Blogs

August 24 2018

(Image: Earthjustice)

It’s been almost 20 years since an epidemiological study of farmworkers in California began providing staggering evidence of detrimental health impacts for children exposed to organophosphate pesticides in utero. The project, still underway, has shown longitudinal links between pesticide exposure and respiratory complications, developmental disorders, and lower IQs among farmworker children.

Now, in an effort to restrict how human studies like this are used in EPA’s regulatory rule-making, the Trump administration has labeled them “secret science” and claims that epidemiology is less valid than laboratory testing on animals.

Sound familiar? This was the same tactic used by the tobacco industry to hide evidence of harm to public health.

The administration’s proposal, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” is another example of Orwellian new-speak. Do we need strengthened transparency in regulatory science? Yes. But not by divulging confidential personal data about study participants.

We need transparency around funding of Monsanto-backed research that obscures the clear links between cancer-causing pesticides like glyphosate and public health.

We need transparency in the lines of power that hold our regulatory process hostage at the expense of the health of children and pregnant women.

Epidemiology is valid peer-reviewed science that offers us evidence of the longitudinal and complex health impacts of pesticides in our environment. The real “secret science” is happening behind the doors of industry.

August 14 2018

Today, the EPA will hold a public forum in Fayetteville to discuss GenX and other contaminants that have been found in the Cape Fear River. The EPA’s Regional Administrator, Trey Glenn, stated that this is an opportunity for community members and other stakeholders to voice their concerns and recommendations to the agency. The forum is comprised of two sessions that include public listening and contaminants. These sessions will consist of public comment, and, resources to assist states, tribes and communities on addressing challenges with GenX and other contaminants in the Cape Fear River.

We’ve learned in the past year that Chemours was exposed for dumping the chemical GenX into the Cape Fear River without a permit to do so. After immense uproar from area residents and government bodies, Chemours admitted to their illegal dumping and promised to end the contamination of the residents’ primary source of drinking water.

Along with the contamination of the Cape Fear River, Chemours emits GenX into the air. In April of this year, the Department of Air Quality announced that Chemours is emitting roughly 2,700 pounds of GenX into the air each year. This amount is 40 times higher than what Chemours reported to the state environmental regulators. As such, GenX is affecting neighboring communities and water sources that are carried through the rain, wind, and other disturbances, which cause recontamination. Thus, Chemours simply stopping the discharge may not necessarily stop the pollution.

Chemours lobbyists have been fighting against any regulatory provisions, yet, offer a short and long-term plan to curve the air and water contamination. The short-term plan is to install a pair of carbon adsorption beds that would reduce air emissions by 30-40%. The long-term goal is to install a thermal oxidizer that will reduce air emissions by 99%. The estimated cost of the thermal oxidizer is $100 million. To address the water contamination, Chemours has proposed to install a filtration system for all households that have been contaminated by GenX. The costs of these systems range from $5,000-$10,000. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) argues that this filtration system isn’t a long-term solution. DEQ proposes that Chemours invest their time and resources into creating a long-term plan that will address the future concerns of residents that use Cape Fear River as their primary source of drinking water.

What can we do?

Register if you’re interested in speaking or attending public forum – Address: Crown Ballroom, 1960 Coliseum Drive
Sign Petition telling Chemours to stop contaminating our water!

August 28 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

The first time I learned about food stamps, I was six years old and starting the first grade in a new state. Our family, having just moved from Pennsylvania to North Carolina, was gradually becoming accustomed to the grocery store “giants” of the south. I formed a list in my head of all the new company names—Lowes Foods, Harris Teeter, Kroger, and Food Lion. The list sounded more like an inventory of foreign animals, set with their respective genus and species, than a compilation of grocery store names. Among the disarray of learning new street names and retail shops, I overheard my parents discussing another unfamiliar word, food stamps. I asked my father if grocers stamped our food and if the ink would get into our mouths when we ate it. Though my father laughed and assured me that we weren’t eating ink-saturated food, there were other hidden dangers in the food we purchased. We were just unaware of them at the time.

What my family, and millions of other families across the United States, didn’t know was that a dangerous chemical known as Bisphenol-A, or BPA, inhabited several packaged food and drink items, including bottled water and canned foods. This consumer ignorance was recently highlighted in a news report that aired on CBS in which reporter Steve Sbraccia discussed the hazards of purchasing canned products containing BPA. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) states that “the primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet.” Presently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assumes that “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods” and fails to consider the long-term effects of BPA on the human body. According to a study published by Environmental Health Perspectives, BPA exposure increases estrogen sensitivity in the mammary gland, demonstrating that responses to BPA are potent in pubescent phases but most potent in prenatal stages. By assessing only acute toxicity, the FDA is choosing to ignore the neurological and reproductive effects of BPA that occur over time and harm many, especially infants and children who are most sensitive to toxins.

Today, despite the persistence of environmental organizations and the public to remove BPA from numerous products, BPA persists in the lining of several canned food items found in local grocery stores. According to a study published in 2015 by the Breast Cancer Fund, over 67% of canned food products from the 192 that were tested contain BPA. Among those tested are canned items from local retailers like Kroger and Harris Teeter. 13 out of 21 cans tested from Kroger and 2 out of 6 cans tested from Harris Teeter contained BPA.

Canned products are often more cost efficient, which may be more appealing to low income consumers or consumers who receive federal aid much like my family did. In many cases, purchasing cans is more convenient to the average, time-conscious consumer who would rather buy canned beans than boil and soak dried beans overnight. Most consumers, however, unknowingly purchase canned items that may contain BPA. My grandmother, a native to Mexico, purchases cans of pickled jalapeños from a company named Conservas La Costeña, sold in local grocery stores. My mother purchases La Costeña whole black beans. In the Breast Cancer Fund’s 2015 report on BPA, 1 out of 1 of the Conservas La Costeña cans tested and 2 out of 2 of the cans tested from their parent company Vilore Foods contained BPA.

While we may not be physically consuming “ink-stained food” like I feared when I was six years old, local grocery stores such as Kroger and Harris Teeter continue to market items that contain BPA in their can linings. In a recent study conducted by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) from January to April 2017, 252 canned items were tested for BPA across eleven states, including North Carolina, and 38% of those cans contained BPA. Of the four major retail stores tested—Kroger, Albertsons, Dollar Tree, and 99 Cents Only—24 of the 73 canned items from Kroger, approximately 33%, contained BPA. Despite a decrease of BPA found in canned items, about a 1.8% reduction since 2015, several canned products sold in local grocery stores still contain BPA, potentially triggering endocrine disruption and other health concerns.

Those most likely to purchase canned items—and, thus, those more likely to be exposed to these toxins—are low-income or fixed-income consumers. According to a 2016 survey published by the AARP Foundation, individuals aged 50 and above that purchase canned items have an average annual income of $40,000 or less. These consumers identify their chief motives for purchasing canned products as “easy/quick preparation” and “long shelf-life.” A study published by Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) indicates that males, individuals from rural and low-income areas, and individuals aged 50 or below have higher percentages of BPA concentration in their bodies. These individuals are also more likely to not have proper health insurance providing access to a doctor for preventative treatment. In order to reduce the toxics exposure, local grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Kroger should aim to eliminate products containing BPA from their shelves or at least include warning labels to increase consumer awareness of these hazardous products. Regardless of whether you use food stamps to purchase food, you are hyperconscious of time, or you enjoy the ease of purchasing canned items, you deserve to know what is in your food.

Click here to view Toxic Free NC’s BPA Policy Brief!

July 21 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

Just twenty minutes outside of Raleigh, North Carolina is a white house with blue shutters, blue doors. The exterior of the house is composed of an eroding material that seems to eat at itself from the inside out. I have lived in this house for over fourteen years. I have watched the house grow older and rustier and become more of a cardboard box than a home. As a child, I would walk through a field behind my house. Most of the time, this field was barren, a seemingly deserted terrain, with symmetrical rows of mounds of dirt. I used to trudge carefully in between the rows, leaving footprints in my wake. When I would wander too far, I would retrace my footprints back to my cardboard house. It never occurred to me that this may have been a commercial field where I was unwelcome, that my curiosity had a name—trespassing.

“¡No vayas tan lejos!” (Don’t go so far!) my mother would scold.

It wasn’t until much later that I started to notice my surrounding area, the many acres of tobacco and corn and sweet potatoes and crops I couldn’t recognize from a car window. At the time, I didn’t fully understand what I was looking at or the greater implications. Even as I watched a truck of migrant farmworkers pass by from a school bus window at 5 a.m. one morning in middle school, I still didn’t understand. It wasn’t until I recently accompanied a group—consisting of representatives from Toxic Free NC and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services—to visit and meet local migrant workers that it finally sunk in—these workers put their lives in danger every day to complete their work. This is real.

The farmworkers we met gave us a warm welcome. One worker stopped mowing the lawn when he saw us approaching and only resumed after we left. They offered us peaches and plums and apologized for not having refreshments available for us. When we attempted to assure them that we were grateful for their hospitality and not to worry, one man continued to insist that he should have gone to the grocery store prior to our visit. They were eager to share their stories with us. When asked about what they perceive as the most dangerous aspect of their job, a 50-year-old worker mentioned his fear of potential pesticide exposure.

“Con los pesticidas, uno tiene que tener cuidado con el trabajo porque muchos plantas llevan pesticidas,” he said. “Y tienes que tener cuidado con el calor. Usar más camisas con manga larga, paño, guantes… Ahorita que esta un calorón feo—nombre—tiene que tomar mucha agua y tener cuidado al tomar su paso.”

“One has to be careful when handling pesticides while working because many plants have pesticides,” he said. “And one has to be careful with the heat. Use more long sleeves, washcloths, and gloves…. Now when there’s a terrible heat—no way—you need to drink a lot of water and watch your step.”

When asked about their work, they all replied with a version of, “It’s rough.” To my astonishment, none of the workers dwelled on negative aspects of working in the fields. They recognized that their work is difficult, especially working in the heat, but they were not resentful or indignant in regards to their situation. Despite acknowledging the danger of fieldwork, they stated that several other jobs are just as difficult and hazardous. Many worked other arduous jobs prior to fieldwork—roofing, warehouse work, slaughterhouse work, packaging, factory work, and many others. To them, it was just work, work that no one else would complete due to the laborious conditions. Many workers declared their pride in the work they do in the fields.

One 48-year-old woman discussed the obstacles she had to overcome in order to work in a new country. She maintained that her motivation to work was always to provide food and housing for her children. As of today, she has worked in agriculture for twenty years.

“Para mí era muy difícil [ser trabajadora agrícola] porque yo nunca he trabajado así en la labor,” she said. “En México yo había trabajado solo de ama de casa. El trabajo sí es muy pesado para uno, más cuando una trae familia. Tiene uno que dar los niños a cuidar… Para ellos [mis niños] era un poco difícil. Era difícil porque como yo no conocía y no tenía nadie que los cuidara, yo tenía que cargar con ellos al trabajo. Y pues, por eso los complicaba mucho. No les gustaba. Ellos querían regresar pero era difícil.”

“For me, it was very difficult [being a farmworker] because I had never worked this way before,” she said. “In Mexico, I had only been a house wife. The work is very difficult for one, even more difficult when one brings their family. You have to give the kids to someone that will take care of them… I didn’t know anyone, so I had to bring the kids to work with me. They hated it. They complained about wanting to go home, but I had no one to leave them with, no one I knew who would babysit them.”

The woman explained that the language barrier was another obstacle she had to overcome. At first, she could only use eye contact and body language as a means to understand her employers. Many American employers were considerate and sympathetic to her situation, trying their best to use creative alternatives in communication until she learned the language. Other employers, however, grew angry and frustrated when she couldn’t understand them.

“Más que nada hay que tener más cuidado para la gente que trabajan en el campo porque es muy difícil,” she said. “Muy pesado. A veces tienen que trabajar—yo he visto cómo trabajan bajo la lluvia y en calorones tan fuertes… Yo llegue a trabajar cuando a veces estaban tirando veneno y uno lo traen así trabajando. Tirando veneno y otras atrás de la máquina cortando tabaco.”

“More than anything, one has to be more mindful of the people who work in the fields because it is very difficult work,” she said. “Very laborious. Sometimes they have to work—I have seen how they work in heavy rain and in unbearable heat… I arrive to work sometimes when they are applying poison, and they still have them [farmworkers] work. Spilling poison and another behind the machinery, cutting tobacco.”

What some workers suggested when asked what could be done to implement positive change in the system was increased visits to work sites. They explained that visiting workers more often would likely create a greater understanding between groups of people, especially in terms of workers and employers. Some discussed the importance of education, wishing that their children or grandchildren or younger people they know would recognize the difficulty of fieldwork and decide to continue their studies. Through education, they hoped that the youth might have the opportunity to seek a better life.

When I went home that night, I thought about the migrant farmworkers. I thought about the 52-year-old man who never gets to go home, who sends money to his family in Mexico and calls them every week. I thought about what it must feel like to never be able to see your family. I thought about the 70-year-old man who works just as much as the others, despite his bad back. When was the last time he has seen a doctor? I thought about the 50-year-old man who works before sunrise to after sunset every day and still has the will power to mow the lawn after his workday. I thought about the 48-year-old woman who lifts heavy boxes every day despite her small frame, who comes home late to feed her children and her grandchildren. Worst of all, I thought about wandering the field behind my house as a child and never realizing that workers like the ones I met might have been in my backyard all along.

July 19 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

In December of 2016, Gina McCarthy—the former administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA—delivered a letter to the current administration of the EPA, petitioning a delay in the implementation of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Prior to this petition, most of the revised WPS was scheduled to officially go into effect on January 2, 2017. This petition proposed that the EPA place the implementation date behind a full year due to violations such as failing to provide adequate educational materials regarding WPS rule changes. In February of 2017, Barbara Glenn—the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, or NASDA—urged the EPA to publish an official letter relaying their agreement to delay implementation. Glenn requested that the EPA delay WPS until “adequate enforcement guidance, educational materials, and training resources have been completed and the state lead agencies have the tools, time, and resources necessary to effectively implement the rule changes and assist the regulated community with compliance activities.” The EPA is yet to publicly release an effective date for WPS since its recent decision to grant NASDA’s petition.

The most recent revision to WPS was published in the Federal Register in November of 2015, which aimed to strengthen protections for farmworkers and their families. Since 2015, there have been hundreds of incidents of pesticide exposure that have jeopardized the health and lives of farmworkers. In February of this year near Bakersfield, California, an aerial application of a fungicide was applied to an almond farm while six workers were still in the field. This farm failed to notify and remove their workers prior to application, needlessly exposing them to a harmful pesticide. Despite the $500 fine that was issued to the employer for violating WPS, it is impossible to reverse the harmful effects caused by pesticide exposure. In addition to this, in June of this year, two pesticide exposure incidents occurred on a farm in Watsonville, California within a week of each other. Over 25 farmworkers were exposed to harmful insecticides and fungicides in two separate cases of pesticide drift that occurred in rapid succession of one another. As a result, several farmworkers were hospitalized due to severe dizziness, eye irritation, and other symptoms of illness. Violations such as the ones in Bakersfield and Watsonville further indicate an importance for effective revisions and swift enforcement of the WPS, changes that may not be implemented in time to help farmworkers currently suffering from pesticide exposure in their day-to-day lives.

A new regulation under the revised WPS aims to lessen the burden of toxics exposure by addressing the issue of children having direct contact with pesticides. The EPA has included a “first-time ever minimum age requirement,” which states, “Children under 18 are prohibited from handling pesticides.” It has long been known that the developing organ systems of children often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The EPA recognizes that children are more susceptible to toxics exposure, because children take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults. Children under 18 are at a higher risk of becoming developmentally and cognitively impaired due to pesticide exposure. The new WPS rule change would reduce the negative effects of toxics exposure on children by prohibiting them from handling pesticides. The choice to delay implementation of WPS prevents employers from enforcing safety measures such as this one, harming children who continue to handle pesticides.

By delaying implementation of the revised WPS, the EPA is allowing farmworkers to continue to be exposed to pesticides while maintaining limited regulation. While the EPA has managed to implement a couple of changes to WPS in 2017, many changes still remain unaffected. According to their website, the EPA plans to execute three major changes under WPS on January 2, 2018. These requirements under the revised WPS are listed as the following: “pesticide safety training must cover the expanded content; pesticide safety information (posters) must meet the revised standards; and handlers must suspend applications if workers or other people are in the application exclusion zone.” New regulations under the WPS such as the suspension of pesticide application while workers or others are present will help minimize the risk of pesticide exposure. Ensuring that these requirements are enacted as soon as possible is the best way to protect farmworkers and their families.

June 20 2017

By Patricia Patterson, Toxic Free NC Policy Advocacy Intern

In July of 2015, among growing concern for pollinator populations and the need for growers and beekeepers to communicate more effectively about pesticide application, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture requested $27,750 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund to register the state for online mapping programs through FieldWatch. FieldWatch, Inc., formerly known as DriftWatch, is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting pollinator protection and human health and safety through the implementation of mapping registry programs. DriftWatch and BeeCheck are programs under FieldWatch, Inc. that map and track specialty crops and beehives. These online programs allow both organic and conventional farmers to register the location of their fields and/or beehives as well as access locations of surrounding fields and apiaries.

The FieldWatch map mimics Google Earth with registered locations displayed as color-coded pins. While it may be simple to filter between conventional and organic growing conditions and crop types on the map, users are deprived of distance accuracy in heavy-registered areas. Pesticide applicators may not access all surrounding apiary/field locations on FieldWatch due to the voluntary registration policy and location overload. Aside from the location pins on the map, FieldWatch does not provide a method for gauging the relative distance from an apiary or field to a user’s location, and it does not provide the exact location of a beehive (see Figure 1). Beekeepers may register several hives under one address, but FieldWatch does not monitor the exact location of each hive. Oversights such as these can lead to misinformation, pesticide drift, and can cause harmful pollinator and crop damage.

Figure 1. Registered Beehives in North Carolina (June 2017, retrieved from https://nc.driftwatch.org/map)

In North Carolina, approximately 34 fields are registered in FieldWatch as “organically grown” or certified organic; 16 of those are certified organic, and 18 are “organically grown.” About 250 fields are registered as “conventionally grown” (see Figure 2). Unlike organic farmers, conventional farmers apply synthetic chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides to their crops. The mishandling of pesticides by conventional farmers, including unregistered conventional farmers, can impact the health of pollinators in North Carolina and damage surrounding crops. The prevalence of conventional farming indicates a need for greater communication between beekeepers and farmers that choose to use pesticides, a need that may not be met due to the lack of total participation by all farmers and beekeepers in North Carolina.

Figure 2. Registered “Conventionally Grown” Crops in North Carolina (June 2017, retrieved from https://nc.driftwatch.org/map)

Thousands of North Carolinian farmers and beekeepers may not be registered in FieldWatch because of technological and educational barriers. FieldWatch states that those who do not own a computer should contact their state’s data steward to create an account. For non-computer users, this contact information, provided online under FieldWatch’s “Contact Us” page, may not be accessible. Potential users may also be unaware of FieldWatch due to its current voluntary policy for crop site registration and insufficient marketing for farmers without access to a computer. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture promotes the use of FieldWatch when they are doing outreach with beekeepers. This effort has led to the registration of 6,180 beehives, approximately 1,452 apiary locations, on FieldWatch. However, only a few hundred pesticide applicators have registered among over 50,000 farmers across the state. This is a prime example of how beekeepers disproportionately bare the burden of keeping their bees away from pesticides. The state of North Carolina possess the opportunity to reduce local crop damage and promote pollinator protection, but operating under a voluntary crop site registration policy restricts the potential for positive change for our environment and food systems.

November 30 2016

By Preston Peck, Policy Advocate, Toxic Free NC

Last month, I attended the first “Diálogos Internacionais sobre a Luta Contra os Agrotóxicos” (International Dialogue about the Fight Against Pesticides) in Guarerema, Brazil as one of four delegates from the United States. There were two other representatives from Farmworkers’ Association of Florida and another from CATA, based in New Jersey. I was ecstatic for the opportunity to hear from other advocates located around the globe about their own struggles against agrochemical companies, the poisonous products these companies promote, and methods of creating alternative agricultural systems. Simultaneously, I was humbled by the invitation to participate as I had never been to South America and knew very little about the state of the agricultural problems that the people faced. Toxic Free NC saw this as a means of carrying out part of our vision of “North Carolina as an integral member of a just global community”…so I went for it.

The conference lasted three days in the mountains of Guarerema (a small town about an hour east of São Paulo) on the Southeastern coast of Brazil. It was held at the Escola Nacional Florestan Fernandes (ENFF), which is a school associated with Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement, or Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), where activists are taught about social justice, how to organize for change, and the history of the movement. It was a beautiful place, secluded from the vibrant and busy atmosphere of São Paulo, where bananas and guava trees dominated the mountainsides.

mountainside — *Backside of ENFF, the school where the conference was held, showing the beauty and bountiful supply of bananas and guavas*

bananas — *Bananas right outside the ENFF cafeteria!*

There were around 30 participants in the conference from the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay, who all brought a unique perspective to the dialogue as we discussed our individual struggles with pesticides and the multinational corporations that produce and promote them. There were a various experts and activists there that spoke on a variety of topics ranging from the science of the toxicity of common pesticides; the impact of neoliberalism and capitalism on agricultural chemical production, use, and trade; and the regulation and policy of pesticides. There were also film screenings of people that were directly impacted by pesticides through their work or just by their proximity to operations that use agrochemicals in food production.

over-worked-and-under-spray — *Screening Toxic Free NC’s 2011 documentary “Overworked & Under Spray” to show the realities of youth farmworkers in North Carolina before a panel discussion on policy*

These panels and screenings provided an opportunity for rich conversation on the interconnectedness of our struggles, and a platform to share strategies to combat the harsh realities of chemical exposure. Participants recognized that to combat the “Big 6” pesticide producing companies (Bayer, DuPont, Dow, Syngenta, Monsanto, and BASF) that dominate our agricultural system, we must work together collectively, identifying that our struggles are the same in different political contexts. The impact of these chemicals are all too real for many people as many participants had either themselves lost, or knew someone that lost a loved one to pesticide exposure.

We are pushing back though. We are continuing to fight. We will win.

This was the attitude of the last day of the conference where we came together to talk about collective strategy, thank one another for their tireless efforts in the movement, and take a march in solidarity and remembrance to all of those who have fallen to pesticide exposure and a broken agricultural system. After the march, standing on the hillside, looking over the valleys, I felt a sense of rejuvenation of passion for this work. Seeing others from around the world instilled in me a stronger fight and a stronger will to change this broken system. For my family, for those that will come after me, and for a future without needless poisoning.

Marching in solidarity through the campus

UPDATE:

The week after the conference, and after I left ENFF, there was a raid on the campus by the Brazilian Police where 10 police cars surrounded the school grounds, then jumped through the check-in station, live shots were fired, and two MST leaders were arrested. This raid was part of of Operation “Castra” that took place simultaneously in three Brazilian states (São Paulo, Mato Grosso do Sul, and Paraná) and aim was to take down leaders of the Landless Movement, which the current government defines as a criminal organization. In a press release, the MST denounced the “escalation of repression of the struggle for land, which is dominated by agribusiness interests associated with the violence of the state of emergency”. Click here to watch a brief movie of the raid on ENFF.

Police arrest a MST leader, while holding guns up at bystanders loaded with live ammunition

This is yet another unfortunate example of how immediate the threat is to those that attempt to stop the powerful chemical industry and other multinational corporations that influence legislators. Fortunately, no one was hurt during these raids and there has been a strong showing of support in the month after. I know many of these people that were at this school and they are no criminals. They are fighting for justice in an oppressive world. They are literally fighting for their lives. This social movement is repudiated by human rights organizations and under Brazilian Supreme Court judgments. I stand in solidarity with those affected by these unjust actions to oppress those without access to land, clean water, or clean food.

September 16 2016

Zika and the insecticides being used to address the threat of spread, are of major concern for us at Toxic Free NC. The organophosphate insecticide widely used in South Florida and responsible for the recent bee kill in South Carolina is also toxic to humans. For North Carolina, as with South Carolina, with no insect-born contraction of the disease, chemical prevention needs to be weighed against the threats that they pose. Comprehensive mosquito population reduction is needed to ensure both human and environmental health in our state.

Here’s a couple of things to help curb concerns:

The cases ofZikain humans in North Carolina are all from people who contracted the virus while traveling, no mosquito has been found to carry in NC as of this writing.
The species of mosquito that carriesZika, Aedes Egypti, is not prevalent in NC.(Though that could be because researchers have been focused on other species).

That said, the CDC does list Charlotte as one of two NC cities that are of concern, especially if more common mosquito species become carriers.

This is a complex issue and we hope that people weigh their options on how to address it by exploring options such as Integrated Vector Control (IVC). For more depth, click here to check out PAN’s blog post. Given the low threat level in NC, non-chemical interventions are needed in order to ensure continued reduction in the overall mosquito population. With mosquito management practices in place, we can make North Carolina highly unwelcoming for Zika!

We will be monitoring both state and federal policy on this issue, such as the SMASH act currently under review in congressional subcommittee, to make sure decision makers are approaching this issue with the comprehensive care needed for effective human and environmental health protection.

Mosquito Management and other household alternatives

Common mosquito breeding sites to watch for and what can be done to prevent mosquito breeding grounds and control mosquito problem:

Clean roof gutters and downspouts
Do not over-irrigate lawns and fields
Discard old tires in approved disposal sites or store them inside
Empty outdoor containers that might collect water regularly or store indoors
Repair leaky plumbing and outside faucets
Screen rain barrels and openings to water tanks — seal them off from mosquitoes
Keep grass cut and bushes trimmed
Remove leaf piles frequently
Reduce the amount of English Ivy
Empty, clean and refill birdbaths twice weekly and small wading pools weekly
Change water and scrub vases holding flowers or cuttings twice each week, or cuttings in sand
Drain outlets from air conditioners
Connect wastewater drains to approved sewage disposal systems
Store wheelbarrows, carts, canoes and boats upside-down
Stock ornamental ponds with fish that eat mosquito larvae
Fill holes in trees with sand or mortar

Insect Repellents:

In general our recommendations for using any insect repellent are:

Choose oils or lotions rather than sprays, which produce fine particles that are easily inhaled.

Do not apply repellents to broken skin.

When food is being served nearby, be sure to stay well away from preparation and serving areas while applying repellents.

Wash your hands immediately after applying insect repellents.

Do not allow children to apply their own repellent, and do not apply repellents containing DEET or other pesticides directly to children’s skin. If you use such products, they can be applied to clothing instead.*

Do not use sunscreen/repellent combinations. Sunscreen needs to be reapplied more often than repellents, so the combination products can result in overexposure to pesticides.

Wash off all repellent from skin and clothing immediately after coming indoors.

*Citronella can be applied directly to the skin and is competitive with DEET on efficacy. DEET is a neurotoxin so, should you decide to go that route, just be cognizant of where and how much is applied.

Herbal Insect Repellant

15 drops lavender oil

15 drops tea tree oil

10 drops citronella oil

10 drops eucalyptus oil

10 drops cedarwood oil

In a one-ounce plastic squeeze bottle, mix these with your favorite unscented skin oil (olive oil works fine). Not recommended for pregnant women. Keep out of eyes. Try a small amount on your wrist first to check for skin sensitivities. Experiment with other ingredients to develop your own blend!

August 4 2016

Originally published on August 4, 2016 on NC Child’s blog

By Preston Peck and Tom Vitaglione

Toxic Free and NC Child have joined with concerned parents and local health advocates to ask major retailers to stop selling canned foods packaged with toxic bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that has been linked to many health problems for children. Federal and state authorities have declined to move quickly to require safe packaging, so we are calling on Kroger and its subsidiaries—like NC-based Harris Teeter—to eliminate BPA from its canned goods, and replace it with a safe alternative.

BPA is a dangerous synthetic chemical that disrupts the endocrine system and mimics the hormone estrogen. More than 300 animal and human studies have linked BPA exposure to a number of health problems, including breast and prostate cancer, asthma, obesity, behavioral changes and weakening of the immune system, and lowered sperm counts. For children in particular, BPA is associated with low birth weight, altered development of the brain, and attention deficit disorder.

A recent report, Buyer Beware: Toxic BPA and regrettable substitutes found in the linings of canned food, showed 62 percent of the Kroger products sampled (13 out of 21) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins. Of the Kroger products tested, two Harris Teeter brand cans tested positive (six Harris Teeter brand cans were tested total).

Unfortunately, seeking out products labeled “BPA free” may be another invitation to health concerns. Many retailers and national brands are phasing out BPA, but many are replacing it with harmful substitutes. For example, many cans tested for the Buyer Beware report were lined with a PVC-based polymer. These can linings are made from highly hazardous chemicals including vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen. Meanwhile, BPS—another common replacement for BPA—can elicit endocrine effects similar to BPA.

Kroger and Harris Teeter should commit to eliminating BPA from food cans sold in their stores and establish clear timelines and benchmarks for a transition to safer alternatives. The retailers should also work with their suppliers to ensure that BPA is not replaced with dangerous chemicals. All chemicals used in can linings should be fully disclosed to ensure consumer safety. Lastly, Kroger, Harris Teeter, and other retailers should adopt a comprehensive chemical policy to safely replace other chemicals of concern in their products and packaging.

There are a few things consumers can do to protect their families until retailers commit to safer product packaging:

Vote with your pocketbook. Only purchase canned food from manufacturers and retailers that exercise complete transparency about what chemicals are used in their canned food packaging.

Avoid canned goods and eat fresh when possible. In general, food that requires less processing and packaging materials will be less-toxic. Think dried beans as opposed to canned. When eating fresh or minimally processed foods isn’t possible, choose frozen food, food stored in glass jars, or food stored in aseptic packaging—i.e. those cartons you find products like milk, soup, and chopped tomatoes in.

Learn more! For more information about can testing results and which stores and food brands are transitioning to safer alternatives, visit www.toxicfoodcans.org.

Tom Vitaglione is Senior Fellow for Health and Safety at NC Child.

Preston Peck is a Policy Advocate at Toxic Free NC

July 18 2016

By Elisa Lazzarino, Toxic Free NC Policy Advocacy Intern

The North Carolina General Assembly recently voted to lift a popularly supported and arguably successful ban on e-waste in landfills. The move was harshly criticized by environmentalists in the state, as the landfill ban prevented the hazardous materials contained in electronic devices such as old TVs, cell phones, and computers from lingering in landfills and potentially leaking mercury and other hazardous substances into adjacent properties and groundwater. The ban provided support for a burgeoning e-cycling industry, throughout the state currently worth about $20 billion nationally, with recycling facilities contracting with the state to provide a receptacle for e-waste. Legislators opposed to the ban, however, claimed that the e-cycling program, which was in part funded by fees imposed on electronics manufacturers, burdened these manufacturers who would then pass the cost onto consumers. The state’s Department of Environmental Quality – infamous for its mismanaging of the coal ash crisis of the past few years – released a statement of support for the measure, echoing the legislators’ claims, and alluding to the illegal waste exports that may expose children to toxic chemicals, although they provided no evidence that NC facilities are doing this.

It’s important to acknowledge that e-cycling’s problems, as a relatively new industry, are indeed cause for concern, including instances of fraud involving the illegal shipment of e-waste overseas. But illegal exports aren’t out of states’ control. The US is one of just a handful of developed countries that does not regulate its e-waste exports, and by repealing the landfill ban, North Carolina has arguably taken a step backwards where we could have strengthened our export regulations. The prospect of mercury-laden landfills leaking into wetlands and aquifers, however, is hardly a consolation for the existing regulatory deficit, and legislators’ folksy platitudes tend to obscure the crony capitalism at play. Minus a small number of legislators who opposed the ban, the General Assembly’s conflation of these fraudulent e-cycling businesses with the entire industry is a symptom of the larger trend of deregulation in North Carolina. The repeal of the ban is part of the omnibus regulatory reform bill, Senate Bill 303, which is the legislature’s effort to overhaul regulations across a wide range of public and private sector activities. As with many of the other scrapped regulations, this ban on landfill disposal of e-waste not only mitigated contamination of soil and waterways, but supported a growing industry that encouraged the proper disposal of e-waste through no-cost recycling programs that generated millions of dollars annually and employed hundreds of people.

While legislators claim they have the interests of consumers in mind, it’s essential that we look critically at who benefits most from this measure. Manufacturers, now unburdened by e-cycling fees, are now saving approximately $1 million, which is a paltry amount relative to the annual profits of most major electronics manufacturers. Still, it’s highly unlikely that they will now pass these savings onto consumers, while under the ban, consumers and the government had a small but arguably effective means to keep the environmental and public health abuses of the electronics industry in check, and a path toward stronger environmental protections. Legislators’ myopic claims of regulatory burden miss several important factors that contribute to the environmental and public health risks inherent to consumer electronics. Deregulation of the electronics industry effectively absolves manufacturers – many of whom have been shown to engage in human rights abuses through the overseas manufacturing process as well as pollution – of their responsibility to the environment and to public health. Statements from elected officials about the greater benefits of lifting the ban are a representation of the triangulation and co-opting of legitimate concerns of the poor and working classes that has become commonplace in North Carolina. This kind of rhetoric from our legislators is a sign of a disturbing species of pro-corporate conservatism that masquerades as ‘traditional values’ conservatism. It’s time for North Carolinians to wake up from the neoconservative fantasy that polarizes our communities, hamstrings small businesses, and destroys our natural resources – and demand accountability from our elected representatives.