The control of illicit-drug trafficking and drug use is a difficult and complex process that involves a variety of prevention, control, treatment, and law enforcement strategies. Eradication strategies for controlling illicit-drug crops are used to target the beginning of the drug-supply chain by preventing or reducing crop yields. Mycoherbicides have been proposed as an eradication tool to supplement the current methods of herbicide spraying, mechanical removal, and manual destruction of illicit-drug crops. Some people regard them as preferable to chemical herbicides for controlling illicit-drug crops because of their purported specificity to only one plant species or a few closely related species. As living microorganisms, they have the potential to provide long-term control if they can persist in the environment and affect later plantings. Research on mycoherbicides against illicit-drug crops has focused on three pathogens: Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cannabis for cannabis (Cannabis sativa), F. oxysporum f.sp. erythroxyli for coca (Erythroxylum coca and E. novogranatense), and Crivellia papaveracea or Brachycladium papaveris (formerly known as Pleospora papaveracea and Dendryphion penicillatum, respectively) for opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). Feasibility of Using Mycoherbicides for Controlling Illicit Drug Crops addresses issues about the potential use of the proposed mycoherbicides: their effectiveness in eradicating their target plants; the feasibility of their large-scale industrial manufacture and delivery; their potential spread and persistence in the environment; their pathogenicity and toxicity to nontarget organisms, including other plants, fungi, animals, and humans; their potential for mutation and resulting effects on target plants and nontarget organisms; and research and development needs. On the basis of its review, the report concludes that the available data are insufficient to determine the effectiveness of the specific fungi proposed as mycoherbicides to combat illicit-drug crops or to determine their potential effects on nontarget plants, microorganisms, animals, humans, or the environment. However, the committee offers an assessment of what can and cannot be determined at the present time regarding each of the issues raised in the statement of task.

The control of illicit-drug trafficking and drug use is a difficult and complex process that involves a variety of prevention, control, treatment, and law enforcement strategies. Eradication strategies for controlling illicit-drug crops are used to target the beginning of the drug-supply chain by preventing or reducing crop yields. Mycoherbicides have been proposed as an eradication tool to supplement the current methods of herbicide spraying, mechanical removal, and manual destruction of illicit-drug crops. Some people regard them as preferable to chemical herbicides for controlling illicit-drug crops because of their purported specificity to only one plant species or a few closely related species. As living microorganisms, they have the potential to provide long-term control if they can persist in the environment and affect later plantings. Research on mycoherbicides against illicit-drug crops has focused on three pathogens: Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cannabis for cannabis (Cannabis sativa), F. oxysporum f.sp. erythroxyli for coca (Erythroxylum coca and E. novogranatense), and Crivellia papaveracea or Brachycladium papaveris (formerly known as Pleospora papaveracea and Dendryphion penicillatum, respectively) for opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). Feasibility of Using Mycoherbicides for Controlling Illicit Drug Crops addresses issues about the potential use of the proposed mycoherbicides: their effectiveness in eradicating their target plants; the feasibility of their large-scale industrial manufacture and delivery; their potential spread and persistence in the environment; their pathogenicity and toxicity to nontarget organisms, including other plants, fungi, animals, and humans; their potential for mutation and resulting effects on target plants and nontarget organisms; and research and development needs. On the basis of its review, the report concludes that the available data are insufficient to determine the effectiveness of the specific fungi proposed as mycoherbicides to combat illicit-drug crops or to determine their potential effects on nontarget plants, microorganisms, animals, humans, or the environment. However, the committee offers an assessment of what can and cannot be determined at the present time regarding each of the issues raised in the statement of task.

This book focuses upon the secret agricultural biological warfare programme codenamed Ekologiya – which was pursued by the Soviet Union from 1958 through to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. It was the largest offensive agricultural biowarfare project the world has ever seen and Soviet anti-crop and anti-livestock weapons had the capability to inflict enormous damage on Western agriculture. Beginning in the early 1970s, there was a new focus within the Soviet agricultural biowarfare programme on molecular biology and the development of genetically modified agents. A key characteristic of the Ekologiya project was the creation of mobilization production facilities. These ostensibly civil manufacturing plants incorporated capacity for production of biowarfare agents in wartime emergency. During the 1990s-2000s, the counter-proliferation efforts undertaken by the US and UK played a major role in preventing the transfer of Ekologiya scientists, technologies and pathogens to Iran and other countries of potential proliferation concern. Anthony Rimmington is a former Senior Research Fellow at Birmingham University’s Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies, UK. He has published widely on the civil life sciences sector in the post-Soviet states and on the Soviet Union’s offensive biological warfare programme, including Stalin’s Secret Weapon: The Origins of Soviet Biological Warfare.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a mission and regulatory responsibility to protect human health and the environment. EPA's pursuit of that goal includes a variety of research activities involving human subjects, such as epidemiologic studies and surveys. Those research activities also involve studies of individuals who volunteer to be exposed to air pollutants intentionally in controlled laboratory settings so that measurements can be made of transient and reversible biomarker or physiologic responses to those exposures that can indicate pathways of toxicity and mechanisms of air-pollution responses. The results of those controlled human inhalation exposure (CHIE) studies, also referred to as human clinical studies or human challenge studies, are used to inform policy decisions and help establish or revise standards to protect public health and improve air quality. Controlled Human Inhalation-Exposure Studies at EPA addresses scientific issues and provides guidance on the conduct of CHIE studies. This report assesses the utility of CHIE studies to inform and reduce uncertainties in setting air-pollution standards to protect public health and assess whether continuation of such studies is warranted. It also evaluates the potential health risks to test subjects who participated in recent studies of air pollutants at EPA's clinical research facility.

From the illustrator of Go the F*** to Sleep comes a history of coffee, Coca-Cola, caffeine, cocaine, secret formulas, special flavors, special favors, Harry J. Anslinger, and Prohibition. “A Secret History of Coffee, Coca & Cola . . . is actually a serious and measured chronology of the storied history of these human beverages, accessible to readers of all ages . . . A sober, serious, yet eminently readable examination of thorny social issues surrounding everyday beverages, A Secret History of Coffee, Coca & Cola is highly recommended." —Midwest Book Review (Library Bookwatch) “If you hate the War on Drugs, Ricardo Cortés should be one of your favorite illustrators.” —Vice A Secret History of Coffee, Coca & Cola is an illustrated book disclosing new research in the coca leaf trade conducted by The Coca-Cola Company. 2011 marked the 125th anniversary of its iconic beverage, and the fiftieth anniversary of the international drug control treaty that allows Coca-Cola exclusive access to the coca plant. Most people are familiar with tales of cocaine being an early ingredient of "Coke" tonic; it's an era the company makes every effort to bury. Yet coca leaf, the source of cocaine which has been banned in the U.S. since 1914, has been part of Coca-Cola's secret formula for over one hundred years. This is a history that spans from cocaine factories in Peru, to secret experiments at the University of Hawaii, to the personal files of U.S. Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger (infamous for his "Reefer Madness" campaign against marijuana, lesser known as a long-time collaborator of The Coca-Cola Company). A Secret History of Coffee, Coca & Cola tells how one of the biggest companies in the world bypasses an international ban on coca. The book also explores histories of three of the most consumed substances on earth, revealing connections between seemingly disparate icons of modern culture: caffeine, cocaine, and Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola is the most popular soft drink on earth, and soft drinks are the number one food consumed in the American diet. Caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive substance. Cocaine . . . well, people seem to like reading about cocaine. An illustrated chronicle that will appeal to fans of food and drink histories (e.g., Mark Kurlansky's Salt and Cod; Mark Pendergrast's For God, Country & Coca-Cola), graphic novel enthusiasts, and people interested in drug prohibition and international narcopolitics, the book follows in the footsteps of successful pop-history books such as Michael Pollan's The Botany of Desire and Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation—but has a unique style that blends such histories with narrative illustration and influences from Norman Rockwell to Art Spiegelman.

Over the last decade, several large-scale United States and international programs have been initiated to incorporate advances in molecular and cellular biology, -omics technologies, analytical methods, bioinformatics, and computational tools and methods into the field of toxicology. Similar efforts are being pursued in the field of exposure science with the goals of obtaining more accurate and complete exposure data on individuals and populations for thousands of chemicals over the lifespan; predicting exposures from use data and chemical-property information; and translating exposures between test systems and humans. Using 21st Century Science to Improve Risk-Related Evaluations makes recommendations for integrating new scientific approaches into risk-based evaluations. This study considers the scientific advances that have occurred following the publication of the NRC reports Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy and Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Given the various ongoing lines of investigation and new data streams that have emerged, this publication proposes how best to integrate and use the emerging results in evaluating chemical risk. Using 21st Century Science to Improve Risk-Related Evaluations considers whether a new paradigm is needed for data validation, how to integrate the divergent data streams, how uncertainty might need to be characterized, and how best to communicate the new approaches so that they are understandable to various stakeholders.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for protecting species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and for protecting habitats that are critical for their survival. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for registering or reregistering pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and must ensure that pesticide use does not cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, which is interpreted to include listed species and their critical habitats. The agencies have developed their own approaches to evaluating environmental risk, and their approaches differ because their legal mandates, responsibilities, institutional cultures, and expertise differ. Over the years, the agencies have tried to resolve their differences but have been unsuccessful in reaching a consensus regarding their assessment approaches. As a result, FWS, NMFS, EPA, and the US Department of Agriculture asked the National Research Council (NRC) to examine scientific and technical issues related to determining risks posed to listed species by pesticides. Specifically, the NRC was asked to evaluate methods for identifying the best scientific data available; to evaluate approaches for developing modeling assumptions; to identify authoritative geospatial information that might be used in risk assessments; to review approaches for characterizing sublethal, indirect, and cumulative effects; to assess the scientific information available for estimating effects of mixtures and inert ingredients; and to consider the use of uncertainty factors to account for gaps in data. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides, which was prepared by the NRC Committee on Ecological Risk Assessment under FIFRA and ESA, is the response to that request.