CALL THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND TELL THEM YOU OPT OUT OF THE SPRAYING.

Many people can have negative health outcomes from exposure to this pesticide!

Next we wanted to look at where we stand with the amount of insurers available around the country as well as other maps that show pesticide use.  She what it looks like when we overlay maps.  

We used a map that highlight areas with only one insurer choice or no insurer choice which seemed small, but probably reflects many people that need care.  Click all graphics for larger view.

We see the red areas where the insurers are leaving or there has only been one available since before Obamacare.

There are chemicals that may have been dumped all around the country to get rid of it and avoid toxic waste disposal fees, these chemicals where so bad they could linger for decades or even hundreds of years.  PCBs are some of the worst of the worst and can be found in every living person in the country, even a newborn baby.  Yes they are that persistant!  

We need to remember where they are dumped because they are impacting peoples health right now.  Monsanto just lost a case regarding PCBs.  Atrazine is already one of the worst in the world and why banned in over 150 countries.  Syngenta payed their way for EPA approval status.  

The scientist that researched their poison found it chemically castrates frogs and changes their sexual orientation.  

​Found in every waterway in the USA!  Syngenta tried to discredit this brave scientist and was exposed when their email were revealed.  His story could be a Hollywood movie. Go here to watch the interview.  How it changes sexual orientation with exposure to large amount of hormones.

This treatment is working for patients that have had no results from medications or other treatments and even "cures" them for the need of anything else after completing the course.
Go to this webpage.

Zen Honeycutt​ uncovered in her travels to New Zealand that it can be a practice of farmers to kill old grass so new more nutritious grass will grow.  

It was so weird to me to have her say that during this interview because I had just bought about 5 blocks from New Zealand grassfed cheese at Aldi's Market for what I thought was a great deal.  Normally always buy organic, but thought why would this product have Roundup if the cows are just eating grass?  

Did think there was a possibility the farmer was also supplementing the cows diet with GMO products, but allowed myself to go against my organic rule.  

Then a week later Zen comes on the show and tells me this story!  Blew my mind and realized the only food you can really trust is organic.  Grace Gershuny​ who wrote the original USDA Organic program guidelines told us that even the lowest level of organic is ALWAYS better than anything conventional.  Thought that was good advice because so many people rationalize not buying organic because they think you can't trust it.  

Bottom line the amount of pesticides in organic is going to be practically nothing compared to conventional and whether have a NON GMO certified seal or not ORGANIC IS ALWAYS NON GMO and is actually redundant on organic products and in my opinion misleading because makes people think they cannot trust other organic products when GMOs are NEVER ALLOWED IN ORGANIC.  

Please watch the video since Zen says it best and it is our goal for people to become teachers because we are told so many lies, it is people helping each other that will protect our future children and the planet, not big corporate!

AAP EWG Chlorpyrifos Letter.pdf
TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017
​On June 27, 2017, the American Academy for Pediatrics and EWG sent the letter attached and below to Environmental Protection Agency Adminsitrator Scott Pruitt on the agency's recent decision to pull back a scheduled ban on the pesticides chlorpyrifos.
--
June 27, 2017
Scott Pruitt
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460  
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
The American Academy of Pediatrics is a nonprofit professional organization of 66,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. EWG has a long history of advocating for safer chemical policies and reducing the use of dangerous pesticides like chlorpyrifos.
We are writing to express concern at the agency’s recent reversal on its proposal to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos. In particular, we are deeply alarmed that the EPA’s decision to allow the continued use of chlorpyrifos contradicts the agency’s own science and puts developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women at risk.
Children are Uniquely Vulnerable to Risks from Pesticides
Children are not small adults – they have key neurological, physical, developmental, and behavioral differences from adults that make them uniquely vulnerable to chemical exposures. By size and weight, children drink more, breathe more, and have more skin surface area to body weight relative to adults, making their bodies more sensitive to pesticides and other chemicals. Their brains and nervous systems are still making connections and maturing, processes that are particularly sensitive to interference by pesticides. Children come into contact with pesticides daily through air, food, dust, and soil, and on surfaces through home and public lawn or garden application, household insecticide use, application to pests, and agricultural product residues.[1]
Epidemiologic studies associate pesticide exposure with adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital abnormalities, pediatric cancers, neurobehavioral and cognitive deficits, and asthma. The evidence is especially strong linking certain pesticide exposure with pediatric cancers and permanent neurological damage. [2] Some birth cohort studies of American children have found associations between pesticide exposure and neurobehavioral and cognitive defects like lower IQs, autism, and attention deficit disorders.[3]   
Chlorpyrifos Poses Specific Risks to Children
There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women. Like other organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos interferes with enzymes in the nervous system. Symptoms in people acutely overexposed to chlorpyrifos can range from runny noses and drooling to nausea, vomiting, headaches, muscle cramps, and even loss of coordination. Severe poisoning can cause unconsciousness, convulsions, difficulty breathing, paralysis and death.[4]
Chronic chlorpyrifos exposure in utero is associated with changes in social behavior, brain development, and developmental delays.[5] A long-term Columbia University study following children born before and after a ban on in-home use of chlorpyrifos took effect found that the children born before the ban had much higher exposure levels, tended to be smaller, have poorer reflexes, and weigh less.[6] Toddlers with higher exposures were behind in both motor and mental development by age three. They were also greater than five times more likely to be on the autism spectrum, greater than six times more likely to have ADHD-type symptoms, and greater than 11 times more likely to have symptoms of other attention disorders.[7] The Columbia study[8] and similar long-term studies conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City[9] found lower IQs for children with prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure.
Children face unique exposure risks. EPA estimates that children ages 1 to 12 are exposed to significantly more chlorpyrifos through their diets per pound of body weight than adults.[10] Chlorpyrifos is authorized for use on nearly 50 food crops, including fruits, vegetables, and nuts. In annual tests for pesticide residues on conventionally grown produce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found chlorpyrifos on commonly eaten fruits and vegetables, including in especially high concentrations on fruits like peaches and nectarines.[11]
Even low residues of exposures to neurotoxic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos contribute to aggregate risks. EPA’s own calculations suggest that babies, children and pregnant women all eat much more chlorpyrifos than is safe. EPA has estimated that median or “typical” exposures for babies are likely five times greater than its proposed “safe” intake, and 11 to 15 times higher for toddlers and older children. Pregnant women are also impacted – a typical exposure is five times higher than it ought to be to protect her developing fetus from harm.[12] EPA’s 2016 Risk Assessment found that chlorpyrifos causes harm to children’s brains from prenatal exposures, and that this harm occurs at levels far lower than EPA’s acute poisoning regulatory endpoint.[13]
EPA’s Decision Contradicts the Agency’s Science
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) takes an explicitly precautionary approach to pesticide safety and children’s health. Under the FQPA, EPA must revoke permitted pesticide residue levels, or tolerances, if it determines those levels are no longer safe. Safe under the FQPA means that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and other exposures for which there is reliable information.”[14] Thus, while uncertainty about a pesticide’s safety can be the basis for removing tolerances, it cannot be the basis for continuing use of that pesticide and potentially exposing people to risk.
Additionally, EPA is required under the provisions of FQPA to give special consideration to in-utero exposures, and to children and infants, particularly with regards to neurological differences from adults, when evaluating pesticide safety. For that reason, the FQPA requires EPA to apply an additional tenfold safety factor to account for data gaps and potential pre- or postnatal toxicity to children.[15]    
EPA has consistently found that chlorpyrifos is not safe, particularly in regard to in-utero exposure and exposures to children. In December 2014, EPA found unsafe drinking water contamination from chlorpyrifos as part of its risk assessment.[16] In October 2015, EPA proposed to revoke all tolerances because it could not determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos were safe to children or the general population under the requirements of the FQPA.[17] In November 2016, EPA did yet another risk assessment using a more sensitive point of departure, determining the risks were even greater than previously thought and reiterating the need to revoke tolerances.[18]
We are deeply alarmed by EPA’s decision not to finalize the proposed rule to end chlorpyrifos uses on food – a decision that was premised on the need for further study on the effects of chlorpyrifos on children before finalizing a rule. EPA’s previous risk assessments and several consultations with EPA’s Science Advisory Panel makes clear the potential for adverse health effects to children as a result of exposure to chlorpyrifos. The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous. The clear statutory language of the FQPA requires that EPA revoke tolerances in the face of uncertainty. EPA has no new evidence indicating that chlorpyrifos exposures are safe. As a result, EPA has no basis to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos, and its insistence in doing so puts all children at risk.  
We urge EPA to rely on the established science and to take action to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, as proposed in 2015. America’s children today and in the future deserve and demand no less.
Sincerely,
Fernando Stein, MD, FAAP
President American
Academy of Pediatrics                                
Ken Cook
President
Environmental Working Group
[1] American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy Statement: Pesticide Exposure in Children, 130 Pediatrics e1757, e1757-58 (2012), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/130/6/e1757.ful...
[2] Id. at e1759-60.
[3] Id. at e1760. 
[4] National Pesticide Information Center, Chlorpyrifos, http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/chlorpgen.html (last visited April 13, 2017).
[5] Id.
[6] Virginia A. Rauh, ScD., Discussion of Analyses of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure and Neurodevelopmental  Outcomes, Columbia School of Children’s Environmental Health,  https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/pdf/rauh.pdf (last accessed April 13, 2007).
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] University of California Berkley, Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), http://cerch.berkeley.edu/research-programs/chamacos-study (last visited April 13, 2017). See also Engel SM, Bradman A, Wolff MS, Rauh VA, Harley KG, Yang JH, Hoepner LA, Barr DB, Yolton K, Vedar MG, Xu Y, Hornung RW, Wetmur JG, Chen J, Holland NT, Perera FP, Whyatt RM, Lanphear BP, Eskenazi B. Prenatal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure and Child Neurodevelopment at 24 Months: An Analysis of Four Birth Cohorts. Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Jun;124(6):822-30. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1409474. Epub 2015 Sep 29. PubMed PMID: 26418669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4892910. See also Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS. Prenatal exposure to organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003183. Epub 2011 Apr 21. PubMed PMID: 21507778; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3237356.
[10] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197 (Nov. 18, 2014), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197.
[11] U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Pesticide Data Program, https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp (last visited April 13. 2017).
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197 (Nov. 18, 2014), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197.
[13] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454 (Nov. 3, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454.
[14] 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii).
[15] 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(C).
[16] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos: Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197 (Nov. 18, 2014), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197.
[17] 80 Fed. Reg. 69,080, 69,081 (Nov. 6, 2015).
[18] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454 (Nov. 

Please review these links:
“Trumpcare isn’t popular. But universal healthcare would be,” by Kate Aronoff, The Guardian; June 28, 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/28/trumpcare-popular-universal-healthcare

“Memo to Democrats: You Need a Clear Message for Universal Health Care,” by Mehdi Hasan, Think Progress; June 28 2017 https://theintercept.com/2017/06/28/memo-to-democrats-you-need-a-clear-message-for-universal-healthcare/

Here's another: “A Very Brief Primer on Single-Payer Health Care,” by Kevin Drum, Mother Jones; July 1, 2017 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/a-very-brief-primer-on-single-payer-health-care/​

Senate Health Bill Gives Huge Tax Cuts to Businesses, High-Income Households
www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/06/22/senate-health-bill-gives-huge-tax-cuts-to-businesses-high-income-households.html

Deal allocates $3 million to “consumer outreach and education regarding agricultural biotechnology,” which includes genetic engineering of food and commodity crops
In a sinister development, US taxpayers will fund a government propaganda drive to persuade them to like GM foods.
--
The government is going to counter "misinformation" about GMO foods
By Caitlin Dewey 
The Washington Post, May 3 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/03/the-government-is-going-to-try-to-convince-you-to-like-gmo-foods/?utm_term=.11a08be39fc2

The Food and Drug Administration will fund a campaign to promote genetically modified organisms in food under a bipartisan agreement to keep the government funded through the end of September.

The deal to avert a government shutdown allocates $3 million to “consumer outreach and education regarding agricultural biotechnology”, which includes genetic engineering of food and commodity crops. The money is to be used to tout “the environmental, nutritional, food safety, economic, and humanitarian impacts” of biotech crops and their derivative food products.

More than 50 agriculture and food industry groups had signed on to an April 18 letter urging the funding to counter “a tremendous amount of misinformation about agricultural biotechnology in the public domain”. But some environmental groups and House Democrats have derided the provision as a government-sponsored public relations tour for the GMO industry.

“It is not the responsibility of the FDA to mount a government-controlled propaganda campaign to convince the American public that genetically modified foods are safe,” said Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who attempted to get the measure struck from the bill last month. “The FDA has to regulate the safety of our food supply and medical devices. They are not, nor should they be, in the pro-industry advertising business,” Lowey said during a congressional hearing

It’s unclear what the FDA campaign will look like, or when it will launch. The $3 million allocated is little more than a speck in the FDA’s total allocated budget of $2.8 billion.

The budget specifies only that the initiative be developed in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, and include the “publication and distribution of science-based educational information”. An attempt by Democrats to redirect the project’s funding to pediatric medical projects within FDA was unanimously voted down by Republicans.

A 2016 study by the Pew Research Center found that 39 percent of American adults believe that genetically modified foods are worse for health than their conventional equivalents — an assessment with which the vast majority of scientists disagree. Nearly 90 percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe GMOs are safe to eat, according to another Pew study.

“Clearly, communication of the benefits of biotechnology from the scientific community has not gone well, and this presents an opportunity to engage with the public in a more meaningful dialogue,” said Mark Rieger, the dean of the University of Delaware’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who signed the industry letter. “We see it as a communication issue, not a political one.”

But critics argue the issue is inherently political, given the financial ties between lawmakers and the ag biotech industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, agribusiness interests donated more than $26.3 million to political campaigns, including those of several congressmen who sit on the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.), the chair of that subcommittee and a defender of the GMO education funding, received $10,000 from Monsanto in 2016.

“This is a really clear example of big ag influencing policy,” said Dana Perls, the senior food and technology campaigner for the environmental group Friends of the Earth. “The Trump administration is putting big ag before consumer desire and public health … Consumers do not want this.”

Critics have also questioned whether it’s the government’s job to communicate this particular information — and whether that information, as written in the budget, oversteps what scientists really know. While there’s a widespread consensus that GM crops are safe, there are valid and lingering questions about the environmental and social impacts of GMOs.
Last year, an academic analysis of 14 years of farm data found that an uptick in GM seed plantings goes hand-in-hand with increased herbicide use, for instance. Some herbicides have been found to contribute to health problems in animals and humans.

Many of the touted benefits of GMOs haven’t materialized, either, argues Andy Kimbrell, the executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a D.C. nonprofit that has filed numerous legal challenges against the makers of GM crops.
An October analysis by the New York Times found that the technology does not significantly increase yields. And few GM products with tangible consumer benefits — such as better taste or nutrition — have yet made it onto the U.S. market.
“So yes, that gives them a marketing problem,” Kimbrell said. “But Monsanto has plenty of money to advocate for GMOs ... Why do we need to use taxpayer dollars?”

One possible answer, from industry’s perspective, is that taxpayer dollars are already funding a Department of Agriculture initiative to label GM foods. Last year, Congress passed a bill mandating that food companies disclose the GM ingredients in their products, and USDA has said it is actively working on the standards for those labels.

Patrick Delaney, a spokesman for the American Soybean Association, said it will be important for consumers to understand those labels once they roll out, likely after September 2018.
​
“We recognize that there is a need for better and more accessible information on what this technology is and what it provides to consumers, he said by email. “We supported (and still support) that $3 million in funding for biotech education ... to better inform the public about the use of biotechnology in food and agricultural production.”
​

Go to the EWG link here or click here for link to PDF of Pediatrician/EWG letter.

On June 27, 2017, the American Academy for Pediatrics and EWG sent the letter attached and below to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt on the agency's recent decision to pull back a scheduled ban on the pesticides chlorpyrifos.
--
June 27, 2017
Scott Pruitt
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460  

Dear Administrator Pruitt:

The American Academy of Pediatrics is a nonprofit professional organization of 66,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. EWG has a long history of advocating for safer chemical policies and reducing the use of dangerous pesticides like chlorpyrifos.

We are writing to express concern at the agency’s recent reversal on its proposal to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos. In particular, we are deeply alarmed that the EPA’s decision to allow the continued use of chlorpyrifos contradicts the agency’s own science and puts developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women at risk.

Children are Uniquely Vulnerable to Risks from Pesticides
Children are not small adults – they have key neurological, physical, developmental, and behavioral differences from adults that make them uniquely vulnerable to chemical exposures. By size and weight, children drink more, breathe more, and have more skin surface area to body weight relative to adults, making their bodies more sensitive to pesticides and other chemicals. Their brains and nervous systems are still making connections and maturing, processes that are particularly sensitive to interference by pesticides. Children come into contact with pesticides daily through air, food, dust, and soil, and on surfaces through home and public lawn or garden application, household insecticide use, application to pests, and agricultural product residues.[1]

Epidemiologic studies associate pesticide exposure with adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital abnormalities, pediatric cancers, neurobehavioral and cognitive deficits, and asthma. The evidence is especially strong linking certain pesticide exposure with pediatric cancers and permanent neurological damage. [2] Some birth cohort studies of American children have found associations between pesticide exposure and neurobehavioral and cognitive defects like lower IQs, autism, and attention deficit disorders.[3]   

Chlorpyrifos Poses Specific Risks to Children
There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women. Like other organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos interferes with enzymes in the nervous system. Symptoms in people acutely overexposed to chlorpyrifos can range from runny noses and drooling to nausea, vomiting, headaches, muscle cramps, and even loss of coordination. Severe poisoning can cause unconsciousness, convulsions, difficulty breathing, paralysis and death.[4]

Chronic chlorpyrifos exposure in utero is associated with changes in social behavior, brain development, and developmental delays.[5] A long-term Columbia University study following children born before and after a ban on in-home use of chlorpyrifos took effect found that the children born before the ban had much higher exposure levels, tended to be smaller, have poorer reflexes, and weigh less.[6] Toddlers with higher exposures were behind in both motor and mental development by age three. They were also greater than five times more likely to be on the autism spectrum, greater than six times more likely to have ADHD-type symptoms, and greater than 11 times more likely to have symptoms of other attention disorders.[7] The Columbia study[8] and similar long-term studies conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City[9] found lower IQs for children with prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure.

Children face unique exposure risks. EPA estimates that children ages 1 to 12 are exposed to significantly more chlorpyrifos through their diets per pound of body weight than adults.[10] Chlorpyrifos is authorized for use on nearly 50 food crops, including fruits, vegetables, and nuts. In annual tests for pesticide residues on conventionally grown produce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found chlorpyrifos on commonly eaten fruits and vegetables, including in especially high concentrations on fruits like peaches and nectarines.[11]

Even low residues of exposures to neurotoxic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos contribute to aggregate risks. EPA’s own calculations suggest that babies, children and pregnant women all eat much more chlorpyrifos than is safe. EPA has estimated that median or “typical” exposures for babies are likely five times greater than its proposed “safe” intake, and 11 to 15 times higher for toddlers and older children. Pregnant women are also impacted – a typical exposure is five times higher than it ought to be to protect her developing fetus from harm.[12] EPA’s 2016 Risk Assessment found that chlorpyrifos causes harm to children’s brains from prenatal exposures, and that this harm occurs at levels far lower than EPA’s acute poisoning regulatory endpoint.[13]

EPA’s Decision Contradicts the Agency’s Science
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) takes an explicitly precautionary approach to pesticide safety and children’s health. Under the FQPA, EPA must revoke permitted pesticide residue levels, or tolerances, if it determines those levels are no longer safe. Safe under the FQPA means that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and other exposures for which there is reliable information.”[14] Thus, while uncertainty about a pesticide’s safety can be the basis for removing tolerances, it cannot be the basis for continuing use of that pesticide and potentially exposing people to risk.

Additionally, EPA is required under the provisions of FQPA to give special consideration to in-utero exposures, and to children and infants, particularly with regards to neurological differences from adults, when evaluating pesticide safety. For that reason, the FQPA requires EPA to apply an additional tenfold safety factor to account for data gaps and potential pre- or postnatal toxicity to children.[15]    

EPA has consistently found that chlorpyrifos is not safe, particularly in regard to in-utero exposure and exposures to children. In December 2014, EPA found unsafe drinking water contamination from chlorpyrifos as part of its risk assessment.[16] In October 2015, EPA proposed to revoke all tolerances because it could not determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos were safe to children or the general population under the requirements of the FQPA.[17] In November 2016, EPA did yet another risk assessment using a more sensitive point of departure, determining the risks were even greater than previously thought and reiterating the need to revoke tolerances.[18]

We are deeply alarmed by EPA’s decision not to finalize the proposed rule to end chlorpyrifos uses on food – a decision that was premised on the need for further study on the effects of chlorpyrifos on children before finalizing a rule. EPA’s previous risk assessments and several consultations with EPA’s Science Advisory Panel makes clear the potential for adverse health effects to children as a result of exposure to chlorpyrifos. The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous. The clear statutory language of the FQPA requires that EPA revoke tolerances in the face of uncertainty. EPA has no new evidence indicating that chlorpyrifos exposures are safe. As a result, EPA has no basis to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos, and its insistence in doing so puts all children at risk.  

We urge EPA to rely on the established science and to take action to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, as proposed in 2015. America’s children today and in the future deserve and demand no less.

Sincerely,

Fernando Stein, MD, FAAP
President American
Academy of Pediatrics                                
Ken Cook
President
Environmental Working Group

[1] American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy Statement: Pesticide Exposure in Children, 130 Pediatrics e1757, e1757-58 (2012), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/130/6/e1757.ful...
[2] Id. at e1759-60.
[3] Id. at e1760. 
[4] National Pesticide Information Center, Chlorpyrifos, http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/chlorpgen.html (last visited April 13, 2017).
[5] Id.
[6] Virginia A. Rauh, ScD., Discussion of Analyses of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure and Neurodevelopmental  Outcomes, Columbia School of Children’s Environmental Health,  https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/pdf/rauh.pdf (last accessed April 13, 2007).
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] University of California Berkley, Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), http://cerch.berkeley.edu/research-programs/chamacos-study (last visited April 13, 2017). See also Engel SM, Bradman A, Wolff MS, Rauh VA, Harley KG, Yang JH, Hoepner LA, Barr DB, Yolton K, Vedar MG, Xu Y, Hornung RW, Wetmur JG, Chen J, Holland NT, Perera FP, Whyatt RM, Lanphear BP, Eskenazi B. Prenatal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure and Child Neurodevelopment at 24 Months: An Analysis of Four Birth Cohorts. Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Jun;124(6):822-30. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1409474. Epub 2015 Sep 29. PubMed PMID: 26418669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4892910. See also Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS. Prenatal exposure to organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003183. Epub 2011 Apr 21. PubMed PMID: 21507778; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3237356.
[10] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197 (Nov. 18, 2014), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197.
[11] U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Pesticide Data Program, https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp (last visited April 13. 2017).
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197 (Nov. 18, 2014), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197.
[13] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454 (Nov. 3, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454.
[14] 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii).
[15] 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(C).
[16] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos: Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197 (Nov. 18, 2014), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0197.
[17] 80 Fed. Reg. 69,080, 69,081 (Nov. 6, 2015).
[18] U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454 (Nov. 3, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454.

If we are going to stop this attack on our children we need to vote people supporting Chlorpyrifos/toxic poisons out of office, and use our people power to call those in political power to voice our rejection of these actions, be willing to take to the streets to make our voices be heard, and use our dollars to stop big corporate from doing this to us and our children.

WHO ELSE DOES AN UNBORN CHILD HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THEM? THEY CANNOT FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES, AND DEPEND ON US TO PROTECT THEM.  These pesticide makers don't care about our children only money.  We have to be willing to fight for our children and accept it is probably going to be the case for a long time because we have been sleeping at the wheel and they now have amassed great power and billions of dollars they can use to buy our government officials, place their people in key government positions, and dictate what they want. 

When our children are disabled, it is not only a hardship for the family, but also for society on many levels.  We miss out on new ideas and creativity when our IQ is diminished. Ideas that could create new technologies to make this a better world, leaders and productive members of society that can reach their true potential instead of being robbed and limited of their abilities. 

From a public health standpoint, our systems of support are bombarded with additional financial burdens.  Funding that could be used for higher education, supporting new idea development, and making our country even greater because of the brilliance of our citizens goes for other social services and disability. Limiting our children's potential is a gross act but unfortunately very real right now.  Please do what you can to stop it!

USDA Organic Certification requires a long process, inspections, and proof so don't buy into pesticide companies propaganda generated by the "Merchants of Doubt" that try and discourage you from trusting and buying these product. Grace Gurney who wrote the organic standards for the LAW said that even bad organic is much safer than conventional.  It is actually not fair that the farmer that is not poisoning food, and working harder to create a safe product is burdened with the expense and work of being certified.  We should instead make those using shortcuts that poison people and cause environmental damage, disease and huge healthcare expenses have that burden.

Buying ORGANIC says I refuse to eat foods containing these chemicals or any pesticides. Our top scientists keep saying, "THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE FOR POISON.  PESTICIDES ARE DESIGNED TO KILL CELLS AND THAT IS WHAT IT DOES IN OUR BODY.  OUR SOIL IS ALSO DEAD WITH KEY MICROORGANISMS THAT PROVIDE NUTRITION IN OUR FOOD DESTROYED!  Those same organisms REVERSE CLIMATE CHANGE FASTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO SO WIN-WIN.  With no market we will make them go away.

By Carol Kelly
​A new NIEHS-funded study reports that when a pregnant woman is exposed to chlorpyrifos, a commonly used pesticide, her child’s developing brain may be damaged, leading to lowered intelligence.

“The prenatal period is a vulnerable time for the developing child, and that toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning,” said NIEHS grantee Virginia Rauh, Sc.D., a professor at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “We have demonstrated that there is a relatively monotonic dose-response effect, suggesting that some small effects occur at even very low exposures.” 

The evidence comes from researchers who conducted a recent brain imaging study of children exposed prenatally to chlorpyrifos. In addition to Columbia University scientists, the team included researchers affiliated with Duke University Medical Center, Emory University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

This study is the first of its kind to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Digital images produced from MRI scans are quite detailed and can detect small changes within the brain. 

In the scans, structural changes — abnormal areas of enlargement and indentation across the surface of the brain — appeared among the children whose mothers had been exposed to higher levels of the pesticide. In three of four brain regions, higher chlorpyrifos exposure was consistent with lower full-scale intelligence quotient (IQ) measures in the exposed children.  

The brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency threshold for toxicity, according to the researchers.

Data implications
To conduct the study, certain brain surface features of 40 urban children were examined. The sample size, although modest, nevertheless permits generalization of findings to a larger urban population, because it was a representative community-based sample.

“The group does not have exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs] or second hand smoke, two other exposures that might also have adverse effects on brain development and neurocognitive outcomes,” explained Rauh. “So, the small sample size, common in MRI studies, is balanced by a relatively pure or unconfounded design.”

Although residential application of chlorpyrifos was banned in 2001, the insecticide is still approved for other uses. Chlorpyrifos continues to be present in the environment through its extensive use in wood treatments and public spaces, such as golf courses, parks, and highway medians. People near these sources can be exposed by inhaling the chemical, which drifts on the wind. Additionally, chlorpyrifos is approved for food agriculture, and exposure can also occur by eating fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed. 

“Even if dietary doses from residue on food are low, and we think they are for any one food, what happens if a person is eating five different foods on a daily basis, each with a small amount of chlorpyrifos residue?” posited Rauh. “This is something to think about.” 

Future research to continue examining pesticide effects on children 
“It will be important to continue to follow this cohort of children, to see if the problems resolve or whether they are irreversible, which is an outcome suggested by animal research literature,” said Rauh. “It might be possible to design an intervention to address the moderate cognitive deficits.”

“If the animal studies suggest there may be a problem, and we follow up with human work that is confirmatory, then we would be wise to limit the use of such chemicals when the evidence starts to build up,” added Rauh. “There are plenty of examples of widespread or commonly used exposures, for example, lead and tobacco, where we waited too long to try to reduce exposure, with the unfortunate result of great harm to large numbers of individuals, which might have been preventable had we paid attention to the mounting evidence.”

This research was supported by NIEHS grants for The Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health,Prenatal PAH Exposure, Epigenetic Changes, and Asthma, and Health Effects of Early-Life Exposure to Urban Pollutants in Minority Children.

Citation: Rauh VA, Perera FP, Horton MK, Whyatt RM, Bansal R, Hao X, Liu J, Barr DB, Slotkin TA, Peterson BS. 2012. Brain anomalies in children exposed prenatally to a common organophosphate pesticide. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(20):7871-7876.

(Carol Kelly is a research and communication specialist with MDB, Inc., a contractor for the NIEHS Division of Extramural Research and Training.)
​GO TO ARTICLE LINK

When you take all of the costs associated with the homeless living on the streets which include costly emergency room visits, Emergency Medical Techs (EMTs/Fire Department Response Teams), putting them in jail versus giving them a home where those costs are avoided
                     THE CITY ACTUALLY SAVES THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR!
After the homeless get a home, they can become productive citizens that work, pay rent, and take care of themselves!

People who try and say that helping the poor turns them into moochers so they can justify turning their back on them, and taking away funding are the exact opposite of Director Lloyd Pendleton and citizens of Salt Lake City.