(Beyond Pesticides, October 6, 2015) Last week, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) released a statement encouraging broad-based policy measures that prevent exposure to toxic environmental chemicals. “The global health and economic burden related to toxic environmental chemicals is in excess of millions of deaths and billions of dollars every year,” the report unequivocally states. FIGO’s statement follows a similar call to action from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2013 and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012.

The piece lays out broad themes surrounding exposure to toxic chemicals, including issues of environmental justice, prenatal exposure and subsequent health effects, and overall global health and economic burden. Based on these impacts, several recommendations are submitted for obstetricians, gynecologists, midwives, women’s health nurse practitioners, nurses, and other health professionals to follow to achieve a goal of “prevention for all.”

FIGO highlights how people of low-income, particularly in poverty-stricken countries, bare a higher burden of toxic exposure than richer nations. “[A]t every stage of development, the consequences of exposure to toxic chemicals —including morbidity and mortality, loss of family income and productivity, and environmental degradation— are disproportionately borne by people with low incomes,” the piece states. FIGO also notes that disparities exist regarding the impact these chemicals have on individuals, referencing a 2009 National Academies of Science report that advised, given inherent vulnerabilities of some, “no safe dose” exists for toxic chemicals, and “any level of exposure should be assumed potentially harmful.”

The report further notes the extent to which the timing of a toxic exposure impacts health outcomes. “Susceptibility to potential health impacts of toxic environmental chemicals may be heightened when exposure occurs during “critical” and “sensitive” periods of development, such as during pregnancy, childhood, and adolescence,” says the FIGO report. The concept of “critical windows of exposure” has developed a sound body of evidence, pointing to adverse health effects that can transpire across a person’s life span, or even impact subsequent generations. Just this month Yale University released a study linking prenatal exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos to tremors in children later in life. The FIGO report references data showing that nearly every pregnant women in the U.S. has a body burden of at least 43 different environmental toxins, as well as a study by the U.S. Cancer Institute which found, “to a disturbing extent babies are born ”˜pre-polluted.’”

The extent to which endocrine disruptors  affect reproductive health is singled out by FIGO. The organization discusses how only a small fraction of the nearly 800 chemicals in commercial production today that are known or suspected endocrine distruptors have undergone any testing on their effect. At the same time, rates of non-communicable diseases have increased, and, as the report notes “[t]hese trends have occurred in a timeframe inconsistent with a much slower pace of changes in the human genome, indicating that the environment has shaped these disease patterns.”

Lastly, the FIGO report addresses the economic burden posed by toxic chemicals through increased health care costs and other adverse effects. For example, the cost of pesticide poisonings to farmworkers in Sub-Saran Africa over a 15 year time span between 2005 and 2020 is estimated to be $66 billion dollars. The report references the analysis published earlier this year in by an international team of scientists which estimated that exposure to endocrine disrupting pesticides results in $162 billion in health care costs to the European Economy, with $130 billion of that number a result of lost IQ points due to prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides. FIGO notes that “[t]he available data underestimates the true burden of human disease, disability and expenditures, and do not account for the impacts of toxic chemicals on the ecosystem that sustains human health and reproduction.”

To remedy the overwhelming data pointing to significant harm from toxic exposure, FIGO recommends that health care professionals “take timely action to prevent exposure to environmental chemicals.” The organization emphasizes the need for a just and healthy food system, which “includes increasing the capacity for women and men who are planning a family, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, to eat fresh fruits and pesticide-free vegetables legumes and wholegrains daily”¦” It also advices health professionals to learn about toxic chemicals people are regularly exposed to, and take patient histories of environmental exposure during preconception and first prenatal visits.

The importance of care professionals in advocating for policies that emphasize preventing exposure to toxic chemicals is paramount. “Toxic chemicals move around the world in air, water, food, and consumer products; local, national, and/or international governmental policies can either support or undermine patient and population health associated with these exposures.”

Beyond Pesticides applauds FIGO’s call to action, and continues to advocate for policies that prevent the use of harmful chemicals in the first place. Progressive communities, such as Ogunquit, ME, Takoma Park, MD, Cuyahoga County, OH, Marblehead, MA, and numerous others provide a proof of concept that drastically reducing and eventually eliminating the use of toxic pesticides is possible. Tools are available for both health care professionals and average residents to advocate for changes in pest management policy in their community. For assistance, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected].

For more information on reproductive and endocrine disrupting effects of pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

(Beyond Pesticides, October 05, 2015) According to a Yale University study, prenatal exposure to the widely used agricultural pesticide chlorpyrifos is linked to tremors — involuntary contraction or twitching of muscles — in childhood. Chlorpyrifos, a broad-spectrum chlorinated organophosphate insecticide also known as Dursban, may also affect the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and is acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, and aquatic life.

The study, titled Prenatal exposure to the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos and childhood tremor  and published in the journal Neurotoxicology, measured the presence of chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood samples in 263 low-income, inner-city minority children. In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned residential use of chlorpyrifos, which was prominent in urban areas at the time. However, the study participants  —263 minority mothers  and their children, all from low income  communities in New York  City— were assembled in 1997,  before the ban was imposed. In  1997, the initial measure of each  child’s prenatal exposure to CPF  was taken from umbilical cord  blood. The children were then followed until approximately 11 years of age, after which they underwent a neurophysical assessment, which included a short drawing test. Researchers found that compared to all other children, those who had relatively high levels of prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure were significantly more likely to exhibit mild or mild to moderate tremor in one or both arms. The study is just one of many suggesting that pesticide exposure is associated with adverse neuro-developmental issues.

“This is perhaps one of the  only examples in which we can  show that in utero exposure to  these pesticides leads to long-term  health care consequences in  the children,” said Yale senior author  and School of Medicine neurology  professor Elan Louis, MD, to Yale Daily News.    “We’re talking about the  possibility that fetuses exposed to  pesticides through their mother,  while they’re in utero, could have  tremors eight or ten years later.”

Among experts who commented  on Louis’ findings, as well  as Louis himself, there was a general  consensus that this study  points toward a need for the agricultural  industry ”” the main setting  in which chlorpyrifos is found today  ”” to reconsider their use of pesticides.

According to Louis, his next  step is to fully finish assessing the  results of the study. In addition  to taking drawing tests, the children  participating in the study  had MRI scans, which Louis and  his colleagues plan to analyze for  “structural or metabolic changes  in certain brain regions,” to further  investigate the brain damage  caused by chlorpyrifos.

Chlorpyrifos  is highly  neurotoxic. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor, which means that it can bind irreversibly to acetylcholine esterase (AchE), an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, inactivating the enzyme. Studies have documented that exposure to even low levels of organophosphates like chlorpyrifos during pregnancy  can impair learning, change brain function, and alter thyroid levels of offspring into adulthood. The evidence of the neurotoxic dangers associated with chlorpyrifos’ exposure is extensive and consistent.

In 2000, EPA administrator  Carol Browner announced  a voluntary agreement between the agency and industry leaders, including Dow AgroSciences, to ban all home and garden uses of Dursban, which was at the time the most widely used household pesticide in the U.S. This agreement, however, did not include agricultural, golf course, or public mosquito spraying uses. It continues to be heavily used today with an estimated 5 million pounds applied in the U.S. annually, releasing its toxins onto our food and into the lives of farmworkers  and their  children.  In 2012, EPA  imposed “no-spray” buffer zones  around public spaces, including recreational areas, schools, and homes to reduce bystander exposure risks. In spite of these restrictions, chlorpyrifos still poses risks to human and environmental health. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court judge mandated that EPA respond to a petition filed nearly nine years ago that seeks  to force the agency to restrict chlorpyrifos. EPA must meet an October 31 deadline and establish a timeline for finalizing the proposed rule if they decide on a ban.

Chlorpyrifos leads a list of numerous toxic chemicals that are central to chemical-intensive agricultural practices that threaten  health and the environment effects. While a ban is  certainly important  as current inaction  reflects a breakdown in the  regulatory process, ultimately the widespread adoption of  organic management  is necessary to protect consumers and the environment in the long-term. Beyond Pesticides has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that disallows the use of toxic synthetic pesticides by law and encourages a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. Even at its worst, this approach never allows the use of highly toxic synthetic pesticides, let alone organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos, and advances  a  viable, scalable  path forward for growing food.

For more information on chlorpyrifos and other pesticides used in homes, schools, workplaces and communities, see Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management. For alternatives strategies on specific pest problems, check out ManageSafe.

Source: Yale Daily News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2015) Twelve worker safety violations are categorized as “serious” and result in thousands of dollars in fines. Highly toxic pesticides should not be sprayed on workers, but that is what Oregon-based company Applebee Aviation did to a number of its employees, according to the Oregon Department of Agriculture. On September 30, the Department, which is responsible for regulating state and federal pesticide laws, issued a citation revoking the Applebee’s operating license in the state of Oregon and levying a fine of $1,100.

The same day, Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division (OR-OSHA) cited Applebee Aviation for 12 serious violations of worker safety and protection laws and fined the company $8,850.

Applebee’s chemical truck rolled over loaded next to the Smith River in California.

The crackdown came after Darryl Ivy, who worked as an Applebee Aviation hazardous materials truck driver, became a whistle blower and reported  on dangerous and unsafe practices he witnessed during numerous aerial spray operations. Ivy recorded videos of the illegal activities on his cell phone before he went to an emergency room for treatment of illness due to pesticide exposure.

“I had sores and rashes, was spitting up blood and felt very sick after three weeks on the job,” said Mr. Ivy. “I’ve worked in a lot of dangerous occupations before, but had never seen such careless treatment of workers and poor work practices that put all of us, nearby communities and the environment at risk of pesticide contamination.”

“I felt it was my duty to report what I witnessed to the authorities,” said Mr. Ivy. “The results of their investigation proves that Applebee’s pesticide practices are illegal,” he continued.

“The impact for me is that my doctor has recommended sinus surgery which has a risk of causing blindness and I’m still undergoing lung function tests.

Last month, an Applebee Aviation chemical delivery truck crashed and spilled 500 gallons of water containing glyphosate residue as well as diesel fuel just off Highway 199 in Northern California, along the Smith River. Mr. Ivy had previously reported to authorities that Applebee did not properly maintain the brakes and pesticide tank seals on their trucks.

The response from two state agencies comes on the heels of a weighty discussion in  the Oregon legislature after hearing dozens of complaints about poisoning from aerial pesticide sprays. Helicopter companies like Applebee Aviation spray thousands of acres of Oregon forests with tank mixes of pesticides every year. The environmental advocacy group, Beyond Toxics, worked with legislators during the 2015 session to pass HB 3549, a bill to help address a long history of public complaints about  sickness associated with  aerial pesticide sprays.

“Although new laws were passed to establish no-spray buffer zones around homes and schools and set stiffer fines for pesticide violations, legislators barely scratched the surface of the problem,” said Lisa Arkin, executive director of Beyond Toxics. “The Darryl Ivy case is a clear example of the highly hazardous practice of aerial pesticide spraying hurting workers as well as nearby residents.”

According to research by Beyond Toxics, residents in 11 Oregon counties have been sickened from aerial spraying of industrial timberlands. Symptoms include nausea, rashes, diarrhea, headaches, asthma, bleeding noses and eye damage.

National pesticide watchdog groups have been tracking the situation in Oregon. “Aerial spraying of weed killer was stopped  national forests over 20 years ago but has been coming back, fueled by the war on invasive plants, and despite the availability of alternative management practices and thinking,” commented Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, based in Washington DC. “These practices are out of date with modern science and sustainable forestry management approaches.”

Applebee will be required to provide proof that the company has fixed more than a dozen identified problems before it can get re-licensed for business in Oregon. The state agencies cited violations including: not training workers to handle hazardous pesticides, not providing chemical safety data sheets, not providing protective gear to prevent chemicals from splashing into eyes and onto skin, and not conducting monthly inspections of equipment, vehicle and worksite safety. Other actions were identified, including the company having workers wash their pesticide-contaminated clothes in public laundry facilities without proper precautions to prevent contaminating other people’s clothing.

For More Information, Contact:
Darryl Ivy (907)717-6977
Lisa Arkin, Executive Director, Beyond Toxics (541)520-2695
Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides (202)543-5450

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 1, 2015) Now is your chance to show off both your green thumbs and your photography skills: if you use a sign to designate your yard, park, garden or other space as pesticide-free, we want to see it! We would love to see how you are using your signs, whether it is our honey bee, ladybug, or your own creative one. If you don’t already have a sign, we encourage you to put one up and use its presence to spark a conversation in your community about the use of pesticides. One yard at a time, we can transition towards a safer future without the hazards associated with unnecessary pesticide use.

Pesticide-Free Zone signs proudly displayed in front of Beyond Pesticides’ office.

Your Work in the Spotlight!

Send your best photo of your Pesticide-Free Zone to [email protected]!

We will choose four grand prize photographs (Best overall, best sign featuring a child, best sign featuring wildlife, and best sign on an environmentally sensitive area), and 8 runners up to be featured in our 2016 Calendar! Staff picks and other select photos will also be highlighted on Beyond Pesticides’ Facebook and Twitter pages throughout the month of October.

Each photo must include a Pesticide-Free Zone sign (it can be either ladybug or honey bee, or be creative and use your own!). We will choose a Grand Prize winner in four different categories:

1)       Best overall;
2)       Best featuring children playing in a yard or park;
3)       Best featuring wildlife in the photo; and,
4)       Best featuring an environmentally sensitive area.

Photos are due to Beyond Pesticides by midnight Sunday, November 1, 2015.

PRIZES for the Winning Entries:

Grand Prize —Four grand prize photographs in four different categories will be chosen to be featured prominently in our 2016 calendar. In addition, they will receive a Beyond Pesticides 100% Organic Tote Bag and Honey Bee Pesticide Free Zone Sign!

Runners Up —Eight grand prize winners will be chosen to be featured in the 2016 Calendar, and will receive the calendar in January 2016.

Select Entries —Will be featured on Beyond Pesticides Facebook page.

The Nitty Gritty:

• To be entered into the contest, a high-res version of the photo must be emailed to [email protected].
• Include your name, address, and telephone number. Your submission of the photo is your guarantee that you are the author of the photo.
• Please provide a caption with your photo that describes the location where the photo was taken. Keep the caption below 15 words.
• By submitting your photo you agree to allow Beyond Pesticides to use your photo for educational and promotional materials without any fee or other form of compensation.
• The highest quality photo possible should be submitted. Unfortunately, we may not be able to print photos with resolutions smaller than 300 ppi.

We’re so excited to see your candid and creative shots of your Pesticide-Free Zone signs!

Email your photo to [email protected].

If you do not already own a sign, both honey bee and ladybug signs are available to order online or by calling Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450. We also encourage folks to officially declare their Pesticide-Free Zone by signing the Pesticide-Free Zone pledge. For more information on how to create your own Pesticide-Free Zone and to manage your space organically, see our lawns and landscapes page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 30, 2015) On September 28, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released its new regulation regarding farmworker pesticide safety, revising the Agricultural Worker Protection Standards (WPS), which are designed to provide protections from pesticide exposure to farmworkers and their families. These standards have not been updated for over 20 years, and EPA had delayed revisions since the first proposed update in 2010. Historically, farmworker advocates have criticized these protections as woefully inadequate in protecting the health of agricultural workers, but these new revisions attempt to strengthen the standards through increased training for workers handling pesticides, improved notification of pesticide applications, and a higher  minimum age requirement for children to work around pesticides.

Farmworker Justice, a nonprofit organization that seeks to empower migrant and seasonal farmworkers, has praised the revisions as a step in the right direction, but noted that the ruling did not include some significant safety measures. Their statement regarding the revisions were released on Monday:

“We hope that the improved regulation will result in greater awareness by  farmworkers  of the risks they face, stronger protections from exposure, and ultimately, fewer pesticide-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths among farmworkers and their family members. . . While we are disappointed that the final rule does not include some significant safety measures, we will continue to work with our community partners to advocate for greater worker protections at EPA and at the state and local levels.”

In Beyond Pesticides’ comments, submitted to EPA in August 2014, we made clear that the exemption for farmworkers that allowed them to expose their own children of any age to these dangerous chemicals made little sense. Unfortunately, EPA has continued this exemption.

The major revisions (effective approximately December 2016) for farmers and farmworkers include:

• Annual mandatory training to inform farmworkers on the required protections afforded to them.  Currently, training is only once every 5 years.
• Expanded training includes instructions to reduce take-home exposure from pesticides on work clothing and other safety topics.
• First-time ever minimum age requirement: Children under 18 are prohibited from handling pesticides.
• Expanded mandatory posting of no-entry signs for the most hazardous pesticides. The signs prohibit entry into pesticide-treated fields until residues decline to a safe level.
• New no-entry application-exclusion zones up to 100 feet surrounding pesticide application equipment will protect workers and others from exposure to pesticide overspray.
• Requirement to provide more than one way for farmworkers and their representatives to gain access to pesticide application information and safety data sheets — centrally-posted, or by requesting records.
• Mandatory record-keeping to improve states’ ability to follow up on pesticide violations and enforce compliance. Records of application-specific pesticide information, as well as farmworker training, must be kept for two years.
• Anti-retaliation provisions are comparable to Department of Labor’s (DOL).
• Changes in personal protective equipment will be consistent with DOL’s standards for ensuring respirators are effective, including fit test, medical evaluation and training.
• Specific amounts of water to be used for routine washing, emergency eye flushing and other decontamination, including eye wash systems for handlers at pesticide mixing/loading sites.
• Continue the exemption for farm owners and their immediate families with an expanded definition of immediate family.

Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. As the scientific literature confirms, farmworkers, their families, and their communities face extraordinary risks from pesticide exposures. Application and pesticide drift result in dermal, inhalation, and oral exposures that are typically underestimated. A 2004 study detected agricultural pesticides in the homes near to agricultural fields. According to a 2010 study, workers experience repeated exposures to the same pesticides evidenced by multiple pesticides routinely detected in their bodies. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, farmworkers  and their children, who often times also work on the farm, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments, and Parkinson’s disease. Children, according to an  American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) report, face even greater health risks compared to adults when exposed to pesticides. For more information, read our factsheet, Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

What More Can We Do?

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why  food labeled organic  is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. See Beyond Pesticides’ guide to  Eating with a Conscience  to see how your food choices can protect farmworkers. In addition to organic, it is also important to consider food labels that create standards for farmworker safety and fairness. For more information on the different types of labels, see the transcription of Michael Sligh’s talk at the 32^nd National Pesticide Forum, titled Social Justice Labeling: From Field to Table.

For more information on Agricultural Justice, and how you can make a difference, see the Agricultural Justice Initiatives Panel from the 33^rd National Pesticide Forum.

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

Source: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

(Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2015) Last week, the City of Reno, Nevada officially approved a Pesticide-Free Parks program aimed at improving the health of its residents and the local environment. In addition to two downtown parks, Neighborhood Advisory Boards within each of City’s five wards chose two parks to join the program, bringing the total to 12 pesticide-free parks. The program is an outgrowth of resident concern over the use of pesticides linked to cancer, asthma, and learning disorders, as well as impacts to local water quality. Beyond Pesticides worked to support the pesticide-free parks movement by sponsoring a training session taught by nationally renowned turfgrass expert Chip Osborne on how to transition to organic practices.

“This is a major win for the city in regards to our priority of providing and maintaining safe and healthy neighborhoods,” Ward 2 Reno City Councilmember Naomi Duerr told ABC8. “Community input will continue to drive the important decisions we make.”

According to a staff report released by the Reno Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, there is not expected to be any burdensome financial implications put upon the City as a result of the program. “There will be no cost implications as staff will implement changes within its adopted budget,” the report indicates. Herbicides are currently used in Reno parks to control weeds in planter areas, baseball infields and decomposed granite areas, and around fence lines, trees, signs, and other similar installations. The city estimates it spends approximately 1.4% of total maintenance time applying herbicides, and 4.1% of time using manual or mechanical weed control alternatives. To implement the program, the Park’s Department indicates it will discontinue herbicide use and test alternative strategies that may include the use of organic products, burning, or additional manual or mechanical weed control. The Department does not expect the total time spent on weed control to differ as a result of the change in practices.

Beyond Pesticides is working with the city to provide guidance on transitioning grass fields to organic practices. Soil samples at local parks were taken during the Reno training session, which will provide a baseline to implement cultural changes that will improve the biological health of the soil, making it more resistant to weed and insect  pressures. “What it does is it actually strengthens the soil,” Councilmember Duerr said to 2 News. “So, it’s more prepared to fend off disease, drought, and things like invaders, you know, weeds.”

According to the Park’s Department, the most widely used herbicide in Reno’s public parks is Roundup. Earlier this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, exhibited sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based upon laboratory studies. In addition to concerns over human health, scientific studies also suggest glyphosate and glyphosate-formulated products harm earthworms and other soil biota, contaminate water supplies, and are toxic to amphibians and other aquatic organisms.

Reno’s pesticide-free parks program highlights the powerful change residents can make when they become engaged with their local elected officials. Large and small, communities throughout the country are determining that the risks associated with pesticide use are simply not worth their health, the health of pollinators, or the wider environment. This past summer, the City of Minneapolis, MN passed an organic, pollinator friendly resolution, committing the City to adopt clear guidelines against the use of synthetic pesticides. Communities in Colorado, including Lafayette, Boulder County, and the City of Boulder have restricted the use of bee-toxic pesticides on public spaces. Montgomery County, MD is considering the passage of a comprehensive pesticide ordinance which would extend restrictions to private property applications. As Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change webpage shows, numerous other localities have already enacted pesticide-free parks programs with good success.

“I think it’s fantastic,” said local Reno mom Savannah Anderson to 2 News. “I think it’s a really great movement. Hopefully, the rest of the community is inspired to do the same.”

Councilmember Duerr is hopeful that the new program will encourage residents to reconsider the use of pesticides on their own property. “If people understand it’s what they do when they’re driving and what they do with their yard, that’s actually having an impact on our resources that belongs to all of us, I think that’s a pretty major thing to be aware of,” she said to 2 News.

A list of Reno’s Pesticide-Free Parks is available through this website. Starting your own local movement takes a lot of work and commitment, but can be done with perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to connect with local politicians and government officials. For help getting your movement off the ground, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected].

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

Source: City of Reno, Nevada Staff Report, 2News

(Beyond Pesticides, September 28, 2015) On September 4, in an attempt to curb the overuse of water on lawns, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed into law Bill (AB 349)  (effective immediately), which prohibits homeowner associations (HOAs) from barring the installation of synthetic turf. Artificial turf has become popular over the years, and is now widely used on athletic fields and lawns across the U.S. While praised as a solution for drought-stricken states, synthetic turf has fallen under scrutiny.  A NBC investigative report raised safety concerns regarding rubber infill in the turf. Parents and administrators are looking for alternatives to replace rubber infill beneath the turf, but unfortunately the available solutions do not address all the dangers associated with artificial turf. With all forms of synthetic turf, toxic pesticides and antimicrobials are still needed for maintenance, putting children and athletes in danger.

Crumb rubber, the most common infill material used in synthetic turf systems, has, according to a recent report by Environment and Human Health, Inc., carcinogenic potential and poses a danger to the health of children and athletes. Now, parents and administrators are turning to organic infill as a replacement, which consists of coconut husks, fibers and cork. While organic infill sounds good on the surface, it begins to break down over time. The infill can become wet from rain, breaks down, and can begin to contain other substances, such as dust containing minerals and other particles, leaf litter, and pollen. This creates an even greater habitat for weeds and pathogens than rubber or plastic options, which means that pesticides and antimicrobials are required for maintenance and control.

The typical athletic field or lawn is deluged with a mixture of poisons designed to kill fungus, weeds, insects, and pathogens. For example, a conventional maintenance plan for athletic turf fields includes the use of a fungicide on a regular basis to prevent fungal pathogens, a post-emergent herbicide (such as 2,4-D) to kill crabgrass and dandelion seed, a selective herbicide (such as mecoprop) to kill clover and other broadleaf weeds, and an insecticide (such as trichlorfon) to kill insects such as grubs. Antimicrobials are also used to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses, or fungi. One antimicrobial used in combination with synthetic turf infill is microban, an antibacterial product containing triclosan. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects from skin irritation, endocrine disruption, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, to the contamination of water and its negative impact on fragile aquatic ecosystems.

This mixture of toxic chemicals and their use on synthetic turf is particularly troubling because children, who are particularly at risk, come into direct contact with the grass, and have repeated and prolonged exposures. EPA concurs that children take in more pesticides relative to body weight than adults and have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify toxic chemicals. Even expectant moms on the sidelines are not safe; studies find that pesticides, such as the weed-killer 2,4-D, pass from mother to child through umbilical cord blood and breast milk.

While concerned parents and communities are headed in the right direction by considering the switch from carcinogenic crumb rubber to organic infill, it still is not the safest option due to the fact that dangerous, toxic pesticides and antimicrobials will still be used on synthetic turf, regardless of what is used as infill. Organic management is the best way to avoid exposure to these chemicals.

What Can You Do?

In areas that are suffering from drought, it can be a good to rethink the idea of what a “lawn” means. In Los Angeles, some turf companies are tearing out turf and replacing it with a drought-tolerant yard. Some companies and local governmental authorities are even offering incentives, such as rebates. What that means is that clients actually get paid for having someone come in to rip out their water-sucking lawns and replacing them with more native, low-water plants.

For other areas across the country where water use is not as much of an issue, organic turf systems are the best way to combat the health effects associated with synthetic turf systems. Organic turf management uses sound horticultural practices such as pH management, fertilization, aeration, overseeding with proper grass seed, and proper watering to control unwanted plants. Research has demonstrated that topdressing with compost suppresses some soil-borne fungal diseases just as well as conventional fungicides.

You do not have to be an expert on turf management or the health effects of every pesticide used on playing fields or lawns in order to make a change. What you do need to know is that children are being unnecessarily exposed to chemicals that impair their health, and that a safer, proven way exists to manage turf.

If you want to create positive  change in your community, visit our Tools for Change page, or give us a call at 202-543-5450.

Source: Los Angeles Times

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 25, 2015) Neonicotinoid-treated seeds do not reduce crop damage from pests, adding to a growing body of evidence questioning the benefits of using these bee-toxic insecticides, according to a study  published in the journal BioOne. Widely-used neonicotinoids (neonics), which as systemic chemicals move through a plant’s vascular system and express poison through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, have been identified in multiple  peer-reviewed studies and by beekeepers  as the major contributing factor in bee decline.

The study,  titled Impact of Western Bean Cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Infestation and Insecticide Treatments on Damage and Marketable Yield of Michigan Dry Beans, examines the relationship between western bean cutworm infestation and damage in dry beans, and the use of seeds treated with the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, as well as soil treated with aldicarb, another systemic insecticide. Researchers have concluded that neither thiamethoxam nor aldicarb reduced cutworm damage. In fact, plots treated with these insecticides had a higher percentage of defects due to feeding by pests when compared to untreated plots, which researchers believed is  attributable to factors such as fewer natural enemies.

There have been additional reports and studies published over the past few years questioning the benefits of neonic use. In 2014, EPA released a report concluding that soybean  seeds treated with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production.  Also published last year was a report by Center for Food Safety refuting claims that neonicotinoids bring greater benefits than costs to farmers. In the report, researchers analyzed independent, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and found that the benefits of prophylactic neonicotinoid use via seed treatments were nearly non-existent, and that any minor benefits that did occur were negated due to  honey bee colony impacts, reduced crop pollination by honey bees, reduced production of honey and other bee products, loss of ecosystem services, and market damage from contamination events. Furthermore, preliminary reports out of the UK find that the country is poised to  harvest higher than expected yields of canola  in its first neonicotinoid-free growing season since the European moratorium on neonicotinoids  went into place in 2013. According to the UK’s  Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board’s (AHDB)  Harvest Report,  with 15% of canola harvested this year, yields are between 3.5 and 3.7 tons per hectare, higher than the normal farm average of 3.4.

In light of the  shortcomings of federal action  to protect these beneficial organisms, pollinators need  pesticide-free habitats that provide safe havens.  Take action by calling on EPA to suspend neonicotinoids now. You can also declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.  Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The  Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region. For more information on what you can do, visit our  BEE Protective page.

Source: BioOne

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 24, 2015) Seven years after an explosion that killed two factory workers in Institute, West Virginia, Bayer CropScience is facing federal fines. Bayer is the manufacturer of neonicotinoid pesticides that are linked to severe decline in pollinator populations.

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a $5.6 million settlement with Bayer to resolve the 2008 violation of federal chemical  accident prevention laws. As a result, Bayer must commit to spending $4.23 million to improve emergency preparedness and institute response  measures to protect the Kanawha River, pay a $975,000 penalty, and spend approximately $452,000 to implement a series of reforms to improve safety at chemical storage facilities across the United States.

On August 28, 2008, a pesticide waste tank exploded inside the Bayer plant, instantly killing one worker and sending another to the hospital where he would eventually die. Although Bayer officials assure the public that the explosion was secure and released no chemicals, residents living near the plant complained of air pollution exposure and related illnesses. The tank contained waste products from thiodicarb, including methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), hexane, methomyl, and dimethyl disulfide, all of which are acutely toxic to humans. In the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) analysis, assistant area director Prentice Clay stated, “We found serious issues related to process safety. There were some significant deficiencies.”

Details of the explosion in the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board’s (CSB) analysis reveals serious violations regarding the chemical facility’s precautionary measures and Bayer’s ability to prevent potential hazards. “Failures by a chemical manufacturer to comply with safety, accident prevention, and response requirements can have catastrophic consequences,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.  “The Department of Justice is committed to worker safety. Under this judicially enforceable settlement, Bayer Crop Science will not only pay a penalty but commits to significant improvements in preparedness and response capabilities at its facilities across the country.”

Chemical plant explosions are not uncommon in the industry’s history. For decades, safety violations have led to explosions that killed and injured thousands. The most devastating explosion to date occurred in 1984 at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. Between 50,000 to 90,000 lbs of the chemical methyl isocyanate (MIC) are estimated to have leaked into the air, killing approximately 25,000 people to date, according to data by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). MIC is an intermediate chemical in the production of the insecticide carbaryl (Sevin). Advocacy groups working with victims say that more than 120,000 people still suffer from severe health problems as a result of their exposure. At the time of the 2008 explosion, Bayer’s Institute plant stored MIC at four times the capacity of the Bhopal plant. If detonated, that volume of MIC could kill every resident in a 10-mile radius (about 26,000 people live within three miles of the plant). In 2012, advocates and government officials concerned about chemical safety at the Institute plane finally pressured Bayer to halt the production and storage of MIC.

Last year, four workers died when the valve on a container of methyl mercaptan, a compound used in the production of insecticides, fungicides, and plastics, malfunctioned at a La Porte, Texas chemical plant owned by DuPont. As a result, DuPont was placed on the Severe Violator Enforcement Program,  which focuses agency resources on inspecting employers who have “demonstrated indifference to their OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Act] obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations.” The manufacturers of these deadly chemicals are still industry leaders today.

While disasters like these lead to fines and revised safety procedures, they highlight the continuous and never-ending risk that pesticides pose to workers in both production plants and agricultural fields, though in different ways. Field workers are exposed to the pesticide fumes and particles through the spraying process and often experience severe health effects due to poorly communicated directions regarding their application. According to the consent decree, factory workers harbor expectations that rules have to be broken and that they will do anything to get the job done. “The tragic accident at the Bayer CropScience facility in West Virginia underscores the need for hazardous chemicals to be stored and handled in accordance with the law to protect worker health and the environment,” said Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  “This settlement will establish important safeguards at its facilities across the country and improve emergency response capabilities in the Institute, West Virginia community.”

Despite fines, safety procedure overhauls, and lengthy trials, chemical and pesticide manufacturing still poses a risk to workers, nearby residents, and consumers. Decreasing marketplace demand for noxious chemicals in favor of least-toxic biopesticides, organic, and sustainable alternatives on farms, will reduce the need to produce these chemicals. As the 2013 letter to EPA Administrator McCarthy explains, “Prevention is the only fool-proof way to ensure the safety of millions of people whose communities are needlessly in danger.” Consumers can make  an impact by simply not buying pesticides and purchasing organic foods, which employ agricultural practices that do not require the use of toxic synthetic chemicals. For more information on the benefits of purchasing organic food, see Beyond Pesticides program page here.

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

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

(Beyond Pesticides September 23, 2015) Last week in Colorado the attorney general (AG) began an investigation into the use of the word “organic” by marijuana businesses operating within the state amid complaints of misrepresentation by consumers. This decision to look into potential misuse of the term “organic” follows on the heels of a recall  for marijuana plants that was voluntarily issued by two Denver marijuana growing facilities after city health officials found unapproved pesticides on their crops during routine testing. The AG’s office decided to review this issue after complaints from consumers that merchants are misrepresenting their products when they claim they are “organic” or “organically grown.”

State marijuana license records in Colorado show that 29 businesses ””growers, retailers and dispensaries”” use the word “organic” in their name. Because marijuana is illegal under federal law, and use of the term “organic” is federally regulated, a licensed cannabis business cannot be certified as organic no matter its practices. As such, city and state officials as well as industry insiders argue that no marijuana business in Colorado can technically use the word in its name or in selling its product.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Marijuana may not be certified organic under the USDA organic regulations [because it] is considered a controlled substance at the federal level, and organic certification is reserved for agricultural products.” Moreover, USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) rules say that companies with “organic” in their name cannot prominently display it on a product and cannot use the name at all if it misrepresents that a product has been certified organic. Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides agrees with this interpretation of current law, stating that:

“The way I see it is very simple. The organic standard has always been monitored at the federal level and has very clear policies and procedures that farmers must follow to certify their products as organic. Until the USDA and other requisite federal agencies are able to assess cannabis crops under those established rules, allowing companies to label their products as ”˜organic’ is misleading to consumers and undermines the integrity of the organic label as a whole. However, we believe that individual certifiers can inspect and certify product and use their own label.”

Though the AG’s office did not offer a great deal of insight into the parameters of their investigation, a spokesman for the office did highlight consumer fraud and criminal charges as legal avenues they may pursue.  Fraud penalties under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act include fines of up to $10,000 per violation, and federal rules say that businesses wrongly selling a product as organic could face fines of up to $10,000.

The investigation by the AG’s office into the use of the term ”˜organic’ signals the involvement of yet another government entity in the ongoing struggle to resolve the issue of allowed pesticides use on marijuana crops in Colorado. This past May a U.S. District Court judge weighed in on the issue by refusing to lift a quarantine ordered by the Denver Department of Environmental Health (DDOH) on marijuana plants estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The DDOH placed the quarantine on the plants grown by a company calling itself ”˜Organic Greens” after they found “sufficient evidence that marijuana plants or marijuana product on the [Organic Greens] premises may have been contaminated by pesticides that have been determined by the Colorado Department of Agriculture to be illegal to use marijuana.” This quarantine not only shed light on the use of illegal pesticides by growers in the state, but also on the misleading nature of companies that use the term ”˜organic’ in their name but do not follow traditional organic practices.

This creates major problems for the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), which, in the absence of federal oversight, would have to step up and fill the accreditation gap as well as enforce any violations of state or federal law when it comes to businesses that claim to be ”˜organic.’ CDA has already faced challenges regulating growers when it comes to their use of pesticides on marijuana crops, and in July they received a letter warning them of potential violations of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) should they allow the use of any pesticides aside from those found on FIFRA’s 25(b) list of pesticides “of a nature not requiring regulation.” Currently, whether a pesticide is allowed for use in the state depends on whether it can be found on CDA’s list of “Pesticides for use in marijuana production,” which allows pesticides outside the confines of the 25(b) list, despite the fact they have not been registered or reviewed for use on marijuana with the EPA.

The Attorney General’s investigation plans to focus, at least in part, on companies that use pesticides not found on the list of pesticides approved for use on marijuana by the state. While they do not intend to substitute themselves for a certification agency, a spokesman from the office says that they are confident in taking action against those companies that are clearly using banned pesticides while simultaneously claiming to be organic will be a positive step in helping ease the confusion for marijuana consumers.

More information about state (including Colorado) regulation of pesticide use in marijuana cultivation can be found in Beyond Pesticides’ investigative  report  on the issue, which was published this past spring. The report highlights different approaches used by states and raises safety concerns due to loopholes in federal law. The report also recommends that states with legalization adopt laws governing cannabis production that prohibit federally registered pesticides and require the adoption of organic practices that only allow products exempt from registration based on the full range of possible exposure patterns, which is the same position expressed to CDA in  Beyond Pesticides’ letter.

Source: Denver Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2015) A meta-analysis presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Sweden concludes that exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk of diabetes. Although diabetes is long-suspected as involving an interplay between genetics and environmental factors, emerging research is revealing that contaminants like pesticides may play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease. These findings add to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that pesticides play a key role in the development of a wide range of all-too-common diseases in the 21^st century.

To assess the association between pesticide exposure and diabetes, the recent research, Association between diabetes and exposure to pesticides: a systematic review and meta-analysis, examine 21 relevant studies comprising over 66,000 people. Most studies determined pesticide exposure through urinary or blood biomarker analysis, a highly reliable method of testing body burden. Exposure to any pesticide is linked to a 61% increase in diabetes. When looking specifically at type 2 diabetes, researchers found similar results, with any pesticide exposure increasing risk of developing the disease by 64%. However, researchers found that, although on the whole pesticides increased the chance of any diabetes diagnosis, certain pesticides exhibited a stronger association than others. While chlordane, the long-banned insecticide that continues to pollute soil and drinking water throughout the country, showed an increased risk of only 19%, exposure to another organochlorine insecticide trans-nonanchlor accounted for a 134% increased risk. “These pesticides are generally banned now in Europe and elsewhere,” said lead author Fotini Kavvoura, MD, PhD, to Medpage Today, “but they tend to stay in the body in the liver, the pancreas, and in muscles.”

Diabetes is a worldwide epidemic, affecting nearly 350 million people across the globe. By 2050, over 550 million are expected to develop the disease. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29.1 million, or 9.3% of the U.S. population has diabetes.

Diabetes is a group of diseases characterized by high blood glucose levels that result from defects in the body’s ability to produce and/or use insulin. Type 1 diabetes is usually diagnosed in children and young adults. In type 1 diabetes, the body does not produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes and is most common in communities of color and the aged population. In type 2 diabetes, either the body does not produce enough insulin or the cells ignore the insulin.

Authors of the study conclude, “This systematic review supports the hypothesis that exposure to various types of pesticides increases the risk of diabetes. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any differences in the risk estimates based on the type of studies or the measurement of the exposure.”

Beyond Pesticides tracks the science relating pesticides to diabetes and a number of other diseases through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. As evidenced by the numerous studies categorized in the database, current methods of regulating toxic pesticides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are insufficient not only for those most susceptible to the effects of  pesticides, including children, pregnant mothers, the elderly and the chemically sensitive, but every day, average people  are also at risk. Rather than basing public health on balancing risk, an enlightened policy approach asks first whether there is a less toxic, alternative means of achieving a chemical’s intended purpose. This alternative approach differs from a risk-assessment based policy by rejecting uses and exposures considered acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary as a result of the availability of safer alternatives.

The best way to avoid harmful pesticide exposure is the support organic systems. By practicing organic lawn care and pest management, purchasing certified organic food, and encouraging neighbors and the community to do the same, we will escalate the  shift away from pesticide dependence and toward a sustainable future.

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

Source: MedPage Today, European Association for the Study of Diabetes

(Beyond Pesticides September 21, 2015) Last Thursday, the  Transportation and Environment (T&E) Committee in Montgomery County, Maryland voted 2-1 to strip major provisions of the Healthy Lawn Bill 52-14, including a  ban of (i) cosmetic use of lawn pesticides throughout the county on private and public property and (ii) the treatment of playing fields with hazardous pesticides. The amended bill retains a pesticide ban on all playgrounds and sets up an organic pilot program on some  playing fields and parks. The bill’s prime sponsor and two of its cosponsors said they will work to gather the five votes necessary to restore critical protections for human health and the environment.

The T&E Committee voted 2-1 on substitute legislation, proposed by Committee Chair Roger Berliner, to remove the central portions of the bill intended to transition Montgomery County land, including public and private property, to non-toxic sustainable management practices. While Committee members Nancy Floreen, an original co-sponsor of the bill and Mr. Berliner both voted for the substitute legislation, Council member Tom Hucker, a lead co-sponsor of the bill rejected the changes, stating that the county had a “very clear responsibility to protect public health.”

Joining the committee discussion were Montgomery County President George Leventhal, who introduced the bill last fall, and Council member Marc Elrich, another original co-sponsor of the bill. Mr. Leventhal pledged  to continue pushing for a strong Bill 52-14 and expressed optimism that the original bill would have the support of the body when the discussion goes to the full County Council on October 6. There are nine members on the Montgomery County Council.

“Of those who were moved to express their views to the County Council, overwhelmingly, 72% felt that we should go ahead with [the original] Bill 52-14,” said Mr. Leventhal.

Bill 52-14, as originally introduced last fall, would limit the use of non-essential pesticides on County lawns, certain athletic playing fields and County-owned public grass areas. The landmark ordinance that would protect children, pets, wildlife, and the wider environment from the hazards of unnecessary lawn and landscape pesticides.

Mr. Berliner’s proposed amendments would: (i) eliminate the phase-out of toxic pesticides on private land within the county, except for property 25-feet from a waterbody (by eliminating original Section 33B-9, Prohibited application; and (ii) eliminate the phase-out of toxic pesticides on playing fields that children use throughout the county by redefining lawn to exclude playing fields.

This alternate legislation reduces the scope of the bill to phasing out toxic pesticides on playgrounds and five pilot playing field sites and reorients the approach to a posting and notice bill with an undefined 50% reduction goal in hazardous pesticide use over three years. If the reduction goal is not met, the county is required to implement “additional measures,” which are not defined. Another provision allows homeowner associations by majority vote to treat common spaces with hazardous pesticides. Ironically, a provision requires that written notice be given to exposed individuals (which presumably will cover most of the population) with specific language that indicates that EPA states “where possible persons who potentially are more sensitive, such as pregnant women and infants (less than two years old) should avoid any unnecessary pesticide exposure.” Central to 52-14 is the sponsors’ understanding that exposure in a community where toxic pesticides are used is virtually impossible to avoid.

At the  Committee  meeting, the Department of Parks announced that all playgrounds in the county would go pesticide free, although no date has been set. A representative from Parks also said that the Department  will hire an expert in  organic turf management to assist in the transition to organic practices at the  five pilot athletic fields. Up until this announcement, Parks had testified that organic management of playing fields was not possible and argued that organic management was too costly. The  Parks Department has no staff experienced in organic land management. Bill sponsors and advocates maintain the Parks Department announcement, while taking minimum protective measures, leaves kids on athletic fields at continued risk despite the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of organic practices.

In his closing statement to the committee, Council member Marc Elrich stated: “I will not support legislation that is this weak. There is just too much evidence out there that we’re dealing with . . . For us to just hope that if you just reduce the amount [of pesticides], as oppose to eliminating it, I think is just wrong. This is not a path towards a safe place, it’s a path towards a somewhat  \less dangerous place, and I don’t understand less dangerous when you have an option for safe.”

“I fail to see the necessity to continue to conflate ornamental uses with public health benefits,” Mr. Elrich continued, “I think we’ve just gotten lost in the cosmetology of our place instead of focusing on the health of our spaces, and I really do think this is a mistake.”

“We can’t wait for the Federal government to take action,” stated Mr. Hucker. He continued, “Particularly in the area of environmental health, they haven’t taken action on one area after another. They didn’t keep us safe from tobacco, they didn’t keep lead out of our toys, so we took action at the state level, and at the local level in the case of tobacco. They didn’t keep BPA out of our plastics, so we took state action. They didn’t keep mercury out of our thermostats, thermometers and scrap cars so we took action at the state level as well. I believe pesticides fits into that same long lengthy list of things where the federal government hasn’t taken action, and the state and the county government needs to. That’s been our tradition, especially in Montgomery County.”

“I think we have the opportunity to do better, and we have done better. I think our residents expect us to have done better. We’ve sure done better on other issues,” Mr. Elrich said, referring to the County’s long record of taking action on public health issues, including banning coal tar sealant on resident’s driveways.

Bill 52-14 is supported by Safe Grow Montgomery, a local coalition of individual volunteers, organizations and businesses. The coalition works to prevent exposure to chemicals that run-off, drift, and volatilize from their application site, causing involuntary poisoning of children and pets, polluting local water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay, and widespread declines of honey bees and other wild pollinators.

Takoma Park, Maryland in 2013 was the first local jurisdiction to enact a similar provision that prohibits the non-essential use of pesticides on public and private property, based on human and environmental health concerns. Learn more about the Safe Grow Act of 2013. The Town of Ogunquit, Maine  adopted a similar ordinance by ballot initiative in November, 2014.

Advocates say that only if residents in Montgomery County contact their Council members, prior to the October 6 hearing of the full Council, will it be possible to restore provisions stripped out of Bill 52-14 by the T&E Committee and reestablish the Bill’s strong protections from hazardous pesticides. Go here to sign Safe Grow Montgomery’s letter to County leaders, and follow up with a phone call. Given the dangers and excessive costs that pesticide pose to human health and the environment, as well as the wide availability of economical alternatives, Montgomery County is considering the adoption of a true lasting model for the strongest pesticide protections in the nation, and residents of the County  can play a part in making that happen.

A transcript of the T&E Committee meeting is available on the Montgomery County Council Website.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 18, 2015) Glyphosate’s harmful effects continue to accumulate, this time with evidence pointing to toxic and sublethal effects on bees. According to a new study conducted by German and Argentinian researchers, honey bees exposed to low levels of glyphosate have a hard time returning home. Glyphosate, the  controversial and toxic active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is an herbicide widely used on genetically-engineered (GE) crops as well as on parks and golf courses, for control of weeds and grasses. Along with neonicotinoids, which have been linked to worldwide bee decline by a growing body of science, glyphosate is just another chemical in the toxic mixture that bees and other non-target organisms are constantly exposed to in the environment.

In the study, titled “Effects of sublethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation” and published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, researchers evaluate the effects of recommended concentrations of glyphosate used in agricultural settings on honey bee navigation and found that a single exposure to a concentration of glyphosate within this range delays the return of the foraging honey bee to the hive. Flight trajectories were also affected after successive exposure to the herbicide, suggesting that the spatial learning process is impaired by glyphosate ingestion during feeding.

Other environmental problems from exposure to glyphosate that have been documented include adverse effects on earthworms and other soil biota, as well as  shape changes in amphibians. The widespread use of the chemical on genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant  crops has led it to be implicated in the  decline of monarch butterflies, whose sole site  to lay their eggs, milkweed plants, is  being destroyed by glyphosate applications.

Along with environmental effects, glyphosate exposure has also been linked to health problems in humans. A  research study published in the journal Environmental Health  links chronic, links ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate through drinking water to adverse liver and kidney function. The study,  Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure, is the latest in  a string of data  showing unacceptable risks resulting from the use of glyphosate and products formulated with the chemical, like Roundup. Beyond direct impacts to the kidney and liver, glyphosate has recently been implicated as a having sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity  based upon an analysis of laboratory animal studies conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Recently, California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)  announced  that it intended to list glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical under California’s  Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

Most commonly formulated as Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, glyphosate end-use products account for approximately 180-185 million pounds applied per year, making it the number one commonly used chemical in the U.S. Glyphosate use is currently growing due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant to the herbicide. Corn and soybeans were originally genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate in the mid-1990s. Today, these crops account for 90% of corn and soybeans in the U.S., leading to a  dramatic increase in herbicide use.  In fact, the researchers point out that glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250 ”” from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. This not surprisingly allows herbicide-resistant  superweeds  to emerge, which leads the industry to turn to other  dangerous chemicals like  2,4-D  and  glufosinate.

In the face of these widespread health impacts, and in the absence of real action to restrict this chemical at the federal level, it is up to concerned citizens to advocate for changes in public land management practices within their community. Whether the pesticide use relates to  a  local government, homeowners’ association, or child’s playing field, concerned residents can effect  positive change to  get glyphosate and other unnecessary bee-toxic chemicals like neonicotinoids out of the  community. Get your community campaign going with Beyond Pesticides’ Start Your Own Local Movement  factsheet. Although glyphosate is an important chemical to remove from use in your community, a  range of chemicals are linked to public health impacts, and a comprehensive approach that encourages organic land management is the best long-term solution.

Source: The Journal of Experimental Biology

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 17, 2015) On Tuesday, the City Council of Lafayette, Colorado unanimously approved a resolution to prohibit bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides on city property. The resolution restricts the use of neonicotinoids on any land owned or operated by the city, including public rights-of-way, parks, playing fields, watersheds and ditches, open space lands, and public landscapes. Modeled on  a resolution passed in May by neighboring Boulder city, the new resolution has been propelled through the City Commission with  support from grassroots organizations, including Bee Safe Boulder and Pesticide Free Boulder County Coalition.

The resolution affirms that the City of Lafayette:

• Not purchase or use any neonicotinoid pesticides on city owned or operated land;
• Restrict city and agricultural contractors from using neonicotinoids like imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, etc.;
• Provide exceptions only when emergency situations where the life or health of a valuable, important land asset is at risk, such as a valuable tree or golf course, and when the neonicotinoid application is the most effective option;
• Urge all residents and business in Lafayette to suspend neonicotinoids for use in seed treatment, soil application, foliar treatment, and other bee-attractive settings;
• Purchase landscape materials that have not been treated with neonicotinoids and urge all businesses, homeowners, and homeowner associations to enlist the same practices; and
• Support efforts to educate the broader community about the actions it is taking.

Similar to the resolution passed in the neighboring Boulder in May, this resolution encourages citizens and businesses to limit or restrict the use of neonicotinoids, but does not mandate such practices for private lands. Because of Colorado’s regressive pesticide preemption  law, the cities are barred from passing legislation that halts the use of pesticides on private property.

In a similar policy in Boulder County, where both Boulder and Lafayette are incorporated, Commissioner Elise Jones declared September “Pollinator Appreciation Month” in an effort to kick start the county’s own pollinator protective resolution, which strives to:

• Reduce and minimize all chemical pesticide use on County lands and in County buildings;
• Not apply neonicotinoid or other systemic insecticides on its County rights of way, along watersheds and ditches, on public trees and landscapes or in its buildings;
• Allow exceptions only after consideration of both the necessity of treatment and of alternative treatments to achieve the necessary protection of those lands, trees, or landscapes
• Enhance safe and healthy pollinator forage habitat on County lands, including revision of mowing policies where possible to allow wildflowers and other appropriate flowering species to flourish and feed pollinators; and,
• Facilitate the transition of County owned agricultural lands to organic production by providing incentives to make it possible for farmers to make the transition from conventional to organic practices and will require management practices for  farmers leasing county lands.

Despite constricting preemption laws, localities have proven that neonicotinoid use can be reduced on public land through city and county resolutions, and grassroots outreach and education can reduce the use of pesticides on private land. Susan Swern of Toxic Free Lafayette gave a presentation in July to the Lafayette City Council about limiting pesticide use in Lafayette. Her presentation includes lists of “Bee Safe” businesses and neonicotinoid alternatives. Activists at Bee Safe Boulder have reached out to residents in an effort to encourage them to pledge  to stop the use of neonicotinoids and other bee-toxic chemicals on their own property. Once one neighborhood forms at least 75 contiguous pledged properties, the group certifies the neighborhood as a Bee Safe Community. “We are saving the bees, and by extension our environment, one neighborhood at a time,” said Bee Safe Boulder co-founder Molly Greacen.

Neonicotinoids  have been widely cited in the demise of both managed and wild bee and pollinator populations. Acting as potent neurotoxins, studies have found the insecticides have the ability to disrupt the reproduction, navigation, and foraging of bees exposed even to  infinitesimal concentrations. These systemic chemicals, or “whole plant poisons,” which are taken up by plants and expressed in pollen nectar, and dew droplets, cause  systemic changes in ecosystems. Beyond pollination, damage to natural pest control services, soil fertility, and changes within the food web ultimately compromise the biodiversity of wild and managed landscapes.

To become active in your community, contact Beyond Pesticides and the  BEE Protective campaign, launched with our partners at the Center for Food Safety. The more communities that pass resolutions like Boulder’s, the more pressure that will be felt to take strong action on this issue at the federal level. “We believe it has to be a grassroots effort that spreads bit by bit,” said Bee Safe Boulder’s David Wheeler to the  Daily Camera. “If the citizens don’t speak up for the place that they live, who will?”

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

Source: City of Lafayette

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2015) In a letter posted to the federal docket, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that it is opposed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent proposal to restrict pesticides highly toxic to bees on sites where managed bees are present, saying the measure “has not established the need for such a prohibition.” In its position, USDA  cites economic impacts to farmers and lack of a cost/benefit analysis. USDA’s critique of EPA’s proposal contrasts with a decision handed down last week by a federal court that ruled EPA should not ignore risk concerns for bees and rejected the registration of a pesticide known to be highly toxic to bees, highlighting a lack of collaboration and understanding between federal agencies in advancing  pollinator protection. USDA communicated its challenge to EPA despite the growing body of science on the hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides and findings in Europe that their restriction does not undermine crop productivity.

Last May,  EPA announced a new proposal  to temporarily prohibit foliar applications of pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees during plant bloom and when managed bees are on site and under contract. The proposal received a mixed response, with many from beekeeping and environmental groups saying that  the proposal does not address the persistent  systemic toxicity of these chemicals that remain in soil and plant surfaces for months and even years. USDA, in an  August 25, 2015 letter signed  by Sheryl Kunickis, director of USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy, which often works with EPA on pesticide issues, the agency states that it does not agree with the complete prohibition of foliar applications and that EPA “has not established the need to such a prohibition with any analyses of bee kill incidents for crops under contract pollination services.” Additionally, USDA goes on to state that EPA “has not considered the economic impacts this proposal may have on the numerous specialty crop farmers and the rural economies they contribute to across the U.S.” The full letter can be read here.

Ironically, both USDA and EPA are co-chairs of the White House Pollinator Health Task Force established by President Obama in June 2014, which called on all federal agencies to find solutions to reverse pollinator decline. The task force’s final report, released May 2015, outlines several components, such as a focus on increased pollinator habitat, public education and outreach, and further research into a range of environmental stressors, including systemic neonicotinoid pesticides. Although well-intentioned, the plan ultimately works at cross-purposes by encouraging habitat, but continuing to allow pesticides that contaminate landscapes.

USDA points to famers’ use of best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate harm to pollinators, even though BMPS are voluntary and not enforceable. The agency believes farmers have the right to create contracts with beekeepers that would allow the use of a pesticide with recognized risks and acceptable bee losses to the beekeeper. USDA believes without this, grower-beekeeper relations could deteriorate. The use of pesticides, according to the agency, is also critical in  response to invasive insect pests like the Asian citrus psyllid and the brown marmorated stink bug.

USDA has disagreed with EPA in the past  on matters related to  pollinator protection. Earlier this year, USDA publicly disagreed with EPA’s findings that neonicotinoid coated seeds provide  little to no benefit to farmers. In a letter to EPA, USDA blasted EPA saying farmers should have the ability to use the tools available to manage pests, and that a risk assessment for all crops should have been conducted. At a Congressional hearing in May, USDA voiced its disapproval of U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s decision to restrict the use of neonicotinoids on wildlife refuges. Interestingly, USDA itself has come under fire after reports surfaced that USDA scientists are being harassed and finding their research restricted or censored when it conflicts with agribusiness industry interests.

Bee-toxic pesticides like neonicotinoids have been identified as a main contributing factor to pollinator decline. These pesticides are highly toxic to honey bees, persist for long periods of time in soil and waterways and can contaminate pollen and nectar. A recent study from Harvard University finds that 73% of pollen samples and 72% of honey samples contained at least one neonicotinoid at levels which could result in sublethal harm. And a new European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) report confirms that foliar spraying of neonicotinoids, poses a risk to bees. Further, a report from the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) in the UK provides evidence of confirming the link between neonicotinoid pesticides and continually increasing honey bee colony losses on a landscape level. This 11-year study finds that mortality rates were 10 percent higher for bee colonies that had high levels of exposure to the neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, than for those with low field exposure, confirming a direct link between neonicotinoids and honey bee colony losses at a nationwide level. Visit “What the Science Shows”

USDA believes that there is a lack of bee kill data to support EPA’s proposal, but bee decline has increased in the U.S. over the last several years. While there is little data on wild bees, national reports place managed hive losses at 42.1 percent for 2014/2015, representing the second highest loss to date. EPA’s proposal, while only a temporary protective measure for managed hives, can assist beekeepers in keeping their bees from direct harms from pesticide use. However, the proposal has several limitations including a heavy reliance on state recommended BMPs which are only voluntary, and a continued underestimation of the long-term systemic risks posed by bee-toxic pesticides.

Additionally, arguments that these bee-toxic pesticides are necessary for agriculture have not been proven. Preliminary reports out of the UK find that the country is poised to harvest higher than expected yields of canola in its first neonicotinoid-free growing season since the European moratorium on neonicotinoids went into place in 2013. According to the UK’s Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Harvest Report, with 15% of canola harvested, yields are between 3.5 and 3.7 tons per hectare, higher than the normal farm average of 3.4.

The recent federal court ruling that rejected EPA’s registration of the systemic bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor underscores the need to take meaningful action against these pesticides. The court concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. The court ruled EPA’s decision to register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data, and not supported by substantial evidence. Sulfoxaflor is a relatively new active ingredient, registered in 2013, whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, and is highly toxic to bees.

In light of the shortcomings of federal action  to protect these beneficial creatures, it is left up to us to ensure that we provide safe havens for pollinators by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. Take action by calling on EPA to suspend neonicotinoids now. You can also declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.  Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The  Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region. For more information on what you can do, visit our BEE Protective page.

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

Source: E & E Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2015) A study released this week in the journal Pediatrics finds that children’s exposure to pesticides in and around the home results in an increased risk of developing certain childhood cancers. Researchers made their findings through a meta-analysis, reviewing 16 epidemiological studies published since 1993 on the link between childhood cancer and pesticide exposure. Based on their findings, the authors of the study suggest “”¦public health policies should be developed to minimize childhood exposure to pesticides in the home,” and that “[e]very effort should be made to limit children’s exposure to pesticides.”

While most meta-analytical reviews previously conducted on the link between pesticides and childhood cancer looked at parental exposure or agricultural exposure, the current study from scientists at the Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health focuses in on residential exposure in and around a child’s home. Authors found that cancer risks were connected most closely to the type of pesticide used and the location where it was applied. For example, while residential herbicide use was associated with an increased risk of leukemia, the link between outdoor insecticide use and childhood cancers was not found to be statistically significant. However, exposure to insecticides inside the home was significantly associated with an increased risk of childhood leukemia and lymphoma.

Researchers note that while the results are cause for concern, more research is needed to further elucidate the connection between pesticide exposure and childhood cancer. “We don’t knjow ”˜how much’ exposure it takes, or if there’s a critical window of development,” said Chensheng (Alex) Lu, PhD, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at the Harvard School of Public Health to U.S. News and World Report. “Is the window during pregnancy? Or even before pregnancy? That will take a much deeper investigation,” Dr. Lu continued.

According to the National Cancer Institute, an estimated 15,780 children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 were diagnosed with some form of cancer in 2014. There is growing concern over the association between exposure to environmental chemicals such as pesticides and cancer risks both for children and the population at large. Although agriculture and occupational exposure to pesticides has traditionally been tied to cancer and other pesticide-related illnesses, 16 of the 30 most commonly used pesticides available for use in and around homes have been linked to cancer. Beyond Pesticides keeps track of the latest science linking pesticides to cancer and other health effects through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. The category on cancer currently contains hundreds of peer-reviewed studies associating pesticide exposure with a wide variety of cancers.

Children are at particular risk from exposure to pesticides because they take in more of a pesticide than adults relative to their body weight and have developing organ systems that are less able to detoxify chemicals. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a landmark policy statement on Pesticide Exposure in Children. The report discussed how children come into contact with pesticides every day in air, food, dust and soil, and frequently are exposed to pesticide residue on pets and after lawn, garden, or household pesticide applications. The report identified both acute and chronic effects of pesticides, noting that “Children encounter pesticide daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.”

The authors of both the current meta-analysis and the American Academy of Pediatrics report recommend that governments take steps to reduce and eliminate children’s exposure to pesticides. With a growing market and availability of non-toxic and organic alternatives, replacing bug and weed killers in and around one’s home is becoming easier and easier. Safer practices for common pests can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe toolkit, and alternatives to herbicides can be found through the Lawns and Landscapes webpage.

Beyond Pesticides encourages readers to follow the advice of scientists and researchers, and advocate for safer pest control practices in your community. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change or Children and Schools page for information on organizing on your community. You’ll also find fact sheets like Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix, to help make your case to local leaders and school officials. For additional assistance, call Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or email [email protected]

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

Source: Pediatrics, US News and World Report

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2015) On Thursday September 10, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in a bench ruling, rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)  motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit (Case3:15-cv-01690) that challenges the National Organic Program’s (NOP) failure to follow proper legal procedures  in making a substantial rule change to the organic standard. This court ruling allows the case to move forward  on the  proper procedure and the importance of formal notice and public comment regarding  the rules for organic food production.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this year by the Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, and the Center for Food Safety (CFS), challenges the contaminated compost guidance  released by USDA, which weakens the long- standing prohibition of synthetic pesticide contaminants. Prior to the new contaminated compost guidance, organic regulations expressly prohibited fertilizers and compost from containing any synthetic substances not included on organic’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Plaintiffs allege that the USDA’s decision weakens the integrity of organic food production, not only by creating inconsistent organic production standards but also by undermining the essential public participation function of organic policy making under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal law that establishes the  procedures for public input into federal policy making. Since USDA never subjected the contaminated-compost decision to formal notice and public comment, the plaintiffs argue that USDA failed in its duty to ensure that its regulation is consistent with the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) and the standards set forth for approving the use of synthetic substances.

This lawsuit is not the only noteworthy instance of procedural violations committed by the USDA; another lawsuit brought by 15 farm, consumer and certifier organizations raises a similar procedural challenge to a  rule change to the organic sunset process, which regulates synthetic chemical exceptions in organic production. In this case, the agency once again took unilateral action to adopt a major policy change without public process, an action plaintiffs maintain violates one of the foundational principles and practices of OFPA public participation in organic policy making and APA. The decision by the judge to allow the contaminated compost case to move forward signifies a commitment  to upholding the procedures outlined in APA and OFPA, which plaintiffs maintain is central to the integrity of food labeled organic in the U.S.

The simple act of attempting to block a hearing on this procedural raises concerns about USDA commitment to overseeing the USDA organic program in a fair and open manner. The organic program has a long history of providing  numerous opportunities for the public to weigh in on allowable practices and materials in organic production and has been central to building public trust in the organic certification program and the USDA certified organic food label. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was set up by Congress to serve as an independent authority with unique and sole powers over organic standards. The board is intended  to safeguard the integrity of the organic food label with independent authorities that operate outside the discretion of the USDA. The proposals of the NOSB, as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are  published for public comment twice a year before each meeting of the board.

Consumers, environmentalists, and farmers play a critical role in building and maintaining the integrity of the organic food label. A  comment period  on current proposals before the board is open now through October 8.

Priority issues before the Fall 2015 National Organic Standards Board

• Inerts. Beyond Pesticides opposes the proposal to annotate the listings for so-called inert ingredients to allow all chemicals listed on EPA’s Safer Chemical Ingredient List. The Crops and Livestock Subcommittees have proposed an annotation that would abdicate NOSB responsibility for reviewing “inerts.” So-called “inert” ingredients in pesticide products are neither chemically nor biologically inert. They are designed to enhance the pesticidal activity of pesticide products and can have toxic properties that do not meet the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The NOSB should reject the proposed annotation change. The NOSB should (1) Tell NOP to implement the review plan approved unanimously by the board in 2012, using EPA’s Safer Choice Program as a resource, but not depending on its list (2) amend the listing to remove toxic nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), and (3) amend the list with expiration dates for the remaining classes of “inerts.”
• Ancillary Substances. Beyond Pesticides opposes all three proposals on ancillary substances –microorganisms, pectin, and yeast — because they are inconsistent with OFPA and with the process adopted by the NOSB for review of ancillary substances. Ancillary substances –those ingredients within ingredients that generally do not appear on labels– must, according to both OFPA and NOSB policy, be reviewed according to OFPA criteria. Instead, the Handling Subcommittee appears to be simply grandfathering in those currently in these products, allowing toxic chemicals like formaldehyde to be added to organic food.
• Micronutrient Annotation. Beyond Pesticides opposes the annotation change proposed by the Crops Subcommittee (CS) because it encourages the use of synthetic micronutrients without empirical evidence to demonstrate need. While the CS correctly points to methods other than soil testing to document soil deficiency, we disagree with the intention of the CS to allow “proactive” use of synthetic micronutrients, which is inconsistent with the requirement to seek management and nonsynthetic options first.

Each of these issues fit a theme of breaking trust with the organic community, which is why it is so important for the public to help defend organic standards against USDA changes that will weaken the organic food label.

Your Voice Is Needed to Keep Organic Strong

You can go to Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about these and other substantive issues. Again, we ask that you submit a unique, personalized comment on as many issues and materials as you can by the October 8, 2015 deadline. For help crafting your comments, view Beyond Pesticides’ commenting guide.

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

Source: Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2015) On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) unconditional registration of the systemic and bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor. The Court concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. The Court vacated EPA’s unconditional registration of the chemical, meaning that sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the U.S. However, while the decision is good news for now, it still leaves the door open for sulfoxaflor’s future use once EPA obtains the necessary information regarding impacts to honey bees and re-approves the insecticide in accordance with law. The case is Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Beekeeping Federation, Thomas Smith, Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson v. U.S. EPA (9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,  No. 13-7234). Dow AgroSciences (a Dow Chemical company)  joined  the case as an intervenor to support EPA.

EPA initially proposed to conditionally register sulfoxaflor and requested additional studies to address gaps in the data regarding the pesticide’s effects on bees. A few months later, however, EPA unconditionally registered the insecticides with certain mitigation measures and a lowering of the maximum application rate, but did so without obtaining any further studies. As a response, in 2013, beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that sulfoxaflor as further endangering bees and beekeeping and noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted.

In  the decision,  the Court held that because EPA’s decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data, the EPA’s unconditional approval was not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Agency skirted its own regulations when it ignored risk concerns, even with the reduced maximum application rate, which EPA has done before despite prior reprimands from the Court. The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked more potential environmental harm than vacating it.

In a pointed  message to EPA that should be noticed by all government regulators, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote  the following:

“I do not ask the EPA to “explain every  possible scientific uncertainty” or instruct the EPA how to  improve its analysis. See Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 988. I  simply ask the EPA to explain the analysis it conducted, the  data it reviewed, and how the EPA relied on the data in  making its final decision. Currently, the EPA’s interesting  choice of procedure and lack of explanation regarding its  analysis call into question the connection between the cited  data and the final decision. . .For me,  unless I am provided with evidence of the EPA’s basis for its  judgment and knowledge, I can only assume it acted with  none.”

“Our country is facing widespread bee colony collapse, and scientists are pointing to pesticides like sulfoxaflar as the cause. The Court’s decision to overturn approval of this bee-killing pesticide is incredible news for bees, beekeepers and all of us who enjoy the healthy fruits, nuts, and vegetables that rely on bees for pollination,” said EarthJustice’s lead counsel, Greg Loarie.

Michele Colopy, Program Director of the Pollinator Stewardship Council, added, “The Pollinator Stewardship Council is pleased with the 9th Circuit Court’s Opinion concerning the registration of sulfoxaflor. Our argument, presented by EarthJustice attorney, Greg Loarie, addressed our concerns that EPA’s decision process to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data, and the 9th Circuit Court agreed with us. We can protect crops from pests and protect honey bees and native pollinators. To do this, EPA’s pesticide application and review process must receive substantial scientific evidence as to the benefits of a pesticide, as well as the protection of the environment, especially the protection of pollinators.”

Sulfoxaflor is a relatively new active ingredient, registered in 2013, whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides —it acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects. Even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, it elicits similar neurological responses in honey bees, with many believing that sulfoxaflor is the new generation of neonicotinoid. Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are “systemic” insecticides, which means that they are sprayed onto plants, which then absorb the chemicals and distribute them throughout the plant, into the tissues, pollen, and nectar. Sulfoxaflor is registered for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and others. Several comments were submitted by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would  only exacerbate the problems  faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations. However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

EPA states in court documents that the benefits of sulfoxaflor —like the potential to replace older and more toxic pesticides and a lower needed dose— outweigh the risk to pollinators. In registration documents, EPA also notes that none of the objections to sulfoxaflor registrations point to any data “to support the opinion that registration of sulfoxaflor will pose a grave risks to bees,” even though the agency itself acknowledges that sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees. The agency states that even though sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees it does not demonstrate “catastrophic effects” on bees from its use. While sulfoxaflor exhibits behavioral and navigational abnormalities in honey bees, EPA downplays these effects as “short-lived.” Dow AgroSciences, which developed and commercialized sulfoxaflor, intervened on behalf of EPA in the suit.

The case is one of a number of pending legal cases on EPA’s pesticide decisions under the  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the law that prohibits the use or sale of pesticides that lack approval and registration by the EPA, including one submitted March 2013 by Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Food Safety, beekeepers, and other environmental and consumer groups challenging the agency’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. That lawsuit challenges EPA’s oversight of the neonicotinoid insecticides —clothianidin and thiamethoxam— which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, as well as the agency’s registration process and labeling deficiencies, and seeks suspension of the registrations.

Despite the continued decline in bee and pollinator populations across the U.S., EPA has since registered two other systemic chemicals, cyantraniliprole and flupyradifurone.  Cyantraniliprole  is noted by EPA as “highly toxic on acute and oral contact basis” to bees, while  flupyradifurone, a new systemic, butenolide insecticide from Bayer CropScience  approved just this year, is found to be “highly  toxic to individual adult honey bees.”  Adding these new bee toxic chemicals into the environment will mean that bees and other non-target organisms will be exposed to mixtures of chemicals that are not only highly toxic, but have yet to be evaluated for their combined or synergistic effects with other bee-toxic substances, and possibly compounding the already dire plight of pollinators, highlighting fundamental flaws in the way in which these and other pesticides are regulated under FIFRA.  Additionally, actions taken by EPA to reduce neonicotinoid use have been too narrow in scope. For example, EPA’s announcement earlier this year to suspend new uses of neonicotinoids fails to address neonicotinoids already on the market, as well as neonicotinoid-like pesticides like sulfoxaflor.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the European Union’s footsteps and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.  We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can  help through  Bee Protective.

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

Source: EarthJustice, CommonDreams

(Beyond Pesticides, September 10, 2015) Last week, California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it intended to list glyphosate (Roundup) and three other chemicals as cancer-causing chemicals under California’s  Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Glyphosate  is a phosphanoglycine herbicide that inhibits an enzyme essential to plant growth. Under California law, Proposition 65 requires that certain substances identified by the International View postAgency for Research on Cancer (IARC) be listed as known cancer-causing chemicals.

In March, a study by the IARC classified glyphosate as a Group 2A material, which means that the chemical is carcinogenic based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. The agency considered the findings from an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. However, industry supporters of glyphosate all over the globe are conducting their own studies to attempt to prove that it is not a carcinogen. These studies, like one by German Federal Institute for Risk Assessments (BfR), are based almost solely on industry science and classified industry reports, each of which might not consider critical variables. With more glyphosate-focused studies being released, the growing evidence is becoming hard to ignore.

While its creator Monsanto maintains that glyphosate is “safe for human health” and claims that the IARC’s conclusion was “reached  by selective ”˜cherry picking’ of data and agenda-driven bias,” many recent studies prove otherwise.

Following the carcinogenic classification by the IARC, a  research study published in the journal Environmental Health  links long-term, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. The study focuses on Glyphosate-based Herbicides (GHBs), rather than pure glyphosate, unlike many of the studies that preceded it. Pediatrician  Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and researcher Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.,  recently released a prospective article on the effects of glyphosate and GE crops. In this article, they highlight the flaws of past glyphosate studies and conclude that they only considered pure glyphosate “despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.” Their article also pointed to the ecological impacts of widespread glyphosate use, like the damage it has had on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. Last year, the Center for Biological Study and Center for Food Safety filed a legal petition  with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services seeking Endangered Species Act protection for the monarch butterfly. Their press release explains the dramatic 90 percent decline over the last 20 years:

The butterfly’s dramatic decline is being driven by the widespread planting of genetically engineered crops in the Midwest, where most monarchs are born. The vast majority of genetically engineered crops are made to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, a uniquely potent killer of milkweed, the monarch caterpillar’s only food. The dramatic surge in Roundup use with Roundup Ready crops has virtually wiped out milkweed plants in midwestern corn and soybean fields.

Ecological effects like these are just a fraction of the environmental variables that should be considered when looking at the effects of glyphosate.

Joining glyphosate on the Proposition 65 list is malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. A California Environmental Health Tracking Program (CEHTP) report, titled Agricultural Pesticide Use near Public Schools in California,  finds that 36 percent of public schools in the state have pesticides of public health concern applied within a quarter mile of the school, including malathion and parathion.  Malathion, which is also classified as a Group 2A material by the IARC, is a nonsystemic, widespectrum organophosphate nerve poison that causes numbness, tremors, nausea, incoordination, blurred vision, difficulty breathing or respiratory depression, and slow heartbeat, among others. Parathion and tetrachlorvinphos are also organophosphates that attack the nerve system, particularly in young children, causing neurological damage.

The mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards is piling up and environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of the chemical. California’s glyphosate listing is certainly a step in the right direction; however, it will need to take further steps toward a restriction or ban to make significant changes. Being the number one agricultural producing state, California’s action may help to move glyphosate out of the market.

 Currently, the best way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides is to support organic agriculture and  eat organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and  research shows  that organic farmers do a better job of protecting biodiversity than their chemically-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and biotechnology, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

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

Source: California Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides September 9, 2015) A young Florida boy and his family are reeling after a routine termite treatment resulted in a devastating outcome. Ten-year-old Peyton McCaughey of Palm City, Florida has been in the hospital for weeks following a severe reaction to chemicals used to fumigate his family’s home. According to news reports, the  fumigation was performed by Sunland Pest Control, a subcontractor of Terminix. The Florida Department of Agriculture has since issued a “Stop Work Order” while it  investigates the company in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state Department of Health.

After returning to their home hours after the Terminix subcontractor told them it was safe to enter, the whole family became very ill. While the parents and the 7-year-old daughter recovered, the young boy’s condition continued to worsen. “He was having some uncontrollable muscle movements, couldn’t stand up, couldn’t speak, so they took him to a local walk-in and the doctor quickly recognized it was probably poisoning from a treatment,” said Peyton’s uncle, Ed Gribben. Current reports indicate that the boy has likely suffered brain damage and has lost all muscle control, rendering him unable to stand or speak. He remains in a hospital in Miami weeks after the initial exposure took place.

A Terminix spokesman, while making clear that the incident is still under review, did state that the gas normally used for this type of fumigation (intended to target termites) is sulfuryl fluoride. When asked to comment, Shan Yin,M.D., MPH, the medical director of the Cincinnati Drug and Poison Information Center, said that while acute pesticide poisoning is rare, exposure to this application of sulfuryl fluoride, an odorless gas, can lead to symptoms including dizziness, headache and vomiting in even the most mild cases. “In severe cases,” Dr.  Yin  said, “it can cause seizures and can cause neurologic symptoms.”

Sulfuryl fluoride is an inorganic chemical often used for the fumigation of closed structures and their contents, such as domestic dwellings, garages, barns, storage buildings and commercial warehouses, just to name a few. It is intended to target termites, powder post beetles, bedbugs, and other pests. Sulfuryl fluoride  is a dangerous chemical which has been linked to cancer as well as neurological, developmental, and reproductive damages.  More information about sulfuryl fluoride and its more potent cousin methyl bromide, another industry favorite, can be found on our factsheet about structural fumigants.

In addition to promoting alternative fumigants for pest control, Beyond Pesticides has also been involved with efforts to remove sulfuryl fluoride from use on food. Food-related tolerances were set for sulfuryl fluoride in 2004 for raw foods and in 2005 for processed food as post-harvest fumigant. Both of the food-related tolerances were opposed by Beyond Pesticides, and in 2006 Beyond Pesticides, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Environmental Working Group petitioned EPA for a stay of final rules, objecting to the tolerances as allowing an excessive hazard to food consumers.

In the beginning of 2011, EPA responded to this petition by granting objections to the food-related tolerances. Based on a cumulative risk assessment taking into account food, water, and structural use exposure, this decision established a phase out all food-related uses for sulfuryl fluoride over a three-year period ending in 2014. After the EPA decision, there was a flurry of activity in Congress to limit EPA’s proposed phase out. In April of 2013, U.S. Representative Tom Graves (R-GA) introduced H.R.1496, the Pest Free Food Supply Act, with similar language introduced in the U.S. Senate by Joe Donnelly (D-IN), intended to force the EPA Administrator to withdraw the proposed food tolerance cancellations. With overwhelming support and influence from Dow Agrosciences, the language eventually attached in conference committee to  the Farm Bill, or Section 10015 of the Agricultural Act of 2014  (Regulation of Sulfuryl Fluoride),  despite overwhelming scientific evidence  in support of the EPA phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride. It was passed February 7, 2014.

Unfortunately, when it comes to cases of fumigants poisoning families, the current situation in Florida is not isolated. In 2010 alone, poison control centers in the U.S. reported 91,940 calls related to pesticide exposures in general, according to the University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Just this spring, a family of four was hospitalized after being exposed to  methyl bromide, a highly neurotoxic pesticide, while on vacation at their luxury condo in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. After being rushed back to mainland U.S. for treatment, the two sons are  still in critical condition, having both gone into a coma as a result of the exposure. The father is paralyzed and mother has nerve damage.

There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and  methyl bromide  fumigation, including temperature manipulation (heating and cooling), atmospheric controls (low oxygen and fumigation with carbon dioxide), biological controls (pheromones, viruses and nematodes), and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth). More information on Beyond Pesticides’ recommendations for the least-toxic control of termites can be found here.

While it is still unknown whether Peyton will be able to make a full recovery, he did receive a little relief this past weekend when three Miami Dolphins players visited him the hospital where he is receiving treatment. If you would like to help the family, you can join Facebook Group “Support Peyton McCaughey” or donate on the  GoFundMe Page. Visit the Beyond Pesticides website to learn more about the potential harms of pesticide use and how it may impact your family, especially young children.

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

Source: ABC News

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2015) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued tickets to six companies in Rockland and Westchester counties for violating state laws on pesticide applications, most on residential lawns. Eight other companies were issued warnings. The violations, which occurred between 2013 and spring 2015, ranged from unlicensed businesses to uncertified workers and unlabeled toxic pesticides. These fines and warnings came about after complaints and anonymous tips, and highlight the many instances where pesticide law enforcement and compliance falls short.

In September of last year, a complaint was called into the DEC, reporting that a Jonathan Landscaping (of Rockville, NY) truck was spraying pesticides with no labels, and was missing triangle decals that indicate a valid state pesticide permit. The DEC inspector went out and found the truck, issuing four tickets for operating an unregistered pesticide business and unlabeled poisons. Rafael Hernandez, the owner of Jonathan Landscaping, pleaded guilty to violating environmental laws in March and was fined $350, according to The Journal News.  In April, SavALawn, another landscaping company, was found to be missing triangle decals and had unlabeled pesticide poisons, and was also issued a ticket, of value unknown. Another investigator from DEC took action against OCS Chemical Engineering (of Cortlandt) after receiving an anonymous tip. OCS, which treats water systems (like cooling towers) with pesticides, was found to have been operating without a pesticide application permit for over five years. The company was fined $4,000 for its violations.

There is serious  question as to whether the (i) level of enforcement for pesticide use and label violations is adequate, (ii) fines must be significantly  higher given the nature of the harm, (iii) applicators conducting the treatments should be certified, and (iv) longstanding limitations  deter noncompliance. Recent cases emphasize the horrific outcomes of pesticide use violations.  In April 2015, four members of a Delaware family were hospitalized after being exposed to  methyl bromide, a highly neurotoxic pesticide, while on vacation at their luxury condo in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide and is  not registered for residential use, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2013 Methyl Bromide Preliminary Workplan (pg. 6). The media is reporting that a 10-year old boy suffered traumatic brain injury  in mid-August after his family’s home was treated with sulfuryl flouride, presumably for termites.

In 2014, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) issued two civil penalties totaling $16,000 in connection with a pesticide application of imidacloprid on linden trees, a chemical in the neonicotinoid class of insecticides  connected to widespread bee decline, this summer that resulted in the death of nearly 1,000 bees. When the incident in Eugene occurred, the trees were in full bloom and attracting pollinators.  In this case, ODA determined that the company and its applicator knew or should have known of this standard of care, yet disregarded it. The reasonable standard of care for pesticide application activities in Oregon includes anticipating the presence of pollinators in Oregon. In 2013,  ODA adopted a label requirement on pesticide products containing imidacloprid, stating that the application of these products on linden trees was prohibited.

Unfortunately, the details above paint a picture of the many issues that go unaddressed under pesticide law and regulations. Company employees  applying toxic pesticides may treat homes, offices, and schools without certification if they are “under the supervision” of certified applicators who are not required to be on site, but may only  be in phone contact. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pesticide manufacturers claim that pesticide labeling keeps consumers safe, there are many instances, demonstrated above, where labels are discarded and taken off, with no way of knowing the correct and legal way of applying the pesticide, or disregarded completely and not followed by the applicator. In addition, pesticide applicators who are unlicensed are not subject to any system of checks and balances. The state departments don’t have records of them being current applicators, and therefore cannot check in with due diligence. While enforcement action is a critical piece in protecting public health and the environment, advocates point to the use of warnings, repeated violations, and low fines.

Advocates say pesticide offenses like these need to be met with fines that cannot just be considered a cost of doing business —they must be large enough to cause the businesses to change their practices. In New York, business registrations are valid for three years, and commercial pesticide applicator certifications must be renewed yearly or every three years, depending on the type of certification. If state residents are concerned that an applicator is applying illegally, they can check the DEC’s website to make sure the company has a proper application permit, or ask to see their licenses on site.

Pesticides are widely used in homes and communities without complete public knowledge about the harm that they cause to children, pets and the environment. The best way to reduce pesticide exposure is to implement organic approaches to lawn care. There are alternatives to pesticides for managing insects, rodents and weeds effectively without exposing your family to harmful toxic chemicals. Visit our Safer Choice page for more information. For safer lawn care and weed management, read Beyond Pesticides’ “Read Your ”˜Weeds’ — A Simple Guide to Creating a Healthy Lawn” and “Least-toxic Control of Weeds.”

Source: The Journal News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2015) Research into neonicotinoid insecticides, a class of bee-toxic chemicals, and their effects on bees, needs to be more comprehensive in order to better reflect their global use, concludes a recent review of the current literature. The authors of the review state that despite considerable research efforts, there are still significant knowledge gaps concerning the impacts of neonicotinoids on bees. Since 2006, honey bees and other pollinators in the U.S. and throughout the world have experienced ongoing and rapid population declines. The science has become increasingly clear that pesticides (especially the  neonicotinoid class of insecticides), either acting individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of honey bees and wild pollinators. Neonicotinoids can be persistent in the environment, and have the ability to translocate into the pollen and nectar of treated plants.

The systematic review, titled Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Their Impacts on Bees: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Identification of Knowledge Gaps  and published in the journal PLoS ONE, took a look at over 200 primary research studies in order to identify knowledge gaps. While there is a growing body of science examining the impacts of neonicotinoid use, knowledge gaps need to be addressed to better capture the full extent of the impacts these harmful chemicals have on bees. For example, studies on crops are dominated by seed-treated maize, oilseed rape (canola), and sunflower, but more needs to be known about the potential side effects on bees from the use of other application methods on insect pollinated fruit and vegetable crops, or on lawns and ornamental plants. Furthermore, most of the 216 studies conducted are  in Europe or North America, so relatively little is known about neonicotinoids and bees outside of these regions. The authors add that because there is considerable variation in ecological traits across bee taxa, studies on honey bees are not likely to fully predict impacts of neonicotinoids on other species. Recommendations from the study authors include opportunities for methodological improvements, such as using information from field studies in laboratory approaches, as well as more studies that link effects at the individual level to mechanisms at the sub-individual level, and also to consequences for colonies and populations. The authors state that while bees are subject to multiple, interacting environmental pressures, such as the promotion by neonicotinoids of additive or synergistic effects when combined with pathogens or parasites, the importance of neonicotinoid-pathogen interactions under field-realistic conditions might have been overemphasized. However, it should be noted that there is strong evidence that indicates that  neonicotinoid exposure makes bees  more susceptible to pathogens.

New research into the consequences of neonicotinoid use are being published at an unprecedented rate. A recent study provided supporting evidence to previous work showing that sublethal doses of  imidacloprid, a toxic neonicotinoid insecticide, impairs olfactory learning in exposed honey bee workers.  A January 2015 study that also looked at sublethal exposure to imidacloprid found that it leads to  mitochondrial dysfunction  in bumble bees, which then negatively impacts navigation and foraging skills. For example, exposed bees will have greater difficulty in recognizing the smell of a flower, or how to find their way back to their colony, which in turn can affect the colony as a whole. Two other  recent studies  found that, not only does neonicotinoid exposure result in reduced bee density, nesting, colony growth, and reproduction, but also that bees actually prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides, despite their adverse effects.

Although these data gaps need to be addressed, the link between widespread neonicotinoid use and pollinator decline is clear and grows stronger every day. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. While EPA  announced  a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the European Union’s footsteps and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.  We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can  help through  Bee Protective.

Source: PLoS ONE

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2015) A study published this week reveals that ants are a cheaper, more effective means to managing pests than toxic chemical pesticides. The review was conducted by Aarhus University’s Joachim Offenberg, Ph.D., a plant and insect ecologist who has studied ants for over 20 years. His review focuses on Oecophylla smaragina and O. longinoda, commonly referred to as weaver ants, and their beneficial effects on various crops in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Australia. In this review, Dr. Offenberg finds weaver ants to be as or more effective than synthetic pesticides for pest management in a variety of cropping systems. This evidence brings renewed vigor to the argument that natural, biological pest management can act as a viable alternative to the use of toxic pesticides that endanger health and the environment.

Weaver ants, often found in tropical climates, are tree-dwelling ants with characteristics that are ideal for biological pest management. They are categorized as a “superorganism,” meaning the colony itself is like an   organism, with individual ants acting as “cells” that can move around independently. Dr. Offenberg sees this as a strength because the colony is able to prey on targets much larger and stronger than itself.

He explains, “Most ant species”¦deploy a wide range of prey types. They may exert pressure on several pest species and life stages; small workers may handle eggs, whereas larger workers may engage larger sized individuals. On top of this, their territorial behaviour makes them attack and deter pests that are far beyond the size of potential prey.”

And they are quick to respond to intruders. The basis for this ability is an ant colony’s recruitment system, which is used to bring nestmates to some point in space where work is required, or prey is present. This is done based on trail-laying, tandem running and alarm pheromones. Consequently, they can bring large numbers of ants to respond when pest populations escalate. Recruitment behavior can, moreover, be utilized to attract ants to focal points where their services are most needed. This type of behavior can be lethal to unwanted agricultural pests.

Dr. Offenberg suggests that utilizing weaver ant colonies as pest control is more cost-effective than pesticide use. He notes that the heftiest investment when managing an ant colony is the time spent up front. Building a colony can be tedious work, but worthwhile in the end. After transplanting a colony onto one’s farm, farmers can increase the quantity and quality of the ants in a few ways:

• Limiting insecticide use
• Providing intra-colony host tree connections (via rope, poles, lianas, etc.)
• Pruning trees to reduce fighting between neighboring colonies
• Providing supplementary feed (sugar, water, and sometimes protein)
• Providing artificial nesting sites
• Applying sticky barriers to the base of trees to limit the action of competing ant species

Once established, ant colonies can thrive without aid for extended periods of time. Ants are able to store protein in the form of trophic eggs and brood that may be cannibalized, making their colonies stable and a predictable service with low management costs. One study showed that colonies of  Temnothorax rugatulus  survived 8  months without food. This behavior also means that colonies show high prey satiation levels. At high prey densities, ants continue to forage beyond the limits of other arthropods, as they may utilize prey to build up populations of larvae and trophic eggs. Thus, ants can exert continued pressure on pests even after prolonged periods with high pest densities.

Limiting or prohibiting pesticide use is generally a requirement for using weaver ants as pest control. Dr. Offenberg’s analysis shows that weaver ant pest control is comparable to even the most popular pesticides and insecticides on the market. For example, scientists studied the cashew in Ghana, and compared the use of weaver ants with two chemical insecticide treatments (cypermethrin+dimethoate and lambda-cyhalothrin) and a control treatment (water). They found pest damage was negatively correlated with the number of weaver ant nests and trees, and the two chemical treatments had <6% pest damage on shoots, panicles, and fruits, while water-sprayed control trees showed damage as high as 37.8%. The abundance of sap sucking bugs, like mosquito bugs and beetles, was more than fourfold lower in the ant and chemical treatments compared with the control treatment and, correspondingly, nut yields were significantly and more than four times higher in ant and chemical treatments. In Punjab, India it was found that mango and citrus trees with ant nests produced 18% and 20% higher yields than trees without nests in mango and citrus, respectively. Another study looked at Beninese cashews and compared weaver ants alone, weaver ants fed sugar, and weaver ants in combination with spinosad were contrasted with a control treatment. They, respectively, produced yields that were 78%, 122%, and 151% higher than the control treatment.

While these studies do not suggest that weaver ants are more effective than chemicals, they do, however, suggest that they can do the same job with added benefits and decreased risk. With Northern Australian cashews, scientists found that not only were weaver ants more efficient in controlling all major pests, but also the technology was cheaper than using chemical insecticides. Despite high costs of the weaver ant technology during the first year where ant colonies were transplanted (colonies persist for 3 years on average), the cost of the ant technology over 4 years was only 43% of the cost of using chemicals. At the same time, yields in ant plots were 49% higher, leading to an increased net income of 71%. The added benefits of ants are endless as well. Ants live in dense societies, and to combat diseases, they produce antibiotic compounds in glands or via fungal and bacterial symbionts. These compounds may end up on plant tissue and potentially protect plants against diseases. Several plant species associated with ants have shown less microbial pathogen loads and less damage inflicted by fungi and bacteria when ant partners were present compared to plants where ants were removed.

The cost of Weaver ants is lower than insecticide applications, and the difference only increases when the consolidated costs of insecticides are included as, for example, costs on human health. They are unlikely to be unique in their abilities to provide effective pest protection; many other species are likely to hold similar properties. Because ant pest management limits or restricts the use of pesticides, there is a smaller or zero chance of pesticide residue and exposure. Avoiding detrimental health effects associated with insecticides is becoming an increasing concern for consumers across the globe. A move toward organic farming is a growing trend for both farmers and consumers. Not only is the production of organic food better for human health and the environment than conventional production, emerging science reveals what organic advocates have been saying for a long time””in addition to lacking the toxic residues of conventional foods, organic food is more nutritious. The best way to avoid toxic pesticide residues is to switch to organic foods.
Visit Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture program page to learn more about the benefits of alternative pest management techniques.

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

Source: Journal of Applied Ecology