Farmers plant hemp on DEA’s front lawn

YouTube

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Researchers Convert Textile Waste to Compost

Earth 911
Lori Brown
Wednesday, August 5, 2009

A new report published in the International Journal of Environment and Pollution finds that waste from the textiles industry could be transformed into rich, agricultural compost, with the use of earthworms and animal manure.

Indian researchers Vinod Gard, Renuka Gupta and Priya Kaushik of the Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology have found a particular species of earthworm to be productive in converting the huge volumes of solid sludge produced by the textiles industry into compost.

The earthworm, known as Eisenia foetida, tends to thrive in rotting vegetation, animal waste and compost, making it a commercially grown species for composting.

Solid textile mill sludge is difficult to dispose of, as landfilling and incineration are not viable options given the expense and environmental concerns. Indian textiles industries are under pressure to find sustainable and cost-effective alternatives to the disposal of this industrial waste.

Textile manufacturing produces large amounts of wastewater which, when treated, creates a sludge as the water is removed and the pollutants are concentrated.

Earthworms are added to the sludge mixture, along with urine-free cow and horse dung, beginning a process that changes the physical and chemical properties of the mixture significantly.

The researchers found the vermicompost process created a compost-like, homogeneous mixture after 180 days.

The earthworms thrive in the manure-enhanced textile sludge, lowering the pH of the alkaline sludge, decreasing the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in the material and increasing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous available for aided plant growth.

The successful tests with vermicompost in textile sludge can prove extremely useful in countries like India which manufacture large amounts of textiles for export. Research has shown other means of treating post-industrial textile waste, including anaerobic digestion, to be successful as well, often producing gases that can be used as fuel.

Organic movement sprouts new crop of farmers

Fresno Bee
Joan Obra
Saturday, July 25, 2009

In the Valley and across the country, there is a new force in agriculture: environmentally minded young farmers.

Some are urbanites cultivating small fields. Others grew up on farms and are returning home. And among college students or recent graduates who are passionate about food, interning on a farm is a rite of passage.

John Teixeira, a Firebaugh farmer who maintains an organic ranch for interns, says he has received more than 50 inquiries this year. “We’ve had tremendous interest,” he says. “They want to grow their own food. That’s the craze.”

Questions about food production lead these youngsters to the fields. Some read “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” author Michael Pollan’s critique of industrial agriculture. They buy food from small farms, both to support local businesses and preserve farmland. They’re concerned about chemicals in their diets.

And they’re recruiting more farmers. In December, 170 young farmers from around the country attended a conference at the Stone Barns Center For Food & Agriculture in New York — far more than expected, organizers say. They’re even documenting their movement in “The Greenhorns,” an upcoming film.

The trend helps offset a problem in agriculture: the aging of the nation’s farmers. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average age of all farmers is 57, up from 55 in 2002.

Young farmers such as Nikiko Masumoto, 23, exemplify the trend.

“By going to U.C. Berkeley, I was able to look at what my family has done through different perspectives,” says Masumoto, the daughter of Del Rey author and organic peach-and-raisin farmer David Mas Masumoto. “Those perspectives allowed me to realize that I could practice my passions for social justice and environmental sustainability through our farm.”

Her peers have similar interests. “It’s just hilarious, all of these friends deciding to work on organic farms,” she says. “It’s like their domestic Peace Corp experience.”

Not all young farmers distrust conventional agriculture. In the central San Joaquin Valley, the nation’s capital of food production, it’s common for children to follow in the footsteps of their farmer parents.

“It’s almost expected,” says Michelle Shackelford of Robert Johnson Farms, a 450-acre conventional farm in Madera that grows raisins and table grapes.

After working in San Francisco as a Goldman Sachs analyst and a buyer at Williams-Sonoma corporate headquarters, Shackelford returned home about five years ago.

The reason was simple: “I think what my family does is a very noble business and I wanted to keep that going,” says Shackelford, now 33.

In the world of agriculture, so-called greenhorns still are a niche movement, says Dave Goorahoo, a Fresno State soil scientist who sits on the transitional steering council of the Sustainable Agriculture Education Association. But they help fill consumer demand for sustainable and organic food, which “are the fastest growing trends in agriculture right now,” he adds.

Organic food played a role in Bryce Loewen’s journey back to Blossom Bluff Orchards in Parlier. Loewen, 31, spent a decade in the Bay Area, where he became a strict vegan for three or four years.

“I think that definitely affected my perceptions of organic agriculture,” he says.

After abandoning plans for a career in digital animation, Loewen worked the farmers markets, selling his parents’ organic stone fruit.

“I left the area because I wasn’t interested in farming, and then found out along the way that I was interested,” says Loewen, who returned to the Valley in January. Full article here…

Codex Continues to Assume GMO Labeling Would Confuse Ignorant Consumer

Natural News
Dr. Gregory Damato
Thursday, July 16, 2009

At the latest Codex Commission on Food Labeling (CCFL) meeting held in Calgary, Canada in May, the US and its allies continued to push for the case that food created through the use of genetic modification (GM) needs no labeling. Despite the fact that 90 percent of Americans, Africans and Europeans want genetically modified organisms (GMOs) labeled, the large multinational food corporations realize that profits come before health and believe that “GM/GE foods are in no way different from other foods simply due to their method of production”. The representatives from the 49th Parallel International NonGovernmental Organizations (INGOs) countered that argument by stating, “If, as the United States has claimed, there is no difference between GM foods and non-GM food, then why do companies rush to the Patent Office to patent their special GM food?”

This contentious issue has been hotly debated for the past 19 years at Codex with no chance for agreement as the entire EU, Brazil, all African countries and Saint Lucia demanded that GMOs be labeled so consumers are able to make an informed choice. The US amazingly submitted a document detailing how labeling GMOs would in fact be in violation of Codex regulations which states, “food shall not be described or presented in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect”. The National Health Federation (NHF) challenged the US and stated that consumers want GMOs to be labeled and the only way GMOs would ever be sold is if consumers remain ignorant of what they are consuming. The multinational representatives of Codex simply believe that consumers would be too confused if GMOs were properly labeled. After some cantankerous infighting amongst representatives regarding the wording of the Draft Recommendation of GM-food labeling a stalemate emerged.

After an acrimonious debate, Chairman Paul Mayers intervened and declared that this issue will not be solved at this meeting and proposed a three-year reprieve from GM-food labeling. The intense pressure from the delegations of Kenya, Denmark and the EU caused the chairman to drop the idea of scrapping the GMO labeling issue for the next three sessions. The session once again ended with the chairman stating the importance of this issue and asked that the progress be continued at next years CCFL meeting to be held in Quebec City, Canada.

The labeling issue remains a contentious one and seems to revolve around the fact that countries who put profits ahead of health do not want any liability when the health effects (e.g., Morgellons Disease, increased allergies, cell death, liver, kidney and fertility problems) begin to be inextricably and causally linked to the long term consumption of toxic GMOs. Codex representatives are not elected by the people and therefore in no way do they represent the views of the majority; they are appointed bureaucrats by the large multinational industries of the western world as a means of securing future profits at the expense of the health of future generations. If you want to help oppose Codex please take a few minutes to sign a petition asking for Congressional oversight on the Trilateral Cooperation Charter (TCC) which has linked the Health Products and Food Branch, in Canada; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in the United States; and the Federal Commission for the Protection from Sanitary Risks, Secretaria de Salud, in Mexico. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/co…

The TCC is attempting to force the US into a North American Union thereby ushering in Codex Alimentarius guidelines. You can also send a message to your congressperson about TCC using the link below.

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=220

Sustainable palm oil gets boost in China

World Wildlife Fund

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Beijing, China – Major China-based producers and users of palm oil have announced they intend to provide more support for sustainable palm oil, an important boost for efforts to halt tropical deforestation.

The public statement, made at the 2nd International Oil and Fats Summit in Beijing on July 9, committed the companies to “support the promotion, procurement and use of sustainable palm oil in China,” as well as “support the production of sustainable palm oil through any investments in producing countries.”

China is currently the world’s largest importer of palm oil, accounting for one third of all global trade. Increasing demand for palm oil, which is used in everything from soap to chocolate bars, is causing considerable damage to fragile rainforest environments, threatening endangered species like tigers, and contributing to global climate change.

Palm oil producers and buyers making the statement included Wilmar International, IOI Corperation, KLK Berhad, Kulim Malaysia Berhad, Asia Agri., Premier Foods PLC and Unilever PLC. Oxfam International, TransAsia Lawyers, and Solidaridad China were signatories.

“Given the massive of volumes of palm oil now being purchased, any move China makes towards using sustainable palm oil will have a big influence on protecting tropical forest resources in South East Asia and other areas,” said WWF-China Country Representative Dermot O’Gorman.

WWF helped set up the international Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in 2004, with the aim of establishing global standards for sustainable palm oil production and promoting the use of products containing sustainable palm oil.

WWF-China first introduced sustainable palm oil to Chinese companies in 2004, and continues to encourage the country’s buyers, producers, and traders to participate in RSPO.

Sustainable palm oil received a massive boost in November 2008 when Dr. Huo Jiangguo, President of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Foodstuffs and Native Produce, attended the RSPO annual conference in Indonesia and announced that China supported the drive for more sustainable palm oil products.

“Industry in China acknowledges that sustainability is one of the key criteria of ensuring competence in the global market,” said Dr. Bian Zhenghu, vice president of the China Chamber of Commerce during his opening address to the forum.

“The roundtable encourages the entire industry chain to make a move towards sustainability, and also gives Chinese stakeholders a big opportunity to play a significant role achieving the aims of RSPO,” Dr. Bian said.

In conjunction with the summit, CFNA and WWF China organized a dialogue on promoting sustainable palm oil in China. More than 100 participants from government and industry attended the summit. Representatives from Malaysia, Indonesia and Europe presented findings on the growth and impact of sustainable palm oil development in key producing countries and trade regions. At the conclusion, the names of pioneer signatories to the Statement of Support for promoting sustainable palm oil in China were announced.

World’s first ever ’self-watering’ plant discovered in Israel

UK Telegraph
Murray Wardrop
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Desert Rhubarb can hold 16 times more water than its rivals and has developed a unique ability to effectively water itself in its barren habitat.

Researchers were confounded by the metre-wide plant’s giant leaves, compared to its desert counterparts, whose tiny leaves stop dangerous moisture loss.

But they found the plant’s large leaves are the key to its success, because they are covered in microscopic streams through which water can be channelled.

Scientists claim ridges in the leaves act like mountain valleys, funnelling the water slowly and directly into the plant while stopping it evaporating.

A team from the Department of Science Education-Biology at the University of Haifa-Oranim, in Israel, said the leaves act like a mini irrigation system.

Lead researcher Professor Gidi Ne’eman said “We know of no other plant in the deserts of the world that functions in this manner.

“We have managed to make out the ’self-irrigating’ mechanism of the desert rhubarb, which enables it to harvest 16 times the amount of water than otherwise expected for a plant in this region based on the quantities of rain in the desert.

“These deep and wide depressions in the leaves create a “channelling” mountain-like system by which the rain water is channelled toward the ground surrounding the plant’s deep root.

“Other desert plants simply suffice with the rain water that penetrates the ground in its immediate surroundings.”

Results of experiments and analysis of the plant’s growth – in an area with an average annual rainfall of 75mm – showed that the desert rhubarb is able to harvest quantities of water that are closer to that of Mediterranean plants, reaching up to 426mm per year.

That is 16 times the amount of water harvested by the small-leafed plants of the Negev desert region.

The Negev makes up more than 50 per cent of Israel’s land area to the south of the country near it’s border with Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula.

Europe refuses to get soil on its hands

UK Guardian
David Cronin
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The other evening I had an experience of mundane magic. At the early age of 38, I ate the first vegetable that I had grown all by myself. It was a humble scallion yet on my tongue it had a tang of pride and achievement.

How many of the EU’s environment ministers who will gather in Luxembourg this Thursday produce their own food? I’m not asking that question because I think that my success story with organic scallions suddenly gives me greener credentials than the political masters of this continent. I ask it because I doubt that many of them feel any emotional connection to soil, judging by the cavalier way they disregard it.

Three years ago, the European commission proposed a legal framework for soil protection. Three years later, it is at risk of being consigned to the compost heap as a small but powerful group of EU governments are refusing to approve it. Britain, France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands are all opposed to the plan, claiming either that implementing it would be too onerous or that soil is a matter best left for national administrations.

The reasons cited for rejecting the blueprint are spurious. Far from being too onerous, the proposal does not go far enough in obliging governments to protect a resource that none of us can live without. Politicians or civil servants from regions with poor soil quality have no reason to fear that Brussels bureaucrats will ambush them with subpoenas. Instead of urgent action, the law would simply require governments to identify areas afflicted by such problems as soil erosion and salinisation (the accumulation of salt) and to compile an inventory of contaminated sites, along with plans to rehabilitate such land.

The soil protection saga is a troubling testament to how the EU’s approach to the environment suffers from compartmentalised thinking. Whereas binding laws have been introduced on air and water, the union lacks similar rules on soil. Any clever child would be able to tell you that all these things are intimately connected. But allegedly well-educated officials and politicians can’t grasp that it’s foolish to try to protect one while neglecting the others.

Britain’s reluctance to endorse the plan offers yet another example of how hollow the rhetoric of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments on climate change has been. Cared for properly, soil can act as a carbon “sink”, absorbing about one-fifth of all man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. When soil is damaged, however, the pattern is reversed and rather than soaking up CO2, it releases it. Each year British soil loses about 0.6% of its organic matter and the resulting increase in CO2 emissions would be roughly equivalent to putting an extra five million cars on the road. This problem has been acute for several decades: between 1980 and 1995 British soil lost 18% of its organic matter. In 2004, the Environment Agency stated that the degradation caused to soil in England and Wales due to such factors as intensive agriculture and mismanagement of forests (during road construction and harvesting) was unsustainable.

Across the EU, thousands of sites have been polluted because of reckless industrial practices; nobody is sure of the full extent of this damage as there is a paucity of data about soil. The commission, meanwhile, reckons that soil degradation deprives the EU economy of €38bn per annum and that’s probably a conservative estimate.

Soil cannot be shielded from further deterioration by token gestures. A comprehensive and effective strategy would have to grapple with reforms of agricultural and industrial policy and a more sensible attitude to waste management (as I’ve learned from my limited experiments in the garden, composting can be of vital importance in keeping soil fertile). Not only does that strategy seem distant, though, our governments also can’t even agree on minimal rules. It is difficult not to despair.

Women’s voices ‘make plants grow faster’ finds Royal Horticultural Society

Telegraph
Richard Alleyne
Monday, June 22, 2009

Women gardeners’ voices speed up growth of tomato plants much more than men’s, it found.

In an experiment run over a month, they found that tomato plants grew up to two inches taller if they were serenaded by the dulcet tones of a female rather than a male.

The findings vindicate comments made by Prince Charles that he talks to his plants although they suggest that for maximum results he would be better off recruiting the Duchess of Cornwall.

Appropriately the most effective talk came from Sarah Darwin, whose great-great grandfather was legendary botanist Charles Darwin, one of the founding fathers of the RHS’ Scientific Committee.

She read a read a passage from the On the Origin of Species and beat nine other ‘voices’.

Her plant grew nearly two inches taller than the best performing male and half an inch higher than her nearest competitor.

Colin Crosbie, Garden Superintendent at RHS, said: “We predicted that the male voice would be more effective but it turned out that the ladies were far better than the gentlemen.

“We just don’t why. It could be that they have a greater range of pitch and tone that affects the sound waves that hit the plant. Sound waves are an environmental effect just like rain or light.”

The experiment began in April at RHS Garden Wisley in Surrey, with open auditions for the public to record excerpts from John Wyndham’s The Day of the Triffids, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night Dream and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

A variety of voices was then picked to play to 10 tomato plants over a month. Every plant was played a voice through headphones connected to the plant pot, and the conditions for all the plants remained the same throughout the experiment. To ensure the experiment was fair, two control plants were also left to grow in silence.

The results showed that women on average saw their plants rise by an inch on their male counterparts. Some men were so bad that their plants actually grew less than a plant that was left completely alone.

Miss Darwin said, “I think it is an honour to have a voice that can make tomatoes grow, and especially fitting because for a number of years I have been studying wild tomatoes from the Galapagos Islands at the Natural History Museum in London.

“I’m not sure if it’s my dulcet tones or the text that I read from On the Origin of Species that made the plant sit up and listen, but either way I think it is great fun and I’m proud of my new title.”

HR 2749: Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply

FoodFreedom

Thursday, June 18, 2009

A new food safety bill is on the fast track in Congress-HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill needs to be stopped.

HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.

HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas.

To read a detailed account of the bill, go to: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm

(Read the section on tracing. That is NAIS, isn’t it? – highly disguised yet triggered by the word “trace.” )
Alarming Provisions:

Some of the more alarming provisions in the bill are:

* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?] Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. [What is the definition?] And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. [Yes. There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren't there? Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX. WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products. They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will.

There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one's own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all. Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished. So, it's obvious where control will take us. And weren't these the "rumors on the internet" that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” [This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

[NAIS for animals and all other foods?]

* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply - is this not fascism? - so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]

* HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals. [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of "crimes"? Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of "the Administrator"? Who is that person set to be? Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said? That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?]

If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now. It goes way beyond “food safety” to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all.

Action to Take:

Contact your Representative now! Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food issues. Tell them you are opposed to the bill. Some points to make in telling your Representative why you oppose HR 2749 include:

1. The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie.

2. Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety; lessening the regulatory burden on them will improve food safety.

3. The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions.

HR 2749 needs to be defeated!! Please take action NOW.

Or, contact your Representative by using the finder tool at www.Congress.org or send a message through the petition system (the petition will be on our website this evening) at http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions_new.htm. Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

To check the status of HR 2749, go to www.Thomas.gov and type “HR 2749″ in the bill search field.

Individuals Who Apply Pesticides Are Found To Have Double The Risk Of Blood Disorder

ScienceDaily

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

A study involving 678 individuals who apply pesticides, culled from a U.S. Agricultural Health Study of over 50,000 farmers, recently found that exposure to certain pesticides doubles one’s risk of developing an abnormal blood condition called MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance) compared with individuals in the general population. The disorder, characterized by an abnormal level of a plasma protein, requires lifelong monitoring as it is a pre-cancerous condition that can lead to multiple myeloma, a painful cancer of the plasma cells in the bone marrow.

“Previously, inconclusive evidence has linked agricultural work to an increased multiple myeloma risk. Our study is the first to show an association between pesticide exposure and an excess prevalence of MGUS,” said lead author Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “This finding is particularly important given that we recently found in a large prospective cancer screening study that virtually all multiple myeloma patients experienced a MGUS state prior to developing myeloma.”

“As several million Americans use pesticides, it’s important that the risks of developing MGUS from the use of pesticides is known,” added senior study author and NCI investigator Michael Alavanja, DrPH.

The blood of study participants, who were individuals licensed to apply restricted-use pesticides, was assessed for MGUS prevalence. The median age of participants was 60 years (range 30-94 years), and all lived in either Iowa or North Carolina. Participants also completed questionnaires providing comprehensive occupational exposure information for a wide range of pesticides, including information such as the average number of days of pesticide use per year, years of use, use of protective gear while applying pesticides, and pesticide application methods. Information on smoking and alcohol use, cancer histories of the participants’ first-degree relatives, and other basic demographic and health data were also obtained. Individuals with prior histories of lymphoproliferative malignancies (such as multiple myeloma or lymphoma) were excluded. Cancer incidence and mortality were monitored annually, and, after five years, follow-up interviews were conducted to update the information about participants’ occupational exposures, medical histories, and lifestyle factors.

For comparison, data were obtained from a large MGUS-screening study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, and the results from the pesticide-exposed group were compared with the assessments of 9,469 men from the general population of Olmsted County, Minnesota. The two groups were similar in terms of age, race, and educational attainment. Because of the low prevalence of women among workers who apply pesticides, women were excluded from the study.

In the pesticide-exposed group, no MGUS cases were observed among those who were less than 50 years of age, but the prevalence of MGUS in those older than 50 was 6.8 percent, which is 1.9 times higher than the general population study group of men in Minnesota.

The researchers also evaluated the potential association between MGUS prevalence and 50 specific pesticides for which usage data were known. Of the chemicals studied, a significantly increased risk of MGUS was observed among users of dieldrin (an insecticide), carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide (a fumigant mixture), and chlorothalonil (a fungicide). The MGUS risk for these agents increased 5.6-fold, 3.9-fold, and 2.4-fold, respectively. Several other insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides were associated with MGUS, but not significantly.

“There is great concern regarding the increase in frequency in mature B-cell malignancies in the Western world and what may be the cause of this. A number of reports in the past have linked exposure to pesticides with increased risk of these types of cancers, but the present study is the first to link agricultural work to a pre-malignant condition,” said John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine at Barts and the London School of Medicine, who is not affiliated with the study. “It is vital to assess the risk of workplace exposure and disease, and the results lend further support to providing safe workplace practices to limit exposure to potential carcinogens.”

“Our findings are intriguing,” stated Dr. Landgren. If replicated in a larger sample from our study and other large studies, further work should focus on gaining a better understanding of the molecular basis of MGUS and multiple myeloma. Ultimately, this will result in the identification of novel molecular targets involved in the progression from MGUS to multiple myeloma and in the development of targeted therapies.”

The study will appear in the June 18 issue of Blood.

Next Page »