09
Oct
Industry Funded Study Diminishes Organic, Pushes Pesticides in Integrated Pest Management and Regenerative Ag
(Beyond Pesticides, October 9, 2024) An agrichemical industry-funded study published in International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability dissects the development of national organic standards and opportunities that can be applied in expanding the use of “regenerative†agriculture. Not surprisingly, the study authors offer support for integrated pest management (IPM) and reassurance of a rigorous pesticide registration review process before the chemicals are marketed. The study included a survey of five farmers, who farm a total of 100,000 acres, but do not have extensive experience farming organically.
For those practicing regenerative organic practices and organic advocates, the bottom line is that the study concludes that a list of criteria that would be needed for regenerative agriculture criteria (e.g., list of allowed substances) already exists within the standards and requirements of the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and the National Organic Program.
Environmental and public health advocates are concerned about this piece representing an industry position being cloaked in an academic journal serving as an obstacle to the widespread adoption and improvement of organic principles and practices. The study was written by four authors with varying levels of connections to CropLife America (the major agrichemical industry trade group), including academic researchers with funding from the pesticide lobbying group or direct employment. In the disclosure statement at the end of the article in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, the authors indicate that the work was supported by CropLife and then say, “No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).†In fact, one author, Katie Stump, indicates that she is currently a science and policy manager at CropLife America.
The surveyed farmland represents a limited number of organically managed land within the farmers’ total land portfolio. According to the study, “Two operations were growing 7-20% of their acres as certified organic. One of the growers had not entered organic production and two growers had recently exited certified organic due to barriers they encountered. Growers not currently growing organic discussed the barriers to entry and reasons they exited organic agriculture.†While the authors do acknowledge that they must consider farms of varying sizes, they fail to consider farms such as those affiliated with the Real Organic Project—a network of over 1,000 certified organic farms that have adopted practices that exceed USDA organic standards by rejecting hydroponic practices and only raise livestock on pasture.
“For a new paradigm to be successful, it will require flexibility and options to pick from in management practices that achieve the desired outcome, acknowledgment on a regional level of varying needs and practices, a clear list of certification requirements, a third-party verification system, and should be tied to a premium to reward the grower for the practices,†according to the authors. OFPA is designed to include flexibility in the adoption and continuous review of standards, and the rules require public meetings facilitated by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) twice a year with a sunset review of allowed substances to facilitate additions or subtractions to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (which is a foundational feature that establishes a clear list of inputs allowed in certified organic production).
For example, the requirement that beer labeled organic contain only organic hops, typically a small fraction of the beer by weight and volume, was advanced by organic hops growers who showed that the organic crop was commercially available. OFPA contains an allowance for conventional inputs in organic-labeled processed commodities if they make up less than 5% of the products that are not commercially available as organic, incentivizing the adoption of organic production practices or “continuous improvement.†With the continuous improvement of national organic standards ongoing, the organic sector has cultivated regional production hubs for various products such as cotton. Moreover, as the farmers interviewed in this study indicate, two of the main drivers to attain organic certification are “profitability†and “meeting consumer demand,†underscoring the underlying economic viability of certified organic.
The authors take the position that IPM is the most viable systems approach. They state: “This approach [IPM] does not put process limits on the use of pesticides. In fact, The Weed Science Society of America, the American Phytopathological Society, and the Plant-Insect Ecosystems Section of the Entomological Society of America issued a statement that pesticides are an important part of IPM and that restricting their use by considering them a ‘last resort’ or selecting only the ‘least toxic pesticide’ can result in a build-up of pests and reduce the overall options for control.†Advocates find it notable, and unsurprising, that the Entomological Society of America (ESA) issued support of pesticide use as a feature of IPM, given recent instances of corruption alleged by scientists attending ESA’s 2023 annual meeting. See here for the Daily News analysis of U.S. Right to Know’s report on ESA. See an additional Daily News article, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Fails to Stop Toxic Pesticide Use, to learn more about the structural failures of IPM to address moving beyond the chemical treadmill.
The authors continue by blurring the difference between the safety of food grown with chemical-intensive and organic practices. They say, “Consumers should have confidence in the safety of their food regardless of type of pesticides used given the robust nature of the pesticide review and registration process in the U.S. for organic and conventional pesticides.â€
Numerous Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports have documented the inability of the Office of Pesticide Programs to fulfill its mandate of protecting the public from toxic pesticide exposure. For example, a recent investigation by Inside Climate News found that EPA failed to adequately assess the cancer effects of 1,3-D or Telone by, among other deficiencies, relying on industry-funded scientific studies that downplayed the carcinogenic potential of this pesticide. EPA’s failure to consider the independent scientific literature extends to other areas, including failure to complete the protocol for testing the endocrine-disrupting potential of registered pesticides.
In 2023, six years after the filing, EPA rejected a public petition to request an evaluation of complete formulations of pesticide products to include toxicological analysis of both active ingredients and inerts (or other ingredients, which pesticide manufacturers do not have to disclose on labels or to the public). In a recent analysis published in Frontiers in Toxicology, researchers identified a number of pitfalls in the broader U.S. regulatory system in terms of its failure to regulate toxic chemicals that threaten public health. Beyond the failure of the scientific and risk assessment process, the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to mislead the public about its findings related to pesticide residues. (See here for an analysis of the 2024 data.) Meanwhile, with ongoing public criticism of its failure to adequately assess its risk assessment process, EPA solicited public comments earlier this year to update its scientific integrity guidelines.
According to the study authors, “Growers believe that for the foreseeable future, both process-based organic and development of outcome-based programs [soil health, biodiversity, and other environmental and social parameters] will continue to co-exist.†Among the categories of agricultural practices that the authors identify as needing definition is regenerative agriculture. “Whether [issues of soil health and biodiversity] will develop into a cohesive definition of regenerative agriculture remains to be seen,†the authors say. Regenerative can be put in the category of greenwashing, as documented in previous Daily News articles. (See here.) The authors rest heavily on the need for “flexibility†in the use of pesticides. According to the researchers, “A key production challenge is management of pests. Growers could benefit from more flexibility such as the development of additional tools to combat difficult pests, ensuring multiple modes of action to prevent resistance and exploration of the use of derogations in concert with an IPM plan to deal with emergency situations.†Significantly, the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers have been found to undermine the benefits of healthy soil systems with microbial life, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity. (See here.)
Earlier this year, the California Department of Food and Agriculture held public listening sessions, as officials entertained the adoption of a state definition of regenerative agriculture. Farmers, consumers, and advocates in California and nationwide provided statements in opposition to the state proposal, given the absence of a proposed requirement that organic standards become a baseline in the definition of regenerative. (See here.)
One of the biggest takeaways from organic farmers and advocates is the lack of definition for what substances are allowed and prohibited in regenerative agriculture, which has resulted in a continued reliance on toxic pesticides such as glyphosate. Advocates point out that agricultural systems reliant on pesticides are antithetical to supporting ecosystem services and agroecological food production. See here, here, here, and here for numerous peer-reviewed articles and commentary on the climate resilience, soil health, carbon sequestration, and economic benefits of certified organic agriculture.
As the debate on regenerative agriculture heats up, chemical industry lobbyists are hitting Capitol Hill on the Farm Bill to establish a national policy to take away local and state authority to restrict pesticides and, at the same time, fanning out across the country to pressure state legislatures to prohibit people’s right to sue for the failure to warn on the hazards of their products. (See Daily News here for more analysis.) Beyond Pesticides has called these industry campaigns an attack on democratic institutions and principles in the United States in the Daily News article, This Independence Day, Protect Democracy.
Millions of dollars are being spent by pesticide manufacturers on lobbying efforts to support these policies that restrict basic rights. According to Open Secrets, Bayer spent 7.45 million in total lobbying expenditures for 2023, CropLife America spent over 1.5 million in 2023, and BASF spent 1.5 million in 2024. A previous Daily News addresses the legacy of CropLife America’s and pesticide manufacturers’ efforts to influence national and international frameworks for pesticide and agricultural policy. (See here.)
As a growing intersectional movement of advocates continues to push for reform, the industry is seeking to undermine the credibility of advocates through doxing of information and smear campaigns, allegedly funded by the U.S. government, as reported recently by The Guardian. The critical need identified by health and environmental advocates for broader EPA regulatory action to ban pesticides was exemplified by a landmark EPA decision in August to suspend the use of the herbicide Dacthal/DCPA without allowing continued use of existing stocks—the second time in agency history that it took this action, despite its authority clearly defined in Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Beyond Pesticides has since called for the banning of weedkillers atrazine and paraquat under what it calls the Dacthal Standard.
Consider subscribing to Action of the Week to learn how to support the growth of policies and decision-making that hold the agrochemical industry accountable while supporting organic and regenerative organic food systems.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.Â
Source: International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
