NEW YORK (IPS/GIN) - New data proving that an array of pesticides have reached alarming levels in the general population are galvanizing calls for a ban on the most harmful chemicals and greater investment in sustainable farming strategies.

Recently, the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) released an analysis of data on 34 pesticides collected from more than 9,000 people by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Their report found that, among people who had both their blood and urine tested, 100 percent showed pesticide residues. Two insecticides, chlorpyrifos and methyl parathion, were found at levels up to 4.5 times greater than what the government deems “acceptable.”

Chlorpyrifos, manufactured under the trade name Dursban by Dow Chemical, was especially pervasive, according to the study, entitled “Chemical Trespass: Pesticides in Our Bodies and Corporate Accountability.”

PANNA estimates that Dow is the source for some 80 percent of the chlorpyrifos found in those tested.

In fact, Dursban has been controversial for years. In 1999, the CDC announced that 82 percent of U.S. citizens had the chemical in their bodies. As a result, Dow agreed to phase out most household uses of Dursban, although it is still widely sold both in the United States and abroad. The chemical is used in products ranging from flea collars for pets to garden and lawn care products. It is also a component in insect control products, both in agriculture and for household use.

Under a 1994 agreement, Dow also promised to stop advertising its product as “safe.” After the company continued to claim that Dursban had no “long term (health) effects” and posed “no evidence of significant risk to the environment,” it was slapped with a $2 million fine last December, the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

PANNA says the company reacted predictably to the most recent study.

“Dow’s response has been to say that these pesticides don’t last very long (in human tissue and the environment), but the CDC data directly contradicts that,” Monica Moore, co-director of PANNA, told IPS. “This really needs to be a wake-up call.”

PANNA gained access to CDC data broken down by gender, age and ethnicity, but not by geographic area or occupation. However, Ms. Moore said that the particularly high pesticide levels seen in Mexican-Americans, for example, were suggestive of exposure during farm labor.

“What this study shows is that it’s not just an individual solution,” she said. “We need to adopt sustainable agriculture techniques. Even if you only eat organic produce, these chemicals are in the air, the water, the stuff you touch. That’s why we’re calling for removal of these pesticides from the environment.”

The PANNA analysis came on the heels of another study by the Ontario College of Family Physicians that found linkages between pesticide exposure and a host of cancers, as well as birth defects and fetal death.

The Canadian researchers sifted through some 12,000 studies conducted from 1990 to 2003 around the world, and concluded that there is no evidence that some pesticides are less dangerous than others, rather that they have different effects on health that take different periods to appear.

While women often register higher exposures than men, because their body fat traps the toxins from pesticides, experts note that children are consistently the most vulnerable group. In India, a study released by Greenpeace at the end of April, entitled “Arrested Development,” determined that exposure to even small doses of pesticides impairs children’s analytical abilities, motor skills and memory.

Kavitha Kuruganti, lead investigator of the study, said in a statement, “the results of a systematic, nationwide study were far more shocking than we’d expected: 898 children from backgrounds as diverse as Tamil Nadu and Punjab, who have nothing in common but their exposure to pesticides, also share the inability to perform simple play-based exercises—like catching a ball or assembling a jigsaw puzzle—simply because they’ve been exposed to pesticides over a period of time,” she said.

On May 17, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) took effect. It targets an initial 12 chemicals known as “the dirty dozen” for elimination, nine of them pesticides. The accord, just ratified by the necessary 50 countries, bans the use of POPs, and also focuses on eliminating obsolete stockpiles of pesticides and toxic chemicals that contain POPs.

The Bush administration has so far refused to ratify the treaty.

But some anti-pesticide campaigners are not waiting for the federal government to act. In the western state of California, a coalition of local organizations, including an indigenous group, has filed a lawsuit against the state’s environmental protection agency for failing to meet goals on reducing pesticide use and smog-causing pollutants.

Farm workers in Washington state are suing the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allowing the use of two toxic pesticides, despite research showing the dangers of exposure to such chemicals.

Recently, 13 people working in a California peach orchard were rushed to the hospital after being exposed to the deadly nerve gas pesticide Monitor 4 and the pesticide Penncozeb 75 DM, when the wind shifted from a nearby potato field that was being sprayed.

Activists hope the new PANNA report will galvanize public opinion against pesticide use, the way research documenting the health effects of smoking turned the tide against cigarette companies in the 1990s.

“The pesticides we carry in our bodies are made and aggressively promoted by agrochemical companies,” said Skip Spitzer of PANNA. “These companies also spend millions on political influence to block or undermine regulatory measures designed to protect public health and the environment.”