One Item that should be covered in this ACT is: What If the alternative options fail?
File No. 184
January Session, 2015
Substitute House Bill No. 6897
House of Representatives, March 23, 2015
The Committee on Children reported through REP. URBAN of the 43rd Dist., Chairperson of the Committee on the part of the House, that the substitute bill ought to pass.
AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES AT STATE-OPERATED PARKS, ATHLETIC FIELDS AND PLAYGROUNDS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. Section 10-231a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
Glyphosate in an active substance widely used in herbicides and is currently subject to a comprehensive re-evaluation process by the European Union (EU). This regular re-assessment of active ingredients in plant protection products is a routine procedure controlled by the European Commission. Within this re-evaluation new findings in research and development as well as new aspects in the risk assessment are taken into consideration. As a result of this re-evaluation, the Commission will decide whether or not the active substance may be applied in plant protection products in future.
During this re-evaluation procedure Germany evaluates glyphosate and a sample formulation of a plant protection product containing glyphosate. In this framework Germany acts as Rapporteur Member State (RMS) writing a draft re-assessment report. Several competent authorities in Germany are involved in the writing process (i.e., the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment -BfR-, the Federal Environment Agency, the Julius Kuehn-Institute and the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety). After the establishment of a draft re-assessment report this report will be send to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has already completed the draft re-assessment report on health risk assessment. For this purpose, more than 150 new toxicological studies were evaluated for the first time and are described in detail in the draft report by BfR. In addition, all available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed from the point of view of compliance with actual quality standards in study conduction and confirmation of interpreted results. Furthermore, about 900 publications from scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200 publications were reviewed in detail. In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals. As a result of the re-assessment for the active substance BfR proposes slight amendments of the reference values. BfR believes that there is convincing evidence that the measured toxicity of some glyphosate containing herbicides is the result of the co-formulants in the plant protection products (e.g., tallowamines used as surfactants). Therefore BfR calls special attention to the co-formulants and incorporated a toxicological assessment of tallowamines in its draft report. A research project initiated by BfR and performed by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hanover investigated the influence of a glyphosate containing herbicide on microbial metabolism and communities in ruminants. The results of this study are summarised in the draft suggesting that there is no negative impact on the microflora in the rumen. In particular, there was no indication that Clostridium bacteria might multiply under the influence of glyphosate.
After sending the draft re-assessment report of glyphosate to EFSA, it will constitute the basis for the public consultation with all interested stakeholders as well as for the so-called “peer review procedure” by experts from other EU member states. After commenting of the draft, the RMS will incorporate all final comments and remarks. EFSA is steering the re-assessment procedure and will establish an ”EFSA conclusion” on basis of the German draft re-assessment report and the comments of the other stakeholders by the end of 2014. The Commission will then take a decision on the future approval of the active ingredient glyphosate on the basis of the EFSA conclusion. All re-assessment reports and scientific opinions which are intended for the public consultation will become publicly available on the EFSA website.
MARCH 20, 2015
expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified five pesticides as either probably or possible carcinogenic to humans.
Prof Andreas Kortenkamp, Professor in Human Toxicology at Brunel University London, said:
“IARC have carefully assessed new evidence about the cancer hazards of pesticides, and have now classified 5 pesticides as either ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ carcinogenic to humans. The authorities in the EU must now consider whether existing measures are sufficient to protect consumers and pesticide applicators from cancer risks. This will be particularly important for the widely used weedkiller glyphosate, now classified as probably carcinogenic to humans. Home gardeners especially should exercise the utmost care when they use weedkillers that contain glyphosate.”
Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said:
“The main thing in this new assessment is that two pesticides not previously assessed by the IARC (Glyphosate and Diazinon) have been reviewed and classified as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. Malathion has been upgraded to the same status, while Parathion and Tetrachlorvinphos are now classified as ‘possibly carcinogenic’.
“This sounds scary and IARC evaluations are usually very good, but to me the evidence cited here appears a bit thin.
March 18, 2015
University of Maryland
The world’s most common insecticide does not significantly harm honey bee colonies at real-world dosage levels, a new multiyear, field-based study shows. “Imidacloprid is the most widely used insecticide in the world. It’s not restricted because it is very safe–an order of magnitude safer than organophosphates,” an author said, drawing a comparison with a class of chemicals known to be highly toxic to nearly all living things.
Colony declines are a major threat to the world’s honey bees, as well as the many wild plants and crops the bees pollinate. Among the lineup of possible culprits–including parasites, disease, climate stress and malnutrition–many have pointed the finger squarely at insecticides as a prime suspect. However, a new study from the University of Maryland shows that the world’s most common insecticide does not significantly harm honey bee colonies at real-world dosage levels.
The study, which was published March 18, 2015 in the journal PLOS ONE, looked at the effects of the insecticide imidacloprid on honey bee colonies over a three-year period. To see significant negative effects, including a sharp decrease in winter survival rates, the researchers had to expose the colonies to at least four times as much insecticide encountered under normal circumstances. At 20 times the normal exposure levels, the colonies experienced more severe consequences.
The study does not totally absolve imidacloprid of a causative role in honey bee colony declines. Rather, the results indicate that insecticides are but one of many factors causing trouble for the world’s honey bee populations.
“Everyone is pointing the finger at these insecticides. If you pull up a search on the Internet, that’s practically all anyone is talking about,” said Galen Dively, emeritus professor of entomology at UMD and lead author of the study. “This paper says no, it’s not the sole cause. It contributes, but there is a bigger picture.”