(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2024) Comments on proposed new dicamba uses are due Friday, July 5 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting public comments until July 5 on whether it should allow the expanded use of the weed killer dicamba, which has been associated with adverse impacts related to its propensity to drift off of the target application site. The comment period addresses a BASF chemical company proposal for additional food use of a dicamba product on dicamba-tolerant cotton and dicamba-tolerant soybeans. (See Beyond Pesticides’ comments.) This application is similar to Bayer CropScience’s application for XtendiMax®, for which Beyond Pesticides submitted comments in June. The proposed label for BASF’s Engenia® allows for application preplant, at-planting, preemergence, and postemergence (in-crop) for broadleaf weeds. >> Tell EPA to ban use of dicamba and other drift-prone pesticides. The U.S. Supreme Court Reversal This proposal is under consideration on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 28 that reverses a 40-year old decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which created a deference to federal agencies in the rulemaking process. In the dissent to this 6-3 decision of the court, the dissenters focus on the role of executive […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2024) A preliminary experiment conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reveals concerning levels of toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on the skin of soccer players and coaches after playing on artificial turf fields. The Washington Post reported on March 12 on the PEER test results, which found PFAS levels increased on the skin in three out of four participants following soccer matches on artificial turf. In contrast, no similar increase was observed after games on natural grass fields. The presence of PFAS is alarming due to their association with several serious health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and developmental and immune deficiencies, among others. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) writes that PFAS exposure risks are particularly concerning for young children, who are more susceptible due to their developing bodies and at risk for higher levels of exposure than adults. Known as “forever chemicals” for their persistence in the environment, PFAS continue to accumulate in the human body, posing long-term health risks. Kyla Bennett, PhD, science policy director at PEER and a former scientist and lawyer with EPA, emphasized the need for further research. “Although this study is preliminary, it highlights the potential […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2023) Communities discussing synthetic versus natural turf are faced with a number of issues that go to safety, environmental health, and cost. The chemicals used to manage synthetic turf for bacteria, mold, and fungus raise serious health issues and represent a threat that does not exist in organic land management. When all the synthetic turf issues are considered, including chemical use, maintenance, heat effects, water contamination and treatment, playability and safety, organic grass turf offers an approach that checks all the critical boxes for protecting health and the environment at a competitive price. Hazards of synthetic (artificial) turf made news this fall following injuries to New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rogers and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, among others. Following safety concern, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) issued a  call to end the use of synthetic turf and a return to natural turf. The FIFA World Cup soccer association requires a grass playing field. The players are not the only ones demanding grass fields. Fans of singer-songwriter Taylor Swift came out in full force in favor of the switch after the injury to Ms. Swift’s rumored boyfriend Travis Kelce. Beyond sports injuries, concerns […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2023) As communities consider maintenance and renovation of their playing fields, it is not uncommon for synthetic (or artificial) turf to come up as an alternative to natural grass. Promoters of synthetic turf argue that it provides a solution to climate change, reduces water use and maintenance costs, and allows for year-round play. But is this true? Is synthetic turf an environmentally responsible alternative to its organic grass counterpart? An established and growing body of scientific evidence is demonstrating environmental and health risks with synthetic turf. In addition, there is growing concern for the safety of those playing on artificial grass, which has led to a call from the National Football League’s (NFL) Players Association to utilize natural grass on all 30 NFL stadiums after New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers suffered a season-ending Achilles tear in September and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce’s mid-game ankle injury. Synthetic turf playing fields are reliant on polluting plastic (can contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances-PFAS) and toxic pesticides for managing bacteria, mold and fungus, create contaminated water runoff, and cover over the natural environment, which is critical to preserving health and biodiversity, and averting climate disasters. Artificial […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2022) Just as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a request for information on improving indoor air quality, it approved 32 varieties of a new “air sanitizer” to kill bacteria and viruses in the air. These products contain 14% dipropylene glycol and 86% secret (“other”) ingredients, including fragrances. Tell EPA that clean air, NOT “sanitized” air, protects against disease. Through its approval of such sanitizers, EPA promotes the false reasoning that a chemical that kills a pathogen necessarily protects health. Although disinfectants and sanitizers kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. Children are at elevated risk from exposure. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern. EPA opened a 60-day public comment period “to solicit information and recommendations from a broad array of individuals and organizations with knowledge and expertise relating to the built environment and health, indoor air quality, epidemiology, disease transmission, social sciences […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 21, 2022) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just made two announcements, related to the quest for improved indoor air quality in buildings, that address mitigation of disease transmission — and that of COVID-19, in particular. Related to enactment of the National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan, EPA issued guidance on the efficacy of antimicrobial products used on surfaces, and registered a new pesticide product the agency says can be used against influenza and corona viruses (some of the latter cause COVID-19 infections). In addition, EPA opened a 60-day public comment period “to solicit information and recommendations from a broad array of individuals and organizations with knowledge and expertise relating to the built environment and health, indoor air quality, epidemiology, disease transmission, social sciences and other disciplines.” Beyond Pesticides cannot help but note the irony of an intention to improve air quality that EPA couples with registration of a new, airborne pesticide for indoor use. EPA expands on its RFI (Request for Information) related to indoor air quality, saying that it is “seeking input from a diverse array of stakeholders . . . about actions, strategies, tools and approaches that support ventilation, filtration and air cleaning improvements, and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2022) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is cracking down on companies and individuals that took advantage of Americans desire for antimicrobial products that would work against coronavirus during the height of the Covid pandemic. Late last week, a New Jersey man pled guilty to selling nearly $3 million worth of unregistered pesticides he claimed were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to combat the coronavirus. And yesterday, U.S. Attorney Office for the Southern District of New York announced a record $1.5 million settlement with TZUMI Innovations LLC for illegal distributing millions of products claiming to have antimicrobial properties, while specifically targeting low-income customers. The case in New Jersey centers around chemist Paul Andrecola, 63, who established an elaborate scheme to sell a product he named “GCLEAN.” Mr. Andrecola used the pesticide registration numbers of a different company on his product, and forged documents to support his advertised claim that his product was “EPA approved to kill coronavirus.” From March 2020 to May 2021, Mr. Andrecola made over 150 sales, making a profit of more than $2.7 million. He specifically defrauded a number of government agencies, including a Delaware police department, Virginia fire department, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2022) Recent research on quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) shows the critical need for a reassessment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria for determining appropriate disinfectant products where coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19), is a concern. EPA maintains a list of disinfectants—List N—that it expects to kill all strains and variants of SARS-CoV-2. However, in creating List N, EPA fails to consider dangers posed by some of the chemicals. QACs, in particular, can cause serious acute and chronic health problems. >>Tell EPA to reassess its criteria for List N and delist quaternary ammonia compounds. Tell Congress to make sure EPA does its job.  Early in the pandemic, emphasis was placed on disinfecting surfaces, under the mistaken assumption that transmission of the virus was primarily through contact with contaminated surfaces, or fomites. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is now known that, “The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus. It is possible for people to be infected through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects (fomites), but the risk is generally considered to be low.” […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2022) A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that concentrations of quaternary ammonium compounds (QUATs or QACs) in the human body have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising health and safety concerns. QACs include a variety of chemicals in personal care, pharmaceutical, and medical products used as disinfectants, sanitizers, antimicrobials. However, over the past 70 years, large-scale production and use of these compounds led to accumulation in the environment, including surface water, sediment, and soil. Previously, researchers thought most QACs lack the potential to bioaccumulate,  as the chemicals are highly water-soluble, while dermal and oral absorption rates are low. However, emerging evidence demonstrates that specific QACs bioaccumulate in blood and other body tissues and can cause a range of toxic effects. Therefore, studies like this highlight the significance of monitoring chemical exposure for adverse health effects. The researchers note, “Further efforts are needed to explore the relationship between the use of QAC-containing products and the levels of QACs in human blood or of their metabolites in urine. Considering the increased use of some QACs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, our findings warrant further exposure and epidemiological research focused on QACs.” Amidst the outbreak […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2021) Hazardous disinfectants are not necessary for protection against COVID-19, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is agreeing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems to now agree, but has not changed it recommendations and listing for the public. Since last March, EPA has recommended disinfectants on List N for protecting against exposure to surfaces that would spread the virus causing COVID-19. Beyond Pesticides has evaluated the disinfectants, categorizing them as materials to seek out or to avoid. More recently, we evaluated the available evidence and recommended that schools and other institutions concentrate on providing adequate ventilation and protection from airborne virus. Tell EPA to remove risky disinfectants from its recommended list. EPA’s List N contains products containing toxic chemicals such as chlorine bleach, peroxyacetic acid, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides, didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, and other “quats,” sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, and hydrochloric acid. In addition to their outright toxicity, some of these can also trigger asthma attacks. Now, EPA has recognized this evidence and offered revised recommendations, stressing the need to avoid airborne transmission and stating in an infographic that the risk of contracting disease by touching contaminated surfaces is low and that disinfectants […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 21, 2021) A new Swedish study in Environmental Health Perspectives demonstrates individuals with genetically weakened skin barrier protection experience higher rates of toxic chemicals (i.e., pesticides) absorption through the skin. Studies provide evidence that filaggrin genetic mutations can exacerbate the impacts of chemicals upon dermal (skin) exposure, causing various skin diseases like dermatitis and other chemical-related effects like asthma and cancer. Filaggrin is a protein that is critical to skin cell structure or epidermal homeostasis. Just as excessive exposure to UV light can cause skin discoloration and cancer, excessive dermal contact with these toxic chemicals can cause a range of adverse reactions, including dermatitis, allergic sensitization, and cancer. Dermal exposure is the most common pesticide exposure routes, compromising 95 percent of all pesticide exposure incidents. Furthermore, many pesticides contain chemicals that act as sensitizers (allergens). Therefore, it is essential to mitigate direct skin contact with these toxic chemicals and enforce proper application protocol. Dermal chemical exposure is an increasing concern for occupational (work-related) health. Likewise, people experience dermal exposure to chemicals from everyday products like cleaning supplies, personal care products, agricultural chemicals, fabrics, non-stick cookware, and general airborne pollution. Furthermore, skin disease risks can increase among those with less protection from chemical exposure due to genetics. The study’s […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2020) A high percentage of the disinfectants approved by EPA for use against coronavirus contain quaternary ammonia compounds (quats). EPA’s approved list is used by schools and other institutions—unfortunately, without guidance for avoiding harmful effects. Quats are very toxic. They are especially dangerous in the context of a respiratory pandemic. Quats increase the risk for asthma and allergic sensitization. Evidence from occupational exposures shows increased risk of rhinitis and asthma with exposure to quats. Quats are on the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics list of asthmagens and may be a more potent asthmagen than bleach. Tell the EPA and Congress that EPA must not recommend toxic disinfectants without the context of their damaging impacts and other necessary protective measures. One quat, benzalkonium chloride, has also been associated with dermatitis. Quats appear to be sensitizers and irritants to the skin and mucous membranes and are suspected to display an immunologic cross-reactivity between each other and with other chemical compounds containing ammonium ion. Quats also are mutagenic and reproductive toxicants. Some quats have shown to be mutagenic and to damage animal DNA and DNA in human lymphocytes at much lower levels than are present in cleaning chemicals. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2020) Prolonged dermal (skin) exposure to hazardous disinfectants, via handling and/or residue on surfaces, can induce the risk of adverse skin reactions (i.e., inflammation, burns, necrosis), according to a novel review analysis published in Clinics in Dermatology. Researchers of the review, “Dermatologic reactions to disinfectant use during the COVID-19 pandemic,” examine skin reactions associated with dermal exposure to various disinfectants approved for use against COVID-19 by the European Chemical Agency (ECA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) classifies disinfectants as pesticides, so it is up to the states to delegate training, registration, and enforcement. Many states enforce pesticide training that allows professional applicators to learn how to handle, apply, and store pesticides properly. However, many of these same states do not have professional training for disinfectant use, especially wide-scale applications. Consequently, disinfectant applications are now more pervasive than ever, especially as school reopenings ensues. Considering failure to “Comply with Labeling and Permit Conditions” was the most common pesticide use violation of 2018, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), advocates are urging global leaders to recognize the potential impacts that frivolous disinfectant use can have on […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2020) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted “emergency” permission to the State of Texas to allow the use of SurfaceWise®2, an unregistered pesticide, as an anti-viral surface coating. The manufacturer, Allied Bioscience, says the compound can kill coronaviruses (including SARS-CoV-2) starting at two hours post application and for up to seven days, but it is not included on EPA’s List N, of disinfectants effective against SARS-CoV-2. EPA has permitted this use via the authority of Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which allows for “emergency” use of non-registered pesticides, typically to deal with extreme threats to agricultural activities. It is rarely used for public health emergencies. Beyond Pesticides recognizes the need for protection from transmission of the novel coronavirus, and maintains that it ought to and can be done without exposing people to toxic synthetic pesticides that have not undergone evaluation for safety. See Beyond Pesticides’ guidance on effective and safe precautions against the novel coronavirus. The Texas Department of Agriculture secured the EPA exemption, making the state the first to do so; Allied BioScience is pursuing this emergency waiver across all 50 states. The exemption grants American Airlines and two health […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2020) An alarming new scientific report finds that excessive, indiscriminate disinfectant use against COVID-19 puts wildlife health at risk, especially in urban settings. The analysis, published in the journal Environmental Research, finds many of the chemical ingredients in disinfectant products are “acutely toxic to both terrestrial and aquatic animals,” causing death following exposure. Additionally, these chemicals have implications for human health as infectious disease specialists at the World Health Organization (WHO) warn excessive disinfectant use can cause respiratory problems, especially for those with underlying respiratory conditions. With the total U.S. COVID-19 cases rising above 5.1 million, and the pressure to reopen public facilities, like schools, restaurants, gyms, etc., increasing, lack of proper disinfection guidelines and monitoring generates concerns surrounding heightened environmental pollution. The authors’ analysis supports the need for global leaders to regulate the spraying of disinfectants, especially in urban areas, with input from the scientific community. Wildlife are moving into urban areas at higher rates due to food availability and protection from hunting and natural dangers. However, if indiscriminate dispersal of disinfectants continues, these urban inhabitants face a whirlwind of health risks associated with exposure. The report’s analysts note, “The overuse of disinfectants may contaminate the habitats of urban wildlife. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2020) Despite pressure to reopen schools, concerns persist about the threat to the health of children, teachers, school staff, and families. There are many complex social, scientific, and logistical issues involved in a decision to reopen schools for in-person teaching.  >>Tell Congress and Governors that schools must reopen only when safe. Schools must have adequate resources to ensure safety. Beyond Pesticides joins the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Parent and Teacher Association (PTA), and others in calling for a well-thought-out approach to reopening schools only when it is shown that: The pandemic is under control in the community—as evidenced, for example, by an average daily community infection rate among those tested for COVID-19 below 5% and a transmission rate below 1%. Protections have been put in place to keep the virus under control and protect students and staff. These include accommodations for students and staff at high risk; measures and building retrofits to protect against all forms of transmission; procedures for detecting disease, quarantining, and notification; involvement of families and educators in decisions; monitoring; and enforcement. Plans are in place that ensure continuous learning equitably for all students, with training for educators, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2020) The World Health Organization (WHO) released an updated advisory that warns, “spraying disinfectants can result in risks to the eyes, respiratory or skin irritation and the resulting health effects.” Beyond Pesticides recommends caution around toxic disinfectant and sanitizers and, to this end, offers resources and advice on products for use in the fight against Covid-19. “Spraying or fogging of certain chemicals, such as formaldehyde, chlorine-based agents or quaternary ammonium compounds, is not recommended due to adverse health effects on workers in facilities where these methods have been utilized,” WHO reports. While some governments are broadcasting chemicals or washing down sidewalks with disinfectants, WHO advises against the practice. “Spraying or fumigation of outdoor spaces, such as streets or marketplaces, is also not recommended to kill the COVID-19 virus or other pathogens because disinfectant is inactivated by dirt and debris and it is not feasible to manually clean and remove all organic matter from such spaces,” they state. As individuals, companies, and governments respond to the novel coronavirus, it is critical that they respond with measures supported by scientific research and public safety. Using toxic cleaning products can be counterproductive to maintaining health during the pandemic—and there […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2020) Protecting ourselves from Covid-19 requires not only that we avoid contact with the virus, but also that we avoid exposing ourselves to chemicals that may disrupt our immune or respiratory systems. But when it comes to pesticide products—and disinfectants are pesticides—we encounter once again the problem of so-called “inert,” or nondisclosed, ingredients. Tell EPA and Congress that ALL Ingredients in Pesticides Must Be Disclosed. “Inert” ingredients are not necessarily chemically or biologically harmless. “Inert” or “other” ingredients—as distinguished from “active” ingredients—are generally the majority of the product formulation that makes up the liquid, spray, dust, or granule, but does not specifically attack the pest, according to the manufacturer. They include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, aerosol propellants, fragrances, and dyes. Many “inerts” are quite toxic, and may be “active” ingredients in other products. “Inert” ingredients may also be described as “adjuvants” or “formulants.” “Inerts” are typically not listed on the label, and hence are often called “secret ingredients.” Beyond Pesticides reviews the disinfectants on EPA’s List N, which are approved for use against the novel coronavirus, but it is only possible to review the active ingredients. One product on the list, for example, contains 99.7784% “other ingredients.” Unfortunately, although this product may […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2020) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevent (CDC) has released a study showing a sharp increase—62% in some cases—in calls to poison hotlines about exposures to toxic household cleaners and disinfectants. This poisoning comes with the advent of the novel Coronavirus pandemic, as public health and government officials, and many media outlets have sensibly recommended that people regularly disinfect “high touch” surfaces and objects in their homes and other surroundings, but have not issued warnings on toxic effects nor the availability of lower toxicity or least-toxic products. Compliance with cleaning (sanitizers) and disinfection recommendations is an important public and personal health undertaking, but in this Covid-19 rigor lies a poison problem: the toxicity, as Beyond Pesticides has explained, of some cleaning and disinfecting products that are permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sale and use. There are safer ways to disinfect those light switches, TV remotes, doorknobs, faucets, etc. First, a basic distinction between cleaning (also called sanitizing)and disinfecting: EPA offers definitions of the differences. “Cleaning is done with water, a cleaning product, and scrubbing. Cleaning does not kill bacteria, viruses, or fungi, which are generally referred to as ‘germs.’ Cleaning products are used […]