Beekeeper Laura Johnson enjoys tending to her buzzing friends, but the real motive behind her hobby is stopping the decline of honey bees.

Honey Bees (Photo: USDA)

Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has been threatening bees, and the dozens of crops they serve, around the world for the past several years.

So Johnson, an organic gardener in suburban Atlanta, decided it was time to jump into honey.

It wasn’t a great year to start. An unusually rainy season cut honey production for many Georgia beekeepers. And since Johnson’s hive was so new, she decided to let the bees keep their honey this year instead of harvesting it.

“That’s part of the reason I got a hive. I figure if we help the bees along maybe that will help. Without bees we won’t have food,” she said.

Johnson reasons that more bee keepers can help slow the decline of honey bees. And with scientists breeding stronger strains of bees, she hopes they have a fighting chance.

Right now she has one hive, but has plans for another in the spring.

“I’m trying to do it as natural as possible, with no chemicals,” she said. “I was green before it was cool.”

For example, she puts powdered sugar in the hive to get rid of mites and cinnamon to discourage ants.

Bee keepers across the US had a slightly better year in 2009, with honey bee losses slowing slightly in the U.S. over the 2008-2009 winter, when the most bees succumb to disease. About 29 percent of the domestic honey bees died from CCD and other causes, compared with 36 percent and 32 percent in the previous two winters.

While the year was better, losses of that magnitude are not “sustainable,” according to the report by the Apiary Inspectors of America and the USDA.

Georgia saw a rough harvest this year, according to avid beekeeper and county cooperative extension agent Tom Bonnell.  Honey production was down due to a weird confluence of heavy rain and heat. Bonnell’s hives only produced eight gallons this year, compared with 15 gallons last year.

Like his fellow bee keepers, Bonnell monitors reports about CCD, a phenomenon in which the bees leave the hive, become disoriented and fail to return, leaving the hive to die.

Some experts believe Colony Collapse Disorder can be attributed to a virus caused by the varroa mite; others say the bees are being poisoned by pesticides that act on the nervous system. The bees are exposed to the pesticides while eating pollen in crop fields, and the neurotoxins cause them to lose their bearings.

Some believe another contributing factor to CCD is the way bees are used in commercial agriculture, with beekeepers taking hives large distances across the US to pollinate fields. This theory maintains that the traveling bees become vulnerable to disease and stressed as they move in and out of their home turf.

Tom Bonnell demonstrates his working honey hives

“About every 10 years something comes up and aggravates the honey bee,” Bonnell said. “I think CCD is hitting the commercial bee keepers and not the hobbyists … (is) because they (hobbyists) don’t drag bees all over the United States.”

“Once you drag them from state to state you don’t know what they’re getting into.”

Heightened awareness of CCD has led to an increase in the number of new beekeepers and bee clubs, Bonnell said. And that’s a sweet situation.

“It can be a family adventure. You can look at that as an heirloom to pass down to generations,” Bonnell noted.

Commercial beekeeper Billy Engle also relishes the practice of bee keeping, but has decided to downsize this year because it’s too much work for his failing health.

Engle has operated Rose Creek Honey Farm in The Rock, Georgia for more than 20 years.

“It was not a good year for bees. Mine really have not died off like the previous two years, but I only had half a honey crop this time,” he said.

Birds, bees and frogs. We’ve known for a long time that they’re affected by pesticides and chemical pollution.

In the last few years, many scientists have come to see frogs, whose populations are in steep decline, as one of the most vulnerable; humankind’s canary in the coal mine.

Now researchers at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale are illuminating why frogs are in such deep trouble. They’ve found that just a few grains of a pesticide ingredient commonly used in California agriculture can make mountain streams lethal to frogs.

Don Sparling, a professor of zoology at SIU, recently discovered that the neurotoxin pesticides used on crops (peaches, grapes, nuts, tomatoes) in California’s Central Valley are making their way into the snow and streams of the nearby Sierra Mountains, contaminating the environment for the native frogs that breed there.

Sparling’s study, being published this month, found that Pacific tree frogs and foothill yellow-legged frogs are declining in population because natural waterways are polluted with of endosulfan — the active ingredient in many pesticides used in the area.

Sparling and his team found that .3 parts per billion of endosulfan in water was enough to kill half of the frogs exposed. At higher concentrations, the waters were lethal.

“At 0.8 parts per billion, we lose all of them,” Sparling said in a news announcement.  “We always thought there was an association between pesticides and declining amphibian populations, and we’re building up a body of evidence to show this is the case.”

Sparling and his team discovered that the most likely way the chemicals used in the agriculture-intense Central Valley found their way into the Sierras was by wind.

“These pesticides are applied by airplanes and we found that the wind would blow some of it up into the mountains, for instance,” Sparling said. “In other cases, these chemicals would volatize after being applied, turning into a gaseous state, which could also be picked up and spread into the mountains by wind.”

With only a tiny amount needed to alter the water — literally only a few grains were enough to infect 500 gallons of water — the pesticides appeared to be playing a big role in the frogs’ decline, he explained. The agricultural calendar which calls for pesticide applications in late winter and early spring, also contributes to the problem because this is when the frogs’ larvae are most vulnerable.

Even “sub-lethal” concentrations of the pesticide result in fatal outcomes for the frogs, with tadpoles growing off-center tails that render them incapable of swimming away from predators or paralyzing muscles, creating frogs with impaired mobility.

Sparling said he believes pesticides are needed in growing crops – not everyone agrees – but that the levels and types of chemicals being used should be examined.

Losing frogs creates a weak-link in the ecosystem that can devastate the ecology of the area, and also serves as a warning to humans of the potential damage from chemically grown or treated foods.

The study is being published in the August edition of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

(Photo credit: Don Sparling and graduate student David Dimitrie show tadpole research tanks, SIU.)

As toxicologists see it, our chemical world is neither as dangerous as portrayed by the mainstream media and environmental groups, nor as safe as the American Chemistry Council and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) would have us believe.

That’s according to a survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology in early 2009. The survey, released Thursday, was administered by Harris Interactive and conducted by the nonprofit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University.

“This survey suggests that the public doesn’t get a full and balanced picture of chemical risk,” said Dr. Robert Lichter, the survey director.

While the toxicologists surveyed believed that certain chemicals portrayed as dangerous in media stories actually pose little risk — such as those used in Teflon and the Bisphenol A used in plastic – more than half of them said they believed that pesticides pose a “significant health risk” and that chemicals cause hormonal disruptions in humans.

Distortions occur when the media pay too much attention to individual cases and also to the agenda set by environmental groups, according to the survey findings. More than 90 percent said they felt media coverage of chemical-related issues lacked balance and failed to distinguish good studies from bad studies and also to explain that “the dose makes the poison” (that chemicals that are dangerous in high doses can be safe in small doses).

They also said that WebMD and Wikipedia offered more balanced coverage than more established media outlets.

A majority of toxicologists felt that most government agencies do a better job than the media, environmental groups or trade associations of accurately portraying chemical risks, though they rated the Environmental Protection Agency (40 % ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (47%) lower.

The findings:

When asked to agree or disagree with statements about chemical safety and regulation:

• 26% believe cosmetics pose a significant health risk
• 33% believe food additives pose a significant health risk
• 55% believe pesticides pose a significant health risk
• 53% believe chemicals cause endocrine disruption
• Only 10% believe organic or “natural” products are inherently safer
• Only 6% believe that any exposure to a harmful chemical is unacceptable
• 69% say chemicals do not need to be regulated according to the precautionary principle
• Only 23% say the U.S. regulatory system is inferior to Europe’s
• 54% say U.S. regulators are not doing a good job explaining chemical risks

Despite recent controversies in the news over the safety of commonly used chemicals, few toxicologists believe they pose a high health risk:

• 3% see Teflon as having a high degree of risk
• 3% see genetically modified organisms as high risk
• 9% see Bisphenol A, a component of many plastics, as high risk
• 11% see phthalates, which make vinyl flexible, as high risk
• 12% see high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks, as high risk

The toxicologists overwhelmingly say that environmental activist groups overstate the health risks of chemicals. But they also say industry groups underplay the risks:

• 96% say Greenpeace overstates the health risks of chemicals
• 80% say the Environmental Defense Fund overstates chemical risks
• 79% say the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Science in the Public Interest overstate the risks
• 57% say the American Chemistry Council understates chemical risks
• 60% say the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) understates chemical risks
• In contrast, majorities say that most U.S. governmental agencies accurately portray risk, with only the EPA (40%) and the CPSC (47%) falling below a majority

The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, according to Harris Interactive, a survey research firm.

For decades, relief work in Africa has fought a deadly disease with an environmentally deadly chemical, spraying with DDT to quell malarial outbreaks, even though world health agencies know that DDT has a devastating effect on the environment, killing wildlife and contaminating water supplies.

Today, the UN Agencies announced they will try to move 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, away from reliance on the persistent, toxic chemical by using other methods to fight mosquito-born malaria, which infects more than 250 million people a year, claiming 880,000 lives annually.

The new techniques include eliminating mosquito breeding sites, securing homes with mesh screens and introducing installing mosquito-repelling trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae, according to a United Nations news release.

The new projects evolved from a successful five-year pilot program using DDT alternatives in Mexico and Central America, where the pesticide-free approach has reduced cases of malaria by 60 percent, the UN reports.

The UN and the World Health Organization (WHO) with help from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) hope to cut DDT use worldwide by 30 percent by 2014 while continuing to reduce malaria.

“The new projects underline the determination of the international community to combat malaria while realizing a low, indeed zero, DDT world,” said UN Environment Programme Executive Director Achim Steiner. “Today we are calling time on a chemical rooted in the scientific knowledge and simplistic options of a previous age.”

Malaria is a sometimes fatal disease caused by a parasite transmitted by infected mosquitoes. Human victims first experience fever, headache, and vomiting. It is endemic in tropical areas, including Sub-Saharan Africa.

DDT, the synthetic pesticide Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane was first found effective in fighting malaria and typhus during World War II. But its use as an agricultural insecticide after the war became controversial when people realized that the persistent chemical created widespread environmental damage. It’s commonly blamed for the near extinction of the U.S. national bird, the American Bald Eagle, and for polluting ground water and soil. Environmentalist Rachel Carson sounded the alarm about DDT in her seminal work, Silent Spring.

DDT is not the only pesticide used to kill mosquito populations in malaria-prone parts of the world; many others are used as well, but DDT may be the most controversial chemical deployed against malaria, given it has been banned for agricultural use around the world in recognition of its harm to the environment.

In some areas, it is believed that mosquitoes have developed a resistance to DDT.

(Photo credit: United Nations)

The EPA has issued a list of pesticides that will be screened for possibly disrupting the human, as well as animal, endocrine system. The list, released Wednesday, focuses on “endocrine disruptors” which are chemicals that can negatively impact hormones produced by the endocrine system. The system regulates all biological processes in the body – specifically, growth, metabolism and reproduction.

“Gathering this information,” said EPA Adminstrator Lisa P. Jackson, “will help us work with communities and industry to protect Americans from harmful exposure. Endocrine disruptors can cause lifelong health problems, especially for children.”
The endocrine, or hormone, system is found in all mammals, birds and fish. It is made up of glands, hormones that are produced by the glands and receptors in different organs that respond to the hormones.

The EPA will have the makers of 67 pesticide chemicals test their products this summer to see if their chemicals are responsible for disrupting the endocrine systems.

The testing will be done through the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (ESDP) set up by the EPA, which commonly relies on companies to test their own products.

The list of all 67 chemicals can be found here. The EPA stresses that this list is not a definitive collection of known endocrine disruptors. The chemicals selected were chosen because there is a high potential for human exposure through food and water, residential activity or agricultural pesticide application. Many of the chemicals found on the list are present in commonly used lawn treatments, insect sprays, solvents and other household products.

“These pesticide chemicals were picked because we wanted to start with ones that more people might be exposed to,” says EPA spokesperson Suzanne Ackerman. “They were not selected based on which ones are considered most dangerous. We won’t know that until we have them tested.”

Several chemicals on the list, though, have been flagged for health concerns. Atrazine, for instance, has been banned in the European Union. Atrazine is among the most common, if not the most common, herbicide used in the United States.

Other recognizable chemicals on the testing list, include diazinon, malathion, carbaryl and permethrin. Diazinon has been banned for household use in the U.S., but remains available for agricultural use as an insecticide. Permethrins turn up on flea collars for dogs, which some health groups consider too toxic for household use.

Endocrine disruptors work in several ways. Sometimes, the chemical mimics a natural hormone, tricking the body into over-responding to the stimulus. The endocrine disruptor can also block the effects of a hormone from certain receptors. In other cases, the chemical can stimulate or inhibit the endocrine system, causing the overproduction or underproduction of hormones. Sometimes, as in the birth control pill, a chemical intentionally inhibits the endocrine system.

Impaired endocrine function can result in lowered fertility and other health conditions.

The direct connections between human diseases of the endocrine system and the system’s exposure to environmental contaminants, are still not clear, according to the EPA. This is why the establishment of the screening program is considered an important step.
Copyright © 2009 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Discerning diners would probably not find this much of a topic for dinner discussion, but back in the fields where their broccoli is grown, fungus can stop a good crop cold. Most farmers apply fungicides to deal with the problem, but fungicides, a subset of pesticides, can kill beneficial organisms and cause environmental damage in the course of attacking the problem invader.

Fungicides, like other pesticides, also can wind up growing better fungus as the disease adapts to fend off the poison. The fungus becomes resistant to the pesticide, and creeps back ever-more resilient. Which requires more chemical treatments; which can increase resistance; requiring more treatments…

To try to break this cycle, researchers in Canada have been developing new “green” fungicides that are less environmentally damaging because they go in for a targeted kill. This surgical approach plays off the plant’s own defense strategy by attacking the fungal infection as it ramps up to break through the plants defenses. Effectively, the new eco-fungicides, called “paldoxins,” disrupt the fungus’ response to the plant.

It works like this: The plant reacts to the encroachment of the fungus, and puts up a barrier of defenses; the fungus reacts by hitting those defenses with its own chemical reaction.

The paldoxins or anti-fungal agents intervene, rendering the fungus unable to hit back at the plant.  Instead of dropping a bomb – the old way — which can damage the plant and the beneficial organisms that assist its growth, they go in for a guerilla attack, selectively disrupting the fungus’ ability to fight through a plant’s defense mechanisms.   The researchers refer to these agents of targeted destruction as “inhibitors of fungal enzymes” (a term that we non-chemists will thankfully not be tested on).

The benefit is clear — the surrounding landscape is not harmed by paldoxins. Also, in theory, the fungus has been outwitted and should not develop defenses to thwart this type of intervention.

These developments could help save row crops, in addition to produce, according to a press announcement about the findings, released at the 237th meeting of the American Chemical Society over the weekend.

“Conventional fungicides kill constantly,” said study leader Soledade Pedras, a chemistry professor at the University of Saskatchewan. “Our products only attack the fungus when it’s misbehaving or attacking the plant. And for that reason, they’re much safer.”

Not everyone will be convinced. We’ve been down a similar path with other types of pesticides, specifically those that tunnel into a plant’s biology, working from the inside out to thwart pests. But those types of pesticide/plant interventions are different in a key way — they aim to alter the crop plant itself through genetic modifications.

This approach confuses the invading pest, without interfering with the biology of the crop plant, which appears to be a truly safer; plant-preserving, instead of plant-altering approach.

Pedras’ group has developed six synthetic versions of the paldoxins and successfully tested them in the lab on crucifer plants, including rapeseed plants and mustard greens. They plan field tests on other crops, including grasses such as wheat, rye, and oat which are more difficult to protect with fungicides.

The study was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the University of Saskatchewan.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

What happens when salmon are given a pesticide cocktail? The effects can be more pronounced than the damage done from exposure a single pesticide, according to a study just released in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal.

In an attempt to replicate real world pesticide exposures, researchers from NOAA Fisheries Service and Washington State University studied how coho salmon reacted to five common pesticides, individually and in various combinations.

They found that almost every pesticide pairing resulted in a chemical reaction in the brain – a reduction of an enzyme – that could lead to the accumulation of acetylcholine, which would affect the salmon’s behavior and jeopardize its ability to survive.

Need we mention here that salmon are already facing a host of difficulties from warming rivers inhospitable to breeding behavior to industrial pollution and overfishing?

The pesticides were tested at various levels (including some considered safe), for a total of 30 different combinations – 20 of the 30 produced stronger reactions than the chemicals could be expected to produce on their own. The outcomes led the researchers to conclude that it was the synergy of the chemicals being combined that increased the toxicity.

Three of the 30 combinations killed the fish outright within 24 hours.

The chemicals tested included those commonly used in agriculture in California and the Pacific Northwest – diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl and carbofuran – and found in runoff and streams.

The final conclusion, according to a synopsis on the journal website: “In light of the current findings, mixtures that have been considered relatively safe may pose more of a hazard to wildlife than was previously thought.”

Or, as co-author NOAA zoologist Nathaniel Scholz told the AP:  “We need to design new research that takes into effect the real-world situation where pesticides almost always coincide with other pesticides.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Geoff LeBaron gets paid to count birds, among other things. And this is an especially busy time of year for him and all bird watchers. From Dec. 14 through Jan. 5 the National Audubon Society conducts its annual Christmas Bird Count. LeBaron has served as its director since 1987.

More from GRN
Slideshow: Top 20 common birds in decline

“It’s neat to be able to work for the National Audubon Society in this [endeavor] that brings birding and ornithology together,” LeBaron says, explaining that ornithologists like himself are trained scientists who study what birds do, while birders are folks, also like himself, who are captivated by watching birds. Not all ornithologists, he points out, enjoy birdwatching as a pastime.

“The Christmas Bird Count is a unique crossover with ‘citizen scientists’ making important contributions. These amateurs have an impact on the overall knowledge [of ornithology].”

So what exactly is the Christmas Bird Count? The count was initiated by ornithologist Frank Chapman in 1900 as an alternative to the traditional holiday ‘side hunt,’ in which teams went up against each other to see which group could shoot the most birds. Chapman, who worked for the American Museum of Natural History, suggested that instead of shooting, they count birds in order to identify and record their numbers. He realized that declining bird populations could not survive over-hunting.

Other than the intoxicating smell of new text books and notebooks, the familiar scents of back-to-school may be changing. Ammonia-scented hallways, newly sealed and fuming gym floors, odorously painted classrooms as well as lawns with the subtle scents of pesticide treatments, may be a thing of the past.

In today’s more environmentally conscious world, public and private schools are rethinking how they maintain their buildings. Reducing toxic chemicals in schools – as in our homes — is not only good for the environment, but for those who use these buildings.

In Maryland’s Montgomery County outside of Washington D.C., the public schools have long taken a pro-active approach in using non-toxic cleaners.

“We want our buildings to be clean and at the same time healthy for our students, faculty and the person doing the cleaning,” says Larry Hurd, building services trainer for the school district.

Ten years ago, the district, which oversees 200 schools, changed from an oil-based sealer for their wood gym floors to a water-based sealer. It works well, says Mr. Hurd, and toxins are no longer an issue. “The oil-based sealer was bad for the students and other visitors to our schools, but it was real, real bad for the person applying the sealer.” That person was exposed to the sealer fumes for as much as four hours.

Another major change in Montgomery County involved switching to a single less-toxic cleaner that replaced seven conventional cleaners that had been used in the schools — one for windows, another for floors, another for restrooms and so on. Starting about three years ago, the school system began using the green cleaner Alpha HP, made by Johnson Diversity, for all their cleaning uses, Hurd said.

The wood floors throughout the district are no longer stripped with caustic chemical strippers. Instead they are top-scrubbed with water and Alpha PH, which removes the two top coats, says Hurd, and involves less time and no toxins.

Alpha HP, a hydrogen peroxide-based cleaner, has been certified by Green Seal, a nonprofit company that promotes products that don’t harm the environment. Hydrogen Peroxide cleaners break down in the environment into basic elements faster and more completely than many other chemicals, such as ammonia or chlorine bleach, used in conventional cleaners.

More and more schools are getting on board with environmentally safe cleaning products, says a Green Seal spokesperson. In fact, schools across the entire state of New York is now going with Green Seal-approved cleaning solutions, and in May the state of Illinois adopted a similar green cleaning program, the Green Clean Schools Act.

In addition to being safe, Hurd points out that the Montgomery County School District saves on water since Alpha HP uses a measured dispenser system. Depending on the job, the Alpha HP powder is measured out and then mixed with just the right amount of water. And the one quart Alpha HP container is also recyclable.

“We’re really proud of our program,” says Hurd. “All our custodians are put through basic training. We take a systematic team approach to cleaning in which we clean all year long, looking for healthy ways to clean around the clock. We detail one quarter of our buildings every day – walls, floors, lights — so by the end of the week, everything has been thoroughly cleaned.” Years ago, Hurd notes, schools spent the summer cleaning to get ready for fall. But with the buildings being used all year long, “you can’t wait till summer to clean.”

No Kids Were Harmed During This Cleaning

At the Northwest School in Seattle, Washington, the environment is one of the three legs on which the school is founded, notes science teacher and environmental program director Herb Bergamini. The private school (pictured at top) was founded in 1980 and one of its key tenets, Bergamini says, is that “the students be invested in taking care of their space, their environment from the get-go.” Taking care of their environment at a young age, he says, will help them take care of it once they enter the “real world.”

Recycling, reducing carbon emissions and composting are not all these kids do. They actually are responsible for keeping their school clean. Scraping gum from the desks, cleaning toilets, vacuuming, maintaining wood floors are part of their day. Led by a senior, each student group is made up of all grades, sixth through 11th, as well as a faculty member who assists the seniors with leadership skills. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, classes stop at 9:40 a.m. and for the next 10 minutes, each team does their assignment. There is also a janitor who oversees the restrooms and dining rooms.

Besides learning responsibility, the students realize that their actions – such as sticking gum under a desk or leaving a half-filled recycled bottle in a bin – have an effect on their fellow students.

In the last year, says Bergamini, “we have switched to the ‘Simple Green’ line of products. We also use Bon Ami scouring powder and Murphy’s oil soap for the wood floors. Because our building is more than 100 years old, we have a lot a wood.” Simple Green cleaners are non-toxic and biodegradeable and meet Green Seal’s environmental standards. The non-toxic Bon Ami , Bergamini points out, has no dye, chlorine or perfume and is safe for the environment.

In the Irving Independent School District, composed of 35 schools and located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, crews use another Green Seal-approved cleaning product called Stride Citrus Neutral Cleaner. In addition, Irving schools spokesman Tony Thetford says the school district is in the process of taking competitive bids on several green cleaners in hopes of adopting them. “We have gone out for bid on the Aquaria Floor Finish, Freedom Floor Stripper, Alpha-HP Multi-Surface Cleaner, and Glance NA Glass Cleaner that are Green-Seal certified. These products will be added to our inventory as soon as possible,” Thetford said.

Beginning with all 20 elementary schools, custodians are using new Pro-Team Super Coach HEPA Vacuums with HEPA filters that remove nearly 100 percent of dirt and allergens from floors and surfaces, Thetford says.

Leslie Reichert, aka the Cleaning Coach, advises homeowners and cleaning professionals on green methods of cleaning. But her advice can also be applied to schools. In fact, she recently assisted the Northbridge High School in the Worcester area of Massachusetts by suggesting they use microfiber cloths, one of the mainstays of her cleaning program.

“The new design of the school was nearly all glass. The janitors were spending a lot of time spraying the class with ammonia-based cleaners. I gave them the blue micro-fiber cloths which they just spray with water. No chemicals are involved. It saves on paper towels and they’re not filling up the students and janitors’ lungs with chemicals,” Reichert said.

Reichert also recommends mops that come with removable and washable microfiber pads or central vacuum systems.

Keeping Critters Out

Pesticide maintenance is another issue that affects the environment. The Northwest School in Seattle recently completed a major remodeling, says Bergamini. Although the Seattle area is probably not a mecca for critters, he says they made sure they removed all points of entries.

In warmer climates, such as Texas, keeping the schools free of bugs is more of an issue and may require some form of pesticide. Andy Garza, the Regulatory Compliance and Training Coordinator at Irving ISD, says Irving “has implemented a pro-active Integrated Pest Management approach. We are conducting structural and landscaping inspections to identify any repairs that need to be completed to prevent pest ingress. We are using monitors to identify pest activity before it becomes a problem. Finally, we use safe, non-chemical control methods (glue boards, light traps, etc.).”

The EPA doesn’t rule out the use of pesticides, stating that they are “powerful tools for controlling pests.” But they advise that they be used judiciously since children tend to be more sensitive to these chemicals than adults – especially young kids who may be crawling or putting their hands in their mouths. Specifically, the EPA suggests that schools use integrated pest management (IPM). As stated in their website: “IPM is a safer and usually less costly option for effective pest management in a school community. A school IPM program uses common sense strategies to reduce sources of food, water and shelter for pests…and takes advantage of all pest management strategies, including the judicious and careful use of pesticides when necessary.”

Among the common sense strategies suggested by the EPA:

• Make sure the problem or pest is identified before taking action.

• Vegetation, shrubs and wood mulch should be kept at least one foot away from structures.

• Cracks and crevices in walls, floors and pavement are either sealed or eliminated.

• Lockers and desks are emptied and thoroughly cleaned at least twice yearly.

• Food-contaminated dishes, utensils, surfaces are cleaned by the end of each day.

• Garbage cans and dumpsters are cleaned regularly.

• Litter is collected and disposed of properly at least once a week.

• Fertilizers should be applied several times (e.g.,spring, summer, fall) during the year, rather than one heavy application. (And, we might add, there are organic fertilizers that help build the soil and don’t produce nitrogen-heavy runoff.)

• If pesticides are necessary, use spot treatments rather than area-wide applications. (See our interview and video with Michael Bohdan of The Pest Shop in Plano for more ideas on organic pest control.)

In Irving, Garza says the key to using chemicals is in the application. “What makes a chemical safe,” he says, “is the person applying it and the way in which the chemical is applied. The IISD strictly enforces appropriate application times and waiting the proper amount of time necessary for safe reentry.”

More and more, environmentally clean schools are becoming the standard. As Montgomery County’s Larry Hurd says “Kids and staff are happier when their school is clean. When the air is good, you feel better. It’s a better experience for everyone.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

In light of recent European bans of a pesticide linked to Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), at least one key bee expert is calling for a ban of the same pesticide in the United States.

“In the United States, drastic action is needed,” says Canadian geneticist Joe Cummins, explaining that U.S. farmers and beekeepers shouldn’t have to wait for more evidence or for an air-tight explanation for the complex syndrome, which threatens one in every third bite of food in the United States. Now most apiarists and scientists realize that pesticides are a factor in CCD, he says.

Cummins’ remarks, in an interview with GreenRightNow, come less than a month after Germany’s ban of clothianidin, a pesticide commonly used to keep insects off of corn crops. Germany banned the pesticide after heaps of dead bees were found near fields of corn coated in the pesticide, and in response to scientists who report that the insecticide severely impairs, and often kills, the honeybees that corn and other crops depend on for pollination.

The German government took the extraordinary action to protect bees and other essential pollinators, stating that there is now enough compelling evidence connecting the chemical to Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in that country.

The ban also will likely fuel the European debate over genetically modified food, which involves treating crop seeds to resist harm from pesticide treatments. Critics of such modified foods say they are harming the environment, and have unknown human consequences, for little or no crop gain. Some scientists in Europe have called for their ban.

Bee Colony Collapse has been threatening bees, and the crops they serve, around the world for the past several years.

In other parts of Europe, including France, studies of other pesticides have shown they are negatively impacting bee behavior – and contributing to the collapse of entire bee colonies. France has outlawed the use of the pesticide imidacloprid — which like clothianidin is classed as a “neonicotinoid.” Imidacloprid has been linked to disoriented behavior in honeybees – and may help explain why many CCD cases result in abandoned hives.

“I think the Environmental Protection Agency would be well advised to put an immediate emergency ban on the neonicotinoid seed-treatment pesticides. I would say on all pesticides,” says Cummins.

The ban in Germany, and Cummins’ call for a U.S. ban, should be no surprise to the EPA. The agency’s own fact sheet on clothianidin shows that it has known of the dangers to bees since it conditionally approved the chemical in 2003.

By Shermakaye Bass

A year and a half ago, news of a mysterious phenomenon captured the country’s attention – something known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that was affecting up to 30 percent of America’s commercial honeybee producers, whose mobile apiaries pollinate one-third of the country’s food supply.

For months, the international media carried reports on CCD (essentially a disappearing act by America’s worker honeybees), projecting repercussions that would drive produce and dairy prices through the roof and eventually cause large-scale food shortages in the U.S.

Then, as inexplicably as the syndrome’s arrival around 2004-2005, the media blitz died down. This winter, while commercial beekeepers prepare to send their hives cross-country for spring pollination, the CCD problem again looms large, if not larger, as some apiculturists see hints of a recurring nightmare. Others report having already lost huge chunks of their colonies.

“I think people thought we had it worked out, but we don’t,” says Pennsylvania State University’s Diana Cox-Foster, adding that a lack of federal funding has stymied critical research. She and others say that, indeed, if CCD isn’t resolved soon, American agriculture will feel a major sting, and so will consumers.

The good news is that over the past year, and particularly in the past couple of months, scientists have made important inroads. According to entomologist Cox-Foster, the newest findings from her and collaborators at Columbia University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Bee Research Laboratory show a solid link between U.S. versions of Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) DNA and hive decimation, strongly tying the virus to imported Australian honeybee packages. The team has long suspected a connection between IAPV and CCD.

Last month, they and others around the country shared data at the National Beekeeping Conference in Sacramento, the first ever gathering of the country’s two major bee associations. CCD researchers also discussed ongoing attempts to characterize and isolate different viruses that appear to play a role in CCD, while others continue to explore the impact of environmental degradation, chemical interlopers, as well as disease carried by Varroa mites and small-hive beetles.

Photo: Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium

Beekeepers report having already lost huge chunks of their colonies

Though far from having an answer, producers and scientists emerged from the meeting more convinced than ever that if Congress doesn’t quickly fund CCD research and a national honeybee-health survey – provisions that are in both versions of a Farm Bill currently on the table – the beekeepers, too, may become a dying breed.

Minnesota beekeeper David Ellingson, whose family farm celebrated its 60th anniversary last year, says that although his colonies are looking good so far this winter (last year he lost 65 percent), he’s desperate for action.

“You know, we need answers to this yesterday – and we need the funding now. Next year is too late,” the 54-year-old says. “There have been other farm bills in the past (with authorization for bee research funding), but it didn’t happen. Things like that make you wonder. With all the technology we have now in agriculture and science.… I just know I can’t survive another year like I had last year.”

Since the colony collapses were first reported in 2004, apiculturists have been lobbying lawmakers and federal agencies for funds (approximately $75 million in the current proposed legislation). Some are optimistic that this time help is on the way, while others like Scott Black Hoffman, of the Xerces Society in Oregon (which promotes biodiversity), suspect that this being an election year – “and with so many other things on people’s minds” – bee health will once again get tabled.