Pesticides

Every day, Marylanders are exposed to pesticides in our drinking water, on our food and through chemicals in our homes, lawns and public spaces. We also encounter pesticides in our rivers and streams and the Chesapeake Bay. While these exposures are often in small doses, growing evidence suggests they can add up to great harm. Unfortunately, the very public health officials responsible for protecting us are denied basic information about when and where dangerous pesticides are used. In Maryland, it is almost impossible for health care providers, public health experts and biomedical researchers to accurately understand the risks pesticides pose.

Something is killing the honey bees of Maryland. Close to 60 percent of the managed hives died last fall and over the winter - about twice the national average, according to the state bee inspector and local keepers. "I had a healthy hive that produced 50 pounds of honey last year, and we were anticipating another great year," said Stephen Christianson, a Mount Washington beekeeper of three years. "Then, they were just gone. It took my breath away. " Some blame inexperience on the part of the beekeepers, most of whom tend their hives as a hobby, coupled with a bad winter.

Having spent my career working to address the burden of disease in disadvantaged communities in central Maryland, I appreciated Del. Jim Hubbard and Hannah Pingree's op-ed ("Hold chemical companies to account," June 4). Maryland needs to be doing more to protect our most vulnerable citizens - the young, the old, those with fewer financial or educational resources - from toxic chemicals. I've just read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," written in 1962, which makes it clear how long Americans have been exposed to dangerous pesticides and other chemicals.

Many thanks go to Alison Prost of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation for her explanation of the stormwater fee ("Beyond 'rain tax' rhetoric," May 1). I would like to add a little historical background. When Europeans first visited the Chesapeake Bay, it was vibrant with aquatic life galore. Over the centuries, it was exploited with oyster beds being destroyed by "traditional oyster collection practices" and unsustainable fishing of the best fish here and along the Atlantic Seaboard. But the real deathblow to the bay came with Hurricane Agnes - not because of the influx of freshwater, but because the pesticides, fertilizers and other waste that washed from the greater Chesapeake and Susquehanna River watershed ended up killing the native underwater fauna forever.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, a longtime advocate of the Chesapeake Bay, is wading into the high-profile debate over the federal regulation of pesticides -- instantly putting him at odds with fellow Democrats while potentially raising his national profile on environmental issues. Maryland's junior senator is threatening to filibuster a proposal to limit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's oversight of pesticides that end up in the nation's waterways, including the bay. The move, which at the very least will delay the legislation, has set off a behind-the-scenes scramble among advocates who hope to override him if he carries through on the threat.

Senator Ben Cardin's fight to protect EPA authority over pollution discharge permits controlling many of the pesticides in our waterways ("Cardin Leads Fight Over Pesticides," July 3) is critical to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and to all of us who live in the watershed. His action deserves the support of all Marylanders who care about protecting and improving the waters around the bay. Pesticides harm our water quality, aquatic life and human health. Many pesticides have been shown to cause harm to humans, even at low doses.

IN THE environmentalists' war against technology, nowher are the stakes higher than the assault on pesticides.The current battleground is the Delaney Clause of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, which bans anything that causes cancer in humans or rodents from being added to processed food.The new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner, in February asked Congress to review the clause, calling it an anachronism that threatened the U.S. food supply.Environmentalists objected loudly and the EPA quickly retracted her remarks.

What pesticides are Maryland families exposed to on a regular basis? Good luck finding out. There's simply no way for the average person to discover what chemicals are being applied to farm fields or even backyards. Worse, it's nearly impossible for anyone in the public health field to find out either. Should doctors discover an unusually high incidence in Maryland of leukemia or other cancer that might be associated with environmental exposure, they'd be hard-pressed to analyze the risk from pesticides.

Something is killing the honey bees of Maryland. Close to 60 percent of the managed hives died last fall and over the winter - about twice the national average, according to the state bee inspector and local keepers. "I had a healthy hive that produced 50 pounds of honey last year, and we were anticipating another great year," said Stephen Christianson, a Mount Washington beekeeper of three years. "Then, they were just gone. It took my breath away. " Some blame inexperience on the part of the beekeepers, most of whom tend their hives as a hobby, coupled with a bad winter.

It is long past time for Maryland to regulate pesticides in a manner that properly protects people and the environment. This is unlikely under the current watchdog, the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), whose actions tend to reflect the interests of the Farm Bureau and chemical-based pest control and lawncare industries. That is why Gov. Martin O'Malley should transfer authority over pesticides from the MDA to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), whose staff includes medical and science professionals far better equipped to develop objective, science-based environmental and public health regulatory policy.

The Maryland Watershed Protection Plan has the potential to prevent, and even reverse, the erosion that is damaging our streams and the Bay. However, the county's decision to pay for this through a property tax based on the "total impervious structure" is misguided. Impervious structures aren't the only thing that lead to the negative consequences of runoff. Fertilized lawns and pesticides have a major impact on the Bay. Taxing someone for runoff from their house and driveway, but not for their expansive lawn is not rational.

What pesticides are Maryland families exposed to on a regular basis? Good luck finding out. There's simply no way for the average person to discover what chemicals are being applied to farm fields or even backyards. Worse, it's nearly impossible for anyone in the public health field to find out either. Should doctors discover an unusually high incidence in Maryland of leukemia or other cancer that might be associated with environmental exposure, they'd be hard-pressed to analyze the risk from pesticides.

As a concerned mother and environmentalist, I want to thank The Sun for its recent article on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay ("Report finds widespread contaminants in the bay," Jan. 22). Meaningful efforts to significantly improve the bay must address pesticide runoff. The Pesticide Use Reporting Bill would require certified pesticide and fertilizer applicators to report usage data to a centralized database. Centralizing such information would benefit public agencies in their response to fish kills, dead zones and human health outbreaks.

A growing body of research underscores that pesticides impact not just public health but also the Chesapeake Bay ("Report finds widespread contaminants in the bay," Jan. 22). A recent federal report, created in response to the same presidential executive order that created the current Chesapeake Bay restoration plan, also noted serious data gaps about pesticides widely dispersed in the bay. The 2013 Maryland Pesticide Information Act addresses the essential need for state and health experts to have access to important basic information on when and where potentially toxic chemicals are applied by pesticide applicators.

Environmentalists flocked to Annapolis Tuesday to push their green agenda, encouraged by predictions that offshore wind legislation would pass this year while one legislative leader warned that other ambitious measures may take a little longer. An estimated 400 people from across Maryland crowded into a meeting room in the Senate office building for the annual environmental legislative summit, where they got pep talks from Gov. Martin O'Malley and General Assembly leaders about a green agenda this year that's generally less sweeping than last year's.

A new federal report finds toxic contamination remains widespread in the Chesapeake Bay, with severe impacts in some places, which health and environmental advocates say lends support to their push in Annapolis for legislative action on pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. The 184-page report, recently posted on the website of the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay program , notes that nearly three-fourths of the bay's tidal waters are "fully or partially impaired" by toxic chemicals, with contamination severe enough in some areas that people are warned to limit how many fish they eat from there.  The chemicals tainting fish are mainly mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.  Once widely used in electrical equipment, PCBs were banned years ago over health concerns, but residues linger and continue to show up in fish tissue.  "They may be coming down - I can't say they're not - but we know they're not coming down quickly," said Greg Allen, an EPA scientist and the lead author of the interagency report, which was produced in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service . Contamination is severe in a handful of "hot spots" around the bay, including Baltimore's harbor, largely a legacy of past industrial and shipping activity.

If you live along the Patapsco River, Sparrows Point, Bear Creek or Coke Point you and your family are paying with your health ("Port authorities find health risks near Sparrows Point," May 23). These four areas are overwhelmingly contaminated to the point where people and wildlife are at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals and carcinogens. Benzene is only one of many chemical contaminates in our waters; there are also high levels of arsenic from chicken manure, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration introduced legislation yesterday that would overhaul food safety and pesticide laws by relaxing the standards for cancer-causing chemicals in processed foods and phasing out the use of hazardous pesticides on fresh fruits and vegetables.The proposal, which was crafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, would encourage farmers to use safer pest-control methods, while placing new restrictions on the use of chemical pesticides.

Every day, Marylanders are exposed to pesticides in our drinking water, on our food and through chemicals in our homes, lawns and public spaces. We also encounter pesticides in our rivers and streams and the Chesapeake Bay. While these exposures are often in small doses, growing evidence suggests they can add up to great harm. Unfortunately, the very public health officials responsible for protecting us are denied basic information about when and where dangerous pesticides are used. In Maryland, it is almost impossible for health care providers, public health experts and biomedical researchers to accurately understand the risks pesticides pose.

Having spent my career working to address the burden of disease in disadvantaged communities in central Maryland, I appreciated Del. Jim Hubbard and Hannah Pingree's op-ed ("Hold chemical companies to account," June 4). Maryland needs to be doing more to protect our most vulnerable citizens - the young, the old, those with fewer financial or educational resources - from toxic chemicals. I've just read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," written in 1962, which makes it clear how long Americans have been exposed to dangerous pesticides and other chemicals.