Despite all the evidence raised by WildlifeDirect and partners on the impact of Carbofuran on wildlife (lions, birds, fish, insects), the Kenya Pest Control Products Board has not been supportive and indeed states that there is no evidence that the product is dangerous. Unlike Canada and USA, the Kenya Government does not provide consumers with any information on the impacts that products we use are having on people or the environment.

The US EPA is proceeding toward cancellation of carbofuran registrations, to address risks to pesticide applicators and birds.  In 2006, in addition to dietary risks, EPA identified significant occupational and ecological risks from the use of carbofuran. Although carbofuran uses have benefits, EPA concluded that carbofuran products pose an unreasonable risk to human beings and the natural environment, and these risks outweigh the benefits of continued use. Therefore, all uses of carbofuran must be cancelled.In Canada, all products containing carbofuran are proposed for phase out because, based on available scientific information, they do not meet Health Canada’s current standards for human health and environmental protection and pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Additional mitigation measures are not being proposed at this time.

We submit that if carbofuran is too dangerous to be used in USA and Canada then it is too dangerous to be used in Kenya.

Frederick M. Fishel at the University of Florida Pesticide Information Office  has written up a detailed account about Carbofuran and the cancellation process on their website. The following content comes from that site.

Carbofuran is a carbamate insecticide/nematicide, first registered in the United States in 1969. Carbofuran is classified as a restricted-use pesticide due to acute oral and inhalation toxicity. Carborfuran inhibits cholinesterase enzymes, affecting nerve-impulse transmission. Several formulations of the trade product, Furadan^®, are currently available (Figure 1). Although carbofuran has various registered uses, some of the commodities carbofuran is applied to in Florida include potato, corn, sugarcane, and cotton.

In the late 1990s, to reduce risks posed to drinking water and the natural environment due to carbofuran use, the manufacturer, Food Machinary and Chemical Corporation (FMC), made a number of changes to labels for flowable carbofuran. These changes included reducing the label-allowed application rates and numbers of applications.

• Topics: Pesticide Information Office  |  Fishel, Frederick M  |  Insecticides  |  Nematicides

Carbofuran Cancellation Process¹

Frederick M. Fishel²

This EDIS publication provides a brief history of carbofuran’s use in the United States, describes risks associated with carbofuran use, and outlines the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) stated rational for revoking its regulations that have allowed carbofuran residues in food. This publication also describes the EPA’s plans announced in 2008 to cancel the pesticide’s registration due to risks carbofuran poses to pesticide applicators and to birds in treated fields.

Carbofuran Background

Carbofuran is a carbamate insecticide/nematicide, first registered in the United States in 1969. Carbofuran is classified as a restricted-use pesticide due to acute oral and inhalation toxicity. Carborfuran inhibits cholinesterase enzymes, affecting nerve-impulse transmission. Several formulations of the trade product, Furadan^®, are currently available (Figure 1). Although carbofuran has various registered uses, some of the commodities carbofuran is applied to in Florida include potato, corn, sugarcane, and cotton.

In the late 1990s, to reduce risks posed to drinking water and the natural environment due to carbofuran use, the manufacturer, Food Machinary and Chemical Corporation (FMC), made a number of changes to labels for flowable carbofuran. These changes included reducing the label-allowed application rates and numbers of applications.

Figure 1.  Furadan 4F is an example of a carbofuran trade product currently on the market in USA.

To date, three human studies have been conducted for carbofuran – one oral and two dermal. In May 2006, these studies were reviewed by the EPA’s Human Studies Review Board (HSRB). The Board concluded that, while the studies were informative, the results are not appropriate for use by the EPA in either the individual carbofuran or carbamate cumulative risk assessment. The EPA did not use the results of the human studies in the risk assessment for carbofuran. Carbofuran is classified by the EPA as “Not Likely” to be a human carcinogen.

Ecological Effects

Carbofuran is:

• Very highly toxic to birds on an acute basis and highly toxic on a sub-acute basis. A chronic-effect level could not be established because all concentrations tested caused mortality in the test subjects.
• Highly toxic to mammals on an acute basis. Chronic toxicity testing on laboratory rats showed reduced offspring survival and body-weight reductions.
• Very highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. The available chronic test showed larval survival as the most sensitive endpoint for freshwater fish. Embryo hatching was indicated as the most sensitive endpoint for estuarine/marine fish.
• Very highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis. Chronic tests showed reproductive effects.

Pesticide Reregistration

All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must by law be registered by the EPA, based on scientific studies showing that the pesticide can be used without posing unreasonable risks to people or to the environment. Additionally, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 protects the public from health risks presented with exposure to excessive pesticide residues in/on foods and everyday surroundings, such as in the home and at places of employment. This FQPA amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) with respect to the EPA’s process of establishing tolerances for pesticide residues in food and in the atmosphere. As a result, pesticides first registered by the EPA before November 1, 1984, must be reregistered to ensure that the pesticides meet today’s more-stringent standards, which are due to advances in scientific knowledge.

In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews comprehensive studies from pesticide producers describing each pesticide’s effects to human health and the environment. To implement provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA considers the special sensitivity of infants and children to pesticides, as well as aggregate exposure of the public to pesticide residues from all sources and the cumulative effects of pesticides and other compounds with common mechanisms of toxicity.

EPA develops any mitigation measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce each pesticide’s risks. EPA then reregisters pesticides that meet current standards for human health and safety. According to the EPA, these are the pesticides that can be used without posing unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.

When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) reasons for the decision on whether to reregister the pesticide or cancel registration for the pesticide.

Tolerance Revocation

Due to considerable risks associated with carbofuran in food and drinking water, EPA is revoking its regulations that have allowed carbofuran residues in food. Because dietary exposures to infants and children are of particular concern, the EPA is moving to revoke carbofuran tolerances first, before cancelling carbofuran registrations. This approach provides the most direct and timely means to realize protection of children from dietary risks. It also allows multiple stakeholders an additional opportunity to comment.

According to a statement released by the EPA on July 24, 2008, even though carbofuran is used on a small percentage of the U.S. food supply and therefore the likelihood of human exposure through food is low, EPA has identified risks that do not meet their rigorous food safety standards. EPA is taking the necessary steps to address these risks to ensure that the U.S. has the safest food supply possible. Children and others should continue to eat a variety of foods, as recommended by the federal government and nutritional experts.

In a Federal Register notice signed in July 2008, EPA is proposing to revoke all U.S. carbofuran tolerances. EPA specifically will request comment on whether any individual carbofuran tolerances, or group of tolerances, meet the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) safety standard. It is possible that one or more individual carbofuran tolerances could be maintained, if information is provided to demonstrate that the tolerance(s) would be safe.

Revoking carbofuran tolerances is part of a broader series of EPA actions to cancel all uses of carbofuran in the U.S. due to human dietary, occupational, and ecological risks of concern. After moving to revoke carbofuran tolerances, EPA subsequently plans to publish a Notice of Intent to Cancel all carbofuran registrations.

EPA establishes tolerances for pesticides that may be found on foods and can also revoke tolerances to better safeguard public health and the environment. The EPA must modify or revoke any tolerance that it determines is unsafe, that is, that does not meet the safety standard of the FFDCA. The EPA is proposing to revoke all tolerances for carbofuran because exposure through food and drinking water does not meet the FFDCA safety standard.

 Canada

This information is from the Canada Pest Control Board.

 “After a re-evaluation of the insecticide carbofuran, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), under the authority of the Pest Control Products Act, is proposing phase out of carbofuran products in Canada.

An evaluation of available scientific information found that, under the current conditions of use, carbofuran products pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, and therefore do not meet Health Canada’s current standards for human health and environmental protection. As a result, all uses of carbofuran are proposed for phase-out. This includes registered uses on canola, mustard, sunflower, corn (sweet, field and silage), sugar beet, green pepper, potato, raspberry and strawberry as well as temporary emergency uses on turnip and rutabaga. The emergency uses on turnip and rutabaga were registered for the period of April 1, 2008, to August 31, 2008, and are no longer registered for use in Canada, but were included at the time of this assessment.

The PMRA‘s pesticide re-evaluation program considers potential risks as well as the value of pesticide products to ensure they meet modern standards established to protect human health and the environment. Regulatory Directive DIR2001-03, PMRA Re-evaluation Program, presents the details of the re-evaluation activities and program structure. Re-evaluation draws on data from registrants, published scientific reports, information from other regulatory agencies, and any other relevant information available.

The proposal affects all end-use products registered in Canada that contain carbofuran. This Proposed Re-evaluation Decision is a consultation document that summarizes the science evaluation for carbofuran and presents the reasons for the proposed re-evaluation decision.

The information in the Portable Document Format (PDF) version of this document is presented in two parts. The Overview describes the regulatory process and key points of the evaluation, while the Science Evaluation provides detailed technical information on the human health, environmental and value assessment of carbofuran.”

University of Pittsburgh researchers have reported in the September edition of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry that the four-day testing period the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commonly uses to determine safe levels of pesticide exposure for humans and animals could fail to account for the toxins’ long-term effects.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry article reports “lag effect,” revealing that harmful effects can remain hidden until after EPA’s four-day direct exposure test.

The likes of neurotoxin endosulfan can exhibit a “lag effect” with the fallout from exposure not surfacing until after direct contact has ended. Lead author Devin Jones, a recent Pitt biological sciences graduate, conducted the experiment under Rick Relyea, an associate professor of biological sciences in Pitt’s School of Arts and Sciences, with collaboration from Pitt post-doctoral researcher John Hammond. In the study, the team exposed nine species of frog and toad tadpoles to endosulfan levels “expected and found in nature” for the EPA’s required four-day period, then moved the tadpoles to clean water for an additional four days, Jones reported. Although endosulfan was ultimately toxic to all species, three
species of tadpole showed no significant sensitivity to the chemical until after they were transferred to fresh water. Within four days of being moved, up to 97 percent of leopard frog tadpoles perished along with up to 50 percent of spring peeper and American toad tadpoles.Read more on the “lag effect” here.

Relyea explains that endosulfan is 1,000-times more lethal to amphibians than other pesticides. Yet, he said, if the
powerful insecticide cannot kill one the world’s most susceptible species in four days, then the four-day test period may not adequately gauge the long-term effects on larger, less-sensitive species.

“When a pesticide’s toxic effect takes more than four days to appear, it raises serious concerns about making regulatory decisions based on standard four-day tests for any organism,” Relyea said. “For most pesticides, we assume that animals will die during the period of exposure, but we do not expect substantial death after the exposure has ended. Even if EPA
regulations required testing on amphibians, our research demonstrates that the standard four-day toxicity test would have dramatically underestimated the lethal impact of endosulfan on even this notably sensitive species.”

Andrew Blaustein, a professor in Oregon State Universitysaid the results raise concerns about standards for other chemicals and the delayed dangers that might be overlooked. “The results are somewhat alarming because standards for assessing the impacts of contaminants are usually based on short-term studies that may be insufficient in revealing the true impact,” Blaustein said. “The implications of this study go beyond a single pesticide and its effect on amphibians. Many other animals and humans may indeed be affected similarly.”

Tadpoles in the Pitt project spent four days in 0.5 liters of water containing endosulfan concentrations of 2, 6, 7, 35, 60, and 296 parts-per-billion (ppb), levels consistent with those found in nature. The team cites estimates from Australia-where endosulfan is widely used-that the pesticide can reach 700 ppb when sprayed as close as 10 meters from the
ponds amphibians typically call home and 4 ppb when sprayed within 200 meters. The EPA estimates that surface drinking water can have chronic endosulfan levels of 0.5 to 1.5 ppb and acute concentrations of 4.5 to 23.9 ppb.

Leopard frogs, spring peepers, and American toads fared well during the experiment’s first four days, but once they were in clean water, the death rate spiked for animals previously exposed to 35 and 60 ppb. Although the other six species did not experience the lag effect, the initial doses of endosulfan were still devastating at very low concentrations. Grey and
Pacific tree frogs, Western toads, and Cascades frogs began dying in large numbers from doses as low as 7 ppb, while the same amount killed all green frog and bullfrog tadpoles.

The endosulfan findings build on a 10-year effort by Relyea to understand the potential links between the global decline in amphibians, routine pesticide use, and the possible threat to humans in the future.

A second paper by Relyea and Jones also in the current Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry expands on one of Relyea’s most notable investigations, a series of findings published in Ecological Applications in
2005 indicating that the popular weed-killer Roundup® is “extremely lethal” to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. The latest work determined the toxicity of Roundup Original Max for a wider group of larval amphibians, including nine frog and toad species and four salamander species. For more, please read the Roundup paper.

In November 2008, Relyea reported in Oecologia that the world’s 10 most popular pesticides-which have been detected in nature-combine to create “cocktails of contaminants” that can destroy amphibian populations, even if the concentration of each individual chemical is within levels considered safe to humans and animals. The mixture killed 99 percent of leopard frog tadpoles and endosulfan alone killed 84 percent.

A month earlier, Relyea published a paper in Ecological Applications reporting that gradual amounts of malathion-the most popular insecticide in the United States-too small to directly kill developing leopard frog tadpoles instead sparked a biological chain reaction that deprived them of their primary food source. As a result, nearly half the tadpoles in the experiment did not reach maturity and would have died in nature.

Technorati : EPA, Pesticides

Dear readers, the summary on the post 4 points on carbofuran poisoning in humans revealed intentional poisoning in humans as the mode by which human mortalities occured. So is the case for lion poisoning and likewise bird poisoning. But EPA spells that even proper use of the pesticide is harmful especially to children, hence the ongoing process to ban it from the USA “in a move to protect people, especially children, from dietary risk.”

The lab analysts that gave me the facts in the post, 4 points on carbofuran poisoning in humans did not understand why the people feeding on Furadan-poisoned birds in Bunyala (and Mwea) region were not dying. First and foremost, there has been no medical research on the effects of the poison on the people in the areas. Data on human poisoning let alone precision of actual responsible poison is retreavable from the poorly staffed and equiped health centres in the area. We therefore concluded that most likely the deaths occur but are never reported.

But locals and the 2 doctors who also own pharmacies and whom I got to talk to in Bunyala agree there are a couple of mortality cases that occur in the area are certainly poisoning cases. When asked which poison they thought was responsible, they gave a number but named Furadan first; asked what they thought the most common and probable poison used to kill the humans was, they picked on Furadan. Both doctors admit they have no proper records where they have recorded the poisoning cases. For another reason, locals are lacking in liquid cash, though their livestock assets are modest and apparently they save these for last though this is not well illustrated given the high rate of illiteracy and long-illness deaths. The locals therefore will tend to self-treat or strain their immunities to fight without medicinal back up. In such cases, people will try giving the poisoned fellow milk at best otherwise they pass on without medical intervention. Even in death, post-mortems are never carried out let alone being known. The berieved then cling onto the corpse of their beloved one for fear of superstitious practices being performed on their own in case the body has to be taken to hospital for medical examination in which case the dead would remain to haunt them. And so, if Furadan was the cause of death the evidence goes with the dead to the grave.

At the lab, one analyst tried explaining the phenomenon of ‘no observable’ intoxication in humans in Bunyala. He explained that the poison once ingested by a bird goes to the brain before going elsewhere in the body. I wish I understood that but I had to be contented with the path of poison travel as first to the brain. Of course the alimentary canal is tainted with the poison as well. Consumers of the poisoned birds normally get rid of the head, legs and entrails therefore lower the quantity that will be consumed. Nonetheless, the expert said that in this poison’s killing path, the poison does spread. Further, during cooking, the poison is concentrated citing that they use heat to concentrate Furadan in samples to be analysed in the lab for carbofuran. The lttle Furadan in the bird’s meat is therfore consumed after being concentrated even though it may not attain the lethal amount!

Poisoned pigeon in Bunyala: the bird had been picked by 3 boys having died out of the poacher’s poisoning range. Poison is concentrated in the brain and gut.

In the post, Furadan Everywhere, I tried to explain how the Furadan used in Bunyala gets ‘everywhere’ inclusive of domestic water sources. In EPA’s Tolerance Revocation, “EPA completed action to revoke existing carbofuran tolerances (residue limits in food) due to unacceptable dietary risks, especially to children, from consuming a combination of food and water with carbofuran residues.” I think people in Bunyala are consuming this combination. More is that a majority are youngsters (children) with rice being one of the immediate post-weaning foodstuffs that they have to get used to eating.

Kids giving mummy a helping hand with the rice; will they grow to be strong?will they survive? There might just be Furadan residues in the rice that cou;d cause intoxication.

Rice cultivation is inseparable from Furadan use; it is the media by which Furadan found its way to Bunyala. The supply was so gross that the Furadan supplied at planting time from the time the seedlings are developing in the seedbeds remains to be used in vegetable shambas (gardens), poisoning birds and for other crude uses suh as being put on wounds to keep off flies. Those who have tried the latter say the flies drop dead.And it is also the efficient way to commit suicide or kill another person(s) who you are not in very good terms with! As far as rice production is concerned, the rice grown in the fields is as good as a cash crop only not sold by the farmers: the irrigation board claims its lion’s share for the planting inputs that were provided to the farmers once the rice matures and is harvested. Some however remains with the farmers who make it almost an all-meals constituent. In the morning it is taken with tea, at lunch time it may be taken with legumes, mostly beans and in the evening with poisoned bird stew or skipped to be eaten the next day at the frequency of at least 2 meals a day. But EPA says that Furadan even when used as a nematicide correctly in such a manner as rice production, still its residues will remain in the food. So the Banyalas and Luos in satiating their hunger are lodging an intoxicant in their bodies with those unable to survive passing on quietly.

It is a long string of deaths due to Furadan: animal bait(snails, small fish, grasshoppers, locusts,), birds and humans. Elsewhere our majestic big cats are at its mercy.

Please keep reading.

Technorati : , Bunyala, EPA, Furadan, Mwea, poison

Furadan not only poisons the animals it is directly used to poison but also gets into the water, soil and plants.

Bunyala is an amazing, almost perfect plain ‘s land. It was checking out this panoramic view that it occcured to me that on the flat surface, just like the water flows to almost submerge the entire Bunyala area, so does whatever that is dissolved in the water.

A flat expanse: Bunyala

The farmers who tend the paddy have been using Furadan for at least 3 decades in the production of the crop. The soil is acidic, black cotton soil, the conditions of which favor slower degradation of carbofuran therefore the pesticide lasts longer in the prevalent conditions in Bunyala.

When the nearby river Nzoia bursts its banks, the flood waters find their way especially by way of the irrigation canals to the rice scheme, pick up whatever is in the paddy fields of the Furadan and flows to the surrounding plains. With reduced momentum, some of the water seeps into the soil. With receding floods, I bet the grass takes up some of the deposited Furadan if it is not degraded.

At flooding, irrigation canals overflow, their spillage getting as far as and beyond the surrounding homesteads

Bunyala residents use bore-hole water. At flooding, the water in the bore hole rises to almost ground level the extra having come from rain water but also from flood water which is the overflow some of which is contaminated with Furadan after having gotten to the rice scheme and out of the irrigation water canals, gushing out and into the boreholes and wells eventually. It is this water that the residents of Bunyala then draw and use for domestic use.

My assistant offering a helping hand to children at a borehole. Such are the wells that get Furadan contamination at flooding.

Then there is the rice that is grown using Furadan. Its safety not up to standard especially to children at least by the merit of EPA.

Unshelld rice on a drying mat and a kid playing on it; after a few days the rice will be separated from the husk by hitting it using sticks and the young man will soon be relying on the grain for his upkeep.

Everything might just be contaminated using furadan in Bumyala: Cattle grazing in contaminated grass; people drinking, cooking and washing using contaminated water and still, people feeding on rice that may just not be safe for human consumption.

So far!

Bunyala Rice Irrigation Scheme: In these rice fields, birds are poisoned using Furadan by the thousands each month

Dear readers, early 2000 marked the start of confronting the problem of poisoning using Furadan by conservationists especially ornithologists amongst others ecologists in Kenya. Furadan had been introduced into Kenya in the early 80′s as an agricultural nematicide pesticide and people, farmers and non-farmers alike had discovered its deadly poisonious nature, harnessing the property for destructive non-agicultural related killing of biodiversity.

In the early 2000s, FMC sent some officials to Kenyafor the first time to come discuss the issue with the conservationists that the pesticide had been observed to be killing birds, especially waterbirds in rice irrigation schemes. At the end of the meeting the FMC delegates left with amongst the agreed measures they had to undertake back at their company in the U.S.A to: brand on Furadan’s label, “Not for use in paddy” and to sell the pesticide in packages of 25+ Kg weight. Everyone then sat back and waited in joyful hope.

Time continued wearing past and the faithful Kenyan conservationists that had shared the same discussion table with FMC ran out of patience, realizing they had been taken for a raw deal. Afterall, none of the agreed on steps to be taken by FMC were implimented and nobody from FMC ever justified the one-sided decision to rubbish the decisions. Meanwhile, the pesticide continued to be abused to kill biodiversity which Kenya, a struggling third world country relies on for its revenue.

It is unfortunate that the turn of events associated with Furadan poisoning caught everyone unawares. But I think it is expected when you understand the sniping nature with which the pesticide operates as a poison and I bet it would be the same with many other poisons. Even the regulatory organizations, PCPB and AAK (their names must have changed) sat tight and did not consider that their role to verify the safety of the pesticide product was an absolute failure and the proof of the pesticide’s safety either by the manufacturer or even by the Kenyan regulatory agencies’ a total sham. Instead the pesticide continued hiding behind wiping completely the nematodes (soil worms) as it was any biodiversity unabatedly.

With just birds as the reference point for Furadan’s foul play and lacking in progressive mortality documentation, there was no much to face the local regulators and persuade them that the pesticides needed their urgent attention. Soon however, whispers of extended foul play of the pesticide in killing other biodiversity in the background grew louder . Two surveys were then undertaken to find out the distribution and general use of the pesticide. Amongst the findings of the surveys were wide distribution of the pesticide extending to non-crop agricultural areas or pastoralist areas and commercial crop farming areas especially rice growing areas. Also, intents for which Furadan was being used in most of these areas was revealed to be downrightly inclined more to abuse as a poison than proper pesticidal use. Furadan had become rogue and even EPA points it out clearly that it is unsafe even when properly used hence its ban in the U.S.

The surveys listed amongst the poisoned biodiversity include birds with especially shocking mortalities in vultures and water birds, also seedeaters, lions, hyenas, wildebeests, warthogs, crocodiles, fish, domestic dogs, domestic cats and unconfirmed human mortality cases. The list is longer and disturbing and drove Wildlife Direct Chaired by Dr. Richard Leakey in May 2008 to organize a stakeholder’s meeting to share and discuss the matter of poisoning using Furadan: The Kenya Wildlife Service, World Wildlife Fund, Endangered Wildlife Trust, National Museums of Kenya, Kenya Society for the Protection and Care of Animals, EAWLS, BirdLife International, Wetlands International, Peregrine Fund, National Environmental Management Authority, JUANCO, PCPB all attended. Numerous presentations were made on cases of various biodiversity poisoning giving testimony to the heineous destruction attributed to the poison and showing how urgent an issue Furadan poisoning had become. While ALL saw the endangering conservation problem associated with Furadan poisoning, Juanco and PCPB saw otherwise with some of the officials from these two organizations declaring some of the studies whose results had been presented non-scientific; data insufficient hence inadequate evidence against Furadan.

While the 2 defenders of the pesticide made their stand clear that ‘Furadan is not a problem’, Dr. Richard Leakey nonetheless led our campaign at Wildlife Direct to end wildlife poisoning by calling for a ban on carbofurans (Furadan and its likes) just days after the meeting. The call was directed at various relevant government ministries: Ministry of Wildlife and Natural Resources, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. With Dr. Richard Leakey’s and Wildlife direct’s motive bold, sincere and with natinal interest at heart, unfortunately nobody seemed to heed us. Further at Wildlife Direct, this blog was set up to tell the world on the dangerous, latent, wildlife poisoning issues, focusing particularly on Wildlife poisoning. Other Wildlife Direct blogs also continue to document on the issue as it affects them: Baraza Blog, lionguardians and kilimanjaro lion conservation plroject blog (currently inactive)amongst others.

Fighting almost aloof in Furadan poisoning terrorism, the CBS documentaryin March 2009 rejuvenated our vigour. The reality of mad lion poisoning was vividly highlighted; Over 60 lions killed from the pesticide’s poisoning. It goes just beyond this with various other organisms studied to be under great threat for instance during the meeting in May 2008 lorries of poisoned birds were shown to have been poisoned by Furadan; Vulture population in Kenya has nose-dived with some species such as the Egyptian Vulture possibly extirpated in the region. Instanteneous vulture mortalities in Kenya were reported in 2005 reaching up to over 200 strong which is about the largest congregatory figure of mixed species of vultures. This means a total loss of whole colonies in some poisoning instances; Numerous waterbirds and currently in Bunyala, Kenya montly bird mortalities are projected up to 3000 mixed bird species in one site whose area is hardly 400 ha.

We went further on at wildlifedirect to pursue on getting long term data at one present day Furadan poisoning site in the name of ‘evidence’ for our local regulatory agents, PCPB and AAK because the pesticide continues to be easily aquired for use from agrovet shops despite its evidenced gross abuse. This goes on even after the buy back program by FMC and recently the pesticide has been found broadly displayed in a number of agrovets in one of the capital towns in the country, Eldoret; check Furadan availability on our blog. So after some fundraising, we have been gathering data and documenting the observations on this blog on Bird Poisoning in Bunyala since February this year (2009). Even with this, no expertise has heeded these revelations and no regulatory persona have gotten on the ground to witness this. What it means is that we have hit a regulation stalemate of the pesticide. The regulatory agencies remain put and indifferent despite our monthly updates on Furadan poisoning to them.

With the prevalent stalemate however certain recent developments have occured. For instance various conservationists met with FMC officials in June 2009;Wildlife Direct’s top person met with the Minister for Wildlife on the issue; also we have had some other politicians’ support in fighting against the pesticide in parliament and a parliamentary discussion on the ban of the substance. The problem is that our motive is clear: ban Furadan for human and biodiversity’s safety in Kenya, while the various people and institutions we are meeting are taking too long to take on a sound decision and impliment it.

Please keep reading for more updates and revelations and support us in our campaign to end wildlife poisoning. You realize the case of Furadan availability in Eldoret was from a coleague who is doing his other research. It may not always be the case and it is not possible for me to be everywhere. However, just through a scout located on the site we can be able to integrate the information and make a follow up. The case stresses the need for me to get scouts at areas I refer to as ‘hot spots’ which are essentially intensive poisoning areas. I have done surveys in 3 major rice growing schemes and in two of these I have nobody on the ground. For a start, a scout just needs a phone with a camera option to be able to send me a short text message and to take a photo of the incidence.Such phone locally would cost 90 dollars, so 3 pieces for a start. Further, I have noted Furadan supply is on the increase again but traded on secretly. We therefore need to be clear on Furadan availability, another task that scouts would easily help me accomplish, because most likely there is another supplier or suppliers taking root and the killer will just keep wreaking havoc with its continued supply. While the regulatory agencies are indifferent, I strongly believe with continued gathering of whooping evidence of the cases of poisoning with a diverted approach now to media publicity we still have a greater chance of getting the poison banned.

keep reading.

U.S. regulator announces crackdown on carbofuran, and Canadian health
authorities are considering whether to follow suit

Mark Hume Vancouver – Globe and Mail Update, Wednesday, May. 20, 2009
11:05PM EDT

A toxic agricultural pesticide blamed for killing up to 100 million birds a
year in North America and for poisoning lions in Africa, is facing a
proposed ban in Canada this summer.

Following a ruling last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
forbid the sale of any domestic or imported food crops that have traces of
the chemical carbofuran, Health Canada is proposing to “phase out all uses”
of the pesticide.

But the move comes decades after Canadian government officials first
learned carbofuran was wiping out everything from flocks of songbirds in
the Prairies to eagles in British Columbia.

One of the first warnings about the pesticide came in 1984 when a
Saskatchewan farmer went to inspect a canola field he’d treated with
carbofuran.

“He returned to find the bodies of several thousand Lapland Longspurs
dotting the field,” according to a report on the incident by the Canadian
Wildlife Service.

The Lapland Longspur is a sparrow-like songbird that breeds in the Arctic
and winters in open fields across southern Canada and the United States.

In 1993, Agriculture Canada published a special “discussion document” on
the chemical that states “carbofuran has one of the highest recorded
toxicities to birds of any insecticide registered for use in Canada.”

A single grain of carbofuran – the size of piece of sand – or a single
tainted earthworm can be lethal, the document says. “On the basis of kill
rates reported in company studies conducted in cornfields, it can be
concluded that the use of granular carbofuran will result in the death of a
large proportion of the songbirds breeding in and around treated fields.”

Despite such findings, the government allowed use of the pesticide to
continue.

Pierre Mineau, a research scientist with CWS and one of the world’s leading
experts on carbofuran’s environmental impact, declined an interview request
yesterday, saying he couldn’t speak without clearance.

When The Globe and Mail refused to provide questions in advance,
Environment Canada officials said Dr. Mineau was not available.

Agriculture Canada directed all questions to Health Canada, which declined
to provide anyone to be interviewed.

“Health Canada is in the process of preparing a publication on the
re-evaluation of carbofuran to be released this summer, which will be
proposing to phase out all uses,” Philippe Laroche, a ministry media
spokesman, stated in an e-mail.

“The re-evaluation of carbofuran indicates that this insecticide poses
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment,” he wrote.

Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy for the American Bird
Conservancy, was delighted to hear Health Canada proposes following the
lead of the EPA.

“That’s great news. That’s wonderful,” he said yesterday.

He said estimates on the number of birds killed annually by carbofuran
range from 17 million to 100 million.

Asked why it has taken so long to ban the chemical when its devastating
impact on birds had been known for decades, Dr. Fry commented: “I think
there’s been a very aggressive campaign by the [manufacturing] company to
keep the pesticide on the market.”

Jim Fitzwater, a spokesman for FMC Corp., a Philadelphia company that
manufactures carbofuran under the trade name, Furadan®, said he wasn’t
aware of the Health Canada proposal.

“Let’s see what their analysis is first [before responding],” he said.

Mr. Fitzwater said FMC is planning to file an official objection to the EPA
ruling, and hopes to have that decision reviewed.

He declined to say how much Furadan® is sold in Canada, but a 1991 report
by Health Canada states that between 100,000 and 500,000 kilograms was
being used annually on crops.

Furadan® made international news in March when the CBS news program 60
Minutes reported that 75 lions had been killed in Kenya, apparently by
poachers who poisoned baits with the chemical.

FMC Corp. responded to the reports by withdrawing the chemical from the
market in Kenya.

Hi readers. Apparently the statement of withdrawal of Furadan by FMC from Kenya is not enough. Not when there is no public announcement by the manufacturer on the withdrawal from the Eastern African States-Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

In Kenya, as at yesterday 11/05/2009, the pesticide is found in open display in agrovets located hardly 20 miles from JUANCO’s premises, the local distributor and organization appointed by FMC to execute the local buy back of furadan. It is painfully ironical that the pesticide has been reclaimed in regions half the country away but is still found in what appears to be more than modest supplies in the neighbourhood of JUANCO. Worse is the fact that in this region, where the pesticide continues to be in supply, Kiserian, is in Kajiado District where we have had some of the cases of predator poisoning, inclusive of lions and hyenas by the same reported from.

As a matter of fact, even with 22 withdrawals of the pesticides’ uses in the USA by FMC, these were never sufficient! Furadan is therefore being banned by EPA in the US, being behind the deaths of millions of birds. Still, it is a dietery risk to humans, especially children.Read about the revocation at EPA’s site, Carbofuran Pesticide Residues in Food Revoked.

It is sad that Kenya remains a living practical example of continued bird and other willife poisoning from furadan and the effects on humans still remain enshrouded in lack of scientific expose’.

With all good intent, I feel Pesticide Control Products Board (PCPB)and Agrochemical Association of Kenya (AAK) ought to consider the significance of EPA’s move in their sound judgement as concerns furadan’s local regulation. Clearly all is not well with this deadly toxic pesticide, FURADAN.

Hi all,

We are now struggling with pushing on with the implimentation of the outcomes of the just convened meeting of the Stop Wildlife Poisoning Task Force at Wildlife Direct, Nairobi, Kenya . We still hope Richard Leakey’s call for ban of carbofuran will yield a reasonable response from the government. Meanwhile we are trying to make headways with a review of all that concerns carbofuran which is essentially our mission. Hopefully, we will garner enough of more of the necessary evidence (of course in addition to what we already have) against carbofuran to get everybody’s attention and only justifiably lay to rest the chemical that clearly is dangerously outliving its time. I say enough of more necessary evidence because we hope it will not be deemed insufficient. I just do not know when the evidence will be sufficient to the local and international custodians of this chemical and many others. What it means is that the chemical continues to act out there both in its good ways (limited since even proper use is harmful; EPA will agree with me) and limitless lethal toxic ways. I hope when the information is enough, our wildlife populations will still stand at handsome figures though. I hope this will not be when almost, if not every organism, including humans, when tested they will positively have carbofuran in their systems (A sad case for Alaska where pollutants are just in almost every living thing which is what I have stumbled on, thinking that I would read something far from toxic chemicals).

The wild supply and haphazard distribution of the pesticide Carbofuran will therefore continue facilitating poisoning of wildlife, birds, fish and who knows even of human poisoning whose facts lie locked in the confines of lack of data and documentation. Such is the desperate need of heed at which we stand.

After ‘a break’ from head aching matters of carbofuran, today I ventured into the current affairs of the fate of our planet and read of the goings on in the U.S.

Based on a conference held in July 17-20 the15th Protecting Mother Earth conference – organized by Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) where there were more than 600 attendants, mostly from indigenous nations of the United States and Canada, but also from as far as Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, and Europe Came together. Generally, they talked of global problems, challenges and solutions. They discussed energy and climate change as it affects indigenous peoples. Stories were told of health damage and ecological destruction brought about by oil refineries, coal power plants, gold mining, and nuclear military activity.

I think the whole issue of energy and climate change just infers global warming. Indeed this is documented of the conference of Minnesota’s new proposed 1600-mile oil pipeline extension which opponents say would contribute significantly to global warming for the way oil is extracted from the tar sands, which is extremely energy intensive. Tar sand oil extraction requires stripping all the trees and vegetation, scooping up and steaming the sands. Potential oil spills on Minnesota’s wetlands is also a concern. IEN states that very few of these projects are assessed for their social and cultural costs or their cumulative environmental and health impacts, which would cause fragmentation of the boreal forest, disruption to indigenous cultural life-ways and production of greenhouse gases.

Here we go again, global warming directly linked to a toxin-highly acknowledged energetic fluid-oil- which will intoxicate wildlife, fish, birds and humans during its extraction, distribution and use for man’s energy requirements.

Shawna Larson, Ahtna Athabascan and Supiaq, Aleut/Eskimo from Alaska, working with the Alaska Community Action on Toxics said that heavy metals and highly toxic persistent organic pollutants, such as DDT, PCBs, and dioxins, some already banned and rarely used in the Arctic are found in very high levels in native people and wildlife in Alaska. These pollutants used somewhere else are transported by wind, water currents and migratory species and concentrate in large quantities in the Artic. Alaskan indigenous people according to their cultural traditions feed on local fish and wildlife, which are considered to be the most contaminated in the world.

At this point, I think we should refresh our minds on the contaminants of Alaska.

For the whole story, read Talking about the future of Mother Earth.

Hi Everyone, this is Paula. We sat in a meeting today with members of the Stop Wildlife Poisoning Task Force to discuss progress, or should I dare say ‘lack of progress’???

The Agricultural Association  of Kenya is the only government agency that has responded  to our letters calling for a ban on Carbofuran in Kenya. But it’s not the response we really wanted – they are basically denying that there is any proof that carbofuran is dangerous, and that the poisoning of wildlife is an issue of “misuse” not dangers due to “proper use” … read ‘it’s not our fault’.  They want us to address wildlife pest control issues with the Kenya Wildlife Service.

We’ve been trying to reach the Kenya  Wildilfe Service who initially told us that they would press for a ban on carbofuran but seem to have since gone totally mum.  In fact I’ve recently seen evidence to show that KWS has hired the company that imports and distributes Carbofuran for its construction work. Another suggestion of conflict of interest amongst stakeholders and regulators in this sorry story.

Remember we toled you a couple of weeks ago about a KWS meeting with FMC  (the producers of Carbofuran) well, we are being told that we cannot get access to the meeting minutes as it was a ‘closed door meeting!’. Why do they need to be so secretive?

So where does this leave us? Well, I don’t know about the others in the team, but I’m REALLY ANGRY!!!

The news coming out of USA about the ban on carbofuran is a bit more hopeful – some press say Carbofuran residues have been banned but they have only announced an intention to ban it.

The EPA have changed tact from cancelling carbofuran’s registration, a regulatory path that determines whether a product  can be sold in the United States, because of the hazards it poses to workers who apply it as well as to birds and other wildlife. This ban on residues essentially is revoking the regulations that allow carbofuran residues in food. I.e it would affect local production as well as imported goods. I think it’s a brilliant strategy and we applaud the EPA.

But I don’t understand where the manufacturer FMC gets off. Rather than addressing the concerns, they have been fighting the move in federal court, arguing that the agency must prove that the chemical represents a public danger. I wonder what staff of FMC think and feel – they must know how dangerous and damaging Carbofuran is. Imagine selling your soul for a salary! If I worked for them I would resign. FMC is the first pesticide manufacturer in 20 years to resist cancellation of a registered pesticide! FMC spokesman James Fitzwater said his company will push to keep selling the product. He sounds like a really nice guy.

Friends we have work to do.

The EPA’s July 30th tolerance revocation proposal is subject to a 60-day comment period.  So far there has been much praise for the strong stand taken by the EPA but the American corn growers have indicated that the ban goes too far and are hoping for a limited use of the pesticide to protect corn  I hope that the comments being received are all in support of the ban. In Australia a big user of Carbofuran, farmers see the EPA decision as a sign of things to come. We have our fingers crossed for Africa too. We need to help get carbofuran banned in USA in order for it to have a ripple effect in other nations that supply USA – like my beloved Kenya.

Here is the full document from the EPA website. Please submit your comments to the revocation proposal.

Tolerance Revocation

Tolerance Revocation Proposal

• Carbofuran; Proposed Tolerance Revocations

Public comments on EPA’s carbofuran tolerance revocation proposal are due to EPA by September 29, 2008 – July 31, 2008 FR Notice. How to submit comments.

Due to considerable risks associated with carbofuran in food and drinking water, EPA is revoking the regulations that allow carbofuran residues in food. Because dietary exposures to infants and children are of particular concern, the Agency is moving to revoke carbofuran tolerances first, before cancelling carbofuran registrations. This approach provides the most direct and timely means to realize protection of children from dietary risks. It also allows multiple stakeholders an additional opportunity to comment.

Even though carbofuran is used on a small percentage of the U.S. food supply and therefore the likelihood of exposure through food is low, EPA has identified risks that do not meet our rigorous food safety standards. The Agency is taking the necessary steps to address these risks to ensure we have the safest food supply possible. The U.S. has a safe and abundant food supply, and children and others should continue to eat a variety of foods, as recommended by the federal government and nutritional experts.

In a Federal Register notice published on July 31, 2008, EPA is proposing to revoke all U.S. carbofuran tolerances. The Agency specifically is requesting comment on whether any individual carbofuran tolerances, or group of tolerances, meet the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act safety standard. It is possible that one or more individual carbofuran tolerances could be maintained, if information is provided to demonstrate that the tolerance(s) would be safe.

Revoking carbofuran tolerances is part of a broader series of Agency actions to cancel all uses of carbofuran in the United States due to human dietary, occupational, and ecological risks of concern. The cancellation process requires the development of several documents, including this proposed tolerance revocation. After moving to revoke carbofuran tolerances, EPA subsequently plans to publish a Notice of Intent to Cancel all carbofuran registrations.

EPA establishes tolerances for pesticides that may be found on foods, and can also revoke tolerances to better safeguard public health and the environment. The Agency must modify or revoke any tolerance that it determines is unsafe, that is, that does not meet the safety standard of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The Agency is proposing to revoke all tolerances for carbofuran because exposure through food and drinking water does not meet the FFDCA section 408 (b)(2) safety standard. For further information on this process, see Revoking Pesticide Tolerances.

How to Submit Comments

July 31, 2008, FR Notice – Comments will be accepted on EPA’s carbofuran tolerance revocation proposal until September 29, 2008. All comments should be identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162.

Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at Regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket.

Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Regulations.gov Open the docket and find the docket item for the July 30, 2008, Federal Register Notice proposing revocation of carbofuran tolerances. In the far right column titled Add Comments, select the yellow balloon icon and follow on-screen directions. This icon will only be functional during the comment period.
• Mail To: Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
• Hand delivery – During normal hours of operation, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, deliver comments to OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

Please do not e-mail or fax your comments. For questions or assistance, contact the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at (703) 305-5805.