(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2023) The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction dramatically limits the EPA’s ability to protect critical wetland ecosystems. On May 25, in a 5-4 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA has authority to protect only “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.” Wetlands must appear “indistinguishable” from larger waterways at a surface-level perspective. Wetlands next to a large waterway are no longer protected if they are separated by a manmade or terrestrial barrier. Water flows underground from upstream to downstream sources and exits the confines of its customary boundaries during periods of flooding, so to declare waterways distinct based merely on a surface-level perspective defies scientific understanding of ecosystem health. 

Critical Nature of Wetland Ecology 

The conservation of wetland ecology is critical to the health of our environment. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states, “Wetlands are among the most productive habitats on earth” given their role in flood resilience, improvement in water quality, and coastal erosion control. Wetlands are essential nursery grounds for many species of fish and oases for migratory birds en route to their final destinations.  

Not only are wetlands one of the most crucial ecosystems on the planet, but they are also particularly vulnerable to stressors such as habitat loss, pollution, and climate change. Both sea level rise and rapid human development are quickening the pace of their disappearance. Upstream runoff can carry destructive chemical pesticides and fertilizers that wreak havoc on downstream ecosystems. Many wetlands are brackish, meaning they are a mixture of fresh- and saltwater. When sea levels rise, coastal wetlands are inundated with massive amounts of seawater, throwing off their careful salt concentrations and spelling out death for organisms reliant on a narrow range of water chemistry. 

History of Clean Water Act and Court Cases 

Clean Water Act (CWA) has played an integral role in the preservation of environmental health over the last few decades. Prior to the passing of CWA, jurisdiction of the nation’s waterways was left in the hands of the states and very few regulations were imposed. The federal government finally took action after Ohio’s Cuyahoga River spontaneously caught fire in 1969 due to a substantial amount of pollution in the waters. Passed in 1972, CWA “aimed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” The law forbids “unpermitted discharges of pollutants to ‘navigable waters,’” which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” A few years later, authority was broadened to encompass waters “adjacent” to navigable waterways. CWA sets industrial wastewater standards, requires a strict permitting process regarding wetland development, and outlines safety limits for contaminant concentrations in drinking water. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are tasked with the protection of wetlands and enforcement of CWA regulations to defend water quality against polluting industries.  

Despite the success of the CWA in improving the quality of waterways, decades-long debates have pitted politicians against each other over the ambiguity of exactly which “waters of the United States” fall under EPA jurisdiction. Under constitutional law, the legislative branch is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. This detail found in Article I, Section 8, allows a federal agency (e.g., EPA) to impose waterway regulations within states since “navigable waters” play an important role in interstate commerce. Historically, wetlands neighboring a large waterway, despite an interrupted surface connection, were under EPA’s jurisdiction. Even the smallest creeks, however, run downstream to larger lakes and rivers, so many believe the original wording of CWA does not clearly portray the extent of the EPA’s authority. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers often consider potential regulatory infractions on a case-by-case basis, but court cases in years since have attempted to clarify these uncertainties. 

One such landmark case brought before the Supreme Court in 2006, Rapanos v. United States, highlighted key issues related to CWA’s scope in a case brought by a land developer. Half of the Court supported a broad interpretation of “waters of the United States” that includes smaller tributaries that eventually flow into larger bodies of water. The opposing justices, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, favored more limited EPA authority, arguing for the protection of what they referred to as only “traditionally navigable waters” or those “indistinguishable” from such. To qualify, neighboring tributaries would have to be “relatively permanent” bodies of water with a “continuous surface connection” or uninterrupted by any terrestrial barriers. A contentious case, the ruling concluded with a 4-1-4 plurality. The court finally decided on a resolution by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the concurring vote, in which he deemed EPA jurisdiction extending to “traditionally navigable waters,” as well as any U.S. waters serving as a “significant nexus,” meaning wetlands that “either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the navigable waters. Ambiguity, however, remained, as one could endlessly debate what qualifies as “significant.”  

In 2015, the Obama administration took a position on the not fully defined language of the amended CWA. The administration’s stance, known as WOTUS (waters of the United States), and later the Clean Water Rule, asserts that any waterway active for at least part of the year (implying seasonally flowing or ephemeral streams) qualifies as a protected wetland and is therefore under EPA jurisdiction. EPA had spent years studying the effects of upstream pollutants on downstream waters and, based on its in-depth scientific reports, found that protecting all tributaries and wetlands is necessary to the preservation of the quality and health of larger waterways. This position generated immediate backlash, as the industrial, mining, and agricultural sectors, as well as property rights activists, fought the protection of seasonally active waterways. The rule was stayed in federal court as lawsuits began piling up in states around the country, and the administration looked to adjust the rule in response.  

The statutory intent of CWA was then entirely turned upside down with the Trump administration. In a 2019 reversal of Obama-era protections, the Trump administration maintained that justices led by Scalia in the Rapanos case had gotten it right, limiting protections to tributaries with a direct surface connection to larger waterways. 

In an attempt to compromise, the Biden administration set standards similar to those prior to 2015, falling between the broad protections of the Obama administration and the extremely limited protections of the Trump administration. This approach meshes “traditional navigable waters” with adjacent waterways, including “interstate waterways and upstream water sources that influence the health and quality of those waterways.” With this interpretation, a small land divide does not render two nearby wetlands separate. Environmentalists generally support this effort and affirm that this rule is “central to efforts to restore the health of impaired waterways and fragile wildlife habitats because it gives federal and state governments powers to limit the flow of pollutants, including livestock waste, construction runoff and industrial effluent.” 

Present-Day Supreme Court Case 

So now for the case at hand: Chantell and Michael Sackett, a couple beginning construction of a house on an area of wetlands near Priest Lake in Idaho, were alerted by EPA that their land fell under the protection of CWA. The Sackett’s disagreed with the EPA’s stance and took the issue to court. After the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the justices concluded that the Sacketts’ land did not fall under the protections granted by CWA and then curtailed the reach of the law by limiting CWA to larger bodies of water, such as lakes and oceans.   

Objecting to the perspective of the majority, Justice Elena Kahan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Brett M. Kavanaugh, compares this case to one last year limiting EPA’s authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. In both cases, the Court voted to vastly limit the EPA’s jurisdiction, with dangerous implications for the future health and safety of people and the planet. 

Consequences of the Ruling 

The dissenting justices highlight the destructive effects this ruling will have on nationwide water quality and flood control, as EPA is now drastically limited in its “ability to extend protections to upstream waters in order to protect downstream water quality for drinking and wildlife.” Wetlands are a filtration system, trapping many pollutants and preventing them from traveling downstream into major waterways. Advocates say that this will cause broad adverse effects, from the Everglades to maintenance on the levee systems along the Mississippi River to cleanup projects along the Chesapeake Bay. According to some estimates, about 50% of wetlands will lose federal protection. The environmental law firm Earthjustice estimates that federal protections will be withheld from 118 million acres of wetlands. 

President Biden has warned that the Supreme Court decision “will take our country backwards,” and assured the public he will continue to fight for clean water. In his statement, the President continued, “Today’s decision upends the legal framework that has protected America’s water for decades. It also defies the science that confirms the critical role of wetlands in safeguarding our nation’s stream, rivers, and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and wellbeing of children, families, and communities.” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said that the ruling has “ripped the heart out of the law.” The Natural Resources Defense Council cited the “incalculable harm” that will come of the decision. 

Multiple legal observers predict that the two court rulings in the past year regarding the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts may be the start of a pattern of restrictions on federal authority in the environmental sector. At a time when an immediate response to climate change and chemical pollution is more urgent than ever, these decisions are seen by environmentalists and public health advocates as undermining action necessary for a sustainable future by opening the door to widespread and unrestricted contamination of wetlands and waterways necessary to support life.  

If you want to learn more about the dangers of water contamination, take a look at Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination. Click here and here to read past articles Beyond Pesticides has written on the issue.  

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. 

Sources: Supremecourt.gov  

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2023) A study published in Scientific Reports finds a link between pesticide exposure and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) through oxidative stress and apoptosis (cell death) in the placenta. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is the loss of three or more successive pregnancies before 24 weeks of gestation (pregnancy) and signifies an underlying reproductive health issue. The study highlights that pesticides’ endocrine-disrupting (ED) properties can have varying adverse impacts on biological processes, including immunology, metabolism, and reproduction.

Pregnant women experience frequent exposure to environmental pollutants that pose serious health risks to both mother and newborn. Many known pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals with ED properties that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. Additionally, pregnant women are experiencing exposure to an increasing number of dangerous industrial chemicals. With a range of scientific data highlighting chemical exposures during pregnancy as a critical window of vulnerability, public awareness of these threats is growing. The study notes, “They are associated with an increasing placental OS [oxidative stress] and placental apoptosis. Specific measures should be taken to decrease maternal exposure to these pollutants’ sources, especially in underdeveloped and developing countries.”

For RPL, the research investigated pesticide components in blood plasma, specifically polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin (organochlorine), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE, organochlorine), ethion (organophosphate), malathion (organophosphate), and chlorpyrifos (organophosphate). The research tested plasma to determine the associations between chemical exposure, oxidative stress (OS) biomarkers, and apoptotic/antiapoptotic indices in the placenta. OS markers include the presence of nitric oxide (NO.), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), reduced glutathione (GSH), and superoxide dismutase (SOD). Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyzed pesticide levels in plasma. Levels of PCBs, DDE, dieldrin, and ethion are higher in the plasma of individuals in RPL cases. The concentration of these chemicals also reflects a significant association between OS and apoptosis in the placenta and a decrease in human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) levels, which are biomarkers for RPL risk.

Environmental contaminants, like pesticides, are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water, and researchers caution that there are hundreds to thousands of chemicals that humans are likely to encounter. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, these chemicals remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. Thus, exposure to these toxicants can cause many adverse environmental and biological health effects. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and wildlife and biodiversity. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use and exposure must adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants.

Pesticides’ presence in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in a mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned POPs. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Considering the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods of fetal development, exposure to toxicants can have much more severe implications. A 2020 study finds prenatal pesticide exposure can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher pesticide exposure, increasing the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even common household pesticides use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Therefore, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants, like pesticides, increases susceptibility to disease for both mother and child’s health.

Not only does pesticide exposure poses a risk to mothers and their subsequent offspring, but also to future generations. Current-use pesticides and metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart adverse effects on human health. These negative effects can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Although the U.S. bans most organochlorine compounds, the ongoing poisoning and contamination underscore how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued adverse impact on human health. 

This study amplifies the growing body of scientific research evaluating how pesticides affect mothers and their offspring. Like this study, past research highlights that pesticide exposure during pregnancy negatively affects the mother’s metabolism, promoting genotoxicity and oxidative stress among fetuses. Occupationally, pregnant veterinarians who have work-related exposures to pesticides, anesthetic gases, or radiation may have twice the risk of miscarriage. Furthermore, consuming foods with high pesticide residues lowers the probability of live births. An imbalance in reactive oxygen species (ROS) or the antioxidant system can lead to oxidative stress. Additionally, many chemicals that cause OS are EDs that detrimentally affect the fetus during pregnancy. But this type of health problem that individuals live with is only one example. Exposure can likewise result in a range of health impacts.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of long-term health hazards. Research finds that early exposure to pesticides in the womb increases the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Pesticides can result in early births and low birth weight, and evidence is growing that pesticides, like glyphosate in particular, are primary contributors to this phenomenon. Overwhelming data links prenatal pesticide exposure to an increased risk of cancer. Whether acute childhood leukemia (see coverage of another study on this health outcome here), nephroblastoma (kidney cancer), or brain tumors, the data is consistent and concerning. Exposure during pregnancy can increase the probability of childhood ear infections, risking hearing loss that can set back childhood development and change an individual’s future life. ADHD is another example, with pregnant mothers who have used insecticides at 98% increased odds of having children with ADHD scores in the 90th percentile.

While peer-reviewed science continues to sound the alarm, federal regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to allow harmful exposures, permitting increases in application rates of chemicals linked to prenatal and early childhood health impacts in some cases. Hence, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may increase the prevalence of birth-related health consequences like natal abnormalities and learning/developmental disabilities. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Moreover, a mother’s pesticide exposure can have a stronger association with health disorders than childhood exposure, and a potential newborn can still encounter pesticides. Therefore, it is essential to understand how pesticides impact the health and well-being of individuals during critical developmental periods.

A strong consensus among pediatricians highlights that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Therefore, policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about the inadequacy of pesticide regulations and how they can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

Human and environmental contamination from pesticides can be reduced through buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agro-industry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic choice is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2023) The specific compounds that comprise one’s scent influence how attractive one is to mosquitoes finds research published in the journal Current Biology by scientists at Johns Hopkins University. Although the findings focus solely on a species of malaria mosquito primarily distributed throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, the results could provide insight into broader concerns over mosquito disease transmission and public health. As it currently stands, personal protective measures and the use of least-toxic repellents are the best methods to address most mosquito problems in the United States.

Scientists utilized a mixture and semi-field trials to understand first how mosquitoes became attracted to human hosts. For the field trial, a large facility the size of a college lecture hall was utilized to mimic the sort of open space mosquitoes have available to them in the wild. Eight landing boards were placed in a ring and either heated to human temperature, “baited” with carbon dioxide, or both. Researchers then released 200 mated female mosquitoes that had been starved of food. Scientists tracked the mosquitoes through infrared cameras to determine their trajectory.

Only when both heat and carbon dioxide were present did scientists witness high levels of landings on the platforms provided. Neither alone appeared to attract significant mosquito attention.

Researchers then compared the attractiveness of the warmed carbon dioxide platform against that of human odor. Individuals participating in this study were asked to bathe with unscented shampoo, not apply any other scented materials, and refrain from alcohol and tobacco prior to joining the experiment, in order to prevent confounding factors. The results of this process found that malaria mosquitoes strongly sought out the platform with human odor.

The next step was then to compare the mosquito attractiveness of two different humans. In doing so, scientists observed that for six of the seven nights, one human received twice the number of landings than the other. This did not change based on wind currents or the objects’ position. 

To further delve into the details as to why the mosquitoes seek out one individual over another, scientists established a cohort of six humans. Over the course of this experiment, one human was found to be more attractive to mosquitoes than any others. At the same time, a different human in the experiment received relatively few mosquito landings.

The body odor of each human in the experiment was then collected by air sampling and evaluated for its chemical breakdown. Scientists found over 1,000 individual chemicals – primarily comprised of volatile compounds released from human skin. In a comparative analysis, carboxylic acids were found to be the class of chemicals that differed most between human subjects. It follows that researchers found that the most attractive human contain the most abundant number of these molecules, while the least attractive human have the least amount. Interestingly, the least attractive human contains significantly higher levels of one specific carboxylic acids – eucalyptol. As readers may recognize, this is a compound that is also found in many aromatic plants that are known to repel mosquitoes.

The final results appear to buttress the assumptions many people have about mosquitoes – that this or that person is more attractive to mosquitoes than others. However, U.S. readers should be cautious with these results since the study focused on a mosquito that is not found in the U.S.

Scientists are keen on further research that expands the size of the experiment to better understand inter-individual variability in attractiveness. There is also an interest in these results eventually leading to new traps, repellents, or other nontoxic methods of mosquito management.

If you are someone that knows mosquitoes love to feed on you, personal protection is even more important. See Beyond Pesticides factsheet on least-toxic mosquito repellents for information on how to repel these dangerous pests safely. Toxic pesticides and genetic modification should never be the first line of defense for mosquitoes -an ecological approach that focuses primarily on public education and source reduction is the best way to address community mosquito problems. Read more about the benefits of safer mosquito management here.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Current Biology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2023) In view of the urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (VT) and U.S. Representatives Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) and Alma Adams (NC-12) have introduced Senate and House versions of the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training.

>>Tell your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to cosponsor H.R. 3650 and S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act. Thank those who are current cosponsors.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

The Opportunities in Organic Act has three major components:

• Organic Certification Cost-Share. The Opportunities in Organic Act will modernize reimbursements for organic certification, to ensure cost does not deter producers. Cost-share payments will cover up to $1,500 in certification costs. USDA will have discretion to exceed that cap to ensure that certification costs are not a barrier to certification for underserved producers and regions.
  
  
• Transition and Resilience Funds. The bill will provide support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to build capacity to support organic transition, particularly for smaller scale and socially disadvantaged producers and underserved regions. The program will also pass-through funding from NGOs to producers to offset costs and reduce barriers associated with organic transition.
  
  
• Technical Assistance.  The bill will provide resources for organic capacity and partnerships at public institutions and NGOs, including support for education, outreach, and market expansion so producers in any part of the country will have access to professional assistance with building healthy soil, natural pest management, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources.

A wide range of environmental, organic agriculture, and organic research organizations support the Opportunities in Organic Act. Our thanks to the sponsors and cosponsors:

• S. 1582: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA], Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA], Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY], Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM], Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME], Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT], and Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN].
  
  
• H.R. 3650: Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Payne, Donald M., Jr. [D-NJ-10], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], and Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2].

>>Tell your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to cosponsor H.R. 3650 and S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act. Thank those who are current cosponsors.

Letter to U.S. Senators who are not currently co-sponsors of S. 1582:

There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity. U.S. Senator Peter Welch (VT) has introduced S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors.  The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

The Opportunities in Organic Act has three major components:

Organic Certification Cost-Share. The Opportunities in Organic Act will modernize reimbursements for organic certification, to ensure cost does not deter producers. Cost-share payments will cover up to $1,500 in certification costs. USDA will have discretion to exceed that cap to ensure that certification costs are not a barrier to certification for underserved producers and regions.

Transition and Resilience Funds. The bill will provide support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to build capacity to support organic transition, particularly for smaller scale and socially disadvantaged producers and underserved regions. The program will also pass-through funding from NGOs to producers to offset costs and reduce barriers associated with organic transition.

Technical Assistance.  The bill will provide resources for organic capacity and partnerships at public institutions and NGOs, including support for education, outreach, and market expansion so producers in any part of the country will have access to professional assistance with building healthy soil, natural pest management, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources.

A wide range of environmental, organic agriculture, and organic research organizations support the Opportunities in Organic Act.

Will you please cosponsor the Opportunities in Organic Act?

Thank you.

Letter to Senators who are currently co-sponsors of S. 1582:

Thank you for sponsoring S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act. There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives not currently cosponsors of H.R. 3650:

There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity. U.S. Representatives Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) and Alma Adams (NC-12) have introduced H.R. 3650, the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training., the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

The Opportunities in Organic Act has three major components:

Organic Certification Cost-Share. The Opportunities in Organic Act will modernize reimbursements for organic certification, to ensure cost does not deter producers. Cost-share payments will cover up to $1,500 in certification costs. USDA will have discretion to exceed that cap to ensure that certification costs are not a barrier to certification for underserved producers and regions.

 Transition and Resilience Funds. The bill will provide support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to build capacity to support organic transition, particularly for smaller scale and socially disadvantaged producers and underserved regions. The program will also pass-through funding from NGOs to producers to offset costs and reduce barriers associated with organic transition.

Technical Assistance. The bill will provide resources for organic capacity and partnerships at public institutions and NGOs, including support for education, outreach, and market expansion so producers in any part of the country will have access to professional assistance with building healthy soil, natural pest management, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources.

A wide range of environmental, organic agriculture, and organic research organizations support the Opportunities in Organic Act.

Will you please cosponsor the Opportunities in Organic Act?

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives who are currently cosponsors of H.R. 3650:

Thank you for sponsoring H.R. 3650, the Opportunities in Organic Act. There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2023) Glyphosate, usually marketed as the herbicide Roundup, has long been the poster child for shoddy regulation by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In a study published June 1, 2023 in Environmental Health by Axel Mie and Christina Rudén, PhD, of Stockholm University and the Centre for Organic Food and Farming in Uppsala, the authors followed up on earlier work that documented deficiencies in information provided to European Union (EU) regulators by manufacturers. They identified nine studies on developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) that had been submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but were not disclosed to EU authorities. According to the research, seven of these studies would have “actual or potential regulatory impact.”

According to the authors: “Of the nine undisclosed DNT studies, three were sponsored by Bayer and performed in their own laboratory. Three studies were sponsored by Syngenta and performed in their Central Toxicology Laboratory. One study each was sponsored by Nissan Chemicals and Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha (ISK), and these were performed at Huntingdon Life Sciences. For the remaining study, the sponsor and laboratory are unknown to us.”

This study is a new example of regulatory capture, following up on the authors’ 2022 research that identified an unreported study performed more than two decades ago on glyphosate trimethylsulfonium salt, also known as “glyphosate trimesium,” which showed developmental neurotoxicity in rats. This study from 2001—prior to EFSA’s overall approval of glyphosate—was never reported to the agency; in fact, EFSA knew nothing about it until the Swedish team notified the agency of its existence.

A further extension of approval for glyphosate is currently being evaluated by EFSA, according to Mr. Mie and Dr. Rudén. But the researchers stress that EFSA is still not following EU law because it has not contemplated any developmental neurotoxicity studies for glyphosate, and the 2001 study at minimum identifies the need to commission further studies because other forms of the chemical than trimesium may also produce such neurotoxicity.

Beyond Pesticides, along with many investigative journalists such as Sharon Lerner, Carey Gillam, and the late Elizabeth Grossman, has delineated numerous instances of regulatory malfeasance in the entire system of registering chemicals, including the checkered history of glyphosate.

In both the U.S. and the E.U., companies registering pesticides must provide evidence from toxicological studies to support their marketing plans. But in both countries there is a built-in conflict of interest in the way the science is used to justify commercial ends, and the fox should not be the party rationalizing its presence in the henhouse.

There is certainly evidence of it in that early trimesium study. In the two highest-dose groups, the testing company observed decreased motor activity in pups up to 72% at two weeks after birth. This was despite the highest doses having no effect on their mothers. However, the testing company dismissed those results as incidental. Curiously, EPA did evaluate the study in 2005 and concluded that trimesium does cause behavioral effects in offspring from exposed mother rats. It then set “no adverse effect” and “adverse effect” thresholds for the U.S. at the second and third exposure levels, respectively. These were lower than the EU acceptable daily intake levels of glyphosate. However, EPA has dismissed studies reporting glyphosate’s developmental neurotoxicity.

The Swedish researchers note that EU law requires companies to report all results of all toxicological screenings and notify regulators as soon as any adverse effect is observed. They add that there is “no systematic way of knowing what information the applicants have access to but did not include in the dossier. The regulatory system therefore relies on trust that companies abide by the rules and submit all relevant information that is available to them. Therefore, this case has impact beyond glyphosate: It reduces our confidence that the pesticide industry submits all data on risks and hazards of their products.”

This lacuna is a form of willful ignorance on the part of regulators and industry, which is compounded by the refusal of regulators to consider scientific evidence outside the very narrow strictures of regulatory toxicology. In 2022 French academics analyzed two European expert panels and concluded that “processes of producing ignorance have been structurally embedded in the evaluation and regulation procedures of the tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals present on the market…the routine functioning of regulatory science tends to favor industry-sponsored studies, while obscuring other knowledge that could have been useful for regulation.” The internal conflicts within the EPA during glyphosate’s first round of registration as far back as 1974 are emblematic of how evaluations by agency experts are easily papered over by higher-ups with political preferences in order to produce official ignorance.

None of this is really a surprise. Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly called for reform of pesticides regulation, but much of the scaffolding is still occupied by industry influencers. The notorious “revolving door” between government jobs and lucrative consultancies for the chemical industry remains intact. For example, Beyond Pesticides reported in 2017 on the Trump Administration’s nomination of Michael L. Dourson, PhD, to be EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety. He worked at the EPA in the 1980s and formed the private consultancy Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) in 1995. More than half of TERA’s clients are industry groups; TERA tends to see low risks from chemical exposures to its clients’ products, such as in a study for Burger King and Frito-Lay finding little risk from acrylamide in fast-food wrappers. Other clients range from the Koch Brothers to Dow Chemical.  Congress refused to confirm Dourson for the EPA post but he remains active in attempts to downplay chemical health effects.

The problem of industry influence on pesticide regulation extends deep into the scientific literature. In the early 2000s, the groundbreaking work of Tyrone Hayes, PhD, on endocrine-disrupting effects of atrazine triggered heavy resistance from the manufacturer, Syngenta. Dr. Hayes subsequently investigated the effect of funding source on study conclusions, reporting in 2004 that “financial sponsorship was a very strong predictor” of finding no chemical effects, and “100 percent of the negative studies [on atrazine] were funded by Syngenta.”

Beyond Pesticides has noted that “[n]ecessary change will not and has not come with campaigns and lawsuits against individual chemicals. Rather, the representative industry and resulting agency corruption must be purged in order to address a systemic problem. The transformation requires a focus on eliminating toxics in favor of ecosystem-compatible practices and products that are now available, but undermined by weak statutes, regulations, and ongoing corruption.”

There is mounting evidence that scientists and regulators themselves want to see reform. A 2022 survey of agricultural scientists found that many—especially university researchers—believe that EPA underestimates risk significantly, and they support regulation of inert ingredients as well as active pesticide ingredients, along with better labeling. As reported by Sharon Lerner in The Intercept, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has supported several whistleblowers inside the agency who disclosed pressure from political appointees in the Office of Pesticide Protection’s New Chemicals Division to remove language about toxic effects of pesticides and otherwise interfere with scientific evaluations.

But the pesticide industry is nothing if not wily, and it has no qualms about inventing new forms of disinformation. Last year, a team of Syngenta authors actually tried to make the case that climate change, biodiversity crashes, economic failures, and other disasters make it necessary to continue using pesticides, and assured that, “The current U.S. EPA’s pesticide regulatory framework is comprehensive, science-based, rigorous, continuously improving, transparent and is unlikely to underestimate risk to ensure the protection of human health.”

Advocates say this is patently untrue and call for urgent action by policymakers.

What can you do?

• Encourage federal elected officials to support the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA), Senate Bill 269 re-introduced in February by Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
• Browse Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week campaigns, including how to prevent local ordinances from being pre-empted by Congress in the next Farm Bill
• Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change pages
• Check out Preparing for a Campaign advice

And beware of claims that climate change, wildfires, economic crunches, and biodiversity crises require the use of pesticides. They do not. Just the opposite: as we reported this week, melting permafrost will release hundreds of chemicals trapped in the ice, including DDT and chlorpyrifos. Refusing to acknowledge reality–willful ignorance—is not powerful and will not solve our pressing biological problems.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: “Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union,” and “What you don’t know can still hurt you – underreporting in EU pesticide regulation.”

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2023) A study published in Nature Communications finds that climate-induced thawing of permafrost (a ground that remains completely frozen for two or more years) threatens approximately 4,500 industrial sites in regions of the Arctic. These thousands of industrial sites used to store hazardous substances have an estimated 13,000 to 20,000 contaminated locations. Not only do these regions pose a grave ecological risk to the Arctic, but they threaten the entire globe.

Many studies warn that thawing permafrost in the Arctic region can prompt the reemergence of greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and carbon dioxide), microbes, and hazardous chemicals (e.g., banned pesticides like DDT, heavy metals, etc.). Gases, microbes, and chemicals can drift near the poles, becoming entrapped in ice under the accumulating snowfall. As the global climate continues to rise and the climate crisis worsens, studies like this heed warning of potential adverse effects as ice encapsulating these toxic chemicals melt. Upon melting, some chemicals can volatilize back into the atmosphere, releasing toxicants into the air and aquatic systems, with the ensuing consequences. Microbes frozen for thousands to millions of years can also emerge from thawing permafrost, with unknown implications on human, animal, and ecosystem health. The melting permafrost is already beginning to impact infrastructure, creating sinkholes that damage roads, trees, and utility poles. Moreover, mixtures of hazardous chemicals, microbes, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in permafrost are difficult to assess. Therefore, studies like this highlight the need to evaluate the health and ecological effects of melting arctic permafrost (and glaciers) from anthropogenic (human)-induced climate change. 

The study forewarns, “Ongoing climate warming will increase the risk of contamination and mobilization of toxic substances since about 1100 industrial sites and 3500 to 5200 contaminated sites located in regions of stable permafrost will start to thaw before the end of this century. This poses a serious environmental threat, which is exacerbated by climate change in the near future. To avoid future environmental hazards, reliable long-term planning strategies for industrial and contaminated sites are needed that take into account the impacts of climate change.” [For related pieces, see Silent Snow: The unimaginable impact of toxic chemical use and DDT in Glacial Melt Puts Alaskan Communities at Risk.]

The study compiles numerous pan-Arctic (throughout the Arctic) industrial sites in permafrost-dominated regions to determine how many contaminated areas are within these industrial sites. Using the Northern Hemisphere Permafrost Map, researchers determined only areas with a permafrost occurrence probability of over 50 percent are viable study domains. Data from Alaska’s industrial regions established possible types of toxic substances within the regions. Climate prediction scenarios estimate the number of contaminated areas within the industrial sites that will experience direct effects from thawing permafrost. Thus, the study results demonstrate that melting permafrost poses a significant risk to the environment through the release of toxic substances. More than half of all existing contaminated sites are from the energy and industrial product processing and use sector. However, these sectors only account for 20 percent of all industrial sites. A majority of known industrial sites have been in the agriculture, forestry, and other land (AFOLU) use sectors that employ synthetic, petroleum-based pesticide management.

Many scientists consider Arctic environments “pristine,” void of chemicals used in more temperate and industrial climates. However, the Arctic has become a sink for these toxic chemicals, as studies find evidence that airborne Arctic chemical concentrations are comparable to industrialized regions in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.

Other investigations have found the presence of chemicals and microbes in soil and ice samples taken from Arctic regions. The Arctic is highly susceptible to global pollution, as warmer air contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals from manufacturing regions moves poleward toward cooler air. Environmental pollutants can condense into snowflakes high in the atmosphere and deposit onto the Arctic surface. Although deposition of these chemicals via long-range atmospheric transport and condensation are significant contributors to Arctic contamination, the chemical properties allowing these substances to persist in the environment for so long are concerning. Some of these long-lived chemicals include regionally banned pesticides like DDT, heptachlor, and lindane, which are highly toxic to humans and animals, causing a range of adverse effects, from respiratory issues to nervous system disorders and birth deformities to various common and uncommon cancers. Banned chemicals remain a global issue, as much of the developing world still report usage. However, banned/past-use compounds are not the only Arctic contaminants. Current-use chemicals, like chlorpyrifos, dacthal (DCPA), and trans-nonachlor (a component of the banned insecticide chlordane) readily contaminate the Arctic, and continued use will result in an increased probability of atmospheric transportation and deposition of chemicals on Arctic glacier tops via precipitation. According to Brettania Walker, Ph.D., toxics officer at World Wildlife Fund’s Arctic Program, “Not only is chemical contamination increasing in the Arctic but also modern chemicals are now appearing in many Arctic species alongside older chemicals, some of them banned for [over 50] years.”

The climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide and microbial exposure from snowmelt. Pesticide contamination is already an issue in the U.S., as results of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) show that pesticides and their breakdown products are present in all U.S. streams and widespread in groundwater throughout the country. For instance, a Chicago-based 2020 study shows black women who consume more tap water daily have higher bodily residues of the DDT metabolite (DDE). Permafrost and glacial melting will only add to water source contamination as volatile chemicals can enter waterways at the same concentration levels prior to ice entrapment, even after several decades. Moreover, several banned chemicals are not soluble in water (e.g., DDT, lindane, chlordane) but bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of many Arctic species, such as polar bears, seals, whales, and some fatty fish like salmon, herring, and catfish. The level of DDT in Arctic penguins’ blubber is similar to levels during the initial banning more than 30 years ago. Unfortunately, some indigenous tribes in Arctic regions rely on these very mammals and fish for sustenance, and ingesting these pollutants is inevitable, putting their health at risk. Higher bodily concentrations of chemicals are evident in those who consume contaminated meat with associated health risks, including immune system disorders, increased susceptibility to disease, central nervous system disorders, learning disabilities among children, reproductive issues, and cancer. Studies find that adults and children who regularly consume fish from contaminated streams are at increased risk of disease from dietary and cumulative exposure, in many cases above EPA thresholds.

This study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating disproportionate warming in arctic regions. Arctic thawing has implications for carbon release and landscape changes that are difficult to predict, including alternations in arctic vegetation and density. This study further highlights that permafrost’s bearing capacity (capability of the soil to support above-ground infrastructure) loses integrity close to 0 °C or 32 °F. Earth’s polar regions are warming the fastest, approximately two to four times faster than average, and these changes can have a cascading adverse impact on lower and higher latitudes. The scientists note that the polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) stabilize Earth’s climate and drive heat transfer, powering jet streams and other fluxes/currents. Thus, polar warming has future consequences that threaten regular weather, climate, and chemical exposure patterns. According to Beyond Pesticides, which covers pesticide (and other kinds of) chemical pollution, “These results underscore a grim twin reality to the human-caused climate emergency and should be a dire warning on the state of our shared environment and a time for a systemic movement to eliminate fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers.”

The climate crisis will lead to the melting of permafrost at both old and new pan-Arctic industrial sites through the discharging of hazardous contaminants, posing a threat to ecosystem services. The study notes, “The effects of thawing permafrost, with all its consequences, such as loss of hydrological barriers, improved hydrological connectivity, reduced soil stability, and strongly impeded site accessibility for clean-up measures, will often occur after the operating period of industrial sites. This [issue] underscores the need to avoid leaving environmentally hazardous substances at the sites, as permafrost can no longer be considered a reliable barrier to their containment. Furthermore, long-term remediation strategies will be necessary for contaminated legacy sites that have already been closed if they still contain hazardous substances.”

As global warming progresses, exposure concerns will increase significantly, especially for those more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure. To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from pesticides, advocates say the manufacturing and use of pesticides need addressing, first and foremost. Global leaders must curtail the continued manufacturing of chemical pollutants that readily contaminate polar regions. Recently, agrochemicals like pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry as the leading contributor to environmental sulfur emissions. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that it is essential to incite change by enhancing pesticide policy and regulation that eliminates use. 

A switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating toxic, petroleum-based pesticide use, building soil health, and sequestering carbon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contribute about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. However, organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. Learn more about switching to organic management practices by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit the Beyond Pesticides Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Nature Communications

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2023) A systematic review of scientific literature published in Environmental Research on the development of mood disorders among pesticide applicators (farmers, landscapers, etc.) finds an increased risk of depression symptoms over the last decade. The evidence in the review highlights the presence of pesticide-specific biomarkers and biomarkers of depression that determine the positive association between pesticide exposure and the development of depressive symptoms. With more high-quality longitudinal studies to control sociocultural variables, researchers can directly pinpoint risks of developing depression, especially among agricultural workers and landscapers who use pesticides.

Research on pesticide-induced diseases commonly investigates pesticide exposure concerning the development of various physical illnesses. However, previous studies show that occupational (work-related) risks of developing depression are high in agriculture, where pesticide use is rampant. Acute exposure to chemicals, including organophosphate, organochlorine, triazine, and carbamate pesticides, tends to put farmers at greater risk of suicide than the general population. There is a lack of information connecting pesticide exposure to the subsequent psychological (psychiatric) effects on the general population. Additionally, household pesticide exposure varies from occupational exposure via exposure frequency, duration, intensity, and type. 

 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression affects 322 million people globally, with the number of diagnosed patients increasing by 18.4% from 2005 to 2015. Although the etiology of depression—and many other psychiatric disorders—is often genetic, studies suggest that other etiological factors, like pesticide exposure, play a role in depression incidents. Poor mental health has a tangible influence on physical health (e.g., depression and cardiovascular disease); therefore, the combination of pesticide exposure and mental illness worsens the adverse effects on human health. If pesticide exposure exacerbates psychiatric disorder symptoms, it is important to evaluate how pesticide exposure affects mental health, in addition to physical health. This research highlights the significance of researching potential mental health detriments resulting from pesticide exposure, especially as society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. The study notes, “Given the rise in pesticide use in agriculture, the low adherence of farmers to safety training, and the health risks associated with depression, it is recommended to implement stricter surveillance measures on agricultural companies and monitor the mental health of exposed workers. It is also important to actively involve the community in prevention and intervention efforts.”

The review conducted a thorough scientific literature search on occupational pesticide exposure and depression symptom development in the PubMed and Scopus databases from the last ten years (2011 to September 2022). Using guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Population, Exposure, Comparison, and Outcomes (PECO) strategy, researchers examined the association between occupational exposure to pesticides and symptoms of depression in agricultural workers. Among the reviewed articles, 78 percent indicate a link between exposure to pesticides and the prevalence of depression symptoms. Most pesticides associated with depressive symptoms include organophosphate insecticides, general herbicides, and pyrethroid insecticides.

For over two decades, research concerning pesticide exposure and psychiatric disorders, such as depression, focused on occupational hazards, especially for agricultural farmworkers. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at a six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. Specifically, exposure to organochlorines and fumigants (gaseous pesticides) heighten an individual’s risk of depression by 90% and 80%, respectively. Organochlorines are chemicals of concern as they can induce a myriad of health problems, including reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cancer, and fetal defects. Though the U.S. bans the use of many organochlorines, these chemicals can still expose individuals to volatile concentrations as they are highly persistent in the environment. Fumigants are a human health concern as many fumigants are gases that can cause acute toxicity upon inhalation and ingestion. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers. Tobacco farmers using organophosphate pesticides have a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. Organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme.

Individuals suffering from occupational pesticide exposure face a disproportionate risk of developing depression. However, pesticide exposure from nearby agricultural fields remains a threat to residential (nonoccupational) human health. Previous studies found that populations living near farms are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 2019 study found that teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas, where organophosphate exposure is prevalent, are at higher risk of depression. Uniquely, gender (female), physical health, and age (young adult) indicate likely of having depressive symptoms, with the most adverse effects on women, those in poor physical health, and children under 14. 

Understanding the mental health implications of conventional pesticide exposure can help identify the various physiological mechanisms attributed to psychiatric disorders. Like this review, past research finds that organophosphates have significant associations with depressive symptom development, including disturbing normal nerve impulses. So, scientists can analyze information to determine if the lack of normal nerve impulses contributes to non-pesticide-induced depression.

Whether pesticide exposure is occupational or residential, the development of depression symptoms is of concern. Annually, only half of Americans with a depression diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Commonalities between occupational and household pesticide exposure are suicidal thoughts and pesticide provocation as a suicide agent. A study published in the WHO Bulletin found that people storing organophosphate pesticides in their homes are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as the exposure rate is higher. The study found an association between suicidal thoughts and ease of household pesticide accessibility. Geographic areas with more frequent home storage of pesticides have higher rates of suicidal thoughts than the general population. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning as one of the most significant global methods of suicide, as increases in pesticide toxicity make them potentially lethal substances. Robert Stewart, Ph.D., a researcher for the WHO Bulletin, stated that: “Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide.” With that in mind, researchers say it is vital to recognize how pesticide exposure and accessibility can influence mental illnesses. 

To address health issues regarding pesticide exposure and mental health incidents, health care providers must have sufficient information on signs and symptoms of chemical exposure. Farmers, landscapers, and other individuals encountering chemical exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and skin (dermal) contact are unaware of the non-physical side effects. Considering depression related to acute pesticide exposure may persist long after initial exposure, those working with toxic pesticides must have adequate protective equipment to minimize exposure. Therefore, government agencies should assess the provocation of psychiatric disorders accompanying acute and chronic pesticide exposure to protect human health. Given the rise in mental health problems among agricultural workers and the potential health risks, including depression and other severe conditions that can affect their well-being, analyzing existing studies is crucial. Accordingly, this review aims to organize the scientific evidence from the last decade regarding the impact of occupational exposure to pesticides on the development of depression symptoms among agricultural workers.

The study concludes “[…] that governments worldwide bear greater responsibility in addressing this matter, which could help control the various systemic sources of exposure to pesticides and other environmental pollutants and lessen the harm to the health of workers.”

Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health, and reviews such as this highlight the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. Through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Our choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic products. By buying and using organic products, you not only support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides but also put a residential system. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Lastly, suicide is the tenth leading cause of death among adults (3rd for adolescents) in the U.S., with more than 34,000 individuals succumbing to the disease annually. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are dangerous and harmful and are therefore considered a psychiatric emergency. An individual experiencing these thoughts should seek immediate assistance from a health or mental health care provider. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or 911 immediately.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2023) Government agencies in Hawaii are making preparations to release a small parasitoid in an attempt to control infestations of coffee berry borer (CBB) in the state, according to a release published by the University of Hawaii.  “This biological control agent has the potential to make significant positive economic impacts in the Hawaiʻi coffee industry, and offers an environmentally safe way to manage CBB,” says Mark Wright, PhD, professor at UH. “The Hawaiʻi coffee industry is economically and culturally significant, and we hope that this work will improve the lives of many people associated with the industry.” The planned release comes at a time of increasing interest in nontoxic biological pest management as a means of reducing the harmful effects of industrially produced pesticides.

As early as fall 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service (USDA ARS) and UH’s Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Services plan to release thousands of parasitic wasps throughout coffee growing areas in Maui, O’ahu and the Big Island. The parasitoid in question is Phymastichus coffea, a wasp that lays its eggs in the abdomen of coffee berry borers. According to researchers, the wasp becomes attracted to the coffee berry borer based on a chemical signal the pest releases when it digs into coffee fruit.

Scientists have been researching the parasitoid since 2018, bringing in quarantined shipments into the state to test on native insects with similarities to the coffee berry borer to ensure there are no unintended side effects. As it currently stands, the coffee berry borer is found in all coffee growing regions except for Nepal and Papua New Guinea. “CBB arrived in Hawaiʻi without the natural enemies that keep populations in check in its native range in Africa,” said Peter Follett, PhD, of Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. “The introduction of the African parasitoid wasp Phymastichus coffea will reunite CBB with its most significant natural enemy from home. Releases of this wasp in coffee in Colombia against CBB have been shown to limit populations to subeconomic levels.”

To date, testing has shown the parasitoid to be highly specific to the coffee berry borer. The wasps will be brought from Columbia and bred for two generations prior to release, and in order to ensure the colony is without any foreign diseases or contamination.

Coffee berry borer is the most harmful pest a coffee farm is likely to encounter, able to work its way through a crop and destroy up to 80% of produce. The pest can result in the premature fall of young berries, yield and quality reductions, and increased vulnerability to fungal or bacterial infection. This is particularly problematic as Hawai’i coffee growers are also dealing with the impact of coffee leaf rust, a devastating disease that can result in long term-yield reductions to coffee crops. In 2019, the pest was responsible for over $7.5 million in crop damage.

“If all goes according to plan, it’ll make a massive impact,” said Dr. Wright of the parasitoid’s introduction. A study published in 2020 in Nature Ecology and Evolution found that biological pest management has added billions of benefits to agricultural economies over the last century, larger than the apparent benefits of the so-called ‘green revolution’ that enabled the spread of industrial agriculture.

New biocontrols are on the horizon for a range of problematic pests, including the ‘tree of heaven’ (Ailanthus altissima), the spotted wing drosophila (SWD) (Drosophila suzukii), and fire ants.

Humans armed with chemical weapons that indiscriminately kill broad swaths of life over artificial, monoculture landscapes are poor replacements for the sort of specificity and efficiency that natural predators can provide. It is critical that more research and investment be placed into this safer, natural approach to pest management.

Readers at home can employ their own form of biological control for many common yard and outdoor pest problems through online retailers, such as Arbico Organics. Make certain that the use of any pest management fits within a broader, structured, ecological approach to pest management. Use Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage to assist.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: University of Hawaii press release, Hawaii Public Radio

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2023) Butterflies—the most attractive of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% from 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Tell EPA to eliminate pesticides that threaten butterflies. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior to help bring back butterflies by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them. Tell Congress that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect our most charismatic insects.

Last year, EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

Studies upon studies upon studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support industrial agriculture eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Letter to EPA:

Butterflies—the most charismatic of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Last year the EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support industrial agriculture eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Please eliminate pesticides that threaten butterflies.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  and Dept. of Interior:

Butterflies—the most charismatic of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Last year the EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support industrial agriculture eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Please help bring back butterflies by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them on public lands.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

Butterflies—the most charismatic of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Last year the EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support industrial agriculture eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Please ensure that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect our most charismatic insects.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2023) Scientists have identified 97 different types of pesticides and flame retardants in primate fecal samples, recently reporting their results in the journal Biology Letters. In Uganda’s Kibale National Park, researchers studied the chemical exposure of four species of primates (chimpanzees, Ugandan red colobus, olive baboons and red-tailed monkeys), adding to previous research on the subject. The chemicals demonstrate a measurable effect on primate growth and development, sparking considerable unease as to the future health of these critical species. This study shows how even within a protected national park, wildlife species are at risk from chemical pollution. According to advocates, the use of dangerous pesticides and flame retardants, therefore, must be entirely stopped in order to protect the future viability of wildlife species. 

Scientists collected a total of 71 fecal samples from the four chosen species to measure levels of chemicals and hormones in a noninvasive manner. After sample analysis, researchers highlight three main groups of chemical pollutants: organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and organophosphate esters (OPEs). Although in a protected area, wildlife species encounter humans through tourism, research, and human development surrounding the park. As these pesticides are so prevalent in areas of development, humans entering the park often carry with them harmful chemical residues. The researchers speculate the animals are most often exposed to harmful chemicals through ingestion of crops surrounding the park, inhalation of airborne contaminants originating from surrounding farmland, and ingestion of pollutants within the park itself. 

Analysis determined that juvenile and adult female primates are most negatively affected by chemical exposure. Higher concentrations of the chemicals studied correspond to altered levels of the stress hormone cortisol, as well as the sex hormone estradiol. Both of these hormones play an essential role in the health of an individual. Exposure to one BFR is especially consistent across the samples, showing up in more than 70% of the population studied. Previous research focused on BFRs has found that, when exposed early in development, mice are ill-equipped to effectively excrete the harmful chemicals, leading to accumulation over an animal’s lifespan. As mice and primates are both mammals, similar patterns of accumulation may explain the consistent concentrations of BFRs in the sample population. 

Pesticides and flame retardants pose a significant threat to the future health of primate populations, as these chemicals are particularly known for their ability to alter hormone production. The altered hormone levels resulting from chemical exposure signal significant dysfunction of the endocrine system, which controls the production and regulation of hormones within organisms. The endocrine system is essential for healthy metabolism, growth, and reproduction, as these processes are initiated and blocked by hormones. Given the rapid growth experienced by juveniles, the importance of a properly functioning endocrine system is heightened during these critical stages of development. Chemical exposure during these early phases of life leaves younger organisms especially vulnerable to lasting negative health outcomes. 

 As the study states, “Whereas activational effects of endocrine disruptors in adult primates are expected to be relatively more transient, disruption of steroid hormones in juveniles during development can result in permanent phenotypic changes in morphological, physiological and behavioural structure and function.” In other words, adults are better equipped to maintain normal functioning in response to chemical exposure, and the health impacts are often temporary. Juveniles, however, are more susceptible to lasting, and sometimes even permanent, damage.  

The increased impact of chemical exposure on females and juveniles, as presented in the study, demonstrates the particular danger posed to critical stages of female reproduction and the resulting growth of their offspring. Existing studies highlight how mothers can transfer significant concentrations of chemicals to their offspring during pregnancy, as well as during lactation and nursing: perhaps explaining the heightened vulnerabilities of the young primates studied. 

Although research on endocrine disruptors continuously links these chemicals to negative health effects, such as infertility, diabetes, Parkinson’s, obesity, cancers, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer’s, the EPA has failed to devote adequate resources to the evaluation and testing of endocrine-disrupting chemicals present in pesticides, despite a mandate incorporated way back in 1996 in the Food Quality Protection Act. As exposure to these harmful pesticides clearly leads to impaired growth and reproduction, advocates have repeatedly called for a stop to the unleashing of such dangerous concoctions of chemicals in an effort to eliminate this cycle of damaged development.  

Pesticide use does not exist in a vacuum. Once applied, a pesticide’s pathway through the environment cannot be reliably contained. The chemicals cycle through soil and water systems, posing threats to humans and wildlife far from the initial source. For more information on the destructive effects of pesticides on such an interconnected environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ resource page on how pesticides affect wildlife, and check out the wildlife section of our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. While you’re at it, take action to help endangered species impacted by pesticide contamination and fight to ban these toxic chemicals from entering the environment in the first place. 

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. 

Sources: Biology Letters; Natural History Museum 

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2023) Eco-Friendly Parks for All (EFPA)*, a partnership of environmental, public health and political action organizations, has teamed up with Beyond Pesticides, New York City Parks and Recreation Department, and Stonyfield Organic Yogurt to celebrate the success of pilot organic land management programs at eight sites across the five boroughs. The demonstration programs**, directed by Beyond Pesticides board member and nationally recognized natural turf expert Chip Osborne, were initiated by the coalition after the city council adopted new legislation on Earth Day in 2021 prohibiting the use of chemical pesticides on all New York City parks.  

“We are excited to be working with the City of New York on organic land management practices that protect community health and the environment, and support efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity decline,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “Organic practices such as those being used in these demonstration sites eliminate fossil fuel petroleum-based products and sequester atmospheric carbon in the soil, combating the climate crisis. It’s a win for the city, the public and the environment.”  

The new law Intro 1524, required to be fully implemented by the fall of 2022, restricts pest management products to those compatible with organic systems, which eliminates synthetic weed killers like glyphosate (Roundup), tied to cancer by the World Health Organization, and bee-toxic insecticides like neonicotinoids, which have been prohibited by many communities and countries. 

The demonstration sites are part of Beyond Pesticides’ nationwide Parks for a Sustainable Future program, with the long-term goal of adopt organic practices that rely on methods and products that support soil biology and soil health, while beautifying parks and playing fields by strengthening the grass plants to be better able to stand up to the stress associated with use. In New York City, the program also features the use of compost from the city’s Sanitation Department, which can provide valuable nutrients to park grounds and reduce the cost of fertilizer.   
 
Join the press conference held today, June 1, 2023, on the baseball field at Morningside Park in Harlem at 11 AM EDT (Manhattan Ave and W 112 St). [Flyer] Beyond Pesticides will be there as an exhibitor to celebrate pesticide-free park management and demonstrate how organic techniques can work in NYC. 

A few words from EFPA members and stakeholders: 

• “We are proud of the significant reduction in pesticide use at Parks, and our collaboration on this pilot with Eco-friendly Parks for All will further demonstrate what can be achieved through our continued and expanded use of sustainable landscaping practices,” said NYC Parks Deputy Commissioner for Environment and Planning Jennifer Greenfeld.

• “The Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center applauds the implementation of this legislation as a major victory for children’s health. Outdoor play and access to green spaces is essential to health and well-being – all families have a right to safe, pesticide-free parks.” said Sarah Evans, PhD, Assistant Professor of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.  

• “It’s critical that municipal governments take these positive steps forward to make our parks safer for people and our cities more sustainable,” said Patti Wood, executive director of Grassroots Environmental Education, one of the Coalition’s founding members. “We’re hoping this will help convince other cities across the country that they can do it too!”

• Bertha Lewis, Founder and President of The Black Institute said, “This initiative not only benefits the environment, but it also addresses environmental justice by ensuring that our Black and Brown communities have access to safe, healthy, and sustainable parks. We’re working together to create a better future for all New Yorkers, regardless of their background, by promoting organic land management practices that protect our people.”

• Paula Rogovin, NYC public school teacher for 44 years (now retired) said, “It is a joy of a lifetime to see this law, introduced in 2015 on behalf of my kindergarten students from PS 290, coming to fruition.  No one is too young or too old to advocate for a better world for all.”

• “Stonyfield is pleased to collaborate and support the city’s efforts as a leader in sustainability and now organic land management with demonstration sites that serve as an opportunity to adopt practices that meet the environmental and health challenges of our time,” said Mairead Dunphy-Fabrycki, Public Relations Manager, Stonyfield Organic Yogurt, which helped underwrite the costs of the pilot program.

• “Eco-friendly lawn care takes a responsible approach to maintaining our green spaces, including parks like Pelham Bay Park. The use of pesticides can have harmful effects on our environment and the health of humans and animals. By adopting eco-friendly practices, we can promote the growth of healthy parks and green spaces without compromising the health of our community,” said New York City Council Member Marjorie Velázquez. “These practices not only protect our environment but also contribute to the resilience and sustainability of our communities for generations to come. ” 

• “By embracing sustainable practices, families can enjoy the beauty of our parks without it being a health hazard. We support Eco-Friendly Parks for All and The Black Institute in ensuring New York City parks are safe and sustainable.” said New York City Council Member Darlene Mealy. 

• “Parks are invaluable public resources that help us maintain the health of our communities,” said New York City Council Speaker Adrienne E. Adams. “It’s important that our parks and public spaces utilize eco-friendly practices so that New Yorkers can enjoy them for generations to come. These sustainable measures to ban chemical pesticides in our parks, as passed by the City Council in 2021, are important to ensuring that our city is accessible. I thank Eco-Friendly Parks for All for their work to protect our communities and our city’s natural biodiversity.”

What can we do?  

It is critically important to educate ourselves and our communities on not only the hazards associated with cosmetic lawn care pesticides, but the availability of alternative practices and products. Check out Beyond Pesticides’ 40 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides factsheet and infographic, as well as alternatives for safer lawn care, myths about organic playing field management, and stopping systemic environmental racism in New York City parks.

Now, with your help, it is time to take this work to the next level. Sign up to be a Parks Advocate! 
 
You do not have to be an expert on landscaping management, or the health effects of every pesticide used on playing fields. What you do need to know is that children are being unnecessarily exposed to chemicals that can impair their health, and a safer, proven way exists.   

Steps you can take: Determine whether your state, school or community has a law or policy governing pesticide usage in and around schools, or on public lands. Find out if, and how well, it is being implemented and you do not have a law, call for an organic land care policy in your community. Petition the school and the town parks department to convert the playing fields to organic care and require that the grounds maintenance director, or contracted professional, be trained in organic land care. 

For more information, please contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] 

*Eco-Friendly Parks for All founding members include Beyond Pesticides, The Black Institute, Grassroots Environmental Education, Children’s Environmental Health Center, at Mount Sinai Institute for Exposomic Research, (Icahn School of Medicine) and Voters for Animal Rights.  

**Demonstration sites include Bronx—Claremont Park, Mapes Playground (Jacobo Field); Brooklyn—Canarsie Park (cricket field) and Lincoln Terrace; Manhattan—Morningside Park; Queens —Rufus King Park; Staten Island—Rev. Dr. Maggie Howard Playground and Mahoney Playground.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2023) A study published in Chemosphere supports accumulating scientific research confirming that prohibited and current use pesticides are readily detectable in the human placenta. All pregnant women experience exposure to a mixture of complex pesticides like DDT (prohibited organochlorine pesticide [OCP]) and chlorpyrifos (current use organophosphate [OP]), with concentrations high enough to increase possible adverse health risks to the fetus through a placental transfer of chemicals. Prenatal development in the intrauterine environment is one of the most vulnerable periods of exposure, as the fetus is most susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical contaminants. Many studies indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to diseases, from learning and developmental disabilities to cancer. Given the over 1,300 research studies that demonstrate the link between pesticide exposure and general health effects, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the body elevates health concerns, especially for future and developing generations.

The authors note, “This study highlights the urgent requirement for implementing alternative pest-control methods in agriculture, involving a reduction of chemical pesticides application. Due to the vital role of the placenta in fetal development and its non-invasive sampling, this kind of research highlights the relevance of this tissue as a useful tool to determine pesticide exposure, and thus, prevent possible adverse effects on vulnerable populations.”

The study determined the concentration of OCPs and current-use pesticides in Argentine pregnant women’s placentas. Researchers collected socio-demographic information on the mother’s lifestyle and analyzed neonatal characteristics related to pesticide residue concentrations. Focusing on an area of chemical-intensive fruit production in Patagonia, Argentina, the researchers gathered 85 placentas after birth to determine pesticide concentrations. Using Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and Gas Chromatography – Electron Capture Detector (GS-ECD), the researchers find a concentration of 23 pesticides: trifluralin (herbicide), chlorothalonil and HCB (fungicides), chlorpyrifos (insecticide), and organochlorines like HCHs, endosulfans, DDTs, chlordane, heptachlor, drins, and metoxichlor. Among urban and rural residential settings, rural groups of pregnant women have significantly higher levels of chlorpyrifos. However, DDT and chlorpyrifos are the major constituents of placentas regardless of urban or rural residency. The levels of DDT and chlorpyrifos in placentas exceed those reported in analyses on placental pesticide contamination in low-, middle- and high-income countries across the globe. Despite general pesticide concentrations having little association with neonatal anthropometric parameters (early postnatal complications), the concentrations in this study are high enough to caution against possible adverse health implications from prenatal exposure.

Pesticide use is widespread and direct exposure from applications or indirect exposure from residues threatens human health. Children are more vulnerable to the impact of pesticides as their bodies are still developing. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases disease susceptibility. Early childhood developmental pathways are significant for future health. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal pesticide exposure can increase disease risk. A pregnant mother’s exposure to environmental toxicants can increase the likelihood of developmental disabilities, as most developmental disabilities begin before birth. Many studies link childhood pesticide exposure to lower IQ, but the intelligence decline is even more problematic with prenatal pesticide exposure. Moreover, women living near areas of highly toxic chemical use have an increased risk of birthing a baby with cognitive function, like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even many long-banned pesticides still cause adverse effects on human health. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). 

Overall, the study demonstrates that pregnant women experience simultaneous exposure to various harmful pesticides, which can damage normal fetal development via placental transfer. As described in this study, those who work in or live proximate to agricultural sites encounter pesticides through residue on clothing and in households and through drift from sprayed applications. Thus, the presence of pesticide transfer between mother and fetus is not a new phenomenon. In blood and umbilical cord samples, pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals, and studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, this study supports previous studies identifying the presence of pesticides in maternal and umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, and placenta.

Few studies address the co-occurring presence of OCPs and current-use pesticides (CUPs) in the human placenta. However, this study is one of the first to report concentrations of the CUPs chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil in addition to OCPs in placental tissue, providing information on current pesticide exposure that can have global implications. Although low levels of chlorothalonil are in the placentas of both rural and urban residents, chlorpyrifos is the most frequently detectable current-use pesticide in all placenta samples, with significantly higher levels among rural residents. However, the main contaminants with the highest concentrations in all residential samples include chlorpyrifos (CUP) and DDE (a metabolite of DDT [OCP]). The study calls for “[…An] urgent requirement for implementing alternative pest-control methods in agriculture, involving a reduction of chemical pesticide application.”

There is a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical windows of development. Similarly, populations at elevated health risk should steer clear of pesticide exposure. The wide availability of non-pesticidal and nontoxic alternative strategies gives residential and agricultural management safer choices to establish a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For instance, buying, growing, and supporting organic land management reduces human and environmental contamination from pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Numerous studies find that pesticide metabolite levels in urine significantly decrease when switching to an all-organic diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage on the Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on learning/developmental disorders, Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. Additionally, learn more about the hazards to children’s health through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticides and You Journal article, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Chemosphere

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2023) On Endangered Species Day, May 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed an unfortunate degree of hypocrisy in its claims to protect endangered species from pesticides.

Tell EPA and Congress that dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides.

EPA announced that it “is publishing a group of StoryMaps to raise public awareness about protecting endangered species from pesticides.” It continues, “Through its Vulnerable Species Pilot, EPA has been identifying endangered species that are vulnerable to pesticides, developing mitigations to protect them from pesticide exposure, and will apply the mitigations to many types of pesticides.”

However, pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and species vulnerable to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first at the ways it has created the crisis in the first place.

Studies upon studies upon studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. EPA’s registration of insecticides has always—from DDT to neonicotinoids—endangered insects on a global level. Similarly, pesticides threaten food webs in aquatic and marine environments.

Pesticides threaten frogs and other amphibians in a way that demonstrates the potential to warp the growth and reproduction of all animals. Agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, is the leading factor driving declines in bird populations.

At a more foundational level, EPA approves pesticides that, in supporting industrial agriculture, eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between this industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

In other words, a major reason that species are endangered is that EPA has registered pesticides that harm them. If EPA is to really protect endangered species, it must eliminate the use of toxic pesticides and encourage organic production. The agency must evaluate the allowance of toxic pesticides in a holistic context and recognize that under law EPA has a responsibility to protect living systems that are harmed by the introduction of toxic pesticides—whose uses are unreasonable, given the availability and economic viability of management systems not reliant on toxic inputs.

Tell EPA and Congress that dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides.

Letter to EPA:

On Endangered Species Day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed its latest plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

EPA announced that it is “publishing a group of StoryMaps to raise public awareness about protecting endangered species from pesticides.” It continues, “Through its Vulnerable Species Pilot, EPA has been identifying endangered species that are vulnerable to pesticides, developing mitigations to protect them from pesticide exposure, and will apply the mitigations to many types of pesticides.”

However, pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and vulnerability of species to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first to the ways it has created the crisis in the first place. Dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides.

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. EPA’s registration of insecticides has always—from DDT to neonicotinoids—endangered insects on a global level. Similarly, pesticides threaten food webs in aquatic and marine environments.

Pesticides threaten frogs and other amphibians in a way that demonstrates the potential to warp the growth and reproduction of all animals. And yet, EPA continues to ignore its responsibility to eliminate risks from endocrine disrupting pesticides. Agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, is also the leading factor driving declines in bird populations.

At a more foundational level, EPA approves pesticides that, in supporting industrial agriculture, eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between this industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

In other words, a major reason that species are endangered is that EPA has registered pesticides that harm them. Certainly, these threats to biodiversity qualify as “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which, according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), should disqualify toxic pesticides from being used. If EPA is to really protect endangered species, it must eliminate the use of toxic pesticides and encourage organic production.

EPA must evaluate the allowance of toxic pesticides in a holistic context and recognize that under law EPA has a responsibility to protect living systems that are harmed by the introduction of toxic pesticides—whose uses are unreasonable, given the availability and economic viability of management systems not reliant on toxic inputs.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

On Endangered Species Day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed its latest plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

EPA announced that it is “publishing a group of StoryMaps to raise public awareness about protecting endangered species from pesticides.” It continues, “Through its Vulnerable Species Pilot, EPA has been identifying endangered species that are vulnerable to pesticides, developing mitigations to protect them from pesticide exposure, and will apply the mitigations to many types of pesticides.”

However, pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and vulnerability of species to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first to the ways it has created the crisis in the first place. Dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides.

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and a part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. EPA’s registration of insecticides has always—from DDT to neonicotinoids—endangered insects on a global level. Similarly, pesticides threaten food webs in aquatic and marine environments.

Pesticides threaten frogs and other amphibians in a way that demonstrates the potential to warp the growth and reproduction of all animals. And yet, EPA continues to ignore its responsibility to eliminate risks from endocrine disrupting pesticides. Agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, is also the leading factor driving declines in bird populations.

At a more foundational level, EPA approves pesticides that, in supporting industrial agriculture, eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between this industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

In other words, a major reason that species are endangered is that EPA has registered pesticides that harm them. Certainly, these threats to biodiversity qualify as “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which, according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), should disqualify toxic pesticides from being used.

Please tell EPA to protect endangered species by eliminating the registrations of toxic pesticides and encouraging organic production.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2023)The use of pesticides in agriculture, transportation, and domestic settings has created a disastrous conflict for the human species. Two irreconcilable facts confront humans as they try to adapt to the consequences of earlier choices: One, industrial civilization came to believe that because some insects, fungi, and other organisms like to eat the same plants humans eat, humans can kill them with impunity; two, because some insects and other organisms are necessary to the health and reproduction of plants, humans need to protect them. At no point in history have people acknowledged that it is very difficult to kill the “bad” actors while protecting the “good” ones. There are not really two sides to the biological fact; rather, pesticides and biodiversity meet each other on a single plane, like a Möbius strip.

Among the most dire effects of pesticides are their ruination of pollinators. Bees spring to mind as our primary pollinators, but they are by no means the only ones. Butterflies, often regarded as mere ornamental additions to a landscape, are actually significant pollinators themselves. Monarchs pollinate many flowers, including calendula and yarrow. Other butterflies pollinate dill, celery, fennel, cilantro, lettuce, peas, and basil, among other important food plants. Butterflies are also known to be excellent indicators of ecosystem health, so if an environment has lots of butterflies it is reasonably robust.

The European Union has just released a report, the European Grassland Butterfly Indicator 1990-2020 as part of the EU’s attempt to “halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU…and restore them, in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.” The Grassland Butterfly Indicator is one of the EU’s tools to identify trends in “genetic, species and ecosystem/landscape diversity.” The survey includes counts of 17 species of butterflies from 19 countries. Results show that, “Grassland butterflies have undergone a huge overall decrease in numbers. Their populations declined by almost 50% from 1990 to 2011” across the EU member states. This is derived from the Indicator, which has declined by 32% over the last decade. Intensification of farming is the major culprit for grassland butterflies, and climate, especially heat waves and drought, is close behind. Industrial farming not only destroys habitat, but it uses poisonous chemicals as well.

In addition to documented declines in Europe, research documents declines of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K. and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs. 

Butterflies and moths belong to the order Lepidoptera. Unfortunately, some 70 percent of agricultural pests—many of them moths at various life stages—also belong to this order. This puts butterflies smack in the bullseye for many pesticides. As Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly reported, the neonicotinoid pesticides destroy insects’ nervous systems, and they are not picky as to species. Their effects on bees caused the EU to ban three neonicotinoids in 2013—clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid—but in the US the Environmental Protection Agency is just getting around to pondering whether they are harmful enough to ban.

Until the last few years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had never considered a pesticide’s effects on endangered species in its registration process. In 2019 the Center for Food Safety sued the EPA, and a California federal judge ruled that “EPA had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide variety of agricultural, landscaping and ornamental uses,” according to the CFS.

Last year the EPA admitted in response to that ruling that these three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. These more fine-grained analyses focuses on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous. This step by EPA is one in a long line of glacial movements that may result, if the winds of fate do not reverse, in the removal of these chemicals from the market.

Clothianidin is used on cotton, but cotton growers may be shooting themselves in the foot by using it. In 2021, Science reported on a study of cotton pollination showing that the services of butterflies and hoverflies add approximately $120 million annually to the $1.8 billion cotton industry in Texas. They do this by visiting different cotton flowers and appearing at different times than bees do. The researchers counted 40 bee species, 16 fly species, and 18 butterfly species in the cotton fields they examined. The study estimates that about 50% more flowers are visited by all pollinators than if bees were the sole actors. More broadly, according to the Center for Regenerative Agriculture and Resilient Systems at California State University Chico, the efforts of wild native bees and other pollinators are worth $3 billion.

Change at the federal level is too slow, according to advocates, but many efforts at smaller scales, from scientists to farmers to individual citizens, are afoot. Butterflies may have been left out of much consideration of the pollinator crisis and development of ways to assess ecosystem health in general, but they are great poster children for both problems. They are what might be called “charismatic minifauna”—beautiful and beloved by people all over the world. In the U.S., many citizens participate in butterfly counts every year, organized by the North American Butterfly Association. These can be very helpful to researchers trying to assess how quickly our ecosystems are collapsing. Home gardeners can help pollinators in many ways, but one caveat: Milkweed, the mainstay of monarch support, may contain pesticide residues that harm monarch caterpillars if the milkweed plants come from a nursery. Some caterpillars do eat foods humans like, but most of these are moth larvae, and the damage butterflies may cause is surely outweighed by their insects’ benefits.

There are also moves to modify farming practices. As Beyond Pesticides has noted, hedgerows are a good way to help many species of native pollinators. Hedgerows of small trees, low shrubs and native plants provide refuges for these insects and can also help control pesticide drift across field boundaries.

In Oregon’s Willamette Valley, vineyards are starting to incorporate pollinator habitat between their rows of vines. Buzz Cover Crop Seeds of Philomath, Oregon sells seed packets for pollinator-friendly field cover crops and pathways between grapevine rows that have multiple benefits and help reduce chemical applications. Oregon also offers a “pollinator paradise” license plate, the fees for which support pollinator research at Oregon State University.

Some state and federal transportation agencies are acting. The Federal Highway Administration and numerous state departments are incorporating pollinator-friendly policies. The FHA publishes a handbook, “Roadside Best Management Practices that Benefit Pollinators.” Even airports, some of the most habitat-destroying and contaminated lands in the world, may be changing: the National Academy of Sciences has published a report, “Considerations for Establishing and Maintaining Successful Pollinator Programs on Airports.”

The pollinator crisis makes it clear that the template for sustainable human life must change. The toxic Möbius strip of pesticide use versus biodiversity must be broken and reassembled to promote the smooth flow of life. Without drastic reduction in the creation and use of pesticides, the plant and animal systems we need to survive will collapse. It is not enough to preserve European honey bees and not the plethora of other volunteer pollinators that exist all over the world. We must practice “what’s good for the bee is good for the butterfly” agriculture without delay. See all the reasons to support organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: European Grassland Butterfly Indicator, Science Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2023) A review of scientific literature published in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation demonstrates exposure to past and current-use endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), like pesticides, have a long history of severe adverse human health effects. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem) present in nearly all organisms and ecosystems. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause infertility, among other health issues. The review notes, “New evidence supports the role of other EDCs as possibly carcinogenic and pregnant women should avoid risk area and exposure. The relationship between EDCs and cancer supports the need for effective prevention policies increasing public awareness.”

The review examines the relationship between EDCs and various hormone-mediated various (i.e., breast, prostate, testicle, ovary, and thyroid) to determine the carcinogenicity of the chemicals and their impact on public health. Researchers performed a literature review of meta-analyses and human studies between 1958 and 2022, searching for articles on “endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” “EDCs,” “phthalates,” “TCDD,” “dioxin,” “polychlorinated biphenyls,” “PCB,” “bisphenol A,” “BPA,” “nitrate,” “nitrite” and “breast cancer” or “prostate cancer” or “thyroid cancer” or “ovarian cancer” or “testicle cancer” on Pubmed. Although the review finds many studies establishing a link between EDCs and cancers, there is a lack of current criteria to test new chemicals of endocrine disrupting potential and possible carcinogenic activity. The latent, adverse manifestation of cancers at varying ages makes it difficult to assess the full impact of human exposure to EDCs. For instance, evidence suggests that developing fetuses and neonates are most vulnerable to endocrine disruption, but cancer development manifestation needs more comprehensive research.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. The endocrine system consists of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal, and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline). These glands and their respective hormones guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Past research shows exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely impact human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural hormones responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. Research demonstrates that endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and pesticide manufacturing by-products like dioxin (TCDD). EDCs can enter the body and interfere with normal bodily function by mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body, blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones.  

Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. The connection between cancers and EDCs has a historical establishment. However, this review highlights new perspectives on mechanisms involved in EDC-mediated cancers outside estrogen-receptor pathways. Genetic instability Mutation of damaged (unrepaired) DNA (genetic instability) and changes in the way genes work influenced by behavior and the environment (epigenetic changes). The variations in EDC exposure levels and duration can make it difficult to investigate among humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to evaluate the depth and scope of chronic health and environmental concerns regarding exposure to EDCs. Exposure to EDCs has links to infertility, early puberty, and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. ED chemicals can wreak havoc not only on humans but also on wildlife and their ecosystems. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

Overall, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) classify many EDCs as possible carcinogens based on epidemiological studies identifying instances of kidney, ovarian, testicular, prostate, and thyroid cancer, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma and childhood leukemia. Considering EDCs like organochlorines (e.g., DDT, lindane, heptachlor, etc.) are anatomically similar to fatty acids and may impair fatty acid metabolism and lipid synthesis in the liver, there may be an underestimation of toxicity effects on human, animal, and environmental health. Therefore, advocates say it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential acute and chronic health risks. The study concludes, “More studies are needed to clarify these associations, but, despite the uncertainties, the relationship between EDCs and cancer supports the need for effective prevention policies, paying attention to public awareness.”

The endocrine-disrupting effects of pesticides and other chemicals have extensive documentation that Beyond Pesticides tracks through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Endocrine Disruption and other diseases.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning, as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Journal of Endocrinological Investigation

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2023) Scientists have developed a nontoxic method to deter rodents from feeding on freshly planted seeds, publishing the approach in the journal Nature Sustainability this month. The new tactic, which confuses mice through olfactory misinformation, has the potential to significantly reduce the use of hazardous rodenticides in farming operations. The approach comes at a time of increased scrutiny around rat poisons, specifically second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), which can result in the secondary poisoning of predators that eat poisoned rodents.

Researchers set out with the intent of finding a safe alternative to rodenticides that can effectively reduce pest damage without the need for hazardous interventions. “A simpler approach to pest damage is to manipulate decisions making by problem animals and disrupt their ability to find at-risk foods,” the study indicates. Contrary to the promises of the pesticide industry that its products are ‘silver bullets’ for pest management, the authors propose weaponizing misinformation over brute force by fooling mice into thinking their sought-out food source is not there.

Mice and other rodent foragers most often rely on scent and odor to determine where food is located. In the context of this study, farmers plant wheat seeds along rows, which mice are able to follow and consume after planting. Following the scent, they dig up these freshly sown seeds and can significantly impact yield. Current conventional chemical approaches rely on attempting to lure rodents into higher value SGAR baited food, or utilize the highly toxic pesticide zinc phosphide, a dust formulated product, which can also result in harm to nontarget animals through drift.

To remedy this problem, scientists aimed to “decouple the otherwise tight association between seeds and seed odor cues.” They took wheat germ seed oil, a concentrated scent of rodents preferred food, and broadcast sprayed it on a wheat field. Utilizing 10x10m plots within a 27 hectare wheat field in Austrailia, these sprays occurred either i) six days before sowing the seeds, or ii) at the time of seed sowing and then every two to three days until seedlings began to push through the soil. Three control plots were established whereby: i) one received canola treatment, ii) another was merely walked on, and iii) one plot was neither sprayed nor walked on.

The experiment took place “during a large-scale mouse plague (at least 300 mice per ha)…” according to the study. Within this context, the results are significant and promising. Scientists recorded 61% fewer mouse diggings on plots pretreated with wheat germ oil during the first week. After germination, diggings were 74% lower on these plots compared to the controls. Those treated at time of planting also saw similarly less mouse damage after one week, though not as significant. Yet by week two, 63% fewer diggings occurred in these plots. The reduction in digging followed alongside similar reductions in lost seedlings.

The results indicate that for treated plots, mice were able to work out the location of seeds – but at a cost. Because of the olfactory misinformation, the process of finding seeds was taxing and exhausting for the mice. Despite evidence of a high mouse population, in the presence of difficult to process information, mice sought out sources of food that were easier to find.

This approach could have major benefits for agricultural production, if further fine-tuned and incorporated into production plans. As many organic and ecologically-minded farmers are aware, working with and manipulating naturally occurring processes achieves consistently better pest management outcomes than the brute force approach of broadcast pesticide poisoning.

Prior research finds that rodenticides act as “super-predators” in ecosystems where these materials are applied, essentially functioning at the top of the food chain, suppressing the population of both prey and their predators. This study adds to ongoing efforts by advocates to catalog alternatives to rodenticides that embrace better prevention practices, and a more holistic management approach.

Rodent problems are common—nearly everyone has dealt with at some point in time. For more information on managing rodent problems holistically in your home or business, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage. And to promote on-farm reduction of dangerous rodenticides, support organic agriculture, which does not allow this type of rodent poison, and requires any measure addressing rodent pests be guided by a predetermined organic systems plan.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Nature Sustainability

Image source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23 2023) New research is zeroing in on the role of 10 commonly used pesticides in the development of Parkinson’s. Published in the journal Nature Communications by a team of scientists lead by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, the study focused on the toxicity of these pesticides to neurons that have been found to lead to the presentation of the disease. Research is increasingly focusing on environmental exposures, and pesticides in particular, as a major factor in the development of Parkinson’s. This study adds further evidence that this line of research is a valid and worthwhile undertaking for the nearly one million people in the United States struggling with this incurable disease. [The authors note that the herbicide paraquat’s strong connection to Parkinson’s is not addressed in this study, but is the focus of a separate manuscript.]

Scientists sought to further focus on which pesticides were most likely to be playing a role in Parkinson’s development. Records from California’s vast pesticide use database aided the search. From a comprehensive pesticide-wide association study, 53 of 288 pesticides screened were found to be linked to Parkinson’s. Scientists then took these 53 pesticides and conducted live-cell imaging screening, exposing dopaminergic neurons (groups of brain cells that play a role in heart, kidney, hormone, and central nervous system functioning) to the chemicals. Through this process, researchers homed in on 10 pesticides “directly toxic” to these neurons, as the study indicates.

Those pesticides included: copper sulfate, copper sulfate pentahydrate, dicofol, diquat dibromide, endosulfan, endothall, folpet, naled, propargite, and trufluralin. The most toxic of the ten was propargite, an organosulphite insecticide already associated with cancer and reproductive impacts. Diquat dibromide, naled, and folpet also recorded significant toxicity to neurons.

Despite clear toxicity, a press release for the study published by UCLA notes, “Aside from their toxicity in dopaminergic neurons, there is little that unifies these pesticides. They have a range of use types, are structurally distinct, and do not share a prior toxicity classification.”

“We were able to implicate individual agents more than any other study has before, and it was done in a completely agnostic manner,” said Kimberly Paul, PhD, lead author and assistant neurology professor at UCLA Dr. Paul said. “When you bring together this type of agnostic screening with a field-to-bench paradigm, you can pinpoint pesticides that look like they’re quite important in the disease.”

Those closely tracking the connection between pesticides and Parkinson’s may be wondering whether paraquat, an herbicide currently the subject of a major lawsuit against its primary manufacturer for its connection to Parkinson’s, was reviewed as part of this study. It was part of the 288 pesticides screened, however the authors indicated the following: “Due to special considerations for paraquat dichloride, specifically strong experimental support for the hypothesis and the interest in estimating the effects of duration and intensity of exposure, we present results from these analyses in a separate manuscript.” In other words, stay tuned for more specific information on the hazards of paraquat from this research team.

It is critical to emphasize that these harmful effects are only being investigated by independent scientific researchers. As far as regulators are concerned, that data has little significance over studies submitted by pesticide industry manufacturers, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses as a basis to register toxic chemicals. The agency has done little to nothing to attempt to rein in use when emerging science points to a potential public health crisis. In fact, the Biden EPA took action in 2021 to reapprove paraquat, despite mounting evidence of it as a causal source behind Parkinson’s, with even weaker protections than those considered by the Trump administration.

The Biden EPA in this sense is in need of significant reforms, so that emerging independent data becomes incorporated in real time into assessments over a chemical’s registration and ongoing use. There must be more flexibility within the regulatory process to suspend or cancel chemicals that present widespread public health threats. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging the Biden administration, EPA, and Congress to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

Source: Nature Communications, UCLA Health press release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2023) Since most of the domestically produced fresh produce we eat comes from California, what happens in the state is of concern to most consumers. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has made minor adjustments to its proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than state toxicologists at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment—charged with establishing safe limits of exposure and enforcing Prop 65—say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. You may have commented on this early in the year, and now we need to follow up with a strong message to protect those who harvest the nation’s food. 

Tell EPA, Congress, and CDPR to cancel the registration of all toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death.

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and should be banned. 

Tell EPA, Congress, and CDPR to cancel the registration of all toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.

For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ comments to CDPR on proposed regulation #22-005 for 1,3 dichloropropene soil fumigation AND CDPR’s notice of proposed changes in the regulations with notice of public hearing.

Letter of EPA
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. The minor changes to amend the state’s earlier proposal are woefully inadequate.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death. 

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. Their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

Letter to Congress
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. The minor changes to amend the state’s earlier proposal are woefully inadequate.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death. 

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. 

Please tell EPA that their registrations should be cancelled. 

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

Letter to California Department of Pesticide Regulation
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the DPR would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. The minor changes to amend the state’s earlier proposal are woefully inadequate.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death. 

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. Their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2023) Agricultural intensification is the leading factor driving declines in bird populations across Europe, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week. Among all potential anthropogenic impacts, agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, was found to be more dramatic than forest alterations, urbanization, and climate change. “I don’t think a study has looked at all these factors in one go, in such a sophisticated fashion, correcting for one variable alongside another; and it comes out with a very clear message,” lead author Richard Gregory, PhD, of UK nonprofit The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, told The Guardian.

Researchers utilized data dating back to the early-1980s, including annual bird surveys and national and supranational analyses, as well as information on land use cover, farm inputs, and temperature changes within the time frame. Bird habitat and ecological traits were also considered in the context of declines, and a statistical analysis aided researchers in capturing trends over time.

Results confirmed that birds are overall experiencing significant declines in Europe, with data recording 25% losses in bird abundance since 1980. However, certain groups of birds are faring worse than others. Birds found in and among farmlands have experienced the brunt of the declines, recording a roughly 57% decline during the study period. By contrast, birds in urban areas have declined by approximately 28% and those that make their habitat in woodland areas have seen 18% population losses. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the context of a warming climate, cold hardy birds are having a tougher time than birds that inhabit warm environments, comparing declines at roughly 40% and 17%, respectively. The authors note that universal declines are being seen in both farmland and cold hardy birds.

It follows that different anthropogenic drivers are most prevalent in different locations. Temperature change, for instance, is occurring faster at higher latitudes, placing cold hardy birds in those areas at increased risk. And the impacts of urbanization and agricultural intensification are found to be most dramatic in western Europe, compared to the eastern part of the continent.

The author’s trend analysis indicates that agricultural intensification is resulting in the greatest bird population declines, followed by urbanization and temperature change. Changes in forest cover were not related to changes one way or another in common birds. The paper notes that based on certain bird traits, anthropogenic pressures may harm some species, but improve the outlook for others. For instance, temperature increases are negative for cold dwelling and farmland species, but positive for hot dwellers and woodland species.  

Utilizing this robust dataset, researchers arrived at strong conclusions, noting, “Our results do not simply quantify correlations, but our analytical design is meant to strive for more quasicausal responses of bird populations to global change drivers.”

Researchers found that pesticide use significantly degrades the quality of food and habitat available for a range of bird species. These findings are buttressed by data showing that in small countries with lower levels of agricultural intensification, and smaller farms, have more robust bird populations than other small countries with more land under agricultural production.

The scientists issue a charge for policymakers and regulators clearly. “Considering both the overwhelming negative impact of agricultural intensification and the homogenization introduced by temperature and land-use changes, our results suggest that the fate of common European bird populations depends on the rapid implementation of transformative change in European societies, and especially in agricultural reform,” the paper reads.

Europe, for its part, has been engaged in an effort to significantly cut its use of pesticides and reform its agricultural sector through the Farm to Fork initiative, which includes a 50% reduction in the use of hazardous chemical pesticides by 2030. While Europe attempts to address this key driver of bird and biodiversity decline, the United States has worked to stifle efforts in Europe and at home that would reduce the use of dangerous synthetic pesticides.

Take action today to urge your elected U.S. Senators to cosponsor the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act, which would help address key deficiencies allowing the continued use of pesticides that harm birds, biodiversity, and the broader environment.  

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), The Guardian

Image Source: Wikipedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2023) A study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology finds pesticide residues in beehive products pose a safety risk from dietary consumption. Beehive products (i.e., bee bread, propolis, beeswax, and royal jelly) from beekeeping or apiculture are said to have nutraceutical (health and medicinal benefits) properties. However, a wide range of pesticide residues (i.e., tau-fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, and amitraz), especially acaricides for killing ticks and mites in hives, may accumulate in beehive products up to concentrations that pose a potential health risk.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Therefore, individuals still encounter pesticide compounds at varying concentrations, adding to the toxic body burden of those harmful chemicals currently in use.

The research methodology includes a review of the scientific literature on pesticide contamination in hive products and a dietary risk assessment. The risk assessment calculation uses scientific studies to determine the recommended daily intake values and concentration data. Researchers compare exposure values in products to health-based guidance, determining the potential acute and chronic health risks to consumers. The results highlight that tau-fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, and amitraz are the most common active ingredients in beehive products, with acaricides being the most frequently detectable pesticide subtype. However, the report’s estimation for pesticide accumulation in beeswax comb honey suggests that coumaphos and chlorfenvinphos mount up to levels posing a potential health risk to consumers.

The United Nations states that 80 percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, research finds that many insect populations, including managed and wild pollinators, are collapsing. A systematic review of insect population decline studies published in 2019 found that 41% of insect species worldwide are declining. The declines of butterflies, wild bumblebees, and honey bees have links to hazardous pesticide use in conventional agricultural systems. Since 1990, roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been vanishing, according to research published in Science. This research finds worldwide trends in declines in terrestrial insect biomass to be nearly 1% each year (~9% each decade). Despite habitat fragmentation and climate change, extensive use of pesticides, like neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor, pyrethroids, fipronil, and organophosphates, increase the potential risk and indiscriminate threat to all insects. Most animals on Earth are insects, which play a significant role in sustaining the ecosystem, despite their size. Insects found in nature preserves are consistently contaminated with over a dozen pesticides, calling into question the ability of these areas to function as refuges for threatened and endangered species. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Pyrethroids and fipronil impair bee learning, development, and behavioral function, reducing survivability and colony fitness. However, inert ingredients in these products cause similar or more severe impacts on insect populations, such as disruption in bee learning behavior through exposure to low doses of surfactants. With the global reliance on pollinator-dependent crops increasing over the past decades, a lack of pollinators threatens food security and stability for current and future generations.

This review highlights the pervasiveness of pesticide residues as the presence in consumer products considered beneficial to health puts individuals across the globe at health risk. Even with a partial ban on neonicotinoid insecticides in the U.K. in 2014, 25 percent of British honey still contains residue of these “potent, bee-killing” pesticides. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Like this study, previous research frequently detects pesticides like fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, amitraz, pendamethalin, endosulfan, fenpropathrin, esfenvalerate, and atrazine in beehives. Like acaricides in the study, miticides and fungicides contaminate wax, pollen, and bees at concentrations that pose significant health risks. Scientific literature documents elevated rates of acute and chronic health effects among people exposed to pesticides, with increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific and a range of illnesses. Some common diseases affecting the public’s health also have links to pesticide exposure, including asthma, learning disabilities, birth abnormalities, reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption like diabetes, brain and nervous system disorders, and several types of cancer. 

To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from toxic pesticides, advocates say the manufacturing and use of pesticides need addressing, first and foremost. Global leaders should curtail the continued manufacturing of chemical pollutants that readily contaminate the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, threatening global ecosystems and food production that depends on animal pollination. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the contamination of consumer products, especially through residue transfer, advocates argue that it is essential to advance change by adopting pesticide policy and regulations that eliminate petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, while supporting the transition to organic practices. 

Pollinators (such as bees, monarch butterflies, and bats) are a bellwether for environmental stress, as individuals and as colonies. Commercial beekeepers continue to experience bee declines as high as 90 percent in hives across the county. As pollinator and insect life continue to decline globally, it is critical to understand and restrict widely used chemicals. Additionally, substitutions the agrichemical industry have developed to replace them are still deplorable and harmful. Pesticide risk assessments do not adequately capture the range of harm that can occur when pesticide exposures occur  in combination, necessitating a shift to safer, alternative, and regenerative organic farming systems that do not use these dangerous chemicals. Since there is a tremendous reliance on many pollinators for essential services, like pollinating a third of food production, it has become critical to avoid using these chemicals and instead look for safer alternatives to managing pests in homes, gardens, schools, and communities. Pesticides intensify pollinators’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites), with pesticide-contaminated conditions limiting colony productivity, growth, and survival. However, ending toxic pesticide use can alleviate the harmful impacts of these chemicals on species and ecosystem health. Beyond Pesticides captured the bigger picture in its introduction to its 2017 National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: “Complex biological communities support life.”

Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ impact on pollinators, including bee pollinator decline, and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, check out information on the BEE Protective Campaign, pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, pesticide-free zones, bee-friendly habitats, and what you, or your Members of Congress and EPA, must do to protect our pollinators. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see the Beyond Pesticides article “Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse” from our journal, Pesticides and You.

Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic agriculture can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Spring is around the corner, so get ready to grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing into Action, pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Food and Chemical Toxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2023) British biotechnology company Oxitec is withdrawing its application to release billions of genetically engineered mosquitoes in California, according to a recent update from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The withdrawal is a victory for environmental and health campaigners concerned about the release of a novel mosquito that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously authorized under an “experimental use” permit. “Genetically engineered mosquitoes are an environmental justice issue for Tulare County residents who should not be human experiments,” said Angel Garcia, codirector of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform and Tulare County resident in a press release. “We are already impacted by some of the worst pollution problems in the state and deserve prior informed consent to being part of an open-air biopesticide experiment. Ahead of any future proposal for genetically engineered insects, DPR needs to have robust regulations in place that protect community members, and meaningful, inclusive public participation in any decision making.”    

Oxitec began releasing its GE mosquitoes over a decade ago, first introducing the insects in the Brazilian town of Itaberaba. The company has made efforts to launch its mosquitoes in the United States, likely as a way to encourage other countries to embrace their new technology, as decisions from U.S. regulators are often used as the basis for governmental decisions made in other countries.

Yet, its work in other countries, such as the Cayman Islands, highlights the problems with the novel approach. After releasing millions of GE mosquitoes under a two-year contract with Oxitec, Cayman Island officials were set to renew their contract. But data from the trials indicated serious problems, leading the territory’s environmental health minister to tell the Edmonton Journal, “The scheme wasn’t getting the results we were looking for.” There was further concern that the released mosquitoes could be spreading antibiotic resistance or make mosquito-borne diseases worse by lowering individual immunity.

U.S. regulators did little to alleviate these concerns in making their initial approval of the release last year. A study published in Globalization and Health on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) GE mosquito field trial in Key Haven, Florida in 2016 determined that it “did not proximate the conditions under which the GE mosquitoes would be used in regions of the global South where there is a high prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases.” The author further concluded that, “If ineffective public health interventions are adopted based on risk evaluations that do not closely mirror the conditions under which those products would actually be used, there could be public health and ethical costs for those population.”

Concern over health impacts were combined with an overall lack of proven efficacy with results to date. While Oxitec has made claims that it is able to reduce populations of disease-carrying Aedes aegypti by 98%, this claim has not been publicly verified, as U.S. regulators permit companies to maintain their internal data as confidential business information. Confidential Oxitec documents obtained by the British watchdog group Genewatch UK in 2012 show that 15% of GE animals are able to survive to adulthood. This was because mosquitoes were being reared on canned chicken cat food that contained trace levels of tetracycline from its production process. In the context of the proposed releases in agricultural areas of California, limits on releasing mosquitoes within 500 meters of a wastewater treatment plant, orchard crops, and livestock facilities are not likely to be effective.

It is telling that in Oxitec’s last ditch effort to maintain its contract with the Cayman Islands, the company proposed a mosquito management approach that would have included the supplemental use of mosquito adulticides.

The withdrawal from California is a major acknowledgement that the project is too ineffective and risky for public health. Neither GE mosquitoes nor highly hazardous insecticides should be the primary line of defense against mosquito problems. Disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successfully managed by placing emphasis on education and prevention. This includes eliminating standing water, and encouraging predators such as fish, bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvicides like bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) judiciously in problem areas. Community-wide programs should encourage residents to employ these approaches, and focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed.

While these mosquitoes will no longer be released in California, approval in Florida – specifically, for Monroe County, FL – does not appear to have changed. Residents in that region are urged to take action by contacting their local and state elected officials today. More information on safe mosquito management approaches can be found on Beyond Pesticides mosquito management and insect borne disease program page.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, FoE press release

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2023) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is set to be sued for its failure to implement strong protections for imperiled manatee populations. Earlier this month, the Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic, Center for Biological Diversity, Miami Waterkeeper, and engineer Frank González Garcia sent USFWS a notice of intent to sue after USFWS failed to respond to a petition sent by the groups last fall. “It has been months of agony and unjustified time lost for manatees in Puerto Rico,” said Mr. Garcia, an engineer who is concerned with the loss of natural resources. “Recent fatal accidents and unprecedented toxic water discharges aggravate the already precarious living and survival conditions of this beloved species,” Mr. Garcia said.

Recent reporting has captured a dismal situation for manatee populations. The species is under threat from a range of anthropogenic impacts, from boat strikes to harmful herbicide contamination, pollution-driven red tides, and algae blooms that have destroyed seagrass beds the species rely upon. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds was the cause of death for more than 1,000 manatees in 2021, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

USFWS downgraded protections for the manatee in 2017, moving them from “endangered” status to “threatened,” a move that was widely criticized by conservation groups as premature. A species classified as endangered is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant a portion of its range, while a threatened classification means the species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.  Endangered species are given greater protections than threatened species.

Manatee advocates say that the numbers tell it all: nearly 2,000 manatees died from 2020-2022 from a range of preventable factors. “The science is clear that this species is declining precipitously, and therefore clearly merits uplisting,” Rachel Silverstein, executive director of Miami Waterkeeper. “Reclassifying the manatee as endangered and addressing water quality issues across the state is imperative to all Floridians and our unique wildlife.”

Chemical pollution harming water quality has become a significant threat to manatee habitat. Research finds that marine mammals are genetically vulnerable to the impacts of certain hazardous chemicals due to a lack of traits that assist in breaking down toxic chemicals. Within the context of increased vulnerability, a 2021 study published in Environment International found that manatees living along the U.S. coast experience chronic exposure to glyphosate weed killers. Over 55% of sampled manatees had glyphosate in their bodies in 2020, a number that steadily increased from the beginning of research conducted in 2009.  

After submitting the petition, USFWS had 90 days to make a finding in support or against the petition to upgrade the manatee’s status to endangered. With that deadline passed, groups can now formally announce their intent to sue.

A separate lawsuit filed by the Florida-based organization Bear Warriors United is suing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for permitting human waste disposal through septic and sewage systems to contaminate manatee habitat and harm sea grass. “They never considered that maybe all the seagrass would collapse,” said Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach attorney representing Bear Warriors, to Florida Today. “What was the hysteria for down-listing it?”

The problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife require a holistic approach and meaningful action. Efforts must be focused on reducing the need to spray toxic pesticides and store waste in a manner that creates environmental contamination.

Support efforts to protect critical manatee populations by telling your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 4946 and your Senators to introduce identical legislation. Through this action, you can also tell USFWS to upgrade manatees to endangered and urge further action by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Florida Today, Center for Biological Diversity

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2023) Say “legacy contaminant” or “forever chemical” and most people today think “PFAS” (perfluoroalkyl substances), but PFAS are just the latest persistent toxic chemicals recognized as presenting an alarmingly difficult cleanup problem. Fortunately, steps are being taken by governments and businesses to eliminate use of PFAS. (Organic farmers concerned about the integrity of their products have been leaders in these efforts.)

Although government officials often devote considerable energy and resources to cleaning up contamination, the continued manufacturing of these chemicals and their release into the environment creates a futile situation. The U.S. is a signatory to the 2001 Stockholm Convention, which provides an international framework for moving persistent organic pollutants out of commerce, but the U.S. Senate never ratified it.    

Ask your Senators to ratify the Stockholm convention. Tell EPA that persistent toxic pesticides must be considered to pose an “unreasonable risk to the environment under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),” which must result in cancellation of their registrations. 

PFAS contamination is just the latest chapter of a very old story. Legacy contamination of our bodies and the environment is partly a result of a slow piecemeal approach to eliminating these toxic chemicals. PFAS contamination is found in pesticides—and chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (“dioxins”) and chlorodibenzofurans (“dibenzofurans” or “furans”) are also found in pesticides like 2,4-D and pentachlorophenol. 
 
Lead and arsenic are legacy contaminants arising from historical use of lead arsenate as a pesticide, but most legacy pesticide contamination comes from persistent organic (meaning containing carbon) pollutants or POPs. These include organochlorine pesticides like pentachlorophenol, DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane, mirex, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene. Although use of many persistent organic pesticides is not allowed in the U.S., use of others–notably pentachlorophenol and lindane–is still permitted. (Lindane’s use is allowed by FDA as a pediculicide.) Some of those not used in the U.S. are used elsewhere and move in the environment. 

POPs are hazardous chemicals that threaten human health and the planet’s ecosystems. POPs take a long time to degrade, are widely distributed throughout the environment, bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food chain, and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs are linked to adverse immune system effects, reproductive disorders, and population declines in birds, fish, and other species. They are associated with reproductive, developmental, behavioral, neurological, endocrine, and immunological health effects in humans. 

The persistence and mobility of these toxic chemicals requires a global approach to their removal. The Stockholm Convention on POPs requires signatories to adopt a range of control measures to reduce and, where feasible, eliminate the release of POPs but the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.

Ask your Senators to ratify the Stockholm convention. Tell EPA that persistent toxic pesticides must be considered to pose an “unreasonable risk to the environment under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),” which must result in cancellation of their registrations.

Letter to U.S. Senators

Say “legacy contaminant” or “forever chemical” and most people today think “PFAS” (perfluoroalkyl substances), but PFAS are just the latest persistent toxic chemicals recognized as presenting an alarmingly difficult cleanup problem. Fortunately, steps are being taken by governments and businesses to eliminate the use of PFAS. Although we should be devoting energy to cleaning them up, unless we stop manufacturing them and releasing them into the environment, cleanup efforts will be futile. 

PFAS contamination is just the latest chapter of a very old story. Legacy contamination of our bodies and the environment is partly a result of a slow piecemeal approach to eliminating these toxic chemicals. One source of PFAS contamination is pesticides—and chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (“dioxins”) and chlorodibenzofurans (“dibenzofurans” or “furans”) are also found in pesticides like 2,4-D and pentachlorophenol.

Lead and arsenic are legacy contaminants arising from historical use of lead arsenate as a pesticide, but most legacy pesticide contamination comes from persistent organic (carbon-containing) pollutants or POPs. These include organochlorine pesticides like pentachlorophenol, DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane, mirex, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene. Although use of many persistent organic pesticides is not allowed in the U.S., use of others–notably pentachlorophenol and lindane–is still permitted. (Lindane’s use is allowed by FDA as a pediculicide.) Some of those not used in the U.S. are used elsewhere and move in the food system and the environment.

POPs are hazardous chemicals that threaten human health and the planet’s ecosystems. POPs take a long time to degrade, are widely distributed throughout the environment, bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food chain, and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs are linked to adverse immune system effects, reproductive disorders, and population declines in birds, fish, and other species. They are associated with reproductive, developmental, behavioral, neurological, endocrine, and immunological health effects in humans.

The persistence and mobility of these toxic chemicals requires a global approach to their removal. One global mechanism is the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which requires signatories to adopt a range of control measures to reduce and, where feasible, eliminate the release of POPs. Although the U.S. has signed the Stockholm convention, it still requires Senate ratification.

I ask you to advocate for a vote to ratify the Stockholm convention.

Thank you.