington Aqueduct for their drinking water as well as the millions of people in other parts of the country with similar observed occurrences of endocrine disruption. The impact on human life is not known, but according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health there is the potential to for humans to develop premature breast cancer, have problems with reproduction, and develop congenital anomalies of the male genitalia. These kinds of impacts are happening at a broad and low level in society so that the occurrence is not alarming to the general public or easily noted without detailed statistics.
In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watershed. Water is the fluid of life. Do you know where your water’s been and what’s in it?