Protect kids from drift!

Protect kids from drift!

With your help, we’ve gotten pesticide drift on the policy radar. Now, help us keep the pressure on for real change! Donate today »

Mr. President: Bees need help, now

Mr. President: Bees need help, now


Urge Obama's new task force to enact real and rapid protections for honey bees. Act Now »

Feeding the World

Feeding the World

What would a food system geared towards eradicating hunger look like? Much like sound farming, it all starts at the roots... Learn more »

Stand with farmworkers

Stand with farmworkers

New rules protecting farmworkers from pesticides are finally in the works. Tell EPA to make them strong! Sign on »

What's on your watermelon?

What's on your watermelon?

Summer fruits and veggies can contain residues of pesticides known to be neurotoxic, cancer-causing or otherwise harmful. Learn more »

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman's picture

Britain’s Chief Scientist has come out trumpeting the need for genetically engineered (GE) crops to feed the world, and the UK media is falling all over itself with blaring headlines that echo this badly misinformed sentiment (see Guardian, Telegraph coverage).

The source of all the hullabaloo is the UK’s release this week of its mammoth Foresight report, Global Food and Farming Futures. Using the occasion to espouse what seems to be his personal opinion, Sir John Beddington —the Chief Scientist in question — argues that “It is very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM. Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example. GM crops should be able to deal with that.” “Should?” Is that the best you can do, Sir John?

Kathryn Gilje's picture

Today Jefferson Keel, President of the National Congress of American Indians, called for the initiation of a new era of U.S.-tribal relations as he delivered the annual State of Indian Nations address. As he addressed tribal and U.S. government leaders in Washington, D.C., Keel noted the significance of the Obama Administration's December 16, 2010 announcement that the U.S. is "lending its support" to the The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. What's important now is implementation.

Karl Tupper's picture

Imagine if a persistent, toxic chemical was being added to all sorts of products you use everyday: soap, toothpaste, cosmetics, shaving cream, even toys and underwear. Imagine being told that it was put there to keep you safe from disease, when in reality it could end up making you sicker by contributing to antibiotic resistance. Imagine your food was being grown in fertilizer contaminated with this chemical, and that government tests found it in 75% of Americans. Finally, imagine you had an opportunity to do something about it.

Pesticide Action Network's picture

Last week the UK-based Independent reported that the clothianidin controversy has sparked a proposal to suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the UK. This story, which first broke in early December thanks to efforts by PAN, Beyond Pesticides and beekeeper Tom Theobald, has led to grave concerns in the British House of Commons.

Karl Tupper's picture

Two studies came out in the last couple of weeks that really illustrate the problems associated with "PBT" chemicals: those which are simultaneously persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Persistent substances resist degradation — you can move them around but it's really hard to get rid of them. Bioaccumulation happens when chemicals in food, water, and air end up getting stored in the body of a living thing. Thus, for a bass living in a mercury polluted lake, the mercury levels in the fish may be thousands of times higher than the levels in the water. A cow grazing on PCB-laced feed will store the chemical in her body and excrete it in her milk, and humans too act as sinks for all kinds of chemicals.